PRESENTED TO THE LIBRARY OF PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL SEMINllRY BY ProfessoP }ienvy von Dyke, D.D., liIi.O. BX 5037 .W37 1856 v. 6 Waterland, Daniel, 1683- 1740 . The works of the Rev. Daniel Waterland . . Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2014 https://archive.org/details/worksofrevdaniel06wate THE WORKS THE REV. DANIEL WATERLAND, D.D. FORMERLY MASTER OF MAGDALENE COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE, CANON OF WINDSOR, AND ARCHDEACON OP MIDDLESEX. TO WHICH IS PREFIXED A REVIEW OF THE AUTHOR'S LIFE AND WRITINGS, BY WILLIAM VAN MILDERT, D.D. LORD BISHOP OF LLANDAFF. THIRD EDITION, WITH COPIOUS INDEXES. IN SIX VOLUMES. VOL. VL OXFORD: AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. M.DCCC.LVI. CONTENTS OF THE SIXTH VOLUME. A SUMMARY VIEW OF THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICA- TION Page I AN INQUIRY CONCERNING THE AxNTIQUITY OF THE PRACTICE OF INFANT COMMUNION, AS FOUNDED ON THE NOTION OF ITS STRICT NECESSITY 39 LEITERS ON LAY-BAPTISM 73 LETl'ERS TO THE REV. MR. LEWIS, MERGATE, KENT .... 235 LETFERS TO JOHN LOVEDAY, ESQUIRE 407 LETTERS TO THE REV. DR. ZACHARY GREY, BROWNE WILLIS, ESQ. AND THE REV. DR. WILLIAMS 441 LETTER TO THE REV. MR. LAW 453 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY DR. W^ATERLAND OX SOME OF HIS OWN WRITINGS 437 INDEX OF TEXTS 499 GENERAL INDEX 515 A SUMMARY VIEW OF THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION. The doctrinal points of regeneration and renovation have been lately brought upon the carpet ; and I have, upon another occasion, taken the liberty to throw in some few thoughts upon them. Now the subject of justification being nearly allied to the former, and seeming also to want some further illustrating, by way of appendage or supplement to the points before mention- ed ; my present design is to give you a summary view of it, by considering, I. What the name imports. II. What the thing contains. III. How it stands distinguished from renovation and re- generation. IV. What are the concurring causes on God's part, and on man's, to produce it, and to preserve it. V. What are the common extremes which many have been apt to run into on this head, and how they may be avoided. I. The first article is the name, which ought to be defined before the thing ,• , and, in order thereto, must be first distinguished. n 2 4 A summary View of There appears to be sufficient ground in scripture for dis- tinguishing justificatiou into active and passim : for as the name regeneration, when denoting an act or grant of God, bears an active sense, and when denoting a privilege received by us, bears a passive sense ; such also is the case with respect to the name Justification. It means either God's grant, for it is God that Justifies^ ; or it means our privilege, endowment, possession holden of God as we are said to be justified by him. Justification always supposes two parties, one to give, and another to receive ; whether without any act at all on the receptive side, as in the case of infants, or whether accompanied with receptive acts, as in the case of adults, who may be properly said to accept and assent to, as well as to receive or enjoy. God, the supreme Lawgiver, may be considered either as a Rector and Governor contracting with ma7), and laying down the terms of his covenant ; or as a Judge, giving sentence according to the terms laid down. Cor- respondently, man may be considered either as accepting the terms upon his entering into covenant ; or as pleading them after- wards at the bar of justice, at the Divine tribunal. There is no more difference between those two several views of the same thing, than there is between the issuing out a general grant for the benefit of all persons who shall duly and properly accept it ; and the actual conferring the benefit of that grant upon the persons so accepting: but some have chosen one view for the easier and apter explaining (as they conceived) the nature of justification ; and some have preferred the other, for the like reasons f'. The general way has been to understand justification as a kind of laiv term, expressing a judicial transaction. Pro- * Rom. iii. 25, 26, 30. iv. 5. viii. 33. Gal. iii. 8. Tit. iii. 7. Rom. iv. 25. v. 18. N. B. In the two last texts, the word for justification is hiKalaais, which bears an active sense. ^ d^iKaiotrvvrj, which may as well be rendered justification as righteousness, ajipears to mean our righteousness, which we hold of God's grace by faith in Christ Jesus, in the following texts; Rom. i. 17. iii. 5, 21, 22. ix. 30, 31. X. 3. I Cor. i. 30. 2 Cor. v. 21. Philip, iii. 9. 2 Pet. i. 1. Matt, vi- 33- " It is indeed to be granted, that " justificnfiov importeth, not making " of a man righteous, but declaring " him and accounting him righteous, " treating him and dealing with him " as righteous : all this is true; and " yet I will not grant that it is so " properly understood to be the act " of God as sitting upon the throne " of judgment, (whether according to " mercy or justice,) as the act of God " contracting with man for everlasting " life, upon condition of submitting " to the covenant of grace, and the " terms of it." Thorndike, Epil. book ii. p. 40. Conf. PufFendorf. Jus Fecial. Divin. p. 144, 166, 172, 319. 349. 353- the Doctrine of Justification . 5 testanis of every denomination have set themselves to defend it^ : and even Romanists also, many of them, have readily submitted to it'^. So that the word Justificatioti, in this view, and in the active sense, will signify God^s pronouncing a person just, and his accepting him as such ^ ; while, in the j^ussive sense, it will signify man's being so declared., and thereupon accepted into new privi- leges, and his enjoying the benefits thereof?. So much for the name. II. I am next to consider what the thing granted and received really is, or what it contains. Here we are to observe, not barely what the loord itself strictly and grammatically signifies, but what it stands for, and must stand for, as made use of in this particular case, or in such and such circumstances. The evangelical notion of it must be governed by evangelical principles : it is a complex notion, which takes in more ideas than the name would necessarily signify in different circumstances. I. Remission of sins is most certainly one considerable part, or ingredient, of evangelical justification : not that the name, ab- stractedly considered, imports it, but the nature of the thing, in this case, requires it. Had our first parents preserved their innocence entire, they would have been thereupon justified as inherently and perfectly just, needing no pardon : but men in a lapsed state, being all of them more or less sinners, cannot be accepted as persons who have had no sin, but as persons dis- charged from it. I need not here say, hoic, or upon what account; because that will be considered hei'eafter in its proper place : but in the mean time it is self-evident, that the justifica- tion of a sinner must include remission of sin. I may add, that such remission of sin properly signifies a discharge from the penalty due to it ; not from the blame it carries with it ; except it be in Bishop Andrews's Serm. p. 76. Field, p. 291. Bishop Bull, p. 411. &c. Frid. Spanhem. Fil. torn. iii. p. 276. Vitringa, Obsen'at. .Sacr. lib. iv. c. 10. sect. 6, &c. torn. i. p. 346. Buddaetis, Instit. Theol. p. 951. Deylingius, Obs. Sacr. torn. iii. p. 561. e Vid. Gul. Forbes, Consid. Mo- dest, p. 98. edit. 2. ^ Justificatio evangelica quae Deum auctorem respicit, definiri potest, actio Dei qua poenitentem absolvit, propter merita Christi viva fide accepta et applicata. Fogy. Theolog. Speculat. Schema, ]). 427. s Si consideretur (justificatio) cum respectu ad conditionem jvsfificati, est mutatio status, quern resipiscens obtinet erga Deum, unde cessante reatu, propter merita Christi viva fide applicata, non est condemnationi ob- noxius. Ibid. \). 427, 428. 6 A summary View of such a sense as Zacharias and Elisabeth were pronounced blameless ^ ; for so all pood Chrisi{a?is, living up to the Gospel terms, and persevering to the end, will be pronounced blameless at the last day : and so are they esteemed of here, in the mean season, by God, who searches the heartsi. 2. But, besides remission of sin, a ripht and title to life eternal, but founded only upon promise^, is included in the Gospel notion oi justification : not that the bare force of the loord requires it. (for a man might be properly said to be justified, who is acquitted from penalty, though not entitled to a reward,) but we know what the scripture j^roi/iiscs are ; and that a discJiarpe from penalty hath thereby a sure title to rewards connected with it : therefore evanpelical justification comprehends, according to the full notion of it, not only a title to pardon, but a title to salvation also, a title to both for the time being'. 3. To these some learned Divines have added the sanctification of the Holy Spirit^, as a third inpredient, to complete the nature or notion justification : but that persuasion is scarce tenable, unless we first qualify it with proper distinctions. If by sancti- fication we understand retiovation of the imcard man, that has no place in the justification of infants ; besides that even in adults it is rather a qualification for the privilege, than the privilepe itself: but if by sanctification of the Spirit be meant only the baptismal unction, or that scalinp of the Spirit'^ which goes along with all valid, and of course with all *'ar«»<7 Baptism" ; that indeed must necessarily be supposed in all ha^^iXsvadX justification, as a part of it, or an ingredient in it ; inasmuch as justification cannot be conceived without some work of the Sjnrit in con- ferring a title to salvation. Tn this sense, every person justified is ipso facto sealed and consecrated by the Spirit of God. But the truth of this matter will more fully appear under another head in the sequel. Luke i. 6. jussisti : et hoc tu fecisti, quia labo- • Vid. Grab, in Annotatis ad Bulli rantes juvisti. Auyustin. serm. c]\'iii. 0pp. p. 414. edit. ult. de verbis Apost. Rom. viii. p. 762. ^ Debitor enim factus est [Deus] torn. v. edit. Bened. non aliquid a nobis accipievdo. sed 1 Vid. Bull. Exam. Censur. ad quod ei placuit promittendo. .A.liter Animadv. iii. p. 537, 538. enim dicimus homini debes mihi quia ™ Vid. Gul. Forbes, Consid. Mo- dedi tibi; et aliter dicimus, debes dest. p. 118, &c. mihi quia promisisti mihi. Illo " See Bingham xi. i, 6. ergo modo possumus exigere domi- " See Regeneration Stated, &c. vol. num nostrum, ut dicamus, redde iv. p. 442, 443. quod promisisti, quia fecimus quod the Doctrine of Justification. 7 111. Having thus briefly considered what justification is, and what it contains; I proceed to observe how it is distinguished from renovation and regeneration, to both which it is indeed very nearly allied. 1. liy renovation I understand the inward renewing oi the heart and mind P ,• the same that commonly goes under the name of inward sanctification of the Spirit. This is necessarily presup- posed, in some measure or degree, with respect to adults, in their Justification; because "without holiness no man shall see " the Lordi," no man shall be entitled to salvation; that is to say, no man justified. But though this consideration sufficiently proves that sanctification and justification are near allied; yet it does not prove that they are the same thing, or that one is properly part of the other. An essential qualification for any ofiice, post, dignity, or privilege, must be supposed to go along with that office, post. &c. but still the notions are very distinct, while the things themselves are in fact connected of course. So stands the case between sanctijication and justification: the one is a capacity for such a grant ; the other is the very grant itself : the one is an infused and inherent qimlity, God's work loithin us ; the other, an outward privilege, or extrinsic relation, God's gracious act towards us. In short, sanctification denotes the frame of mind, the holy disposition ; while justification denotes the state which a man is in with respect to God, his discharge from guilt and penalty, his Christian membership, his heavenly citizenship, his Gospel rights, pleas, and privileges. Again : sanctification is commonly understood of the mind, or soul only ; while justification is of the v^hole man. The title which the body hath to a future resurrection or redemption, is included in the very notion of a justified man. It may be further noted, that justification mat) he supposed, where sanctification (according to the full notion thereof) is not ; as in the case of infants newly baptized : they are indeed thereby sanctified in a certain sense ; but not in the sense of a proper renewal of mind and heart. These considerations suf- ficiently mark out the difference between justification and sancti- fication. 2. I am next to observe, how justification differs from regenera- tion. They differ but little as to the tnain things ; since the P Ibid. p. 433, &c. 1 Hebr. xii. 14. 8 A summary View of prants made, and the hlessinqs conferred, are much the same in both : but still there is nome diflFerence, and that both notional and real. So far as the 7nain thinps are the same^ they are however expressed under different figures : for in regeneration, God is con- sidered as a Father begetting us into a new life of light, blessings, and privileges ; but in justification, he is considered either as ti: proprietor making over the same grants, or as n, judge giving favourable sentence from the throne of mercy. Another difference is, that regeneration., in the strict sense, expresses no more than the first admittance and entrance into such and such rights and privileges ; and therefore comes but once; but justification is a thing continued during the whole spiritual life : one is giving and receiving life ; the other is giving and receiving groicth and increase. A third difference is, that regeneration, in the stricter sense* of that name, may admit of the distinction of salutary/ and not salutary: whereas justification admits not of that distinction at all, being salutary in the very notion of it, as it imports a right and title to salcation, for the time being, on the Gospel terms. A fourth difference is, that regeneratioyi, once given and received, can never be totally lost, any more than Baptism, nor ever want to be reiterated in the whole thing' : but jtistification may be granted and accepted, and take lAace for a time, and yet may cease afterwards, both totally and finally^. These several articles of r Vid. Gul. Forbes, p. 261. BuUi Op. p. 437. and compare my ReviPW of the Doctrine of the Eucharist, vol. iv. p. 644. 647. 655. 665. s Of the stricter and larger sense of the word regeneration , see Regene- ration Sta'ed, vol. iv. p. 436, 437, 441, 444. St. Austin followed the stricter sense when he said, Simon ille Magus natus erat e.x aqua et Spiritu, torn. ix. p. 169. In another place, he followed the larger sense, which takes in renovation to complete the notion of regeneration considered as salutary. Qui natus est ex Deo habet cai-itutem — videat si habeat caritatem, et tunc dicat, 7iatus sum ex Deo. Habeat caritatem ; ahter non se dicat natum ex Deo. Augustin. tom. iii. part. ii. p. 859. Hence it appears, that as the word faith sometimes signifies simply faith, and sometimes saving faith, so the word regeneration admits of the like twofold meaning. ^ See Regeneration Stated, &c. vol. iv. p. 431, 433, 435, 436, 444. " See Article %X\. and Homily on Good Works. Compare BuUi Op. p. 668. Augustan. (,"onf. c. xi. Truman, Great Propit. p. 153, 178. Heylin. Histor. tiuinquartic. part. i. p. 17, 28. 33, 86. part. iii. p. 31, &c. The sense of our Church on this head is manifest from this single con- sideration ; that she looks upon it as certain by God's word, that all c/m7- dren baptized are so far justified, in- asmuch as if they die before actual sin, they are undoubtedly saved. Now it cannot be doubted but that many who the Doctrine of Justification. 9 difference sufficiently shew that the names are not tantamount, but that they stand for fhinm different ; similar in some respects onlv, not in all. IV. Having considered irhat justification is, and ho?o distinffuished, I may now pass on to inquire into its constituent causes, principal and less principal, efficient and instrumental, divine and human, and the like : for there are several causes, more or less contri- buting to justification of a person; that is, to the making him a sure title to salvation for the time being. 1. God the Father is here to be considered as principal, as he is the head and fountain of all. Of that there can be no question, and therefore I need not say more of it : the Divine philanthropy is of prime consideration in the whole thing. 2. In the next place, God the Son is here to be considered as the procuring and meritorious cause of man'' s justification, both by his active and passive obedience This, though it may be dis- puted by such as will dispute any thing, or every thing, yet seems to be generally admitted among the sober Divines of all the great divisions of Christians. 3. In the third place, God the Holy Ghost is here to be con- sidered as the immediate, efficient cause : for proof of which, we need go no further than our Lord's own words, that, " except " one be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into " the kingdom of God'' ;'' which is as much as to say, he cannot have a title to salvation, cannot be justified. Neither need we here put in the restriction, ordinarily so far as the Spirit is con- cerned : his immediate agency must be supposed, in all cases, and upon every supposition. 4. After the three Divine Persons, principally concurring and cooperating in mans justification, we may next pass on to the subordinate instruments: and here come in the ministry, the word, and the sacramentsV ; but more particularly the sacrament of have been baptized in infancy, may, ^ John iii. 5. Comp. i Cor. vi. 11. and do fall afterwards, both totally xii. 13. Tit. iii. 5, 6, 7. and finally : therefore our Church y Sacrameiita sunt media olferentia must of consequence allow and sup- et e.xliibentia ex parte Dei : fides me- pose, that persons once justified may dium recipiens et apjjreheiidens ex totally and finally perish. parte nostra. Gerhard. Loc. Comm. ^ See Gul. Forbes, Consider. Mo- part. iv. p. 309. dest. p. 67, &c. Thorndike Epil. book Tantum dicimus, quemadmodum ii. p. 254, &c. PuU'endorf. Jus Fecial, fide.i est quasi maniis nostra, qua nos p. 187. quserimus ct accipiinus; sic verbvm et 10 A Summary View of Baptism ; which perhaps may here deserve a large aiid distinct consideration, as it has been too often omitted, or but imrfimc- torily mentioned, in treatises written upon the subject of justification. If we look eitlier into the Neio Testament, or into the ancient Fathers, we shall there find that the sacrament of Baptism, con- sidered as a federal rite or transaction between God and man, is either declared or supposed the ordinary, necessary, outward instrument in God's hands oi' nvans justification : I say, an instru- ment in God's hands, because it is certain, that in that sacred rite, God himself bears a parf^, as man also bears his; and that in both sacraments (as our Church teaches) God embraces us, " and ofFereth himself to be embraced by us^" According to the natural order of precedency, the authorized ministry is first in consideration*^; the icord next ; then hearinq, and believing \\ith a penitent heart and lively faith ; after that, Baptism, and therein the first solemn and certain recep>tion o'i justification, which is afterwards continued by the same lively faith, and the use of the word, and of the other sacrament. Now, as to Baptism, and its being, ordinarily, the necessary outward mean or instrument of justification, the immediate and proximate form and rite of conveyance ; that will be easily made appear from many clear texts of the Neio Testament, as also from the concuri-ing verdict of antiquity, the best interpreter of the sacred writings. First. The texts I shall here take in their order. " He that " believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; but he that believeth " not shall be damned^." Here the word saved amounts to the same thing in the main with justified, being opposed to con- demned : and it is further observable, that the believing here must be understood of a lively faith ; yet that alone is not said to save, or justify, but with the addition of Baptism, or in and with the use of Baptism : for whatever some may please to teach of faith only as justifying, the exclusive term, most certainly, is not to be understood in opposition, either to the work of the sacramenta esse quasi manus Dei, quibns is nobis offert et confert quod fide a nobis petitur et accipiUir. Vos- sius de Sacrum. Vi et Effic. Op. torn, vi. p. 252. ^ See Review of the Doctrine of the Eucharist, vol. iv. p. 468, &c. * Homily on the Common Prayer and Sacraments. ^ Rom. X. 13, 14, 15. Tit. i. 3. c Mark xvi. 16. the Doctrine of Justification. 11 Father, ov of the Son, or of the Holi/ Ghost ; or to the standing means of conveyance which they have chosen. The warmest contenders for faith alone are content to admit that the exclusive term, alone, is opposed only to every thing else on man's part in justifying, not to any thing on God^s part : now I have already noted that Baptism is an instrument in GocFs hand, who hears his part in it ; and therefore Baptism, in this view, relates to Godj's part \n justifying, and not to man''s. It is not indeed said in the text just cited, that he who is not baptized shall be damned, as it is said of him who helieveth not. God reserves to himself a liberty of dispensing in that case. At the same time, he has made no promise or covenant to justify any one without the use of Bajjtism : so that still Baptism must be looked upon as the ordinary stand- ing instrument of justification on God's part ; and we have no certain warrant for declaring any one justified independently of it. The next remarkable text is, " Except one be born of water " and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God, " cannot see the kingdom of God"*." Where we may observe, that horn again, in the second verse, is intei'preted of BajAism, {sign and thing signified,) in the fifth ; and the emphatical word, cannot, is twice made use of in that case. AVhat room then is there left for pretending any direct and positive promise from God to justify any man before, or unthout that ordinary mean ? Say that faith is our instrument for receimng justification, which is saying enough ; still Baptism must be God''s instrument, ordinarily, for applying or conferring it, in virtue of what our Lord himself, in that place, has twice solemnly declared. But I pass on. In the second of the Acts, we read these woids of St. Peter to the Jews of that time ; " Repent, and be baptized every one " of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, " and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost Now it is to be noted, that true repentance, in such case, presupposes some degrees of preparatory grace and lively faith ; and yet Baptism was to intervene too, in order to remission, that is, in order to justification, and tne gift of the in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit of God. So again in the case of St. Paul, at his conversion to Christ- '1 John iii. 3, 5. See Regeneration Stated, &c. vol. iv. p. 428. e Acts ii. 38. 12 A siimniaty Vieic of ianit} : he had been a true believer from the time when he said, '• Lord, what wilt thou have me to do^;" But he was not yet justified: his sins remained in charge for three days at least longer ; for it was so long before Ananias came to him, and said, " Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the " name of the Lords." Baptism was at length his grand absolu- tion, his patent of pardon, his instrument of Justification granted him from above : neither was he justified till he received that Divine seal, in as much as his sins were upon him till that very time. Pass we on to the Epistle to the Romans, where St. Paul says ; Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus " Christ were baptized into his death (that is, into a. partici- pation of the death and merits of Christ, through which also we die unto sin. " Therefore we are buried with him by Baptism " into death^^." In Baptism is the fiist formal solemn death unto sin, in the plenary remission of it ; which comes to the same as to say, that there also commences our justificatiou entire : all before was hnt prejmratory to it, as conception is to the birth'^. The same St. Paul says ; " By one Spirit are we all baptized " into one body"^." Now if we are first incorporated into the mystical body of Christ by Baptism, it is manifest that we are there also first justified : for no man strictly belongs to Christ till he is incorporated ; neither is any one justified before he is incorporated, and made a member of Christ, a citizen of heaven. St Paul also says ; " Ye are all the children of God by faith in " Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into "■• Christ have put on Christ'." Words very observable, as plainly intimating, that ordinarily a person is not made a child of God by faith, till that faith is exerted in, and perfected by, Baptism. Faith in adults is the hand whereby they receive the privilege of adoption and justification ; while the sacrament is the hand whereby God dispenses it. God is the donor, and he can dispense the grace to some with- out faith, as to infants ; and to others without Baptism, as to martyrs principally, and to catechumens prevented by extremi- f Acts ix. 6. e Acts xxii. i6. h Rom. vi. 3, 4. See Wolfius in loc. ' Fiunt ergo inchoationes quaedam fidei, conceptionibus similes : non ta- men solum concipi, sed etiam itasci opus est, ut ad vitam perveniatur aeternam. Augustin. de Divers. Qucest. ad Simplic. torn. vi. lib. i. p. 89. ^ I Cor. xii. 13. See my Review, &c. vol. iv. p. 668, &c. 1 Gal. iii. 26, 27. the Doctrine of Justification. 13 ties : but still the nrdiiiary I'lile is, first to dispense it upon m ti~uc and licely faith, sealed with the stijmlations mutually passed in Baptism. So again, we read in the Epistle to the Ephesians as follows : " Christ also loved the Church, and gave himself for it ; that he " might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the " word"';" that is, by the words used in the /or«i of Baptism., as St. Chrysostom interprets". If then Baptism is the ordinary instrument whereby Christ cleanses the members of his Church ; by the same he must be supposed to justify them ; as cleansing and justifying are words of like import in this case, meaning the same with remission of sim, which is one great jmrt justi- fication. St. Paul elsewhere speaks of his new converts, as putting off " the body of the sins of the flesh by Christian circumcision," that is, Baptism, " buried with Christ in Baptism, and risen with " him through the faith of the operation of God, — having all " their tresi)asse3 forgiven themo." What is this but saying, that they were justified, instrumentally, by Baptism ? The same thing is, at the same time, said to be brought about by faith P, (which is indeed the instrument of reception on man's part, as Baptism is of conveyance on God's part.) but still that very faith is supposed to be exerted in, and completed by, Bapjtism, before it justifies, so far as it does justify. T proceed to a noted text in the Epistle to Titus : " Not bv " works of righteousness which we have done, but according to " his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and "renewing of the Holy Ghost; — that being justified by his " grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eter- " nal life q." It is manifest, by comparing the three verses toge- ther, that Bajjtism is here made the mean through which, or the instrument by which, the Holy Spirit of God woi'keth reqene- ™ Ephes. V. 25, 26. Significatur heic omnino Bapti.smus, verbo junc- tus, tanquam instrumentum purifica- tionis. H'olfius in loc. Compare Pear- son on the Creed, art. x. " Chrysostom in loc. torn. xi. p. 145. item Damascen. in loc. Op. torn, ii. p. 190. " Coloss. ii. II, 12, 13. See Wol- fius in loc. Wall's Hist, of Infant Bapt. parti, c. 2. Defence, p. 688,&c. Black- wall, Sacr. Classics, torn. ii. p. i8g. 1' Aia Tijy TTicrTfo)? ttjs (vepyelas Tov Qfov. Ea infertur efficacia et virtus Dei, quEP fidevi in Colossensibiis pro- crearit, similis illi, ([ua Christum ex- citavit ex niortuis. Wolf, in loc. n Tit. iii. ,'■). 6, 7. Compare Regene- ration Stated, vol. iv. upon this text. De Baptismo haec accipienda esse Patres crediderunt : nec aliter interpretes recentiores tantum non omnes. Wolf us ad loc. 14 A summary Vieto of ration, renovation, and justification ; and that justification, the last named, is, in order of nature, ( though not in order of time^ the last of the three, as the result of the two former, in the same work of grace, in the same federal solemnity. It may be noted by the way, that Baptism, in this text, is not considered as a loork of vian, but as an instrument, rite, or federal transaction between God and man. In the Epistle to the Hebrews, we read thus : " And having " an High Priest over the house of God, let us draw near with " a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts " sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with " pure water. Let us hold fast the profession of our faith""," &c. In these few words are pointed out the meritorious cause of our justification, expressed by the sprinkling, viz. with the blood of Christ, in allusion to the blood of the ancient sacrifices; the instrumental mean of conveyance. Baptism, expressed by the washing of our bodies ; and the instrumental mean of reception, expressed by the word faith. The merits of Christ, applied in Baptism by the Spirit, and received by a lively faith, complete our justification for the time being. I know not whether the Apostle's here laying so much stress upon our bodies being washed loith pure loater might not, among several other similar considerations drawn from the New Testament, lead the early Fathers into a thought which they had, and which has not been so commonly observed ; namely, that the application of water in Baptism secured, as it were, or sealed the body to an happy resurrection: while the Spirit more immediately secured the soul; and so the whole man was understood to be spiritually cleansed, and accepted of God, in and by Baptism^. They had also the like thought with respect to the elements of the other sacrament, as appointed by God for insuring the body to an h!i,l>'py resurrection along with the soiilK Whether that ancient Heb. X. 21, 22, 23. s The thought is thus expressed by an eminent Father of the second cen- tury : Corpora eniin nostra per lavacrum illam quae est ad incorruptionem uni- tatem acceperunt ; animce autem per Spiritum : unde et utraque necessaria, cum utraque proficiunt ad vitam Dei, &c. Ireneeus, iih. i. c. 17. p. 208. edit. Bened. Compare TertuUian de Bap- tismo, c. iv. p. 225. De Anima, c. xl. p. 294. Cyrill. Hierosol. Catech. iii. p. 41. Nazianzen. Orat. xl. p. 641. Hilarius, Pict. in Matt. p. 660. edit. Bened. Nyssenus, Orat. de Bapt. Christi, p. 369. Cyrill. Alex, in Joann. lib. ii. p. 147. Ammonius in Catena in Joann. p. 89. Damascen. de Fid. Orthodoxa, lib. iv. c. 9. p. 260. ^ Irenagus, lib. iv. c. 18. p. 251. lib. v. c. 2. p. 293, 294. TertuUian. de Uesur. Carnis, c. viii. p. 330. Cyrill. Hierosol. Mystag. iv. p. 321. Pascha- the Doctrine of Justification. 15 rationale of the ttvo sacraments be not, at least, as good as any modern ones, I leave to be considered, and pass on. St. Peter says, " Baptism doth also now save us ; not the •• putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer [stipula- •• tion] of a good conscience towards God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ"." What I have hereupon to observe is, that Baptism saves : that is, it gives a just title to salvation ; which is the same as to say, that it conveys justification. But then it must be understood not of the outward washing, but of the in- ward, lively faith., stipulated in it and by it. Baptisin concurs with faith, and faith with Baptism., and the Holy Spirit with both ; and so the merits of Christ are savingly applied. Faith alone will not ordinarily serve in this case : but it must be a contracting faith on mans part, contracting in form, correspond- ing to the federal promises and engagements on God's part : therefore Tertullian rightly styles Baptism obsignatio fidei tes- tatio fidei, sponsio salutis ^, fidei pactio y, and the like. But I shall say more on the head of faith in a distinct article below. There is yet another very observable text, which might have come in, in its place ; but I chose to reserve it to the last, for the winding up this summary vieio of the Scripture doctrine on this head. It runs thus : " Such were some of you : but ye <' were washed," (viz. in Baptism,) " but ye were sanctified, but *' ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the " Spirit of our God I think it better to render it loei-e, or have been, than are, as best suiting with the original, and with the were, just going before ; but the sense is much the same either way. Here are three concurrent causes of justification (to- gether with sanctification) mentioned together : viz. the meri- torious cause, the Lord Jesus ; the efficient and operating cause, the Spirit of our God ; and the instrumental rite of conveyance. Baptism. From these several passages of the New Testament laid together, it sufficiently appears, not only that Baptism is the ordinary instrument in God's hands for conferring justification ; but also, that ordinarily there is no justification conferred either sius de Corf), et Sang. Domini, c. xix. p. 1602. " I Pet. iii. 21. See my Review, vol. iv. c. xi. p. 706. ^ Tertullian. de Poenit. c. vi. p. 125. Conf. de Resur. Carn. c. xlviii. p. 355. ^ Tertullian. de Bapt. c. vi. p. 226. y Tertullian. de Pudicit. c. ix. p. 562. ^ I Cor. vi. 1 1 . See Wolfius in loc. Bull. Op. Lat. p. 411, 422. 16 A summary Vieic of before it or without it. Such prace as precedes J^aptism amounts not ordinaiily Uy justificatioii, strictly so called a; such us follows it, owes its force, in a gi-eat measure, to the standing tiiim of Baptism once given Secondly, To confirai what has been here proved from scrip- ture, or rather to shew the more plainly that we are not mis- taken ill so interpreting, I may next briefly add the concurring verdict of the ancients, bearing testimony to the same doctrine, down from St. Barnabas of the first age, about the year seventy, to the end of the fourth century, or later. Barnabas declares, that Baptism procures remission of sins '= .• therefore it procures Jiistijication. He declares further, that men descend into the water full of sins and pollutions : there- fore, by his account, they are not justified, ordinarily, before Baptism. Some moderns have imagined the ancients built their strict notions of the use and necessity of Baptism upon too rigorous a construction of John iii. 5. But it is certain that they had those strict notions before St. John's Gospel was written ; and that Barnabas, in particular, pleaded texts out of the Old Tes- tament for the same doctrine, and that later Fathers had several other texts to produce, besides John iii. 5, such as I have cited. But I proceed. Hermas, of the same century, affirms, that a Christian's life is and shall he saved hy loater'^ ; which amounts to the same with what we have before seen in St. Peter, and admits of like inter- pretation. His elsewhere declaring remission of sins to belong to Baptism^, imports as much as saying that justification hangs upon it. In another place, he expresses his sense of the necessity of Baptism to salcation (consequently to justification) still more positivel}'. — " Before any one receives the name of the Son of " God, he is liable to dmth : but when he receives that seal, he " is delivered from death, and is assigned to life. Now that seal * Yid. Augustin. de divers. Q. ad ^a'lvofifv Kapirocpopovvres k. t. X. Ibid. Simplic. torn. lib. i. p. 89. item p. 38. epist. cxciv. p. 720. and compare ^ Quoniam vita vestra per aquam Regeneration Stated, &c. vol. iv. p. salva facta est et fiet : fundata est 433. enim verbo omnipotentis et honorifici b Vid. Augustin. de Xupt. et Con- nominis. Herm. lib. i. vis. 3. sect. 3. cupisc. torn. X. lib. i. p. 298. Com- p. 798. ed. Fabric. Compare Wall's pare my Re\ie\v, &c. vol. iv. p. 64.5. Hist, of Inf. Bapt. part i. cap. i. p. 2. To ^aTTTiapa to (jjepov els a(\)€(rLv ^ In aquam descendimus, et acci- apiapTiibv. Bariiab. Epist. c. xi. p. 36. pimus remissionem peccatorum nos- 'iifieis p-ev KUTafiaivopev eh to vSuyp trorum. Herm. Mandat. iv. sect. 3. yffiovTts cifxapTioDV Ka\ pirrrov, Km ava- p. 854. the Doctrine of Jusfijicatlon. 17 " is water, into which persons go down liable to death, but come " out of it assigned to lifef.'"' Here it is plain, that Baptism is presup>posed to justification, which is made the effect and conse- quent of it. I defend not Hermas's inference or retrospect, with respect to the ancient Patriarchs. Baptism is the Gospel instru- ment of justification : but other symbols, and other instruments, served the same purpose under the />rgcefi?zw^ dispensations^. Justin, of the next age, undertaking to describe the order and method of training up, and admitting neic converts to Christianity, particularly observes, that they who are persuaded, and do believe those things to be true which are taught them, and do undertake to live accordingly, are directed to fast and pray for the forgiveness of their former sins ; and are afterwards brought where there is water, and so they are regenerated, being v:ashed with water, in the name of the three Divine Persons ; (the neces- sity of which is apparent from John iii. 3, 4, 5. and Isaiah i. 16, 20.) and then they receive remission of sins in water : but pro- vided that they truly repent them of their sins^. The order here specified runs thus : faith, repentance. Baptism, dedication to God, renovation in Christ, remission of sins, which \s justifica- tion. The two &rst preceded Baptism ; the three last accompanied it, as the fruits and effects of it, being subsequent in order of causality, if not in order of time. Preparatory grace, we know, must be before all ; but J ustin had no occasion there to be par- ticular on that head. Irenajus, thirty or forty years later in the same century, teaches, that every son of Adam needs the laver of regeneration to relieve him from the transgression with which he is born ' ; that is, to save him, as he elsewhere explains"^. Clemens, of the same time, speaking of Baptism, says j ^ Antequam enim accipiat homo nomen filii Dei, morti destinatus est : at ubi accipit illud sigillum, liberatur a morte, et traditur vita. Illud autem sigillum aqua est, in quam descendunt homines morti alligati, ascendunt vero vitcR assignati. Herm. Sim. ix. sect. 16. p. 1008. Compare Wall, part i. cap. I. p. 2 — 5. and Bingham xi. 4, 6. p. 203, 204. e Vid. Augustin. Enchirid. p. 241. torn. vi. ^ Justin Mart. Apol. i. p. 88, 89, 90. edit. Lond. Compare Wall, Inf. Bapt. parti, cap. 2. p. 12, 13. 2nd edit. WATERLAND, VOL. VI. ' Quoniam in ilia plasmatione, quae secundum Adam fuit, in transgres- sione factus homo indigebat lavacro regenerationis ; postquam linivit lu- tum super oculos ejus, dixit ei, vade in Siloam, et lavare ; simul et plasma- tionem, et earn quae est per lavacrum regenerationem restituens ei. Iren. lib. V. cap. XV. p. 312. edit. Bened. ^ Omnes enim venit per semetip- sum salvare: omnes, inquam, qui per eum rcnascuntur in Deum, infantes, et parvulos, et pueros, et juvenes, et seniores. Iren. lib. ii. cap. 22. p. 147. C 18 A summary View of " Being baptized we are illuminated, being illuminated we are " made sons, being made sons we are perfected, being perfected we " are immortalized. — This work is variously denominated ; grace, " and illumination, and perfection, and laver : laver, by which we " wipe off sins ; grace, by which the penalties due to sins are " remitted ; illumination, by which that holy and salutary light " is viewed, that is, by which we gaze on the Divine Beingl." Baptism is here supposed to be the instrument of illumination, remission, adoption, perfection, salvatiofi : under which, jointly considered, must be comprehended all that concerns justifcation, though the name itself is not used. Tertullian calls Baptism " the happy sacrament of water, ' whereby we are washed from the sins of our former blindness, " and recovered to eternal life He adds that we are born hi water, and are no otherwise saved than by the abiding in it, or by the use of it in Baptism'^. He answers the objection drawn from the sufficiency of faith alone, as in the instance of Abraham. The sum of his solution is, that what was not required formerly is required noio : that the Gospel has made a new law, a new ride for it, and has tied us up to such form. He refers to Matt, xxviii. 19. and to John iii. 5. and to the instance of St. Paul, recorded in the Acts ; who, though he had before faith sufficient, yet was strictly required to add Baptism to it°. From hence it is plain, that Tertullian understood Baptism to be the ordinary and indispensable mean or instrument of justification ; insomuch 1 BaTTTt^ojuEj'oi, (pojTi^oixeda' (fiaiTL^o- maxime pronuntiatione Domini, qui fievoi, v'lonoiovyL^Oa' vioTToiovjxevoL, re- ait, nisi natus ex aqua, &c. Ibid. cap. XewvfieBa' reXfioi^^efot, aTradnvaTi^o- xii. p. 228. Conf. de Anima, cap. xl. fxida.- — KaXeiTot 8e TToWa)(b)s to i'pyov p. 294. roCro, x"P'o'M<^> ^'wTiajxay Koi ° Hic ergo scelestissimi illi pro- TeXeiov, Koi XovTpuv' \ovTp6v fiev, St' vocant quaestiones : adeo dicunt, Bap- ov raf cifiapTuis aTroppvTTTopfOa' ■^(^apia- tismus non est necessarivs, quibus ,yia de, a> ra eVt roly apaprrjpaaiv iiri- fides satis est ; nam et Abraham Tip.La avdrac (pwria-fxa fie, 81 ov to nullius aquae nisi fidei Sacramento ayiov €Kc'ivo (jfecos to aoiTrjpLov eVo- Deo placuit. Sed in omnibus poste- TTTiveTM, TQvTeaTLv 81' 05 TO Be'lov riora concludunt, et sequeritia antece- o^vcoTTovpev. Clem. Alex. Pcedag. dentibus prasvalent. Fuerit salus retro lib. i. cap. 6. p. 113. edit. Oxon. per fidem nudam, ante Domini pas- Conf. Nazianzen. de Bapt. Orat. xl. sionem et resurrectionem. At ubi p. 63S. fides aucta est, credendi in nativitatem, "> Felix sacramentum aquae nostrae, ])assionem, et resurrectionem ejus, qua abluti delictis pristinse caecitatis, addita est ampliatio sacramento, ob- in vitam seternam liberamur. Terful- signatio Bajjtismi, vestimentum quo- lian. de Bapt. cap. i. p. 224. dammodo fidei, quae retro erat nuda, " In aqua nascimur : nec aliter nec potest [esse] jam sine sua lege. quam in aqua permanendo salvi su- Lex enim tinguendi imposita est, et mus. Ibid. Praescribitur nemini sine forma i)raescripta. Tertull. de Bapt. Baptismo competere salutem, ex ilia cap. xiii. p. 229. the Doctrine 0/ Justification. 19 that he thought even a layman guilty of di'stroyina a soul., if he shouhl refuse to give a pei'son Baptism in a case of cxtmnily, no clergy being present''. Nevertheless, the same TertuUiaii in- dulged some particularities as to the point of delaying IJaptisni in some cases ; and has been thought not very consistent with himself in that article ; especially where he makes it an argument for such delay., that " faith entire is secure of salvation^." But he hereby only qualifed former doctrine, so as to except some very rare and extraordinary cases, wliere delays might be made, not out of contempt, but reverence towards the sacrament : other- wise the ordinary rule was to stand inviolable"^. As to the excepted cases, they would be rare indeed, since Baptism might be had upon very short warning^ in any extremity almost accord- ing to Ms principles, if so much as a laic could but be found to confer it. But I return to the point in hand. Cyprian, more cautious in the point of delays than his master TertuUian, gives this reason why the Bap>tism of in/anfs should not be deferred (in danger of death) to the eighth day ; that it is our duty, so far as in us lies, to take care that tio soul he destroyed^. It is plain from hence, that he thought there was, ordinarily, no justification previous to Baptism, the appointed channel of conveyance, the fountain head of the spiritual life : for such was Cyprian's opinion of it, as appears through all his writings". Not only so, but he expressly mentions jusiif ration as one of the graces conferred in it^. I pass on to the next century ; where we find the elder Cyril declaring, that a person comes to Bcq)tisrn bearing his sins, dead in sins, (therefore not yet Justified,) but that he comes out quickened in righteousness^ ; which is the same as to say. justijied. P Reus erit perditi hominis, si eupersederit prsestare quod libere po- tuit. Cap. xvii. p. 231. 1 Si qui pondus intelligant Bajjtis- mi, magis timebunt conseciitionem quarn dilutionem: fides Integra secura est de salute. Cap. xviii. p. 232. r See Wall, Hist, of Inf. Bapt. parti. C.4. p. 23. Bingham, xi. 4. 10. p. 212. s Caeterum oninis dies Domini est, omnis hora, omne tempus habile Baptismo, cap.xix. p. 232. t Universi judicavimus, nuUi ho- mini nato misericordiam Dei et gratiam denegandam : nam cum Do- minus in evangelio suo dicat, Filius hominis non venit animas hominam perdere, sed salvnre j quantum in nobis est, si fieri potest, nulla auima perdenda est. Cyprian. Epist. lix. ad Fidum, p. 98. edit. Bened. Cyprian. Epist. i. p. 2. Epist. xxiii. p. 32. Epist. Ixxii. p. 128. Ejjist. Ixxiv. p. 140. Epist. Ixxvi, ]>. i.jd> 1.57- '^e Ilaljit. Virgin, p. 180. Testiinon. lib. iii. cap. xxv. p. 314. De Orat. Domin. p. 206. Qiiomodo tales justificare et sanclijicare baptizatos possimt, qui hostes sacerdotiim, &c. Epist. Ixxvi. " KarepK'; fitvyiip (Is to vdo)p (popmu C Z 20 A simmaty Vieio of Basil, of the same century, expresses himself fully to our purpose, in these words ; " Whence are we Christians ? By "faith, will every one say. But after what manner are we " saved ? By being regenerated through the grace which is con- " ferred in Baptism. — For if Baptism is to me the beginning of " life, and that regeneration day is the first of days ; then it is " manifest that voice is of all the most 2rrecious which is sounded " forth upon the grace of adoptiony.'''' Baptism is here supposed to be, as it were, the ^rst deliver?/ of God's grant of adoption, and consequently of Justification, which is much the same thing. Faith goes before, as the hand stretched out, ready to receive: but it cannot be received before it is given : neither is it ordina- rily first given but in Baptism ; nor continued afterwards but in virtue of it, due qualifications supposed all the while. In another chapter the same Father says, " Faith and Baptism are two " means of salvation, near akin to each other, and inseparable. " For faith is perfected by Baptism, and Baptism is grounded in '■^ faith, and both are completed by the same [Divine] names Hilarius Diaconus, some years before Basil, taught the same doctrine ; interpreting St. Paul's quotation from the Psalmist (which the Apostle applies to the purpose of justification, Rom. iv. 6, 7, 8.) of what is done in Baptism, of the justification con- ferred in that holi/ solemnity^: from whence it is evident, that he understood Baptism to be the ordinary standing mean, or instrument of conveyance. ray afxapTias' dXX 17 rrjs xapiTOs eVi- KKrjais (T(ppay[cra(Ta rrjv \l/v)(rjv, ov cuyx'^pf' XoiTTOi/ iiTTo Toil (fyojBfpov KaranoSrivai dpaxovros. V€Kp6s iv apap- Tiais Kara^as, avajialveLS ^oyoTTOirjSels iv hiKaiaxrivrj. Cyril. Hierosol. Ca- tech. iii. p. 45. edit. Bened. Conf. Catech. xvii. p. 282. y Xpiariavo). noSev Tjptis ; 8ia r^f TrtVrecoj nas ris av eiTTOf croi^opeda 6e, TivaTponov; Avayevvr^Qtvrcs, brjkovoTi, bia r>)s iv rw fiaiTTLapaTi xapiros. fl yap dpxh /^°' C'^^f ■'■o ^aTTTiapa, Kai TTpdorr] rjpepibv €KeivTj rj Tijs naXiy- yevEcrlas ijpipa, 6^X01/ otl Kai (fxovrj TipKorarrj iraa'wv rj iv ttj x'^piTi TrjS vlodfCTLas iKtpcovrjdelcra. Basil, de Spirit. Sanct. cap. x. p. 21, 22. edit. Bened. ^ ni0T£9 Se Ka\ ^aiTTiapa, hvo TpoTrai rrji (T(OTt]pius, avpcpvc'is dWfjXois, Kai dbiaipfToi. ttIcttis piv yap TfXfwvTai bia fiaTTTiapaTos' ^aTTTiapa de 6epe- XiovTai Sta TTjs 77i(TTfo}i, Ka\ Sia Ta>v avTwv ovopaToiV tKCLTtpa TrXrjpoiivTai. Basil, ibid. cap. xii. p. 23. * Propheta autem tempus felix praevidens in Salvatoris adventu, beatos nuncupat, quibus sine labore vel aliquo opere per lavacrum remit- tuntur, et teguntur, et non imputantur peccata. Apostolus tamen propter plenitudinem temporum, et quia plus ^atise in Apostolis est quam fuit in Prophetis, majora protestatur quae ex dono baptismatis consequimur ; quia non solum remissionem peccatorum accipere nos, sed justificari et Jilios Dei fieri profitetur, ut beatitudo haec perfectam habeat et securitatem et gloriam. Hilar. Diac. in Rom. iv. 8. inter 0pp. Ambros. torn. ii. p. 49. the Doctrine of Justification. SI I shall shut up this detail of Fathers with the words of St. Austin ; who, undertaking to explain the four tJdngs men- tioned by the Apostle, (Rom. viii. 30,) predestinate., called, justified, and glorified, says of the tliird thus : " Behold^ persons " are baptized, all their sins are foi'given, they axe justified from " their sins^."" He repeats the same doctrine soon after in words still more express*^. It would be endless to quote passages from the same Father to prove that, in his account, there is no justification, ordinarily, before or without Baptism. It was a fixed principle with him, that justification ordinarily commenced with Baptism, and not otherwise. From hence (as I may note by the way) we may easily under- stand what St. Austin meant by his famed maxim, which many have often perverted to a very wrong sense ; namely, that good works follow after justification, and do not precede it^. In reality, he meant no more than that men must be incorporated in Christ, must be Christians, and good Christians, (for such only axe Justi- fied,) before they could practise Christian works, or righteousness, strictly so called ^ : for such toorks only have an eminent right and title to the name of good works ; as thei/ only are salutary within the covenant, and have a claim upon jyrornise. Works before justification, that is, before salutary Baptism, are not, in his account*^, within the promise ; but are excluded rather, according to the ordinary rule laid down in John iii. 5. and divers other texts before cited. But I return. Enough hath been said to shew, that Baptism is, by Divine Ecce enim Sa/)/i^a 583. 645, 668, edit. ult. Stillingfleet's Works, vol. iii. p. 367, 380, 393,398. Tillotsoii's Posth. Serm. vol. ii. p. 484, 487. ^ Vossius de Bonis Operibus, Thes. X. p.370. Opp. torn. vi. Frid. Span- hem, fil. Opp. torn. iii. p. 141, 159. Conf. Gul. Forbes, Consid. Modest, p. 195, &c. ° Nemo computet bona opera ante fidem ; ubi fides non erat, bonum opus non erat : bonum enim opus intentio facit, intentionem fides di- rigit. Augtistin. in Psal.xsxi. p. 172. torn. iv. Crede in eum qui justificat impium, ut possint et bona opera lua esse opera bona : nam nec bona ilia appel- laverim, quamdiu non de radice bona procedunt. Ibid. p. 174. N. B. St. Austin is not constant in his notion of good works, but he uses the ])hrase in a twofold sense, larger or stricter. Sometimes he means by good tvorks, works flowing from grace and faith, whether before or after Baptism; as he does here : and some- times he means works strictly Christ- ian, subsequent to the incorporation in Baptism, that is, subsequent to jus- tification. The want of observing this his twofold use of the phrase, has led some uncautious readers into mis- takes. the Doctrine of Juslijicaiion. 31 without any preparative or previous conditions of faith and re- pentance, that indeed is very new doctrine and dangerous, and opens a wide door to carnal security and to all wigodliness. But enough of this matter. The sum of what has been offered under the present head is, that we are justified by God the Father, considered as principal and first mover; and by God the Son, as meritorious purchaser; and by God the Holi/ Ghost, as immediate efficient; and by Baptism, as the ordinary instrument of conveyance; and by faith of such a kind, as the ordinary instrument of reception ; and lastly, by faith and holiness, as the necessary qualifications and conditions in adults, both for the first receiving and for the perpetual preserving it P. Such and so many are the concurring P The order oi justification is thus expressed in King Edward's Cate- chism, written by Poynet, A. D. 1553, countenanced by the other Bishops and Clergy, and pubhshed by the king's authority. " I. The first and principal, and " most proper cause of our jiistifica- " tion and salvation, is the goodness " and love of God, whereby he chose "us before the world. " 2. After that, God granteth tis " to be called by the preaching of the " Gospel of Jesus Christ j when the " Spirit of the Lord is poured upon " us : by whose guiding and govern- " ance we be led to settle our trust " in God, and hope for the performance " of his promise. " 3. With this choice is joined, as " companion, the mortifying of the " old man, that is, of our affections " and lusts. " 4. From the same Spirit also " Cometh our sanctification, the love " of God and of our neighbour ; jus- " tice and uprightness of life. " 5. Finally, to say aU in sum, " whatever is in us, or may be done " of us, honest, pure, true, and good ; " that altogether springeth out of this " pleasant rock, the goodness, love, " choice, and unchangeable purpose " of God ; he is the cause; the rest " are fruits and effects. " 6. Yet are also the choice and " Spirit of (iod and Christ himself " causes conjoined and coupled with " each other : which may be reckoned " amongst the principal causes of sal- " vation. "7. As oft therefore as we use to " say, that we are made righteous and " saved by faith only, it is meant " thereby, that faith, or rather trust " alone doth lay hard upon*, under- stand, and perceive our righteous- " making to be given us of God freely; " that is to say, by no deserts of our " own, but by the free grace of the " Almighty Father. " 8. Moreover faith doth ingender " in us love of our neighbour, and " such works as God is pleased " withal : for if it be a lively and " true faith, quickened by the Holy " Ghost, she is the mother of all " good saying and doing. By this " short tale, it is evident by what " means we attain to be righteous. " For, not by the worthiness of our " own deservings were we here- " tofore chosen, or long ago saved, " but by the only mercy of God, and " pure grace of Christ our Lord ; " whereby we were in him made to " do tliose good works that God had " appointed for us to walk in. And " although good works cannot deserve " to make us righteous before God, " yet do they so cleave unto faith, " that neither faith can be found " without them, nor good works be " any where found without faith." Fol. 68. in Heylin Quinquartic. contr. p. 105. * Far hold. 32 A sitmmari/ Viao of causes, operating, in their order and degree, towards man's Jlrst or Jinal justification. It would be altogether wrong to separate them, or to set them one against another, or to advance any one or more, to the exclusion of the rest. I may observe further, for the preventing any mistake or mis- conception, that I might have considered Baptism as an external instrument of reception in the hand of man, as man bears a part in that sacrament ; and so there would be two instruments of reception, external and internal, Baptism and faith : and if any one chooses so to state the case, I shall not object to it. But having mentioned Bajitism before, as the instrument of conveyance on God's part, which is most considerable, I thought it of less moment to bring it up again under a different view, because that would be understood of course. I cannot dismiss this head without throwing in a word or two of the wise provisions made by our Church, in bringing children to Baptism, that they may be both regenerated and justified from the first. It is right and safe for the children themselves : and not only so ; but the very doing it is further of use to prevent or remove the perplexities raised by contentious men on the subject of justijication. Some will tell you that good works are not conditions of justifi- cation : it is certainly true in the case of in/ants, (which is the common case with us,) for neither icorks nor faith are conditions required of them : they are justified without either, by the free mercy of trod, through the alone merits of Christ. Some will plead, that man is utterly unable to do good works before he is justified and regenerated: they should rather say, before he receives grace; for that is the real and the full truth. But what occasion or need is there, for disturbing com- mon Christians at all with points of this nature now ? Are we not all of us, or nearly all, (ten thousand to one,) baptized in infancy; and therefore regenerated and justified of course, and thereby prepared for good ivorks, as soon as capable of them by our years ? Good icorks must, in this case at least, (which is our case,) follow after justification and regeneration, if they are at all : and therefore how impertinent and frivolous is it, if not hurtful rather, to amuse the ignorant with such notions, which, in our circumstances, may much better be spared ? Our Church has so well pi'ovided for that case by Infant Baptism, that we need not so much as inquire whether good works precede or follow the Doctrine of Justification. 33 justification in the case of adults, since it is not our case. We are very sure that, in our circumstances, good worls do not precede, but follow justification, because they come after Baptism^ if they come at all. The truth, and the whole truth, of this matter seems to lie in the following particulars : 1. Infants are justified in Baptism, without either faith or works ; and if they grow up in faith and obedience, the privilege is continued to them : if not, it is taken away from them, till they repent. 2. Adults, coming fitly prepared, are immediately justified in Baptism, by faith, without any outward works, without a good life, while they have not time for it ; but if a good life does not ensue afterwards, when time and opportunities are given ; they for- feit the privilege received, till they repent. 3. Adults, coming to Baptism in hypocrisy or impenitency, (like Simon Magus,) are not justified, whatever their faith be ; because they want the necessary and essential qualifications or conditions : but if they afterwards turn to Grod w ith true faith and repentance, then they enter into a justified state, and so continue all along, unless they relapse. 4. Neither faith nor works are required in infants : both faith and inward works (a change of heart) are required in all adults : faith and works {inward and outivard) are indispensably required in all adults who survive their Baptism, in proportion to their opportunities, capacities, or abilities. But enough of this. V. Having hitherto endeavoured to explain the nature, and to set forth the causes and instruments of justification, in as clear a manner as I could ; I proceed now, lastly, to point out some extremes, which many have been found to run into, on the right hand or on the left : so hard a thing is it to observe a middle course, and to pursue the safe and even road. Those extremes or deviations are many, but are reducible to two ; one of which, for distinction sake, I may call the proud extreme, as disdaining to accept the grace of God, or the merits of Christ ; the other may be called the libertine extreme, as abusing the doctrines of grace and satisfaction, to serve the ends of licentiousness. I. I shall begin with t\\Q proud extreme. The Pagans, formerly, were so proud of their good morals, that they conceived they had no need of Christ, either to make them better, or to secure the WATEBLAND, VOL. VI. D 84 A mmmwi/ View of Divine acceptance ; and therefore they would not so much as listen to the terms of C/irisiianiti/^. The Pharisaical Jews were as proud, or prouder, in their way, claiming, as it were, justification as a debt'', rather than a favour, as if they had no need of grace, or were too exalted to accept of jyardon. This high conceit of themselves and their own perfections made them averse to Christ, and kept them from submitting to the Gosjiel way of justification or saltation. The Pelagians, of the fifth century, by over-magnifying free will and natural abilities, at the same time depreciating or slighting Divine grace, unwarily fell into the proud extreme ; though not so grievously as the Jews and Pagans had done before. St. Austin, however, very justly made use of the same way of reasoning against t/u-m, which St. Paul had made use of agaiust Jews and Pagans ; because the same general reasons con- cluded equally against all*. The Schoolmen of later days, and the Romanists still later, one by setting up a kind of merit of congruiiy^ as to works pre- ceding justification, and the other by maintaining a merit of condignity ''^ with respect to works following, and by admitting works of supererogation''"', have apparently run too far into the proud extreme ; only differently modified, or under a form, some- what different from that of the self-assuming claimants of older times. Wherefore the first Reformers, finding that the same "J Multi enim gloriantur de operi- priae voluntatis, sicut dictum est de bus, et invenis multos Paganos prop- carnali Israel, persequentes legem jus- terea nolle fieri Christianos, quia quasi titi(p, in legem justiti(P non perteniunt. sufBciunt sibi de iojifl riia sua. Bene Quaref Quia non ei fide, sed tam- vivere opus est, ait : Quid mihi quam ex operibus. Rom. ix. 31, 32. prsecepturus est Christus ; Ut bene Ipsa est enim justitia ex fide, quam vivam ? jam bene vivo : quid mihi Gentes apprehenderunt, de quibus necessarius est Christus ? Nullum dictum est. Rom. ix. 30. Ipsa est liomicidium, nullum furtum, nullam justitia ex fide, qua credimus nos jus- rapinam facio, res alienas non concu- tificnri, hoc est, justos fieri, gratia Dei pisco, nuUo adulterio contaminor : ]:er Jesum Christum Dominum nos- nam inveniatur aliquid in vita mea trum. Quae ex Deo justitia in fide, quod reprehendatur, et qui reprehen- in fide utique est, qua credimus nobis derit, faciat Christianum. Augustin. justitiam Divinitus dart, non a nobis, in Psal. xsx. Enarr. 2. p. 171. torn, ia nobis, nostris viribus &en. Augus- iv. tin. Paulino Epist. clxxxvi. p. 664, Rom. iv. 4. xi. 6. Compare Tru- 666. torn. ii. man, Great Propitiation, p. 184,300. * Against Merit of Congruity, see s Hoc possumus dicere quod de the 13th Article of our Church, lege dicit Apostolus, si per naturam ^ Concil. Trident. Sess. Ccm.32. justitia, ergo Christus gratis mortuus Bellarmin. de Justificat. lib. v. cap. est. Qui suis meritis praemia tam- 17. quam (fetiVa expectant, nec ipsa merita ^ Against which, see the 14th Dei graticR tribuiint, sed viribus pro- Article of our Church. the Doctrine of Jitstljicatioii. 35 general reasons, which St. Paul had made use of in another case, might be justly applicable in this case also ; they laid hold of them, and urged them with irresistible force against all kinds of human merit, or pretended merits however disguised, or however set off with art or subtilty. Thus came the doctrine of justifi- cation by falih alone^, that is to say, by the alone merits and cross of Christ, (as Bishop Jewel interprets itv,) to be a distin- guishing principle of the Reformation. The Socinians, by rejecting C/irisfs satisfaction, and of course standing upon their own works as available to salvation, i7ide- pendent of it, have only chosen another way of committing the same fault, and of running into the proud extreme. The Deists, who boast of their morality'^, in opposition to Gospel faith and Gospel obedience, are, in this respect, so nearly allied to the Pagan philosophers, who lived in Christian times, that they may be said to fall under the same predicament with them ; excepting only the additional aggravation of their apostasy from the faith whereunto they had been baptized. Those enthusiasts, who fear not to boast even of a sinless per- fection in this life ; they (whatever their pretences ai-e) are remarkably peccant in the proud extreme, even to a degree of madness, and stand condemned by many express passages both of Old Testament and New. Lastly, If there be any amongst us, as probably there may, who, though knowing themselves to be sinners, yet think that the good vjorJcs of alms, or other the like bounden duties, will satisfy for their sins; and who thereupon conceive that God would do them tvrong, if he should not, for their good deeds, pardon their evil deeds ; such also may be said to err in the proud extreme, not considering that all their good deeds are only so many strict dues, and that the paying off a debt in part entitles no man to a discharge for the remainder. God, for Christ's ^ See the i ith Article of ourChiti ch. y Jewel, Def. of Apology, p. 66. ^ Their main principle is thus ex- pressed in a Latin distich : Haud criicietit animum quae circa religionein Vexantur lites ; sit mode vita proba. Euro. Herbert. See my Discourse on Fundamentals, vol. V. p. lOO, lOI, 103. Near akin to these, are such as magnify moral virtues. Par/an virtues, as acceptable in themselves, and need- ing no atonement nor sacrament to recommend them to the Divine ac- ceptance. See the Nature, Obligation, and Efficacy of the Christian Sacra- ments, vol. iv. p. 85, 86, 90. and Supplement, p. 1 29, i 30, &c. 1 37, D 2 36 A summary View of sake», may give a discharge for the whole, to every penitent offender, after his sincerely performing sonie part of his duty : biu a man's own ^700^^ worh, be they ever so many or so great, cannot in themselces be pleaded by way of proper atonement for his sins. Having thus briefly enumerated the most, or the most common mistakes or miscarriages in the matter of justification, on the assuming side, derogating from the honour of God's free grace, and from the merits of Christ, which are the valuable consideration upon which, or for the sake of which only, God j'ustijles as many as he does justify ; I shall now proceed to observe something of the common mistakes in the other extreme^ which concerns the necessary, essential conditions or qualijications required in every adidt whom God shall accept. 2. It is a dangerous and fatal extreme so to magnify, or to pretend to magnify grace or faith^ as thereby to exclude, sink, or any way lessen the necessity of true and sincere, and (so far as human infirmities permit) universal obedience^'. There is the a Non patitur enim justum Dei judicium, ut justum censeat aliquein qui justitiam non habeat : non liabet vero justitiam ullam peccator nisi in Christo, et per mysticatn arctissimam- que illam imionem cum Ciiristo. Jer. xxiii. 6. 2 Cor. v. 21. i Cor. i. 30. liueeque ideo tantopere inculcatur in N. T. ubi fideles sexcentis in locis dicuntur esse in Christo. Et cele- bratur pariter in V. T. in Psal. xlv. Cantico Canticorum toto. Isa. liv. 5. Hos. ii. 18, 19. Quia scilicet in ea est {undamenimn justificalionis pecca- toris coram Ueo. Vinculum vero hujus uniouis priKcipuum, absque quo unio haec nullatenus consistit, est fides actualis in Christum, moriturum olim, nunc mortuum, in adultis ; vel Spiri- tus jidei in infantibus electis. Wesse- lius. Dissert. Academ. p. 148. Tum tandem justijicari peccatorem coram Deo sola fide, qua dextram dat sponso ac sponsor!, ejusi|ue dextram tenet, et qua sola connuhium stabile cum ipso contrahens, justitia vicaria ejus im- putatur illi ut sua, et jus accijiit ad omnia ejus bona. Bona opera postea imponuntur justificatae (reginae) ut in quibus non ?st causa regjnandi, sed via tantum ad regnum gloriae. Omnes ergo externe vocati (quibus Rex Messias sponsor foederis, cum justitia vicaria, omnique gratia ejus quotidie ofFertur in Evangelic, quibus- que ipse dextram suara conjugalem blande porrigit) semetipsos diligenter et serio examinare debent, num huic regiiiep, seu EcclesicB verae, ut ejus membra genuina, accenseri queant. Ibid. p. 281. b Signa fidei justificantis sunt i. Totum velle Christum suum esse, non tantum ut sacerdotem, sed etiam ut regem. 2. Solum velle Christum, cum abnegatione justitia propria, om- niunique sanctorum, qufe nulla est. 3. Gaudere in fide, et animosa in ad- versis fiducia stare ad dextram regis, eique adhserere, etiam dum ducit per ignes et aquas. 4. Abnegare volunta- tem propriam quandoque naturalem, semper pratiam ac jjerversam, et regis voluntati arcanae et revelatae se patien- ter ac prompte submittere. Si horum nihil in semetipsis deprehendant, hoc ij)so momento, absque ulla dilatione, fide sincera foedus conjugate contra- hant, &c. Si vero horum aliquid in se ipsis inveniant gratias immortales agant Stent porro in fide animosi, &c. p. 281, 282. the Doctrine of Justif cation. 37 greater need of the utmost caution and circumspection in this particular, because corrupt nature is very prone to listen to, and to fall in with any appearing arguments, any pretexts, colours, handles for relaxation of duty, and for reconciling their hopes and their lusts together. St. Paul was aware, that some of ill minds might be apt to pervert his sound doctrine of Justif cation by faith, to the purposes of licentiousness ; but truth was not to be suppressed for fear some should abuse it ; (for what is there which some or other may not make an ill use of;) neither would it have been right to let one extreme go uncorrected, only for the preventing the possible, or even probable danger from weak or evil minded men, who might take the handle to run into another. St. Paul therefore was content so to correct an error on the right hand, as, at the same time, to guard against a greater on the leftc. Notwithstanding all his guards, some there were, (as he supposed there would be,) who even in the apostolical age did pervert the doctrine of grace^ to serve the ends of licentiousness : and some or other, probably, have done the like, designedly or undesignedly, in every age since. St. Paul had taught, that none of our worh are or perfect enough to abide the Divine scrutiny, or to claim justification as a debt'^, or a matter of right : which is undoubtedly true : but libertines changed that true and sound proposition into this very unsound one ; that good icorks are not so much as necessary conditions or qualifications for justification. St. Paul had also taught, that faith, or an humble reliance upon the grace of God through the merits of Christ, in opposition to self-boasting^, or standing upon the perfection of our own performances, was our only safe plea before God, our only sure xcay to be nistified, after doing the best we could for performing our bounden duties : this true and important proposi- tion some turned into quite another, contradictory to the whole tenor of the Gospel; viz. ihiii faith alone, a dead faith, separate from evangelical obedience, is the only condition of salvation. Against such dogmatizcrs, and against such loose 2)rinciples. St. James engaged, reproving and confuting the men and their errors in few, but very strong words*". St. Peter also and St. .John, though more obscurely, combated the same errors. See Rom. iii. 31. vi. i, &c. Ephes. ii. 9. Rom. iv. 2. •1 Rom. iv. 4. xi. 6. f James ii. 14 — 26. ^ Rom. iii. 27. i Cor. i. 29, 31. s 2 Pet. i. 5— 10. i John iii. 7 — 10. 38 A summanj View of the Doctrine of Justification. That some or other, in after-ages, were very prone to run into the extreme of licentiousness, taking an handle from the doctrine of pmce ; as others were apt to run into the j)roud extreme, from the docti-ine of the value and necessity of a good life ; may be judged from what a Father of the fifth century says in opposition to both^. It is certain that the Antinomian and SoHfidian doctrines, as taught by some in later times, have deviated into a wild extreme, and have done infinite mischief to practical Christianity. I have not room to enumerate, much less to confute, the many erroneous and dangerous tenets which have come from that quarter : neither would 1 be forward to expose them again to public view. They have been often considered and often confuted. Let them rather be buried in oblivion, and never rise up again to bring reproach upon the Christian name. But take we due care so to maintain the doctrine faith, as not to exclude the necessity of good loorks ; and so to maintain good icorh, as not to exclude the necessity of Christ's atonement, or the free grace of God. Take we care to perform all evangelical duties to the utmost of our power, aided by God's Spirit ; and when we have so done, say, that we are unprofitable servants, having no strict claim to a reward, but yet looking for one, and accepting it as a favour, not challenging it as diie in any right of our own ; due only upon free promise, and that promise made not in consideration of any deserts of ours, but in and through the alone merits, active and passive, of Christ Jesus our Lord. ^ Si se homo justi-firaverit, et de vocem Dei dicentem nobis, ne declines justitia sua praesumserit, cadit .- si in dexteram out sinistrum, Prov. iv. considerans et cogitaiis infirmitatem 27. Ne praesumas ad regnum de suam, et praesumens de misericordia justitia tua .- ne praesumas ad peccan- Dei, neglexerit vitam suam mundare dum de misericordia Dei. Ab utroque a peccatis suis, et se omni gurgite te revocat praeceptum divinum, et ab flagitiorum demerserit, et ipse cadit. ilia altitudine, et ab ista profunditate Praesumtio de justitia quasi dextera illuc si ascenderis, pr£ecipitaberis ; hac est : cogitatio de impunitate pecca- si lapsus fueris, demergeris. Augiistin, torum, quasi sinistra est. Audiamus in Psal. xxxi. p. 171. torn. iv. AN INQUIRY CONCERNING THE ANTIQUITY OF THE PRACTICE OF INFANT COMMUNION, As founded on the Notion of its strict Necessity. i AN INQUIRY CONCERNING INFANT COMMUNION. IhE article of Infant Communion^ though not much thought of amongst us, (as we have not had much occasion,) is a part of the general subject of the Eucharist^ and may deserve some con- sideration at this time ; if it be only for the sake of clearing up a point of doctrine in some degree, and for the obviating such scruples as have been raised about it. Some have censured it, as ancient practice built upon erroneous principles, aggravating every circumstance after an Invidious manner, in order to raise a ^ewera? prejudice against the ancients^, as of slight authority. Others have laid hold on the same topic, for sinking the credit of the Fathers with respect to one particular point ; namely, that of In/ant Baptism : for, say they, if the ancients were so widely mistaken in regard to Infant Communion ; what great stress can be laid, either upon the'w Judgmenf or their practice, in the article of Infant Baptism ^ ? Others, lastly, (though very few in these parts of the world,) * Dallaeus de Usu Patrum, lib. i. Whitby, Stricturse Patrum, ]). 212, &c. c. 8. p. 175. lib. ii. c. 4. ]>. 29.3. De ^ See Dr. Wall, Hist, of Inf. Bapt. Cult.Ilelig. lib. V. C.3, 4, 20. Clericus, i)art ii. c. 9. sect. 17. vol. ii. p. 447, .AniinHflv . in ()\\ Aiimistini. ]i. -,21. erl. .3. 4,2 An Inquiry concerning have declared their approbation of Infant Communion, and have seriously pleaded for a revival of it. Dr. Bedell, of the last century, (Bishop of Kilmore in Ireland,) seems to have been in those sentiments^ : and now lately, a pretty large essay has been published, on purpose to recommend the aiicient practice (as it is supposed) of Infant Comnmmon'^. These things considered, the question appears to be worth the looking into : and so my present design is to offer some thoughts upon it, in order to set that matter, so far as I may, in a just light, for the removing scruples, or for the rectifying misconceptions. It seems to be a mistake to imagine, that Infant Communion (if we understand it of mere infants) was the ancient practice of the Church. There is no appearance of any thing of that kind before the middle of the third century, the time of Cyprian ; and that in the African churches only : and all that can be proved from Cyprian is, that children (boys and girls, not mere infants) were then and there brought to communion. Neither is there any clear proof, that they were brought thither under a notion of any strict necessity : for it might be done upon such prudential reasons as move us to bring children to church at this day, training them up in the way that they should go ; or, if it was founded upon stronger reasons, they might be such as resolved only into the then present expediency, or into a superabundant caution : as I shall endeavour to make out more at large in the sequel. From the middle of the third century, down to the beginning of the fifth, we hear little or nothing of the practice. We must take a large stride, from St. Cyprian down as low as to St. Austin, before we come at any thing which does but look that way. In St. Austin's works, from the time of the Pelagian con- troversy, (which began about A. D. 410,) there are some passages which have been thought uncontestable evidences of the practice of Infant Communion in his time, as likewise of its being founded upon a notion of strict necessity, as taught in John the sixth. I. St. Austin hath been supposed to maintain, that Infant Com- ^ Bishop Bedell, in Usher's Letters, Practice of giving the Eucharist to No. 163. p. 442, 445. Children. By James Peirce of Exon. An Essay in Favour of the ancient A. D. 1728. Infant Communmi. 4S munion is as necessary to life eternal, as In/ant Baptism ; and that baptized infants have as much need of the Eucharist as the unbaptized have of the other sacrament ; both sacraments being alike necessary to the salvation of all persons. But St. Austin hath never directly and irb terms said, that baptized infants cannot be saved without the Eucharist: it is no express doctrine of that great man, but a consequence only, drawn from his words ; and not by any considerable writers of his time^ or mar it, (so far as appears,) but by some who came long after him, and in contradiction to those who lived in the ages next to him. Whether the consequence, so drawn and fixed upon him in later ages, be really just ; and whether his meaning was truly such as hath been pretended, is now the point of inquiry : and I shall proceed to examine into it with some care. First, If St. Austin's other most avowed and often repeated principles are a standing contradiction to the supposed necessity of Infant Communion ; that will afford a strong presumption against what he has been charged with, and such as cannot, or in reason ought not, to be overruled, but by something stronger. This being premised, as a safe general ground to rest upon, arid abide by, I now go on to the inquiry. St. Austin's doctrine of the complete sufficiencij of Baptism to the salvation of infants, is so fully expressed many ways, and so frequently inculcated in his works, that it is scarce conceivable, how he could imagine the Eucharist to be necessary over and above ; unless we could suppose him the mo^^t inconsistent, self- destroying writer in the world. To come to particulars. 1. In the first place, his constant, standing doctrine is, that Baptism conkra perfect remission of all sin<^: which was also the known doctrine of the whole Church before his time, and after''. Now as salvation must of course follow upon perfect remission so long as it abides, (and abide it must in infants baptized, till guilty of actual sin,) with what sense or consistency could St. Austin teach, that infants once baptized could have any present need of the Eucharist, to bring them into a state of salvation ? 2. Another standing j)riHcipk with St. Austin was, that Bap- « Qui regenerantur in Christo, i-e- 424, 458, 540. toin. x. niissionem accijiiunt prorsus omnium ' See my Review, &c. vol. iv. c. 9. peccatorum. Aiiyustin. de Nupt. el \>. 660, &c. and Binfrham, book xi. Concvpiacent. lib. i. c. 26. p. 294. chaj). i. sect. 2. book xix. chap. i. torn. X. erl. 13ened. conf. p. 299, 423, sect. 2. 44 An Inquiry concerning tism, singly, gives a present, certain title to life eternals. How then could the same Father consistently say or mean, that they could not be saved without the Eucharist h ? 3. It was likewise an avowed principle with St. Austin, and the whole Church, that infants, by their Baptism, were consti- tuted JideUs, were of" the number of the faithful^ ; which was as high and honourable a name as could be given to actual commu- nicants, to tiiie and good Christians. If therefore infants were already, by their Baptism, entitled to the name and privileges of communicants, for the time being, they could not want the out- ward sacrament of the Eucharist, to make them more so. 4. Another noted principle of St. Austin was, that the grace of a Mediator was the one thing necessary to the salvation of infants, and that such grace was given them in and by Baptism^: there- fore again, by his accounts, the partaking of the outward sacrament of the Eucharist could not be necessary to the salvation of baptized infants. 5. It was St. Austin's settled persuasion, that baptized infants could never afterwards forfeit the salutary grace once given at the font, till they should become guilty of actual sinsi. From e Simul justitiae, ritaque aternce secundi hominis sociati renascuntur in Baptismo. Augustin. de Peccat. Merit, lib. i. c. 16. p. 12. Absit ut causam parvulorum sic relinquamus, ut esse nobis dicamus incertum, utrum in Ciiristo regenerati, si moriantur parvuli, transeant in aeternam salutem. De Don. Perseverant. c. xii. p. 837. torn. X. conf. p. 273, 274, 279, 29 r, 292, 318, 328, 449, 450, 482, 536, 680, 686, 899, 902, 1023, 1074, tom.x. item p. 942. toin. v. et 1 190. torn. v. Quicunque negat parvulos per Baptismum Christi a perditione libe- rari, et salutem percipere sempiternam, anathema sit. Concil. Carthag. in Augustin. epist. clxxv. p. 620. tom. ii. conf. p. 266, 268, 511, 585. h Couf. Wall's Hist, of Infant Baptism, part i. c. 15. sect. 5. vol. i. p. 202. * Panoilum, etsi nondum fides ilia, quae in credentium voluntate consistit, jam tamen ipsiiis fidei sacramentum Jidelem facit. — Fidelis vocatur, non rem ipsa mente annuendo, sed ipsius rei sacramentum percipiendo. Augus- tin. ad Bonifac. ep. xcviii. (alias xxiii.) p. 268. Ubi ergo parvulos ponimus bapti- :atos, nisi inter Jideles, sicut universa ubique Ecclesia clamat auctoritas ? Augustin. de Peccat. Merit, lib. i. c. 33- P- 35- co°f- c. 25. p. 20. Item Serm. ccxciv. p. 11 19, 1190, 1192. tom. v. ^ Vid. Augustin. epist. cLwi. p. 58o> 59 1 > 592. De Peccat. Merit, lib. i. c. 22, 25. 1 Respondeo, tantam illius sacra- menti, hoc est. Baptismi sahitaris, esse virtutem in sancta compage cor- poris Christi, ut, semel generatus per aliorum carnalem voluptatem, cum semel regeneratus fuerit per aliorum spiritualem voluntatem, deinceps non possit vinculo alienae iniquitatis ob- stringi, cui nulla sui voluntate con- sentit. Semel perceptam parvulus gratiam non amittit nisi propria impi- etate, &c. Epist. xcviii. (alias xxiii.) p. 263, 264. Infant Communion. 45 whence it plainly follows, that thoy could not forfeit it by their not receiving the Eucharist during their nonage. 6. St. Austin further teaches, that infants by their Bajytism, are made the temple of the Holy Spirit, and thereby sealed, and insured to everlasting salvation^^. How could this be, if Baptism still wanted to be rendered salutary by the other sacrament, by the outward Eucharist ? 7. Elsewhere he expressly maintains^ that spiritual regeneration (by which he means Baptism of water and of the Spirit) is alone sufl&cient to deliver an infant from the power of darkness, and to translate him into the kingdom of Christ ; and to secure him, if he dies in that state, against all manner of pains or perils in a world to come". Could he consistently say this, had he thought that both sacraments were as necessary as Baptism alone ? 8. Another principle of St. Austin's, consonant with those before mentioned, is, that Baptism makes an infant a member of Christ : not merely a member of the outward Church, but a vital or living member of Christ's body". 9. Another noted doctrine of St. Austin, near akin to the former, is, that the sacrament of Baptism amounts to a complete ingraffment or incorporation in Christ, and that such incorporation or ingraffment is a princijml end and 2(se of Baj)iism, being a necessary qualification for, or introduction to eternal life : which he collects from our Lord's doctrine laid down in John vi.P ™ Dicimus ergo, in buptizaiis par- very common with the Fathers to ex- vulis, quamvis id nesciant, habitare press a single sacrament in that plural Spiritum Sanctum, ep. clx.xxvii. c. 8. way; as is well known to the learned, p. 686. Templum Dei futurus es, with ihe reasons of it. Daille has cum Baptismum acceperis. De Fid. et often noted it, and has manifested the Op. c. 12. p. 175. torn. vi. same by p;reat variety of evidences, in " Tanta est Dei misericordia his book De Confirmatione. ut etiam prima horainis setas, id est, ° Nec viveremus, nisi per spiritua- infantia, si sacramenfa Mediatoris lem connexionem membra hujus esse- acceperit, etiamsi banc in eis vitam mus : ideo nobis opus fuit nasci, et finiat, translata scihcet a polestate rena.^c/, epist. clxxxvii. p. 688. Mem- tenebrarum in regnum Christi, non irKw Christi futurus es, cum accep|^s solum poenis non prseparetur seternis, Baptismum. De Fid. et Op. c. t2. sed ne ulla quidem post mortem pur- p. 175. tom. vi. Omnes qui renas- gatoria tormenta patiatur. Sufficit cuntur, membra fiant. Si vis enim sola spiritualis regeneratio, ne ascendere, esto in corpore Christi: si post mortem obsit quod carnalis ge- vis ascendere, esto membrum Christi, neratio cum niorte contraxit. De serm. ccxciv. p. 1 188. tom. v. Cwii. Dei, lib. xxi. c. 16. p. 636. tom. p Nihil agitur aliud cum parvuli viii. Conf. De Peccat. Merit, lib. i. c. baptizantur, nisi ut incorporentur Ec- 19. clesise, id est, Christi corpori mem- N. B. Though he says socrarnenta brisqne socientur. — Nonne Veritas sine in the plural, he means only Baptism: ullaambiguitate proclamat, non solum as is i)lain by what follows. It is in Regnuin Dei non baptizatos parvu- 46 Jn Inquiry concerning From all which we may reasonably draw the following infer- ences : I. That since Baptism amounts to a complete incorporation, for the time being, it could not want the other sacrament to make it more so. 2. That since baptismal incorporation is a pledge of eternal life by itself, it could not need the Eucharist to make it salutary/. 3. That since St. Austin drew this doctrine chiefly from John vi. he must have understood the incorporation there spoken of, as a privilege common to both sacraments. But of that particular I shall say more in its proper place. 10. But further, the same Father does not only suppose that a baptized infant has part in the body of Christ ; but that he is, by his baptism, dipped, as it were, in the blood of Christ : for he teaches that Baptism, or the baptismal water, is red, (so he figuratively expresses it) with the blood of Christ, as consecrated in it or by it 9. Other Fathers of the Church express the same thing in still plainer and stronger terms : and it was the pre- vailing doctrine of antiquity, that all the spiritual graces of the Eucharist were conveyed in Baptism as well as in the Eucharist; and that as many as were duly baptized, were, in effect, thereby made partakers of the body and blood of Christ »■ : such being the high notions of the sufficiency of Bap>tism, universally prevailing in those times, what room could there then be for the doctrine of the strict necessity of Infant Conmmnion ? 1 1. Another doctrine of St. Austin is, that all those who are really members of Christ, true and livinp members, do, ipso facto, in virtue of such their membership, continually eat his fesh, and drink his blood^. Hence it follows, that infants baptized, having thereby been made true and living members of Christ, and having never yet forfeited their privilege by any actual sin, must of los intrare non posse, sed nec vitam (Eternam ])osse habere, praster Ckristi cOxpus, cui lit incorporentur, sacra- mSito Baptismatis imbuuntur ? Au- yustin. de Peccat. Merit, lib. iii. c. 4. P- 74= 75-. 1 Significabat mare ruhrum Baptis- mum Christi. Unde rubet Baptismus Christi, nisi Christi sanguine conse- cratus ? In Joann. tract. 11. p. 377. torn. iii. Conf. p. 942. torn. v. The testimonies are collected into one view by Albertinus, De Eucha- rist, p. 448, 564. and by Bingham, .\i. 10, 4. XV. 4, 7. Qui ergo est in ejus corporis uni- tate, id est, in Christianorum compage membrorum (cujus corporis sacramen- tum fideles, communicantes de altari, siimere consiieverunt) ipse vere dicen- dus est manducare corpus Christi, et hibere sanguinem Christi. De Civit. Dei, lib.xxi. p. 646. N.B. St. Austin allows this to be true, provided such membership has not been forfeited by some voluntary transgressions ; and therefore he must be presumed to allow the fact with regard to baptized infants not yet capable of actual sin. Infant Communion. 47 course be supposed, in virtue of that their membership, con- tinually to eat Christ's flesh., and to drink his blood., in such a sense as St. Austin there speaks of ; and therefore could not be by him supposed to lie under any necessity of having that by two sacraments, which was effectually supplied by one. 12. I must further take notice of another ininciple of St. Austin's, which may appear somewhat lefined and uncommon ; but was a favourite notion, and what he much dwelt upon : it was this ; that Baptism makes a person to be that mry thing which is mystically represe?ited and partici^jated in the Eucharist^. He grounds the notion on St. Paul's words : " We being many " are one bread, and one body," «&;c. Therefore Christians are themselves the body signified, or represented by the bread of the Eucharist : therefore every true Christian makes a part of what that bread signifies, and of what the communicants partake of. Whether the notion be strictly just, is not now the question : it was St. Austin's notion, and that is sufficient for our present purpose. For if baptized infants, being of the number of the faithful, and so making a part of Christ's body the Church, were, in consequence, a part also of the body sir/nijied and participated in the Eucharist ; they could not need the outboard Eucharist to bind them closer to the body of Christ, or to make them pai^- takers of it. This argument is well urged by Fulgentius", to the very same purpose for m hich I now urge it ; namely, to shew that Baptism, during infancy, was, in St. Austin's account, equivalent to both sacraments ; and in such case, either virtually supplied or fully superseded the external Eucharist. I have now enumerated twelve several articles of doctrine, all maintained by St. Austin, and all seeming to contradict (directly or indirectly) the supposed necessity of Infant Communion. Wherefore, it appears not reasonable to conceive, that he really espoused any 8 Si bene accepistis, vos estis quod accepistis : Apostolus enim elicit, Unus panis unum corpus rnulti sumiis. — Vos ante, jejunii humiliatione, et exorcismi sacrainento, quasi moleba- mini .- aceessit Baptismus, et aqua quasi conspersi estis, ut ad foimam panis veniretis. Accedit Spiritus Sanctus, post aquam ic/nis, et effici- mini panis, quod est corpus Christi. Serin, ccxxvii. p. 973. torn. v. conf. serm. ccxxix. p. 976. Ad aquam venistis et conspersi es- tis, et unum facti estis: accedente/er- vore S()iritus Sancti cocti estis, et panis Dominicus facti estis. Ecce (juod accepistis. Serm. ccxxix. p. 976. conf. serm. cclxxii. p. 1103. torn. v. Contr. Faust, lib. xii. c. 8. N.B. The losing this notion has been the chief occasion of missing St. Austin's true sense : the reviving it will make every thing clear. " Fulgent, ad Ferrand. p. 226. 48 An Inquiry concerning such necessity, in contradiction to his own standing principles : much less probable is it, that he should go on in it, time after time, for near twenty years together, never suspecting any incon- sistency in it, (so far as appears,) never charged by his adver- saries, the Pelagians, with it. Such is our argument a priori, that St. Austin could not teach, could not intend to teach the strict necessity of In/ant Communion : he could not do it with any sense or consistency ; because he constantly maintained, many ways, the complete sufficiency of Baptism to the salvation of all infants, during such their infant state. Secondly, But, besides what has been thus urged a priori, to shew that he could not teach such necessity ; there are yet other considerations, a posteriori, to be taken in, which may persuade us that he did not. I. He did not ordinarily interpret John vi. of the outward sacrament of the Eucharist, but of the inward grace signified by it, or exhibited in it. There is this very observable difference between John iii. 5. and John vi. 53. that the former text teaches the necessity both of the outward sacrament and of the inicard grace ; while the latter teaches only the necessity of the inward grace, abstracted from the outward signs. Had the Eucharist been as plainly pointed out in John the sixth as Baptism is in John the third, both must have been allowed to be equally necessary : but it is worth observing, that the former teaches the necessity of spiritual regeneration and incorporation, as confined to one particular form, or outward instrument ; the latter teaches the same necessity of spiritual incorporation, at large, not mentioning any particular form, not restraining the privilege or benefit to the Eucharist only. St. Austin seems to have been well aware of this distinction, by his so frequently interpreting John vi. not directly of the outward Eucharist, but of the inward graces only, signified by it. Sometimes he interprets the feeding, there mentioned, to mean only the partaking of the body of Christ, or of being incorporated in Christ^ : sometimes, he makes it the same with abiding, or dwelling in Christ", or with being members of ^ Nisi manducaverint homines car- retur, ut vivificetur. In Johann. tract. neiii ejus: hoc est, participes facti xxvi. p.499. torn. iii. Conf. De Civit. fuerint corporis ejus. De Peccat. Dei, lib. xxi. c. 2.). p. 646. Merit, lib. iii. c. 4. Vis ergo vivere Manducare illam escam, et ilium de Spiritu Christi ? In corpore esto bibere potum, est in Christo manere, Christi. Accedat, credat, incorpo- et ilium manentem in se habere. Infant Coiiinmnion. 49 Christy, or with being the temple of Christ'- : all which p/vV/Zey^s he looked upon as coimnou to both sacraments, and not confined to the EucJiarist only ; as may sufficiently appear from what T have before noted in relation to the sufficiency of Baptism, as taught by the same Fathei-. Therefore, by his accounts, infants must have been supposed to enjoy, in and by virtue of their Baptism, all that John the sixth directly speaks of as necessary to life ; and therefore this Father did not so interpret that chapter as to make it favour the supposed necessity of Infant Commu?iion. Sometimes he interprets the meat mentioned in St. John, of an alliance, or union with Christy and sometimes of the prace sent from above b ; which, by his accounts, is common to Bajitism with the Eucharist : and therefore again, haptized infants, as such, must have been by him supposed to feed spiritually upon Christ, in such a sense as our Lord there speaks of, and could not want the outicard Eucharist to make them partakers of the spiritual banquet : wherefore St. Austin scruples not to say, that while a person is regenerated, or born again, (meaning in Baptism,) he feeds upon Christ, is feasted, is satiated'^ with that heavenly food : such plainly is his meaning. 2. To confirm this further, it may be noted, that St. Austin makes the putting on of Christ (which is done in Baptism) to be tantamount in sense, and equivalent in virtue or efficacy for the obtaining eternal life, with the feeding upon him'^ : indeed, all In Johann. tract, ii. p. 501. conf. 504- Re vera Christi corpus inanducare, et ejus sanguinem bibere ; hoc est, in Christo manere, ut in illo maneat et Christus. De Civit. Dei, lib. xxi. c. 2,-,. p. 647. y Ut simus in ejus corpore, sub ipso capite in membris. In Johann. tract, xxvii. p. 502. Manemus autein in illo, cum sumus membra ejus, p. ,r;o4. Nec isti ergo dicendi sunt manducare corpus Christi, quoniam nec in membris comimtandi sunt Christi. De Civit. Dei, lib. xxi. c. 25. p. 646. Manet autem ipse in nobis, cum sumus templum ejus. 7)i Johann. tract, xxvii. p. 504. Signum quia mandu- cat et bibit, hoc est, si manet et ma- netur, si habitat et inhabitatur. Ibid. 502. « Hunc cibum et potum socielatem WATERLAND, VOL. VI. vult intelligi corporis et membrorum suorum. In Johann. tract, xxvii. p. 502. Nemo autem implet legem, nisi quam adjuverit gratia; id est, panis qui de coeio descendit. Ibid, tract, xxvi. p. 494. ^ Qui credit, manducat : invisibili- ter saginutttr, quia invisibiliter renas- citur : infans natus est novus intus est. Uhi novellatur, ibi saliatur. Ibid. Non autem habere parviilos ritam, nisi habeant Christum, quern j)rocnl dubio habere non possunt, nisi indu- erint eum eo modo quo scriptum est; Quotquot in Chri.^to baptizati estis, Christum induistis : non ergo habere vitam, nisi habeant Christum, Johan- nes Evangelista testatur dicens. Qui habet Filium, habet vitam : qui non habet Filium, vitam non haliet. Conlr. Julian, lib. vi. c. 27. p. 677. E 50 Afi Inqu'in/ concerning that he meant to prove against the Pelagians, by quoting John vi. was only this ; that infants must have Christ, must have part in Christ, in order to eternal life ; and could not be saved, could not have life, in or by their natural, unregenerate state^, as the Pelagians pretended. He had no occasion to say, or to conceive, baptized infants could not be saved without the Eucharist ; neither does he once say it : but what he was concerned to prove was, that unbaptized infants, ordinaril}', could not come at life eternal^: and he proves it by this medium ; that infants could have no life without jjartalinp of Christ, whom they could not partake of without being incorporate in Christ, and that by Baptism. That such incorporation, once made in Baptism, wants to be completed, improved, or renewed, by the Eucharist during infancy, he no where teaches : but in a multitude of places, (as hath been shewn,) he either directly or indirectly teaches, that, during the state of mere infancy, it does not : because Baptism alone, for the time being, is sufficient to all intents and purposes, and is, in effect, feeding upon the body and blood of Christ. 3. To confirm this still further, we may note, that St. Austin entertained so high an opinion of the virtue and efficacy of Bap- tism to salvation, from the beginning to the end of the sjnritual life ; that he looked upon all other religious offices as deriving, in a great measure, their use and force from it. He supposes not only the frst remission at the font, but all remission upon prayer or repentance afterwards, to look back to Baptism, and to stand in it, or to be as nothing without its. Even eucharistical remission, and eucharistical graces, by the same principle, can be only baptismal remission and baptismal graces continued, or ^ Quid enim apertius tot tantisque testimoniis Divinorum eloquiorum, quibus dilncidissime apparet, nec prcster Christi societatem ad vitam salutemque ceternam posse quemquam hominem pervenire. Nonne Veri- tas sine ulla ambiguitate proclamat, non solum in regnum Dei, non-bapti- zatos parvulos intrare non posse, sed nec vitam aternam posse habere praeter Christi corpus, cui ut incorporentur, Sacramento Baptismatis imbuuntur. De Peccat. Merit, lib. iii. c. 4. p. 74, 7.5- f Hoc testimonium adhibitum est evangelicum, ne parvuli non-baptizati vitam posse habere credantur. Epist. ad Panlin. 186. No. 28. p. 673. Si autem cedunt Domino Aposto- lorum, qui dicit non habituros vitam in semetipsis, nisi manducaverint car- nem Filii hominis et biherint sangui- nem (quod nisi baptizati non utique possunt) nempe aliquando fatebuntur parvulos non-baptizatos vitam habere non posse. Ibid. No. 29. p. 673. s Augustin. De Nupt. et Concu- pise. lib. i. p. 298. Hesychius well expresses his sense in few words : Virtus prjecedentis Baptismatis opera- tur et in ea, quce postea acta fuerit, poenitentia. In Levit. lib. ii. p. 118. Compare my Review, &c. vol. iv. p. 646. Infant Communion. 51 reiterated. He calls the Lord's l^ruyer a qiiotidiau Jia2>/ism^', while he considered it as an instrument of pardon, and as offered up in and with the JEucharist ^ ; which amounts to calhng the Eucharist itself a kind of quotidian Baptism. Now if St. Austin believed that Baptism had its federal effect during the ichole spiritual life, and that it operated in all other religious offices, or services, deriving, as it were, its ow?i virtue and efficacy upon them ; it is obvious to conceive how, in his account, an infant already baptized, and having hitherto done nothing to forfeit the graces or benefits of it, might be justly said to jmrtake even of the Lord's table, as partaking of that sacrament, which virtually carried in it all the life and spirit of the other ; and which was originally, primarily, eminently, all that the other is in a secondary way, or in consequence of Baptism. 4. I shall only add further, (to shew that St. Austin had no notion of any such strict necessity of the Eucharist to all persons baptized, as he had of the necessity of Baptlmi to the unbaptized,) that, when a case was put to him, concerning the salvation of the thief upon the cross^, as dying unbaptized, he appeared to be very much perplexed with it, and not willing to admit the fact ; conceiving that, probably, the thief had received Baptism, or however that the negative could not be proved. He esteemed that solution to be the safest, to evade the whole difficulty. All the while, though he was well aware, or might certainly know, that the same thief 6.\eA without ever receiving the holy Commu- nion ; yet he was in no pain about it, so far as appears, nor looked upon it, as any difficulty at all : a plain sign, that he had no such opinion of the strict necessity of the Eucharist to salva- tion, as he had of the necessity of Baptism. Having thus endeavoured to shew, many ways, that St. Austin consistently could not, yea, and that he did not teach the necessity of Infant Communion ; what hinders that we may not now safely and justly reject the contrary supposition, as a vulgar error, or ^ Remissio peccatorum non est in dianam medicinam, ut dicamus dimitte sola ablutione sacri Baptismatis, sed nobis debita nostra, &c. ut his verbis etiam in oratione Dominica quoUd'iana.. lota facie, ad altars acnedamus, et his In ilia invenietis quasi quotidia- verbis lota facie, corpora Christi et num BaptismumveatTum. Serm. ccxin. sanion is valid. Suppose then the spiritual governors of the Church grant, through mistake, a spiritual commission, in order to transact spiritual matters, to one that is spiritually dead, that is, unbaptized ; why should the latter be thought valid, the former not? 20. Indeed had the Fountain and Giver of all spiritual gifts said it should be valid, then we had had nothing to do, but to acquiesce. But nothing like this is to be met with in the /ioh/ scriptures, wherein he has revealed to us what is his will and pleasure. Upon which account ]\Ir. W.'s point, which he thinks well settled, is at the best but precarious, or rather evidently false, having neither scripture, reason, nor antiquity to support it. It is the rule of the Church of England, as well as of St. Jerome, Quicquid de scripturis sacris aiictoritatein nan liahet, eadcm facilitate contemnitur qua probatur. 21. Dr. Brett indeed alleges St. Paul for an instance to coun- tenance this opinion ^ whom he affirms to have been "validly " ordained, before he was baptized, by Christ himself, who " called him by a voice from heaven :" and that this was " the " only ordination he received." But then he grants that that Apostle " did not execute his commission till after he was bap- " tized." So that, wliatevcr date the commission might bear, it is plain he could not use it till he was baptized, this being a fundamental qualification for it. Which observation, I think, destroys the inference he would make from this example, or rather turns it against him. 22. So our blessed Lord invested his Apostles with their com- missions before his ascension. Which commission nevertheless was not to take ])lace till they were " endued with power from " on high'','"' that is, "were baptized with the Holy Ghost and " v.ith firei," as St. John the Baptist expresses it, and thereby qualified for the effectual discharge of their apostolical office. 23. And after all, that which this learned and reverend author takes for St. PauFs only ordination, I cannot conceive to be any ordination at all, or other than a declaration of the meaning and design of that miraculous light which he saw, and of our Lord's will and purpose concerning him, in answer to those f A])]), in Answer to Lord Bishop Luke xxiv. 49. of O.xford, p. Ill, &c. ' Luke iii. 16. Acts ii. 3,4. B John XX. 21,22, 23. 1o Dr. WatcrlancTs First Letter. 89 questions of his, " Who art thou, Lord ?" and, " What wilt " thou have me to do V To me it seems plain, that his solemn consecration to the apostolical function came afterwards, and is recorded Acts xiii. 2, 3. And if so, St. Paul is again so far from furnishing a demonstrative argument in favour of the cause which he is alleged for, that he is a noble instance against it. 24. As for the Doctor's objection, that in this case, " he would " have been an Apostle by man, though not of man," contrary to the style he uses Gal. i. i, I think St. Luke has effectually cleared that, ist, by the history of his conversion, where we plainly see that his designation to the office was not bi/ man ; was not owing to any human or deputed authority, but to Christ himself, who declared it to him by a voice froiii heaven; and, 2dly, by the account he gives us of his consecration to that office by imposition of hands, which was also performed, not upon any human consultation or resolution concerning him, but by the immediate command of the Holy Ghost ^ ; so that upon these grounds he might well assert to himself the magnificent titles which he uses in the inscription of his Epistle to the Gala- tians, although he did receive imposition of hands from those who were his seniors in that office. 2^. If it be replied, that he preached before he was thus con- secrated by imposition of hands, I might answer from Dr. Brett', that it was an extraordinary case, like divers others recorded in the New Testament, occurring in that age of miraculous and extraordinarj' dispensations, from which no conclusion can be drawn to affect us now, when the Church is settled, and we tied down to forms and methods of Divine appointment, handed to us through the several ages of Christianity. 26. Ikit I rather choose to make use of Dr. Hammond's an- swer upon another occasion. The Socinians (his adversaries in that discourse^") asserted a right in the laity to exercise the sacerdotal function, especially in cases of necessity, and to prove it, pretended, " that those who were dispersed after the death " of St. Stephen, were not ordained by any, and yet preached " the doctrine of Chi'ist." Dr. Hannnond having refuted and exposed this last assertion of theirs, adds in the close, that sup- posing it true, that some of those who were then dispersed were ^ Acts xiii. 2. n Discourse of the Inijiosition of ' Aj)p. in Answer to Lord Bishop Hands, &c. in his Letter of Resolution of Oxford, p. 112. to Six Queries, sect. xciv. 90 Eev. E. KelsaWs Answer not ordained, and yet nevertheless preached the Gospel, " yet of " them these two things must be observed : ist, that they were " in a remarkable manner filled all vi^lth the Holy Ghost, Acts " iv. 31, which was certainly done to fit them for some extraor- " dinary work, such as there follows, the speaking of the word " of God with boldness. And for this they were as fully quali- " fied by the descent of the Holy Ghost upon them, and the " effects thereof, speaking with tongues, or prophesying, or gifts " of heahng, as any are by imposition of the Apostles' hands " pretended to be. And yet, 2dly, all that we find assumed by " them is, divulging the Gospel wheresover they came, chap. " viii. 4. and xi. 19. And that liberty, where the Gospel is not " yet known, we shall not deny to any." These are his words. 27. Now this was exactly St. Paul's case. He received the Holy Ghost at the same time with his TJaptisra, by the ministry of Ananias, Acts ix. 17. After this we find him preaching the Gospel, ver. 20. But we hear not of any thing else that he did till after his consecration, recorded chap. xiii. 3. Then indeed he ordained elders, chap. xiv. 23, confirmed the disciples, chap, xix. 6, dispensed the sacraments, chap. xx. 7, and did every thing that the other Apostles had power to do. 28. I have done at present with Dr. Brett. I am next to consider what the author of Lay-baptism Invalid offers out of the Old Testament in favour of this opinion". He urges the similitude of circumstances betwixt a person uncircumcised and one unbaptized : and pretends, that as the want of circumcision during the forty years' abode of the Jewish Church in the wil- derness, did not vacate the ministry of those priests and Levites who were born in that time ; so neither can the want of Baptism now vacate the ministrations of one that is consecrated to the Christian priesthood by episcopal hands. 29. I answer, ist, it is well known that the Levitical priest- hood was hereditary, that the posterity of Aaron and the tribe of Levi were born with a right to the several branches and degrees of it, and therefore might in a large sense be called priests before their actual consecration, or even their circum- cision, being from their birth designed for the priesthood. Now, admitting it true, that some of these had, even before they were circumcised, been allowed by God to exercise their sacerdotal " App. to the first part of Lay-Baptism Invalid, p. 137. to Dr. Waterlancrs First Letter. 91 function, it will prove nothing more than this, that God, who hath formerly ratified the ministrations of an uncircumcised Levite, (designed for, though as yet not initiated in, the priest- hood,) may still dispense with his own institutions when he pleases, (though we must not,) and ratify things transacted in his name by persons unbaptized, who (continuing such) are in- capable of an ordinary call to the priesthood. But that he actually does so, it is presumption in us to imagine, without a Divine warrant signifying his will and pleasvire. 30. J3ut, 2dly, this suggestion of Mr. L.'s supposes for truth, what I take to be evidently false, viz. that some who by birth were entitled to the pinesthood in the Jewish Church, acted in that capacity before they were circumcised. For what need was there of this ? There were priests enough to do it without them ; persons regularly circumcised and consecrated to the office. For the proof whereof, I desire three things may be considered : 31. I st. That Aaron himself died but a few days before they entered into the land of Canaan, Num. xxxiii. 38, who had to assist him, Eleazar, Phinehas, Ithamar, &c. 32. 2dly, That not only Eleazar, Phinehas, Ithamar, &c. but (for ought that appears to the contrary) such in general of the tribe of Levi as came out of Egypt, and were afterwards conse- crated to the priesthood, lived to come into the land of Canaan. I expect here to be told, that they all perished in the wilderness, by the sentence passed upon them, Num. xiv. 23. But Joshua V. 4, 6. tells us, they were only the tnen of tear who so perished. And the sentence itself, as it is repeated and explained Num. xiv. 29. affects those only who had been numbered from tioenty years old and upwards, plainly referring to the account taken, chap. i. where the tribe of Levi is left out, nor so much as men- tioned till ver. 47. where we are told that the Levites were not numbered among them. And accordingly Dr. Hammond, in his paraphrase on Ps. xc. 10, mentions those men of war, who were condemned to die in the wilderness, under the exact number of 603,550, which is the sum total recited Num. i. 46. without in- cluding the tribe of Levi. The numbers of the Ijevites are taken afterwards by themselves, from one month old upwards. Num. iii. 15. So that to me it seems very plain, that the sentence declared chap. xiv. 29. does not include the tribe of Levi ; and consequently that the Jewish Church might, at their arrival in 99 Rev. E. Kelsall's Answer the land of Canaan, have many priests among them, who were not born during their abode in the wilderness. Since my writ- ing this^ find myself confirmed in this conjecture by two emi- nent commentators, besides Dr. Hammond, viz. Corn, a Lapide in Numbers xiv. 29. and Masius in Josh. xxiv. 4. 33. I am aware, in the mean while, that in the twenty-sixth chapter, after the recital, not only of the twelve tribes, (who are there again numbered from twenty years old and upwards, vcr. 2.) but of the Levites too, (who likewise, as before, are again numbered from one month old and upward, ver. 62.) it is expressly said, ver. 64, 65. " Among these there was not a man " of them whom Moses and Aaron the priest numbered, when " they numbered the children of Israel in the wilderness of " Sinai. For the Lord had said of them, They shall surely die " in the wilderness. And there was not left a man of them, save " Calel) the son of Jcphunneh, and Joshua the son of Nun." 34. But that this remark of the sacred historian must relate only to the twelve tribes, and not to that of Levi, is still plain, (I will not say from Moses himself being still alive, who was of this tribe, and makes this remark, but) from Eleazar's living some yeai's after the Israelites were settled in Palestine, who was born long before their departure out of Egypt, being then at man's estate, and consecrated to the priesthood at the same time that his fjxther Aaron himself was, Exodus xxviii. 1. Levit. viii. and chap. x. 6. And the same answer I give to any objec- tion that may seem to off'er itself from Num. xxxii. 1 1. 35. 3dly, Suppose our evidence of the tribe of Levi's exemp- tion from the general sentence passed upon the Israelites were less than it is, yet it is certain, from Niun. xiv. 29, that none of any tribe under twenty years were concerned in it. Which space of time affords room enough for a sufficient number of priests of the tribe of Levi, who had been born and circumcised in Egypt, being grown up, to supply the places of those who died in the wilderness ; and consequently takes away all pre- tence of a necessity for Levites uncircumcised to minister in that office. 36. It appears therefore, that Mr. L.'s scripture argument for the validity of holy orders conferred upon an unbaptized person, is grounded upon a case altogether fictitious and imagin- ary, and therefore proves nothing but a great want of better arguments. And in truth, it seems at first sight a wild imagina- to Dr. WaterlaniTs First Letter. 93 tion to fancy, that, when God would not permit any of the sons of Aaron, who had a blemish upon his body, to officiate or como nigh to the altar, Lev. xxi. 23. (whom nevertheless he suffered to eat the holy bread, ver. 21.) he should yet suffer any to exer- cise the office of Priest who was uncircumcised^ and consequently under an incapacity of so much as eating the passover, Exodus xii. 48. 37. And now I shall leave this argument with one observation of my own from scripture relating to this matter, viz. that St. Paul, in his discourses i Cor. xii. and Ephes. iv. pressing the duty of peace, unity, and charity, so speaks in both places of the Christian Clergy, as supposing them of course to be members of the Church or body of Christ, (which no unbaptized person is,) this seeming a fundamental qualification for the character they were adorned with. He arms the laity against all suggestions of envy, repining, or discontent, upon account of preference or superiority of one above another, with this consideration, that they, as well as their Bishops and other ministers, are members of the same body, partakers of one and the same spirit, candi- dates of the same hope of their calling, initiated by the same sacrament of Baptism, &c. This is enough, considering that no instance of an unbaptized priest is recorded to have hap- pened, much less to have been approved or ratified by the Church in all the ages of Christianity ; I say, this is enough to inform us what qualifications the Church, the Apostle, and especially the Holy Ghost, who guided his pen, did expect and require in a minister of the Gospel. 38. So that, upon the whole, I am still of opinion, that this point of the validity of holy orders, conferred upon an unbaptized receiver, is not well settled, and am strongly inclined to despair that it ever will. And till it be, 1 cannot see how the modern invalidators of Lay- baptism can avoid the consequences before recited, so destructive to the succession of the Christian priest- hood, and consequently to the very being of the Church and of the sacraments, supposing at present, what by and by will be but too easily proved, that Baptism by lay hands hath so far been allowed and owned as sufficient for the ends of Baptism, as not to need repeating, in the primitive as well as modern ages of Christianity. 39. You see. Sir, I do not concern myself with the case of the foreign Reformed, of whom we are told the Calvinists and 94 Rev. E. KelsaWs Ansicer Zuinglians have espoused the principle of the invahdity of Lay- baptism, going herein further than Calvin probably intended, and directly contrary to Zuinglius. What they will thafi/c us for granting, I matter not, nor does it concern the question. The Church of England seems to have determined their case, allow- ing their Baptism to be valid, their Orders not. For she receives them to Lay-communion without rebaptization, but not into her priesthood without reordination. All my request con- cerning them is, that (after her example) seeing, by command from our ecclesiastical superiors, we have often prayed for them by the title of the Reformed Churches, we would allow them as good a right to that appellation, as (in the defect of other ad- ministrations) a valid Christian Baptism can confer upon them. ^Vhich though administered by lay-hands, Mr. L. himself seems now and then to admit in cases of extreme necessity, when not done in defiance of the episcopal divine authorit}'. Such among them is the case of all persons, especially of inferior quality, who are forced so to receive that sacrament, or not to have it at all. 40. I know not what ]\Ir. W. intends by his mentioning the act of toleration and the French Refugees. I presume it is no advantage to his cause, that the Church of England at this day receives all those Eefugees, who conform to her doctrine, into her communion, and some of them to holy orders too, without insisting upon a rebaptization. But her judgment of this matter we shall have further occasion to speak of by and by. Sect, IL 1. As to scripture, Mr. W. tells us, " it is confessed, that it " confines the administration of Baptism to the Clergy." I sup- pose the scripture he intends is the commission to baptize, recorded St. Matt, xxviii. 19, 20. " Go ye," &c. And if he means, that Apostles and their successors alone are the ordinary regular dispensers of it, I agree with him. But if his meaning be, that the effects of Baptism are by the words of the commission made to depend in all cases upon the administrator's being in holy orders, I know not who those are that confess this, unless Mr. Lawrence and his followers. I believe it will appear, that the ancients, (such of them as speak to the point,) Optatus ]\Iile- vitanus, St. Gregory Nazianzen, and others, are of a different opinion. 2. Calvin indeed, in his letter to the Protestants of Mompel- to Dr. WaterlamFs First Letter. 95 gard, argues in this manner; " Quibiis enim, obsecro, dictum " est, Ite, Baptizate, nisi his quibus data jam erat docendi po- " testas et munus commissum ?" And from him the EngHsh Puritans (who were his great admirers in the days of queen EHzabeth) imbibed their notion of the invahdity of Lay-baptism, as they did their other beloved notion of the non-necessity of that sacrament. 3. And yet Calvin was not absolutely for rebaptizing all that had been baptized by lay-hands. In one of his letters (dated Nov. 13th, 1561) he has indeed these words: " Adulterinum " JBaptismum censemus, qui administratus est a private horaine." But in the same letter he adds, that in respect of the particular state of religion at that time among them to whom he writes, " Non tantum errori danda est venia, sed ferendus est qualis- " cunque Baptismus." The error he speaks of relates to the lay-administration of that sacrament. He concludes with con- demning, and advising them absolutely to condemn, all Baptisms administered by women, for which he quotes the Council of Carthage. " Deinde," says he, " quia veteri Decreto Concilii " Carthaginensis prohibitse sunt fceminfe ab officio baptizandi, " neminem offendet novitas, quae metuenda esset in viris. " It seems, in his opinion, Baptism administered by laymen had the countenance of antiquity, so far as to be reputed valid ; for which reason he cautions them against the scandal that would attend the repeating of it, which he thought the world could not but look upon as an innovation. Upon the whole, it is very plain that Calvin did not look upon the minister to be of the essence of the sacrament ; for whatsoever is that, must not be dispensed with upon any considerations whatsoever. 4. So that, for ought I perceive, Mr. ^V'., Mr. L., and their friends, are the first that have so rigidly expounded the commis- sion, as to make the ye, the persons to whom it was delivered, essential to every thing transacted by it. Now the novelty of their interpretation is alone a just objection against it. But it is well, if it does not hurt their own cause, as much as it will ours. It ought to have been considered that the words, " Go " ye," &c. were spoken to Apostles only, and their successors, viz. the Bishops of the Church. And if the minister be essential, then none but such, none but Apostles and Bishops, neither Deacon, Priest, nor laic, must baptize. Thus, though the pri- mitive church did not make the minister essential, yet they 96 Rec.E. KelsaWs Ansivcr thought the office so firmly tied to the episcopal chair, that no man could regularly baptize without leave from thence ; and accordingly would not ordinarily suffer either a Presbyter or a Deacon to administer this sacrament in the presence of a Bishop ; even by the same rule, as all succeeding ages have forbidden laics to do it, when a lawful minister can be had. It is true, in the New Testament we hear of Deacons baptizing, but that was when no Apostle or Bishop was present ; and only furnishes us with a precedent, that upon some emergencies others may validly baptize, besides those to whom the commission so to do was first given. 5. Sir, with submission to better judgments, I rather take the commission to be a conveyance of power to the Apostles and Bishops, the spiritual governors of the Church, not only to re- ceive the converted world into the Church, by baptizing them with water in the name of the Trinity, but also to appoint the ministers of that rite, not only Presbyters and Deacons, but (where these cannot be had) even laics too, and moreover to be the sole and supreme judges in case of any irregular or disputed Baptism, to annul it, or to receive it as valid, and all this under no other restraint or limitation, but what the analogy of faith, the needs of the Church, and their own discretion shall impose upon them. And this, with a promise from our Lord to ratify what they shall jointly decree in matters of that nature; " Lo, " I am with you" &c. and, " Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth " shall be bound in heaven ; and whatsoever ye shall loose on " earth shall be loosed in heaven.'' 6. This, I think, Mr. Bingham has in the main proved for me, in the second and third sections of the first part of his Scholas- tical History of Lay-baptism. To this account may be referred those passages quoted by our adversaries from St. Ignatius and others who wrote in the infancy of the Church, in which the dis- pensing of the sacraments, and other branches of the ecclesias- tical power, are lodged solely in the Bishop. And in the same sense we may well understand St. Chrysostom, when he affirms, that these things are administered only by those sacred hands, the " hands he means of the Bishop o," whom he calls Upe.vs, as the Latins called him sacerdos. And to the same purpose Tertul- lian, Jerome, Isidore of Seville, and others speak, as we shall ° TCnv Tov UpiMs Xe'yo). Vide infra. to Dr. Waterland' s First Letter. 97 see by and by ; of whom howsoever they might lodge the right of administration originally in the Bishop, yet not one made the minister (as some moderns have done) essential to the sa- crament. 7. This power the Bishops of the primitive Church did put in practice. The same power the Bishops of the Reformed Church of England did ever claim, have ever used, not finding themselves confined or abridged in the use of it by any general Council : sometimes allowing laymen to baptize in case of necessity ; at other times obliging their people to call in a lawful minister on those occasions ; never declaring Lay-baptism null, but (in con- formity to the practice of the primitive Church) taking always more care of the matter and form, than of the minister of the sacrament. 8. This, Sir, at present is my opinion. And I do not yet see, that I hereby carry the power of the Church or of her Prelates higher in this than it ever was in the dispensation of the other sacrament, which was never yet (and, I hope, will not now begin to be) thought a grievance by the true sons of the Church, so long as there was no mutilation, nor any error committed in essentials. I mean no more than what Dr. Cave gives an ac- count of in his Primitive Christian, parti, chap. 11. where he says, the Eucharist was wont to be sent home to those, who could not be present at the public service, by the hands of a Deacon, or, in cases of necessity, by any other person. He in- stances in the story of Serapion, to whom the Priest, who kept it ready consecrated by him, being himself sick, and unable to visit him, sent it by the hands of a little boy, (the historian Eusebius calls him iratbapiov,) who, as he had been instructed by the priest, put it into the old man's mouth a little before he expired. The story is in Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. vi. cap. 44. This was certainly as large a stretch of power, and as great a variation from the primitive institution, as the permission of Lay-baptism can well be imagined, and yet not unusual in that age. 9. I add, that if the account here offered (of the commission, " Go ye," &c.) be true, it seems to me extremely to alter the whole nature of our dispute, and to make the question of Lay- baptism a question only of discipline, not of doctrine. And then our superiors may admit a Baptism irregularly administered by a lay-usurper as valid, if they please, at the same time that WATEHLAND, VOL. VI. H 98 Rev. E. KelsalVs Answer they censure his presumption in so acting ; or, if they think fit, they may refuse to ratify such Baptisms, and order a readminis- tration, without censuring what former ages or other churches have done, and consequently without bringing themselves or the Church under those inconvenient and indeed ruinous conse- quences, which have been shewn to be inevitable, and to lie very heavy on Mr. W.'s side of the question, whilst it is looked upon as matter of doctrine. For doctrines are sullen things, and admit no alteration or abatement for the sake of any incon- veniences, how great soever. But discipline is variable, and has been changed, and may be so again, as the circumstances and necessities of the Church shall require. 10. But let us hear what Mr. W.'s judgment of the com- mission is. He says, " It leaves no more room for lay-baptism, " than for lay-ordination, lay-absolution, lay-consecration of the " Eucharist, lay-preaching and praying and adds, that " If we " go from the institution in one case, we may as reasonably do "it in all, supposing the like necessity." But I deny, that admitting the Baptism of a layman, under the qualifications foregoing, as " valid, is going from the institution."' Besides, the like necessity cannot be supposed in the instances he alleges. For neither ordination, nor absolution, nor the Eucharist, are so universally nor so absolutely necessary to salvation, as Baptism is declared to be P. What he means by " lay- preaching and " praying" in this place, I do not well know. 1 presume he will not forbid lay- Christians to pray together in public in those countries, (supposing there be such,) where there are no Clergy, nor any possibility of procuring a Clergy to do it for them ; and where there are, there is not the like necessity. And so for lay- preaching. Shall a lay-Christian, in a savage infidel nation, think it unlawful for him to publish the Gospel among such people ? Who ever blamed the captive maid of Iberia for attempting the conversion of that nation, which she happily effected by her divulging the Gospel, and by the miracles which God enabled her to work on that occasion ? Who ever found fault with Frumentius, a Christian layman, for the like attempt in the Indies ? Both these did indeed take care by their counsels and endeavours to have in due time a regular Clergy settled in those countries. But till that could be done, necessity, which has no law, justified what they did. P John iii. 5. to Dr. WaicrlancTs First Letter. 99 11. With submission, I think he (as well as the author of Lay-baptism Invalid) mistakes the case of Saul and Uzza, whom he produces as instances of God's displeasure for meddling with the priesthood, although in extraordinary emergencies. It does not appear to me that Saul usurped the sacerdotal office. For the sacrifices he offered were done indeed by his order, and in that sense he may be said to be the doer of them : but they were done by the ministry of the priests, who were there pre- sentj say the learned, being by their office (a competent number of them) constant attendants upon the array. Num. x. 9. Deut. XX. 2. I Sam. xiv. iH, 19,36. But his crime was his impatience and distrust of the Divine Providence, which prevailed with him to violate the orders given him to wait till Samuel came, 1 Sara. X. 8. who, had he been there, was not qualified with his own hands to have offered sacrifice, being hiraself no priest, but a Levite, i Chron. vi. 33. Psalm xcix. 6 : on which account, when- ever we hear of Samuel's offering sacrifices, we must understand no more than that he, being a prophet, a judge, and eminent magistrate in the government, caused or ordered it to be done by the proper minister, and was the chief person present at the solemnity. 1 2. Neither do I think Uzza to have been an usui-per of the priesthood. He was a Levite, and probably a Cohathite. Which order was appointed to carry the ark of God themselves, not (like Philistines) to put it into a cart. So that, whatever danger the ark might seem to be in, it was a danger occasioned through their neglect and omission of their duty. But the same law which re- quired them to carry it themselves, required them so to carry it upon staves as not to touch it, Num.iv.15. (leath being the penalty threatened in case they did. Which penalty accordingly Uzza suffered for his rashness^ rather than usurpation or ambition of an office that did not belong to him. 13. In the mean time, the question among us is not whether lay-persons may lawfully baptize, much less exercise other parts of the sacerdotal office. So far am I from affirming any such thing, that I believe, whatever pretence they may have, so much as to baptize even in cases of utmost necessity, depends alto- gether upon the will of their ecclesiastical superiors, who may allow or disallow it, as they see cause, being a matter wherein the discipline rather than doctrine of the Church is concerned, as I said before. But to presume to do it in ordinary cases, in H 2 I 100 Mev. E. KelsaWs Ansicer defiance of the Christian priesthood, as our schismatical lay- preachers do, is what we all readily agree, there is no more ground for in scripture, than there is for lay-ordination, lay- absolution, &c. Concerning such usurpers, Mr. W. and we are all of the same opinion : and, were there room or leisure for it, or were it pertinent to my design, I should willingly join with him in treating such acts of sacrilegious impiety and presump- tion with all the severity of language he can desire. All that we insist upon is, (as he very truly observes^) that a Baptism administered (though by a lay-Christian,) with water in the name of the blessed Trinity is valid to the recipient, howsoever criminal it may be in the administrator. To which purpose some have (not amiss) applied the maxim, quod fieri nan debuit factum valet. Others, I perceive, allege the case of a marriage solemnized by a person not ordained, as parallel to this, and apply the maxim alike to both cases. Whether the parallel be in every respect just or not, I shall not take upon me to deter- mine ; only shall offer you my reasons why Mr, W.'s account of this matter gives me no satisfaction. 14. He begins with telling you, that " the maxim is ti'ue only " of errors in circumstantials, not of errors in essentials." His distinction is very good, and touches the cases home, which he there puts, of polygamy and an incestuous marriage. But it will do him no service in the case before us, till it be proved, first, that the minister is essential in Baptism ; secondly, that he is not equally so in marriage too. He does indeed affirm, that he is essential in the first, and but circumstantial in the other ; that in the case of marriage it is decent that it be done by a Priest or a Deacon, that in Baptism it is necessary. But he barely says this : he tells us, in the case of Baptism, that " the " commission is plain and clear, and leaves no more room for " lay-baptism, than for lay-ordination," &c. and in the case of marriage, that " it is no more than a covenant between the two " parties, that its essence is their mutual contract, and that the " minister is a circumstance only." All this he affirms. But till some proof be offered for it besides his own affirmation, he will not take it amiss to be answered, as Tertullian, St. Austin, and others of great name have lately been answered, that " all " this is only his own private opinion." 15. In the mean time, if this be so, if marriage be no more than " a covenant between the two parties, if its essence be their to Dr. WaterlancPs First Letter. 101 " mutual contract, and the minister but a circumstance then I cannot see, but the pretended marriages of the Quakers are as valid as ours, though not so decent and regular. They have the essence, the covenant, and mutual contract between the two parties. And their want of the minister is only an error in circumstantials, which, howsoever it may affect the decency and regularity of the thing, cannot render it invalid or null. And then, why does not our Church receive and own such a marriage I What need the civil legislature, whenever they have occasion in any act of parliament to speak of such pretended marriages, always to subjoin a proviso, that nothing in that act shall extend or be construed so as to declare them good ? And what need the Quakers, more than others, be so careful not to die intestate, but that they know, without a will the law will not suffer their children to inherit, as looking upon them to be illegitimate ? 16. And those, who, under CromwelFs usurpation, being not content with having been joined together in a pretended mar- riage by the civil magistrate, were desirous to have a minister do that work for them again, desired this, I am inclined to think, not merely upon secular considerations, to rescue their children from the disgrace and inconveniences attending an ille- gitimate issue, (which they had cause enough to fear, in case the royal family should ever come to be restored,) but especially to satisfy their own consciences that they were really married, and consequently that their cohabitation as man and wife was lawful. 17. I ever thought, that in every vow or promissory oath which we make to one another, God had become a party as well as we, being called in, not only as a witness, but as a judge too, a revenger if we violate our vow : and consequently, that in marriage, (an act of religion of Divine institution, and a most solemn vow,) there had been, besides the two parties contracting, a third party also, even the author of marriage, the God who calls himself Love, who appears there by his minister, his repre- sentative, proxy, and commissioner, to ratify and complete the whole transaction, as well as to give his blessing to it. This to me appears very plain from the institution itself, from God's owning it to be his act, Mai. ii. J 5. from the nature of religious actions in general, and from our own rubrics and form of mati i- mony prescribed in our most excellent Liturgy. In this sense, I presume, it is God who receives the woman at the hands of her 102 Rev. E. KelsaWs Answer father or other friend, and disposes of her where she is designed, in aUusion to Prov. xix. 14. And more plainly, when the man and the woman have performed their share of the solenmity, God, by the hands and mouth of his Priest who represents him, completes the whole action by joining their hands together, proclaiming it to be his own act. (" Those whom God hath " joined together/' says the Priest who acts in his name, " let no " man put asunder,") and then declaring them to be "man and " wife together/' AVhich declaration the Priest makes " in the " name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." And here it is that the conjugal relation begins : now they com- mence man and wife, and from henceforward in the remaining part of the office they are so styled, which they were not before, all the former part being only preparatory to this. So that to me the essence of the marriage seems to consist in this last act of the Priest's joining both together, and declaring them to be man and wife in the name of the blessed Trinity ; unless you would rather have it consist in the joint concurrence of all the three parties acting in it, which I shall not dispute with you. 18. It is plain, through the whole solemnity the minister acts " for God and in God's namCj which," Mr. W. says, " none can " do without commission from him." From which account of marriage, I flatter myself that I have gained the point I aimed at, and proved, that the Priest is at least as necessary in mar- riage, as he is in Baptism ; or that, if he is but circumstantial in that, he is not essential in this ; and consequently, that in respect of a layman\s acting instead of the Priest, the maxim, quod fieri non debuit, &c. will hold as well in Baptism, as it will in man'iage. For in both God is alike represented by him that ministers ; and if, when a layman usurps the office in one, even Mr.W. being judge, the act shall nevertheless be valid., I see no reason at all why it should not in the other too. 19. The only thing that can be alleged here is, that there is an express commission ("Go ye," &c.) granted only to the Apostles and their successors to baptize, which cannot be said of marriage. 20. But not to repeat what has been said already concerning this matter, I think this objection will still admit of a twofold answer. 21. 1st, That the general commission given to the Apostles and their successors, (viz. to the whole Christian priesthood,) to Dr. Waterland'' s First Letter. to represent Almighty God, and to act in his name in his several transactions with mankind, reaches to all acts of religion, and consequently to the solemnization of marriage too, and thereby makes marriage and Baptism equal, in respect of the pretended necessity of a lawful minister to the validity of the action. 22. adly. That so to interpret the baptismal commission as to make the minister essential to true Uaptism, is to teach a doctrine which is altogether new, is countenanced by none of the ancient Fathers, is contradicted by some, is disclaimed by the known practice of the primitive Church, and ought therefore to be rejected by us. 23. This ought not to be said without proof, which is to appear by and by. In the mean time, holy scripture suggests something further in relation to this matter, from the parallel case of circumcision a parallel more just and nearer akin to the subject of our dispute than that of marriage was. 24. If the administration of the sacrament of circumcision was not restrained by the institution to the priesthood, as Mr. L. suggests, (Lay-baptism Invalid, part i. p. 104,) but left in com- mon to such of the Jewish laymen as had skill and dexterity enough to perform it, as is the general opinion ; then we have an instance from scripture of a sacrament esteemed even in ordinary cases to be regularly administered by lay hands. And seeing the Christian sacrament of Baptism is, if not more, cer- tainly not less necessary to salvation than circumcision was, John iii. 5, seeing Baptism and circumcision have both the very same spiritual intendment and mystical signification, and are in a manner the same in substance, conveying the same grace, sealing the same covenant, Kom. iv. 11. and Col. ii. 11, and differing only in the rite of administration ; we want a reason, why Baptism may not in like manner be validli/ at least ad- ministered by the laity in cases extraordinary., where a lawful dispenser of the sacrament cannot be had. Sir-, I shall (till better evidence appear) presume to affirm, that there is no ap- pearance of any ground for this difference between the one and the other in the reason and nature of the two ceremonies ; nor any real foundation for it in scripture interpreted, as it ought to be, by the judgment and practice of antiquity, and of the Catholic Church in all ages. 25. But if the dispensing of that Jewish sacrament was con- fined to the priesthood, it is nevertheless plain, from the instance 104 Reo. E. Kelsall's Answer of Zipporah circumcising her own child, Exod. iv. 24, 25, 26, that cases of necessity were excepted. It is pleasant here to observe, how Mr. L. in considering this case, gives up all his principles at once. He says, upon supposition, that " circum- " cision was to be performed by the master, as he was the " priest of his family ; yet it does not follow that Zipporah did " any thing more than what she had a right to do ; because her " husband''s authority was devolved upon her in his sickness, when " he was unable to do it himself; — that he might order his wife " to do it in his stead, and consequently it was interpretatively " done by himself, because by his authority," &c. These are very remarkable words ; and I hope he will not hereafter blame us, although we should say, that in cases of extreme necessity, vi^hen the Priest is absent, or (if present) under a natural incapa- city, his power may devolve upon a woman ; that in such cases he (much more the Church) may order those (even women) to dispense a sacrament, who have no authority so to do by the in- stitution ; and that, what such substitutes do in pursuance of those orders, is by interpretation his act, or rather the act of the Church from whom they received their deputation. I think, all this follows plainly from M. L.'s own concessions. 26. But the Calvinist writers have treated Zipporah very coarsely '1, and passed hard censures upon her on this account. They have styled her, stidta et iracunda midier, and fear not to deny that God approved what she did. Calvin, and our coun- tryman Cartwright labour to aggravate her pretended crime as much as possible ; and will not allow the event to be a sufficient declaration that the act pleased God. Zanchy observes, that the angel was appeased^, " because the child was circumcised, not " because it was she that did it." In which words he gives us all that we need to insist upon in the question : " For seeing " our adversaries,^' to use Mr. Hooker's words on this occasion, " are not able to deny, but circumcision, being in that very " manner performed, was to the innocent child which received " it true circumcision ; why should that defect, whereby circura- " cision was so little weakened, be to Baptism a deadly wound f 1 Calv. Inst. lib. iv. cap. 15. sect. 22. book v. note 62. Jan. et Trem. in locum. H. Zancb. ^ Placatus fuit angelus : verum Expl. cap. V. Ep. ad Epb. loc. de quod fuerit circumcisus puer, non Bapt. cap. 4, 11,17. Wendelin. Christ, quod ilia circumciderit. Zanch. in loco Tbeol. lib. i. cap. 22. thes.8. supra citato. r Quoted by Hooker, Eccles. Pol. to Dr. Waterland's First Letter. 105 27. And here it will not be unseasonable to add the observa- tion of a learned writer well versed in the Jewish customs'. He says, that a Christian, being himself uncircumcised, is there- fore not admitted among the Jews to circumcise an infant : but adds, that, if such a thing should nevertheless at any time happen, they do not esteem a circumcision so administered to be invahd, but reckon such a child truly circumcised, and justify themselves by a proverbial maxim, quod factum factum., exactly answerable to ours, quod fieri non debet, factum valet. 28. As I am writing this part of my letter, another instance of a female administration of this rite occurs to me, which I should have placed a little before, had I thought of it, and am not content yet to pass it by. It is in i Maccab. i. 63. in the original thus, Kat ras yvvaiKa's ras TreptreTjuT/Kuitts ra riKva avrHv idavcLTcoaav Kara to 'np6(TTay\xa. 29. I have done with the case of circumcision. But before I enter upon the third part of my design, there remain yet one or two particulars in this part of Mr. W.'s letter to be considered. 30. He argues from the nullity of subjects acting in the civil government without a competent authority, viz. " levying sol- " diers, naturalizing strangers," doing other things in the queen's name without order and warrant. I know not in what sense the levying of soldiers without authority can be said to be null and void. Illegal indeed it is, criminal, and penal in the highest degree. But concerning such actions in general, does the consequence hold from things secular and civil to sacred ? Are the reasons the same in both ? Because all grants, deputa- tions, commissions, &c. from earthly princes to their subjects, and in general all human transactions, whereby we bind our- selves to each other, ought to appear genuine and voluntary, and must therefore pass under forms of law, to ascertain the rights of all parties concerned, and prevent the mischiefs which must otherwise accrue through fraud or forgery, will it follow, that we must not trust God himself also without the like securi- ties I God is not under the like necessity in the administration of Baptism, that mortal princes are in the administration of their earthly governments, to annul that which is done in his name by an usurper of his authority. I say, he is under no necessifi/ to do this : much less to do it to the prejudice of an J. Buxtoif. Synag. Jud. cap. iv. 106 Rev. E. KelsaWs Ansiver innocent person, a person incapable by his age of refusing or choosing the baptism of a schisniatical usurper. Nay, where the receiver, by choosing or knowingly accepting a baptism so irre- gularly given, makes himself equally criminal with the giver, no man can prove, that he has not even in this case received the sacrament, that is, the outward part of it, which the Church never yet thought fit to be repeated, although he be still desti- tute of the grace of the sacrament by reason of the schismatical state and indisposition he lies under, rendering him at present incapable of it. Which incapacity his sincere repentance, abso- lution, and reconciliation to the communion of the Church will effectually remove, and perfect that which before was defective. But this can be the case only of adults, who are bound not only to demand the sacrament of Baptism as soon as they are quali- fied for it, but to demand it too of the proper minister, and in a regular manner. If an infant be baptized by improper hands, the guilt and all the consequences of it lie at their doors who were actors in it. The infant, having received the whole sub- stance (the matter and form) of the sacrament, is as sure of the grace attending it, as all the promises of the New Testament can make him. Nor is it to be imagined, that he can miss the blessing purely for a defect that cannot be justly charged upon him, who was only passive in the administration. 31. I speak here more especially of such graces, blessings, and privileges attending this sacrament, as the infant is at present capable of possessing and reaping benefit from, during the state of infancy. In which state if he dies, I can by no means think it is all one to his future condition, whether he were baptized or not, as some notions lately advanced would incline us to believe. We have been told, that the practice of Lay-baptism in cases of necessity was at first grounded upon an opinion, that that sacrament is of absolute necessity to the receiver. And what do they say to this? the Calvinists, and of late others, have been pleased to condemn this opinion, and brand it as super- stitious, (though it prevailed almost universally in the Church in all former ages,) and have put a new, a loose, and uncertain construction upon those decretory words of our Lord, John iii. 5, that they might with the better grace object to the practice said to be grounded thereupon. 32. Now concerning the state of baptized persons dying in infancy, the Church affirms, with good authority, that they are to Dr. Waterlan give any ground for it, which I paraphrase thus ; " The Bishop hath the (original) " right to give Baptism. Next under him the Presbyters and " Deacons, but not without permission from and dependence " upon the Bishop, for order's sake and decency in the Church " of God, which is necessary for the preservation of peace." (It is plain he speaks here of the ordinary administrations performed in public.) " Else'' (i. e. abating for the necessity of preserving peace, order, and decency, as before) " there is nothing in the " nature of the sacrament itself, but what laymen may administer " too ; for what is received in common may be given in com- " mon." In the following words he seems to reprove the forward Tertull. L. de Bapt. cap. 17. honorem. Quo salvo, salva pax est. Dandi quidem habet jus summus Alioquin etiam laicis jus est. Quod sacerdos qui est Episcopus. Dehinc enim ex seqxio accipitur, ex aequo dari Presbyteri et Diaconi, non tamen sine potest, &c. Episcopi auctoritate, propter Ecclesise 112 Rev. E. KelsaWs Answer presumption of some laics, who took upon themselves to baptize, even when there was no great necessity for it, admonishing them to be more modest and cautious in the use of this power, seeing even their superiors in the Church, the Presbyters and Deacons, have it in subordination to the Bishop, and must not usurp the episcopal office, and therefore that they much more should con- tent themselves to use it in private, not in public, and that too but in cases of extreme necessity, and when the ordinary ad- ministrator cannot be had. 7. This testimony from Tertullian will receive further light and strength from another passage in the same author. In his exhortation to chastity he inveighs violently against second mar- riages ; and, among other arguments which he brings against them, he alleges this for one^, that, considering the necessity a layman may sometime lie under (in the absence of a Priest) to baptize, and do things which ordinarily belong only to the sacerdotal order, he ought to observe the sacerdotal discipline too ; and that it would be a great absurdity for a man twice mari'ied to do these things, because a second marriage, accord- ing to the discipline of those times, unqualified a man for being ever admitted to holy orders. You see, Sir, he insists upon the same qualification in any layman, who in case of necessity should baptize, which the Council of Elvira did some time after in their thirty-eighth canon, wherein they give leave to those laymen only, whose own Baptism was entire, and who had not been twice married, to baptize a catechumen in case of necessity. Both Tertullian and the Council desiring to have that office done, if not by a clergyman, at least by a layman not unquali- fied to be a clergyman ; and both the one and the other agree- ing, that, in such cases of extremity, a layman might do it con- sistently enough with the discipline then in use. 8. And to prevent any objection from the layman's offering being here spoken of, as well as his baptizing, it is sufficient to remember what Dr. Cave tells us relating to this matter'', viz. Tertull. Exh. ad Cast. cap. vii. Western Church. See can. Iviii. of Igitur si habes jus sacerdotis in the Sixth Council in Trullo, and temetipso, ubi necesse est habeas, Balsamon's note upon it : Ot fievroi oportet etiam disciplinam sacerdotis \arlvoi S^vfia 8iriveKws eyKoXjrLa (^epov- necesse sit habere jus sacerdotis. res, Kal Xai'Kot ovrfs, ov povov iavrols Digamus tinguis, Digamus offers &c. tovtcov fieTaStBoaa-iv us ayiao-fiarav, edit. Pamel. aXXa Kal erepois. Latini autem azyma i 0 rj p(v (Ipx'l ^'^i' X^' pKTfiov 8ia a)(i(TpaTos y(yov€V' 01 fie Tijs (KKXrjrTuis dTToaTavTes, ovk(Ti '((txov Trjv \api.v Tov ayiov nvfvpaTos ecj) iav- rois. fTTt'XiTTf yhp fj /ifrafiotriy roi 81a- Konrjuai Tr)v aKaa'i. fit o, u>s napd Xdi- Ku>v iStiTTTi^npevovs rovs nap nvrSiv, (KiXevaavip^optvovs (tt\ ttju (KKkrjcTiav, TO) (ikTjdLvii fianriapaTi to) Trjs (kkXtj- tr/ds uvaKa6alp((Tdai.. 116 Rev. E. KelsaU's Ansicer party : who, though they sided with these great men in the dis- pute, might mistake the principles upon which they acted, or might act upon different principles of their own. For in- stance, Tertullian was for rebaptization, but not upon the same grounds that our adversaries tell us St. Cyprian was. I see not at present how this conjecture can be disproved : and if it be allowed, it easily reconciles the difference between Firmilian's and St. Cyprian's own account of the principles they went upon, and this account of St. Basil. 15. But suppose in the mean time, what cannot be proved, that St. Cyprian himself had argued in that manner as is pre- tended ; then, as on the one hand Mr. W. must upon his own principle confess, that St. Cyprian spoke therein not the doc- trine of the Church, but " his own private opinion ;" (for Mr. W. owns, that " that question, whether heresy and schism nulled " orders, and reduced heretical priests to mere laymen, was " determined by the Church in the negative ;") so, on the other hand, I cannot see how Mr. W. can prove, that the nullity of Lay-baptism (if it was his opinion) was other than Ms own pri- vate opinion too. He says indeed of the Cyprianists and their adversaries, that " both sides supposed the nullity of Lay-bap- " tisms as an undoubted principle f and that the main dispute was " whether heresy and schism nulled orders." He says this, but upon what authority, we are left to seek. And certainly he gives us a very wrong account of the state of that controversy. For, were it true, what he affirms, that the nullity of Lay-bap- tisms was received by both sides as an undoubted principle, it would be next to miraculous, that no one word of this should be met with in the many letters and treatises that were written upon that dispute, not the least mention made of such a principle, when there was so fair an occasion for it, neither by Pope Stephen and his party on the one side, nor by Firmilian, St. Cy- prian, or any of their adherents on the other ; nay, that the direct contrary to this, the validity of Lay-baptism, should be affirmed, and taken for granted too (as if he expected no contra- diction in it) by Tertullian, who was a stout and learned cham- pion of the latter party, and indeed senior to Cyprian and Firmilian in that dispute, and doubtless understood the grounds of it as well as they. So far is it from being certain that Cy- prian, Firmilian, or their adherents, who asserted the rebapti- zation of heretics, (much less their opposers,) " supposed the to Dr. Wat&rlancTs First Letter. 117 " nullity of Lay-baptisms as an undoubted principle I" whilst, on the other hand, it is demonstratively certain, that Tertullian, who asserted the same thing, did it upon principles altogether different. 1 6. I have offered all I had to offer concerning St. Cyprian, and persuade myself that Mr.W. and his friends cannot easily wrest him away from us : but if they could, still I am of opinion that they must give us St. Basil in exchange ^. For after this Father had laid before us the Cyprianic notion, that heresy ex- tinguished the sacerdotal character, insomuch that a Baptism administered by an heretical priest ought to be so esteemed, as if administered by a mere layman, although (as Mr. L. truly observes, Second Part of Lay-Baptism Inval. p. 178.) St. Basil himself espoused the same notion, (and perhaps the whole Catholic Church with him,) reckoning persons in such circum- stances to be reduced to laymen ; yet he concludes, nevertheless, that a person so baptized may be received into the communion of the Church with confirmation alone, without being rebaptized, if such be the custom of that particular church where the case happens : and he justifies this concession with reasons drawn from ecclesiastical policy. All which sure he would not have done, had he thought Lay-baptism to be so far null and void, that it is not even in the power of the Church to receive or ratify it in any case. It is plain St. Basil thought this a point of discipline rather than of doctrine, and consequently subject to the rules and customs of particular churches, and to be governed as the interests of religion should require. And if what Dr. Brett suggests" be true, that "when we cite a canonical " epistle of St. Basil, we do not produce the authority of a " single Father, but of the whole Greek Church then we have the authority of " the whole Greek Church" asserting, that the Church may, if she pleases, receive and ratify a Baptism admin- istered by a mere layman. For in St. Basil's judgment, (not 'EneiSav Se oXcor ebo^t Tiat tojv Baptisms administered by those here- Kara Tr)v 'Atrial', olKovofiiai evexa twv tics, he inclines in his own jirivate TToWoov, be\6rivai axiTwv to ^aTTTLcrfia, opinion to have them repeated : but to-To) SfKToV. S. Basil, ibid. It is to immediately adds, 'Eav /icWoi fiiWrj be observed, that he makes the same ti) KaQokov oiKovoyiia. ijxTrobiov eaecrdai concession also in favour of the En- tovto, ttoXiv tw ^d(i xPW'^°^' cratites, who by their irregular Bap- and gives a reason for it groimded tisms defied, and particularly studied upon prudential considerations, to prevent the Baptism of the Church. ' Mr. B.'s Scholastical History Con- F'or speaking in the next words of sidered, part i. sect. 15. p. 59. 118 Mev. E. KelsaWs Answer to mention now St. Cyprian and Firmiiian,) an heretical priest is no more. 17. Mr. L. says, that the Baptisms here allowed of by St. Basil were only schisniatical, not Lay-baptisms. It may be so. But our question concerning tliem is not what they really were, nor what opinion the Asiatic churches had of them, but what St. Basil's o])inion of them was. And that both appears plainly from St. Basil's own words, and is also granted by Air. L. viz. that the ministers of those Baptisms were by their schisms and heresies become mere laymen. I say, Mr. L. grants this to have been St. BasiPs opinion. And yet even such Baptisms St. Basil consents to allow upon prudential motives, for the sake of peace, and a due regard to those Asiatic churches who did receive them, and particularly oUovoiiias €V€Ka tS>v ttoW&v, for the sake of those (jreai multitudt'S who were concerned therein. I wish the same considerations might have an equal regai'd now. 18. I have been forced to join St. Cyprian and St. Basil toge- ther, though considerably distant in time. But the next evi- dence in order of time, after TertuUian and St. Cyprian, are the Fathers of the Spanish Council of Elvira, or Eliberis, held in the year 305; who in the thirty-eighth canon k do not so much assert, as suppose and take for granted the liberty of laymen to baptize in cases of necessity, nothing being more common in that age ; but restrain the use of that liberty to such alone of the laity as had not unqualified themselves for holy orders. This we observed before, in examining the evidence from TertuUian. 19. I cannot imagine to what end we are here reminded by Mr. L. and Dr. Brett, that this Council was not general ; seeing we inquire only into fact. And it is to be hoped, that the Bishops of so great a nation as Spain, being assembled together in council, may afford as considerable an evidence of the doctrine and discipline of the Western Church, as a letter from one single Bishop to another (St. Basil' to Amphilochius) can of the Eastern. It is not at all likely, that such an assembly of Catholic Bishops would decree any thing (especially in matters of such importance as are the Christian sacraments) contrary k Peregre navigantes, aut si Eccle- episcopum eum perducat, ut per sia in proximo non fuerit, posse fide- nianus impositionetn perfici posset, lem, (qui lavacrum suum integrum Concil. Illiberit. can. xxxviii. apud habet, nec sit bigamus,) baptizare in Barth. Carranzam. necessitate infirmitatis positum cate- • Dr. Brett, part i. sect. 5. of Mr. chnmenum, ita ut si supervixerit ad B.'s Schol. Hist. Considered. to Dr. WaterlancTs First Letter. 119 to the received doctrine and discipline of the Church ; and less likely yet, that they could do such a thing without being censured for it, either by the writings of private Fathers, or by some public act of some other council. This, I say, is not at ail likely ; if we consider how great a flame had been raised in the Church upon the question of heretical Baptisms not many years before, which was a question not of greater importance than this. 20. Whether the story of St. Athanasius's baptizing his play- fellows, when a boy^ be true or false, yet it ought to be observed, that Ruffinus and Sozomen, who relate, seem to applaud the decree made upon it, at least censure it not : which surely they must have done, or must have incurred censure themselves, had Lay-baptism been invalidated by the discipline of the Catholic Church in those times. Ruffinus would have been sure to have St. Jerome upon his back, who, living as he did in Palestine, so near Alexandria, where this thing is said to be done, could neither be ignorant of the discipline used in that part of the world, nor want opportunity of detecting the falsity of the story, and would have been forward (had there been room for it) to expose Ruffinus on that account, for \\ hose reputation it is well known he had no extraordinary tenderness or regard. 2r. The author (whether Hilary the Deacon, or whosoever he was) of the commentaiy upon St. Paul's Epistles, extant under the name of St. Ambrose™, wrote under the Pontificate of Damasus, that is, somewhat after the middle of the fourth century, in a learned age, and not very distant from the aposto- Hcal, when it is not easy to think, either that the nature and extent of the baptismal commission was not well understood, or that the practice of the apostolical age was entirely forgotten. He (contrary to the sense of Calvin and other moderns) supposes the offices of baptizing and preaching separable", though they are botli joined together in the commission. And elsewhere" he " V. Pseud- Ambros. Comment, in multiplicaretur, omnibus inter initia I Tim. iii. 15. concessum est et evaii<>;elizare, et bap- " Non omnis qui baptizat irloneus tizare, et Scrij)turas in Ecclesia expla- est et evangelizare. Pseud-Ambros. nare. At ubi autem omnia loca cir- in I Cor. i. 17. idem in Gal. iv. Ne- cumplexa est Ecclesia, conventicula que Petrus Diaconos habuit aut diem constituta sunt, et rectores et cretera qusesivit, quando (Jornelium cum officia in ecclesiis sunt ordinata, ut omni domo ejus baptizavit, nec ipse, nulhis de clero auderet qui ordinatus sed jussit fratribus qui cum illo ierant non easet pi';psumere officiuin, quod ad Cornelium ab .loppe. Adhuc enim scitet non sibi credituin vel conces- praeter septem Diaconos nullus fuerat sum, et coepit alio ordineet providen- ordinatus. Ut ergo cresceret plebs et tia gubernari Ecclesia, quia si omnes Hev. E.Kelsall's Answer tells us, that at fii'st, for the swifter propagation of the Gospel, leave was given to all promiscuously to teach, baptize, and explain the scriptures, nay, to do these things in Ecclesia, whereof he gives an instance in the circumstances of Cornelius's Baptism, Acts x. which, he says, St. Peter, having at that time no deacons with him, did not administer himself, but commanded it to be done by those that were present. 32. He does indeed, a little after, say, that this large com- mission was withdrawn, when the circumstances of the Church made it no longer necessary, " Hinc ergo est," says he, " unde " nunc neque diaconi in populo prsedicant, neque clerici vel laici " baptizant." Which words imply, not that the one or the other were under a total prohibition in all cases, as Mr. L. seems to un- derstand it", but only that they did not do these things in populo, in their public assemblies for religious worship, not in ordinary cases, or when there was no necessity for it. Much less do these words imply, that, if they did it, it was not valid. For that would have been a contradiction to what he had been saying but just before. 23. Optatus Milevitanus wrote about the same time, who, it is plain, never thought the minister was of the essence of Bap- tism. In his fifth book against the Donatists, (p. 135. of M. Casaubon's edition at London, 1631,) he says, that of the three things concurring in Baptism, viz. the name of the Trinity, the faith of the receiver, and the person who administers, the last is not of equal authority or importance with the two former. " Duse priores permanent semper immutabiles et immotse : Tri- " nitas enim semper ipsa est : fides in singulis una est : vim " suam semper retinent ambae. Persona vero operantis intelli- " gitur duabus prioribus speciebus par esse non posse, ideo quod " sola esse videatur mutabilis :" And p. 145. speaking of our Lord's commission to his Apostles, he delivers his sentiments thus : " In quo baptizarentur gentes, a Salvatore mandatum est : " per quem baptizentur, nulla exceptione decretum est. Non eadem possent, irrationablle esset, et vulgaris res vilissima videretur. Hinc est unde nunc neque diaconi in populo praedicant, neque clerici vel laici bap- tizant. What he says of St. Peter in this place, he had affirmed before in I Cor. i. 17. viz. Apostolus Petrus cre- dentem Cornelium cum suis jussit baptizari, nec dignatus est, ministris adstantibus, hoc opus facere. See Dissenters' Baptism null and ooid, sect. 17. ° Second Part of Lay-Baptism In- valid, chap. ii. sect. 2. to Dr. Waterland' s First Letter. 121 " dixit Apostolis, Vos facite, alii non faciant. Quisquis in no- " mine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti baptizaverit, Apostolo- " rum opus implevit." He prosecutes this notion there for several pages together. 24. St. Gregory Nazianzeii lived and wrote about the same time. I have only a Latin version of his works, where in Orat. xl. which is an exhortation to Baptism, I read these words : " Omnes citra ulhmi discrimen vim perficiendse animse habere " existima, qui modo eadem fide sint informati." A little before he had said, " Tu vero neminera non satis dignum atque ido- " neum ad Baptists munus obeundum existima ; qui modo inter " pios censeatur, ac non aperte condemnatus sit, atque ab Ec- " clesia alienus." He gives such advice, as any of us would give to an adult in the like case, if any emergency should drive him to desire Baptism at the hands of a layman, to make application for it in the first place to a pious and good man, a professor of the same faith, and a member of the same communion. At worst, if, in case of extreme necessity, even such a layman can- not be had, and a schismatic or heretic be employed, as I con- ceive St. Gregory's limitation did not, so I presume Mr. W.'s principles will not condemn a Baptism, administered, with water, in the name of the Trinity, even by such a one, as utterly " null '■■ and void purely upon the account of his being a schismatic or " heretic." 25. And now we come to St. Jerome, who lived in the latter end of the same century. Sir, notwithstanding the great pains which Dr. Brett has been at, and the very plausible account which he gives us of St. Jerome's conference with the Luciferian, as if the principles maintained in it were altogether in favour of his hypothesis ; yet I find by experience it is possible to read the piece of St. J erome over without falling into the Doctor's opinion. Particularly as to his judgment of what Mr. Bingham has quoted? from thence in favour of Lay-baptism, viz. that it was a lapse of St. Jerome's pen or memory, and that through want of care he transcribed more from Tertullian than what was for his purpose, I must ask his pardon that I dissent from him. Whether P S. Hieron. adv. Lucif. c. iv. Ec- venit, ut sine chrismate et Episcopi clesiae salus in summi sacerdotis dig- jussione, neque Presbyter neque Dia- nitate pendet : cui si non exors quae- conus jus habeant baptizandi. Quod dam et ab hominibus eminens datur frequenter, si tamen necessitas cogit, potestas, tot in ecclesiis efficientur scimus etiam licere laicis. Ut enim schismata, quot sacerdotes. Inde accipit quis, ita et dare potest. 122 Rev. E. KelsalVs Answer he transcribed at all from TertuUian, neither he nor I know. But I find, upon reading the place, nothing but what is very much for St. Jerome''8 purpose, and extremely proper to support what the Catholic asserts in the former part of that chapter. And it is a fine art the Doctor has, to spirit away the testimony which stands against him, and which he cannot surmount, by making us believe St. Jerome did not mind what he was doing. It is like the other sovereign remedy used upon such occasions against a stubborn evidence, viz. " He speaks not the sense of " the Church, but his own private opinion." But it has hap- pened very luckily, that just now Mr. Bingham's Second Part of his Scholastical History is come to my hand, wherein he has sufiiciently justified this part of the evidence. To whom there- fore, and to St. Jerome himself, I shall refer you. 26. St. Austin, lib. vii. de Bapt. contra Donat. cap. 53. men- tions cases which had been sometimes put concerning ludicrous and mimical Baptisms, Baptisms given by those that are unbap- tized, or with a fallacious intent, or administered in jest to those who, being suddenly moved by the grace of God, have received it faithfully and devoutly. These are cases, which he owned no general or provincial council had determined : and therefore with very great caution and deference to the opinion of others, he gives us his own in these words ; " Nequaquam " dubitarem habere eos Baptismum, qui ubicunque et a quibus- " cunque illud verbis evangelicis consecratum, sine sua simula- *' tionc, et cum aliqua fide accepissent, quanquam eis ad salutem " spiritalem non prodesset, si charitate caruissent, qua Catho- " licse insererentur Ecclesise." 27. The same Father, lib. ii. contra Epist. Parmen. cap. 13. speaking of Baptism administered by lay hands, expresses him- self thus ; " Sed et si nulla necessitate usurpetur, et a quolibet " cuilibet detur, quod datum fuerit, non potest dici non datum, " quamvis recte dici possit iUicite datum. Hlicitara ergo usur- " pationem corrigit reminiscentis et poenitentis affectus. Quod " si non correxerit, manebit ad poenam usurpatoris quod datum " est, vel ejus qui illicite dedit, vel ejus qui illicite accepit ; non " tamen pro non dato habebitur." 28. Give me leave to suppose it hardly possible St. Austin should be ignorant what was the practice of the Church in his time ; nor at all likely, that he himself would go about (had it been in his power) to change the usages and traditions which to Dr. Waterland''s First Letter. 123 Ibi'iiier ages had recommended, or innovate any thing in the rituals or discipHne of the Church. I say, it is not Hkely that St. Austin should attempt this, whose deference for the autho- rity of the Church was so great, that he said, he would not believe the Gospel itself without it. Had this Father then known, that the Church disowned the mlidity of Baptisms ad- ministered by lay-Ohristians, is it at all probable, in the first place, that he would put such cases as above mentioned ; or so much as possible to imagine, he would (jive his opinion upon those cases as he does? that he could so much as hesitate, or give a doubtful uncertain answer upon the most extravagant of those cases I and determine the last of them in language so diametrically opposite to what he knew, could not but know, to be the practice of the Catholic Church l Believe it who can : it must be stronger evidence that can force my belief of it, than I ever expect to see. 29. And that Lay-baptism (in cases of necessity) was a thing frequently practised in his time, we have positive evidence from St. Austin himself, as I find him quoted from Gratian by JMr. Bingham, in the first part of the Scholastical History, chap. i. sect. 1 2. whose woi'ds concerning the custom in those cases are, "Etiam laicos solere dare sacramentum, quod acceperunt, solemus " audire." Dr. Brett does not give his reader a fair account of these words, (which he writes not,) when he tells him, " that " St. Austin had only heard so." I think the words will imply, that he had often heard so, had frequently been informed, that it was a usual custom among the laity so to do. What else can be the English of solere and solemus ? In the following part of the same quotation, St. Austin adds, that the custom took its rise from apostolical tradition. 30. Sir, I promised to pursue this matter no further than St. Austin, and therefore shall rest here, only refer you for fuller satisfaction to Mr. Bingham. Else it were easy to shew, besides divers of the ancients already quoted, that Isidore Hispalensis also, and others in the following ages, confirm my foregoing notion of the sense and limits of the baptismal commission, and upon it so expounded ground the validity of Lay-baptism, and the power of the Church to judge of Baptisms administered in an irregular manner. If I be not mistaken, our adversaries agree, that, after St. Austin''s time, the use of Lay-baptism in cases of necessity prevailed universally, not only in the Western 124 Rev. E. KelsalVs Answer Church, but the Eastern too, where St. Austin''s authority was nothing, his name scarce known, and the correspondence for some ages between the East and West not so good as to afford any ground of conjecture, that the East might (as if by infection) receive an irregular custom from the Latins. So that, were there no positive evidence of it, yet it seems most reasonable to believe they had the custom among them long before St. Austin. Dr. Smith, in the account he gives of the present state of the Greek churches, assures us the custom continues yet among them ; Epist. de Ecclesife Gi-secse Hodierno Statu, p. 74. " Hoc " in casu, at solo quidem, (neque aliter omnino fas erit,) si ingens " neutiquamque fictum moriendi periculum immineat, seculari " personse, qualiscunque sit sexus, cui intervenire contigerit, mo- " ribundum infantem tingere permissum est." 3 1 . That I am not deceived in these evidences from antiquity, which I have here produced, I am the more inclined to think, because I find the greatest men of our own holy Church concur in opinion, that the primitive Church did allow Lay-baptisms to be valid, viz. Dr. CaveP, Bishop Sparrow^, Mr. Thorn dike % Mr. Hooker% Archbishop Whitgift', and others". 39.. And now I have done with the ancients. Mr. W. in one part of his letter promises " to be thankful to me, if I will give " him but one plain authority, except Tertullian, for the validity " of Lay-baptism, as such, before St. Austin." 33. I know not what he means by his restriction [as such]. Else I would promise myself, that I have a just claim to his thanks, if the Fathers of the Illiberitan Council, if the commentator upon St. PauFs Epistles under the name of St. Ambrose, if St. Gregory Nazianzen, if St. Jerome, (not to mention Ruffinus, Optatus Mile- vitanus, &c.) lived and wrote before St. Austin. 34. And I reciprocally promise to be thankful to Mr. W. if he will produce within a thousand years after Christ, either one single canon of any council to confront that of the Eliberitan Fathers, or so much as a testimony of one single Father that speaks home on his side of the question. St. Basil bids the fair- est : but I think he is fairly made at least to stand neuter, if p Prim. Christ. P. i. c. 10. 1 Ration, on Common Prayer, in Private Baptism. Epilogue to the Trag. of the Church of England, book ii. chap. 19. Eccl. Pol. book V. sect. 61,62. t Defence against T. C. tract ix. chap. 5. p. 518. " Bishops Bancroft and Bilson, in the Conference at Hampton Court. to Dr. Wuterland'a First Letter. 125 not to list on the other side. The Fourth Council of Carthage (about St. Austin's time) can. loo. (apud Carranzam.) does indeed forbid women to baptize, {mulier bapt 'izare non prcesiimat,) but does not declare a Baptism even so administered to be utterly null and void. It is not improbable, that the Council might intend only to prohibit their baptizing in ordinary cases, or in public, and leave cases of necessity to be provided for according to custom. However, their forbidding women only, and not laymen, (at a time when laymen were known frequently to do it,) is a very plain, though tacit, allowance of the latter. 35. And I will be further thankful to him, if within that period he will produce so much as an instance of any one Christ- ian rebaptized by or in an episcopal church, purely upon account of his having been before only baptized by lay hands. I would not have set him such narroio hounds, but for the Constantino- politan Council of i 166, mentioned by Mr. Bingham, (first part of his Schol. Hist. p. 106.) except that Council, and I shall con- tent myself with an instance of it so much as fifty years old, or even later, done by the authority of any Bishop, whom the Rubric directs us to consult upon such occasions. 36. On the contrary, we can produce instances of the Church's receiving the Baptisms of those whose oi-dinations she had be- fore declared void. 1 shall not here concern myself with Mr. Bingham's argument, in the second part of his History, relating to Baptisms administered by degraded clergymen, further than asking, 1. Whether the same Lord and Head of the Church who gave, cannot withdraw a commission ? 2. Supposing he can, how this can be done, otherwise, than by the Church's acting in his name and by his authority, as well in withdrawing as granting the said commission ? 3. Whether the Church have not full au- thority to do this, considering the large and full promises her Lord has made to her, of ratifying and confirming all matters of discipline, which she shall think fit to transact in his name ? And, 4. Whether the Church has not upon divers occasions ex- pressed herself in such language towards heretics, schismatics, and delinquents, as if she thought she had such a power ? par- ticularly, whether she can express herself in higher language, supposing she has it ? For answer to which last queries, I refer myself to those passages which Mr. Bingham has quoted, in the second part of his Scholastical History, from her general, her patriarchal, and provincial councils. 126 Ber. E. KelsalPs Answer 37. Only I must observe, that the Church has been troubled with counterfeit j))-ksts (I mean persons pretending to be priests who never had any ordination) in ancient times, as well as of late. Ischyras, in the time of St. Athanasius, is one instance of this. He, being never ordained, usurped the office of Presbyter. Being called to account for this by Athanasius, and thereupon flying to the Eusebian faction, he was by them made Bishop of Mareotis, a place in Egypt within the diocese of Alexandria, without being previously ordained either Priest or Deacon. This man, among other enemies of the Nicene faith and accusers of St. Athanasius, was condemned and excommunicated by the Sardican Council. But no decree was made for annulling the Baptisms administered by him either after or before his pretended consecration to the Bishopric u hich he had usurped. You have the story in Socrates Scholasticus, Hist. Eccles. lib. i. cap. 27. and lib. ii. cap. 20. 38. The same Council declared all, whom Musseus and Euty- chianus had pretended to ordain, not to be Clergymen, because they themselves were usurpers and unordained, as we learn from M. Blastares's Syntagma Alphab. B. cap. iii. and Balsamon's Comment upon the eighteenth and nineteenth Canons of that Council. And yet the Council made no order for rebaptizing those who had been baptized by any of these usurpers. It is not unlikely, but more instances parallel to these may be found by those that are skilful in the antiquities of the Church. But these are sufficient to shew the sense of that bright age to which tiiey belong. Sect. IV. 1 . The Church of England practises exactly by the same rule. She receives foreigners baptized by men not episcopally ordained, as well as natives baptized by schismatical laymen, into her communion without rebaptization ; but none, whether natives or foreigners, to the exercise of the sacerdotal office without epi- scopal ordination : which shews, that she makes some difference between the case of Lay-hapt'istn and Lay -ordination : and be- lieves she may on good grounds allow the first to be valid, without being obliged by any consequence deducible thence to allow the validity of the latter. 2. Early in the infancy of the Reformation, and since, she hath so plainly declaimed her sense of this matter in her ancient Rubrics and present practice, that I cannot but wonder to see to Dr. JVaterland's Firsf Letter. it brought into question. In the first Liturgy of King Edward the Sixth, the Rubric, which prescribes the manner of private Baptism, is in these words : " First let them that he present" [here is no mention of a lawful minister] " call upon God for his grace, " and saye the Lorde's Prayer, if the tyme will suffer. And then " one of them" [i. e. of them that be present] " shall name the " chylde and dyppe him in the water, or powre water upon hym, " saying these woordes : N. I baptise thee in the name of the " Father, and of the Sonne, and of the Holy Gost. Amen. " And let them not doubte, but that the chylde so baptised, " is lawfully and sufficiently baptised, and oughte not to be bap- " tised agayne in the Churche,"" &c. And the child being after- ward brought to the Church, the Priest is directed, notwith- standing that the child was baptized by a layman or looman, if all other matters were right, to certify that in this case they had done icell, and according unto due order concerning the baptizing of the child. 3. In that reign there were afterward considerable alterations made in the Liturgy, but none in this part of the Rubric about private Baptism, which continued unchanged during the re- mainder of that and all queen Elizabeth's reign, till the beginning of king James the First. That in that period laymen and women did baptize in cases of necessity, and justified themselves by the foregoing Rubric, and were allowed by the Church so to do, is a truth as plain as any thing in history. The then enemies of Lay-haptism and the Church, the Puritans, Cai'twright and others, reproached her with it. The great Whitgift, Bancroft, Hooker, and other zealous champions vindicated her, not by denying the fact, but by justifying it and lier, not doubting then but they did the Church good service, and little expecting to be traduced upon that account after their death, by zealous sons of the Church, and zealous proselytes, as latitudinarians. 4. Archbishop Whitgift reckons this among the dangerous points of doctrine avouched by T. Cartwright. viz. that " not " only the dignity, but also the being of the sacrament of Bap- " tism dependeth upon this, whether he be a minister or no, " that doth minister it and says, that the consequence here- of is " plain Anabaptism." See his note of such dangerous Points of Doctrine, &c. prefixed to his Defence of the Answer to the Admonition, &;c. 5. In the book itself, (Tract ix. chap. 5. p. 519.) he thus 128 Rev. E. KelsalVs Answer addresses himself to his adversary T. C. " Whereas you say, " that the minister is one of the chief parts, and as it were of " the lyfe of the sacrament ; in so weighty a cause, and great a " matter, it had been well if you had used some authority of " scripture, or testimonie of learned author : for so far as I can " read, the opinion of all learned men is, that the essential form, " and as it were the lyfe of Baptism, is to baptize in the name of " the Father, and of the Sonne, and of the Holy Ghost ; which " form being observed, the sacrament remaineth in full force " and strength by whomsoever it be ministered/' &c. He goes on in the next paragraph ; " And certainly, if the being of the " sacrament depended upon man in any respect, we were but " in a miserable case : for we should be always in doubte " whether we were rightly baptized or no : but it is most true, " that the force and strength of the sacrament is not in the " man, be he minister or not minister, be he good or evil, but in " God himself, &c. This I speak, not to bring confusion into " the Church, (for, as I said before, let men take heed that they " usurpe not an office, whereunto they be not called, for God " will call them to an account for so doing,) but to teach a " truth, to take a yoke of doubtfulness from men's consciences, " and to resist an error not much differing from Donatism and " Anabaptism " 6. Mr. Hooker is very large upon this subject. In the Fifth Book of Ecclesiastical Polity, sect. 62. he has these words: " If therefore at any time it come to pass, that in teaching " publickly or privately, in delivering this blessed sacrament of " regeneration, some unsanctified hand, contrary to Christ's " supposed ordinance, do intrude itself to execute that, where- " unto the laws of God and his Church have deputed others, " which of these two opinions seemeth more agreeable with " equity, ours that disallow what is done amiss, yet make not " the force of the Word and sacraments, much less their nature " and very substance, to depend on the minister's authority and " calling, or else theirs which defeat, disannul, and annihilate " both, in respect of that one only personal defect, there being " not any law of God which saith, that if the minister be incom- " petent, his word shall be no word, his Baptism no Baptism I " He which teacheth, and is not sent, loseth the reward, but " yet retaineth the name of a teacher : his usurped actions have " in him the same nature which they have in others, although to Dr. Waterland's First Letter. 129 • they yield him not the same comfort. And if these two cases " be peers, the case of doctrine and the case of Baptism both " alike ; sith no defect in their vocation that teach the truth is " able to take away the benefit thereof from him which heareth, " wherefore should the want of a lawful calling in them that " baptize make Baptism to be vain ?" 7. Bishop Bilson in tlie conference at Hampton Court de- clared, that " to deny private persons to baptize in case of " necessity, were to ci'oss all antiquity, and the common practice " of the Church, it being a rule agreed on among Divines, that " the minister is not of the essence of the sacrament." 8. Archbishop Bancroft in the same conference affirmed, that the compilers of the Liturgy did by the forecited Rubric " intend a permission of private persons to baptize in case of " necessity ;" and to prove his assertion, produced some of their letters. He said, it was " agreeable to the practice of the " ancient Church, ' and alleged "'the three thousand baptized in " a day," Acts ii., as an instance of it. 9. King James himself, who blamed this practice, and at whose instance the Rubric was qualified as it now stands, declared at the same time his " utter dislike of all rebaptization " of those whom women or laics have baptized." So that it is plain, he himself thought such Baptisms to be valid, howsoever, in respect of the administrator, criminal and irregular. 10. To this opinion of their validity, not one of the Church of England Divines then present offered the least contradiction. And whosoever at that time should have desired to hear it contradicted, must have fetched in one for that purpose from among the Puritans. 1 1 . But now, how are we changed ! Some, who call themselves the most zealous assertors of the rights of the Church and Clergy, have embraced this Puritanical notion, cast dirt upon the memory of those excellent men, and will hardly allow any, who come not into their measures, throughly to understand, or to be thoroughly uell affected to the rights and interests of the priesthood. And all this, without regarding the unanswerable objections, (unanswerable, I mean, upon their hypothesis,) which hereby they put into the mouths of the Papist and Dissenter, against the validity of all our ministrations, that is, (as we stated the case in the former part of this letter,) against the very being of our priesthood, our sacraments, and of the Church itself. U ATKRI.ANl), VOL. VI. K 130 Rev. E. Kelsall's Answer Believe me, Sir, if any thing has prejudiced me against this hypothesis, next to the novelty of it, and the authority of the Cliurch both ancient and modern, which I verily think stands full against it, it is the horror I conceive at the sad and unsuf- ferable consequences it is inevitably attended with. 12. But to proceed. It is plain from that conference, that the alteration of the Rubric thereby occasioned was not grounded upon the principle of the invalidity, but only the inconvenience and indecency of Lay-baptism. And from thenceforth, what had been canonical axidi lawful before, became in this Church unlawful and uncanonical: and what was thought valid before, was still thought valid. The Church altered her Rubric, but not her judgment of this matter. I know it is of late pretended other- wise. But I shall not be easily persuaded, but that those gentlemen, who were concerned in the conference and in the alteration which ensued upon it, knew best their own sentiments and intentions. 13. Mr. L., who with a very authoritative air takes upon him to instruct and admonish the Clergy of their duty, and to interpret the Canons, the Rubrics, and Articles of the Church, undertakes from all these, and especially from the last, (the Articles,) to prove, that the invalidity of Lay-haptism is a doctrine espoused by her. To attend him in what he offers to this purpose, would be to trifle as much as he ; I am too much tired for that work, as 1 expect by this time you yourself are. I shall only therefore observe, that had he accomplished what he undertakes from the Articles, he had then proved the Church to be inconsistent with herself : (for those Articles are above forty years older than the conference at Hampton Court :) an undertaking not very suitable to the character of so zealous a proselyte, as it is said he is ! In the mean time, he has effectually shewn the sense the Church then had of her own Articles, and his own sense of them, to be extremely difierent. 14. In his treatise called Dissenters' Baptism Null and Void, sect. 17. he does not disown that those great men concerned in that conference did countenance Lay-baptism in certain cases, but denies that they countenanced unauthorized Lay-baptism. In sect. 4. he is forced to the same refuge, viz. to shelter him- self under the word unauthorized, not denying that laymen were permitted and even commanded by king Edward the Sixth's Book, to baptize in case of necessity, but denying that to be any to Dr. Waterland's First Letter. evidence of hex* believing that unauthorized persons could ad- minister valid Baptism. Thus, when disputing against Lay-bap- tism, (not only in this, but in other writings of his,) he is pressed hard with authorities that he cannot get over, he puts his adversaries off with saying, their evidences reach not the case in hand, viz. the case of " Dissenters' Baptisms, Baptisms unautho- " rized, and administered against and in defiance of the Church's " authority." And yet he hesitates up and down in his writings, he shuffles, is not free to grant that the Church or Bishops have power in any case to depute a lay-baptizer, and thinks himself not obliged to declare his opinion upon it. What can be the meaning of this I Why does he not give up what he finds he cannot maintain, and so reduce the controversy into narrower bounds \ Let him either own that the Church has such a power, or else prove she has not. He does own (sect. 17.) that she once had it in the persons of the Apostles ; and gives an instance, Acts x. 48. Let him shew, if he can, how she lost it. Or, if she has it still, let him find out a medium (if he can) to prove, that what is ever regular in the administration of Bap- tism, with the leave of the Church, is not only irregular, but so far I invalid too without her leave, as to be incapable of being afterwards ratified by her authority. Every lay-baptist, since that alteration of the Rubric, hath acted icithout her leave. And yet she receives as valid, and hath never reiterated even such Baptisms, although administered without, and even against her authority. Further yet, she never made any canon or law for the punishment of a lay-baptist, who shall presume to do that office upon charitable inducements and in extreme necessity. The Rubric indeed was altered : but so far is that alteration from decreeing any punishment for such an usurper, that it scarce amounts to a prohibition of the fact. It says, a lawful minister shall be procured ; it does not say, that in case he can- not, no other shall be admitted. I insist not now, that the alteration (as \'>'0 hac vice is nothing else but a deviation from the apostolical rule, and a stretch of authority, which cannot be proved to belong to them. However, if this could be proved, I must observe, that it would not affect the question in debate ; for it is certain that our Lay-dissenters have no manner of episcopal commission to baptize. I suppose Mr. K. might be sensible of this ; and therefore he would fain persuade us, that there is something further implied in the commission ; namely, that the Bishops, after the Apostles, are thereby •' made the " sole and supreme judges in case of any irregular disputed " Baptism, to annul it, or receive it as valid. And ail this " under no other restraint or limitation, but what the analogy " of faith, the needs of the (Jhurch, and their own discretion, " shall impose upon them." In the next page, he makes it a question of discipline, whether Lay-baptism should be received ; alleging, that " our superiors may admit a Baptism irregularly " administered by a lay-usurper, as valid, or, if they think fit, " they may refuse to ratify such Baptisms, and order readminis- " trations." So that, upon that hypothet!is, if our superiors receive Lay-baptisms, they are valid ; if not, they are not so. Very surprising ! What a power is here lodged in the Bishops, and a momentous question about a venerable sacrament dwin- dled into the case of an indifferent rite or ceremony, dispensable at the will of our superiors ! Can it be a thing indifferent in a case of everlasting concern, whether any such Baptism was antecedently valid or no i lather it was valid before, or it was not : if it was, how can any liishop or Bishops refuse to ratify WATF.nr.AND, VOL. VI. L 146 Dr. Waterland's Second Letter it, or by refusing it make it cease to be so I If it was not valid, how can any Bishop or Bishops admit of it, or, by so doing, make it to be what it is not ? Take it as you will, you will find it hard to reconcile Mr. K.'s notion, that any Bishop or Bishops by admitting or rejecting can make or unmake at pleasure. Had this notion been thought of when Stephen and Cyprian had such warm debates about the validity of irregular Baptisms, or when the Catholics and Donatists differed upon the same question ; had it been known that Bishops are the sole and supreme judges in case of any irregular or disputed Baptism, to annul it or to receive it at discretion ; how easily might that have solved all difficulties, and have saved them the trouble of disputing ! Both sides had done right upon that supposition, because either might have done as they pleased. But they were not so happy as to make this discovery : the point was then, whether the disputed Baptisms were Baptisms or no, antece- dently to any judgment of theirs upon them ; and the decision of the Church was not supposed effective or operative upon the disputed Baptisms, but declarative only of what they were before : if the disputed Baptisms were antecedently true and valid, they could not be reversed or annulled by any ; and if they were not, not all the Bishops upon earth could make them such, or remedy the defect without baptizing. 1 allow Bishops under Christ to be the sole and supreme, but neither infallible nor arbitraiy judges. Let them judge in such matters, but withal, let it be according to law, where there is a law in being to refer to, as the case is here. They cannot dispense with sacraments of Divine appointment, nor substitute what they please in the room of them. They cannot assume a power paramount to Christ's institutions, to make that to be Baptism which Christ has not made so, or to null what he has. I was in hopes that Mr. K. had not meant that the validity of Lay-bap- tism depended upon the Bishops' admitting or rejecting it ; but only that their judgment should be a definitive rule to others, as the surest guide in doubtful cases. This would have looked plausible enough, and might have had some weight, could it have been shewn that any general council of primitive Bishops had determined against us in the present question : for to the primitive Bishops we should certainly appeal from any modern authorities. But Mr. K. means quite another thing : he founds his hypothesis upon the Power of the Keys, common to all in Repli/ to Mr. KelsaWs Answer. 147 Bishops ancient and modern. He does not look upon them barely as judges of controversy, and giving in their authoritative decision, (which yet would not reach the point, unless they were infalHble,) but as acting uith a plenitude of power, admitting into, and excluding out of the kingdom of heaven, with something more than apostoHcal authority. For I am very persuaded, the Apostles themselves had no such latitude, or, however, I think it cannot be proved that they had. The Apostles and their successors have without doubt a power of binding and loosing, and " whatsoever they shall bind on earth " shall be bound in heaven ; and whatsoever they shall loose on " earth shall be loosed in heaven but to interpret this in such a latitude as Mr. K. imagines, would justify the Romanists in maiming the other sacrament, and in many other their devi- ations from the scripture rule ; and, in short, seems to be an hypothesis chiefly calculated for the infallible chair. Mr. K. refers us to Mr. Bingham^ for a proof of this paradox; which was wisely done. I have carefully read over that part of Mr. B. He gives us a quotation from an uncertain author, supposed to be Hilary the Roman Deacon, in the fourth century, who shall be considered hereafter ; and be adds several quotations from very ancient and good authors, to prove that Bishops had the supreme power over the Clergy, either to authorize and empower them, or else to limit and restrain tliem in the exercise of their function : which nobody denies : and it amounts to no more than that the Clergy in those times were under direction of Bishops and dependent of them, and were to pay a kind of canonical obedience to them. But how does this prove that the Bishops had any authority to declare Baptism valid which was not valid before, or to ratify and null at pleasure, which was the thing to be proved ? I shall add nothing here concerning the ancients, whom Mr. K. again appeals to, as if they were all of his side. They shall speak for themselves in their proper places. I have been hitherto vindicating the interpretation we put upon the words of the commission from Mr. K.'s exceptions to it, and should pro- ceed to whatever else has relation to that point. But I must first step a little out of the way, to take notice of a remarkable apology, which Mr. K. is pleased to make for himself upon this * See Scholast. Hist. 148 Dr. Waterland' s ISecond Letter occasion ; being sensible, I suppose, that this plenitude of power placed in the Bishops, of dispensing with sacred institutions and ratifying nullities, would sound something strange ; and there- fore he adds, " I do not yet see that I hereby carry the power of " the Church or of her prelates higher in this" (sacrament of Baptism), " than it ever was in the dispensation of the other sa- " crament, which &c. — I mean no more than that the Eucharist " was wont to be sent home to those who could not be present " at the public service, by the hands of the Deacon^ or, in cases " of necessity, by any other person." And he gives an instance of a little boy, who was ordered by the Priest, being sick and un- able to go himself, to carry the Eucharist to Serapion, a lapsed communicant, but penitent, and then at the point of death. And this he calls " as large a stretch of power, and as great a " variation from the primitive institution, as the permission of " Lay-baptism can well be imagined." I wonder how he could think this at all parallel or pertinent to the case in hand. I readily own that the consecrated elements were often reserved in the Church or the Bishop's house, and sometimes too even in common houses by the laity : and that Deacons or even laymen might sometimes carry them. But of what use the observation can be in the present controversy, I do not see. Had he shewn that laics could consecrate the bread and wine, which is giving the Eucharist, it had been to the purpose : to make the case of Baptism analogous to that of the Eucharist, he must suppose the water first consecrated by a sacerdotal hand, that the laics may baptize with it. And this would be a good argument for re- serving consecrated waters for such purposes, as they anciently reserved the consecrated symbols for the other sacrament. And yet I am afraid this would not do ; for in Baptism, not only the water, but the person himself to be baptized, is to be conse- crated ; and I cannot conceive how any laic can convey this consecration. Besides, if we suppose all this, yet what does it relate to unauthorized Lay-baptism, the matter in debate, which is neither performed with consecrated water, nor by sacred hands, nor has any sacerdotal benediction conveyed to it? Give me leave then to think, that the question of Lay-baptism is not a question only of discipline, but of doctrine. For I am still persuaded, that the point I am defending, being, as I con- ceive, founded upon the nature and tenor of Christ's institution, and confirmed in apostolical practice, " is one of those sullen m Reply to Mr. KelsaWs Ansiver. 149 " things, that admit of no alteration or abatement for the sake *' of any inconveniences, how great soever." And now to return to our argument about the words of the institution. I had said, " that the commission leaves no more " room for Lay-baptism than for Lay-ordination, Lay -absolution, " Lay-consecration of the Eucharist, Lay-preaching and praying ; " and that if we go from the institution in one case, we may as " reasonably do it in all, supposing the like necessity." Against which Mr. K. is pleased to except as follows: J. He denie.5 that admittinc/ the baptism of a layman under the qualifications foregoing (authorized, I suppose, by Bishops) as valid, is going from the institution. It seems then, admitting Lay-baptism not under the qualifications foregoing, not authorized by Bishops, as valid, WMy be going from the institution, notwith- standing; which is giving up the point in question; unless he means authorized ex post facto ; which notion, I hope, I have sufficiently confuted in the foregoing pages, and shewn it to be going from the institution. If assuming a power which does not appear to have been given, but would be of dangerous conse- quence, and defeat in a great measure the end and design of the institution, be going from it ; then 1 do not doubt but that is so. But 2. Supposing this were so, that admitting Lay-baptism be going from the institution, yet he denies ray inference, " that " therefore in the like necessity we might as reasonably do it " with respect to all the rest above mentioned because the like necessity cannot be supposed in the other instances. In answer to which I observe, 1 . That there is one thing taken for granted in the objection, which can never be proved ; viz. that Lay-baptism can be ever necessary to any one's salvation. For suppose that text of St. Johnb to be clear and decisive for the necessity of Baptism, (which it is not,) yet they must first prove that Lay-baptism is that true scriptural Baptism ; or else citing this text in favour of it, is nothing but begging the question ; or is as much as to say, it is necessary to be baptized, therefore it is necessary to be washed by a layman. 2. Abstracting from that consideration, why should it be de- nied, that there may upon the supposition be a like necessity for Jolin iii. 5. 150 Dr. Waterland's Second Letter Lay-ordination, v. g. as for Lay-baptism '. May not Clergymen happen to be wanting in some possible cases? and if so, will there not be the like necessity for appointing laymen to sacred offices, i. 0. for Lay-ordination, as for Lay-baptism, when no Clergyman can be had ? and is not the good of the whole Church as much concerned in one, as the salvation of a single person in the other? As to Lay-consecration of the Eucharist, why should it not be thought as necessary in some possible cases, as Lay-baptism? Both the sacraments are generally ne- cessary to salvation ; and therefore in want of Clergy, there may be as much reason for administering one by lay hands, as the other. The whole Church of Christ, I think, for six or eight hundred years downwards from the third century, gave the Eucharist to infants upon this principle : they thought that sacrament as universally and absolutely necessary as the other, founding it upon a text^ as full and positive for the necessity of it, as John iii. 5. for the necessity of Baptism. But I do not put the matter upon that foot; but suppose only, that it is absolutely necessaVy to adult Christians in general, as Baptism to infants. And therefore, if a regular Clergy cannot be had, there is as great necessity for Lay -consecration, as can be sup- posed for Lay-baptism. The like may be said of the other instances mentioned. 1 do not say that this necessity so fre- quently occurs, nor is my argument founded on that supposition: it is enough for me to suppose it barely possible, in order to shew the patrons of Lay-baptism the tendency of their principles. But still Mr. K. has a further evasion. He knows not what I mean by lay-preaching and lay^raying ; and seems to wonder I should think either of them absurd in cases of necessity. I mean by lay-preaching, a layman's taking upon him to preach authoritatively in God's name, as God's ambassador and as sent by him, interjjreting the supposed necessity to be an extraordi- nary call, and to supply the want of mission. And I mean by lay-praying, a layman's taking upon him to be a mediator and in- tercessor between God and his people in public prayer, or pre- tending to bless in God's name. Be not startled at the words mediator and intercessor : they are good words, when rightly understood, and properly applicable to Christian priests'!. Now if Mr. K. will suppose that any necessity can justify a layman in c John vi. 53. f' Ap. Const. C. ii. c. 25. cum not. Cotelerii. in Reply to Mr. Kelsalfs Answer. 151 taking so much upon him, he must prove that such a one does not come with a lie in his mouth, while he pretends an extraor- dinary mission ; which nothing can be a certain proof of, but the power of working miracles, or a revelation from heaven. In such a case I would allow lay-preaching and lay-praying, and in none elsCj whatever or how great soever be the supposed necessity for them. And if our lay-baptizers had any such warrant for what they do, they might go on for all me. The two noted instances of Frumentius and the captive woman of Iberia make nothing for your friend's purpose : divulging the Gospel and preparing converts is quite different from preaching. Frumentius did not officiate in his new raised church till he was ordained a Bishop^; and as to the captive woman, though Mr. K. would insinuate that she was a lay-preacher; or else I know not why she is brought in here ; yet, you may observe, he is very shy of saying she pi-eached, for fear, I suppose, of confronting St. Paul ; and therefore cautiously words it, her divulging the Gospel ; in which he is very right : for she did indeed divulge the Gospel, but they were ordained ministers, sent from Constantino, that first preached to the Iberians*". If it be objected, that Frumen- tius with the Roman merchants (Christian laics) had Divine service performed after the Christian manner, and therefore prayed at least, though they did not properly preach to the peo- ple ; I suppose they might use such prayers as were suitable to Christian laymen, without the more solemn forms of intercession or benediction peculiar to PriestsS. However, this is certain, that in both the instances the necessity of a regular ordained Clergy was thought so great and apparent, that all possible haste was made both by Frumentius and the captive woman to obtain one. If this does not satisfy, let it be observed, that Mr. K. acknowledges that miracles were wrought in one of the cases, and it is not impossible there might be in the other also ; which I have allowed to be warrant sufficient for what they did : and Mr. K. may infer as much as he pleases from these two instances, when our lay-baptizers bring miracles to attest their mission. And let this suffice to have vindicated the commission for baptizing, and my reasonings upon it from Mr. K.'s exceptions. ^ = RuflF. Eccl. Hist. C. i. c. 9. Theod. Eccl. Hist. C. i. c. 24. Eccl. Hist. C. i. c. 23. e Dodwell de Jure Laico, c. 4. f Ruff.Eccl.Hist.C.i. c. 10. Theod. 152 Dr. Waterland'it Second Letter Now we proceed to another point. I had observed in my lettei-, that there were in scripture some very remarkable examples of God's vengeance towards lay-usurpers of ecclesiastical offices ; and I instanced (as many have done before me) in Saul and Uzza. Mr. K. is of opinion that those instances are not to the purpose, and does indeed offer something considerable against them. The cause is but little concerned in it, and if he takes these instances from us, we can put other more unquestionable in their room, as Corah, Dathan and Abiram, and king Uzziahh. As to Saul, I find it a sort of a disputed case, a moot point among the learned, whether he sacrificed in person, or only ordered the Priests to do it. And as to Samuel, whether he sacrificed in person or no, by virtue of his prophetic character, that set him above the ordinary and common rules, is another disputable point among the learned. I incline to the affirmative ; and if you please to see wliat may be said for it, you may con- sult Dr. Hickes's Christian Priesthood', and Mr. Dodvvell de Jure Laico Sacerdotali^, who has made excellent use of the observa- tion in accounting for the difficulty, how it came to pass, that while there was standing ministry in the Jewish Church, yet our Saviour and his Apostles were admitted to teach in the syna- gogue : but that by the way only. As to Uzza, I do not see why he may not well enough pass for an instance pertinent to the case in hand, ^^^e do not say that he was led by any am- hition, or aspiring thoughts, to touch the ark of God ; but he rashly presumed to touch an holy thing, which none but the family of Aaron were allowed to do'; and for this he died. And what could be the reason or design of this law, or of that vengeance, but to secure the greater honour and reverence towards the Priests \ And if a Levite, and of the most honour- able branch of the tribe, (being a Kohathite, and so next in rank to the Priests,) suffered so remarkably, only for rashly and in- cogitantly touching an holy thing, against the commandment ; of how much greater punishment shall they be thought worthy, who shall presume designedly to invade any part of the Priest's office ? We see by this how inviolable the office of a Priest was among the Jews. And if God thus fenced about the sacerdotal office in the Jewish Church, to prevent any profanation of it ; ^ Num. xvi. 30. 2 Chron. x.xvi. 16. ' P. 185. ^ P. 178 ' Num. iv. 15. m Reply to Mr. KclsaWs Ansioer. 153 what shall we think of the sacerdotal office in the Christian Church, of which the former was but a kind of type and shadow ? Shall this be invaded and usurped at pleasure? No, that Mr. K. himself will not say, but " will willingly join with me in treating " such acts of sacrilegious impiety and presumption with all the " severity of language I can desire." But that is not enough : while you suppose them valid^ the rest will pass for little more than empty harangue ; for it will be obvious to argue, that if they be valid, they are valid by some law, and if by any law, then by God's law, and what God establishes by a law, he will not disapprove in the main : or however it will be easy to find out an excuse for a few circumstantial irregularities. Thus the priesthood will be invaded, and its fences laid waste. So that this doctrine of the validity of lay-ministrations does not only rest men's salvation upon a precarious uncertain bottom ; but it also gives too great a countenance to usurpations and sacrile- gious impieties ; and opens a wide door to all imaginable confu- sion. Or if any one thinks all this may be prevented by sup- posing episcopal confirmation necessary to complete such acts, and to give them their validity ; I refer him to ]\lr. Laurence's incomparable reasonings upon this very point ; which I de- spair of ever seeing answered. We have not yet done with the institution or commission for Baptism laid down in scripture, till satisfaction be given to an- other exception, which may seem to weaken the force of it ; and that is the noted rule, qmd fieri non debuit, factum valet, though the scripture forbids it, it may yet be valid ; which I endea- voured to obviate and explain in my letter. And because this is true of matrimony, though the minister be no more than a lay- man, some might be apt to conclude it was true of Baptism too. So that this must lead us a little off from our point to discourse of matrimony. I thought I made that matter so plain and clear in a few woi-ds, that it was next to impossible to mistake it : yet Mr. K. has so perplexed and entangled a very easy case, that it must cost me some pains to set it right. I could hardly imagine at first reading what it was he de- signed to prove, till, considering a little further, to my great sur- prise I found that he was attempting to prove the minister as essential to marriage {a civil institution) as to Baptism, a Christian ™ Suppl. Pref. p. 37, &c. 154 Dr. Waterland's Second Letter sacrament. I shall speak to that point presently ; but there are two or three other little matters to be first taken notice of. In order to weaken the force of the objection drawn from that rule, quod fieri, &c. I had observed that it was true only of errors in circumstantials, not of errors in essentials ; and he is pleased to allow the " distinction to be very good ; but excepts against it, " that it will do me no service, till it be proved, that the rainis- " ter is essential to Baptism." Yes sure, it may be of some service to shew, that that rule is of no force to prove the con- trary to what we assert, till it can be proved that the minister is not essential, (and then it is needless ;) and that was all I was concerned to do in order to answer the objection drawn from that maxim. And because some were willing to confound the case of marriage with this of Baptism, I thought it proper to shew that they are by no means parallel. Upon which Mr. K. attempts to prove that the minister is as essential to one as the other ; which, if allowed, will not hurt my cause, because I think I can prove the minister essential to Baptism ; only the consequence then will be, that there can be no valid matrimony among Jews, Turks, and Pagans ; and that adultery is a sin peculiar to Christians. AVould not such a consequence startle a man a little, and incline him to think that the minister is not essential to marriage, but a circumstance only of decency, proper among Christians I But he " cannot see, but that upon this " principle the pretended marriages among Quakers are as valid " as ours." Who doubts it? or that a Quaker's concubine may not be guilty of adultery before God, as well as any other ? But the civil legislature, it seems, looks upon them as no more than " pretended marriages, and subjoins a proviso, that nothing" (in an act concerning matrimony) " shall be construed so as to " declare them good good, i. e. effectual in law, as the act itself referred to in the margin " expresses it, and it means no more : that is, such marriages shall not be received as good by the common or statute laws of England, nor plead any benefit of the law under that title. And this is a sufficient answer to his question, why the Quakers should be particularly careful not to die intestate. The same answer may serve in relation to the marriages in CromwelPs time before the justices. They were all afterwards confirmed by act of Parliament, and made legal °j " 7 Will. HI. c. 6. ° 12 Car. II. c. 33. in Reply to Mr. Kelsall's Answer: 155 and had they not been so confii-med, they had been illegal, not invalid ; and could have claimed no benefit of the law. Every one must observe that it depends entirely upon the civil power, what sort of marriage shall be deemed or reputed legal or not. But the validity of it is quite another thing, founded upon mu- tual contract ; and therefore perhaps a precontract is thought a sufficient impediment to marriage with another person ; since that precontract is a kind of prior marriagCj and wants nothing but the ceremony to make it legal. I had said that marriage is a covenant between the two parties ; that its essence is their mutual contract ; and the minister is but a circumstance ; whereas in Baptism there is a covenant between God and man. God is one of the parties ; and therefore his consent in person, or by his commissioned proxy or deputy, where there are any such, is essential to it. Against this Mr. K. objects, " that in every vow God is party " as well as we, being called not only as a witness, but as a judge " too." Therefore say I no party. For to be judge and party at the same time are inconsistent ; and therefore his speaking of a third party here, is nothing but playing upon a word. God"'s being a party in the sense that Mr. K. takes it, is equally applicable to every covenant, contract, or bargain ; and yet I hope they may be valid enough without the assistance of the sacred order. His argument from the Divine institution of ma- trimony comes far short of proof. I suppose government is as much of Divine institution as marriage, and yet I presume kings have been validly married to their people, and may again, without the assistance of a minister. This is certainly God's own act, as much as the other, and is notwithstanding purely of a civil nature, and nothing sacerdotal or ecclesiastical is essential to it. I know not what Mr. K. means by insisting so much on the office of matrimony peculiar to the Church of England ; unless he would prove that our particular method and manner of solemnizing be essential to marriage ; which would make it necessary to be observed all the world over. The truth is, the minister is essential to legal matrimony with us, and so pei'haps are several other little circumstances. The marriage is complete in the contract between the two parties ; and the law only determines what shall be looked upon with us as a sufficient declaration of such a contract. And if joining of hands only 156 Dr. Waierland's Second Letter was made as significant and effectual in law as the other, the marriage would be as complete and valid, though not so decent and Christian-like, as what we have now. Baron Puffendorfe observation relating to this point is worth reciting : " As the " public laws of commonwealths are wont to invest other con- " tracts with certain rites and solemnities, upon want of which " they pass for invalid in civil cognizance ; so in some states " there are such ceremonies annexed to matrimony, as, if " omitted, make it illepal, or at least deprive it of some effects, " which would otherwise have sprung from it, according to the " local customs and constitutions." This is exactly my sense of the matter. Laws and customs determine what marriage shall pass for legal or valid in civil cognizance. But the essence of matrimony is another thing, being the same in all places and ages ; and is nothing else but a muttial contract ; and is as binding in the nature of the thing before a Justice of peace as before an Archbishop. And indeed if it be performed only by a private engagement between the two parties, remotis arbiiris, it is as valid in foro conscientice as any, if they understand one another. But Mr. K. adds, that " the minister acts for God, and in " God's name, which Mr. W. says none can do without com- " mission from him : from which account he flatters himself " that he has proved that the priest is at least as necessary in " marriage as he is in Baptism." But I cannot flatter him so far as to believe it. That the minister acts in God's name in both I readily grant : and that he could not thus act without a com- mission from him I allow also : only the difference is this, which is very considerable ; it is necessary there should be one to act in God's name in Baptism, because there is no covenant without the explicit consent of both parties, whereof God is one ; and therefore the minister, God's appointed proxy, is essential to Baptism : but it is not necessary there should be one to act in God's name in marriage ; because the covenant is not between God and man, but between man and woman : and God's repre- sentative the minister is not essential to it. In Baptism then there must be one to represent God, in marriage there need not. Yet if any one will take upon himself to represent God under any capacity, either as a witness, or judge, or avenger, he must act by commission, otherwise his act is irregular, sinful, and in Refly to Mr. Kelsall's Answer. 157 null, and stands for nothing. Yet the acts of the two contract- ing parties are effectual and valid ; because a contract is never- theless a contract for the want of a proper person to represent God as a witness, or judge, or avenger to it. I do not dispute, but that the general commission given to the Apostles, &c. reaches to all acts of religion, and consequently to the solemnization of marriage. For whoever acts in God's name in any case, must have God's authority and warrant for it. But this does not prove that it is absolutely necessary that any one should act in God"s name in marriage, but only that if he does act in God's name, he must act by his authority and by virtue of his commission. And therefore if any layman does pretend, in God's name, to join two persons together in holy matrimony., he is an usurper of the sacerdotal function, and his part in the solemnity stands for nothing. Yet since the two parties have thereupon solemnly plighted their troth to each other, no matter whether the person had any authority to represent God or no ; their act is valid, and God is witness to it in heaven. And now I hope I have sufficiently rescued the case from that confusion and perplexity which Mr. K. had left it in. I shall beg leave here only to subjoin an observation relating to the point in hand. The celebrated Dr. Sherlock, supposed to be the author of the book noted in the margin, though he was in the main pleading for the same side of the question with Mr. K., yet he thought the argument drawn from the nature of a covenant to be so strong and forcible against the validity of Lay- baptism, that he could find no surer way of evading it than by denying Baptism to be a formal covenant ; in which I presume that great man was pretty singular, and only shewed that he was hard pressed. To consider that point at large would be too great a digression. There is indeed another much more plausible solution of the difficulty, which he also has recourse to, viz. that circumcision was as much a covenant as Baptism, and yet any Israelite might circumcise., that hiew how to do it. But to this he himself furnishes us in the same place with a sufficient answer. For he says the administration of Baptism is confined ordinarily to the governors of the Church, whereas the administration of circumcision never was the pecu- liar office of the priest. Where God has given orders for a thing to be done, and left the administration at large, there any " Vindication of Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet, j). 360, &c. 158 Dr. Waterland's Second Letter man is his authorized proxy that does it : but where he has appointed proper officers, these and these only can act vaHdly, as acting by his authority. It is sufficient therefore to our pur- pose, that circumcision was not peculiar to the priest's office by the Jewish law, whereas the administration of Baptism is con- fessedly confined to the Clergy by the Christian law in all ordinary cases. And it can never be shewn, that it is not like- wise so confined in the extraordinari/ too. And thus I have already in a great measure obviated what follows in Mr. K. relating to circumcision, the seal of the covenant to the Jews, as Baptism is to the Christians. The reason then why circum- cision was not confined to the sacred order was, because God did not so confine it ; there he allowed any person to covenant in his name ; here he has appointed officers. I should make no further answer with relation to the case of Zipporah, but that Mr. K. has thence taken occasion to triumph over Mr. Laurence, as if he had given up all his principles at once ; only because he happened to say, that Zipporah might circumcise in the right of her husband, his authority in his sickness, when he was not able to do any thing, devolving upon her. He supposes it might possibly be thus ; yet he does not lay the stress of his argument upon it. For in the same place he observes, that Zi23porah's act was in a case extraordinary, and he resolves it into imme- diate revelation, which makes the case very different. But admitting the most Mr. K. would make of it, it can amount to no more than this ; that laics or women may exercise sacerdotal functions in extreme necessity, and by the authority of the Bishops. This Mr. L. never directly affirms nor denies ; it is beside the question, and his principles may stand good inde- pendent of it. But this is an instance of Mr. K.'s blending two distinct questions together, as if they were one ; and not con- sidering the difference between authorized and unauthorized Baptisms, while the latter only is the subject of the present debate. What Mr. K. adds in relation to Zipporah, and the female administration of circumcision, I pass over, the cause being little concerned in it. The other particulars which he takes notice of in the following page will more properly fall in with the other head, whither I think best to refer them, that I may not be too long detained from the judgment and practice of the primitive Church, which is of so great moment in the present controversy, in Reply to Mr. KelsalVs Answer. 159 as well as in most others that concern the Church. Here Mr. K. seems to put the main stress of his cause, and here I am ready to join issue with him. I reject every thing novel in re- ligion, and for that very reason reject Lay-baptism ; because I am persuaded it is novel, and was no current doctrine or prac- tice of the Church for the first six hundred years at least. Mr. K. speaks excellently well in the entrance of his letter : " I be- " lieve every position in Divinity which is new, to be false ; and " that in all questions relating to religion, discipline, or govern- " ment, reasoji ought to submit to scripture, and scripture be " interpreted by the sense and practice of antiqu'iiy ; and con- " sequently that history is the best and shortest decider of this " and of every controversy in religion." Here 1 heartily close with him. To the Fathers we appeal, and to the Fathers let us go. n. He begins with astonishment that I should venture to say, that " the ancients do with one voice, for above three hundred years, " (Tertullian excepted,) condemn Lay-baptism, not so much as " putting any exception for cases of necessity." This was not, I confess, worded distinctly enough in a short letter, designed rather for hints of things, than for clear and full explication. I did not mean that Lay-baptism was clearly and in terms con- demned by the writers of the first ages ; no more was transub- stantiation or purgatory ; and yet they are sufficiently con- demned by them, inasmuch as they held principles inconsistent with them. In this sense I hope to make it appear that Lay- baptism also was condemned by the Church for more than three or four hundred years. It is enough for my purpose, if it was implicitly, virtually, or consequentially condemned : as negative proliibitions are implied in positive precepts, as drunkenness is forbid by commanding sobriety, and irregularity condemned by a precept to observe order. The ancients would be of little use to us in modern controversy, if we suppose them to condemn nothing but what they specify in terms. At this rate we might despair of confuting late inventions and modern corruptions from Fathers or Councils ; for it is evident they could not so in terms condemn what they never thought of. JJut notwithstanding, their very silence in some cases is a sufficient condemnation ; and very often, the general reason they went upon in cases dis- puted in their times may be applicable to others afterwards : 160 Dr. Waterland's Second Letter and so what they do by consequence or parity of reason condemn, they do as certainly condemn, though not so directly. The use of the observation in respect to the point in hand will in part appear presently, and more in sequel. Mr. K. him- self owns that it is easy to collect many passages of St. Ignatius and others of the ancientest writers, wherein the right of admin- istering in religious matters is asserted to the priesthood, as proper only to them, and the people forbidden to meddle or do any thing in holy things, without the concurrence and approba- tion of the Bishops. And he supposes that to be what I mean. I do indeed mean that, and something more. I mean plainly that according to the prevailing doctrine of the ancients for above three hundred years, the original power of baptizing was lodged solely and entirely in the Bishops, and derivatively con- veyed by them to others ; who do not appear to have been any, besides the standing ministers of Baptism : from whence I infer, that according to their principles, none could have a power of baptizing without a commission ; and therefore if any had pre- tendedly baptized, their act would have had no authority, no right, or rule, to found its validity upon ; and consequently would have been invalid. Therefore upon the principles of the ancients, Lay-haptism unauthorized, as that of our Dissenters, is invalid. Again, By the principles of the ancients, as is confessed on all hands, laymen were always debarred from baptizing in all ordinary cases : therefore, had any laymen pretended to baptize in ordi- nary cases, their acts had been not only without, but against law, and consequently, as argued before, invalid. Therefore again, the Baptism of our Dissenters being done in ordinary cases, and not in any extreme necessity, are by the principles of the ancient Church for above three hundred years together invalid". I observe further, that when laymen were debarred by the ancient Church from meddling with sacred offices, and particularly from baptizing ; the prohibitions are general, no exceptions being put in for cases of necessity. Yet such cases might happen then as well as now ; not only infants, but many adults might often be in the article of death, and no Clergyman near at hand to baptize them. And if the text of St. John was so rigidly understood, as Mr. K. supposes : strange ' ° Ign. ad Smyr. c. 8. CI. Rom. Ep. i. c. 40. Apost. Constit. in reply to Mr. Kelsall's Aiiswer. 101 that this so frequent a case should not have had as frequent provisos ! Yet we find nothing of them, except a hint or two from Tertullian, which shall be considered by and by. There is no warrant therefore from the ancient Church for Lay-baptism even in cases of necessity ; and yet if there was, our Dissenters' Baptisms might be invalid notwithstanding, because utterly des- titute of that plea. Upon consideration of the premises thei'e- fore, I venture once more to say, that the ancient Church for above three hundred years condemned Lay-baptism, if not directly, if not in terms, yet implicitly, virtually, and conse- quentially. As to Mr. K.'s excepting against this, that " no more is in. " tended by it, but to set forth the dignity and preeminence of " the priesthood, and that it relates only to ordinary cases ; " and that they did not descend to speak of extraordinary, because it had been highly improper; all this is as easily denied as affirmed; and it may be observed of St. Chrysostom, (whom he supposes in the place cited to speak the sense of the ancients,) that when he does descend to extraordinary cases in another place, he allows not any layman to baptize, but Deacons only. " If there be a " necessity, says he, " and a child be found ready to die, and " unbaptized, it is lawful for a Deacon to baptize it." Strange he should not have added, or even a layman, had he known any thing of such a power entrusted with laics. But to proceed from our general argument from the first writers to those of the fol- lowing times, that speak more home to the point. We will begin with Tertullian. A.D. 192. TertuUian I had acknowledged to be for Lay-baptism in cases of necessity, but observed withal that it was only his lyrimte opinion; as indeed he had many strange ones. Upon this Mr. K. rallies me very pleasantly ; he calls it a " modish sovereign " charm," and soon after, " a nimble way of taking off an " evidence we do not like :" and would have you imagine, that it portends something very dismal ; and particularly, that " it " makes all convictions from antiquity, except from general " councils, impracticable and impossible." But, with submission, this sovereign charm is a very innocent thing ; and is no enemy to any thing, but to error, mistake, and false reasoning. This nimble way of taking off an evidence is a way used by the best and gravest writers in any controversy depending on the sense WATKIU.AND, VOL, VI. JM 162 Dr. WaterkmcTs Second Letter of antiquity. It is necessary in reading or quoting the Fathers to distinguish carefully what they give as their own pricate judg- ment, and what as their testimony of the doctrine of the Church. We admit their testimony, because we have all the reason in the world to believe they were honest men. But as to their own 2}rivate opinions; they ought to weigh no more with us, than the reason on which they are founded. Thus the Fathers may always be of great use to us, as witnesses of the doctrine of the Church in their times ; though not always as private doctors. And therefore I think your friend concluded a little too hastily, that we may hereby set aside all authorities of the ancients, except general councils. We set aside none ; but we distinguish between what a Father tells us is the doctrine of the Church, and what he gives us as his own. Seeing therefore that the distinction is very good, I am next to shew that it was rightly and properly applied. I grant that Tertullian does plead for Lay-baptism in cases of extreme necessity. His arguments are weak enough, and very easily answered : but that is not the point now ; for the question only is, whether he speaks the Church's practice, or only delivers his own private opinion, There are two passages commonly referred to in this contro- versy: the first is this, " PDandi quidem jus habet summus " Sacerdos, qui est Episcopus, dehinc Presbyteri et Diaconi, " (non tamen sine Episcopi autoritate,) propter Ecclesise hono- " rem, quo salva pax eat. Alioquin etiam laicis jus est; quod " enim ex aequo accipitur, ex sequo dari potest. Nisi Episcopi " jam, aut Presbyteri, aut Diaconi, vocantur, Dicentes," &c. The chief Priest, who is the Bishop, has power to give (Baptism), and next to him the Presbyters and Deacons, (but not without the authority of the Bishop,) because of their honourable post in the Church, in preservation of which peace is preserved : other- wise even laymen have a right to give it, for what is received in common may be given in common. Except then that either Bishops or Presbyters or Deacons intervene, the ordinary Christ- ians are called to it. I have thrown in two or three words in the translation, to clear the sense of this passage ; I have chiefly followed Mr. Bennetl, both as to the sense and to the pointing of them, and refer you to him for their vindication. What I am to observe p De Baptismo, c. 17. q Rights, &c. p. 118. in reply io Mr. KelsaU's Answer. 103 from them is, that while he asserts an inherent right in laymen to baptize, he acknowledges the custom and practice of" the Church to have confined it to the Clergy only for the preservation of peace and order : and he elsewhere acknowledges the settle- ment of the Clergy to be of Divine institution, and to have obtained from the beginning. So that his assertion runs thus : " Were it not that Christ and his Apostles for wise ends and " reasons had confined the administration of Baptism to the " Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, even laymen might lawfully " take upon them to bajjtize, having an inherent right to do it " by virtue of their own Baptism ; which right they are only " now to use in cases of extreme necessity." Here is not the least intimation that the Church in his time either believed or practised thus. He appeals to no rule, order, or custom for the right of the laity, as he does for that of the Clergy ; but, for want of it, sets himself to invent reasons, and goes on in arguing and debating the point for a good while together ; which had been needless, had Lay-baptism been the current doctrine or practice of the Church. And beside, the same Tertullian* marks it as a singularity of the heretics in his own time, that they made laymen perform the offices of the Clergy : " Nam et laicis " sacerdotalia munera injungunt," are his words. He should have added, upon Mr.K.'s scheme, etiam extra casum necessitatis ; or else what would it have signified to have made such a remark upon the heretics ; when, upon supposition that the Church allowed the same, it might easily have been retorted upon him ? But since he remarks it as a singularity in heretics to allow of it in any case, it is evident Lay-baptism could not be the practice of the Church in his time. To return to the words we were before speaking of ; Mr. K. observes from Mr. Bingham, that it " would be strange, if TertuUian, describing just before the " practice of the Church in permitting Presbyters and Deacons " to baptize, should invert his discourse immediately in the very " next words," &c. But as Mr. Laurence in answer to Mr. B. more justly observes, " The word alioquin is a plain transition " from his former subject of what had reference to the Church's " law or custom ; and evidently shews that he is going to say " something that is separate and distinct therefrom. As much " as if he had said. By the law and custom of the Church the ^ De Prsescript. Haeret. c. 21. ^ De Prtescript. Hseret. c. 4. Ai 2 164 Dr. WaterlancTs Second Letter " Bishop has power to give Baptism, and after him Presbyters " and Deacons, yet not without the authority of the Bishop, for " the honour of the Church. Otherwise, distinct and separate " from the consideration of this law or custom, laymen also have " a right to give it." Upon the whole then, it is so far from appearing that Tertul- Han spoke the sense or practice of the Church in relation to Lay-baptism in his time, in the words cited, that the direct con- trary may be reasonably inferred from them ; and therefore Mr. K. will excuse me, if I repeat it again, that he spoke only his own private opinion. And though, for ought I know, Mr. Dod- well might be the first man that thought so, and might own it to be a paradox, being a very modest and ingenuous author, yet his reasons are good, and will abide the test ; or however, we should have taken it kindly of Mr. B. and INIr. K., who join in the censure, if they would have told us likewise who shall be the first man that shall confute him. But I proceed now to the other passage of TertuUian relating to this controversy, where he is arguing against second marriages : " Vani eriraus, si " putaverimus, quod sacerdotibus non liceat laicis licere ; Nonne " et laici Sacerdotes suraus ? Scriptum est, regnum quoque nos " et sacerdotes Deo et Patri suo fecit". Differentiam inter " ordinem et plebem constituit Ecclesiae autoritas, et honor per *' ordinis concessum sanctificatus, adeo ubi ecclesiastici ordinis *' non est consessus, et offers, et tinguis, et sacerdos es tibi solus " — igitur si habes jus sacerdotis in temetipso ubi necesse est, " habeas oportet etiam disciplinam sacerdotis, ubi necesse sit " habere jus sacerdotis. Digamus tinguis ? Digamus offers^," &c. Tertullian is here arguing against second marriages even in the laity. It was a rule in the Church in his time, and long after, almost universally held, and supposed to be founded in scripture y, that no Clergyman should marry a second wife. Tertullian being now a Montanist, and very austere in his temper and principles, had a mind to cany the matter further, and to bring even the laity under the same restrictions. It was a difficult matter for him to prove his point : however, being resolved to attempt something, he undertakes to prove that laymen are priests, and therefore ought to be subject to the same rules and the like restraints with them ; and consequently " Revel, i. 6. ^ Exh. ad Castit. ed. Rig. c. 7. p. 522. >" I Tim. iii. 2—12. Tit. i. 6. in reply to Mr. KelsalVs Answer. 165 not to marry twice. He endeavours to prove laymen priests from a text in the Revelation cited in the margin, from which he might as easily have proved them kings. But would it not from thence follow upon Tertullian's principles, that the laity and Clergy are all one, and might therefore indifferently officiate in the sacred ministrations 1 No. He was aware of that ; and therefore very probably to obviate such a surmise he adds, " Differentiam inter ordinem et plebem constituit," &c. as much as to say, " Though laymen have an inherent right to officiate, " yet the exercise of it is restrained so long as there is a parti- " cular order of men set apart for that purpose ; upon whose " rights and powers it would be an encroachment and usurpation " for any layman to pretend to officiate, where there is any " Clergyman to do it. But where there are no Clergy, there " can be no encroachment upon their authority ; and so the " reason of the restraint ceasing, a layman may then freely " exercise his inherent right, may baptize or give the Eucharist, " and be his own priest." That this is the sense of TertuUian, and the substance of his reasoning upon the case, I make no doubt : but if you are not satisfied, I refer you to Mr. Bennet^^^ who has spent about thirty pages in interpreting this single passage. That Tertullian here asserts, that laymen may baptize in want of Clergy, I readily allow : but that he lays it down as the doctrine or practice of the Church in his time, I utterly deny. It is all nothing else but his private reasoning; and that very probably in answer to a tacit objection, which he could not otherwise get rid of. So natural is it for a man, that will main- tain absurd paradoxes, to fall from one absurdity to another. Mr. K. upon this passage makes a strong misrepresentation of the sense of the author, and fancies he sees such principles as Tertullian never dreamt of. He says, " Certainly no man of " common sense would pretend to persuade men against second " marriages, upon the topic of supposing them to be thereby " unqualified to baptize, &c. in cases of necessity, if Baptism by " laymen had at that time been never practised." But this is all a mistake. Tertullian goes upon no such topic. The topic he went upon was, that laymen had an inherent priesthood in themselves, which he founds upon a mistaken text in the Reve- lation ; and what he asserts afterwards, of their right to baptize Rights of CI. cap. 9. 166 Dr. WaierlancTs Second Letter and give the Eucharist in case of necessity, is nothing but a forced inference, which his former premises necessarily drove him to, as has been before explained. However, that you may not suspect I assert any thing confidently without some grounds, I observe, 1 . That there is hardly a shadow of an argument to prove that he here spoke the sense of the Church. The chief thing commonly urged is, that offers and tingis are in the present tense, seeming to imply something then really practised : to which the answer is easy, that they are not to be understood indica- tively, but potentially, as Mr. Dodwell and Mr. Bennet have sufficiently shewn^. They do not signify, you do act thus, but, you may act thus, or have power to act thus, in consequence of the principle before laid down, that laymen have an inherent priest- hood. And that the words cited by Mr. K., Digamus offers ? Digamus tinguis ? are used potentially and not indicatively, is veiy plain : for as Mr. Bennet well observes, his friend had lately buried his wife, and was not yet married again ; and therefore the words can bear no other sense but this, Would you baptize and administer the Lord's Supper, when married a second time \ More might be added, but for brevity's sake I refer you to the foreraentioned authors, and proceed to shew, 2. That there are good reasons to prove that Tertullian did not speak the sense or practice of the Church at that time. Observe the words, " Adeo ubi ecclesiastici ordinis non est con- " sessus, et offers, et tinguis, et sacerdos es tibi solus." The adeo shews it to be an inference drawn from his former position, and not an assertion of any matter of fact in that time. Or if this does not satisfy, I shall add another consideration, which cer- tainly must. Tertullian here joins the administration of the Lord's Supper with that of Baptism ; and therefore if he spoke the practice of the Church in one, he did so in both ; which I presume Mr. K. himself will hardly say : that the ancient Church ever permitted laymen to consecrate the Eucharist, can never be supposed by any man that knows any thing of Church history. And yet Tertullian's words are as full and clear a proof of that, as of the practice of Lay-baptism. This is demonstration that he spoke not the sense of the Church, but his own. I know Mr. K. has here a sovereign charm, which he ^ De Jure Laico, p. 53. Rights, p. 298. in reply to Mr. KehalFs Answer. 167 had used before as well as now, and very unluckily in both places. He imagines that the word offers signifies no more than what Dr. Cave tells us, that laymen reserved consecrated elements in their houses, and so received at home : this is his sense, though not his words. But, with submission, 1 think it strange that Tertullian should mean no more than this : for not to mention that the word offerre absolutely put, answering to the Greek ■7Tpo(r(j)ep€Lv, hardly ever signifies any thing else in Church writers but to consecrate the Lord's Supper ; is constantly used so by St. Cyprian and Tertullian ^ himself in other places : I say, not to mention this, which is so well known to the learned, that Dr. H. B. Johnson, &c. take it for granted that offers in this place signifies administering the Eucharist : there is another consider- ation offered by Mr. Dodwell^, decisive in the case, viz. that the whole scope and tenor of Tertullian's reasoning makes it absui-d to take it in any other sense. For how ridiculous vi^ould be his whole reasoning, if, undertaking to prove that laymen had a proper inherent priesthood, and consequently might minister in sacerdotal offices, he should give an instance of an act not sacer- dotal; not requiring any sacred character? From the whole then 1 think it is evident that Tertullian did mean the giving the Eucharist in the strict sense, as a sacerdotal act. For it is plain, that Tertullian upon his own principles meant not to ex- clude the laity from any clerical functions, how high and sacred soever; provided only, that they should not assume them, but in extreme necessity in utter want of a proper Clergy. If then he spoke the doctrine or practice of the Church in relation to Baptism being administered by laymen, I must insist upon it, that he spoke the doctrine and practice of the Church in relation to the Eucharist too. But because Mr. K. will, I am sure, deny it of the latter, I must beg leave to deny it of the former also ; and consequently must still be bold to say, that Tertullian in this passage, as well as in the former, spoke only his own private opinion. Seeing then that TertuUian is thus singled out and separated, and has now nothing left to support him but his own slender reasons, it would be too easy a conquest to set upon him and confute him ; which has been done so often : and there- fore I leave him, only making these following observations in relation to him. ^ Ep. 1.5. 17. 63. 69. <= De vet. c. 9. de exh. Cast, c. 11. De Jure Laic. cap. i. 2, 10. Dr. WaterlancTs Seco?id Letter 1. That he allows of Lay-baptism^ but at the same time is forced to suppose laymen to be Priests in order to qualify them to baptize : so that, in the main, I take him to be of my side of the question ; for if I could but prove that laymen are not proper Priests, (under this word we include Deacons,) which would be no hard matter ; his own principles would lead him into my conclusion. 2. He founds his doctrine of Lay- baptism upon an inherent right of priesthood in every Christian. This can never agree with Mr. K.'s hypothesis ; who founds it upon I know not what plenitude of power in the Bishops, inconsistent with Tertullian's principles : and therefore, with submission, while he rejects his principles, he ought not, I think, allege his authority for the conclusion ; because, if you disarm Tertullian of his premises, you do at the same time in effect make him disown the conclu- sion built upon them. 3. Tertulhan allowed of Lay-baptism only in case of necessity: therefore his authority is not pertinently alleged in favour of Dissenters' Baptisms, which have no such plea ; consequently whatever force there may be in the argument drawn from his authority, it is wide of the question. 4. Tertullian acknowledges, that in all ordinary cases the administration of Baptism is appropriate to the Clergy, condemns all Lay-baptism in such cases, as irregular and sinful. Whether he would have pronounced them invalid does not certainly appear ; though it might be probably enough argued that he would ; because it was his principle, as Mr. K. himself owns, to annul heretical Baptisms and probably schismatical too, (the same general reasons affecting both.) and such Baptisms would be schismatical. It is therefore reasonable to believe, that he must have pronounced Dissenters' Baptisms (such as among us) null and void. And therefore perhaps in the main I was a little too complaisant to Mr. K. to give him up Tertullian ; who, if he were to speak home to the point in debate, I am persuaded would be on our side. For the inherent right of priesthood, on which he founds the validity of Lay-baptism, has no place in ordinary cases, or however ceases in a schism ; and then there is nothing left upon his principles to I'ender the thing valid. And now from Tertullian let us come to e De Bapt. c. 15. in reply to Mr. Kelsall's Answer. 169 St. Cyprian, 248. From whom Air. K. confesses he has no positive evidence. I should wonder much if he had ; because there cannot, I think, be a more positive evidence against him. You remember, I hope, that we are disputing whether the pretended Baptisms of Dissenters (i. e. of schismatical laymen) are valid. Now can any man imagine that Cyprian, who rejected the Baptisms of schismatical clergymen, should admit the pretended Baptisms of schismatical laics ? Nothing can be clearer than that St. Cyprian would have nulled and vacated all such pretended Baptisms. But it may perhaps be replied, that though St. Cyprian does agree with us in the conclusion, yet he differs from us in the premises, and condemns schismatical Baptisms, because schis- matical, and not because they were Lay-baptisms. To which I answer, that he rejected schismatical Baptisms, because they were in his opinion unauthorized uncommissioned Baptisms, which was in effect to call them Lay-baptisms, or however upon the same principle that schismatical Baptisms were rejected, all unauthorized Lay-baptisms must be rejected also. Mr. K. thinks that Cyprian's silence on this subject, when he had such an inviting occasion to speak of it, will afford a fair presumptive argument, that Baptism administered by a layman was not thought invalid. I am not of Mr. K.'s mind, and shall shew why, presently. Only first let me lay before you Mr. Bennet's reasoning from the like topic in this very case the other way : " Had any such thing (as Lay-baptism) been allowed before the " controversy of rebaptizing heretics was managed by St. Cy- " prian, it is impossible (as every one may see) that it should " never have been taken notice of by either of the contending " parties, though the necessary inference from such a practice " would have nearly affected that dispute — nor was any such " practice ever heard of before the fourth century." Mr. Bennet is very right ; for had Lay-baptism been admitted by the Church at that time, St. Cyprian's adversaries could not have failed to have taken advantage of it, in oi'der to invalidate his reasonings against schismatical Clergy, (for as to heretical, they are of distinct consideration,) being founded mostly on this principle, that they had forfeited their orders, and had no sacerdotal powers left, being cut off from the Church : for if the Baptisms of laics in the Church, who never had sacerdotal powers given, be valid ; why not the Baptisms of schismatical Clergy, who once had powers, but had lost them, according to Cyprian ? The 170 Dr. WaterlancTs Second Letter silence therefore of St. Cj'prian's adversaries upon this point is a demonstration that no such practice as that of Lay-baptism was known in the Church in his time. But as to St. Cj-prian's silence on the other hand, nothing can be inferred to the pre- judice of our cause. It was not necessary for him to say that Lay-haptism is allowed to be in valid ; therefore so is the Baptism of schisma- tics ; because this would have been begging the question, and proving idem per idem. The point was only whether schismatics had forfeited their orders or no ; and how impertinent would it have been for St. Cyprian to observe that laymen could not baptize, unless his adversaries had allowed the schismatical Gergy to be no more than laymen, which they never did allow, but still contended they were priests ; I say then that St. Cj'prian had no occasion to take notice of the invalidity of Lay- baptism ; because that, if granted, was wide of the point ; since it did not appear that the schismatical Clergy were no more than laymen. But he set himself to prove that they were not Priests, that they had lost their commissions, that they had no sacerdotal power or character left ; and that therefore their Baptisms were invalid. What was this, but in effect to prove them no more than laymen, and to reject their Baptisms on that very account ; because, as to commission, they had no more than laymen, having lost what they had ; What does it signify whether he called them laics or no ; so long as he said what was tantamount to it in other words, viz. that they were not Clergymen, and consequently, and therefore had no power to baptize • And that this was said over and over by St. Cyprian and his adherents, is too plain to need proof. I expect here to be told, that the main principle on which the Cyprianists grounded their severe doc- trine was, that schismatics were cut off from the Church ; and therefore all they did was invalid. This I readily own ; and it is very consistent with what I said before. For they reasoned thus : schismatics are /oris, extra Ecclesiam^ cut off from the Church : therefore, being divided from the fountain, they can convey nothing spiritual ; therefore they have no power left of baptizing:, their orders being as it were extinct, void, and null. So that the immediate reason why they could not baptize was, because their sacerdotal power was supposed to be lost and extinct, their right ceasing. But doth not this reason equally affect laymen, who never had this sacerdotal power or right vea theji ■ or does not the argument conclude as strongly in Reply to Mr. KelsalVs Answer. 171 against those that never had it, as against those that once had, but are supposed to have lost it ? St. Basil =^ therefore was much in the right in saying, that Cyprian and Firmilian, with their adherents, rejected the Baptisms of schismatics upon this prin- ciple, that being cut off from the Church, and become laics, \diKol yevofjievoL, they had lost the power of baptizing. For how does this differ from Cyprian's and Fii'mihan's own account of the matter, but in this small punctilio : according to St. Basil, they rejected the Baptisms of schismatics, because they judged them to be mere laics ; according to their own account, they rejected them, because they judged them to be no Priests, no proper or true Clergy. I know that other arguments were used in the dispute beside this ; yet this was the main argument, and most frequently occurs, except it be that schismatics had lost the power of remitting sins and conferring the Spirit, which almost amounts to the same thing. What I have here asserted is abundantly confirmed from St. Austin's management of this controversy with the Donatists afterwards. The main point, which he there undertakes to prove, and in which he prevails and triumphs over his adversaries at ever}- turn, is, that heresy and schism did not null or vacate orders. For when the Donatists objected to him, that schism deprived them of the right of baptizing, be denies it utterly, and pleads strongly for the indelible character^. And he proves it unanswerable upon a principle which both sides acknowledged, viz. that heresy or schism did not vacate Baptism before received in the Church. If a Layman by being a schismatic does not forfeit his Baptism, why should a Clergyman be thought to forfeit his orders ? " Utrum- " que enim sacramentum est, et quadam consecratione utrumque " homini datur, illud cum baptisatur, illud cum ordinatur, ideo- " que inCatholica utrumque non licet iterari." And he proceeds to observe at large, that when Clergymen who had deserted the Church were allowed again to officiate, (as they were some- times,) upon their return they were never reordained, having the priestly character still residing in them. He repeats this argu- ment in another place": " Nullus autem eorum ncgat habere " Baptismum etiam apostatas, quibus utique redeuntibus et per " poenitentiam conversis, dum non redditur, amitti non posse " judicant, quod si haberi foris (Baptismus) potest, etiam ^ Ad Amphilochium, c. 19. f Contra Ep. Parmen. 1. ii. c. 13. B De Bapt. 1. i. c. i. 172 Dr. Waterland's Second Letter " dari cur non potest ? Sacramentum enim Baptism! est, quod " habet, qui baptisatur, et sacramentum dandi Baptismi est, " quod habet, qui ordinatur. Sicut autem Baptisatus, si ab " unitate recesserit, sacramentum Baptismi non amittit ; sic " etiam ordinatus, si ab unitate recesserit, sacramentum dandi " Baptismi non amittit." And it is worth observing what he elsewhere observes of St. Cyprian in these words^^: "Satis " ostendit (Cyprianus) facilHrae se correcturum fuisse sententiam " suam, siquis ei demonstraret Baptismum Christi dari posse ab " eis, qui foras exierunt, quemadmodum amitti non potuit, cum " foras exirent, unde multa jam diximus, nec nos ipsi tale " aliquod auderemus asserere, nisi universse Ecclesiae concordis- " sima autoritate firmati." It was St. Cyprian's own principle, as well as that of the uni- versal Church at all times, that no schism, heresy, or even apostasy, could take away Baptism once validly given; and therefore Cyprian himselfi admitted all that returned to the Church (having been before baptized in it) without rebaptizing, and indeed constantly condemns rebaptization properly so called. St. Austin argues upon this principle ; if Baptism once validly given is alway valid, then orders once validly given are alway valid ; therefore can never be deleted by any heresy, schism, or apostasy; therefore schismatical Clergymen still retain their sacerdotal character, therefore their ministrations, and particu- larly Baptism, are still valid, inasmuch as they could not lose their right of baptizing given in their ordination. This is so clear all the way in St. Austin's dispute with the Donatists, that he that runs may read it. It is plain then, that he thought the strength of Cyprian's cause consisted in this one mistaken prin- ciple, that schism and heresy nulled orders : and that if St. Cy- prian had been convinced of that mistake, he would have changed his opinion. What is this but asserting, or at least insinuating, the very same thing with St. Basil ; that Cyprian rejected the baptism of schismatics, because he rejected their orders, and looked upon them, as to any sacerdotal power or right, as being no more than laymen I Upon the whole then, I venture to say again, and shall give further proof of it before I have done, " That the question in those times was not whether i> De Bapt. 1. h. c. 4. ' Ep. Ixxi. p. 194. in reply to Mr. KelsaWs Ansimr. 173 " Lay-baptisms were null, both sides supposing that as an un- " doubted principle, (meaning by Lay-baptisms unauthorized " Lay-baptisms,) but whether heresy and schism nulled orders." I have mentioned St. Austin only as a witness of St. Cyprian''s sense and meaning, whom he thoroughly studied, and as tho- roughly confuted, with respect to that point on which Cyprian grounded his opinion, viz. that heresy or schism nulled orders ; which being removed, there was nothing considerable left to sup- port the doctrine of the invalidity of heretical or schismatical Baptisms, if administered in due form with water and in the name of the blessed Trinity. For the clearer apprehension of Cyprian's principles, I shall just observe to you, wherein he and the other churches with him differed from the more ancient and universal Church with re- ation to schismatics. He thought they were entirely cut off from the Church, and therefore had nothing common with it, and consequently their Clergy were not Clergy. The other churches thought they were not so entirely cut off, but were parts still, though unsound parts, and retained many things common with the Church ; and so were still Christians in a large sense, as much as a baptized drunkard, idolater, atheist, or apostate, is such, or as much as a Judas or a Simon Magus. Cyprian in consequence of his principle, thought that all the powers of the schismatical Clergy were extinct and dead, as rays separated from the sun, branches broken off from the body of the tree, streams divided from the fountain. But the Catholic Church, if we may allow St. Austin to be her interpreter', thought the waters of Paradise, the spiritual powers of the Church, might flow in continued streams beyond Paradise itself, (by which is meant the Church,) and so spiritual powers might be conveyed and exercised validly, though not savingly ; so as the sacraments should not need to be repeated upon their return to the Church, but only to be made effectual to salvation by unity, repentance, and charity. You may observe then, that both of them sup- posed a necessity of a conveyance of spiritual powers to the ad- ministrators to make Baptism valid. And the only question was, whether in heresy or schism theirs was such a conveyance or no. St. Cyprian would not acknowledge any, St. Austin both ^ De Unit. Eccl. p. io8. ed. Oxon. Ep. 69, 73. Firm. Ep. 20. 202. ' Aug. de Bapt. 1. iv. c. i. passim. 174 Dr. Waierland''s Second Letter asserted and proved it. And so the doctrine of the indelible character, which St. Austin and the whole Catholic Church re- ceived at that time, was the main, if not the only principle, whereby they confuted St. Cyprian's tenets ; whose authority the Donatists made great use of in that controversy against the Catholics. From whence, by the way, I cannot but wonder at Mr. Bingham's strange attempt, strange in a man of his learning and sagacity, to overthrow this so well grounded notion of the indelible character of orders, by which, whatever he pretends, he runs cross to all antiquity, (except the African Church in the time of St. Cyprian, and a few years before and after,) and not only so, but upon tliat principle leaves the arguments of the Cyprianists and Donatists incapable of a sufficient answer. But to proceed. I hope I have said enough to shew how much Mr. K. is mistaken in his judgment about St. Cyprian ; and so might pass fairly to the next authority cited in this con- troversy : yet, that I may not seem to overlook any thing that he has been pleased to urge on the other side, 1 shall just take some short notice of what he has excepted, before I go any further. He thinks it highly probable that Cyprian was in the same sentiments with his master Tertullian. This argument is so in- conclusive in itself, and so easily confuted by more than twenty instances, wherein Cyprian was wiser than his master, that I need not enlarge further upon it : beside that Tertullian him- self, as 1 have observed above, was no great friend to Mr. K.'s hypothesis. He observes further, that probably among the heretics or schismatics some must be baptized by laics, and therefore wonders why St. Cyprian did not make that an argu- ment against their Baptisms, if he disowned Lay-baptism ; since that would have been the most plausible argument of all. But in answer to this, I am far from thinking that that argument would have been plausible, or so much as pertinent or proper to support St. Cyprian's cause ; because it would not have affected the heretics in general, but only some part of them, viz. those that allowed women or laics to baptize. Besides, amongst .those, all were not baptized by women or laics, but only some few, very probably an inconsiderable number in comparison. Consider then how Mr. K. would make Cyprian argue : " Among some " heretics it may sometimes happen, that persons may have no " other Baptisms but from the hands of women or laics ; there- in reply to Mr. Kelsall's Answer. 175 " fore I would have all that come from heretics (though most o " them have been baptized by heretical clergymen) baptized in " the Church." Would this have been a conclusion worthy of St. Cyprian ? Would this have been the most plausible argument of all, which is so manifestly inconclusive, and would only have exposed the cause ? In a word, St. Cyprian's drift and design was to prove all heretical and schismatical Baptisms null ; and so there is a plain reason to be given why he would not use Mr. K.'s argument, which is vastly short of the point. I may ob- serve here, by the way, that when the Church came to distin- guish between heretics, allowing the Baptisms of some and not of others, they rejected the Baptisms of the Montanists, (among which you may reckon the Pepuzians and Quintilians,) while they allowed of Arians and Macedonians, as great heretics as the other. See Gen. Cone. Constant, can. 7. Yet it was not given as a reason for rejecting their Baptisms, that women and laics among them baptized, because there were other general reasons that were sufficient, which affected them all. But from hence I remark, that it does not appear that the Church ever received the Baptisms of any of these heretics, who allowed laymen or women to baptize ; so that nothing can be thence inferred in favour of Lay-baptism. To what has been said I may add this, that there might be another such argument, every whit as plausible as this now mentioned ; that some heretics, particularly the Montanists™, did not baptize children, but delayed Baptisms a long time; from whence it might be that several heretics re- turning might happen to be unbaptized : yet neither did St. Cyprian use that argument ; probably because it did not affect all, and such a particular case might be remedied as well as the other, only by demanding certificates of their Baptism before their admission into the Church. Mr. K. next, in order to weaken the testimony of St. Basil, observes, that he does not give us the words either of Cyprian or Firmilian. But I have already proved that he gives us their sense, which is enough. And sure, if we could not prove it from Cyprian's or Firmilian's own works, so considerable a writer as Basil, who lived about a century after them, and was successor to one of them in his see, might be credited upon his bare word in a matter of testimony, as this is. As to the next Hist, of Mont. p. 147. 176 Dr. Waterland's Second Letter exception, that Basil might mean, not Cyprian and Firmilian, but their adherents ; I am persuaded upon second thoughts he will be inclined to believe that he meant both ; especially if he considers that the tenet there laid down was the principle of the party, as I have observed above, was received by the Donatists* and does not appear to have been completely and solidly answer- ed, before St. Austin undertook it. And then he did not pi'etend to confute the principle itself, (unless a few diffident conjectures brought in by the by may be called a confutation,) but in the main he confirmed the principle, and denied the inference drawn from it. And this is a sufficient answer to the other subterfuge, that St. Cyprian might perhaps " speak only his private opinion;" for though I readily own that the Church in a few years after determined against his principle of heresy or schism's nulling orders : yet they never so determined against his other, that unauthorized Baptism is null. And even as to the former prin- ciple, though in comparison it was novel, (since Cyprian himself could have it no higher than Agrippinus,) and never was general ; yet the world was nearly divided into halves upon it in the time of St. Cyprian, and perhaps afterwards, till the Councils of Aries" and Nice" decided the question. What follows in Mr. K. has been answered already. And so I pass on to the Elvira, leaving St. Basil to come in again in due time and place. Council of Elvira, A.D. 305. 19 Bishops. The thirty-eighth canon is what concerns our present dispute. The words you have in Mr. K. His reflection upon them is this. That the Fathers of that Council " do not so much assert, as " suppose and take for granted the liberty of laymen to baptize in " cases of necessity, (nothing being more common in that age,) but " restrain the use of that liberty to such alone of the laity as " had not unqualified themselves for holy orders." A strange account this of that Spanish Council, and in those few words no less than three either manifest mistakes, or at least ground- less suggestions. I. That " they supposed or took for granted" the liberty of laymen to baptize, how does this appear? Because they gave them such a liberty, therefore they supposed they had it before. The words of the canon are, " posse baptizare," i. e. such a » A.D. 314. c. 8. ° A.D. 325. c. 19. in Reply to Mr. KelmlVs A nsiver. 177 person as is there described may baptize : he is empowered or au- thorized by this present canon to do it ; therefore say I, he coukl not do it beforCj or else, what need of the canon I 2. " Nothing being more common in that age." Whence could Mr. K. learn this ? We have seen what Tertullian's and St. Cyprian's authorities amount to ; and shall inquire into the rest in order, who will be found to say no such thing : or does he ground it wholly on this canon I That is what I imagine ; and then it is an inference from what he said before ; because the Council took it for granted, therefore it must be " common in " that age." But the first is so far from being true, as I have observed, that the very words and intent of the canon rather prove the quite contrary. But he supposes the intent of the canon was, 3. " To restrain the use of some liberty" which they had before. This is very wonderful, that men upon a voyage and under great necessities, which might entitle them to the most favour and indulgence of any, should have a canon made on purpose to abridge them of a liberty, that any man might take at home. But waving the unreasonableness of such a suppo- sition, which seems as absurd as to say, because you ham more occasion for liberty, therefore you shall have less ; I say, waving that, yet how is it reconcilable with the very frame and tenor of the canon, which upon Mr. K.'s scheme should have had a quite different turn, in the form of a prohibition, as thus : " Though it has been a custom for laymen to baptize in cases of " necessity ; yet in this particular case upon a voyage we strictly " forbid it, unless with these provisoes, fee." and so it should have been worded negatively, " Non posse quenquam, qui sit " bigamus, &c." which would, in my humble opinion, have suited much better with the wisdom and accuracy of the Spanish Fathers. But not to insist further in so clear a case ; the truth is, here is a plain permission of Lay-baptism, though under several restrictions; and I wonder any man who is concerned for the credit of his cause should endeavour to make any thing more of it, because it betrays a bias, and makes the argument look less considerable than it really is. But to come to the point, wo may observe as to this canon, I. It must be in a case of extreme necessitij. This gives no umbi'age to the baptisms of Dissenting laymen with us, who can plead no such necessity. The administrator must be one of the WATERLAND, VOL. VI. N 178 Dr. Waterland's Second Letter faithfuL who lias Ids one Baptism entire, i. e. probably confirmed, and one that is in communion with the 13ishop. Therefore necessity alone is no sufficient plea, nor the inherent right men- tioned by Tertullian ; because if they were, there would have been no need of further restrictions. And yet besides the former, he was not to be a bigamist. 2. The most that can be made of this Council is, that the Spanish Fathers thought authorized Lay-baptisms valid ; which does not affect our present question, as it has been observed. 3. It does not appear that this was the current doctrine of the Catholic Church at that time, but rather the contrary; be- cause if it had been so, there had been no need of a particular canon to allow it. 4. It is not a testimony of fact, but the judgment only of a ])rivate council. However, I am willing to allow that a national council may afford as considerable an evidence of the doctrine and discipline of the Western Church, as St. Basil's single letter can of the Eastern and something more, provided it be meant only of the times when St. Basil wrote, and this Council was held. But then it is to be noted, that it does not appear that the Western Church ever received this canon of the Spanish Councils, nor was its authority ever urged, as Dr. Brett well observes, by any of the Fathers, who pleaded for the validity of Lay-baptism ; whereas the epistle of St. Basil is a canonical epistle, and received by the Greek Church, and as such is put into the canonical code of that Church, as early as the sixth century at least. This so important and material a difference between these two is of great force in the present argument, and should not, 1 think, have been concealed from the reader. When we quote the epistle of St. Basil, we give the authority of the whole Greek Church, who received it ; but when we quote this canon, it is no more than the private opinion of one national church ; and yet, to make the best of it, it comes not up to the matter in debate, but is wide of the question, since it allows no Baptism by laymen, but what is authorized hy Bishops, done in extreme necessity, done by one in communion with the Church, and qualified for orders. Here are no less than four qualifying circumstances ; none of which are applicable to the pretended Baptisms of our Dissenters, about which we are disputing ; and hj to Mr. Kehall's Answer. 187 2. That notwithstanding he was wilhng to comply with the custom of the Church in receiving their Baptisms. Here he has so blended and confounded St. Basil's true meaning, that it will take some pains to set it in a true light. The truth is^ St. Basil in his own opinion looked upon heretical and schismatical priests as laymen ; but yet was willing to submit his judgment in that matter to the judgment and practice of the Church, which did not look upon them generally as laymen, but owned the validity of their Orders, and sometimes received them again, permitting them to officiate by virtue of the Orders they had during their heresy or schism ; and upon this foot it was that St. Basil was willing to allow their Baptisms ; not that he thought Lay-baptism valid, as Mr. K. mistakes the case, but because their Orders were looked upon by the Church as valid, he concluded their Baptisms were so too. To make the whole clearer, let it be observed, that St. Basil, going to declare what Baptisms should be valid, and what not, makes in the first place a distinction between heretics and schismatics ; the pretended Baptisms of the foniier he rejects utterly, and observes, "that Cyprian and " Firmilian and their adherents went further, rejecting the Bap- " tisms of the Cathari, or Novatians, who were only schismatics, " upon this principle, that they being no longer members of the " Church, they had forfeited their Orders, and had no more " power to baptize, &c. than mere laymen : yet since the Asia- " tic churches had received the Baptisms of such schismatics, " he was willing to submit his judgment." I suppose he might have the determination of the Nicene Council in his eye, cited above, that declared the Ordinations of the Novatian Clergy valid, and consequently their Baptisms ; and so the Church re- ceived both. He proceeds next to consider the l^aptisms of the Encratitse, another sort of schismatics, and seems inclined to reject them, but thinks there may be some reasons in some cases why they should be received. At length he concludes, with this remarkable observation : " But I know that we have received " our brethren Zois and Saturninus, who were of that sect, into " the episcopal chair : wherefore we can no longer separate those " from the Church who were joined to them, having already " made a kind of rule for their communion with us by receiving " their Bishops." You sec from hence the rule and standard which St. Basil goes upon as to receiving of schismatical Baptisms : if their 188 Dr. WaterlancTs Second Letter Orders were receivedj he would receive their Baptisms, and makes the latter depend upon the former. He still adheres to his principle, that Lay-baptism is null ; only, because he was willing to think that the Orders of schismatics were good, and that therefoi'e their Baptisms were not Lay-baptisms, he is con- tent to receive them. Can any thing be a clearer evidence for the invalidity of Lay-baptism than this is ? Gregory Nazianzen, A. D. 370. Mr. K. having only a Latin version of the author, therein, it seems, reads these words : " Tu vero neminem non satis dignum " et idoneum ad Baptists munus obeundum existima : qui " modo inter pios censeatur, ac non aperte condemnatus sit, " atque ab Ecclesia alienus — omnes citra ullum discrimen vim " porficiendae anirafe habere existima, qui modo eadem fide sint " informati." And these he would interpret in favour of Lay- baptism, though it be clear to a demonstration, from what goes before and after, and from the whole scope, drift, and design of the place, that Gregory meant nothing like it. Read the whole passage, (but in English, because of its length,) and tell me if a man must not wink very hard to mistake it. Gregory is advising his catechumens not to be fanciful or curious in the choice of a minister to baptize themS. " Say not thou, a " Bishop shall baptize me, and he a Metropolitan, or one of " Jerusalem. For grace is not the gift of the place, but of the Spirit. Say not, I will be baptized by one of noble birth, and " that it will be a reproach to my quality to be baptized by any " other. Say not, if a Presbyter is to baptize thee, that he " shall be one that is unmarried, and one of the continent and " angelic order ; as if thy Baptism were defiled, when adminis- " tered by another. Make not thyself a judge of the fitness or " qualification of the preacher or baptizer ; for there is another " that judges of these things. Sot 8e ttSs aftoTTtoros ets tt]v " KaOapaiv, fxovov eorco rts tu)v eyKpiTwv Koi fj-rj tS>v TTpohrjKa^ " KaTeyvuxTfxevaiV) fxrjSe eKKX-qata? aAAoVpto?. [xr] Kplve Tovi Kpirds. " Every one is qualified to thee for thy purgation, provided only " he be one approved, and not under public censure, nor cast off " from the Church ; judge not thy judges, thou that hast need " of healing. Tell rae not of the dignity of thy purgators, make e Orat. xl. de Bapt. p. 656. ed. Paris. in Reply to Mr. KelsaWs A nswer. 189 " no difference between one spiritual father and another ; one " may be of more or less dignity than another, but any of " tliem is superior to thee : if there be two seals, the one of brass, " the other of iron, but both bearing the same i-oyal image " upon them, and so making the same impression upon the " wax, what difference can you find between one impression " and another? None at all. Ourws eorco ao\ iras BaTinoT?)?, Kav " Tj] ■noX.LTfta TTpoe'xj?, aXX' ijye tov BaiTTLaixaTos ^vvajxis twr/, koI " T-qXeioTTOiui (TOL TTtts 6/1*010)9 6 TJ] avTj] TTLaTd {jLeixopcfxajxevos. So as " to the ministers of Baptism, though one be a better man than " another, yet the power and efficacy of the Baptism is the " same ; and any of them indifferently may give you Baptism, " that is of the same faith u-ith you.'''' By which I suppose he means one that is not an heretic. That all this relates only to the Clergy, as the proper administrators of Baptism, is, I think, evident beyond dispute ; 1. From the comparison made between Bishop and Bishop, and between a Presbyter and Presbyter, not between Priest and Laic, or one Laic and another ; intimating that men should not be too curious in the choice of their ministers, since all had the same authority. 2. From that it must be a person approved by the Church, Now I hope that Mr. K. will not say, that laymen were approved by the Church as the ministers of Baptism in ordinary cases, to which these words plainly refer. 3. From the administrators being here called the judges, implying some authority over them, which cannot be said of Lay-administrators ; but it may truly and rationally be said, that catechumens should not pretend to judge of the qualification of those whom God had appointed to the office. And St. Gre- gory would argue very weakly and inconclusively on the other supposition. 4. Gregory mentions no administrator lower than a Priest. He begins with Bishops, bidding them not be curious whether this or that Bishop, and then proceeds to Priests, giving the like direction about them. Why did not he go on to Deacons, and so at last to laymen, or even women, upon Mr. K.'s hypothesis ? In short, from Gregory's words we may sooner prove that even Deacons did not administer Baptism in his days, tlian that laymen did. And indeed that 1 take to have been the standing rule in the Greek Church especially, that none but 190 Dr. Waterland''s Second Letter Priests should ordinarily administer Baptism, nor any lower than Deacons in the greatest necessity ; which seems to have been the rule of the Church also in the time of St. Chrysostora ^. Believe me, Sir, these good Fathers were men of true Church principles, and would have sooner laid down their lives than have betrayed the rights of their order. To proceed. jMr. K. imagines that Nazianzen "gives such advice as any of us " would give to an adult in the like case." I hope so too : and sure any of us in the like case would advise an adult to go to the minister of his own parish for Baptism, and not to ramble I know not whither for a gifted man to do it ; much less should any of us advise him to take up with the first layman he could find, and to ask Baptism of him. But Mr. K. adds, "if any " emergency should drive him to desire Baptism at the hands of " a layman, then, fcc." but not a tittle is there of any such sup- posed emergency in St. Gregory. He is putting the case, that some may be scrupulous, nice, and humoursome, that any Priest would not satisfy them, unless it were an unmarried Priest, nor that neither, unless he were a Bishop, or even an Archbishop, or a Bishop of such a particular place as Jerusalem, or so and so qualified. Do not you see plainly by this time what an imaginary construction ]Mr. K. had been making from plain words, that bear quite another meaning, and are as far from countenancing Lay-baptism, as preaching or praying in a schis- matical conventicle ? For the purpose : might not you or I advise any person not to have itcJdng ears, not to be nice and curious about their ministers, but to be content to edify under any, and submit to such as God has appointed them, without making themselves judges of things and persons beyond their proper sphere : I say, might we not fairly offer such advice without being suspected of any design to commend Lay-preach- ing? And yet I am confident there would be as much ground for such a supposition, as there is for what Mr. K. would insinuate from St. Gregory about Lay-baptism. Apostolical Constitutions. I shall here insert a few passages relating to our subject from the Apostolical Constitutions ; not laying any great stress upon them, because of the uncertain authority of that work. " * As h De Sacerd. lib. iii. Horn. 6i. torn. vii. ed. Savil. 423. ' Ap. Constit. lib. ii. c. 27. in Heply to Mr. KelsaWs Answer. 191 " it was not lawful for a stranger that was not of the ti-ibe of " Levi to offer any thing, or approach the altar without a " Priest ; so do ye nothing without the Bishop. For if a man " does any thing without the Bishop, ets /xc^rrjv Ttotet avro, he does " it in vain. It shall not be imputed to him as any service. " As Saul, when he had offered sacrifice without Samuel, was " told, /ixejuarat'wrat (rot, that it was of no effect : so whatever " layman does any thing without the Priest, (or Bishop,) judrata " TTouL, he does it in vain.'''' See Second Part of Lay-Baptism Invalid, p. 117. " k We suffer not laics to usurp any of the sacerdotal offices, " as the Eucharist, Baptism, imposition of hands, &c. for no " man taketh upon him this honour, but he that is called of " God'. For this dignity is given by the imposition of hands " of the Bishop. But whosoever hath it not by commission but " seizes it to himself, shall bear the punishment of Ozias." All I shall observe from hence is, that no exception or proviso is made for cases of necessity. The prohibition is general and full. The first quotation seems directly to make Lay- Baptism invalid ; the other is clear for the unlawfulness of it : both suppose Baptism a sacerdotal act, and found it upon sacerdotal powers, conveyed by episcopal ordination ; so interpreting the commission to baptize, as to preclude the laity. St. Jerome, A. D. 384. Great dispute has been about the sense and meaning of St. Jerome in relation to the present controversy ; both sides con- tending that he is expressly for them, and both having some- thing very plausible to urge for their respective opinions. I have considered this matter very carefully, and shall state it very fairly and impartially, as far as I am able to judge of it; and perhaj)S in conclusion ISIr. K. himself will have no reason to complain of me. His Dialogue against the Luciferians is what we are to examine. The Luciferians, as is well known, so called from Lucifer Bishop of Caralis, (now Cagliari in Sardinia,) the head of the schism, separated from the Catholic Church, because they had received the Arian Bishops ; yet they scrupled not to receive the Arian Laymen to communion. St. Jerome undertakes to confute them upon their own principles, by shewing them how ^ Ap. Constit. lib. iii. c. 10. I Heb. v. 4. 192 Dr. WaterlmuVs Second Letter inconsistent they were in rejecting the Bishops, and yet receiving the laics, and how they must upon their own principles either be obliged to receive or reject both. The Luciferians pretended that the Arian Bishops were by their heresy and crimes utterly disabled from acting in sacris to any purpose, that their minis- trations were ineffectual, their light extinguished, their powers deleted, in a word, they unbishoped them. St. Jerome confutes their pretences by this single argument ; that since they allowed their Baptisms, they must of consequence admit of their other sacerdotal ministrations as effectual and valid, and therefore own their character not to be extinct, nor their sacerdotal powers deleted. The most remarkable words of the Dialogue to this purpose are the following : " "iQuamobrem, oro te, aut sacrificandi ei licentiam tribuas, " cujus baptisma probas, aut reprobas ejus baptisma, quem non " existimas saccrdotem."" " " Arianus baptizat, ergo Episcopus est : non baptizat : tu " refuta laicum, et ego non recipio sacerdotem." " ° Tu eum Episcopum probas, quia ab eo recipis baptizatum " — Christianus non est, si non habuerit sacerdotem, qui eum " faceret Christianum." From these words, and from the whole scope and drift of St. Jerome's argument, Dr. Forbes and Mr. Beeves, and after them Dr. Brett and Mr. Laurence, thought it reasonable to assert, that the invalidity of Lay-baptism was the undoubted principle upon which the orthodox confuted the Luciferians in St. Jerome's times. For it is very plain, that the validity of the Arian Bap- tisms is here made an argument of the sacred character still residing in the Arian Bishops ; from whence it may seem rea- sonable to infer, that according to the principles of that age the validity of Baptism depends upon the sacred character, and con- sec^\ei\t\y Lai/-baptism is invalid. St. Jerome seems plainly to suppose a reciprocal connection between the validity of Baptism, and the validity of the Orders of the baptizer ; and it is very certain, that the Donatists afterwards laid a great stress upon this principle in their disputes against the Catholics, which made St. Austin labour hard to prove the validity of Orders once given'', and that they could never be extinct or deleted after- m Dial. adv. Lucif. i. c. 2. " Cap. 5. ° Ibid. P Cont. Ep. Parin. lib. ii. c. 13. in Iiej)ly to Mr. KelsaWs Answer. 193 wards, in order to establish the vahdity of the Baptisms of the Cathohcs. And it is worth remarking what he says relating to Fielicianus and those baptized by him, whom the Donatists received inconsistently with their usual stiffness and severity. " In honore quippe suo sicut exierat, ita receptus est cum " his omnibus quos ipse foris positus baptizavit, nullo eorum " rebaptizato : quia si aliquem eorum, quos foris baptizavcrat, " rebaptizandum esse censerent, judicarent eum amisisse jus " dandi, cum foris esset ; et proptei'ea consequens erat, ut ipsum " quoque iterum ordinarent^ si illos iterum baptizarent." You may please to observe from hence, that the Donatists in St. Austin's time founded the validity of Baptism upon the right of the administrator. If the baptizer had not jus dandi, a right to give Baptism, it was looked upon as null. By i\\G jus dandi, they meant the power received in ordination ; for so St. Austin understands and explains it in the place cited, and in the other parts of the chapter. Therefore they founded the validity of Baptism on the validity of the baptizer's Orders ; and therefore Lay-baptism in ordinary cases at least, upon their principles, was null and void. Now if you please to compare thus far the prin- ciple of the Donatists with what we have seen from Cyprian and Basil before, and now again from Jerome ; you can hai'dly believe otherwise, than that that had been a standing rule of the Church at least in ordinary cases ; and that the Donatists were so far Catholic in their principles, though they drew wrong conclusions from them. I know St. Austin endeavoured to resolve the validity of Baptism in another principle, as being Christ's Bap- tism if done in due form by any administrator. But this was ex abundanti, moi-e than he needed to have done, having before sufficiently vindicated the validity of heretical or schismatical Orders, which was the main point. And what he adds further is a new notion of his own, unless Optatus may be said to have broached it before him. St. Jerome indeed in this very Dialogue has these words in relation to Baptism : " Quod frequenter, si " tamen necessitas cogit, scimus etiam licere laicis, iit enim accipit " quis ita et dare 2^otest.'''' A very wise reason ! I hope the Church had a better, if that were her practice. However, I will not say, with Dr. Brett and Mr. Laurence, that this was a slip of his pen, and inconsistent with the rest of the Dialogue. I will suppose that the practice of Lay-baptism in cases of necessity had got some footing in the Latin Church about his time. But WATERLAND, VOL. VI. O 194 Dr. Waterlamrs Second Letter then I say it was by the permission of the Bishops, whenever it was, and was not xinauthorized Lay-hapi'mn^ nor was any such per- mitted in ordinary cases, or allowed to be valid : and so to make St. Jerome coherent and consistent, he might perhaps think Lay-baptism unauthorized, and in ordinary eases invalid ; and yet allow of the validity of authorized Lay-baptism in cases ex- traordinary ; or else, he might think that the saccrdotium laid, which he speaks of, might take place in such circumstances, and consistently enough allow laymen, when necessity makes them Priests, as he seems to imagine, to execute the pi-iestly function : or, in short, he might suppose Lay-baptism lawful., and there- fore valid, when permitted by the Church in case of necessity ; and yet think it unlawful, and therefore invalid., in other cases. And indeed I take it for a certain truth, which I shall explain and prove in the sequel, that wherever Baptism is unlawful in the toliole act, not circumstantially, but essentially unlawful, it is also invalid. Thus I think the good Father is clear enough from contradic- tion ; and yet nothing can be drawn from him in favour of our Dissenters' Baptisms, which have no permission from the Church, nor any plea of necessity : and therefore we are still as much at a loss as ever to find any principle of the ancient Catholic Church whereon to found their validity. And now let us take leave of St. Jerome, and come to St. Austin, A. D. 400. I have mentioned this Father more than once already. I shall now lay before you so much out of him, as may give you a suffi- cient idea of the principle he went upon. It was objected to him by the Donatists, that heretics or schismatics had forfeited their Orders, and therefore could not validly baptize. Now observe how he answers this objection. I. He absolutely denies the very supposition on which the objection was founded'!, proving that heresy and schism did not vacate Orders for these reasons, because neither heresy nor schism could vacate Baptism once truly given ; and he thought there was a plain analogy between the sacrament, as he calls it, of Orders, and that of Baptism •1 Contr. Ep. Farm. lib. ii. c. 13. Ibid. De Bapt. lib. i. c. 12. et alibi passim. in reply to Mr. KehalVs Answer. 195 Because the Catholic Church always thought tiiat Orders once truly given could never be deleted by any heresy or schism, or indeed by any thing. And here he observes, that if any of the heretical or schismatical Clergy upon their return to the Church were allowed to officiate again as Clergy, they were admitted without any new ordination ; a plain argument that heresy or schism had not deleted their Orders : nay, he observes further, that though they were often not allowed to officiate, but only admitted to Lay-communion ; yet even then they were not looked upon as laymen, and therefore did not submit to penance and receive imposition of hands, which was the usual discipline for returning laics. " Non eis ipsa ordinationis sacramenta de- " trahuntur, sed manent super eos ; ideoque non eis in populo " manus imponitur, ne non homini sed ipsi Sacramento fiat " injuria." To this answer, though full, plain and unexception- able, and agreeable to the known rules and practice of the Catholic Church, he subjoins another of his own with great diffidence and modesty. 3, He denies the consequence, that Baptism must necessarily be null upon supposition that heresy or schism did vacate orders ; and he brings it in as it were by the by, and ex ahundanti. " Quanquam etsi laicus aliquis pereunti dederit (Baptismum) " necessitate compulsus, quod cum ipse acciperet, quomodo dan- " dum esset addidicit, nescio an pie quisquam dixerit esse repe- " tendum V Does this look as if Lay-baptism even in cases of necessity was a customary practice in the Church in his time ? Would he have spoke with such diffidence, "nescio an pie?" would not he rather have urged the authority and custom of the Church, as in the 'case before mentioned, and have said, instead of nescio an pie, certe impie or temere ? But he is here offering his own private conjecture in a case that had not been expressly determined in any council, though the reason of the thing, and the custom of the Church, were sufficiently against him. He has neither rule nor instance to plead in his behalf, and therefore endeavours to supply that want by his own private reason ; and so he goes on to give his opinion that Lay-baptism may be valid even in ordi- nary cases, though irregular and sinful, upon this principle, " quod datum fuerit, non potest dici non datum :" which is either begging the question, or arguing thus; A person is washed in the name of the Trinity, therefore ho is baptized. After he had 196 Dr. WatcrlancVs Second Letter wandered a wliile in the dark about this question, indulging too far his own private conjectures, he returns at length to his first answer, as being more just and solid, and abides by it ; insisting again upon it, that heretical or schismatical Clergy had not lost their Orders ; and he appeals to the decision of the whole Christ- ian world in proof of his assertion, and so goes on triumphantly on that point to the end of the chapter. By the way, it is very apparent, that St. Austin never imagined that the Baptisms of the schismatical or heretical Clergy were Lay-baptisms, nor that the Council of Aries, or Nice, or any other, meant any such thing. That was what none but the Donatists pretended in that time, or since, till Mr. B. was pleased to oblige the world with the second part of his Scholastical History, which I heartily wish, for his own sake, and for the sake of his other excellent works, he had never published, so much to the discredit of him- self and them. But to proceed. It may be observed of St. Austin, that though at first in his disputes with the Donatists he was very modest and diffident in proposing any of his own private conjectures, keeping close for the most part to the known rules and principles of the Church ; yet afterwards in the progress of the dispute, as men are apt especially when flushed with victory to grow both warmer and bolder, he ventured to proceed further, and to lay it down for a maxim, that any Baptism was good by whomsoever administei'ed in the form of words, in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. This was a short and easy solution for any difficulty ; and were it as solid too, would justify all the lengths of Popery in the matter of Baptism, would not only prove that heretics or schismatics, whether of the Clergy or Laity, may validly baptize, but that women and children, and even Jews, Turks, and Pagans, either seriously or in sport and mockery, may administer true Baptism. But as that maxim of his was novel, and only founded on this weak pretence, that it is Christ's Baptism when- ever it is administered in his form, (which is nothing but apetitio principli, or taking for granted the thing to be proved.) 1 shall not think it worth the v.hile to say jyiy thing further to it : only observing this, that St. Austin, in his management of the contro- versy with the Donatists, says enough to silence and confound his adversaries without it. He proves unanswerably, that the validity of the sacraments does not depend upon any thing uncertain and precarious, as the personal qualifications of the in reply to Mr. KelsalVs Answer. 197 minister, either known or secret, and neither the intention of the minister, nor his orthodoxy, nor his Hfe and manners, can come into the question. But to infer further, that the validity of the sacraments depends entirel}" upon God, and not at all upon the administrator, is carrying the point too far ; is dissolv- ing all rule and order in the Church ; is frustrating Christ's commission to his Apostles, and melting down all distinction between Clergy and Laity. He might safely enough have said, and consistent with his other principles, that God had tied down the efficacy and validity of his sacraments to regular and authorized ministry, acting in his name and by his commission. This hypothesis is not uncertain and precarious, but clear, certain, and evident, by a perpetual succession from the times of the Apostle ; which can never fail, while the Church stands, or the world lasts. This secures all that St. Austin was contending for, and at the same time keeps up the honour and respect due to God's holy ordinances and institutions. In short, it is a middle way between the two extremes ; ascertaining to us the validity of the sacraments without any diminution of the priest- hood, or any breach of rules and orders. And here I might dismiss St. Austin, but perhaps Mr. K. may expect I should take notice of what he has said in relation to him, which I shall do in short. Pie can hardly believe it possible " that St. Austin should be "ignorant what was the practice of the Church in his time:" nor do I think it possible, or however not likely ; and liis pro- posing his opinion so modestly and with so much diffidence is to me a plain argument of it. But Mr. K. adds, that he would not " go about to innovate any thing in the rituals or discipline of " the Chui'ch." Truly I believe not, upon his own authority. But he might nevertheless humbly offer his own private opinion ; and it is no strange thing for great men to have some particular fancies to themselves, or to think out of the common road ; and there is no harm in it generally, if they be but modest and humble withal, and be willing to submit to lawful authority and decisions of the Church. However, it is fact, that St. Austin had his nostrums and particular opinions. He often left the notions of his predecessors to follow a path wholly new, as Dupin has judiciously observed of him, applying to him the character that Cicero gives of himself, that he was inagnus opinator. After all, suppose it could not be proved, that the 198 Dr. Waterlandh Second Letter invalidity of Lay-baptism was the doctrine of the Church in St. Austin's time, must it therefore follow that they held the contrary opinion 1 Might not they be silent as to cither side of the ques- tion, or think little of it, having no occasion to dispute it I It is as plain and clear as possible from St. Austin, that he knew of no determination of the Church in favour of Lay-baptism. He would never have hesitated, as he does upon the case, had he known of any such decision, but would have appealed to the declared judgment and practice of the Church, as he does in many other cases, had there been the least ground or pretence for it. It is enough then for us to say, that in St. Austin's time there was no rule of the Church, no warrant for the validity of Lay-baptism. They that say there was ought to prove it, and not to put it upon us to prove that the Church had determined expressly against it. We have enough from scripture and from the reason of the thing for our side of the question, though an- tiquity had said nothing of it : and therefore they who make their boast of the ancients should shew plainly that the ancients are for them ; otherwise their cause drops, and has nothing left to support it. And yet when they come to speak of the ancients, the most that is commonly attempted is, to shew that they have not spoken expressly on our side ; which yet they can never shew ; but if they could, this would be only an artful way of turning the tables upon us, and, instead of proving their jjretences good, is presuming groundlessly they are so without proof, unless we demonstrate them to be false. So that the greatest pretences to antiquity, when they come to be examined, amount only to this ; that the Church has not in every age determined expressly against them in this point ; when they ought to have shewn that it always determined for them ; or that it did so at least some time or other within the first six hundred years, which I am persuaded they can never prove. But I must not forget to take notice of what Mr. K. subjoins, that he has positive evidence from St. Austin, that Lay-baptism in cases of necessity was a thing frequently practised. Let us see what this positive evidence is; for I nuich suspect it: the words are, " Etiam laicos solere dare sacramentum quod acce- " perunt solemus audire.'" It seems some reports were spread abroad, and came to St. Austin's ear, (whether true or false is not said,) that laymen (in cases of necessity) were somewhere used to baptize. Suppose I deny the truth of the reports, how in reply to Mr. KchaWs Ansicer. 199 will any man prove it ? And what becomes of the positive evidence ? Suppose I grant it ; what does it signify with regard to the general sense and practice of the Church, when it is not told, either how many laics were concerned in the practice, nor by what authority ? Yet Mr. K. immediately advances this hear- say story into a custom, (of the Church, I suppose, he means,) and tells us that St. Austin adds, that the custom took its rise from apostolical tradition. This, I confess, amazed and confounded me. What, St. Austin say it ! Believe it wlio can that knows St. Austin. Pray let him speak for himself, if the words be really St. Austin's "Sanctum est Baptisma per seipsura, quod " datum est in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti, ita ut " in eodem sacramento sit etiam autoritas traditionis per Domi- " num nostrum ad Apostolos ; per illos autem ad Episcopos et " alios sacerdotes, vel etiam laicos Christianos ab eadem stirpe " et origine venientes." You see the word traditionis, which there signifies Christ's commission ; and all that can possibly be drawn from the words is, that Bishops act by virtue of that commission, and may communicate the like power to laymen ; which is an assertion precarious enough. But where does Mr. K. find that the custom of Lay-baptism took its rise from apo- stolical tradition ? Where is there a word of custom or tradition in his sense in the whole quotation ? To do Mr. K. justice, I believe Mr. Bingham led him into his mistake, who has these words relating to this passage of St. Austin. " ^This custom ho " founds upon authority descended by Bishops from the Apo- " sties,'' which being a little crudely and obscurely expressed, might lead a man to say what Mr. K. does ; though their asser- tions are very different from one another, and are both wide of the sense of the author, who has not a syllable about any thing of custom in the passage quoted ; which notwithstanding is tho most material word of all, upon which the argument depends. Having now done with St. Austin, we may take our leave of the ancients, after we have summed up their evidence. 1. As to authorized Lay-baptism in cases of necessity, you may observe, there is some plea for it in antiquity, from Tertul- lian, the council of Eliberis, St. Jerome, and St. Austin ; but all together make no proof of the general sense and practice of the s Apud Grat. de Consecrat. dist.iv. c. 36. t First Part of Schol. Hist., Works, vol. ix. p. 35. Oxf. edit. 200 Dr. Waterland's Second Letter ChurcTi in favour of it, but rather the contraiy impHcitly ; as Cyprian, Basil, Paeian, and the Apostolic Constitutions do more plainly. And yet had all these authorities been for Lay- baptism in cases of necessity authorized by Bishops, it would make little for Mr. K.'s purpose, being wide of the question. 2. As to unauthorized Lay-baptism in ordinary cases, which is the point in dispute, there are Cyprian, Basil, Pacian, directly and expressly against its being valid ; and the rest implicitly and consequentially ; not one directly or implicitly for it, except Optatus and St. Austin ; and that not as witnesses of the Church's general sense or practice, but as disputants in a nice and difficult controversy ; or as private Doctors. However, I am willing to admit, though not easy to be proved, that the doctrine of Lay-baptism's being valid in some cases crept gradu- ally into the Western Church from the time of St. Austin, and, like other corruptions of Popery, came to its height in the following dark centuries ; though it does not appear that it ever prevailed in the Greek Church so early as the twelfth century. Ho .vever, I do not think it material to make any nice inquiry into the notions or practices of later ages, which must stand or fall by the ancients, and are of small authority without them. To what has been said upon particular Fathers, I shall here subjoin two probable presumptive proofs to confirm the foregoing observations. I. The first assertion I lay down is this ; that there was no universal standing principle among the ancients, whereon to found the validity of Lay-baptism. n. There were some general standing principles universally held, which do by consequence ovei'throw it. L As to the first point; in proof of it I shall examine the chief principles that can be supposed to have any weight in the case, and shew why I think none of them were universally held. I. The plea of mcessiiy could not be a principle universally held as sufficient to warrant Lay-baptism, or to make it valid ; for we find no mention of it in the earliest writers, and but little afterwards. Besides that the Baptism of women was always absolutely disallowed by all, as well as that of Jews and Pagans ; which shews that necessity alone was not thought sufficient ; and Tertullian, who is the first that mentions it, yet does not found the validity of Lay- baptism upon that only, but upon the inherent right, or baptismal priesthood of laymen. in reply to Mr. Kelsall's Answer. 201 %. That principle of inherent right of priesthood seems to bid as fair as any, several of the early writers having mentioned it besides TertuUian and Jerome. But there lies this presumption against the ancients giving universally into that notion, that they never allowed the Eucharist to be consecrated by laics in any case of necessity ; which they certainly would have done, as well as Tertullian, had they been of the same principle with him as to the inherent right of priesthood. For indeed it would have been a plain necessary consequence resulting from it. 3. The third principle upon which St. Austin founds the va- lidity of Lay- Baptism after Optatus, viz. its being Christ'' s Baptism, entirely God's and not man's, and therefore not depending at all on the administrator, is no principle of the primitive Church. W^e find no author mentioning it, before the two just named. We find as many against it as confine the administration to the Clergy only. Most of the ancients held principles that wero inconsistent with it ; such as utterly disallowed of women's or Pagans' Baptism ; such as held Lay-ordination invalid, which indeed were all to a man; and yet St. Austin's principle would make that as valid as the other. The like may be said of Lay- consecration of the Eucharist ; which all the ancients with one voice reject. And yet the same reasons that St. Austin ives for Lay-baptism upon that principle would neai'ly affect tho other too. 4. Another principle, mentioned by St. Austin, is, quod datum datum ; and therefore Lay-baptism is Baptism, and must be vahd. This would equally prove that orders given by laics are nevertheless Orders ; and consecration of the Eucharist by laics is nevertheless consecration ; which is contrary to all antiquity, as was before observed. 5. Another principle, which Tertullian, Jerome, and Austin advance, is, that every one may give what he himself has re- ceived ; and therefore every baptized person may baptize. This we never meet with in many of tho earliest ; nor could they hold it consistently with their other principles, that a Deacon could not make a Deacon, nor a Priest a Priest, nor a layman give the Eucharist, though he may receive it. 6. Another principle, whereon some would found the validity of Lay-baptism, is, the permission or authority of the Church, or of the Bishops, as in the Council of Eliberis. There is the most to be' said for this of any. Yet there is no proof that tho 202 Dr. Waterland's Second Letter general sense or practice of the ancient Church ever counte- nanced it. St. Austin seems to have known nothing of it. It has never been shewn, nor, I beheve, ever will be, that this prin- ciple was general or universal, or if it could, it does not affect our present question, as has been often observed. 7. The last principle which seems to prevail must now, and is contended for by Mr. K., is, that a subsequent act or ratifi- cation of the Cliurch supplies all deficiencies, and renders any pretended Baptism valid. This I do not meet with in any of the ancients, I mean Catholic ancients. I know the Luciferians had a notion very like it, and were confuted by St. Jerome. None ever that I know of among the orthodox pretended that any subsequent act of the Church could make that valid which was not so. It might make Baptism before valid, effectual, and saving ; that is the most the ancients ever thought of it. Con- firmation was a distinct thing from Baptism, and not an essen- tial of it ; and it was always supposed that baptism was complete and entire as to essentials without it. Confirmation helped to improve and advance what was begun in Baptism ; and the same may be said of the Eucharist. And so either, or both, might contribute to make Baptism more effectual to the purposes of salvation, but not to suj^ply any thing wanting in the essentials of it. Having seen then, that there was no general universal principle whereon to found the validity of Lay-baptism in the ancient Church, I beg leave to infer from hence, that the an- cients never universally held any such doctrine, or gave into such practice ; unless you would imagine they might come into it by apostolical tradition, without any other reason ; which it will be time enough to consider, as soon as any one of the ancients can be brought to vouch for any such tradition. I proceed now to shew, II. That there were some general standing principles almost, or entirely universally held by the ancients, which seem by con- sequence, or virtually or implicitly, to overthrow the pretended validity of Lay-baptism. I. I observe that laymen were absolutely forbid to inter- meddle in sacred offices, as we learn from the earliest Christian writers, no proviso being inserted for cases of necessity. Lay- baptism therefore was certainly upon these principles sinful and criminal, and therefore probably null. And it is very ob- servable, that not one writer before St. Austin ever thought Lay-baptism valid, but what thought it lawful too, and so pro- in rej)li/ to Mr. Kelsall's Answer. 203 bably founded its validity upon the supposed legality of it. This were easy to shew of Tertullian, the Council of Elvira, Optatus, Jerome, or any other. If it be objected, that the Church admitted the Baptisms of degraded clerks, heretics, and schismatics, and yet did not think it lawful for them to baptize, having forbid them the exercise of the sacred function ; I must distinguish between what is essentially and what is circumstantially unlawful ; and between an absolute prohibition to act at all, or only to act in such and such circumstances. It is well and judiciously said by St. Austin, with respect to the Baptisms of such persons, " Non " eis dicimus, Nolite dare, sed Nolite in schismate dare." The Church thought such IJaptisms to be legal, authorized, and war- rantable in the main ; and only illegal, unauthorized, and crimi- nal in some particular circumstances. That is, in short, they were what the persons had a right to do, and were so far lawful, and therefore valid ; but at the same time they should not have been done in that manner. Or to be yet plainer, the fault lay not in the exercise of the sacerdotal function abstractedly con- sidered, for they were priests ; but in the heresy, schism, &c. It was therefore a rule of the Church, as far as appears, till St. Austin, that no Baptism was valid, but what was for the main lawful, or what the baptizer had a right to execute in the ge- neral, though forbid to do it in some peculiar circumstances. Seeing therefore that laymen were entirely and absolutely for- bidden to intermeddle with the sacred offices by the earliest Christian writers, as persons who had no right at all to do it, no title or claim to such offices, either in whole or in part ; I must conclude from thence, that the Church upon these principles looked upon all pretended Lay-administrations as null and void. 2. Another avowed standing principle of the primitive Catho- lic Church was, that the Christian Clergy were proper priests, or that their priesthood was as well mystical as mediatory, as truly and properly as the Levitical priesthood, though not of the same kind or order. For proof of this I refer you to Mr. DodwcU Of one Altar, &c. and De Jure Laico Sacerd. p. 30. Dr. Hicks's Christian Priesthood Asserted, chap. ii. sect. 4. p. 3 15. Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice. From this pi'inciple I infer, that no ministra- tion can be valid that is not sacerdotal, or is not performed by Clod's designation, commission, or appointment. The sacrament loses all its virtue and efficacy, or rather is no sacrament, if administei'ed by profane unauthorized hands. This argument 204 Dr. Waterland's Second Letter against the validity of Lay-baptism appeared so strong and forc- ible to a learned writer", who was in the main of Mr. K.'s opinion, that he could find no other way of getting clear of it, but by deny- ing the Christian Clergy to be proper Priests, against all antiquity. And indeed it seems to me very plain, that if the Clergy act in sacris, as God's peculiar priests, proxies, or representatives ; the validity of the sacraments must depend upon God's commission, which laymen are supposed to want. If thei-efore the primitive Church took Baptism to be a sacerdotal act, and the Clergy to be proper Priests, both which are very certain, they did by conse- quence disallow and invalidate all pretended Baptisms by laymen. 3. Another general prevailing principle of the primitive Church was, that the consecration of the Eucharist was so entirely a clerical act, that there could be no such thing as Lay-consecra- tion. If you want to see this proved, I refer you to the fore- mentioned authors, Dodwell, Hicks, and Johnson. Now the inference drawn from it is, that Lay-consecration of water, or of the person baptized in it, (i. e. Lay-baptism,) must upon that principle be null too ; since the reason is much the same in both. If the Eucharist be a sacrament, so is Baptism ; if the virtue and efficacy of the Eucharist depend upon Christ's commission given to the administrator, why should not the virtue and effi- cacy (by which I mean the same with the validity) of Baptism depend upon the commission also ? or if the latter be supposed valid without commission, why should not the former also " ? Further, that there is a mysterious change wrought upon the bread and wine in the Eucharist upon the prayer of invocation, is the unanimous doctrine of the ancients y ; and the like mys- terious change in Baptism upon the water by the prayer of invocation is taught by the ancients also. Seeing then there is so plain resemblance and analogy between the two sacraments, both being of a very sublime and mysterious nature, and there- fore proper to be administered only by sacred hands ; it would be very strange, that the ancients should think one appropriate to the Clergy, and not the other. It seems to have been a disputed point among the ancients, whether Deacons could baptize ; and that they did not do it ordinarily is plain enough from many authorities cited by Mr. Bingham ^ ; which I do not so much " Vind. of Def. of Dr. Stillingfleet, >' See Bing. Orig. vol. v. part xv. p. 350. ^ Schol. Hist, part i. Works, vol. ix. " See Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, p. 14. Oxf. edit. Hieron. Ep. in re2')ly to Mr. KdsaWs Answer. 205 wonder at, as that they ever were allowed to do it at all. But I suppose the scripture instances of Philip and Ananias, and the ancients looking upon Deacons a as priests of the third order., might reconcile them to it. But then this makes nothing for the Baptisms of laics. There are no scripture instances of these, nor are they in any strict sense Priests. 4. Another general principle of the ancients was, that Lay- ordination was null and void. This need not be proved directly. It is very certain, that no pretended ordination less than episcopal was ever admitted as valid in the Christian Church ; and therefore certainly there could be no such thing as Lay- ordination. And does not this principle equally affect Lay- baptism? Why cannot laics ordain, but because they have no commission or authority to do so ? And there is the very same objection lies against their baptizing. It were easy to shew, that most of the arguments brought in vindication of Lay-baptism would be equally forcible in favour of Lay-ordination. For the purpose ; if it be so, that Baptism is God's act, so is ordination ; if necessity be pleaded in the former, so it may happen also in the latter ; if qihod datum datum be a rule, it is as good for one as for the other ; if a subsequent ratification of the Church would do in pretended Baptism, it might as well in pretended Ordination ; and so the ancients need not have ordained any that had been pretendedly ordained before, but only have received them. Since therefore there appears the same or the like reasons for nulling Lay-baptisms as for Lay-ordinations; and since the latter was the undoubted practice of the Church, it may reasonably be inferred, that the general practice and judgment of the Church was alike in both. These may serve as probable arguments, or indirect proofs of what I am contending for ; and are, I think, far more consider- able than any thing that I have yet seen urged from the ancients in favour of the contrary opinion. However, I lay not the stress of the cause upon them, because it does not want them. Two inferences I draw from the whole. 1. That it is very certain that the general sense and practice of the primitive Church did not countenance or establish the validity of Lay-baptism. 2. It is more than probable, that they did both in judgment a Optatus, lib. i. 206 Dr. WatcrlaiuVs Second Letter and practice favour the direct contrary to it. And the chief, if not only reason why we have not fuller and more repeated proofs of it is, because the matter came not into dispute ; no laics ever attempting to baptize, except among heretics ; nor then without the countenance and approbation of the Bishops. For any company of laics to pretend to be a church, or to act independ- ently upon their Bishops, would have been thought as absurd and strange among the ancient?, as if so many women only had pretended to be successors to the Apostles, and to ordain, baptize, and teach, &:c. Pretty remarkable are the words of St. Jerome, in relation to Hilary the Roman Deacon'^, who was therefore a degi'ee above a laic. " Hilarius, cum Diaconus ab Ecclesia recesserit, solusque, ut " putat, turba sit mundi, neque Eucharistiam conficere potest, " Episcopos et Presbyteros non habens, neque Baptisma sine " Eucharistia tradere; et cum jam homo mortuus sit, cum " homine pariter interiit et secta, quia post se nullum Clericum " Diaconus potuit ordinare. Ecclesia autem non est, qiice non hahet sacerdotes." But it is time now to return to Mr. K. I had said in my letter, that I should be thankful for one plain authority (except TertuUian) for the vaHdity of Lay-baptism, as such, before St. Austin. Upon this Mr. K. thinks he has a just claim to my thanks, if he knew but what '• I meant by the restriction (as " such)." That is easily known : I meant unauthorized Lay- baptism. If any be authorized by Bishops, and thereupon be valid, it must be on this account, that it is an act of the Bishops by lay hands, and so a clerical act interpretatively, and not properly a lay act. Whether such acts may justly claim the benefit of such an interpretation, and whether that would make them valid, I dispute not here ; it being foreign to our debate about Lay-baptism as such, i. e. unauthorized Lay-baptism, such as that of our Dissenters undoubtedly is : and Mr. K. has not yet brought any one plain authority before St. Austin for such Baptism. Pseud-Ambrose's notion has been shewn to be a gross mistake of that author. Gregory Nazianzen has not a word to the purpose, but means a quite diiferent thing. Kuffinus only gives you a hearsay story of a very improbable fact. The EHberitan Council, and perhaps Jerome, are to be understood Dial. adv. Lucif. 171 reply to Mr. KehaU's Answer. 207 of authorized Baptism. Optatiis is no plain autliority ; it being highly improbable that he meant the words in that gross sense (attended with all its consequences) in which Mr. K. takes him. It is plain, howeverj that he supposes no Baptism valid, but what he supposes lawful. St. Austin is the first that ever pre- sumed to think that illegal unauthorized Lay-baptisms are valid ; the first that ever spoke home to the purpose on Mr. K.'s side of the question ; and his reasons on which he built it have been shewn to be weak enough. ]\Ir. K. has been pleased to promise me his thanks, " if within " a thousand years after Christ I produce either one single " canon of any council to confront that of the Eliberitan Fa- " thers, or so much as a testimony of one single Father, that " speaks home to his side of the question." By the way, it is their business to produce Councils and Fathers for the validity of unauthorized Lay-baptism, v, ho assert it. Affirtnanti incutabit prohatio. It would be but small satisfaction in a case of ever- lasting concern to a considerate man to be told that Fathers and Councils had not expressly declared against it, while there appears little or no ground any where for it. However, Sir, I think, besides scripture and the reason of the thing, the Apo- stolical Constitutions, the Cyprianists, and St. Basil, have expressly declared against it ; and the main stream of Christian writers before St. Austin, implicitly. This is enough, especially against a thing which because of the great moment of it ought not to be admitted without clear and certain proof on that side. Let us see how they can answer it, who would rest men's salvation upon such weak and precarious foundations ; especially when the remedy, the certain remedy, is near at hand, and may be easily applied. I have often observed that the Eliberitan Council is not pertinent to the case of unauthorized Lay-baptisms ; or if it was, such a particular case as that was not of weight sufficient to rest a cause of such importance upon. Mr. K. says fm-ther, that he will be thankful "for so much as an instance within that " period, (a thousand years,) of any one Christian rebaptized by " or in an episcopal church, merely upon account of his having " been before only baptized by lay hands." But we should first have an instance, I do not say within that period, but within five or si.K hundred years after Christ, of any being so baptized and received into the Church without another baptism. (I take Baptism here in the large sense.) Strictly speaking, neither 208 Dr. Waterland's Second Letter Catholics nor heretics (except the Marcionites) ever allowed a second Baptism ; but when they gave a second, they understood the first to be none. Mr. K. says, " Instances may be produced of the Church's " receiving the Baptisms of those whose Ordinations she had " before declared void." That we deny utterly, and challenge any man to give but one instance in all antiquity. I know what Mr. K. means, viz. that degraded Clergy became Laymen, and yet their Baptisms were received. I deny not that their Baptisms were received in most churches, especially after the determinations of the Councils of Aries and Nice : but then these churches did not think the degraded Clergy, or heretical and schisraatical Clergy, were Laymen. For a confutation of Mr. Bingham's notion, that the censures of the Church null orders, I refer you to St. Austin^ particularly among the ancients, who is very full and positive against it ; and to Dr. Potter amongst the moderns, and to Mr. Bingham himself, who is an ingenious and a learned man, but cannot reconcile contradictions. As to Mr. K.'s queries, 1. The first is, "Whether the same Lord and Head of the " Church, which gave, cannot withdraw his commission ?" I answer, Yes, he may. 2. " How can this be done otherwise than by the Church's " acting in his name, &C.'''' I answer, By express order from Christ, revealed from heaven. The Bishops have a delegated power to give orders, but none that I know of to take them quite away : it is no strange thing for a man to be able to do what he cannot undo. 3. " Whether the Church has not full authority to do this," &c. I answer, No ; at least it does not appear that she has. 4. " Whether she has not expressed herself in such language, " as if she thought she had such a power V I answer, None but the Cyprianic churches, and those who comply with them in nulling the heretical and schismatical Baptisms. The main body of the Church, both before and after, were of another judgment, as is plain from St. Austin. In short, it is as clear as the sun, that whatever churches looked upon degraded Clergy as Clergy, received their Baptisms ; and whatever looked upon them not as Clergy, rejected their <^ Cont. Ep. Farm. lib. ii. c. 13. De Bapt. lib.i. c. i, 2. in reply to Mr. KelsaWs Answer. S09 Baptisms. This latter was the case of the Cyprianists, who acted consistently enough, but went upon false premises ; and it is pleasant to observe how some would now lay down the same premises, and yet reject the conclusion ; blame Cypi'ian for what was right, and admire him for what was wrong. He was right in his conclusion, and wrong in his premises ; but these will be wrong in both, as if resolved to be inconsistent, and con- fute themselves to save others the trouble of a confutation. All Mr. Bingham's quotations prove no more, than that the degraded Clergy were reduced to Lay-communion, were suspended ah officio, either for a time, or deprived for life ; and if they were excommunicated too, they still retained their orders, as much as they did their Baptisms, and could not in any strict sense forfeit either. Mr. K.'s next attempt is to prove by instances that the pri- mitive Church sometimes received the Baptisms of those whose Orders she rejected as invalid. And his first instance is of Ischyras, once a pretended Presbyter, afterwards a Bishop. To make this matter serve his purpose, he has first strangely mis- represented the case, mingled very foreign and distinct things together, supposed some things without any certain ground, drawn wrong inferences from them ; and yet if you grant him all he would have, his whole argument is inconclusive ^ Ischyras, he observes, was made a " Bishop, without being previously " ordained either Priest or Deacon." This certainly made his consecration uncanonical ; but he might bo a Bishop notwith- standing, and undoubtedly was so. Next, he observes, " that " this man among other enemies of the Nicene faith and accus- " ers of St. Athanasius was condemned and excommunicated right, for being an enemy to the Nicene faith and a false accuser of St. Athanasius : and many other Bishops, as Theodorusg, Narcissus, Ursacius, Valens, &c. were condemned by name : Ischyras himself is not named among the persons anathematized, though I grant it reasonable enough to conclude him among the rest. But Mr. K. adds, " No decree was made for annulling the '• Baptisms administered by him." No, it would have been strange if there had ; for it is not at all necessary that, as often as Bishops are deposed or excommunicated for crimes or heresy. f See Bingham's Orig. Eccl. book Oxf. edit. 1855. ii. ch. X. sect. 6. vol. i. p. 129, &c. s Theod. Ec. Hist. I. ii. c. WATEBLAND, VOL. VI, 210 Dr. TFaterhncTs Second Letter as the case was here, that their ministrations, which were not affected by it, should be nulled. It would have been more to Mr. K.'s purpose to have alleged that the Council of Alexandria eight years before declared this Ischyras^ to be no more than a pretended Presbyter, a mere laic, without making any decree to annul his Baptisms. But these negative arguments prove very little generally : besides, if it was a rule of the Church before, there was no need of a special decree to annul those Baptisms, which were void of course; and after all, it does not appear how long, or in what instances Ischyras officiated as a Presbyter, or whether he baptized any at all. The like answer may serve for the two other instances of Musseus and Eutychianus, whom the same Council declared not to be Bishops, and those pre- tendedly ordained by them not to be Clergymen, without adding any decree to annul their Baptisms. And it were to be wished that when ^Mr. K. cited Balsamon in favour of his interpretation of the Canon, in order to prove from thence Lay-baptism invalid according to the principles of that bright aae, he had observed withal, that the verj- same Balsamon does from the same nineteenth canon infer the quite contrary, arguing by j)arity of reason from the invalidity of Lay-ordination, or non-episcopal, to the invalidity of Lay-baptism'. So easy is it for ingenious men to draw con- trarj' conclusions from the same premises. And now let us take our leave of antiquity : the tracing of which, though it be something tedious, is of great satisfaction, and carries its reward along with it. I promise your friend to abide by it, and to throw up all my reasonings as uncertain con- jectures, rather than run cross to it. I hope he will be so kind as to do so too, and after this view of the ancients not lay so great a stress upon some very uncertain reasonings in the present case, which he has advanced with pomp and triumph, as if they had never been considered, nor were capable of anv just and solid answer. These I have had in my eye, and reserved them for this place under a third general head, after what related to Scripture and Fathers. III. We are now then to manage the debate in point of reason. We have, we imagine, many and great reasons for our side of ^ Athan. Ap. 2. cont. Arian. p. 784. ed. Par. ' See Bevereg. not. ad Can. 19. Cone. Sardic. p. 201. in reply to 3Ir. KelsaWs Answer. 211 the question. We think it very absurd that any thing should be vaHd without some certain principle to found its validity upon ; especially a thing of this moment, wherein the everlasting salvation of thousands is concerned. We think it very unreason- able to rest a matter of such importance upon weak and pre- carious foundations ; and should expect, if it were true, to find it writ in legible characters in sacred scripture, or at least in the judgment and practice of the ancients. On the contrary, we find nothing but obscure hints, and dark and remote inferences that look that way. Nay, so confident are some among us, Mr. Laurence in particular, that he thinks our side of the question demonstrable ; and has laid down five or six reasons in the way of maihematical demonstration to prove his opinion. We think it a little strange, that, among so many adversaries as that gentle- man has met with, no one has yet given himself the trouble to unravel those reasons ; to shew where they are fallacious ; where he has laid down false premises, or drawn false conclusions. It is a little surprising that the advocates of Lay-baptism should raise so many scruples and difficulties on one side, and yet pass over in silence those many and great difficulties which are urged on the other ; as if it concerned them not to answer objections sometimes, as well as to make others. Yet it is usual with them after this partial management of the cause to cry victory and to triumph ; whereas at best they ought only to suspend and to leave the matter undecided. For suppose their objections were really such as we could not answer, yet as long as they do not answer the difficulties on the other side, which seem equally forcible, at least must be thought so till we see them answered; the utmost that they ought to conclude from it is, that we are upon a par, and that the cause is doubtful. I speak this of the advocates for Lay-baptism in general, not including therein Mr. K. I must do him the justice to say, he has managed the debate fairly, so far as he undertook in answer to my letter ; and has not only given his own reasons, but has also considered mine. I shall first endeavour to vindicate the reasons hinted at in my letter from his exceptions, and then let you know what I have to say further in answer to his. I argued from the nullity of subjects acting in a civil govern- ment without a competent authority, viz. levying soldiers, natu- ralizing strangers, &c. in the name of the sovereign without orders or warrant. To which Mr. K. answers, that " he knows p 3 218 Dr. W aterland's Second Letter " not in what sense levying of soldiers without authority can be *' said to be null and void." To which I reply, I know not how he can mistake or want to understand so plain a thing. May not a man pretend a commission from his majesty, call himself an officer, beat a drum, and list men in the usual form into the king's service ? But as soon as the cheat is discovered, the whole engagement is dissolved, the listed men are set at Hberty, and the imaginary contract null and void. Apply this to the case of listing men into Christ's service by an imaginary Baptism with- out a competent authority, and you will find it parallel and to the purpose, or I am very much mistaken. But, says Mr. K., " does the consequence hold from things civil to sacred I Are " the reasons the same in both ?" Yes, I humbly conceive it does hold, and the reasons are the same in both, because drawn from one and the same general principle, that no man can act under another and in his name without his leave or order. But Mr. K. excepts '• that all gi'ants, commissions, &c. from earthly " princes ought to appear genuine and voluntary, and must *' therefore pass under forms of law to ascertain the rights of the parties concerned, and to prevent mischiefs which may " accrue through fraud and forgery." And so likewise all grants from God ought to have his seal and stamp, and pass under such forms as he has appointed to ascertain the rights, &:c. Are not our Christian rights as dear to us and as valuable as any ; and as much want to be ascertained in a regular and uniform method to prevent tricks and frauds and counterfeits from such as would beguile the simple, and take the honour upon them of being ambassadors from heaven without being sent I " But may " we not trust God without such secui'ities T No : because it is presumption to slight such securities as he has appointed, or to expect his favours without them. Mr. K. adds, " God is not " under the like necessity with earthly princes to annul what is done, much less to do it to the prejudice of an innocent " person." True, God is under no absolute necessity ; and he might have contrived many other methods in his infinite wisdom. But he is a God of order and not of confusion, and, in a moral sense, is under a necessity of acting wisely ; and therefore will not leave the weighty business of the priesthood in common to all, but is pleased to confine it to a select body of men that shall act by his authority. But will he annul any usurped acts " to " the prejudice of innocent persons ?" I presume he will annul in reply to Mr. KelsaWs Answer. 213 the acts, i. e. the acts shall stand for nothing ; but he may possibly receive the innocent persons, not upon the account of these acts, but of his own free mercy. And is it not better to trust God without doing an unwarranted thing, than to run the risk of offending him to no purpose, but what may better and more safely, for ought we know, be had without''? Cannot God be merciful to the innocent without our presumption ? Is he less concerned for them than we ? Or does he stand in need of our sins ? What does all this mean ? May we not trust God without such wretched securities ? What Mr. K. adds about an adult's receiving Baptism of a schismatical usurper, if he means of a schismatical Clergyman, it is true, but not to the purpose ; if he means it of a schismatical Layman, or any Layman, we want proof. His next observation about an infant " being as sure of " the grace attending (Christian Baptism), as all the promises " of the New Testament can make him," though washed by a layman only, is only so many words put together ; unless it can be shewn that there is any one promise in the whole Old or New Testament annexed to such pretended Baptisms. True, there are many promises annexed to Baptism ; but the question is, whether what we are speaking of be Baptism or no ; and it should not be taken for granted that it is, when a disputant is concerned to prove it. He says " he can by no means think it " all one to the future condition (of an infant), whether he be " baptized or not, as some notions lately advanced would incline " us to believe." I do not say or think it is all one whether an infant be baptized or not. But a pretended Baptism and no Baptism are so much alike, that upon either supposition, as I take it, the infant dies unbaptized. I see not thei-efore to what purpose all this is, till it be proved that Lay-washing is Christian Baptism. As to the doctrine of the absolute necessity of Bap- tism, whether it be true or false, it concerns not the cause. Let Baptism be ever so necessary, yet till you prove Lay-washing to be Baptism, or a counterfeit seal to be a true seal, we are just where we began. However, if Baptism be so absolutely neces- sary as some suppose, great care should be taken that every man may be certain that he is baptized ; and then I am sure Lay- baptism must be out of doors, which at best has but a chance whether it be Baptism or no. Not that I think liaptism, truly such, so absolutely necessary to salvation as some have pre^ ^ See Bennet, p. 342. 214 Dr. Waterland''s Second Letter tended ; and if you please to consult Forbes's Instruct. Hist. Theolog.l upon this question, or only observe from Mr. Bing- ham °i what allowances the ancients used to make in some cases for persons dying unbaptized, you may possibly incline to be of my mind. It would be needless and tedious in me to enter into that dispute here ; and so I choose to wave it, and to come to another point. I had argued in my letter against the validity of Lay-baptism from the unlawfulness of it ; thinking that if it was sinful in the v^hole act, i. e. such as could never in any case be done by a lay- man without sin, it must be void. Here Air. K. is pleased to mistake me for near a page together, till at last he comes to understand me, and to put the case right, and then he is of my mind ; that supposing Lay-baptism to be valid, which is the same in effect with what he says, (" supposing the principle they " act upon to be no mistake,") there is neither sin nor danger in a layman's administering in extreme necessity. Which was the same thing I had asserted, only I inferred further from it, arguing backwards ; that if there were sin and danger in a layman's administering in such a case, then Lay-baptism could not be valid. And I am now fully satisfied, though I spoke of it before with some diffidence, that the argument is just and right. If the validity of Lay-baptism in a case of extreme necessity necessarily implies it to be lawful ; then its unlawful- ness in the same case necessarily implies its invalidity. It is an established rule in logic to argue as a positione antecedentis ad vositionem consequentis, so a reiiiotione consequentis ad remotionem antecedentis. And the reason of it is plain ; for if the antecedent cannot be without the consequent, it is evident by taking away the consequent you take away the antecedent also. So that now the first question between Mr. K. and me is, whether the validity of Lay-baptism in a case of extreme necessity does not necessarily imply that it is lawful in that case : but this I think he has given up. And next, whether its being sinful even in this case does not imply that it is invalid, cannot be a question between us, since it evidently follows from the former. The only question then is, whether in such a case it be a sin or no. I think it is, because it seems to be an unwarrantable usurp- ation of the priestly office, a breach of rules and orders, a bold presumption without any leave, command, or commission for 1 Vol. i. 1. 10. c. 6. ™ Vol. iv. p. 25, &c. 0.\f. edit. 1855. in reply to Mr. KelsaWs A nswer. 215 doing it, or in Mr. Bonnet's words", " a downright lying and " forgery, a cheat upon one's neighbour, and an affront to God." Seeing therefore that it is a sin for a layman to pretend to baptize, even in cases of necessity, as they are called, though improperly, it follows by what has been said, that it is null and void. Not that every sinful act is always void ; for " we were " in an evil case,'"' as Mr. K. justly observes, " if every sinful " circumstance in the administration should make the adminis- " tration itself null and void." But I had guarded against this by calling it sinful in the ichole act ; not accidentally, nor circum- stantially, but entirely and essentially, as having no manner of plea, pretence, or warrant, to justify it either in whole or in part. A Clergyman may baptize a person against the order of the Bishop. He sins in doing so ; not as to the act of baptizing, for that he has authority to do as a Clergyman ; but in that circumstance of disobedience to his Diocesan. So the schisma- tical and heretical Clergy formerly were guilty of a sin in baptiz- ing, in such manner, and in such circumstances. But separate these circumstances from them, and it was no sin for Clergymen to baptize. But as to a layman's baptizing, the flaw is in the act itself, not in the circumstances ; as having no power or au- thority to do it in any circumstances whatever. The fault is not only in doing it at a wrong time, or in a wrong manner, but in doing it at all. And I am persuaded it will be difficult to shew how any act can be valid, where a man has no power, right, or authority to act at all : which is certainly the case of unautho- rized Lay -baptisms, about which we are disputing. Having thus endeavoured to vindicate and clear up the reasons hinted at in my letter against the validity of Lay-baptism, I now come to consider Mr. K.'s reasons for it. His reasoning pai't chiefly consists of one argument drawn ex absurdo, and may thus be represented in his own words : " To suppose (Lay-baptism) altogether null and void, must " needs have a terrible influence upon the state, not of the " Church of England alone, but of all the churches in Europe : " for if the Baptism of such Clergymen as we now speak of " (Clergymen baptized by lay-hands) was invalid, so was their " Ordination too. They could not have the keys of the Church " delivered to them before they were members of it ; the effect " whereof must be an endless propagation of nullities, &c." " P. 336- 216 Dr. Wateiiand's Second Letter This is the terrible objection against us, so often boasted to be unanswerable; wherefore I shall not attack it all at once, but try if I can weaken it, and break the force of it by degrees. 1. I observe, that every difficulty urged against an opinion that is supported by great and solid reasons, ought not presently to make us conclude that that opinion is false. A man may prove his position, and not be able always to answer the objec- tions on the other side. 2. However certain and terrible this consequence may seem against us, there are others as certain and terrible against those who hold the contrary opinion. Hear Mr. Laurence urging consequences against them" : " If baptism performed by persons " who were never really and truly commissioned to baptize, and " who act herein rebelliously against and in opposition to the " Divine right of Episcopacy, be good and valid ; then autho- " ritative preaching, administering the other sacrament, the " power of binding and loosing, of retaining and absolving " men's sins, and all the spiritual functions of the Clergy are " good and valid also, when attempted by unauthorized, never " commissioned lay-persons ; the consequence of which is the " utter dissolution and taking away the necessity of the Christian " priesthood, therefore of Christ's authority here on earth, and so " of all revealed relipion too, which is a dreadful consideration." Thus far Mr. Laurence. And being called upon by IMr. Bing- ham to prove itP, he does it most admirably in one continued chain of close reasoning, too long to be here inserted. Hei*e then I set consequence against consequence, equally dreadful and terrible, and not less certain ; and had I nothing more to say, yet I think we should be pretty even, and it would be but a kind of drawn battle betwixt us ; but this is not all, for, 3. I do not think the objection in that latitude which Mr. K. gives it comes up to the point of unauthorized Lay-baptism, about which we are debating. All that Mr. K. himself pretends is, that the Church, from the time of St. Austin, has generally permitted Lay- baptism in cases of necessity, which might per- haps be denied ; but however, if it has been so for five hundred years, it is enough for his purpose, and that I will readily allow. But then what is done by permission of the Church, and stands upon canons and episcopal license, is not wholly unauthorized, ° Pref. Second Part of Lay-Baptism Inv. p. 20. p Pref. to Suppl. p. 59. in reply to Mr. KelsaWs Answer. 217 and so does not affect the question. We are disputing about pretended Baptisms, unauthorized, uncommissioned by Bishops. Will Mr. K. shew that such ever obtained in the Church, I do not say from St. Austin's time, either in East or West, but that they were any where received, except in this island, scarce an hundred years upwards? Lay-baptisms in England had some authority from the Church, till the Rubric was altered in the reign of king James the First : from that time they have been wholly unauthorized ; and all such we pronounce invalid, neither affirming or denying any thing of the other, till it can be shewn that the case is the same in both. So that if Mr. K.'s charge should chance to fall heavy on those who reject all Lay-baptism, authorized or unauthoi'ized, without distinction ; yet it does not affect us who confine our dispute to unautliorized only, such as those of our Dissenters have certainly been ever since the Rubric was altered ; and what the consequence of disallowing them only would be, I hinted in my letter, and am satisfied that the objection so stated as it ought to be with regard to the point in question, neither deserves nor requires a better ansicer. We condemn none absolutely by this doctrine but those who are culpable, those who want true Baptism, or at least may suspect they want it, and yet will not have it, though it be easy to be had. 4. Suppose the objection to be ever so much to the purpose ; yet the whole force of it depends upon one uncertain proposi- tion, viz. that one not validly baptized cannot have valid orders, or cannot validly baptize others. As to which give me leave to observe, that the advocates for Lay-baptism have not yet offered any thing that amounts to a proof of that proposition ; which it is their business to do who pi-ess the objection. Mr. K. asks, can any one that is no Christian be a Christian Priest ? One that is not of Christ's family be a steward of it ? One that has no right to partake of the body of our Lord be a sufficient dispenser thereof? One that is not a member of the Church be a governor of it? for so it should be put, and not a goiH'rning member of it. We ask, why not, and demand a reason ; but all that we find alleged amounts to this only, that an unbaptized person is utterly uncapable, because he is so : and that he can- not administer, no, that he cannot. The very same questions which Mr. K. asks may be applied to heretical, or wicked, or excommunicate Priests, who are Priests notwithstanding, as 2J8 Dr. Waterland's Second Letter appears from St. Austin, as cited above 'i. Besides that I hope such Clergy as we are speaking of may have as good a right to the title of Christians as catechumens had formerly; who, though unbaptized, were reckoned Christians in a large sense. This might be enough to shew the supposition not to be so very absurd as he thought ; which is all we are concerned to shew in point of reason ; and there is no need of scripture proof, which JNIr. K. calls for, to ward off an objection of little weight, unless it appear to involve us in a contradiction. Yet I shall say something from scripture by and by. That there is no con- tradiction or absurdity in the supposition appears further from hence, that it is not a man's Baptism, but his commission, that empowers him to act as God's minister. They are things of a very distinct nature, and given for different ends ; and it cannot be shewn that they are essential parts, or at all parts of each other. A personal qualification may be often wanting, where the authoritative one stands good. A man may be a Heretic, a Deist, an Apostate, an Atheist, and yet be a Christian Priest ; and it will be hard to prove that the validity of his ministrations depends any more upon his Baptism than it does upon his faith or manners ''. A man may be an instrument of conveying that to another which he does not enjoy himself ; and nothing more usual than for proxies and representatives to confer rights, pri- vileges, and powers, to others, which they have not of their own. A person need not be married to be capable of marrying others, nor be free himself to enable him to make others so : provided he has but a commission (ordinary or extraordinary it matters not) to empower him to do it. And why may not the case be the same with regard to Baptism, that any person com- missioned to baptize may do it, whether he himself be baptized or no ; Besides, it seems not only the safest, but the only certain rule we have in such cases, to look to the visible commission and authority, and to inquire no further. Whatever becomes of this point of Lay-baptism, if secret nullities affect the succession of the priesthood, and render all their ministrations afterwards invalid ; there is no being secure of any such thing as a visible uninterrupted succession at seventeen hundred years' distance from the time of the Apostles. Who can assure us that there have not been several in pretended Orders, who have acted as 1 Bingham's Orig. Eccl. vol. iv. p. 27. Oxf. edit. 1855. ^ See App. to Lay-Bapt. Invalid, p. 130. in reply to Mi\ KelsaWs Answer. 219 Pi-iests or Bishops, who really had no Orders ; or several that have had no Baptism of any kind, who had done the same? From a few such instances might ensue an endless pi'opagation of nullities in Mr. K/s scheme; and we should now be to seek for a succession in the Church. But such nullities I take to signify little, when either past discovery or past remedy. If we know of any such instances, we must pronounce such ministra- tions null ; if not, there is no remedy for invincible ignorance ; God will mercifully ratify and make good all such secret nulli- ties, nor are they such to us till they appear such. Dr. Hicks s gives a very good resolution of this in the case of " an unbap- " tized Clergyman believing himself to have had valid Baptism " through invincible ignorance. I make no scruple to tell you, " that a Priest in this case is in the eyes of God a valid Priest ; " and that all his priestly administrations by his merciful " allowance are also valid and effectual, and as acceptable as " those of other Priests to him, who can make allowances where " men cannot, and ratify what men, if it came to their know- " ledge, could not ratify, but must pronounce null. The priesthood " was hereditary among the Jews ; and it is not unreasonable " to suppose that one priest or other in such a long tract of " time might without any suspicion have an adulterous son ; " upon which supposition I believe you will not doubt, that when " he was at age to administer, God would reckon him among " the Priests, and accept of all his ministrations at the altar ; or " if such an one happened to be high priest, even in the very " holy of holies, though, if his incapacity had been known, he " must have been deposed." This is a very clear and sufficient answer to Mr. K.'s grand objection, and it ought the rather to satisfy him, because it puts the succession of the Clergy upon a right foot, and secures all that is worth contending for : whereas his way of reasoning would leave it liable to a thousand doubts and scruples, and not only strike at the doctrine we assert, but at the succession itself abstracted from the consideration of tlie present subject. Supposing then, but not granting, that their ministrations are not good and valid in themselves, yet they may by an all-merciful God be reckoned to us as such ; and that serves the purpose as well. If we know of the defect, we should be obliged to do our best to Letter to Mr. L. p. 38. 220 Dr. Waterland's Second Letter remedy it ; but upon supposition that we are invincibly ignorant of it, it may be construed to us as no defect at all, while we are supposed to have done our best. The like sort of reasoning may be applied to the case of such as have received no %'alid Baptism, yet have believed they had; and lived and died in invincible ignorance : it would be hard to call them heathens, or no Christians, and harder to suspect that they should suffer eternally for no fault of theirs. I should be willing to think with St. Cyprian in a case of this nature : " ^Po- " tens est Dominus misericordia sua indulgentiam dare, et eos, " qui ad Ecclesiam simpliciter admissi in Ecclesia dormierunt, " ab Ecclesiae suae muneribus non separare ; non tamen quia " aliquando erratum est, ideo semper errandum est." Upon the matter then, our doctrine of the invalidity of Lay- baptism need not appear so terrible and shocking as some would represent it. I have shewn that it does not necessarily affect the succession of the Clergy, even though want of Baptism might incapacitate a man for Orders ; much less can it affect it on the other supposition, that a visible commission is all that is re- quired to make orders good and valid. I have hinted further, that our doctrine does not necessarily condemn all that have lived and died without any other Baptism but what they had received from lay-hands. Indeed it condemns none but those who are either culpably ignorant of their duty in that respect, or wilfully neglect it. Those that will not examine what sort of Baptism they have had, or content themselves knowingly with a pretended Baptism, when they may have a true one ; I have nothing to say for such persons, and I leave it to Mr. coolest thoughts to consider whether he shall think it reasonable, prudent, or pious, to plead for them. All that we desire is, that persons in that case be baptized by a lawful ^Minister. There is no comparison to be made between the hazard of one and that of the other. A man in these circumstances may be only hypotheticallp baptized, as one that doubts whether he has been baptized or no. There is a rule laid down for Baptisms in doubtful cases by canon 72. of Cone. 5. of Carthage, held A.D. 401 : and the Church of England in her Rubric to the Office of Baptism has in a manner adopted it for her own, by ordering in doubtful cases a condi- tional form, " If thou be not already baptized, I baptize thee, &c." 5 Ep. ad Jubaianum. in reply to Mr. KelsaWs Answer. 221 There is no danger at all in this, if done with a religious and pious intent. But as to the danger of leaving persons in so uncertain and doubtful a condition, as every man must be in that has no other Baptism but Lay-baptism, which it is impos- sible for any man to demonstrate to be time, and which has hardly any probable ground for its being so, I tremble to think on it. Judge then. Sir, with yourself, whether it be more advisable to take Mr. K.'s scheme or mine. If it is not pro- bable, if it is not certain that Lay-baptisms are good, it is of the last moment not to trust to them : but if it be barely pro- bable, or even possible that they should be null, what wise man would not choose the only certain and secure method, to be conditionally baptized by a proper Minister, which is all I am pleading for? And here I might take leave of the great unanswerable ob- jection so much insisted on, having. I hope, sufficiently disarmed it. But the regard I have for two very worthy gentlemen, Dr. Brett and Mr. Laurence, obliges me in this place to do justice to them, and to wipe off the suspicion of mistake and fallacy which your friend has been pleased to fix upon them. They give two scripture instances to shew that a man may be capable of valid Orders that is not baptized. Dr. Bretfs in- stance is St. Paul', whom he shews to have been ordained before he was baptized. Mr. K. denies the fact, not conceiving how a miraculous call from Heaven (the design of which was to make St. Paul a minister and a witness", and upon which he was im- mediately declared a ^" chosen vessel to bear God's name before " the Gentiles") should amount to an ordination : though for that very reason most probably St. Paul calls himself y " an Apostle, " not of men, neither by man." But he thinks his " solemn con- " secration to the apostolical function came afterwards, and is " recorded Acts xiii. 2, 3."" That is, after he had been preaching and making disciples about ten years, according to the best chro- nologers, at Damascus, Tarsus, Cilicia, Antioch, Jerusalem, &c. he came, it seems, to Antioch, and was there first ordained by his own converts. I hope this does not need confuting. Dr. Brett's instance therefore may stand good yet for any thing that appears to the contrary ; and may still " be a demonstrative argument, " that the want of Baptism does not render an ordination null " and void." St. Paul indeed did not execute his commission ' Acts " Acts xxvi. 16. » Acts ix. 15. y Gal. i. i. 5225 Dr. WaterJancrs Second Letter before he was baptized ; but when he did officiate, he did it by virtue of that commission which he had before Baptism ; and therefore want of Baptism did not void it; which is all that Dr. Brett meant to prove. So much for him. I come next to Mr. Laurence ; who ac- cording to Mr. K. urges " the similitude of circumstances betwixt " a person uncircumcised and one unbaptized, and pretends that " as the want of circumcision during the forty years' abode of the " Jewish Church in the wilderness did not vacate the ministry " of those Priests and Levites who were born in that time ; so neither can the want of Baptism now vacate the ministration " of one that is consecrated to the Christian priesthoods" Under favour lie does not pretend quite so much. He does not bring the instance to prove the want of Baptism cannot vacate Orders, but that it need not, or always does not, i. e. they may be con- sistent: which was all that Mr. L. was concerned to prove. Against which jNIr. K. objects thus : 1. " Admitting the fact to be true, it was an extraordinary " case, and proves only this, that God may dispense with his " own institutions, though we must not, and so ratify things " transacted in his name by persons unbaptized. But that he " does so, it is presumption in us to imagine, without Divine " warrant, signifying his will and pleasure." By the way, could Mr. K. write this, and at the same time remember that he was pleading for the validity of Lay-baptism ? Is it not as great pre- su7nption to imagine that God will ratify what is transacted in his name by persons imordained, as by persons unbaptized? Is not the reason equal, nay stronger in one case than in the other ? and does not the argument recoil strangely ? But to let that pass. With submission, he mistakes Mr. Laurence: his argument proves something more. It proves that want of circumcision (or Baptism) is not in the nature of the thing inconsistent with valid Orders ; as it certainly is not, if God allowed both ; whether ordinarily or extraordinarily is not the point. But, 2. Mr. K., to make all sure, denies the fact. Why ? because the Priests and Levites born in that time needed not to exercise their function, there being enough besides to do it without them ; therefore they did not. Is this any consequence? Does this make Mr. L.'s supposition evidently false ? I do not find that he ever went upon a supposition that the whole number of Priests * Append, to the First Part of Lay-Bapt. Inv. p. 137. in Reply to Mr. Kelsall's Answer. 223 and Levites must necessarily officiate, or that otherwise there would be wanting men for the service. All that he supposes is, that in forty years' time many born in the wilderness might grow up to the age for service, and be admitted to serve, having an hereditary right to it ; and there is all the reason in the world to believe they did so, notwithstanding their want of circumci- sion. And scripture says nothing to the contrary, which makes me wonder at Mr. K.'s attempt to prove what it is impossible for him to know, upon nothing but very uncertain and precarious conjectures against the highest ])robability imaginable. How shall we know precisely how many or how few Priests or Levites might be needful for the service ? What probability is there that such a number as this supposes should be excluded from their birthright, and discarded only for not being circumcised, when it does not appear that God required it ? Or how is it possible that so remarkable a matter of fact, and so instructive, if true, should be passed by in silence, and no notice taken of it by the sacred writers ? Is it reasonable to call Mr. Laurence's stating the case " altogether fictitious and imaginary," upon no better grounds than this, that possibly there might be circumcised Priests and Levites enough to do the business all the forty years, without any of those who were born in the wilderness ? Eut let us hear how he attempts to prove it. First, he observes that Aaron lived almost to the end of that period, which is very true, and that " he had to assist him Eleazar, Ithamar, Phinehas, " &c." I put Phinehas last, because he was the youngest, and, for ought that appears, born in the wilderness ; and if so, he should be struck out of the account. But what do we do with that et ccetera at the end? Can Mr. K. or any man else name ever another Priest born in Egypt besides these ? Yes, he adds, " such in general of the tribe of Levi as came out of Egypt, and " were afterwards consecrated to the priesthood." But how could he imagine that the Levites in general could be consecrated to the priesthood ; which every body knows was confined to the family of Aaron only, which family was no more than a branch of the Kohathitesl^, who were a branch of the tribe of Levi? All Priests were indeed Levites, but yet no Levites could be Priests, but those of the race of Aaron. So here is a fine argument spoiled at once by an unlucky mistake at first setting out, which Numb. iii. 224 Dr. Waterland'' s Second Letter renders all the rest a mere airy speculation. We have found then but three Priests that could have been born and circumcised in Egypt, or at most four, Aaron, Eleazar and Ithamar his sons, and Phinehas his grandson. Nadab and Abihu perished soon after they came into the wilderness ; and these are all we read of : yet it is reasonable to believe that Eleazar and Ithamar, not to mention Nadab and Abilui, might have sons born to them in the wilderness, who officiated as Priests, as soon as they came to be twenty, or however thirty years old. This, I believe, is what Mr. Laurence supposed; and he might very reasonably do so : or however I am sure Mr. K. has not disproved it. Mr. L.'s observation takes in the Levites as well as the Priests, and either is sufficient for his purpose. Mr. K. seems to think that there must have been Levites enough with- out dispute, and is therefore chiefly concerned for Priests. But I must ask his pardon, and beg leave a while to try if I cannot shew, that there would have been wanting Levites for the ordinary service upon Mr. K.'s supposition. The number required for the ordinary service may best be known from the number first appointed by God himself, viz.<= eight thousand five hundred and eighty, all that were between thirty and fifty years old. (This is to be understood of the most laborious and burdensome part of the Levites' service, to recon- cile it with Num. viii. 24.) The whole number of Levites from a month old was twenty-two thousand, out of which take eight thousand five hundred and eighty, between thirty and fifty years old, and there remains thirteen thousand four hundred and twenty, of which we may fairly suppose there might be about a thousand fifty years old, and consequently superannuated, and as many as had been born within a year before were born in the wilderness^, and therefore should not come into this account. We will suppose then that about twelve thousand might remain for future service upon Mr. K.'s hypothesis. In twenty years' time the whole eight thousand five hundred and eighty would be superannuated one after another, going ofi^ from the service yearly, one year with another, four hundred and twenty-nine in number, and new ones coming in to supply their places. Allow then out of the first remainder eight thousand five hundred and eighty more, and there remains three thousand four hundred and <= Numb. iv. ^ See Exod. xvi. i. Numb. 1. 1. in reply to Mr. Kelsall's Ansicer. 225 twenty. Now in ten years' time further, about half the former number would be gone off, as superannuated, besides accidents and casualties, and the wViole last remainder would hardly be enough to supply the deficiency ; and so after all were come in, there would be a strange blank in the succession for the nine following years, about four hundred at least going off yearly, and none coming in to supply their places ; which to me seems a very unfortunate business, and to bear hard upon the Levites that came last. There might, it is true, be some left notwith- standing at the forty years' end, if not perishing by casualties, or worn out with labours, but not near the number of eight thou- sand five hundred and eighty, which God chose at first as requisite for the service : and 1 know not how we can otherwise make any probable guess what number might be needful, but from God's own appointment of such a certain number at the first. Upon the whole, I think, Mr. Laurence's observation is highly just and reasonable with respect to the Levites ; and as to the Priests, a probable conjecture, which as it is hard to prove, so it is harder to disprove : and so I leave it. I shall take no notice of Mr. K.^s observation from scripture relating to this point, and importing that the first Clergy of the Church were Christians, because nobody, I believe, doubts of it ; and as to the inference he would draw from it, it has been obviated above. A word or two nmst come in here about the Reformed Church abroad, and then we have done with this head. I had said in my letter with relation to them, that we need not be very solicitous for them in the present dispute ; because to defend them upon principles which themselves many of them disown, was what they would not thank us for. This I thought answer sufficient to an objection, which has not much weight in it, but that it seems to tax with severity and want of charity. And what could be more to the purpose than to observe, that we are as kind to them in that respect as themselves desire ; and that they cannot and will not complain of it I To defend them upon principles which they will not own, but reject in disdain, is only bantering them, and exposing ourselves. Besides that allowing their Baptisms and disallowing their Orders seems only to be playing fast and loose, and giving in one hand to take away with the other. 'J'he Church of England, he says, does so : if she does, I am sorry for it, and wish either to see practice changed or defended. T am sorry that what was con- WATKBLAND, VOL, VI. (j 286 Dr. Waterland's Second Letter demned as an inconsistency in the Luciferians of old should be thought the current doctrine of our Church now. As to rejecting the pretended ordinations of mere Presbyters, the practice is consistent with the doctrine of our Church, and conformable to our twenty-third canon^. But I yet want to know how receiving the pretended Baptisms of laics is either conformable to canons or consistent with them. But that shall be considered in another place. jMr. K. in behalf of the Reformed proceeds thus : " All " m}' request is, that seeing by command of our ecclesiastical " superiors we have often prayed for them by the title of " Eeformed Churches, we would allow them as good a right to " that appellation as, in defect of other ministrations, a valid " Christian ]3aptism can confer upon them that is as good as none. For if we allow them to be Christians by virtue of their Baptism, yet according to the unanimous doctrine of the ancients, ecclesia non est. quce non hahet sacerdotes; they will have no band of unity no cement to unite them as a church, but will be a disjointed number of independent Christians ; no Church in a strict sense, though we may allow them that title in a large and popular sense, which I suppose is sufficient, whatever our opinion be, for giving them that appellation in our prayers ; especially when commanded by public authority, which ought to be sub- mitted to. though it were meant in the strict sense, (as it certainly is not,) unless we have full conviction that the appel- lation is false, which few perhaps have in so disputed a case. But it is now time to subjoin something with relation to the judgment and practice of the Church of England in our present debate. IV. I shall be brief upon this last, concluding that by this time you are heartily tired. Upon a careful view of what has been said on both sides relating to the judgment and practice of our Church, I take the case to be thus. 1. The Church of England has no where expressly and in terms determined the controversy either way. 2. Her practice as well as the stream of her Divines has all along been against us. 3. Yet she has laid down such principles and positions in her public acts, as will, if pursued in all their consequences, bring us to the conclusion we are proving. e See Stat. 13 Eliz. c. xii. .\ct of Uniform. Car. II. in reply to Mr. KetsaWs Answer. 227 And this is all, I presume, that Mr. Laurence means in reckoning the Church of England on his side of the question : not that our first Reformers, or other great Divines since, actually thought as he does ; but that in pursuance of the prin- ciples laid down in the Articles, Canons, and Rubrics, they must have thought so, had they attended to all the consequences deducible from them. And indeed if the case be thus ; if the doctrine of the invalidity of Lay-baptism can be shewn by neces- sary consequence to be implied in what the public voice of our Church has asserted, and we subscribe to ; it must be said that the Church of England is for us ; and every subscriber that attends to such consequences, and believes them certain, does implicitly or virtually subscribe them also. And this is what I am persuaded Mr. Laurence has proved sufficiently in the pam- phlet entitled, Dissenters' Baptisms Null and Void by the Articles, &c. It must therefore be observed, that those gentle- men take a wrong method of answering Mr. L, who object to him the judgment of many of our eminent Divines since the Reformation : all that is wide of the point. He may think that many of our Divines, and even some compilers of our public forms, had not sufficiently traced all the consequences of their own assertions, or might have drawn conclusions inconsistent with them. And therefore the ready and the only way to con- fute him is, to shew that the consequences which he draws from the premises laid down in our public forms are ill drawn, or ai'e no just consequences from them. Till this be done, the public voice of the Church, as it stands in our Articles, Rubrics, and Canons, will be thought to be on his side of the question ; and he that consents to them must consent to him too ; because there is no rejecting a necessary consequence once seen, without rejecting the principle itself from whence it flows. We need not therefore talk of the Whitgifts, the Hookers, the Bilsons, the Bancrofts, or others. The Church's public acts are open and common, and he is the truest Church of England-man that best imderstands the principles theie laid down, and argues the closest from them : all the rest are but assertions, fancies, or practices of particular men, and are not binding rules to us. And this is all that need be said to the present point ; and I shall here only subjoin some few remarks on some passages of Mr. K. under this head. " He seems very angry, that some " who call themselves the most zealous assertors of the rights of Q 2 228 Dr. Waterland's Second Letter " the Church, should embrace this Puritanical notion, (of Lay- " baptism being null,) and cast dirt upon the memory of those " excellent men, (Whitgift. Hooker, &c.) and hardly allow any " who come not in their measures, &c." It were easy to retort in that way, and to run out into satire and declamation. But to speak to the point ; it is no reflection upon the memory of any men to suppose them fallible ; nor an}^ fault in us to set aside their autliority, when we can confute their reasons. The gentlemen whom Mr. K. so unkindly censures are, if I know any thing of men, persons of as great simplicity, candour, and inte- grity as any men living ; true lovers of religion in its primitive beauty and purity, and sincere promoters of it in their writings, and what is more, in their lives. If it be their misfortune to mistake in the point before us, which does not appear, yet their pious intentions and well meant zeal for the honour of God and the souls of their brethren plead strongly in their excuse ; and it must be owned that their reasons, if not absolutely convincing, are yet weighty and considerable enough to sway honest and wise men. Their love as well for the order as for the persons of the Clergy is in a manner their distinguishing character ; and it is therefore pity that the least spark of indignation from any Clergyman especially should fall upon them, particularly at a time when there is occasion enough to spend our zeal another way; when we are running into Deism with a precipitate course, and Arianism by shaking the prime fundamentals is paving the way to it. But to return. Mr. L., it seems, " wiih a very authoritative air takes upon him " to instruct and admonish the Clergy, and to interpret the " Articles, Canons, Sec." To which I shall only say, that inno- cence makes a man sometimes bold, and a religious zeal will break out into tender and pathetical expostulations. As to his interpreting the Articles, Canons, &c., I find nothing objected to it by Mr. K. but that it makes the Church inconsistent with " herself,"' an undertaking, he thinks, " not very suitable to the " character of so zealous a proselyte, &c." But what does Mr. K. call the Church i Has j\lr. L. any where pretended to shew that the Church contradicts herself in her public forms ? No, but practice has run contrary, and some Churchmen, or most Church- men, have done so too. It may be so : yet the Church is con- sistent with herself; for the public voice of the Church is the Church, and while she lays down premises, consequences make in Reply to Mr. KehaWs Answer. 229 themselves. However, all such kind of arguments signify little. Is the practice defensible, or is it not? If it be, shew it upon principles, and argue not from practice only, the weakest rea- son in the world. If it be not, the obvious conclusion is. that it ought to be changed. I cannot but think it a wrong way to plead practice and custom for the validity of Lay -baptism, when we want a law to found it upon. What law of God, nay, what law of our own Church, authorizes any laic to baptize, that we may have some shadow of authority to pronounce it valid ? But the Church, you will say, that is, Churchmen, have so practised, therefore the Church approves it. I deny the consequence. Churchmen have sprinkled in Baptism now a hundred years, or it may be more, without ever inquiring whether the child be weak, and the Rubric in that case is grown obsolete : does it follow from thence that sprinkling without necessity is according to the sense and judgment of the Church of England ? The like may be said of the Clerk's placing bread and wine on the com- munion table, and perhaps of reading the Communion Service in the desk ; all practised by public allowance, and yet no where warranted by the public acts or voice of the Church. Mr. K. observes, that the Church of England " never made any canon " or law for the punishment of a Lay-baptist, who shall presume " to do that office in extreme necessity." But what think you of these words in the preface to the Ordination Book i " None " shall be suffered to execute any of the functions (of a Bishop " Priest, or Deacon), except he hath had formerly episcopal " consecration or ordination." Is not this part of her laws, and Baptism one of her functions ? y\nd whence is it that none of our midwives, or any beside Clergymen, pretend to baptize in cases of extreme necessity, but that they think it against law ? I deny not however that Lay-baptisms have been constantly re- ceived as valid among us. Were it not for that, there would be less occasion for this dispute, designed, if {)0ssible, to put a stop to an inveterate practice that has so little to be said for it. Mr. K., I think, is a little too severe upon Mr. Laurence, when he calls his Baptism " a second Baptism, irregular, clandestine, un- " authorized, antiepiscopal." It is impossible it should be a second Baptism, because he was baptized hypothetically only ; and therefore if the first Baptism was good, the last was none. It was not irregular, because, as he tells us himself, the minister that baptized him had his proper Diocesan's general license to S30 Dr. WaUrland' s Second Letter baptize adult persons, without giving any particular notice first to the Bishop. It was not clandestine, being in the public face of a great congregation on a liolyday in the time of evening prayer. Lastly, it could not be antiepiscopal, being by an epi- scopal minister, and with the Bishop's license. 1 hope Mr. K. will think more kindly, and express himself more tenderly of an innocent well-deserving gentleman another time. Mr. K. having before mentioned the custom of our Church in confirming all without distinction, whether episcopally baptized, or only by lay hands, ends with this dilemna, that we must (upon our principles) either assert that for an important article of doctrine, which the Church of England denies, or accuse her of communicating and ordaining men, whom she knew to be un- baptized. As to the first part of the dilemma, we do not assert any thing for an important truth, but what the Church, that is, the public voice of the Church, asserts Hkewise, though not directly, yet consequentially. As to the second part : it does not follow, that because Bishops confirm all without distinction, that therefore they know any of them to be unbaptized, but only that they do not know to the contrary. I grant, however, that the practice argues so far, that they have in general looked upon it as an indifferent thing, as to the validity of Baptism, whether it be by a Priest or a Laic. And how far their judgment ought to weigh with us has been considered above ; " ^non quia aliquan- " do erratum est, ideo semper errandum est." Thus, I hope, we have got fairly off" from the dilemma ; or if not, let me propose another, and leave it with Mr. K. to shew that we are pretty even. It is very certain that the Church of England forbids Baptism Lay, in all ordinary cases, directly, and in extraordinary, implicitly ; having made no provision for cases of necessity ; which yet she ought to have done, and very pro- bably would have done, had she thought Lay-baptism valid, since the salvation of many infants may be nearly concerned in it. " I do not therefore see but that those gentlemen who affirm " Lay-baptism to be valid lie imder a necessity either of owning " that they assert that for an important article of true doctrine, " which the Church of England denies, or of accusing their " Mother the Church of England" of a very culpable omission * Cypr. ad Jub. in Reply to Mr. KelsalPs A nszver. 231 in making no provision for a case that may often happen, and is of everlasting moment. " I shall be heartily glad to see these " gentlemen get handsomely clear from this dilemma and in the interim, I presume, we shall have time enough to consider how to deal with the other. From what has been said, it appears pretty plainly, that there is no law either of God or man, either of the primitive Church or our own, whereon to found the validity of Dissenters' Baptism. As to making any thing valid ex post facto by a subsequent con- firmation, which was not valid befoi'e ; it is too romantic a notion to need confuting, having no countenance from scripture, anti- quity, or reason, or the principles of our Church, or our Office of Confirmation, which supposes persons baptized, validly baptized before. Seeing therefore the thing looks so suspicious and doubtful, and withal very dangerous, it concerns us to take the safest way, and to act as all wise casuists would advise us in doubtful cases. Mr. Bennet, who had well considered this sub- ject, speaks like a wise and good mans. "At present," says he, " T am not able to prove the validity of sacraments administered " by lay persons in any case whatsoever ; nor on the other hand " am I willing to pronounce them utterly invalid. But this I " own, that if it had been my misfortune to have been baptized " by such a person as was not authorized by God to perform " that office ; I would be conditionally rebaptized, after the " same manner which our Church prescribes in dubious cases. " For I do not think that it would otherwise be possible for me " to enjoy peace of conscience for one single moment." And now to use Mr. K.'s own words ; " He is desired (if it be " possible) to find out some way to cure the just suspicions, and " remove the endless scruples, which his hypothesis will natu- " rally suggest to the minds of thinking men concerning the " validity of their Baptism, and the reality of their being within " the covenant of grace, and in a state of salvation." In the close he subjoins a summary view of the principles which he espouses, relating to the present subject, in twenty-six particulars. The first five are very good ; the rest are mostly, in my opinion, either not true, or not accurately expressed. 1 shall take notice of but one or two. His twenty-first is, "that the minister is not of the essence" s Rights of Clergy, p. 352. 232 Dr. Wuterland's Second Letter (of Baptism). His twenty-second, " Conseciuently the Church " being, as has been declared, the '• supreme judge of this " matter, if she shall think fit to order those who have been " baptized by laymen to be baptized again, I am not the man " that shall gainsay it." He must certainly have been under some confusion of thought when he wrote this ; for I verily believe he does not mean it. Would any man else argue thus ? The minister is not essential, therefore Baptism is valid whether by a Priest or Laic ; " therefore the Church may choose whether " she will receive it or no," when the irresistible consequence from these premises is, that the (Jliurch cannot choose but must receive it, since it is valid on either supposition. I suppose he means, that since it does not certainly appear, either that the Minister is essential or not essential, in so doubtful a case, let the Church determine whether the disputed Baptisms shall be valid or not. If the Minister be supposed not essential, there is no room left foi- the Church to order a rebaptization. What Churchmen, nay what heretics, (except the Marcionists,) ever allowed rebaptization in the strict and proper sense, or did not utterly disclaim it I However, if your friend will be so generous as to admit of two Baptisms in some cases, I hope we may be excused hereafter if we contend for one. Could Lay-baptism be shewn to be truly Baptism, I should be the last man that should plead for rebaptization ; nay, if all the churches in Europe should order it, I should gainsay it, and protest against it as an innovation. But since it does not appear that such pretended Baptisms are truly Baptisms, but that there is all the reason in the world to think they are not, I must beg leave still to insist upon it, that all such as have been so pretendedly baptized ought to have the true and only Baptism, episcopal Baptism, and so become not pretended but true and real members of the Church of Christ. Thus, Sir, you have my thoughts at length upon a subject difficult enough for wise and good men to differ upon, and yet perhaps clear enough to a careful and diligent inquirer. You had had this long ago, had not my other business and many avocations hindered ; and I might no doubt have been more e.xact in many things, had I more leisure, or could I bear the trouble of transcribing. But since these papers are designed only for private use, I am content to let them pass. You may please in Reply to Mr. KelsaWs Answer. 233 to communicate them at leisure to your learned friend, whom I have a great respect and value for. He has shewn in espousing the cause of Lay-baptism, that he is very able both to defend and adorn a better ; and if he has failed in it, it may be con- sidered that the great Mr. Bingham, not to mention others, has sunk in the attempt before, and neither his fine parts nor voluminous reading could support him against an adversary, who in learning certainly, not to say in abilities, is far inferior to him. I have endeavoured every where to treat Mr. K. with that civility and respect due to his character and personal merit. But if any thing has dropt from me unawares that seems different from it, I desire you to blot it out with your pen, it being what I should certainly do myself, as soon as apprized of it. While I differ from him in this, I shall be ever, I hope, ready to join with him in a fervent zeal for God and religion, and vigorously opposing the growing heterodoxies and prevailing corruptions of the present times. May the Giver of all truth direct us in our searches after it, and both incline us to embrace it, and enable us to pursue it. I am, dear Sir, your most affectionate humble Servant. DR. WATERLAND'S LETTERS TO THE REV. MR. LEWIS, MERGATE, KENT. IHE following Letters were transcribed from a folio volume in Rawlinson's Collection of MSS. in the Bodleian Library at Oxford. The Letters not having been copied in chronological order, and some of them having no date, considerable difficulty was found in properly arranging them. But this difficulty, it is hoped, has been so far sur- mounted, as to remove any perplexity that might otherwise occur, in referring from one Letter to another, for the elucidation of any parti- cular subject. To facilitate also the reader's researches, a short Table of the Contents of each Letter is prefixed to this Volume. The twelve first Letters were written in the years 1/24 and 1725, and relate chiefly to the life and writings of Bishop Pecock. The re- maining Letters relate almost entirely to a history of the English trans- lations of the Bible, and were written in the years 1728 and 1729. The Notes inclosed between brackets are in the original manuscripts. The other references are by the Editor. LETTERS TO THE REV. MR. LEWIS, MERGATE, KENT. N». T. Reverend Sir, I HEARTILY thank you for the favour of your papers, con- taining Cursory Remarks on my Critical History^. I am very desirous of any hints that may contribute to the correcting or improving any part of that work : and some of yours will be ser- viceable ; while the rest shew your kind and friendly endeavours towards me. Sir Francis Kynaston's observation relates to the division of the day into four equal parts, where prime has a particular sense ; how justly I do not say. My sense of prime is founded upon another division of the day, into twelve equal parts, or hours, and is certainly right with respect to the subject I am upon. As to Beleth, I am not sensible of any slip. He is an evi- dence of the Creed's being commonly ascribed to Anastasius in his time, which he judges to be wrongfully done, {/also,) ascrib- ing it himself to Athanasius. The word licet is indeed dropped * Waterland's Critical History of tion of which was published in 1723, the Athanasian Creed; the first edi- the second in 1728. 238 Letters to in iny quotation, by some accident or if I designedly left it out, there should have been a full stop at est, to make two sen- tences instead of one, the two parts being produced to prove two distinct things. Dr. Clarke is obliged to your kind endeavours for him. But no man whose thoughts were not absent would have expressed, about 429, by luar 400, or ahote 300; either of which implies a number short of 400. I must own however that such a slip might have been passed over in silence, had not the Dr. had seven years' time to correct it in, and had not he been a man that values himself upon his accuracy, and is pretty severe upon others on as slight occasions. I have not your Life of Wickhf by me. But I shall consult it the first opportunity in the pages referred to. I thank you for your hint about TreNisa"^ : and shall correct the mistake about Berkeley. I forget now whose authority it was that I then followed iniphcitly, without inquiring further. What I say of the Galilean Psalter*^ being retained in our Common Prayer Book, I took from Dr. Hody, who was, gene- rally, a very careful and accurate writer ; though, as I now con- ceive, mistaken in this particular. I thank you for your valu- able hints on this head, and shall, as I have leisure, make more strict inquiries into that matter. I have for the present only compared two or three Psalms of our old version with the GaUi- can Psalter ; and I find that even these few do not answer. Which confirms me in it, that your observation is very right and just. Further inquiries may give me still more abundant satis- faction. eAs to what I say of the Latin versions used by the Popes at different times, my authorities are certainly very good : Cardi- nal Bona, Mabillon, and Martianey the late editor of Jerome. What 1 hint about the Council of Trent, particularly, is taken from the last. My account, 1 conceive, is very consistent «ith your remarks. The edition of 1532 is above thirty years before Pius V. who introduced the Galilean Psalter into common use. And as to what you observe of the Council of Trent, (though I have not their Acta at hand,) 1 suppose it may be meant not of the Psalter in particular, but of the Latin Bible in general. It is inserted in the second Ibid. p. 164. edition, p. 45. ^ Ibid. pp. 162 — 166. See Crit. Hist. vol. iii. p. 144, 145. the Rev. Mr. Lewis. I ara undoubtedly right in setting Bryling's Greek editionf before the rest, and in calling it Jirst, as first in order of time. Fabricius's naming it tertia has reference only to Montfaucon's order of placing the copies in his edition of Athanasius's works ; this copy being the third in his way of placing them, though first printed. There have been in reality six several copies of that Creed, though three of the six are so like one another that they have been thrown into one, as I observed vol. iii. p. 176. I am obliged to you for intimating how long the mistake of holy for whole continued. I was not furnished with a sufficient number of Prayer Books of several editions, to trace that matter far enough down. I made a small slip in the same page, (which you have not observed,) for want of King Edward's Prayer Book of 1552. Instead of saying, under Queen Elizaheth, I should have said, in the year 1552, ihnder King Edtmrd. You seem not satisfied with my conjecture about the occasion of the mistake ; though it be very easy to change hole into holi, and so into holy. Could I [have] thought of any other more probable account, I should have preferred it before this. You may imagine that I had consulted all the Greek editions first, and particularly that copy from which our version was made. I was certain that none of the copies gave any ground or umbrage for the word holy. In Bryling's copy, from which our version was taken, the word is (xStav; in the Dionysian copy the same ; in the Constantinopolitan, aKepaiav ; in the Commeline it is iyii] ; in Usher's, afxoKwTov ; in Labbe's, o-wai'. But it is sufficient to have mentioned the first ; because our translators had seen no other. If you have met with any copy that has aylav, it will be found, I believe, to have been none other than a Greek translation from the English, together with the rest of the Prayer Book in Greek, I have been told of ayiav appearing in a Greek copy ; but have not had an opportunity of looking into one of those Greek Prayer Books, to see how the matter stands. You will easily apprehend whence I took my Latin copy of the Creed, when you consider the manuscripts which I refer to, and their various lections noted at the bottom. I followed no one particular copy, but chose out of all what appeared to be, upon critical reasons, the true and ancient reading. As to Dr. Tarentinuss, he was (very probably) Pater of Ta- ^ Crit. Hist. vol. iii. pp. 1 74, 1 76. e Lewis's Life of Pecock, p. 225. 240 Letters to rentuii), a noted scholastic Divine ; made Archbishop of Lions in 1 27 1, and Pope under the name of Innocent V. in 1276. He has a Compendium of Theology, which was printed at Paris in 1551, where probably may be found what you cite. But I have never yet seen the book. I am obliged to you however for the hint : I shall search after him. If his opinion be such as is re- presented in the qviotation, it may deserve some notice, though there was no just ground for any such opinion. All the Latin copies I have hitherto seen, ancient or modern, have the article of Christ's descent into hell. Possibly, some use may be made of the observation for settling the age of Usher's form, which also omits that article. Some Latin copies have firmeque instead of firmiterque, but they are modern and few : and it concerned me not to take notice of that slight variation, where I was noting only the difference between Bryling's copy and the rest, as a further argument of our translators' following that copy. I beg leave in the close to repeat my thanks to you for your kind remarks. I shall make some corrections from them where just. And I thought it a piece of civility to you to intimate my judgment of the rest. If any other hints occasionally come in your way, I shall think myself much obliged to you for communicating them to me. And if any thing brings you to Town while I am here, your calling upon me at my house will be an additional favour to. Good Sir, Your obliged humble Servant, UAN.WATERLAND. Watling Street, by St. Austin's Church, March 31, 1724. To the Rev. Mr. Lewis., of Mergate in Kent. The Rev. Mr. Lextyu. 241 N". II. The Tretiis that is clepid The pore Caitif. Publ. Acad. Cant. N. 460. - A. Publ. Acad. Cant. N. 467. - B. 1 ^j^^^^ ^j^^ Coll. Trin. Cant. B. 8.37. - C. J CoU. Job. G. 28. - - - - D. THE CREDE. St. Petir. 1. I bileve into a God Fadir Almyghty, Maker of hevene and of evthe. St.Andreio. 2. I bileve* into Crist, his oonh Sone oure Lord. 8t.Jame.Zeh. 3. I bileve that he is conseyved of the Holi Goost, born'' of the Virgine^ Marie. St. John. 4. I bileve that he suffride passioun> in A. C. D. ' in holy A. D. ^feilliful deest A. D. ' and cnmyninge A. D. ™ risinge of body A. D. " and deest C. ° the lond nf desunt A. D. p add, eilhir bondage A. D. •) siraunge A. D. *■ not prie to hem, neithir worscipe A. D. in soule A. ' in the children A. D. • I he deest A.D. "a thmisend of them that A. D. * for, God A. D. y wilhouten guilt that A. D. * his Lord God B. » his name in ydil, eithir without cause A. D. ^ The words of the parenthesis are only in B. and there in the margin.] * {Veithftil, for Cathnlick ; follow- Nicene Creed, in Whelock's edition of ing the popular rather than strict Bede's History. So ttio-toI, and ^rfe/es, grammatical sense. The like may be were equivalent to Cat}iolicksP\ observed in the Saxon version of the the Rev. Mr. Lenyis. 243 sabath). <^Sexe daies thou schalt worche'', and schalt do alle thi vverkis: ''in the seventhe day forsothe" is the halidayf of thi Lord God : thou schalt not do in that day ony servile werkis, Sthou and thi sone and thi doughtir, thi servaunt, and thin hondmaiden, thi\vorkbeest,and thi straunger that iswithinne thi gatish. In sexe daies 'God made hevene and erthe and the see'', and alle thingis what ben in hem, and restidde in the seventhe day, 'therefore the Lord^ bleside to the haliday, and halewide it. 4. Honoure ™ thou thi fadir and thi modir, that thou be of long lyf° upon erthe, the whiche the Lord God schal geve to thee. 5. Thou schalt not slee. 6. Thou schalt do no letcherie. 7. Thou schalt do no thefte**. 8. Thou schalt not seieP fals witnessyngei agens thi neighbore. 9. Thou schalt not coveite thi neighboris hous. 10. Thou schalt not desire the vvyf of thi neighbore"", not servaunt, not hondraaide, not oxe, not asse, ne oni thing that is his. Magd. Coll. Cant. June 9, 1724. Sir, I HAVE here at length sent you a transcript of what you desired, gathered from four MSS. which I denote by the four first letters of the alphabet. The MS. B. I took for my text, with which commonly agrees C., as A. and D. do likewise tally with each other. I have hinted that A. 0. D. are three entire copies of the pore Cailif. 1 understand there is another at Lambeth, and a fifth in the College of Dublin, Cod. 672. Whether the whole collection, or any part be really Wiclif's, I cannot say, not being sufficiently versed in his writings. The authors quoted, as I remember, in this collection are chiefiy Austin, Jerom, Chrysostom, Gregory, Bede, Anselm, Grostead, and Odo, and none later. You may know whether it be his custom to quote authors, and those authors. The discourses VARIOUS LECTIONS. [' in sixe D. A. worche thi owne werkis A.D. ' the seventhe day is the A. D. ' resle A. C D. k ncitkir thou, ne thi sone, tie tlii servaunt, ne thi werkbeeaste, ne thi sir. A.D. ^ dwelleth in thi hous A.D. ' for in sixe Jaies A.D. daies /or- siithe C. and the see desunt A. D. • and therefore he bleside the A. D. haliday. This paragraph wanting in IMS. ('. worchipe A.D. " lunjjlyvcd D. " thou — not do thejte A- D. p speke C. i wilnes C. ■■ uc his servnvnl, ne his mtiide ne his oxe, nef i' usse, ne no thing. A. D.] B 2 244 Letters to ai'e wholly practical, calculated for common readers, and breath- ing a spirit of piety all the way through, with great simplicity. I have not yet met with any thing considerable relating to Bishop Pecock. We have one of his MS. pieces here in our public library : but Wharton has given a very full account of it in print. Pepys's library is packed up in boxes for the present: I am making all the haste I can to provide chasses, (sic) and to set the books up in order. The catalogue, which I have looked over, promises me nothing of that kind. I can find nothing yet of Dr. Tarentinus. I looked for him in many libraries both at London and Oxford, and in some here at Cambridge ; but he is not to be found. I met with a Prayer Book at Oxford of the year 1627, where the reading is loliole, and this is as far back- wards as I have found that reading. I believe you are very right in fixing the alteration to that very year. I have a suspicion that though holy was the old reading, wholly was understood ; and the rather because queen Elizabeth's of 1 56 1 reads ivhohj, and the metrical version joins to it undefiledlxj : if so, there was nothing more in it than an antique spelling. I have seen holi and hooli in Old English books for wholly, and the very same spelling for holy, in the same books. I formerly made mention of the Shepherd's Almanack, or Calendar ; I have seen it in Pepys's library, and find Mr. John- son's remark from it to be just. It was first in French, com- posed about the year 1596. It was twice translated into Enghsh. The last edition or translation (which is what I have seen) was in the year 16 j 8. I have nothing further to add at present, but to assure you, that if I can meet with any thing here that may be serviceable to your work, I shall give you notice of it. And if you think of any thing else that may be of use to you, do but intimate your requests, and they shall be readily answered, as far as may be, by. Sir, Your most humble Servant, DAN.WATERLAND. To the Reverend Mr. Lewis, of Mergate in Kent. the Rev. Mr. Lewis. 245 aN". III. Reverend Sir, Our librarian happening to be out of the vvay, I could not get the MS. soon enough to return you an answer by the first post. Before I come to what you desire, it will be proper to give you, as it is short, the author's division, or method, in his own words as follows : " i^Y schal justifie xi gouernauncis of the Clergie whiche "• sume of the coraoun peple, unwiisly & untreuli jugen, & con- " dempnen to be yuele : of whiche xi gouernauncis oon is the " having & using of ymagis in chirchis. And an othir is pil- " grimage in going to the memorialis, or the mynde-placis, of " seintis, & that pilgrimagis & offringis mowe be doon weel. not " oonly priuely, but also openli ; & not oonli so of laymen but " rather of Prestis and of Bischopis. And this schal y do bi " writing of this present book in the comoun peplis langage " pleinli, & openli, & schortli : and to be clepid The repressing " of ouer miche wiiting (sic) the Clergie. And he schal haue v " principal parties. In the firste of whiche parties schal be " maad in general maner the seid repressing, and in general " maner proof to the xi seid gouernauncis. And in the ii. iii. " iiii. & V. parties schal be maad in special maner the seid re- " pressing, and in special maner the proof to the same xi gouer- " nauncis." Thus far the author's words concerning the partition of his work. I have imitated the way of writing, and followed the spelling; excepting that I have given some words at length instead of the abbreviations. I now come to the place you inquire after. It is in the very last page, and makes but a small part of it. " cXhe X. principal gouernaunce, agens which sume of the " comoun peple erren, is this : that the Clergie in certein causes " and maters swerith & makith othere persoones for to swere ; " & allowith weel that princis & her officers, being undir hem, " bothe swere & make othere men of the layte for to swere. ^ This letter is without a date; but, after the letter of June 9, 1724. from what is said respecting Pilate of ^ See Lewis's Life of Pecock, Pounce, and other internal evidence, p. 163. it seems to have followed not long c ibid. p. 147. 246 Letters to " Certis suine of the lay peple holden this gouernaunce to be " unleeful, & agens the comaundeinent of God ; and that it is " uttirli unleeful eny man for to swere. Neuertheles for as " niuche as this unwiis holding is sufficientli proved to be untrew " in the book,JiUing the iiii tab/is, in the secundc partie bi manye " chapitris; therfore nothing therof here." This is all the author here says to that article. As to the book about the fou7~ tables, I suppose it is lost. But you may probably spell out his meaning from the hints here given. I shall transcribe the conclusion, because of the author's there intituling his book something differently from what he had done in the entrance. " And thus y eende this present book, clepid The Represser of " ouer myche blamym the Clerqie. For which book to thee, Lord " God, be preising & thanking : and to alle the seid ouermyche " undirnemers and blamers ful amendement. Amen." Undirnemers, or undirnymers, is a very common word with him. He ushers in his discourse with part of 2 Tim. iv. 2, which he thus renders ; undirnyme thou, biseche thou, (§• blame thou in al pacience 4' doctrine. It is, as it were, the text or motto to his book : Wiclif renders the same place thus, in his first edition, as I take it : arciu, or protie, byseche, blame in. all pacience and doctrine. But in the other it is, repreue thou, biseche thou, blame thou, &c. Having spare paper enough, permit me now to run out into other matters. Wiclif 's Wicket, however small a piece, I have never read, but design to do shortly, having it now in our new library which was Mr. Pepys's. The title of Masse Crede is of some antiquity, appearing in the Saxon versions as early as 950, or higher; maej-j-e cpaeba. One good use may be made of the observation, for the proving that we received the Nicene Creed into our Communion Office before the Roman Church did ; following therein the Galilean Churches, (as in many other customs,) rather than Roman. Since my last to you, I had the curiosity to search a little further into the reason of the title of Pilate of Pounce^, in Wiclif s version of the Roman Creed. I thought it not likely that it should be borrowed from either of the Greek writers by me mentioned, or indeed from any Greek writer, our countrymen d See Letter II. The Crede. Article 4. the Bee. Mr. Letcis. formerly having had very little acquaintance with Greek. Besides that the Saxon versions are some of them undoubtedly more ancient than either Theophylact or Eutychius ; and yet they in the word Pontij-e seem plainly to go upon the same notion, un- derstanding Pontius as denoting some place where Pilate was either born, or lived, or governed. To be short, I met with several Latin writers, upon search, that adopted the same notion; as Bruno in his Comment on that Creed, A. D. 1030, and the author of the tract de Divinis Officiis, falsely ascribed to Alcuiuj in his Comment on the same : he lived probably about A. D. 1000. But there is an older still, Amalarius Trevirensis, who wrote A.D. 813, and says the very same thing in his com- ment on the same Creed, in the Treatise, or Epistle, de Cere- moniis Baptismi among Alcuin's works. Having traced it thus high, I was then very well satisfied ; not doubting but our Saxon ancestors had from thence borrowed the notion on which they formed their language in that article. However, among many copies of the Apostles' Creed, which I have searched down from the ninth century, I have met with none but Wiclif 's that has Pilate of Pounce ; the same expres- sion which he uses in his version of the New Testament, in both editions, (so I call them, and have both by me,) in Alatt. xxvii. 2. Whether this may be an additional argument for ascribing the pore Catif to Wiclif, I leave to be considered. I have met with an English author who talks sillily enough upon this matter ; but he is valuable for his antiquity, and as discovering the cur- rent language in his time. The book was pi-inted A.D. 1500, written perhaps several years sooner. It is called Liber Festival is, containing plain simple Homilies, (drawn chiefly out of the Le- genda Aurea,) upon the principal feasts in the year. He tells his tale thus : " Themperoure by counseyll of the Romayns sente Pylate " into a contree that was called Pounce : where the people of " that contrey where so cursed that they slewe ony that come " to bee thyr mayster ouer hem. Soo whan this Pylate come " thyder, he applied hym to her maners : soo what wyth whyles " and sotyltye he ouercome hem, and had the maystrye, and " gate his name, and was called Pylate of Pounce, and had grete "• domynacion and power." Yet this very author in his copy of the Creed does not read Pylate of Pounce, but Pounce Pylate, according to the usual 248 Letters to style (excepting Pounce for Ponce) in that article from the twelfth century down to Wiclif, and after Wiclif, in all other copies I have met with, down to the year 1535, when the English Primmer put Pontius instead of Ponce. And yet the Bishop of Rochester's Primmer in 1539, and Henry the Eighth's in 1545, still retained Ponce; but our Reformers, being better learned, rightly preferred Pontius, as it stands at this day, having no mystery in it more than its being a Roman name, which Bishop Pearson has sufficiently shewn. As to the false notion or hypothesis which Wiclif, with many others, went upon, no one expresses it more briefly or clearly than the author of the tract de Divinis Officiis in Alcuin, in these words : " Pontius dictus est, vel a Ponto regione, vel a " Ponto insula in qua natus est, vel a familia, ut quibusdam " placet," Alcuin. Op. p. 1 1 25. Whether what I have been talking about may be of any use to yoUj I know not. But I have the pleasure of shewing you how ready I should be to serve you in things more material, (were it in my power,) by these pains spent upon a trifle. I have dipped in several books in hopes to furnish you with some- thing about Bishop Pecock, but have not been so happy as to meet with any thing. I design (God willing) to continue here about a month longer, before I return to London. If you think of any thing further that 1 may serve you in, while I stay, fail not to acquaint, Sir, Your most humble Servant, DAN. WATERLAND. P. S. I know not whether you have seen Oudin's last edition of his Commentarius de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis, A. D. 1722. He takes Pecock in at the year 1450. He has done little more than the transcribing Wharton ; excepting that by diligent searching into the Oxford Catalogue of MSS. he has found out the names of some pieces ascribed to Pecock, which Wharton had omitted, and oflers his conjectures about another piece which nobody before himself ever suspected to be Pecock^s. He takes notice of a MS. in the Bodleian, (B. i. 18 ) intituled, ejohannis Bury Theologi O.xoniensis Responsio ad Conchisiones ^ Lewis's Life of Pecock, pj). 274 — 2S4. The manuscript is there stated to be, B. 1. 1960.18, and containing sixteen sheets of vellum in quarto. the Rev. Mr. Lewis. 249 Reginald! Peacocke ; and observes that the book must be of good use for setting Pecock'^s case in its full light. I doubt not but you have consulted your friends at Oxford about that mat- ter, and so I need not say more. I suppose you design an exact account of the Author\s works along with his life. I have now in my keeping his two principal pieces extant : his Represser, out of the public library ; and his book of the Rule of Christian Faith, out of Trin. Coll. Library. I shall have these pieces with me some time longer. If you desire any hint about any particular relating to them, you may please to give me speedy notice, and I shall consult them for you. I shall probably run them both over superficially before I part with them. One thing I intend for my own satisfaction as I go along ; which is to take down the names of such books as the author wrote, and referred to himself. Mr. Wharton's account appears to me somewhat confused, that I scarce know from thence what the true titles of some pieces were, or whether English or Latin. If you once have the English titles in the author's own style, it would certainly be pi'oper to recount all his English pieces under the English titles, as the Latin ones under Latin titles. If you approve of this hint, please to give me a line, and I will send you up as many as I can find, in the reading those two pieces. To the Reverend Mr. Leivis, of Me r gate in Kent. N". IV. ^ Bishop Pecock's English Books, or Tracts. \ . The Forcrler ; alias. The bifore Crier. 2. The Douct into Cristen lieligioun. Among the Collectanea Richardi Jamesii this book is mentioned, and so perhaps may still be extant. See Oxon. Catal. of MSS. p. 260. 3. The folewer to the Donet. This book is also mentioned in the Oxon Catalogue, numb. 6627. p. 202. MSS. Codd. Caro. Theyeri, whore it is misnamed, The Follower of the Devout. I f See Lewis's Life of Pecock, cha]). vii. p. 315. et seq. 250 Letters to may note that Donet is mentioned by Chaucer as the name of some book, which I learn from the Glossai-y at the end, but have not had leisure to look out the place. This tract is also called, T%e Key of Cristen Religioun. 4. s The Book of Cristen Religioun. 5. The BooJc of Matrimonie. 6. The filling of the iiii Tablis. The third part of which book, as the author informs us, (Repress, part i. c. 3.) is chiefly upon usure. 7 . The just apprising of holi Scripttire in Hi parties. 8. The Provoker of Cristen 3Ien. 9. The BooJc of Counceilis. 10. The prouT/ng of Cristen Faith. 11. The Spreding the iiii Tablis. 12. The Book of Signis in the Chirche : aHas, The Boke of worschiping. The subject whereof he expresses a little more fully, (Repress, part ii. c. 12.) uce of worsciping doon hi seahle rememoratiif signes. A. D. 1449. 13. The Represser of ouer myche blamyiig the Clergie. Ext. Bibl. Cant. num. 190. folio. Mr. Wharton has fixed the date to the year in the margin. 14. The Boke of Leernyng. 15. The Boke of Presthode. 16. The Book of Baptg. 1 7. The Book of Eukarist. N. B. Put this below, among the promised. A. D. 1455. 18. The Book of Faith, in two parts, written in the way of dialogue between a father and a son. Ext. Trin. Coll. Cant. N. R. II. 2. 8vo. The date of this book is certain, if that of the Represser be so. For the author himself, in the entrance, reckons six years from the time of his writing the Represser: and afterwards, speaking of the same war between England and France, he sets it at forty years in this book, as he had in the former at thirty-four. Mr. Wharton is mistaken in his report of this MS. of Trinity College as being perfect. It certainly wants a considerable part at the latter end. How much I cannot say, because I have never seen the entire second part B N". 2. in Lewis's List. ^ Lewis considers tliis to be the same with N°, 6. tJi,e Rev. M. Lewis. 251 published (as Mr. Wharton says) Lond. 1688. This book in the close begins the subject of the article of the Creed, (Christ's descent into hell,) as having been anciently wanting, and there breaks off abruptly. ' English Tracts promised only, so far as appears. 1 . A schort Conipendiose Logik : of which he says, (after ex- pressing the great need of such a thing, in her modires language, and the excellent use it might be of,) as follows: "into whos " making, if God wole graunte leue and leyser, y purpose sum- " tynie after my othere bisynessis for to assaie. " Repress, part i. c. 2. 2. A Book of Legendis. Of this design he says, " in legendis ben " founde manie ful untrewe fablis, as in a book therof to be maad " schal appeere." Repress, part iii. c. 12''. I conjecture that this book was to be in English, because the author says nothing of its being intended in Latin; as he com- monly does whenever he refers to his Latin treatises. After this list of his English works, I shall transcribe you two passages, wherein the author himself numbers up most of them, and shews some fondness for them. " 'Ful weel oughten alle persoones of the lay parti, not leern- " ed oughtwhere ellis for to make miche of bokis maad to *' hem in her modiris langage ; whiche ben clejjid thus. The Donet " into Cristen Religioun. The Fohoer to the Donet. The Book of " Cristen Religioun ; namelich the first parti fro the bigynnyng " of the iii. treti Jorthward : The Book filling the iiii Tahlis. The " Book of worschiping : the book clepid The just apptrising of holt " Scripture: the book clepid The Prouoker of Cristen Men. The " Book of Cou?iceilis : and other mo pertenyng to the now seid " book of Cristen Religioun. Miche oughten lay persoones " for to make and apprise & loue the now spoken bokis. And " ferthermore ouer this now seid, the now spoken bokis techen " ful clereli & bihoucfulli the treuthis & goucrnauncis of Goddis " lawe whiche ben groundid in holi Scripture, and also other " treuthis of feith whiche ben not lawis 8t ben groundid in holi " Scripture. And also thei treten ful nobili the positiif lawis of " Criste aboute the newe Sacramentis. Of this same mater it ' Lewis, p. 323. third, the Book of Eukarist. To these two tracts Lewis adds a ' Lewis, p. 319, 320. 252 Letters to " is quikli & smertli spoken in a litil book, therto and therfore " maad, whiche y clepe The Provoker of Cristen Peple, & ther- " fore no more therof here." Repress, part i. cap. lo. " If ye asken, who y am which makith him so bisi here agens " you ; forsothe he is the man which hath more labourid & doon " into youre goostli availe, as of trewe kunnyng to be had of you, " & errour to be remoued fro you, than ye you silf ben of kun- " nyng and of power for to so do to you silf. In more special " for to seie, He is the man which for you and for alle lay men " hath write in lay mennys langage these bokis. The Forcrier : " The Donet into the hook of Cristen Religioun : The Folower to " the same Donet : The Boke of Cristen Religioun : The Provoker : " The Represser: The Book of Signis in the Chirche, which y clepe " the Boke of Worschiping : The Boke o f Leernyng : The Booke of "filing the iiii Tablis : this present Book of Feith : The Book of " Presthode: with summe other mo. Whiche bokis, if ye " wolen rede diligentli, and attende therto studioseli, & be wel " acqueyntid with hem, and not for to take an hasti smel or " smatche in hem, and soone leie hem aside ; ye schullen fynde " in hem so great witt and leerning of Cristen religioun, that ye " schullen holde you bigilid in the trust which ye had bifore in " youre othere studies and laboris for leernyng. And ye schulen " se that so fer the wittis & kunnyng of clerkis passen youre " wittis & youre leernyng in maters of Cristen religioun, that ye " schulen not truste so moehe to youre kunnyng as ye now doon. " And ye schulen truste more to the kunnyng of clerkis & seche " bisili to have her helpe & counselling in tho maters, than ye " have bifore this doon. And ye schulen chastise you silf ful wel " and ful vertuoseli fro pride and"^ presupcioun bifore had in " setting and in apprising youre leernyng & kunnyng in maters " of Cristen religioun bifore the leernyng and kunnyng of Clerkis " & of the Chirche as ye bifore this han doon. Forsothe " summe of the kunnyngist men of youre soorte aftir that thei " han red of summe of these spokun bokis, & han take bi not- " able tyme assaie and acqueyntaunce in hem ; han hungrid and " thirstid for to have hadde the copie & the contynual uce of tho " bokis to hem, as moche as euer thei hungriden & thirstiden " after mete and drinke." Book of Faith, part. i. "1 In the next letter Dr. W. requests presupcioun: and it is so written in Mr. Lewis to write presumpcioun for Mr. L.'s quotation. tlie Rev. Mr. Leuns. 253 " I shall subjoin another passage, not far from this now cited, to give a little further light into the author's temper and man- ner, in regard especially to the Lollardis, Wicklififtis, (so he calls them, and their leader Wicliif,) and his contests with them. " I haue spoke oft tyme and bi long leiser with the wittiest " and kunnyngist men of thilk seid soort contrarie to the " Chirche, and which han be holde as dukis amonge hem, and " whiche han loued me for that y wolde pacientli heere her " euydencis & her motyues, without exprobracioun. And verili " noon of hem couthe make eny motiue for her parti so stronge " as y my silf couthe haue made therto. And noon of hem " couthe make eny motiue which schulde meue a thrifti sad " Clerk nedis into concent : but ech thrifti sad Clerk in logik, " philosophic, & divinite, schulde soone schewe her motiue to " be ouer feble to be a cleer & undoutable prof. And if y " may not herynne be bileeved of hem, write thei her euy- " dencis & motyues in which thei trusten, and thei schulen " se, bi writyng agen, that thei kunne right htil maistrie do " for her party: yhe, moche lasse than good Clerkis kunnen " for her party do. Ceese thei therfore &; leue thei werk : " for y wote weel, thei hewen (sic) aboue her heedis, & " weenen that thei han more and clerer sight in kunnyng " than nethei han, or mo we haue without Clergie or greet helpe " of Clerkis." ° Here and in other parts of his pieces may be seen the good Bishop's excellencies, and at the same time his foibles. He had great parts, learning, and abilities ; and was too confident in them, and trusted too much to them : while he hoped to be able at pure reason and argument to defend a very corrupt Church, in all, or its main, doctrines and practices against all assailants. Yet he is to be commended in preferring the rational way of dealing with adversaries before fire and fagot. The good man was forced to sweat and labour hard in so difficult an under- taking ; and here and there to drop many a concession, such as the warm men of the Church could by no means brook or con- sent so. He hoped, since he was writing on the Church's side, and since his concessions were such only as plain force of reason, or as plain fact extorted, that he might be safe enough from censure ; judging too kindly of other men's moderation and can- dour by his own. But enough of this. o Lewis, p. 333. note. " Ibid. pp. 333—335- Letters to V His Latin works, finislted and published. 1. Liber de Fide et Sacrametitis. This he mentions as being in Latyn. Repress, part i. p. 8. 2. Liber de Baptismo. } -n l • ^ . . V Kepress. part iv. c. 2. 3. Liber de Poenitentia.) 4. Justa Doctor um ^stimatio. Latin works, promised only, so far as appears. 1. Lectiones e Cathedra Academica. Repress, part v. c. 6. 2. Demonstratio Christiance Fidei. Of this he says, (Book of Faith, fol. 15. col. 2.) " Y hope to make in Latyn, and to be '• clepid, The Prof of Cristen Faith.'''' He refers to the same again, c. 10. 3. Liber de Ecclesia. De predicatione, promised in the same treatise, to be maad in L^atyn, part i. c. 10. These are all that I have observed any mention made of, in the two treatises cursorily read over. Please to correct a mis- spelling in my last, layte. The word is layfe, as I have since found by clear and certain instances. But being then new to me, I put t, by conjecture, for what now appears to be f. As to the note at the end of the Represser, it is but a blind one, and in a hand quite different from that of the book itself. What you write hunlith, the Oxon Catalogue (n. 2370.) makes humhich. He must have better eyes or judgment than I pretend to, that can be positive in either. My opinion is at present, (but report it not from me till I have consulted more experienced men,) that the word is Lamhyth ; and that this was entered by a Notary, after the copy had been taken, or perhaps read in Lambeth Chapel, in the year that Bishop Pecock was called to account, namely, 1457. I read it thus: — ^Explicit coram Domino, in Capella sua apud Lambyth : xi Novemb. Anno Domini 1457. The Oxon Catalogue erroneously claps in Rege after Domino : otherwise they might the more easily have thought of Lambeth. Coram Domino, as I apprehend, means the Archb'ishop. As to Mr. Wharton's account, it is pretty right in the main, but rather too general, and not distinct enough, nor every where accurate. I am not aware that Pecock ever allowed or admitted P Lewis, pp. 323, 324. Life of Pecock, p. 215, 216, and the 1 The Archbishop's mandate to ap- Notary's entry of his appearance on pear on the iilh of Nov. 1457, at that day is mentioned, p. 217. Lamhith, is given at length in Lewis's ilie Rev. Mr. Leiois. 255 that the Church had actually/ erred in matter of faith., as Mr. Wharton represents. In his Book of Faith, two principal faults he finds with the LoUardis ; i . " Ouer myche leenyng to scripture, " and in such maner and wise as it longith not to holi scripture " for to receyue." 2. " Setting not bi for to folowe the determy- " nations & the holdingis of the Chirche in mater of faith." The first of these, he observes he had sufficiently removed in his two former pieces : Just Apprising of Holy Scripture, and Represser. The second he reserved for the present treatise And here, though he admits that possibly the Church mat/ err, yet he constantly insists upon it that the Church has not actually erred : I mean in matter of faith. And that it mai/ err, is rather by way of supposition for argument sake, than formal admitting it. Having observed, that a true conclusion in rcaso7i is of that strength, that though angels of heaven should contradict it, we must yet trust more to such plain proof, than to all the angels together : and having at the same time admitted, that though the Church were to determine against plain proof of reason, yet reason must be heard even against the Church: I say after this, he still guards in this manner, and in these words : " Neuerthe- " les, Some of this that y now haue grauntid to thee folowith " not, that the Chirche in erthe errith or may erre in mater of " feith, no more than folowith, of my graunt, that the Chirche " now in heuene errith or may erre in feith." His standing doc- trine in this article is, that a man is bound under pain of damna- tion to believe whatever the Church holdeth as faith, or has determined to be an article of faith, (even though the Church determined falsely or amiss,) unless such men can evidently, and openly, and indubitably prove that the Church has determined wrong. He further holds, that it is not proved, nor can be proved, that the Church has determined wrong, by this pleasant argument ; that if it could be so clearly and indubitably proved, then the Church must of course have submitted to such clear and strong proof ; which being contrary to fact, it must follow that there is no such clear and strong proof producible in this case. I shall give you the summing up of the argument in his own words : " If thou canst not prone cleerli & undoutabli the " Chirche erre agens thi parti, thou art in dampnacioun for to " holde agens the Chirche : and agenward, if thou canst prove it ^ Lewis, p. 265. 256 Letters to " cleerli and undoutabli, thou art in dampnacioun for that thou " conquerist not other men and the Chirche ; sithen it is proued " that thou maist so do, if it be trewe that thou canst prove " cleerli and undoutabli what thou pretendist & knowlechist " thee kunne so prone." As to what Mr. Wharton says, of the bishop's disapproving, as well as confessing the use of too many rites and ceremonies, it may be proper to give the Author''s words, Repress, part iv. cap. 9. " Y hold this, that ouer greet multitude of mennys posityue " lawis oughten not to be maad ; but Prelatis and Princis " oughten be weel waar that ouer raayne posytyue lawis be not " gouen to her peplis. For sotheli therof cometh causeli nedis " ful myche yuel more than y se men considere so to come. Of " whiche yvelis y desire in my herte for to haue leiser & space " to write my conseite ; whiche God graunte to be done. But " certis for to holde that it is unleeful, or unexpedient eny suche " posytyue lawis be maad & be gouun to the peple, is fer fro my " witt and my resoun." You may please to consider whether to add one book more to the promised tracts. Mr. Wharton did not reckon this in the Catalogue, nor have I. Possibly, upon a little further view into these matters, I may have a few more things to observe to you. If I think of any thing material, it may make the subject of another letter. This is crowded sufficiently already by, Sir, Your assured humble Servant, DAN. WATERLAND. Oct. 17, 1724. To the Reverend Mr Leiois, of Mergate in Kent. N". V. Sir, I SEND you this by way of supplement to my last, to fill up defects, or to correct mistakes. Please to correct the word presiipcioiin, and make it presumpcioun. I followed the MS. in that place too closely : for I find that elsewhere there is a stroke over the second syllable thus ; presfipcioun. the. Bee. Mr. Lewis. As to the note at the end of the Represser, having now nar- rowly viewed it, along with a judicious friend, I find the word to be Lamhith. We were both agreed in this reading from a careful view of the letters : but afterwards, looking into Bishop Gibson's explication of places at the end of his Chronicon Sax- onicum, and there finding that Lamhithe has been the ancient and common way of writing Lambeth; we were then sufficiently confirmed in it. If you have occasion to publish that note, you may give it thus, with full assurance. Explicit coram Domino in Capella sua aptid L^amhitli xi. Novemhr. Anno Domini MCCCCL VII""'. I shall now proceed to give you a little deeper insight into Pecock's principles, and the turn of his thoughts in relation to the disputes then on foot between the Church and the Lollards. In the entrance to his Book of Faith', he observes how fruit- lessly many have endeavoured to reduce the Lollards by this principle : •' that the Clergie or the Chirche of the Clergie may " not erre in matere of feith." He disapproves of any further attempt of compassing the thing in that method, or by those means. His reasons, in brief, are these : i. Because that prin- ciple has too much the appearance of improbability to be taken for granted. 2. Because many laymen of strong parts and high reputation will never tamely submit to any such principle. 3. Because a colourable opposition may be made against that principle from the writings of many celebrated Doctors. 4. Be- cause this presupposing the infallibility of the Church appears extremely partial on the side of the Clergy, and sets the laity against them as being biassed, and not indifferent, judges in their own cause : and ther/ore to allegeje the neid meene into erris of the seid lay-men, is not expedient into her conuersioxm. After these preliminaries, he proceeds to open his own purpose and design, in these words : " Wherfore y unvvorthiest, & yongist, & loughest of Prelatis " — entende & purpos in this present book for to mete agens " suche unobediencers bi an othere wey & in another maner, &; " bi meene which the lay persoonys wole admit & grauntc ; " which meene is this : that we owen to bileeve & stond to sum " seier or techer which may faile, while it is not knowe that thilk " seier or techer therynne failith." ' Hence it appears that though the author never formally ' Lewis, pp. 200, 201. * Ibid. pp. 294, 295. WATEHI.AXn. vol,. VI. S 258 Letters to asserts that the Church may err (much less that it has erred) in matter of faith ; yet for argument sake, and in hopes to reduce the Lollards, he was willing to go upon that supposition that the Church may err, in his dispute with them ; being confident that notwithstanding he should be able to cope with them, and to beat them at their own weapons. And this because they never had, never could prove, that the Church had actually erred in matter of faith. " Y dare wel this seie and avowe ; and this reuerence y geue " to the Chirche in erthe, that whanne euer the Chirche of God " in erthe holdith eny article as feith, or hath determyned thilk " article to be feith, euery singular persoone of the same Chirche " (hou wise euer he be, and hou digne & worthi euer he be) is " bounden undir peyne of dampnacioun for to bileeue thilk same " article as feith, and so therynne for to obeie the Chirche, (yhe " though the Chirche therynne bileeued or determyned falseli or " amys,) but if he can euydentli, and openli, without eny doute, " schewe teche and declare that the Chirche bileeueth, or hath " determyned thilk article wrongli & untreuli ; or ellis that the " Chirche hath no sufficient ground for to so bileeue or deter- " myne." C. 7. He insists however upon it over and over that it has not, and cannot be proved that the Church has erred in matter of faith ; insomuch that supposing the Church really to err, yet she is excusable in so erring, and others inexcusable for disobeying her, because the Church has done all that was possible to guard her- self against error ; and if she at length be found to err, it must be resolved into invincible ignorance and incapacity. " If it so be that the Chirche errith in the maters into whiche " he is so bisi for to knowe aright, and that bi manye yeeris & " bi manye helpis of persoonys, and bi meenys leding into kun- " nyng aboue al that laymen mowe streeche to, the Chirche " muste nedis be excused of God : for whi the Chirche dooth al " that he can do therynne, and al that he may do therynne. For " whi he seeth not, neither can se where & hou he schulde seeke " ferther or better for to come into the trew kunnyng than he " now seeth. And wittingli & willingli he taketh not to him eny " lette, which he knoweth, to forbarre the wey into sufficientli to " be hadde trewe kunnyng." Ch. 8. The author therefore condemns all the ancient heretics, as well as the then modern Wiclivites, upon this principle, that the Bee. Mr. Leiois. 259 they could not prove their doctrines against the Church. " Noon " of hem couthe proue that his opinioun, for whiche he agenstode " his prehxtis was trewe : as y woto wel undir greet perel of my " soul for to seie." Ch. 7. I shall give you one passage more, which will discover the secrets of his heart or judgment as to the deference due to scrip- ture, or to papal authority. In the second part of his Dialogue, or Book of Faith, there is this objection put into the mouth of the Sone for the Father to answer. " The Pope geueth leue to a b'lgam, that is to a man that " hath be twies weddid, for to be a Dehene & a Prest, notwith- " stonding that holi scripture forbedith it. i Tim. iii. Wherfore " the Clergie of holi Chirche is worthier, myghtier, & of gretter " auctorite than is holi scripture." (Jhap. i. part 2. The answer is, chap. iii. thus. " "Summe parties of the said scripture techeu to us positiue " ordinauncis of Crist ; as ben the Sacramentis : and sumrae " parties therof techen to us ordinauncis of sum Apostle ; as the " lawe of higamie, &c. — The Pope that now is may dispense with " it that scripture techith as the ordinaunce of an Apostle, and " mai/ revoke it bicause that the Pope is of liik auctorite & of juresdictioun with ech, or loith the grettist of the Apostlis. " Yitt herof folewith not that the Clergie now livyng or the " Pope now livyng may dispense with this that scripture techith " as the positiue ordinaunce of Crist, or that he may reuoke cny " of tho ordinauncis : forwhi, so reuoke or dispense myghte noon " of the Apostles." ''This is plain enough: and so we may observe that it was with some distinction and qualification, that this author allowed scripture to be the primary or only rule of faith and manners. And to me it seems that Mr. Wharton has written rather too favourably of this author, as being more of a Protestant than he really was : though all things considered, the steps he made towards it are worthy of much commendation. Mr. Wharton's translation of a passage from the Represser, part iii. c. [5. wants some correction, for which reason I will transcribe part of the original, scoring the words underneath where I think the translation faulty. " What euer deede eny Apostle, or his writing alloicith to be " Lewis, p. 286, 287. " Ibid. p. 287. s 2 2G0 Letters tu " in a prestis moral conuersaciouii, thilke same deede is not " agens resoun to be in the same prestis moral conuersacioun : " for ellis the Apostle and his writing schulde reule agens resoun, " which is not to be grauntid. But so it is that this deede a " preste & ech other Cristen man, for to frely receyue, take, & " uce, alle maners of metis, and all maners of drinkis, into his " sufficience, with thankingis to God, holi Writt weel allowith, " as it is open i Tim. iv. 4. Also this deede, a prest for to " freli take and chese of alle maidens to him a wiif, (so that he " wedde not of the newe e/tsoone, if his fii'st wiif die him lyuyng,) " & for to bigete children, and for to have meyne, and holde " house, and for to nurische and bringe up hise children, and for " to reule his wiif, meyne^ and children, and for to purveie for hem " was allowed of Poul, and bi liik skile of the other Apostlis ; " as is open of Poul bi what is writtu." 1 Cor. vii. I shall take no notice here of JSIr-Wharton's misunderstanding the word meyne twice, as if it signified the same with the English means,) or possessions ; nor of one or two more slight inaccura- cies : but his rendering eftsoone in that place by staiim is wrong, and suggests a meaning very different from what the author intended. For Pecok never meant to say, that St. Paul allowed second marriages of the Clergy, as that rendering intimates, where nothing is guarded against but a Clergyman's marrying statim, or soon, after the decease of his first wife. The author's meaning undoubtedly was to this effect ; so that he marry not again afterwards ; and that is there the meaning of eftsoone. All the author s examples or authorities, afterwards cited, reach no further than single marriages of the Clergy : and you may see, in the quotation above, that according to Pecock, St. Paul had for- bidden second marriages in the Clergy, but that the Pope might revoke the prohibition, as having equal authority. I shall be very glad to see such a history as you design by way of introduction. It will be very proper, and very seasonable. I am sorry you have not some friend at Oxford to give you some brief general account of Bury's Treatise against Pecock, which would be highly serviceable, and give light to his life and story. Are you acquainted with Dr. Felton, Principal of Edmund Hall \ He is a man of great humanity, and a lover of letters. I am persuaded he would readily do such a service, if application were made in a proper mannei'. But this I leave you to consider of. I could never get any further intelligence about the Rev. Mr. Leivis, 261 Dr. Tarentinus : only that 1 have reason to believe that he ia the same man with Petrus de Tarentasia, otherwise called Inno- cent the Fifth. The sense of undernyme in our author is clear, though we had no other voucher. But what you cite from Chaucer confiruis it. Mr. Hearne's Glossary gives another meaning to the word : I wish he had referred oftener to the places in the book itself, that the reader might judge for himself. His Glossary however is a very useful one, and one of the best I have seen. But it would have been still better, had he had the good for- tune to meet with a MS. here in Trinity College, which he was in quest of ; and which by diligent search I have at length found, and intimated as much to his friends, that he may let the world have the benefit of it in a second edition. The copy that Mr. Hearne piinted from is a very faulty one, and taken by some ignorant scribe, that had no ear for metre, having (besides other faults) disturbed and blundered the measures all the way through. Robert of Gloucester was not such a hobbling rhymer as that copy makes him, but a strict observer of measure. By the way, now I am mentioning this author, I wonder how the Editor, so conversant in the language, came to stumble at a very easy place in p. ii8. In his Notes, and in his Glossary, he raises strange speculations upon the word (for one word it is) fairhede ; that is, fairness, beauty ; and the very Latin word, decorem, which he cites, might have hinted the thing to him. Most of our abstract words, which we now terminate in ncss, at that time had the termination of hede : i/onghede, for youthful- ness or youth ; lulherhede, for lutherness ; uirechede for wretch- edness : and I have seen in old MSS. derkhede for darkness, with numberless other words of like kind. But enough of this. I design, God willing, to take up my winter quarters in London some time next month. If any thing calls you thither during my stay there, forget not to call at St. Austin's, where you will be gladly received by, Sir, Your assured humble Servant, DAN. WATERLAND. Oct. 2 2, 1724. To the Reverend Mr. Lewis, of Mergate in Kent. 262 Letters to N". VI. St. Austin Nov. 26, 1724. Keverend Sih, Though I have not had time so much as to read a page of either of your kind presents, yet 1 cannot any longer defer my acknowledgments for them. 1 shall read them, I am sure, with a great deal of satisfaction, as soon as my leisure permits, and before I may have occasion to m'ite again. What relates to Oxford, will take time to consider of here, or to execute there. I must inform you, that before the receipt of yours, Mr.^V heatly (who is a good-natured man, and means very well) had been con- ferring with me about it. I know what you have written to him since, (for he shewed me both your letters to him,) but I thought it prudent to conceal from him what you had written to me ; nor indeed did I think it proper to take the least notice that I had heard from you at this time. I am endeavouring therefore to bring things back to the state they were before in. I told him, I verily believed that the per- son meant in your letter was myself, and that it proceeded from my mentioning Dr. Felton in a letter to you : so that notwith- standing, Mr. Wheatly and T might go on in consulting upon the case as before. We were thinking of Dr. Haywood, (a person whom I have been extremely obliged to in that kind,) of St. John's College. No man more fit to undertake such a business, if we can hand- somely engage him in it. I gave Mr. Wheatly leave to use my name in it, and to break the matter to him with as much address as he could. This is the course we have almost concluded upon, but have not yet executed. I can make trial, if the first fails, by Dr. Felton . But my acquaintance with him is very young ; and I am somewhat scrupulous about it, not knowing how he stands inclined to such kind of business, though a very kind and good man, and a man of learning. Please to leave this matter a while in suspense with me. I will take the best care I can about it. I suspect that Bury's Responsio is a large book : and therefore I shall not directly ask to have it copied, but rather to have some general account of it first. I remember Oudin's call- ing it opus grande., though I forget at present from whence he had his information. As to the Earl of Clarendon''s MSS. there are no such in the the Rev. Mr. Lewis. 263 Library of the Royal Society that I can find : I was there this day to make search. Did not Arundel run in your mind, and the similitude of the sound occasion your thought about Clarendon ? What you are pleased to hint about the publishing Wickliff's Testament, I will consider of, and give you my thoughts of it another time. If you make any glossary to Pecock, (which per- haps is needless,) I can furnish you with authors enough for the sense of undernyme, the same with his. By the way, Mr. Hearne widely mistook it in his Glossary, where he explains it by ex- communicated, see his book, p. 368. in the prose part. I have company with me, and write in haste. I am heartily sorry for your illness, and am, Good Sir, Your obliged humble Servant, DAN. WATERLAND. To the Rev. Mr. Lewis., of Mergate in Kent. N". VII. Revebknd Sir, I AM very sorry to hear of your so frequent returns of illness. I am afraid you have too much fatigue in your large cure, or else sit too close to your private studies. Give me leave to hint a caution to you (such as I have dearly wanted myself formerly) against night study, and against studying soon after your great meal. Possibly you may want no such caution : but excuse my over officious concern for you. I am willing to acquaint you what I have been doing, though nothing is yet brought to perfection. Mr. VVheatly, poor man, has been so fully taken up with attending his sick wife, that I could not have his company for more than a minute or two at a time, and could do no business with him. She is since dead, very lately : and he is now in his mourning retirement, shut up from all but particular acquaintance and relations. I wrote to Dr. Felton, who received my letter in Hampshire, and upon his return to College sent me a very kind and good answer, contain- ing a promise to look into the MSS. the first opportunity, and 264 Letter A to to send me such an account as I desired. I modestly asked no more than a short general account of them, thinking it might suffice, at least for the present : and I could not handsomely ask more of a person with whom my acquaintance is yet but slender. When I receive his account, you shall hear again from me ; and we may then consider what to do further. I have entered some leferences about the word undernyme, in the mai'gin of my Robert of Gloucester. The books from whence I took them are all in Pepys's library at Magdalen College. I can procure you extracts of them at large in due time, if you desire it. In the mean while please to take this brief account. The old sense of the word in Robert of Gloucester's times is as !Mr. Hearne represents in the word undernom. 1 will give you one instance out of Robert of Gloucester himself, according to the reading of the MS. in Trin. College. Please to turn to p. 239 of the print, the third and fourth lines read thus : And be ifolled in holv water and to CristeDdom eu gime ge mowe sauflyclie that holy thing, as he dude, undernynie. Such probably was the constant sense of undeniyme in that age. But afterwards it came to signify the same as the Latin corripere, to reprove, blame, rebuke, &;c. One instance whereof you found in Chaucer. Another you may find in Piers Plowman, f. 6i. It is several times so used in a printed book, entitled The Chastising of God''s Children, published, I think, soon after printing here. 1 observed it twice in a MS. Chronicle a little older, I conceive, than Bp. Peacock. But the oldest instance I have met with, is of the year 1388, in Wimbledon's Sermon at St. Paul's Cross, manuscript. But the sermon is in print too^ though scarce to be met with. Wimbledon translates the text in the second of Timothy as Peacock does, and there uses the word undeniyme more than once in his comment upon it. I observed also in WicliPs MS. Gospels, the word imthnyme for corripere, as well as the other. These authorities 1 can send you, when I return to College : or if you shall want them sooner, I can direct a friend where to find them at Magdalen College, and desire him to send them up to me. I am sorry you have met with ill treatment for deserving very highly of the public, in your Life of Wiclif. But there is no the Rec. Mr. Lewis 265 accounting for the madness of parties. That spirit is however daily wearing off, witli the hopes of a Popish successor. And your labours against Popish counsels and measures will, I doubt not, grow in repute, as fast as those airy schemes sink and dwindle. I do not forget what you hinted in your last but one, about the printing of Wiclifs Testament. I could heartily wish for such a thing : and could I find a proper person to undertake the laborious part of transcribing, would readily join in promoting so good a work. We have in our College, in Pepys's library, two very fair and old copies of that which commonly goes under the name of Wiclif, and is annexed to his Bible in Emanuel Col- lege copy. This I call the second edition, because, upon com- paring, I am fully satisfied that it is later than the other copy of the New Testament, which we have in our old library in the same College : and yet the two copies are much alike, and so nearly the same, that it is plain enough that the one was taken from the other. I shall consider further of this matter at leisure. As to the letter, should such a thing be resolved on, I think the black letter, such as Mr. Hearne has chosen, and retaining two of the Saxon letters, as the MSS. do, would appear best. But 1 should herein be determined by advice of friends. Mr. Hearne's Kobert of Gloucester is a book I have taken some pains with, having collated it all the way through (so far as they go on together, that is to King Stephen) with the Trin. Coll. MS. and noted all the considerable variations. Indeed, the differences are very considerable every where, as to the metre, and spelling, and often as to the sense. This he could not help ; it was the fault of his copy. Had he had the better copy, he would have found i instead of e, at the end of verbs especially, which would have fixed the pronunciation. As p. 239, verse the eighth, for grante the MS. has graunti : p. 334, ult. for skere read skeri, and so in a multitude of other places. I have noted some mistakes in Mr. H.'s Glossary, owing to his bad copy, and his taking upon him to guess at the sense of a word (a fictitious word sometimes) from the context only, with- out further authority. To give a few instances, ahoioes (p. 475,) he construes abbats. Whatever the word be, it is plain from all the Latin historians, as well as from the reason of the thing, 266 Letters to that it there stands for Sanctis patronis, and should be rather avows, that is, patrons ; as avowson is patronage. I have a MS. legend which has the same verses in it, and reads vowes in that place. Antuo, a corrupt fictitious word, p. 431, 432. read one to-name, with the MS. To-name, a very proper expression of agnomen, or sur-name. Anye, p. 168. Mr. H. guesses well, nine: yet that is not exact. The MS. reads 0 nyi,e, one nine. Bryde, p. 207. a corruption for huyle; but he guessed the sense. Croime of, a corruption for come of, p. 208. Dorre or diirre, he explains by durst; where he mistakes the sense, see p. 457. 458. It signifies the same with tharf that is, need, or needs : as the Dutch dorven answers to the Saxon Jjeappin. The Trin. MS. accordingly has tharf in the first page, verse the fourth, instead of durre. Ekyn, p. 165. nothing but a corruption of ek eny. Fairhede 1 mentioned formerly. Besides the MS. of Trin. Coll. I have since seen the word fairhede, or fayrhede, for beauty, in other MSS. Lyste, p. 279. a fictitious word for lyfte, the firmament. Trin. MS. reads in that place lofte, and another which I have seen reads left. Ney, or a ney, an egg, well guessed. But ey, not my, is the word for an egg. The MS. reads on ey, p. 404. Matresche, p. 344. corrupt for in a treche. Raters, eradicatores, p. 297. there, I believe, he is mistaken. Rutur is the Islandic word for a ram : and my countrymen in Lincolnshire have the word rutting to this day ; and rutting time is a phrase well understood there. Hence rotors (as the MS. reads it) is used to signify any that run madly and wildly about. This I speak by conjecture : but such as is confirmed by the use of the word in Piers Plowman, fol. 26, 58, and some MSS. which I have dipped into. Va-^t, p. 253. a fictitious word for na^^t. These are the principal slips that I have yet observed in Mr. Hearne's Glossary. Nevertheless he has deserved well of the public in his performance, and ought to have his due commenda- tion, provided he be but reasonably candid towards others. You will hear from me again as soon as I have any news from Oxford. I still hope you will be well enough to see the town the Iteo. Mr. Lewis. 267 before I leave it. It is no compliment to assure you, that I shall be extremely glad to sec you at St. Austin's whenever your affairs may permit. I am. Sir, Your affectionate humble Servant, DAN. WATERLAND. St. Austin's, Dec. 19, 1724. To the Reverend Mr. Leiins, of Mergate in Kent. N«. VIII. ^Caxton^s Chron. ij^^o printed. AN. M.CCCCLVII. In this yere Raynold Pecok Bishop of Chichestre was founden an heretike, and the iii day of Decembre was abjured at Lambhyte in the presence of the Erehebishopp of Caunterbury and many Bishoppes and Douctours, and Lordes temporall, and his bookes brent at Poulis Crosse. Fabians Chron. written about 1500, printed An. 1559. Note, that he begins the year at Michaelmas. M.CCCCLVIII. In this yeare, and the iii day of December, Reynolde Pecok then being Bishop of Chichester, at Lambith by Archbishop and by a Cot of Divines was abjured for an heretike, and his bokes after brent at Paules Crosse, and himself kept in mewe ever while he lyved after, p. 463. MS. History of England from Will. Rufus to H. S. 1 540. He begins the year as Fabian does. M.CCCCLVIII. 36. H. VI. In the xxxvi yeare, and the third day of Decembre One Reynolde Peacoke beinge the Bishoppe of Chechester, At Lambeth, by y«= Archebishoppe and a Coote of Diuines, Was abjured for ane heretike, and frome Gods worde repines : His bookes brent at Paulis Cross, he in Newgate kept All hys liffe after, for the heresy es he had hept. « This letter has no date, unless it ductory to that of July 18, 1725, be July 8, 1725. It seems, however, which resumes the subject adverted properly to follow that of Dec. 19, to at the close of this letter. 1724, and to be immediately intro- 268 Letters to N. B. Here is a material diffei'ence between Fabian's Mewe, and this author's Newgate. I suppose the last is a blunder. Hall, in his Chronicle, says, the Bishop was confined in his awne house, as says Grafton also, who transcribes Hall. As to the old grammar, it has this naked title, Donatus pro pueris^, in the first page : and in the last page, Richard Pynson, without any date. Then follows an accedence, which word is the running title. At the end this note, in the same letter or cha- racter, Prynted at Westmynstre in Caxtons hous by Wynkyn de Worde. The next piece bound up with the former is, Libellulus, que informatio puerorum appellatur. It is a Grammar, and in English. At the end, Emprented by Richard Pynson, without date. Then follows another tract entitled Introductoriu Lingue Latine. The date of this is fixed by these words in the second page, Nos sumus in Anno Saliitis M.CCCCXCV. But I am not certain who the printer was. Perhaps it might be Caxton. The mark at the end is W\/^'C or something like it. Upon this stricter revisal, T can only say, that the Donatus was printed by Pynson : I was too hasty in fixing tlie date to 1495, ^^'hich occurs only in this smaller tract bound up with it. I have now found out the reason of the title Donatus pro pueris, afiixed to the first piece. That piece is an abridgment of a treatise ascribed to Bede, which stands first in his printed works, and has this title ; Cunabula Grammattca; Artis Donati, as also Artium Donati Liber. In short, it is Donatus's own grammar, put out by Bede, according to the best copies he could get : and this other Donatus is an abridgment of it, or extract from it. One particular grammar having thus got the name of Donatus from its author, the name at length became a general name for a grammar, and from thence has been further extended to signify any enchiridion, or introductorv' manual to any art, science, or profession. I do not doubt but the Donati pro puerulis, of which you make mention, were so many copies of Donatus's Grammar, or of Donatus abridged in like manner as in the piece I spoke of. And they were called Donatus^s much in the same way as we should speak of so many Terences, or Vii-gils. meaning so many f This inquiry into the work so en- titled appears to be intended to illus- trate the meaning of the title to one of Pecock's tracts, called " ITie Donet " into Christen Religioun;" denoting it to be an introductory treatise, simi- lar to the Accidence, or Grammar, by Donatus, for the instruction of child- ren, Donatus pro pueris. the Rev. Mr. Leims. 269 copies of their works. But I have said more than enough upon a plain case, though not plain to me till now lately upon exa- mining into it. I find a remark in Bayle's Dictionary, p. 53, under the name Accursius, that Donatus's Grammar on vellum, with another book entitled Confessionalia, were the first books printed by John Faust of Mentz, 1450. The truth of the fact seems to stand on the credit of Accursius., who entered the re- mark upon the first leaf of one of the Grammars. Other accounts differ from this, as I find in Oudin's Commentarius, &c. vol. iii. p. 2743. -^"^ because probably you have not the book, I will transcribe some periods. Cornelius a Beughem Embricensis, de ineunabulis Tygographiae p. 54. his verbis &c. " Donatus, non autoris sed libri cujusdam " titulus : estque institutio Grammatices, Harlemi ligno foliatim " incisa, ibidemque circa Annum Xti 1440 edita, et sic conglu- " tinata, Teste Scricerio Tractatu de Arte Typographica, quae " vulgo Artis Typographicse, prinmm specimen habetur." Verum istud incertum est, nam praefatae Grammaticse, seu Donati istius, nec Annus, nec Locus Editionis designatur. Angelus Roccha, in Bibliotheca Vaticana, tradit, Aldurn juni- orem monstrasse sibi Donatum quendam, primo fere impressum, in cujus prima pagina Mariaiigelus Accursius sequentia scripsit : impressus est autem hie Donatus et Confessionale primo omnium, an. 1450. Idem habet Ooi-nelius a Beughem &c. — Verum sive Donatus ille, seu Grammatica Alexandra Dolensis, vel, de villa Dei, anno 1442 impressa sit, ut scribit Adriunm Junius, sive anno 1450, ut habent Ancjelus Roccha et Cornelius a Beughem locis allatis &c. — Longe autem probabilius est nullam aliam hujus Grammaticae Alerandri de villa Dei impressionem Mogiintice factam esse, quam, anno 1462. ut tradit Corneiius a Beughem — verbo Alexander Dolensis, p. 9. I cannot but take notice of the words Do7iatus, non authoris, sed libri cujusdam titulus. Why might not Donatus be the title of the book and the name of the author too ? I think, it is not doubted but that the Grammar in Bede, and put out by Putscius, among other old Grammarians, belongs to ^lius Donatus, the famous (grammarian, wiio was St. Jerome's preceptor in that art. Unless perhaps some may suspect that the Grammar got the title of Donatus from the use of the name Donatus frequently in it. For this I observe in the reading of it, that the name Do- natus is the example given of a proper ?iame. And there it is 270 Letters to asked, whether Donatus be a comparative or otherwise, of what gender and number, and the Hke. I doubt whether Donatus him- self would thus have made use of his own name for the example all along. But possibly he might, among his scholars, and with- out breach of modesty. Once more let me take leave of this subject. Having cited some MS. verses above, I have a mind to offer you a conjecture about the unknown author. Bishop Nicolson in his English Historical Library, (p. 69. second edit.) after speaking of Fabian, says, " Cardinal Woolsey's menial servant " (John Skuish, Squisius, or Squisus) is reported to have " compiled a notable epitome of our Chronicles about the year " 1330. But I am not able to direct the reader where to meet " with it." He refers to Bale and Pitts. I have consulted Bale, but have not Pitts by me. Had the Chronicler spoken of been mentioned as a poet or rhymer, I should have i-eadily concluded that this is the man, and this the chronicle. He has an epilogue at the end, which he entitles, Ane Lenvoy to his iiii Volumes. The last stanza runs thus. O noble princes, with hole harte and enteare, Lyfte up youre curragies; and holde ys no fable : Though ye sitt hye, conceyve with good chere No worldely lordeshippe in eearthe is perdurable : And sithe ye be of nature and witte reasonable, Amonge thinges remembre, as thynge most necessary, The high falle of the Archebishoppe Cardynall AVolsy. Who so likely to have the Cardinal so fresh and strong upon his mind, as one that had been among his retainers ? But this is a conjecture, and may be further looked into at leisure. I shall be very glad to see your History of our Liturgy S, and to examine it with all the care and exactness I can, while I have S This subject is resumed in the How well qualified Dr. Waterland next letter. It appears from Mr^Mas- was to assist in such a design, is evi- ters's Hist, of C.C.C. that this work dent from the Notes upon Wheatly's was written in 1723, in 394 pages, with book, which will be found in this edi- a large Appendix, and was sold by tion of his works ; and also from the Thomas Pain to Mr. Calamy, for il. judicious observations which occur in IS. No reason is assigned why it has the letter that follows this, not been printed. the Rev. Mr. Lewis. 271 leisure and proper books about me. I am confident you have no intent but to speak the truth ; nor shall I have any other intent, while searching into the same thing. Mistakes may, and will sometimes happen to all : and it is a pleasure among friends, when any slip is discovered, to undeceive one another. For my own part, when I undertake any work, my main ambition is, that it may be as complete, accurate, and perfect as the nature of the thing will admit. And if after it has gone through my hands, it receives any additional improvement or correction from friends, 1 look upon the gains as mine ; as much as if any one had built upon ray ground, or enriched my estate, or added to my furniture, and I receive it with the like pleasure. For what do we in reading books, but gather from the dead as much as we can, to furnish out a stock of our own ? and if by the help of the living and dead too, we may chance to improve it the more, our industry either way appears equally useful, and equally com- mendable. I am, good Sir, Your obliged Friend and faithful Servant, DAN. WATERLAND. Magd. Coll. July 8, 1725. To the Rev. Mr. Lewis, of Mergate in Kent. N". IX. Sir, I OUGHT to acknowledge the receipt of your History, and to thank you for it, though I have not had time to look far into it. It is a large book, as I now perceive : and perhaps my time here will scarce allow me to give it all the examination which may be due to it, much less to write observations corrective for it, or supplemental to it. I have gone a little way into your introduction, and have skimmed over some parts of the History itself, in order to get a general view of your design. When I have leisure, I shall pei-use the whole with some care, and doubt not but to meet with a great deal of use- ful instruction. But whether I shall have time to make any observations upon the several parts, and to commit them to writing, I know not. So far as I can judge from a transient view, your History is more exact than your introduction : 372 Leiters to perhaps you made the Histoi'v your more especial care, and threw in the introduction as a by-work of less concern, and not deserving to have much time spent upon it. I will frankly tell you what thoughts I have of it. You seem to me to date the beginning of the gradual corruptions too high, and to lay the primitive churches under a disadvantageous character which they do not deserve. You do them an injury in straining things too far to make them as like Popery as you can : and it is complementing the Papists too far to allow them so much of primitive precedents, which they really want. I will shew you what I mean by a detail of particulars. P. 2. "' In the fourth century, or fifth, when Christians grew " wanton." Here your charge is general upon the Christian churches of those centuries : and vou charg-e them with wanton- ness, nay and forgery too, in respect to their Liturgies. For my part, I know of no written Liturgies so early, except Basil's, or Chrysostom's (to be collected out of his works), and I am satis- fied that the composers of Liturgies in those ages were the wisest and best men of those times, and were under a necessity of doing what they did, to correct the growing wantonness, either of the populace, or of indiscreet Clergy that were not fit to be trusted with so weighty an affair. And this was the reason of what you mention from St. Austin, of the orders made that no prayers should be used in the Church but with the common advice of the Bishops. A wise and wholesome order, such as was highly necessary upon the increase of the Church. And the Bishops that laboured in modelling and settling proper Liturgies should be commended for it. As to the Pseudony- mous Liturgies you speak of, they were none of them of such early date: besides that the compilers of them (whoever they were) could certainly have no design to recommend them as the works or compositions of those Apostles, &c. whose names they bear. All they meant was, to remind the people, by the names of their Liturgies, of the Founders of their respective Churches : as the Church of Jerusalem, by St. James, of Antioch by St. Peter, of .Ethiopia by St. Matthew, of Alexandria by St. Mark, of Ephesus by St. John. It is plain from the whole tenor of those Liturgies, that the compilers could have no design to make them pass for the works of those whose names they bear : they could not be so stupid, when every page almost discovers that the Liturgy is later, even to the meanest capacity. There is no Tlie Rev. Mr. Lewis. J273 forgery in the case ; but those Liturgies were the Liturgies of" the Oriental churches, in the middle or later ages. The oldest of them cannot be proved to reach higher up than the seventh century : most of them appear to be as late as the ninth or tenth ; or cannot, by any certain evidence, be proved to be more ancient. Under correction therefore, I think you introduce them too soon, and make an argument from them which will not bear. I need not mention that your hints of their novelty is not full enough : Fabricius, in his edition of them, (Codex Apocryp. N. T. pars Tertia,) is much more complete. You might have named the Ephesine Council, as well as Constantinople : but the latter you place in A. D. 336, instead of A. D. 381, meaning, I suppose, another Council, which is better placed in 325. Give me leave to say, that 1 should have liked your introduc- tion better, if, instead of pointing your satire entirely against one extreme, you had stated the due and proper medium be- tween foppery on one hand, and slovenliness on the other. I am persuaded that a just apology may be made for the fourth or fifth age, upon the foot of decency, comeliness, and a proper solemnity due to sacred and high things. And though philoso- phers might be content with the most naked simplicity, the generality of the populace must have something of outward pomp and solemn form, to raise in them a proper awe, venera- tion, and reverence. The Romanists have carried it to an excess with a witness, and have made their offices ridiculous, rather than grave or solemn. But I think the churches of the fourth or fifth age are far from that character, as far as our own is, or any of the Reformed Churches. As to some things indeed which were of primitive use, and left off by the Reformers, they were proper enough, all circumstances considered, at the time they were used. But change of times and circumstances make them not proper now. I would not have them absolutely con- demned, nor those primitive Churches ridiculed on account of them. Nor was the Disciplina Arcani, ail things considered, either superstitious or without its use, while the world was mostly Pagan, and the generality of Christians not able to cope with I'agan wit and drollery. But to speak at large of this matter would carry me too far. You will give me leave to say, that you seem to represent the primitive chuichos in their worst light, and not to take in such WATEKLAND, VOL. VI. T 274 LetUr9. to considerations as would quite alter the face of the representation. Vou take advantage of the weak author of the Apostolical Constitutions, and say, " They had no better a reason," mean- ing the primitive Christians, instead of saying he. And yet you do not do him justice ; for Deut. xxvii. 9. is quoted only in favour of a reverential silence: and the text, as it lies in the LXX. is full to his purpose. And as to chap v. 31. if I'epre- sented entii'e, it would appear tolerable. What you have, p. 7, about the reason given for fasting before Baptism, is not strictly fair, nor is the author quite so ridiculous as your representation makes him. However it be, it is but just to distinguish between the churches in general, and one trifling nameless authoi-, and a manifest impostor. Wiser men upon the same ceremonies would have said, and have said, wiser things. Upon the whole, my opinion is that the practice and usages of the fourth and fifth centuries will bear a better colour, and deserve a more candid treatment. I would have all corrup- tions of Popery exposed, as much as you please : and the lower you date them (when there is no necessity of dating them higher) the more you expose them. If your first eight or nine pages were altered, or struck out, I should have nothing to except against the rest. Corruption came on fast enough in the eight century, and crept into the Liturgies daily more and more till the time of the Reformation. And so it was high time to castigate the Liturgies, and to reduce them nearly to the stand- ard of the fourth and fifth and sixth ages ; the properest model for us, because our circumstances are most like theirs, and their Liturgies were formed upon their then present circumstances, as well as human wisdom could form them. Enough has been said of the first part of your introduction. The remainder, I doubt not, will please me much better. But as I have only dipped cursorily into it, I shall say no more now, but reserve it for another time. You will take in good part the frankness I use with you ; or perhaps you expect it of me. If you are of another judgment, or disapprove these remarks, you are at full liberty to reject them, without the least offence to me, and to abide by your own first sentiments. I aim at nothing but to serve truth and you. I believe I have at length found out Dr. Tarentinus, but can- not be positive for want of further searches. You will find in the Rev. Mr. Leivis. 275 Cave, Johannes Tarentiniis, a famous man of the fifteenth cen- tury, who flourished A. D. 1432. He, very probably, is your man. The disputes in the Councils of Basil and Ferrara might occasion his speaking of the Creeds. But I have not yet con- sulted the Councils to see what occurs there. And I have almost forgot what it was that you told me of him. In your next you may please to refresh my memory on that head. 1 am, Sir, Your most assured and faithful humble Servant, DAN. WATERLAND. Magd. Coll. July iR, 1725. To the Rev. Mr. Lewis, of Mergate in Kent. No. X. ^ Pecok takes notice of a false position of some that bore too hard upon the Clergy : which position, in his words, is as follows, part i. c. T. " That no gouernaunce is to be holde, of Cristen men, the " seruice, or the lawe of God, saue it which is groundid in holi " Scripture of the Newe Testament, (as summe of the bifbre-seid " men holden,) or namelich save it which is groundid in the " Newe Testament or in the Oold, and is not bi the Newe Tes- " tament reuoked, as summe othere of hem holden." Pecok'' s opposite positions, c. 2. " 'It longith not to holi Scripture, neither it is his office, into " which God hath him ordeyned, neither it is his part for to " grounde eny gouernaunce, or deede, or sei-uice of God, or eny " lawe of God, or eny trouthe which mannis resoun bi nature may " fynde, leerne, and knowe." Pecok'' s Reasons in brief. I . Scripture does not contain all that is necessary for the clear- ing or supporting of moral virtues, and therefore is not properly the foundation on which they stand : — " there mai no thing be " fundament and ground of a wal, or of a tree, or of an hous. Lewis, p. 64. Ibid. pp. 67 — 71. T 2 276 Letters to " save it upon which the al hool substaunee of the wal, or of the " tree, or of the hous stondith, and out of which oonly the wal, " tree, or hous cometh." c. 2. 2. That is properly the foundation, which is alone sufficient for the purpose, as natural reason in this case is. " Al the leern- " yng and knowing, which holi Scripture geueth upon eny " bifore-seid gouernaunco, deede, or trouthe of Goddis moral " lawe, mai be had bi doom of natural resouii, ghe though holi " Writt had not spoke therof/' &c. c. 3. 2. The law of reason obtained from the time of Adam, and long before any positive laws were given, or any scriptures writ- ten. "This lawe was whanne neither of the Newe neither of " the Oold Testament the writing was, and that fro the tyme of " Adam," &c. c. 4. 4. The most that scripture does, is only to remind, exhort, stir up, command, or counsel to the practice of moral virtue : which supposes the thing to have been before known. " For he " biddith a man to be meke, and he techith not bifore what " mekenes is : he biddith a man be pacient, and yit he not " bifore techith what pacience is : and so forth of ech vertu of " Goddis lawe, wharfore no such seid gouernaunce, or uertu, or " trouthe, is to be seid groundid in holi scripture, no more than " it oughte be seid if a Bischop woulde sende a pistle or a lettre " to pe])le of his diocise, and theryn wolde remembre hem, " exorte hem, and stire hem, and bidde hem, or counseile hem " for to kepe certeyn moral vertues," &c. c. 5. He has a fifth and sixth argument, much to the same purpose with the fourth. Enough has been given in order to take his true and full meaning. In the conclusion he has a coarse com- parison, which however sets forth his notion in a lively way, and is worth the transcribing for the testimony it bears to an old custom on Midsummer-eve. " Seie to me, good Sire, and answere herto : whanne men of " the euntree uplond bringen into Londoun in Mydsommer-eue " braunches of trees fro Bischopis wode, and flouris fro the feeld, " and bitaken tho to citeseins of Londoun forto thervvith araie her " housis,schulen men of Londoun receyuyng and taking thobraun- " chis and flouris, seie and holde that tho braunchis grewen out " of the cartis whiche broughten hem to Londoun, and that tho " cartis, or the hondis of the bringers weren groundis and fun- " damentis of tho braunchis and flouris ? Goddis forbode so litel the Rev. Mr. Lewis. 277 " witt be in her hedis. Certis though Crist and his Apostlis " weren now lyuyng at Londoun, and wolde bringe, so as is now " seid, braunchis fro Bischopis wode, and flouris fro the feeld " into Londoun, and wolden delyuere to men, that thei make " therewith her housis gay, into remembraunce of Seint Johnn " Baptist, and of this that it was prophecied of him, that manye " schulden joie in his burthe; yet tho men of Londoun, receyuyng " so tho braunchis and ilouris, oughten not seie and feele that " tho braunchis and flouris grewen out of Cristis hondis, and " out of the Aposths hondis tho braunchis grewen out of the " bowis u^on vvhiclie thei in Biscopis wode stoden, and tho bowis " grewen out of stockis or tronchons, and the tronchons or schaf- " tis grewen out of the roote, and the roote out of the next " erthe thereto, upon whiche and in whiche the roote is buried. " So that neither the cart, neither the hondis of the bringers, " neither tho bringers ben the groundis or fundamentis of tho " braunchis." c. 6. He has some other as low comparisons, and some blunt ex- pressions, which might perhaps give offence : but his meaning appears to be sound and good all the way, being no more than this, that the law of nature is prior to all scripture, and there- fore not grounded thereupon : though its rules and precepts may, in part, be conveyed to us thereby, and not so fully as by rational searches, and deep study. ^ The secunde principal Conclusioun and trouthe is this : Though it perteyne not to holi scripture for to grounde eny natural or moral gouernaunce or trouthe, into whos fy ndyng, leernyng, and knowing mannis resoun may bi him silf and bi natural help com, as it is open now bifore yit it mai perteyne vveel ynough to holi scripture, that he reherce such now-seid gouernauncis and treuthis, and that he witnesse hem, as grounded sumwhere ellis in the lawe of kinde or dooTn of mannis resoun : and so he dooth, as to ech reder thereyn it mai be opene, that bi thilk rehercing, and witnessyng so doon bi holi scripture to men, tho men schulden be bothe remembrid, stirid, prouokid. and exortid forto the rather performe and fulfille tho same so rehercid and witnessid gouernauncis and trouthis. part i. c. 7. The iii principal Conclusioun is this : The hool office and werk into which Cod ordeyned holv scrip- •< Lewis, pp. 71—73. 278 Letters to ture, is forto grounde articlis of feith, and forto reherce and witnesse moral tronthis of lawc of kind grounded in mora! phil- sophie ; that, is to seie, in doom of resoim, that the reders be remembrid, stirid, and exortid bi so miche the better, and the more, and the sooner forto fulfille hem. Of whiche artichs of feith summe ben not lawis, as these : that God made heuen and erthe in the bigynnyng of tyme ; and that Adam was the firste man, and Eue was the firste wonnnan ; and that Moises ladde the peple of Israel out of Egipt ; and that Zacharie was fadir and Elizabeth was modir of Johnn Baptist ; and that Crist fastid xl daies, and so forth of many like. And summe othere ben lawis : as that ech man oughte be baptisid in water if he may come thereto ; and that ech man oughte be hosilid if he mai come therto. c. 7. I wolde se that our Bible-men, which holden hem so wise bi the Bible aloono, yhe bi the Newe Testament aloon, couthen bi her Bible aloon knowe which feith is a lawe to man, and which feith is not a lawe to man ; and thane he dide a maistrie passing his power tho Bible-men mowe take good marke that myche nede schullen alle tho haue to the help of weel-leerned Clerkis. — This what y haue now seid of and to Bible-men, y haue not seid undir this entent and meenyng, as that y schulde feele to be unleeful lay-men forto reede in the Bible and forto studie and leerne therynn, with help and counseil of wise and weel-leerned Clerkis, and with licence of her gouernour the Bischop, but forto rebuke and adaunte the presumpcioun of tho lay-persoones whiche weenen bi her reding in the Bible forto come into more kunnyng than thei or alle the men in erthe, Clerkis and other, mowe come to bi the Bible oonli, withoute moral philosophie, and lawe of kinde, &;c. c. 7. 1 The iiii principal Conclusioun. It is not the office longing to moral lawe of kinde forto grounde eny article of feith groundid bi holi scripture. Forvvi, all that the now seid moral lawe of kinde, or moral philosophie, groundith, is groundid bi doom of mannis resoun ; and therfore is such a treuthe and a conclusioun that into his fynding. leernyng, and knowing, mannis witt mai bi it silf aloone, or bi natural helpis, withoute reuelacioun fro God, rise and suffice. But so it is, that noon article of feith mai be groundid in doom of resoun suffici- > Lewis, pii. 73—75. the Rev. Mr. Lewis. 279 entli, neither into his finding, leerning, and knowing, niannis resoun, bi it silf, and bi natural help, may rise and suffice, with- oute therto maad revelacioun, or affirmyng fro God. For whi thane feith were no feith. c. 8. The vth principal Conclusion. Though neither the seide moral lawe of kinde, neither outward bokis thereof writen, mowe grounde eny trouthe or conclusloun of verry feith ; yit tho outward bokis, as Cristene men hem maken, mowe weel ynow reherce and witnesse treuthis and con- clusiouns of feith groundid bifore in holi scripture. Forwhi, it is no more repugnant that bokis of moral philsophie reherce trouthis and conclusiouns propre to the grounding of holy scrip- ture, than that bokis of holi scripture reherce trouthis and con- clusiouns propre to the grounding of moral philosophie. c. 8. The vi principal Conclusioun. The hool office and werk into which ben ordeyned the bokis of moral philsophie, writen and maad bi Cristen men in the maner now bifore spoken, is to expresse outwardli, bi writing of pene and ynke, the treuthis and conclusiouns which the inward book of lawe of kind, biried in mannis soule and herte, groundith ; and forto reherce summe treuthis and conclusiouns of feith long- ing to the grounding of holi scripture, that the reders be the more and the oftir remembrid, and stirid, and exortid by this rehercing &c. — c. 8. The vii principal Conclusioun. c. 8. The more deel and party of Goddis hool lawe to man in erthe, and that bi an huge gret quantite oner the remanent parti of the same lawe, is groundid sufficientli, out of holi scripture, in the inward book of lawe of kind and of moral philsophie, and not in the book of holi scripture. The viii principal Conclusioun. c. 9. No man mai leerne and kunne the hool lawe of God, to which Cristen men ben bounde, but if he can of moral philsophie : and the more that he can in moral philsophie, bi so muche the more he can of Goddis lawe and service. This conclusioun folew- ith out of the viith conclusioun openly ynough. The ix Conclusioun. c. 9. No man schuUen perfitli, sureli, and sufficientli understonde holi scripture in alle tho placis wherynn he rehercith moral vir- tues— but if he be bifore weel, and perfetli, suerli, and sufficientli 280 Letters to leerned in moral philsophie. — This conclusioun folewith out of the viith and the viiith conckisiouns. The X Conclusioun. c. 9. The leernyng and kunnyng of the seid lawe of kinde, and of the seide moral philsophie, is so necessarie to Christen men, that it mai not be lackid of them if thei sehulen perfitli serve to God and kepe his lawe bitake to hem in erthe. N. B. The meaning is no more than this : that it is necessary to know natural religion, and the grounds, and reasons, and mea- sures of the duties laid down in scripture, in order to a right, and discreet, and steady practice of the same. ™ The xi Conclusioun. ch. 9. Ful weel oughten alle persoones of the lay-parti, not miche leerned in moral phil.'^ophie and lawe of kinde, forto make miche of clerkis weel-leerned in moral philsophie, that tho clerkis schulden helpe tho lay persoones forto aright undirstonde holi scripture in alle tho placis in whiche holi scripture rehercith the bifore-spoken conclusiouns and treuthis of moral philsophie, that is to seie, of lawe of kinde. Forwhi, withoute tho clerkis so leerned in moral philsophie, and withoute her direccioun the now seid lay persoones sehulen not esili, lightli and anoon haue the dew undirstonding of holi scripture in the now seid placis. The xii Conclusioun. c. 9. Ful weel oughten alle persoones of the lay-parti, not leerned oughwhere ellis bi the now seid clerkis, or bi othere bokis of moral philsophie, forto make miche of bokis maad to hem in her modires langage. whiche be clepid thus — [Xote, liere he recites his oicn books, as I forraerly sent account] — wolde God, men wolden not be bi so miche the frowarder and the more presumptuose that goodness is to hem thus profrid. ^^'oldeGod that thei wolden assaie perfithli what tho now-seid bokis ben, and wolden weel kunne hem : and thane if thei schulden have eny cause for to blame or comraende tho bokis, that thanne firste thei wolden blame, or commende. The xiii Conclusioun. ch. 10. Thei that wolen aske and seie thus, where fyndist thou it grounded in Itoli scripture, as though ellis it is not worthi to be take for trewe, whanne-euer eny gouernaunce or treuthe suffici- entli groundid in lawe of kinde and in moral philsophie is Lewis, pp. 75—77. the Rev. Mr. Leuy'ts. 281 aff'ermed and mynystrid to hem (as ben many of tho xi gouer- nauncis and treuthis whiche schiillen be treated aftir in this present book : which ben setting up of ymagis in highe placis of the bodili churche.. pilgrimages doon priueli and pilgrimages doon openli hi hay-tnen and hi Prestis. and hi Bischopis unto the memo- rialis, or mynde-placis of Seintis, and the endotcing of Prestis bi rentis and hi unmoueable possessiouns, and such othere) asken tho whihs in liik maner unresonabiHs and liik unskiH'ulli, and liik re- prouabili, as if thei wolden aske and sei thus : where findest thou it groundid in hoh scripture whanne a treuthe and a conclusioun of Grammer is affermed and seid to hem, &c. Sir, I believe what I here send will be sufficient to unfold the author's meaning in the thirteen particulars. If there be any thing else that you desire furthei', I shall keep the book some weeks by me. I had the book but three days ago, otherwise you had heard sooner from me. Dr. Bentley has finished his Terence at the press, but his adding Phsedrus to it makes him delay the pubHcation His N. T. is despaired of: most of the subscription money is returned. If I can serve you here in any thing, you may command, Sir, Your assured humble Servant, DAN. WATERLAND. August 19, 1725. To ike Rev. Mr. Lewis, of Mergate in Kent. N°. XI. " Images, Part ii. c. 2. The firste gouernaunce for which the lay peple ouer myche and untreuly wiiten the Clergie, is the havyng and using of ymagis, upon which gouernaunce y sette forth this firste con- clusion. n This letter is without a date. But after : and this supposition is con- as the preceding letter contains only finned by what Dr. Waterland says in a brief general outline of Pecock's the close of the preceding letter, that tract, and this and the following letter he had then had the book by him only (which is also without a date) give a three days, and intended to keep it more detailed account of it, it is pro- for some weeks longer, bable that they were written soon 282 Letters to ]. oThe having and the setting up of yniagis in chirchis, and the using of hem as rememoratiif, or mynding, signes, is not reproued bi eny ground of feith, that is to seie, not bi holi scripture, neither bi long use of the chirchis bileevyng, neither bi eny myraculose therto of God wirching. If to the peple of Israel it was leeful forto make and rere up an highe, a brasen ymage of a serpent for to biholde it : wonder it were but that it were leeful to Cristen men for to make and rere up an highe an ymage of Crist crucified, forto biholde into it. And if it was leeful to the seid oold peple forto have xii ymagis of oxen bering up the brasen see forto biholde hem ; wondir it were whi it schulde be unleeful to Cristen peple forto have xii ymagis of the xii Apostiles and forto biholde hem in remembring that the Apostilis were bide go and baptise al the world in water. And therfore the agenseiers herof ben to be reiated and rebukid as nyce, fonned, waful, wantoun scisme- sowers and disturbbers of the peple in maters which thei mowe neuer her entent bringe about. — Al the rebuk which is govun (in scripture) to men making and using graved ymagis is govun to hem whiche token and helden tho ymagis to be her goddis : and therfore noon of these alleggid placis in holi scripture letteth aJle graved ymagis to be had and usid in the Churche, so that tho ymagis ben not bileeved to be goddis Salomon — was so mich fonned, raasid, and dotid, that he worschipid tho ydolis as goddis ; for so seith holi scripture there : but so no persoon dooth in these daies, aboute the ymagis had and usid in the Chirche. ymagis mowe leefulli be broke whanne thei bin usid in ydolatrie irreraediabli, for so it was in the caas of the brasen serpent in the tyme of Ezechie, or at the leeste, ymagis mowe leefulli be brokun whanne more harme irremediabli cometh bi the havyng and using of hem, than is al the good which cometh bi the havyng and the using of hem : more than this cometh not forth bi this proces of Ezechie iiii. Reg. xviii. and therfore this proces is over feble forto weerne ymagis to be had and usid whanne thei ben had and usid withoute ydolatrie, or with ydolatrie remediable, or with other harm remediable, namelich lasse than is the good comyng bi the uce of tho ymagis. C. ^. — 2. The secunde principal conclusioun is tliis : Doom of natural! wecl disposid resoun weerneth not, and reproveth not ymagis to be had and to be usid, as rememoratiif and mynding ° Lewis, pp. 88 — 90. the Rev. Mr. Lewis. 283 signes. If eny doom of resoun schulde weerne and reprove yniagis to be thus had and iisid ; this doom of resoun schulde be con of these iii doomys. i. That the peple doon ydolatrie bi and with tho ymagis. 2. That the peple trowen or bileeven summe wrong and untrewe opiniouns bi occasioun of ymagis : as that sum godli vertu is in tho ymagis, or that tho ymagis doon myraclis, or that thei ben quyk, and seen, heeren, or speken at sum while, or that thei sweten at sum while. 3. That ymagis ben occasiouns of sume moral vicis in the peple, as of over myche worschiping doon to hem, or of pride, or of coveitise, or of such othere. But so it is, that noon of these iii doomys sufficith forto reprove and weerne the seid havyng and using of ymagis. Wherefore, &c. — ydolatrie is never doon save whanne a man takith a creature for his God, and worscipith thilk creature as for his God : but so doith no man with eny ymage now in Christendoom, aftir that the man is come into yeeris of discrecioun, and is passid childhode, and which is not a natu- ral fool. P Pilgrimages, Part ii. c. 7, 8. The secunde principal gouernaunce — of which manyo of the layte ovei"myche wiiten the Clergie, is this : that pilgrimagis to dyverse bodies and bonys of seintis be maad, and also been maad to ymagis of Crist crucified, and of JNIarie, and of othere seintis ; and namelich for that pilgrimagis ben maad into sunune placis more in which ben the ymagis of the crucifix and of Marie and of the seintis, than into summe othere placis in whiche ben like ymagis of the crucifix and of Marie and of the same othere seintis. Into justifiyng of this, y precede bi certein conclusiouns. Ml. Holi scripture werneth not neither reproveth suche now seid pilgrymagis to be don. 2. Doom of kindeli vveel disposid resoun weernetli not and lettith not bodili pilgrymagis to be don in the maner now bifore seid. 3. It is not unleeful pilgrymagis be don. 4. It is leeful, that pilgrymagis be doon. 5. Holi scripture allowith that pilgrimage be doon. Holi devoute women wenten in pilgrimage to Cristis sepulcre, and to his deed bodi forto be the more remembrid of him. 6. Doom of vveel disposid resoun allowith and approvith that P Lewis, p. 92. "1 Ibid. pp. 100, 102. 284 Letters to pilgriraagis be doon. For vvhi, withoute remenioratiif signes of a thing, or of thingis, the rememoracioun or the remem- braunce of thilk thing or thingis muste needis be the febler. And therfore sithen the bodi, or the bonis, or the rehkis of eny persoon is a full nygh remenioratiif signe of the same persoon ; it is ful resonable and ful worthi, that where the bodi, or bonis, or eny releef or relik of a seint mai be had, that it be sett up in a comoun place to whiche peple may have her devout neighing and accesse, forto have her devout biholding therupon forto make the seid therbi reraembraunce. And ferther, sithen it is not resonable and convenient that suche bodies or bonis or relikis be left withoute in the bair feeld, and that bothe for it were agens the eese of the peple whiche should come thereto in reyny and wyndi wedris, and for that thei myghten thanne be take awey bi wickid men not dreding God ; therfore it is ful resonable and worthi forto bilde over tho bodies and bonis and othere relikis, chappellis, or chirchis ; yhe and forto bilde bisidis hem auter, and queris, that the office of praising God and of praiyng to God and to seintis be in the better forme doon. Resoun wole, and allowith and approvith nedis that men visite and haunte, for the seid eende of solempne remembrauncing, tho placis and tho ymagis whiche it is sure God to chese into the seid eende and bi the seid evydencis of myraculis doing. But so it is that suche seid visiting and haunting into the seid eende is not ellis than pilgrimage : wherfore resoun wole, jugith, allowith, and approvith pilgrimagis to be doon. The next twelve chapters are taken up in reciting and answer- ing the common objections, or arguments, (fifteen in number,) made to what the author advanced upon the two heads above written. A summary hereof is as follows: f Olj. I . There is no occasion for either images or pilgrimages to awaken remembrance, so long as scripture, and saints' lives, and other devout treatises may sufficiently answer that purpose. Ansir. Hearing and reading are good means, but not sufficient without the other, which is more lively, strong, and affecting, and does that at once and with less labour or pain which the reading of whole volumes can scarce efffeet : besides that many cannot read at all, and at the best, reading and hearing alone leave but faint, and dull, and transient impressions, and convey Lewis, pp. 105, 106. the Rev. Mr. Lewis. 285 a great deal less to the mind than a visible representation, and reading both together. Christ added visible sacraments to sup- ply the defect of mere reading or hearing ; so necessary was it to have something visible added to the other. ^ObJ. 2. If Bishops and Priests be but more constant and dili- gent in preaching and otherwise instructing and exhorting the people, there will be no need of images or pilgrimages to stir up their remembrance. Amn'. The Clergy are not bound, neither can they be always intent upon the office of instructing the people. They have their health, and their studies, and their maintenance, and several other private affairs to look after. Besides that when they have done their utmost, it will not amount to so much as that and the other means both together, ^Obj. 3. Every living man is a better representation of Christ or of the saints than dead images. Answ. A living man does not represent Christ as hanging on a cross, stripped, wounded, scourged, or the like, and therefore is not a competent representation. Obj. 4. God is present every where, and every where ready to shed his gifts and graces : " Wherfore it is vein waast, and idil, " forto trotte to Wasingam rather than to ech other place in " which an yraage of IMarie is ; and to the rode of the north- " dore at London, rather than to ech other rood in whatever " place it be.^' Anxv\ It is not true that all places are alike in God's sight ; but God often chooses to dispense his favours in one place rather than anotlier, and in this manner of his own approving, rather than in another of man's devising : and he has pointed out the places, or the images, which he most accepts, by his miracles wrought in them. "^Obj. ^. The devil hath sometimes deceived the worshippers of images, as is plain from the Legend of Bartholomew, where it is said, that " the feend which was in a famose ymage in a temple, " made the peple siik in her bodies, that thei schulden come " bifore him in pilgrimage, and prie, and thanne he wolde make " hem hool : and herbi he drowe the peple into mysbileeve, and " myslyvyng." Ansvy. It does not appear that the devil has any thing to do with the images of the Church. The case is very different : for the people of whom the Legend speaks took the image for their God, and were justly deceived by the devil : * Lewis, p. 107. * Ibid, ut supra. ^' Ibid. ]). 113. " Ibid. pp. 103, 107. 286 Letters to but Christian people use the images as signs only, or tokens of God. ^Obj. 6. Images and pilgrimages are occasions of much sin. Answ. So are many other good things, which are not there- fore to be laid aside, but the abuses are to be corrected, or prevented. yObJ. 7. The time, and pains, and costs laid out upon images and pilgrimages might be more usefully spent in much better services, relieving the poor, instructing the ignorant, reading, hearing, &c. Ansv). This way of reasoning may fill a man with endless scruples : if he is never to do any good work till he is sure that he might not in the same time do better^ he may pos- sibly sit still and do no good work at all. Let it suffice that the thing be good^ though in a lowei' way, and let him employ himself either in the higher or lower exercises as occasions offer, and do good of all kinds. 2 Obj. 8. Adhere only to what scripture prescribes : St. Paul cautions us against vain philosophy and human wisdom. Answ. Whatever right reason approveth, though not prescribed in scripture, God approveth. Nevertheless, scripture is not entirely silent, but has scattered some hints here and there, which favour the practice of image-using and pilgrimages : and it is not vain philosophy/ that introduced them, but true wisdom. ^Obj. 9, Christ's discourse with the woman of Samaria wit- nesseth that God is to be worshipped in " spirit and in truth," not by images ; and his worship is not to be confined to this or that place; which is aeainst any pilgrimages. Jnsic. The Sa- maritans worshipped God as a bodily thing, and so not in spirit, or not as a pure Spirit : and they worshipped him by idolatry, and so not in truth. Wherefore his caution affects not the use of images under the rules before taught. And as to Christ's say- ing that neither upon this mountain, Gerizim, nor in Jerusalem, &c. it vAas no more than a prophecy of the destruction of that city and country by the Romans. ^Obj. 10. If a man must go in pilgi-image, why must it be done openly, except for vain-glory? " Also what skile is therto " that he here openli, bis tretis, an ymage of wex, or of tre, for- " to offre it up at the place of pilgrimage, and forto lete it abide " there contynuely after him fee.'" Answ. This is the best way X Lewis, ut supra, y Ibid. pp. 103, 108. ^ Ibid. p. 108. ^Ibid. p. 113. b Ibid. pp. 103, 108. the Rev. Mr\ Lewis. 287 of exciting others to follow his example, and to preserve the memory of what he does to future generations for their instruc- tion and benefit. c Obj. 1 1 . Joshua commanded the people to put away all strange gods. Ansio. It does not follow that images must be put away, which are not strange gods. ^Obj. 12. The Jews had much more sense than Christian children of ten years old, and so also had the Heathens a great deal of excellent sense : yet both these fell into gross idolatry in the use of images. How then shall Christian people, the ignorant especially, avoid the like snare, while they use images I Answ. Neither Jews nor Heathens worshipped mere images, but devils as it were incorporate in the images. " The hethen men helden " her God to be bodili and bodied in a maner whiche thei cou- " then not at fulle undirstonde ; even as we Cristen men holden " now our God to be bodili and bodied in a man. And as it is " trewe that Cristen men worschipen a man for her God, but " thei worscipen not so the pure manhode in himself, withoute " more therto sett : so the hethen men worschipeden an ymage " and a bodili graved thing for her God, but not the pure bodili " graved ymage in him silf withoute more foi- her God. And so " these ii thingis whiche scripture seith of ydolatrers stonde " togedere and be trewe : that alle goddis of hethen men ben " feendis, and also, that the goddis of hethen men ben gold and " silver the werkis of mennis hondis. — The hethen men camen " into thilk great synne of ydolatrie bicause thei neuer receyv- " eden the feith whiche othere men, not being ydolatrers, in tho " same dales receyveden. Manye also of the Jewis whiche " weren bifore sufficientli instructid in the feith of oon God, and of " veri God, and in the evidencis longing thei to, fellen by her negli- " gence fro the attendaunce whiche schulde have be govum bi a " continuaunce to tho euidencis. But now sumwhat bifore the " birthe of Crist alle Jewis camen into so grete attendaunce to the " evydencis of veri feith, teching oon God to be, and also aftir the " passioun of Crist hiderto in this present day, so greet doom of " resoun hath be founde bothe of hethen men and of Jewis, and " of Cristen men. that a this side the passioun of Crist was " not into this present day eny ydolatrie among Jewis. neither " among hethen men, whiche lyven in eny notable famose sect : " or if among hethen men be eny ydolatrie, it is in ful fevve placis, Lewis, p. 103. ^ Ibid. pp. 103, 109. 288 Letters to " among wreechid persoons, not sett bi of othere hethen men. " Hereof it muste nedis folewe that now adaies it is not perel to " Cristen men, neither to the Jewis, neither to hethen men, for- " to have and entermete with ymages of God, as it was in the " daies fer bifore going the incarnatioun of Crist." '^Obj. 13. To pray to any creature for such favours and bless- ings as can come from God only, is plainly idolatry ; yet such prayers are offered up to the cross both by Clergy and people ; as is manifest from the church offices : particularly, the hymn, Vexilla Regis, &c. in Passion Week ; the response at the first evening song, 0 crux, viride lignum, &c. in the feast of the In- vention of the Cross : and the anthem, 0 crux sjilendidior, &c. at the same feast ; the anthem Crux fidelis, at the second evening song of the Exaltation of the Cross ; the sequence sung at the same, 0 Christe, &c. Anstv. These and the like expres- sions are to be taken for figures of rhetoric, and to be soberly interpreted, understanding them not strictly of the cross, but of Christ himself upon the cross, and saving men in and by the cross. " 0 crosse of Crist, y prie thee helpe me and defende " me, and justifie me : the dew understonding herof mai be this ; " 0 Crist, y prie thee helpe me and justifie me bi thi crosse, as " therto the helping instrument." '^Obj. 14. To use such ceremonies, salutations, prostrations, &c. towards a creature, as are proper to God alone, is making a god of the creature : but such are those that have been custo- marily used towards the cross. " In eelder daies whane pro- " cession was maad in the Palme-Sundai bifore masse, the " Eukarist was not brought forth that the processioun of the " Clerkis and of the lay peple schulde meet with him, but a baar " uncovered crosse was brought forth agens the processioun, " that the processioun schulde meete agens it, as y have red in " dyverse oolde ordinalis of cathedrale chirchis and of monaste- " ries in Ynglond ; though in latir daies, and namelich in summe " chirchis, the Eukarist is born forth, and the processioun " meetith with the Eukarist born in a chest among relikis, and " in manie placis he is born in a coupe ordayned therto. In " tho daies and in tho placis whanne and where the processioun " mette in Palme Sunday with the nakid crosse, or with the " chest of relikis, withoute the Eukarist, summe of the Clerkis . XIV. St. Austins, May 2, 1728. Dear Sir, I AM come to no fixed opinion yet in relation to WicklifTs version of the Bible. But I have sent you by Mr. ^V'ilkins all the materials I have had to make a judgment by. Having been lately at Cambridge, I have brought up with me what I call the first draught of Wickliff's Testament, as being plainly older and ruder than the common one. Of the first there are but very few copies : but the copies of the latter are numerous. I have also sent you, by INIr. Innys's permission, one of the com- man copies : so you may at your leisure compare both together. Our College copy of the first is not entii'e, but wants some chap- ters somewhere in the Epistles : I think either in Romans or Corinthians, not remembering certainly in which. I have sent you a specimen of the Lambeth copy of the Bible ; enough to confute Mr. Russers pretences. I have also sent you some readings collected out of Trevisa ; which are an argument to me that the common translation ascribed to ^^^icklifF is not Trevisa's. The Old-Testament-texts I have compared, and placed oppo- sitely in the paper I send : the texts of the New, you can your- self compare with the books I send. Mr. Innys will not sell his copy under three pounds, but he lends it you free-cost, if I remember his words to me some time ago. I design for Windsor on Saturday next, God willing : and there 1 intend to spend my time between this and Whitsunday. Thither you may please to direct to me after you have received the books from Wilkins. I shall be glad to know that you have received them safe. I deliver them out this day to Mr. Wilkins's journeyman. He himself is not at home. I am, good Sir, Your affectionate Friend and faithful humble Servant, DAN. WATERLAND. !Mr. Wilkins's man now tells me that the parcel cannot be sent out before Wednesday next : but he promises me to be punctual and careful. To the Reverend Mr. Lewis, of Mergate in Kent. the Rev. Mr. Lewis. 305 No. XV. Magd. Coll. July i, 1729. Dear Sin, I AM laying out for materials towards your complete account of the English translations of the Bible, or of any part of the Bible. But that I may not do more than I need, let me first acquaint you what materials I have, and do you please to let me know whether you already have any of the same. I will begin with Tinclales Neio Testament of \^%6. I cannot meet with the book itself yet, though I do expect to find a copy or two at Emanuel College : but I can send you a very particular account of the book and its editions, Dutch and English, out of George Joy c's Apologye., 1534. Have you that Apology? I have no mind to transcribe several pages to no purpose. The next in order is TindaUs Translation of the Five Booh of Moses, A. 1530. This I have not met with: but his prologues to every book may be seen in Tindale's Works, printed by J ohn Daye, 1573. The Psalter of 1530, by Joh. Aleph, and printed at Argentine by Foye. This book I have by me, and shall send you account of. George Joye's Paalter., and Jeremy, both of 1534. Those I have, and shall send account of, unless you tell me you have them. CoverdaWs Bible in folio, 1535. This I have, and shall make report of. Matthew'' s Bible in folio 1537. This I have. CoverdaWs of 1539, vellum, St. John's : and another paper one, I have. Taverner's of 1539, I also have. Tlie Great Bible of 1540, I have not at present, but believe I shall meet with one: otherwise you may get an account of it from Sion College. Tunstall and HeatKs of 1^41, I have. CoverdaWs Anglo-Latin Test. 1538 spurious; 1539 genuine: I have both, and shall send account of them. CoverdaWs quarto of 1550, I have. BecFs Bible of 1 549, I have. WATEULAND, YOIi. VI. X 306 Letters to The Geneva New Testament in 12°. of 1557. The first with distinction of verses I have, and shall give account of. yThe Geneva Folio Bible of 1^60, the first edition (be it fol. or 4to.) I cannot yet find, though it is in Bishop More's library. Farmer's first edition of 1568, and second of 1 572. I have both, and shall send accounts of them. As to Felayne^ I must desii'e you to explain yourself. Do you take it for an English version \ His new Latin version of 1540, I have. The dedication is a very long one, thirty-eight pages in lai'ge 4to. and I do not see any great use of it. Please to open your mind a Httle further upon this head in your next. As to the sentences of scripture in Elizabeth's Liturgy, (the same with those in Edward's of 1552,) I am very sure they are not taken from any one edition of the Bible : but the compilers translated as they thought proper, or selected out of several editions. Only, the Psalms are all exactly the same with the great Bible of 1541. I intend to send you some accounts to look at in a little time, that you may peruse them, and may then send to me again for any further particulars, before I part with the books I have by me. I would send the parcel to Parker for you, but is he to be directed to at the King's Head, where Wilkins was ; or has he changed the sign, or removed the shop ? Send me WickelifF's Testament hither when transcribed, and I will do you all the service I can in collating. I propose (God willing) to stay here till the end of October. But if any sudden occasion should make me leave Cambridge sooner, I will take care of your papers. I am, good Sir, Your very faithful Friend and Servant, DAN.WATERLAND. You will excuse the haste of this scribble. I had almost forgot to mention Sir John CheeFs ^New Testa- ment, (if it be Cheekls) printed in 1550, Anglo-Latin, 4to. or large 8vo. I have the book, and am searching diligently for some certain proofs either of its being Cheek's or not Cheek's. y Mr. Lewis has not properly dis- Translations and Translators, 1819. tinguished these two editions, having App. 3. described them both as Bibles. See z See Lewis's Hist. p. 186. Mr. Todd's Vindication of English the Eec. Mr. Lewis. 307 It is by J.C. It is out of the Greek into English, with Erasmus's Latin opposite. Maunsell, in his Catalogue, twice ascribes a Testament to him. And yet neither Bale, nor Langbain, nor Strype seem to have known any thing of it. I will inquire further into it. To the Reverend Mr. Lewis, of Mergate in Kent. N". XVI. An account of the seven editions of Tindale's New Testament, chiefly from George Joye's Apologye, published 1535, Feb. 27. 1 . The first edition was published by Tindale himself, (though he put not his name to it,) and in this year, as is well proved by Strype, in his Memorials of Archbishop Cranmer. Joye speaks thus, p. 39, (according as I have paged it,) " Tindal aboute viii " or ix yere agoo translated and printed the New Testament, in " a mean great volume ; but yet wythoute kalendar, concordances " in the margent, and table in thende^." 1527, or thereabout. 2. The next was a Dutch edition, not revised by Tindale him- self. We may call it the first Dutch edition of which Joye thus speaks, p. 39. " And anon aftir, the Dwcheraen gote a " copye, and printed it agen, in a small volume, adding the " kalandare in the begynning, concordances in the margent, and " the table in thende. But yet, for that they had no Englisshe " man to correcke the setting, thei theraselve, havyng not the " knowlege of our tongue, were compelled to make many mo " fautes than were in the copye, and so corrupted the boke, that " the simple reder might ofte tymes be taryed, and steek." This edition, by what will be observed of the next, I judge to have been a small 1 2mo. such as the English Psalter was printed in by Johan. Aleph, or Francis Foye, at Argentine, 1530. and by Joye, or Marten Emperour, in 1530. [I think, at Antwerp.] 1528 perhaps, or 1529. 3. The next was a second Dutch edition, of which Joye goes * See Lewis's Hist, of Transl. 2cl cel. p. 7,15. ^ Ibid. p. 80. X 2 308 Letters to on thus, p. 39. "cAftir this thei printed it agein also, without " a correctour, in a greater letter and volume, with the figures " in thapoealipse, whiclie were therfore miche falser than their " firste." He observes further of this and the former, that " there were of them both about 5 thousand bokis printed." There is a copy of this edition belonging to Emanuel College, marked i. 5 — 66. I have it now in my hand. I make this judgment from the figures ; that is, cuts, drawings, in the Apocalypse. It is imperfect, both beginning and end torn out. It is a large i2mo, if it may not be called a small 8vo. The titles and chapters are in red letter. There is part of the prologe unto the Neuce Testament at the beginning. And there are the Epistles of the Olde Testament after the tise of Salislury at the end ; but part torn off. These were all sold off before 1534. 1533 perhaps, or 1534. 4. A third Dutch edition (lin a smaller character and volume. Joye goes on thus: " When these two pryntes — were al soulde, " more than a twelve monetli agoo, Tind. was pricked forthe to " take the Testament in hande, to print it, and correcke it, as " he professeth and promyseth to do, in the later ende of his " first translation. But T. prolonged and differred so necessary " a thing, and so just desyers of many men. In so miche that " in the mean ceason, the Dewchmen prynted it agen the thyrde " tyme, in a small volume lyke their firste prynt, but miche more " false than ever it was before. Thei printed them, and that " most false, and about two thousand bokis, and had shortly solde " them al. Al this longe while T. slept, for nothing came from ^' him, as farre as I coude perceive." p. 4 i . 1534- 5. eA fourth Dutch edition corrected now at last by George Joye, who took the liberty to correct the translator himself, in some few instances, as well as the printers, and thei-eby gave very f grievous offence to Tindale. This edition must bear date 1534, because Tindale, in the preface to his of 1534, November, observes that Joye's was brought him, when his own was in the press, "almost fynesshed." Mr. Baker has noted down an edition, which he has seen, but forgets where, entitled thus : The JSfewe Testament, imprinted at Antwerp, hy Marten Emperour, Anno M.D.XXXIIII. I make See Lewis's Hist, of Trans, p. 65*. Ibid. pp. 66*, 73*'; but Lewis dates it 1530. Ibid. p. 79* — 85. ^ [See Fox, c. 2. p. 515 ] the Rev. Mr. Lewis. 309 no question but that is the very edition I am now speaking of : and the same Marten Emperour printed Joye's Psalter that very year, as appears from the Psalter itself, now in my hand. However, Joye's edition of T.'s Testament may be infallibly dis- tinguished from any other by this plain mark, which I shall note in the words of Tindale's preface ; " thorow oute Mat. Mark, " and Luke perpetualy, and ofte in the Actees, and sometyme " in John, and also in the Hebrues, where he fyndeth this worde " resurreccion, he chaungeth yt into the lyfe after this lyfe, or verie *' lyfe, and soche lyk. " Tynd. pref. cited in Joye's Apol. p. 52. I proceed now to give Joye's own account of this edition of his, which is the fourth Dutch, and makes the fifth in the whole. Apol. p. 41. (numb, of bs. now printed 2000.) " Then the " Dewche began to printe them the fowrth tyme, because thei " sawe no man els goyng about them : and aftir thei had " printed the first leife, which copye another Englissh man had " corrected to them, thei came to me, and desiered me to cor- " recke them their copie ; whom I answered, — that if T. amende " it with so gret diligence as he promyseth, yours wil be never " solde. Yisse quod thei, for, if he prynte two thousand and " we as many, what is so httle a noumber for all Englond ? And " we wil sel ours beter cheape : and therfore we doubt not of " the sale. p. 42. The printer came to me agen and ofFred " me two stuvers and a halfe for the correcking of every sheet " of the copye ; which folden contayneth xvi leaves : and for " three stuvers which is 4 pense halpeny sterling, I promised to " do it. So that in al I had for my labour but xiv shylyngis " flemesshe. Which labour, had not the goodnes of the deede " and comon profyte and helpe to the readers compelled me more " than the money, I wolde not have done yt for 5 tymes so " miche, the copie was so corrupt, and especially the table. " And yet seith T. I did it of covetousnes. If this be covetous- " nes, then was Tindal moche more covetous. For he (as I " herd saye) toko x ponde for his correction, p. 43. p. 45. " This Testament was printed or T. was begun, and that not by " my pervencion, but by the printers quickc expedicion and T. " own longe sleaping. For as for me, I had nothing to do with " the printing thcrof, but correcked their copie only. As where " I founde a worde falselie printed, I mended it : and when I " came to some derke sentcncis that no reason coulde gathered " of them, whether it was by the ignoraunce of the first transla- 310 Letters to tour or of the prynterj I had the Latyne text by me, and " made yt plain. And where any sentence was unperfite or " clone left oute, I restored it agene, and gave many wordis " their pure and native significacion in their places, which thei " had not before." 6. Tindale's own correct copy. The Neioe Testament diligently corrected and printed in the yeare of oure Lorde M.CCCCC and XXXIIII. in November. I take this title from Joye's title page to his Ajjologye ; which, I presume, is exact enough, in the thing at least, if not to the words. ^ To this edition was prefixed a very angry preface, complaining too severely against the liber- ties Joye had taken with his translation. That preface produced G. Joye's Apologye and Answere unto Tindafs Pistle, printed ^535' -P^^b. 27, in i2mo, pages T04. The sixth edition may be known by its preface : or it may be known without it, or without title or date, by some alterations made in it, which Joye speaks of. The note to i Pet. iv. 6. " the " dead are the ignorant of God," was not before this edition of 1534. Tindale's former editions read Matt. i. 18. ^married to Joseph : but his editions of 1534 and after have betrouthed. 1536- 7. ^ The Newe Testament yet once agayne corrected by Willyam Tindale prynted in the yere of oure Lorde God M.D. and XXXVl. 4to. This title I take from a note of Mr. Baker, who has seen the edition with that title, but does not at present remember where. I have this edition now in my hands ; but the copy is imperfect both at beginning and end. It belongs to Emanuel College, marked B — 4 — 28. It is a 4to. and a pretty broad one, and the print appears to be English. It is not earlier than the edition of 1534, because of betrouthed in Matt. i. 18. It is not the edition of 1 534, because it has not a fault which G. Joye charges upon that edition i, viz. this, that in the marginal gloss upon I John iii. there is noted, " Love is the first precept and " cause of all other," and on the other side, " Fayth is the firste " commandment and love the seconde." This staring contradiction of the edition of 1 534 is prudently avoided in this more correct one of 1536. f Lewis's Hist, ut supra. h Ibid. p. 85. s [So reads an after edit, folio, 1537.] i Ibid. p. 85. the Bev. Mr. Lewis. 311 These ai'e the seven editions of Tindale's N. T. all in ten years' time, and amounting to about fifteen thousand books. I have seen but two of the seven, but hope to see more, either in my Lord Oxford's Hbrary, or Bishop More's, or where else I can think of. You have seen one copy : and, by the marks given, you will easily and certainly distinguish the edition, unless it be the second or fourth, which though easily distinguished from all besides, are not so easily distinguished from each other ; being much alike, both Dutch prints, and of small character, and nearly of the same time. But if you happen to meet with one with a date, you may give a shrewd guess whether it be the second, or fourth, in the whole ; whether the first or third of the Dutch editions. I send you this, without waiting for an answer to my last ; because, I think, I may be morally sure from your speaking before so doubtfully of the copy you had seen of Tindale's N. T. that you had not yet met with G. Joye's book, from which 1 have taken my accounts of all but the last. I found it accident- ally in our public library : it is marked B — 7 — ^4. As it is a small piece, and I believe very rare, I may perhaps get it all transcribed, if I have leisure, before I leave this place. Since my last, I have got the folio edition of 1 540, besides some others. I am procuring you copies of the dedication and preface of the Anglo-Latin of 1538, and also of the dedication and preface of 1539. You shall have all other proper materials as fast as I can get them ready. I am, good Sir, Your affectionate Friend and humble Servant, DAN. WATEELAND. Magd. Coll. July 5, 1729. All I can hitherto find of Richard Culmer is, that he was scholar of the foundation in our College in 1617. To the Reverend Mr. Lewis, of Mergate in Kent. 312 Letters to N". XVII. Magd. Coll. July 13, 17:19. Dkar Sib, I HAij the favour of your^s bearing date the 7th instant. I perceive, I had already done some things which might have been spared : nevertheless, since the papers are drawn up, I shall send you all in a little time. In the mean while, I shall here send you some general or casual observations. I distinguish whole Bibles by these several names, i. Coverdale's, alias Cran- mer's, alias Great Bible. 2. Matthew's. 3. Geneva. 4. Parker's. 5. Rhemish, alias Doway. 6. King James's. To speak severally now of the two first. 1. Coverdale's. Coverdale's of 1535, improved by Cranmer &c. in 1539 and 1540, and again by T. and H. in 1541, and reprinted at London by Harrison in 1562, and again at Eouen 1566. You wiU have an account of this last among my papers. All these editions (ex- cepting the first of 1 535) have the small letter in Psalm the xivth and in i John v. 7. There is another peculiarity in three of them, worth the noting, that they call the apocr}-phal books Haniographa / taking indeed Matthewe's preface to the Apocrj-- pha of 1537, but changing Apocrypha, as often as it occurs, (which it does several times,) into Hagiographa. The three editions which do thus, are 1539, 1540, 1562. N. B. Was it not this very Bible that Henry VIII.' and Edward VI. and Queen Elizabeth authorized by their successive injunctions ? And it was never out of place till Parker's suc- ceeded them in 1568. N. B. The edition of 1562 follows 1540, in the Psalms, and othervvise : but 1566 follows 1541. 2. Matthew's. This appeared first in 1537, and was the first which had a royal license, though Coverdale's having no notes to give ofience, afterwards carried the bell. Hither I refer Tavemer's of 1539, and Becke's of 1549, and Matthewe's revised of 1551. These i The Letters Patent of King Henry and WUkins, and by Mr. Todd, in his VIII. concerning this translation may Vindication of our Authorized Trans- be seen in Lewis's Hist. p. 121. briefly lation, App. 2. cited. The whole is copied by Burnet, the Rev. Mr. Lewis. 313 all omit that part of Psalm xivth which others have in small letter. And as to i John v. that of 1537, and Taverner, and 1 55 1, have it in small letter ; while Becke's includes it in hooks as a parenthesis, a method begun by Coverdale in his of 1 535? or rather by Tindale in his N. T. of 1526. Matthew's Bible most pleased the Puritans, till the Geneva Bible succeeded in its room, I have nothing now in particular to say of the other Bibles beyond what you will find in the packet I intend you. As to Sir John Oheke's, I am satisfied it was no new version of his : perhaps J. 0. might mean another, the version is the common one of that time. But of this I shall write more largely in my papers. J. 0. includes i John v. 7. in a parenthesis. I mentioned to you in my last the figures, wooden cuts, in the Apocalypse of Tyndale's N. T. the second Dutch edition. I have since taken notice of the editions besides, which have the like cuts in the Apocalypse, and they are these : Matthewe's of 1537, Becke's of 1549, Jugg's 4to. Test, of 1550, the Great Bible of 1562. Parker's has them all in one plate, or page, just before the Apocalypse, in the edition of 1572. By the way, I observe, that Parker's of 1572 has both the editions of the Psalter (Hebrew and Septuagint) columnwise, facing each other. Later editions left out the new version from the Hebrew, and retained only the old version which is in our Liturgy. Qu. When began that frugal contrivance ? How long before 1602 ? I have been examining thoroughly all that belongs to Ham- pole's Psalter of 1330, and 1340 ; and shall send a particular account of it. But Wickliff's Bible or Testament will take me up longer time. I have seen a Testament somewhat older than that I once lent you : and I just dipped into one at Bene't, or part of one, (P. vi.) which is quite another version, and older than any I had before seen. Upon a transient view, I judge of the age only by the participles running in ande instead of ing, (as for instance, lastande for lasting,) which is a mark of age above any thing I have yet seen of Wickliff's, and goes up, a century perhaps, higher, or half a century at least. But I shall inquire more minutely when I can have leisure. It is a mis- fortune to us, that no manuscript of that College can be borrowed out : otherwise I should not scruple the pains of reading it all over. 314 Letters to R. ix. X. of the same library is older than the common MSS. of Wickliff, but not so old as P. vi. I know it has been the common practice of the scribes to take a liberty of suiting the spelling, and language too, to the time they transcribe in. This I have observed in the several copies of Robert of Gloucester, and in the written and printed copies of Trevisa, and in Harapole's Psalter ; the later the copy, the more modern always the English itself, and not the spelling only : so that it will be the harder to judge of the age of versions by either spelling or language. Perhaps the common copies of Wieklilf may not be much older than 1440, as I have one bear- ing date 1437, though it looks old : if sOj one would expect that the copies written about T380 should be older English, though the same version. But of this I shall consider at leisure, J did not send you, in my last, the title-page of Joye's little piece against Tindale, from whence I took the editions. It is a curiosity worth the transcribing, though somewhat long. ^ An Apolopi/e made hy George Joye to satisfy e [if it may he) W. Tindale : to pourge and defende himself ageinst so many sclaun- derouse lyes fayned upon Mm in Tindals uncharitable and unsoher pystle^ so icell loorthye to he prefixed for the reader, to induce him to the understanding of hys New Testament diligently corrected and printed in the yeare of oure Lorde M.CCCCC and XXXIIII. in November. I hiowe and heleve that the hodyes of every dead man shall rijse agayne at Domes daye. Psalme cxx. Lorde, delyver me from lying lyppers, and from a decceatfidl tongue. Amen. At the end of the book is, The xxmi daye of Fehruarye. It is observable, that Joye has the same motto from Psalm cxx. to his Psalter of 1534, in the title-page to it. But that Psalter was finished in August, two months or more before the date of Tindale''s new edition of the N. T. However, probably, he had then heard of T.'s resentment, and of what was pre- paring : and indeed he intimates as much in the beginning of his Apology. Lewis's Hist. p. 83. tliG Itcv. Mr. Lewis. 315 In the College Library at Windsor, I took notice of a copy of Matthew's New Testament, in 8vo. printed 1548. I can get you an account of it, if you shall think proper to take that in with the rest. I am, good Sir, Your very faithful and affectionate Friend, and Servant, DAN. WATERLAND. To the Rev. Mr. Lewis., of Mcrgate in Kent. 1 No. XVIII. Hampoles English Psalter and Comment, MS. Fol. Sidney Coll. Cant. K. 5—3. The book begins with a prologue, which sets forth the use and excellency of the Psalter. In the close of the prologue, sonaething is said of the comment itself by the compiler. " In this werke I seke no straunge ynglys, bot lightest, and " coraunest, and swilk that is most like unto the Latyne : so " that thai that knawes noght Latyne, be the ynglys may com " to many Latyne wordis. In the translacione I felogh the " letter als mekille as I may, and thor I fynde no propur ynglis, " I felogh the wit of the worde, so that thai that shalle rede it, " them thar not drede errynge. In the expownyng I felogh holi " Doctors. For it may comen into sum envious mannes honde, " that knawys not what that he suld saye, att wille saye that I " wist not what I sayd, and so do harme tille hym and tille «' other." The composition and contrivance of the Psalter and comment is, to produce every Psalm, a paragraph only at a time, in Latin ; and then under the Latin follows a literal translation of that paragraph, to which immediately is subjoined a short English comment on the same. The comment generally is dry and 1 There is no date to this large col- eight or nine sheets, having been sent lection of ])apers; but the letter imme- the day before, which ajjjjears to be diately following it, and dated July this collection. 24, 1729, mentions a packet, of about " Lewis's Hist. p. 13, 14. 316 Letters to insipid enough, after the mystical allegorical way, current at that time. " At the end of the Psalter follow the several canticles treated in the same way as the Psalms had before been. Canticum Isaie. 1 2. Confitehor tibi &c. Oanticum Anne. 1 Sara. 2. Exultavit cor meu &c. Canticum Moysi. Exod. 15. Cantemus Dm. &c. Oracio Abacuch. Abac. i. Dne. audivi &c. Atidite Celt que loquar. Deut. 32, Magnificat &c. Luc. 1 . Et sic explicit Psalterium David. The xevth (alias xcivth) Psahn in his version. " Comes, glad we to oure Lorde, joy we to God oure hele. " Before ocupy we his face in schrifte, and in psalmes joye we " to him. " For God is grete Lorde, and Kynge grete oboven alle " goddes. " For in his hondes are alle the endes of erthe, and the hegh- " nes of hilles is his. " For of hym is the see, and he made it, and the drye his " hende schope. " Comes, loute we, and falle we, and grete we before our Lorde " that made us, for he is our Lord God. " And we folk of his pastoure, and schepe of his hende. " This dey, if yee haf herde his voyce, willes noght harden " youre hertis. " Als in stiryng, after the dey of temptacioun in deserte. " Whore youre faders temped me, thei proved and thei sowe " my werkes. " Fourty yere I was wrethede to that generacioun, and I seyd, " ay that thei erred in herte. " And thei knew noght my weyes, to whom I sware in my " wrethe, if thei enter in my rest." Sidney College copy is a very old one, coeval probably with the author, who died in the year 1349. We may set the comment at 1330. The language and spelling are antique; many old " Lewis's Hist. p. 15. the Rev. Mr. Lewis. 317 words, such as grew out of use by Wickllffs time. The parti- ciple generally ending in ande, instead of ynge; a,s pimyschande iov pimyschynge: and abstract nouns terminating in hede instead of ness ; as fairhede, harnJiede, ior fairness, [beauty,] barrenness: both which are certain marks of age, and conform to the oldest MSS. of Robert of Gloucester. They are two more copies of this comment, one in Trinity College, another in Bene't (i — i — ) ; but both modern in comparison ; and the language altered. Besides that the copy of Trinity College is full of interpolations, against Prelates, Priests, and Friars, which swell the bulk about one third above its native size. There is in St. James's Library another, a very fair copy, but interpolated too, as I imagine by the description of it. The several MSS. of Hampole are thus marked. Sidney-Coll. MS. K. 5—3. the oldest copy, and uncorrupt. Trinity-Coll. MS. — R. 10. — 25. interpolated. Bene't-Coll. MS. i — i a later copy, but of the genuine Hampole, and not of the interpolated. King's Library E. 15 — 12. Whether of the genuine, or the other, 1 am not certain. In that of King's Library there is this note, as Mr. Russel tes- tifies by a memorandum left in a spare page of Trinity College Copy: " Here bigynneth the prologe upon the Sauter, that Rychard " heremyte of Hampole translated into Englyshe, aftir the sen- " tence of Doctours and resun." ° That copy is imperfect, from Psalm xcviith, and in Trinity copy there is a good deal erased, especially in Psalm Ixxvi. and Ixxvii. and the two last leaves torn out. The reason probably is, because in those places there were rude reflections upon Priests, or Prelates, or Friars. "^Some Account of the MS. of Bene't. P. vi. I have run over, hastily, the gloss of St. Mark and St. Luke. I see nothing of the style or turn of Wickliff" in either : no reflections upon Friars, Priests, or Prelates that I observed. Besides, the language, I conceive, is older than Wickliff''s time, and comes nearer to Hampole's. 1 judge the version and com- ° Lewis's Hist. p. 15. P Ibid. p. 16. 318 Letters to ment (or gloss) to be of 1340, or 1350. I shall here give some specimens of the language. Mark i. 7. " And he prechyde sayande, a qstalworther thane " I schal come eftar me, of whom I am not worthi downfallande, " or knelande, to louse the thwonge of his ■"chawcers." Mark vi. 22. " When the doghtyr of that Herodias was in " comyn, and had ^tombylde and pleside to Herowde, and also " to the sittande at mete, the kynge says to the wenche." Mark xii. i . "A man made a vynere, and he made aboute a " hegge, and grofe a lake, and 'byggede a tower." Mark xii. 38. "Bese ware of the scrybes whylke will go in " stolis and be ihaylsede in the market, and for to sit in the " fiyrste chayers.'''' Luke ii. 7. " and layde hym in cratche, for to hym was no " place in the dyversory." As this manuscript seems to be near the age of Hampole, it may not be improper to compare the Magnificat (Luke i. 46, &c.) of this version with Hampole's annexed to his Psalter among the Canticles at the end. ^Bene't MS. " My soule hogis, or lofys, " God, and my spirit joyed in " God my hele. " For he has byholdyn tho " mekenes of hys handemay- " den. " Lo therfore blyssed me " schal say all generaciouns. " For he has done grete " thinges, for he is myghty, " and holy tho name of hym. " And hys mercy fro progeny " to progenyes, to the dredande " hym. q \_Stalworfker j-tal-pephh, a )-tal et fephj} : Cbalybeus Animus, nisi a j-ca^ol stabilis &c. Ilickes, p. 128. Gramm. Anglo- Sax.] [^Chawcers, from the French, from the Latin calceus.'\ Hampole s MS. Sidney. " My saule wurshipes the " Lord, and my gost joyed in " God my hele. " For he loked the mekenes " of his handmayden. " Lo for whi of that blisful, " me schal say, alle genera- ciouns. " For he hath done to me " grete thinges that myghty is, " and his name haly. " And the mercy of hym for " kynreden to kynredens to the " dredand hym. ® [Tomhylde, Sax. rumban saltare, rumbiad salire.] * [By5r(;efZe,Sax.byc5an, sedificare.] ^ ^llaylsede, Sax.hselu sahis.hsele- tunge sahitatio. haleran sahitare.] " Lewis's Ilist. p. 32. The Rev. Mr. Lewis. 319 4< a BeneH MS. " lie made power in hys arme, he ysparbyldo tho proude in thoughte of theire herte. " He doun put tho myghty of sete, and he heghed tho meke. " Tho hungry he fillede with godys, and tho ryche he lefte voyde. " He toke Israel hys chylde, umthoghte of hys mercy. " As he spake to our fadyrs, " Abraham, and sede of him in " worldys." IlampoWs MS. Sidney. " He did myght in his arme, " he scatered the proude fi'o " the thoght of their hert. " He did doune the myghty " of setil, and he heghed the " meke. " The hungerande he ful- " filled of godes, and the riche " he left ^tome. " lie reccyved Israel his " childe, he is unthoght of " his mercy. " Als he spake to oure faders, " to Abraham and to his sede " in werldes." ^Note, the method and composition of this gloss is very like that of Hampole's upon the Psalms. The text is first produced in Latin, (a paragraph or more at a time,) then follows the same in Englisli, and after that a short comment. And the comment is much more in the allegorical mystical way, than in the literal. MSS. R. ix. X. They are the common version of Wickliff, (as it is called,) but the xth is the older copy. Sidney MS. K. 5. 14. This edition is not the same with the common one : it is nearly the same with that which I lent you out of our College : only that it appears an older copy, and somewhat fuller of y [Sparhjlde. I suppose, a slight corruption from the French espar- jnller, to scatter. Latin, propello jjro- pellere.l z \_t.ome. In the interpolated copy it is written tome. It is from the Danish, or Islandick tomur, void, empty. See Hiekes's Islandick Dic- tionary in his Thesaurus Ling. Sep- tentr. We preserve something of the same to this day, in the North at least. where to teem is to empty, or to pour out.'] ^ [Umthoghte, from the Saxon ymb-Jjencean, though I have not met with the word in composition in the old Saxon. In Benson's Saxon Vocabulary is ymb-^Seohrlan deliberare. I think, ymb-^inean, or ymb-(5encean more natural : but choose as you hke.] Lewis's Hist. pp. 16, ij. 320 Letters to synonymous words inserted. I shall here set down the same texts as before, for a sample*^. Mark i. 7. " And prechid seiynge, a stronger than I schal " come aftir me, of whom I knelyng am not worthi for to undoo, " or unhynde^ the thong of his schon." (Our MS. has the same.) Mark vi. 22. " Whanne the doughtir of the ilke Herodias " hadde entrid in and lepte and plesid to Heroude, and also to " men restynge, the kynge seide to the wench." (Our MS. has tliilk for tlie ilke.) Mark xii. i. " A man plauntid a vineyerd and puttede about " an hegge, and dalf a lake, and buldid a tour." Mark xii. 48. " Be ye war of scribis that vvolen wandre in " stooles and be salutid in chapynge and sit in the fii-ste " chaiers." (So our MS. also.) This manuscript has, at the beginning, a table of the Epistles and Gospels, intitled in the MS. itself; The Quotaciouns of Epistlis and Gospels that hen rad hi al the yeer. At the end, after the Apocalypse, are The Lessouns of the olde Laioe that ben rad in the Churche. The first Fridai pistil of Advent. Isaie li. The Conclusion. ExpUciunt Lcccioncs veteris Testamenti que leguntiir per totum Annum. I am still of opinion, that this edition or version is older than the common one which passes under the name of Wickliff : but which of them is the true Wickliff I cannot yet determine. I think the way must be, to find some part or parts of scripture, which are undoubtedly WicklifF's, and to compare with the editions. Wharton, in his Audarium Histories Dogmaticoi, has chalked out the method. He speaks of the Norfolk MS. copy of the Gospels, as being unquestionably Wickliff's : if that be true, we may, by the help of that copy, come to some certainty in the matter. Perhaps you may have interest enough with some of the Royal Society to borrow that MS. or if it be con- trary to rule to lend a MS. out, then either you or I (when at London) may take an opportunity of going to their library to consult it. Having a little spare paper here left, I shall transcribe the Lewis's Hist. i)p. 30, 31. the Rev. Mr. Lewis. 321 Magnificat out of tho MS. Testament of Sidney, and then you will have three different versions'^ to compare with one another, and with the common one called WicklifTs. " My soule magnyfieth the Lord, and my spirit hath gladid " in God myn '^helthe. " For he hath biholden the mekenesse of his hondmaiden. " Lo forsothe of this, alle generaciouns scholen seie me " blessid. " For he that is mygtti, hath don to me greet thinges, and " his name holi. " And his merci fro kynrede into kynredis to men dredynge " hym. " He maade mygt in his arm, he scatered proud men with " mynde of his herte. " He puttide doun mygtti men fro sete, and enhaunsed meke. " He hath fulfild hungri men with goode thinges, and hath " left riche men voide. " He havyng mynde of his merci, took up Israel his child. " As he hath spoken to oure Fadris, to Abraham and to his " seed into worldis." TJie Psalter of 1530. Publ. Libr. 12mo, small. A— 7— 43. Title-page. f The Psalter of David in Englishe, purely and faithftdly translated after the Text of Feline., every Psalme hatiynge his argument before, declarynge hrefly thentente and substance of the loholl Psalme. Preface. " Johan Aleph greteth the EngUshe nation, (in red letter.) " Be glad in the Lorde (dere brothern) and geve him thankes : " which nowe at the laste of his merciable goodnes hath sento " ye his Psalter in Englishe, faithfully and purely translated : *' which ye may not mesure and juge after the comen texte. " For the trowth of the Psalmes must bo fetched more nygh " the Ebrue verite, in the which tonge David, with the other " eyngers of the Psalmes firste sunge them. Let the gostly " lerned in the holy tonge be juges. It is the spirituall man " (saith Paule) which hath tho spirit of God, that muste decerne " and juge all thynges. And the men quietly sittynge (if the . 140, 141. " Ibid. i>i). 213, 214. 344 Letters to follows. After Malachi follows a preface to the Hagiographa, as they are here called, as well as in the editions of 1539 and 1540. The volume of the hokes called Hagiogmpha, is here their title. Title to N. T. Tlie Neioe Testament in Englyshe after the last Recognicion and settynge forth of Erasmus, conteynynge these holes. At the end. Imprinted at London in White Crosse Strete by Richard Har- rison, the yeare of our horde a thousands fyve hundred thre score and tico. Cam privilegio ad imprimendh solu. JVote, That this Bible follows not that edition of the Psalms which was perfected in 1541, by Tunstal and Heath, and so stands to this day in our Liturgy : but it follows the older edition of 1 539, and 1540, in Coverdale's (or Cranmer's) Bible. Pai't of Psalm xiv. and i Joh. v. 7. are in small letter. ^ An Account of the Edition of\5^0. Em an. Library, Title-page. The Byble in Englyshe, that is to saye, the Content of all the holye Scrypture, hothe of the Olde and Neice Testament truly troMslated after the veryte of the Hehrue and Greke texts, by the diligent studye of dyvers excellent lerncd men, experte in the foresayde tongues. Prynted at London by Thomas Petyt and Roberto Redman, for Thomas Beiihelet ; prynter unto the Kynges Grace. Cam privilegio ad imp)rimendum solum. "1504. Then follow, J. An Almanack for 30 years, 1J40 — 1568. 2. The Kalendar. 3. The names of all the bokes of the Byble, and tlie contents of every boke, with the nombre of the leafe where the bokes begyn. 4. A Prologue expressynge what is ment by certayne synges and tokens that we have set in the Byble. Title-page to the N. T. The Nevoe Testament in Englyshe after the last recognicion and settynge forth of Erasmus, conteyning these Bokes, &c. [N. B. So is edit. 1562.] " Lewis's Hist. pp. 139, 140. the end, fi/nyshed in December, 1541. " [Mr. AVanley mentions one print- He mentions another by Edward eA hy li'ichard Grakon, cum privilegio Whitchurch, 1540, cum privilegio, ad imprimendum solum, 1540, but at &c.] the Rev. Mr. Leicis. 345 Part of Ps. xiv. and i John v. 7. are in smaller character, like as in the other editions of this Bible in 1539 and J 541. I have an edition of the same as late as 1566, wherein the same places are so printed in small letter. This, I suppose, was the authorized Bible, and read in the churches, till Parker's came in its place. There is in the King's library, at ''Essex house, a beautiful edition of this Bible in vellum, like to St. John's of 1539. That Bible concludes thus : The ende of the Neioe Testament and of the u'hole Byhle, finisshcd in Aprill Anno M.CGCCCXL. A Dno. factum est istud. That book is finely illuminated : it was a present made, or in- tended, to the King, as appears by the words written on the first leaf. This BooJce is presented unto youre most excellent Highness, by your loving, faithful, and obedient subject and daylie oratour, A nthonye Marter, of London, Haberdasher. This account of that vellum copy I have from a letter sent to Mr. Baker from a person that viewed it. 1734. ^^Coverdale's Neiv Testament Aiujlo-Lai. 4to. 1538. Pepjs's Library, Trin. Coll. This spurious, stolen edition has a dedication to the King, and a i)reface. The title-page is. The Neio Testament both Latine and Englyshe, ech correspondent to the other, after the vulgate Texte, communely called S. Jeromes. FaythfuUy translated by Johan. Hollybushe Anno M.CCCCC. XX XV III. Jeremie xxii. Is not my ivorde hjlie a fyre, sayeth the Lorde, and lyke an hammer that breaketh the harde stone ? Printed in Southioarhe, by James Nicolson. Set forth icyth the Kynges moost gracious Licence. Then follow. An Almanack for xviii years, and a Kalendar. ^Coverdale's New Testament Anglo-Lat. 8i-o. 1539- Mr. Baker's Copy. This is the true and the rare edition, of Coverdalo's own cor- recting. No titlo-puge. 1' Lewis, (p. 139.) says, the King's 'i Lewis's Hist. p. 112. library at \Vestminster. Ibid. p. 115 — 118. 346 Letters to 1. A Dedication to Lord Cromwell. 2. Epistle to the Reader. 3. A Kalendar, imperfect, beginning with July, the rest torn out. First chapter also of St. Matthew, a whole leaf, wanting. 4. At the end, A Table of the Epistles and Gospels, after Salysbury use, which is not in the quarto edition of 1538. Here is no date, nor any note of printer : but it seems to be the same octavo edition which is mentioned in Maunseirs Cata- logue, p. 113, there said to be printed in English and Latin, by R. Grafton and E. Whitchurch, 1539. Cover dales Bible in ^to. 1550. Publ. Libr. A— 5— 5. The same, I suppose, with that mentioned in Maunsell's Cata- logue, p. 10. Printed for Andrew Hester, 1530, quarto. But the title-page and close are torn out. What remains is, 1. The Bokes of the hole Byble. 2. Dedication to K. Edward the Sixth. (In the Dedication are these words : ther/ore was I boldened " in God sixtene yeares agoo, — to dedicate this my poore " translation to youre Graces moost noble Father.") 3. A prologue to the Reader. 4. The Table and Kalender expressynge the ordre of the Psalmes and Lessons, &c. 5. An Almanack for xix yeares, beginning with 1552, ending s 1570. 6. A Kalendar. There is a more perfect copy of Coverdale's (juarto, of 1550, in the Public Library, A — 5 — 5. Title-page is. The whole Byble, that is, the holy Scripture of the Old and Newe Testament, faythfidly translated into Enqlyshe by Myles Coverdale, and nncly oversene and corrected, M.D.L. Pray for us, that the worde of God maye have free passage and be glorified, i Thess. iii. Prynted for Andreio Hester, dioellynge in Paides Church-yard, at the sygne of the Whyte Horse, and are there to be solde. Set forth with the Kynges most gracious licence. Lewis, pp. 182, 183. Lewis's account corresponds with fhe s Lewis says, "An Almanack for mo/T yjer/ec/ copy, of whicli a descrip- " xiv years, beginning 1550, ending tion is here immediately subjoined. " 1563." It appears, therefore, that the Rev. Mr. Lewis. 347 Upon comparing the two books, I find that they are not the same impression : or however, the preliminary parts before the Bible, I am sure, are not. St. John's copy, I believe, belongs to 1552, as I judge by the first year of the Almanack. The other copy, in the Almanack, begins with 15^50, and the preliminaries are as follows : J . The bokes of the hole Byble, &c. 2. The Dedication. 3. A Prologe to the Reader. 4. An Almanacke for xiv years, beginning 1550, ending 1563. 5. The Kalendar, and Table of Epistles and Gospels. Upon a review of both, I take the Dedication, and Prologue, and Bible itself, to be of the same impression : only the kalendar of the latter is new, and is adapted to Edward's Prayer-book of 1552. There is a whole sheet more in the latter than in the former, six new leaves instead of two old ones : and here Con- vers. of P aide is in black, which in the first is in red. N. B. The words above cited out of the Dedication remain in both : sixtene yeares both here and there, which shews the same impression so far. ^Parkers Bible of 1572. Pub). Libr. A— 1—9. Title-page. At the top, The Holie Bible. At the bottom, Non me fudet Evangelii Christi, &c. Rom. i. Then follow, 1 . The sumrae of the whole Scriptui'e of the bookes of the Old and Newe Testament. 2. A Table setting out the genealogy of Adam — continuing in lyneal descent to Christe our Saviour : the running title, Christes hyne. 3. A Table of the books of the O. T. with their contents. 4. Proper Lessons for Sundays throughout the year. 5. Lessons proper for holy days. 6. Proper Psalms for certain days. 7. The order how the rest of the holie Scripture, beside the Psalter, is appointed to be read. 8. A brief declaration when every term begins and ends. * This is the same edition of which which appears in p. 257. of his His- an account was before given, (p. 337.) tory. This which is here added is in from Mr. Lewis's hand-writing, and Dr.Waterland's hand. 348 Letters to 9. An Almanack from 1572 to 1610 inclusive. 1 o. To find Easter for ever. 1 1 . What days to be observed for holy days, and none other. 12. A Table for the order of Psalmes to be said at Morning and Evening Prayer. 13. The Kalendar. ] 4. A Preface into the Byble, by Abp. Parker himself ; though without a name. His arms before it. 15. Cranmer's Prologue or Preface. X 6. A description of the yeeres from the creation of the worlde, until this present yere of 1 572. 17. The order of books of Old and N. T. (The map of Canaan is placed at the xxist of Joshua) At the end of the Pentateuch, V\V. E. Samuel 2 Kings, R. M. 2 Chronicles, E. W. Job, A.P. C. Psalms, T. B. Proverbs, A. P. C. Songue of Solomon, \ Ballet of Ballettes, | A.P.E. Jeremiah, with Lamentations, R. W. Daniel, T. C. L. Malachias, E. L. 2 Machabees, J. N. Actes of the Ap. R. E. Romans, R. E. 1 Corinthians, G. G. Imprinted at London in Powles Glmrche-yarde, hy Richard Jiogge, Printer to the Queenes Majestie. 1572. Cam privilegio Regice Majestatis. N. B. This edition has two versions of the Psalms, Parker's and the common one, in opposite columns. I know not whether that method was not first begun in the Geneva Bible. I have one of 1578, which has double Psalms, the Geneva version, and the common one. But by degrees (how soon I know not) this method came to be disused ; and the printers, in both Bibles, took in but one version. Parker's was dropped in his Bible : V These and the following initials will be found explained in Lewis's Hist, pp. 236, 237. the Rev. Mr. Leivis. 349 the common one dropped in the Geneva, though sometimes the other. The notes made it the more necessary to retain the Geneva version in the Geneva. Matthewe s Bible, fol. of 1549- Bishop Moore's L. Title. The Byhle, whych is all the Holy Scripture : in whych are con- tayned the Olde and Neice Testament, truelye and purely trans- lated into Englishe hy Thomas Matthewe 1537, and now imprinted in the yeere of oure Lorde M.D.XLIX. Esaye i. Hearken to, ye Heavens, &c. Imprinted at London, ly Thomas Raynolde and William Hyll, dwelling in Paules Churche Yeard. At the end : And nowe agayne accordyngly imprinted, and fynished the last day of Octohre, in the yeare of our Lord God M.D.XLIX. at London, hy Wylliam Hill and Thomas Tteynoldes Tjpographers ^ God save the Kynge. Cum privilegio. ^Napieo- o/1593. Publ. Libr. D. 12. 33. Octavo. A plain discocery of the lohole Revelation of St. John, set down in two Treatises • the one searching and proving the true interpretation thereof ; the other applying the same paraphrastically and histori- cally to the Text. Set foorth hy John Napier L. of Marchistoun younger. JVhereunto are annexed certaine Oracles of Sibylles agreeing with the Revelation and other places of Scripture. Edin- burgh, printed hy Rohert Waldegrave, Printer to the King's Ma- jestie, J 593. Cmn privilegio Regali. This book follows the last (the common) edition of the Geneva Bible. I have compared the first chapter, and find that it agrees exactly with that, and with none else. y An account of the Geneva Bible, large folio, 1578. Title-page. The Bible, translated according to the Ehreio and Greche, and conferred with the hest translatio?is in divers languages. With most profitable Annotations upon all the hard places, and other things of great importance, as may appeare in the Epistle to the Reader. Lewis, p. 180. X Ibid. p. 296. y Ibid. p. 271 — 273. 350 Letters to Whereunto is added the Psalter of the common, Translation, agreeing with the Booke of Common-Prayer. Josh. i. 8. Let not this hooke of the lau\ &c. Imprinted at London by Christopher Barker, Printer to the Quenncs Majestie. Cum gratia et privilegio Regice Majestatis. Then follow, 1. The Dedication to the Queen, [made by the Geneva exiles.] " How harde a thing it is, &c." 2. A Preface to the Reader. " Beside the manifolde and con- " tinual benefits, &c." 3. Cranmer's Prologue. 4. A Table of the genealogy of Adam, down to Christ. 5. Proper first Lessons for Sundays throughout the year, and some second Lessons. 6. Lessons proper for holy days. 7. The order how the rest of the holy Scripture, beside the Psalter, is read. 8. A brief declaration of the terms beginning and ending, y. A Table for the order of the Psalmes. 10. What holy dayes to be observed, and none other. 11. An Almanacke, beginning with 1578, ending 1610. 1 2. The Kalendar. At the bottom of every month are histori- cal notes of what happened on such and such days of the month. E g. Under January, N. i, first day, " Noah, after he had been " in the ark 150 dayes, began to see the toppes of the high " mountains." Gen. vii. 24. N. 22. " The Duke of Somerset, " as upon this day, was beheaded, 1552." Under August, N. 27. '■ Religion, as on this day, was reformed, according to God's " expresse trueth, in the most renoumed citie of Geneva, 1535." The same historical notes are in the folio edition of 1583. (at Eman. Coll.) Chr. Barker. 13. The Booke of Common Prayer &c. Note, the Psalter is here double : the outer column, in white letter, is the Geneva version ; the inner column, in black letter, is the common translation of our Liturgy. But the folio edition of 1583 has single Psalms, the common Psalter. 14. Before the New Testament is a little map of the Holy Land, as in Christ's time, with an index at the bottom of the places therein specified. 15. At the end is. The summe of the whole Scripture of the Bookes of the Olde and New Testament. Imprinted at London, hy the Rev. Mr. Lewis. 351 Christ. Barker, Printer to the Queenes Majestic. 1578. Cum privilegio Regice Majestatis. 16. A brief Table of the interpretation of proper names. 17. A Table of the principal thinges conteyned in the Bible. 18. A perfite supputation of the yeares and times, from the creation of the world unto this present yeare of our Lorde God 1578, prooved by the Scriptures, after the collection of divers authours. Finis. This edition of the Geneva Bible is, I presume, one of the largest and most pompous of any ; for which reason I have given this particular account of it. There have been several editions of this Bible, in 1560, 1.570, 1575 1578*, 1579, 1581, 1583, 1589*, 1608. The two which I have marked, I have here : 1583 I have seen. Another which T have at London, you have had an account of: I forget the date. 158 1 is in Lord Oxford's library. That of 1589 is in 4to. and common ; there is a large concordance at the end, intitled. Two right proJitaUe and fruitful Concordances, ^-c. Collected by R. F. H. Robert Fitz Herrey, which though made in 1578, yet was not added to the edition of that year. It was in the edition of 1581. Whether in 1579, I know not. It is not in 1583. A note of some uncommon pieces, or editions., which I have not yet met with. 2 1 53 1. George Joyes Translation of the Prophet Esay. Printed at Strasburg, by Belthasar Backneth, 1531, 8vo. See Maunsell's Catal. p. 63. The book is in Lord Oxford's library, bound up with some other pieces ; which I learn from Mr. Wanley's notes transcribed Mr. Baker. a 1538. The Newe Testament in Englyshe and Latyn, accordyng to the Translacyon of Doctour Erasmus of Roterodam Anno M.CCCCC.XXXVIII. Prynted in Fletestrete by Robert Redman, ^to. Set forthe under the Kynges most gracious lycence. Cum privilegio ad imprimendum solum. At the end, thus : Thus endtjth the Newe Testament both in Englyshe and in Laten of Mayster Erasmus Translacyon, with the Pystlcs taken out of the Olde Testament. Set forthe vnth the Kynges moste gracious lycence, '■ Lewis, p. 78 *. a Ibid. p. 118. 352 Letters to and imprynted by Robert Redman dwellyng in Fletestrete, at the sygne of the George, nexte unto Saynte Donstans Churche : the yere of oure Lorde M.CCCCC. XX XVIII. and the thyrty yere of the Kynges most gracious reygne. God save the Kynge. This edition is mentioned briefly in MaunselFs Catalogue, p. 113. But this particular description of it I have from Mr. Baker's notes. I suppose this edition led the way to the other of like kind in 1 550 by J. 0. I could wish to compare. 1552. ^ The Byhle &c. at London, printed by Nich. Hyll, M.U.LII. 4to. This I find thus briefly referred to by Mi\ Baker. 1550. ^ Miles Coverdale conferred tvith the Translation of Wil. Tindal. Printed by R. Wolf, 1550, 8vo. MaunselFs Catal. p. 113. Strype's Annals, vol. ii. p. 265. ''1568. Bible, with the Common Prayer, English. Printed by Jugge and Cawood, 2 vols. 4to. 1568. v. Bibl. Trin. Coll. Cant. This hint I take from Mr. Baker's notes. The Bible I can inquire after at Trinity College. •=1569. Parkefs Bible in 4to. of 1569. Printed by Rich. Jugge. This is in Lord Oxford's library, as I find by Wanley's MSS. notes. But, I believe, I shall shortly have a copy lent me by a friend who has it. f 1570, 1573. Parker's Bible again in 4to. by Jugge. The 0. T. 1570, the N. T. 1573, in Lord Oxford's library. J 576. Parkers Bible, printed by Jugge, 4to. The arms of Dudley and Cecil, which used to be in the initial letters of Joshua and Psalms, are now left out. This I have from Wanley's MSS. notes. I have seen Parker's of 1588, fol. by Chr. Barker. It has single Psalms of the common version, no effigies nor arms before Joshua and Psalms, no cuts before the Apocalypse, like to the edition of 1572. The same may be said of the edition of 1602 (by Rob. Barker) as of 1588. The later the editions, the less pompous ; being made plainer, and sold cheaper. b This does not appear to have in a Letter to Dr. Ducarel, from a been noticed by Lewis. copy in his own possession. <^ Lewis, p. 183. A very full and Lewis, pp.217, 218. minute description of this rare edition ^ Ibid. pp. 253, 254. is given in Nichols's Liter. Anecd. f Ibid. p. 259. vol. iii. P-5I7 — 519, by Mr. Thorpe, the Rev. Mr. Lewis. 353 ^Jugge's Quarto New Testament, 1552, 1553. Email. Coll. B. 4—18. Mr. Baker. I have two editions of this Testament now before me : one from Emanuel, perfect ; the other from Mr. Baker, without title- page. I judge the first to be of 1552, because it was in the fifteenth of King Edward's age, and the Almanack begins with the year 1553. The other I refer to 1553, because the Alma- nack begins with that year. Now to proceed. Title-page of that of Eman. Coll. The Newe Testament of our Saviour Jesu Christe. Faythfully translated out of the GreJce. JVyth the notes and expositions of the darke places therein. Then follows, in oval figure, a picture of King Edward. On the left hand is Vivat, and on the right, over-against it, Bex. And round the effigies is written, Edvardus Sextus Dei Gratia, Anglie, Francie, et Hibernie Rex etc, jEtatis suce xv. Under the head, Matt. xiii. f. ^ Unio, quem prcecepit emi Servator lesus. Hie situs est ; debet nan aliunde peti. The Pearle, which Christ commaundcd to be bought, Is here to be founde, not elles to be sought. So ends the title-page. Next follow, 1. A Dedication to the King. 2. A Kalendar. 3. An Almanacke for xxiiii yeares, beginning with 1552, ending with 1575. (In the other edition for xviii yeares, beginning with 1553, ending with 1570.) 4. A Table of the principall matters conteyned in thys Testamente. 5. A perfecte supputation of the yeres and time from Adam unto Christ, proved by the Scriptures, after the collection of divers auctours. 6. An exhortation to the diligent studye of the holye scripture, gathered out of the Byble. 7. The Lyfe of the blessed Evangelyste Saynte Mathew, written and set forth by the moost holye Doctoure Sainte Hierome. At the end, (after the Epistles of the Old Testament and s Lewis, pp. 194 — 196. page of Salisbury's Welsh Testament, ^ The same hnes are in the title- translated into Welsh. Prynwch a veddwch a vudd, &c. WATEKLAND, VOL. VI. A a 354 Letters to Table of Epistles and Gospels,) Imprynted at London hy Ri/charde Juggc'^ diceli/nqe in Paides Churche-yarde, at the signe of the Byhle. With the Kyiige his mooste gratious lycence, and privilege, forhyd- dynge all other men to print, or cause to he printed, this or any other Testament in English. In the other edition, instead of in Paules Churche-yarde is, at the North dore of Paules. Note, In the Kalendar of 1552, Conversion of Paid and St. Barnabas are not entered. In the Kalendar of 1553, Convei'sion of Paule is in black ; Barnalas here also omitted. In Coverdale's quarto of 1552, (Kalendar,) Convers. Paid is in black; Barnabas omitted. In Edward's Prayer-book of 1552, Con. Paule is in red letter ; Barnabas omitted. Yet proper second Lessons are set against both days, in all the Kalendars above mentioned. Com])are Mr. Wheatly's ac- count. If he means by King Edward's second Common Prayer- book, that of 1552, there were more editions than one of that year; or else he mistook in saying, that St. Paul is put down in black : mine (of our public library) is red. ]\Iattliew''s fol. Bible of 155 1, in the Kalendar has both days in 7'ed letter, as also Coverdale's 4to. of 1550. " To the most puysannt and mightye Prince Edwarde the " Syxt, by the grace of God, Kyng of Englande, Fraunce, " Irelande, Defender of the Fayth ; and of the Churche of " England and also of Irelande, in earth the supreme Head ; " your Graces most humble and obediente subjecte, Rycharde " Jugge, wissheth all grace and peace from God, wyth longe " raygne, honour, health, and prosperitie. " That most worthy Kynge and Prince Josophat, as holy Chronicles do testifie, being moved with a godly zeale, dyd •'' sende out into all coastes of Jurye, certayne of his chiefe " Lordes that he had about him, with the Levites and Priestes, " to se that his lovinge subjectes, and leage people, over whom " the Lorde had made hym ruler and governour, should be truely " instructed and taughte in the lawe and commaundements of " the lyvynge God. Wheby, most noble and redoubted Prince, " he declared thys to be the chiefe and principall office of a " Christian kynge, whych seketh the glorye of God and the welth " of hys people, to provide that the worde of God be truely and " sincerely set forth and taught thorowout all his dominions and " realmes. that so the jieople committed unto hys charge, maye the Rev. Mr. Lewis. 355 " be trayned in all godlynesse, and true obedience, towardes God " and theyr soveraygne. Whereunto are required, not only " true and faithful! ministers, but especiallye, that the bokes of " the holye scripture be well and truely translated and printed " also, both to take away all occasions of schisines and heresies, " that by reason of inipropre translation and false printe many " times do arise amonge the simple and ignoraunt people, and " also to stoppe the mouthes of the adversarie part, whych upon " sucho faultes, take a boldenesse to blaspheme and misreport " this heavenly doctrine, nowe so plentifully set forth unto us, "thorowe your Graces moste prudente and godlye carefulnesse. Wherin forasmuche as seraede to lacke no more to the absolute perfectnesse, but that, one undoubted true impression niighte be had, whereunto in suche worde-debates, men might have " recourse and be resolved : accordyng to the streyghte charge " and commaundenient that I receaved of youre Highnesse in " that behalf, I have endevoured myselfe, aeeordynge to my " duetye and power, to put in print the Newe Testament, using " thadvise and help of godly learned men, both in reducinge the " same to the truth of the Greke text, (appoynting out also the " diversitye where it happeneth,) and also in the kepynge of " the true ortographie of wordes, as it shall manifestlye appeare " unto them that will diligently, and without affection, conferre " this with the other that went forth before. " I have (as becometh a true obediente subjecte) done all that " in me dydde lye, to satisfye your Graces moste godlye zeale and " commaundement. And with suche submission, as becometh a " subjecte to his most drad soveraygne Lord, do now present it unto " your JNIajestie, in most humble wise desiring the same, accord- " yngeto youre princelyeclemencye,to accept my good endevoure. " The Gever of all power, which is Kinge of all kinges, and " Prince of all princes, vouchosafe of hys goodnesse, to preserve " your JNIajestie, and in all your royall affayres so to assist your " graciouse Ilighenesse with his holy Sprite, that whatsoever " your Grace shall thinke or do, maye be to Goddes glorye, the " continuall flourishinge of youre Higheness honoure, and the " commune welthe of us your subjectes. Amen." > In Bishop Moore's (now our royal) library, I met with a little book in 12". N". 332, with this title. ' Lewis's Hist. p. 203. A a 2 356 Letters to An Exposition of part of S. Johannes Gospel, made in sondrie readings in the English congregatio7i. By Bartho. Traheron, and now published against the wicked enterprises of a new starte-up Arrians in Englande. Imprinted Anno 1557. In the comment on the first chapter of St. John's Gospel, are these words : " Some thincke the word here is taken for a ihinge, after the Hebrue maner of speakinge ; for the Hebrues use " dahar, which signifyeth a worde, for a thinge. So then " after this understandinge, S. Johannes meaninge is, that in " the beginninge there was a divine and heavenlie Thinge with " God." Note, Tlie author does not himself so translate the words, neither does he adopt this explication for his own : but he men- tions this interpretation as one that had been given by some. Who this Bartho. Traheron was, I do not certainly know : but, I suppose, one may find him in Le Long''s List of Commen- tators, which I have not in this place, though at London I have. He was author of another little piece, under this title : An Exposition of the fourth chapter of St. Johns Revelation. By Bar. Traheron., in sondrie readings before his countrymen in Germanie. Imprinted at London by Thomas Daicson, for Thomas Charde, 1583. Note, By readings, he means only so many texts which he read, and expounded to the people. Mr. Baker has left a note of this Traheron, that he was library-keeper to King Edward VL referring to Eymer, tom. xv. P-35I- Title-page of the Geneva edition. The Holy Bible, that is, the Holy Scripttires conteined in the Old and New Testament. Translated according to the Ebreio and Greeke, and conferred with the best translations in divers languages ; with most proffitable annotations upon all the hard places, and other things of great importance, as may appear in the Epistle to the Header. Fear ye not, stand still, Sgc. Exod. xiv. 13. The Lord shall fight for you, Exod. xiv. 14. Imprinted at London by Christopher Barker, Printer to the Queen's Majestie, 1582. Cum privilegio Regice Majestatis. Versiones. a.d. Yerslo A. Saxonica Bedse, qujB intercidit - -701. the Rev. Mr. Lewis. 357 Versio Anglo-Saxonica Evangeliorum - - - 880. Psalmorum, Rlchardi Hampoli versio Psalm, et Oantic. - - 1 340. Wiclevi versio Bibliorum ex Vulgata . - _ 1380. Joh. Trevisse (see Bale, and Caxton, in my Crit. Hist. vol.iii. p.145-) ------ 1390. Tyndalli versio N. T. in partibus transmarinis impressa. In V. T. non ultra Pentateiichu - - - 1526. Eadem versio secundis curis recognita - - - 1530. Eadem versio^ post Tindalli obitti, recognita atque aucta per D. Coverdallum : vulg. diet. Tindal and Coverdales Bible 1535. Novam ejusdem editionem dedit Joh. Eogers, alias Matthew. Mattheio's Bible - _ _ - 1537. Novu Testamentu Anglo-Latinum _ _ _ 1538. Editio altera per Coverdallu, approbante Cranmero, et Rege ipso suadente. The Great Bible. Cujiis pulcherrimti exemplar extat Coll. Johan. Cant. - - 1539, 1540. Nova Editio, accurantibus Tunstallo et Heatho. Huic edition! debetur Psalterii versio recepta in Liturgiara Angl. ------- 1541. Editio versionis Joh. Rogers, sub Edvardo - - '55'- Versio Genevensis - - - _ _ 1^60. Editio tertia versionis Coverdalli - - - - 1 562. Versio Parkeri, The Great English Bible, alias, The Bishops'' Bible, alias, The Great Bible. Capita nunc primu in Com- mata distingui coeperunt - - - - T568. Editio altera ejusdem, 8vo. . _ _ - 1569. Editio tertia in folio, et quarta in folio, - - 1572, 1 574. Versio nova Laurent. Tomson. paru abit a Genevensi - 1583. Versio Rhemensis, PontificiorQ opera - - - 1584. Versio ultima sub Rege Jacobo - - - - 1610. The Kings Bible '^Quarto Bible 0/^1568. two Volumes. Trill. Coll. Cant. Title-page. The Bible in English, that is to say : The content of all the holy Scripture, both of the Okie and Neice Testament. Accordi?ig to the translation that is appointed to be read in the Churches. Anno 1568. 1 Lewis's Hist. pp. 217 — 219. 358 Letters to Then follow, 1. An Almanacke for 14 years, beginning 1567, ending 1580. 2. A Kalendar. 3. A Table for the order of the Psalmes. 4. The order how the rest of the holy Scripture (beside the Psalter) is appointed to be read. A leaf, or more, torn out. 5. The Common Prayer, at large. And at the end thereof, facing the first of Genesis, Imprinted at London in Paiiles ChurcJiyarde by Richard Jugge and John Caicood, Printers to the Queenes Majesty. Cum privilegio Megice Majestatis. The translation is the same with the great Bible, called Cran- mer's, or Coverdale's. But in Psalm the xivth, the three inserted verses are in the same black letter with the rest : and so is i Joh. V. 7. The Psalms are the common Psalter- Psalms, as read at this day. and first fixed by the edition of 154T. The title to the Apo- crypha is, The volume of the bofces called Hagiographa, like as in the editions of 1539, 1540, and 1562. The title to the N. T. is, The Neioe Testament in English, trans- lated after the Gre^e, containing these boohs^ &c. I Peter ii. 13. Unto the king, as unto the chefe head. The verses are not numbered or distinguished in this edition, any more than in those of 1539, 1540, 1541, 151^2, 1566, which it follows. At the end it is imperfect, all beyond the 5th verse of the xxiind. chapter of the Apocalypse being torn off ; a leaf, I suppose. The singing Psalms come after : but whether they were of the same date and impression, I cannot say : they are in a larger character ; and they may have been only bound up together with the Bible, though of another impression. After those Psalms follows, A Forme of Prayer to be used in private houses : but it is imperfect, wanting a leaf, as I conceive, at the end. N. B. This very Bible was again printed the year after, and has the date 1569 in the title-page to the New Testament. I have both. ^Saxon Gospels of 1511. Bibl. Pepysiana. The Gospels of the fower Evangelistes translated in the olde Sax- ons tyme, out of Latin into the vulgare toung of the Saxons, newly "> Lewis's Hist. p. 4. the Rev. Mr. Lewis. 359 collected out of auncient monumentes of the sayd Saxons, and noio published for test'monie of the same. At London hy John Daye, dwelling over Alder sgate, 1571. Cum ^;ra7'%;o Regice Majestatis per Decennium. In the Dedication to the Queen is observed, that " our coun- " treyman Bede did translate the whole Bible in the Saxon " tounge : that he translated againe the Gospell of S. John into *' the Englishe tounge, a little before his departure. That K. " Alfrede translated both the Olde and the Newe Testament into " his own native language. It is further said : if historyes be well " examined, we shall finde both before the Conquest, and after, " as well before John WicklifFe was borne, as since, the whole " body of Scriptures by sondry men translated into thys our " countrey tounge. In so much that Thomas Arundell, then " Archbyshop of Yorke, and Chauncellour of England, at the " funorall sermon of Queene Anne — who dyed in the yeare of our " Lord 1394, (as Polidore saith,) did avouch, that she had the " Gospells in the vulgare tounge, with divers expositors upon the " same ; which he sayth, she sent unto hym to be viewed and ex- " amined, and so did returne them againe unto her, with a large " commendation of her studious diligence, to be so occupied in " reading such bookes." It is further added, at some distance after, that by Abp. Parker\s " industrious diligence and learned " labours, this booke, with others moe, hath bene collected and " searched out of the Saxons monuments." The Dedication concludes with, " Your Majesties most humble Subject, " John Foxe." The note and date at the end of the book runs thus : At London, printed by JohnDai/e, dwelling over Aldersgate,i 1 . These bookes are to be solde at his shop under the gate. The composition of the book is thus : The Saxon in large letters in an inner column, taking up about two thirds, or a little more, of the page ; and Parker's English version in the outer column, (opposite to the other,) taking up the third part, or nearly, of the same page. The verses are distinguished and numbered as at present : I have compared some parts of the outer column with Parker's of i^yz, and find that they agree with it, excepting some very slight variations. I have not 1568 by me, with which, I suppose, it agrees exactly. However, I find that neither the Geneva, nor other versions of repute at that 360 Letters to time, agree to any exactness at all : wherefore Parker's is the version here followed, as one might indeed reasonably expect, on more accounts than one. Wanley observes (Catalog, p. 64.) that this edition of the Saxon Gospels was copied from a MS. of the Bodleian. NE. F. 3. 2382. 15. N". XIX. Dear Sir, Yesterday went out a packet of about eight or nine sheets, being accounts of such Bibles &c. as I have seen. I pi'esume Mr. Parker will convey them safe to your hands. In one half sheet I set down several which I had read of only, and not seen. One of them I have since viewed, and I here send you an account of it. Soon after came your letter, which put me in mind of sending you a brief account of Foxe's Saxon Gospels. I am studying the question about WickliflF's version, as well as you : and you will find in my papers some hints which may be useful that way. But I am still inquiring, and unresolved. You seem to take for granted that the famous prologue printed in 1 550, was Wicliff's. But Wharton, both in his Auctarium, and in Harraer, has made me suspend. I remember that Russel un- dertakes to maintain Wickliff 's title to it : and his letter is published in part by Le Long, in his Biblioth. Sacra. But my Le Long is at London, and I cannot easily find another here. I shall be considering that question, as my leisure serves. I shall be glad to see your friend here, and to furnish him ^^•ith any thing proper to be transcribed for your use. You will find in my papers, that I sometimes quote ISIr. Wanley's MSS. notes. By that I mean a manuscript account of the Bibles in Lord Oxfoi'd's library, which Mr. Baker transcribed from him, and is so kind as to lend to me. A cursory reading of my papers may perhaps suggest to you some further heads of inquiry. I keep many of the editions still by me, that I may be ready to answer your further inquiries. And as to those which I have re- turned, I can, upon necessity, borrow them again. Should not you desire Mr. Granger (till you can wait upon him) to favour you with a catalogue of the Bibles he has I You would guess by the size and dates (where there are dates) what the editions are, the Rev. Mr. Lewis. 361 for the most part. Or if beginning and end be torn off, let him but write the first line of any page in that Bible, and say what fol. it belongs to, and the edition may be discovered, if we have editions enough to compare. Since I began these searches, I have discovered several here that were not known, or went under false names, and have returned them to the owners under their true names. ™Are you sure that you are right as to Coverdale's Bible of J535, and Queen Jane's being mentioned in the Dedication? I ask, because the fact is true of Matthew's, of 1537 : Queen Jane is there mentioned in the Dedication. But as to that of 1 535, I do not find it in that part of the Dedication which I have : I have but part of it ; the rest is torn off". I have seen what is said of Delayne in Hearne's Preface. One would have taken it for an English version, by the place it there bears. But it is certain that the book is Latin, and I sup- pose it was mentioned among the English Bibles, because it is a rarity. Mr. Baker has a copy, and Emanuel College another. But enough at this time. I am, Sir, Your very faithful Friend and humble Servant, DAN. WATERLAND. Magd. Coll. July 24, 1729. You mention Mr. Russell (who lives, I think, at Fiskerton, near Lincoln) as a person who has made inquiries into Wickliffs MSS. You are accjuainted with him : might you not write to him ? But I am not of his opinion as to any such very old copies of the Bible. I never yet met with any entire Bible of that kind ; nor any piece of scripture, excepting Ilampole's Psalms, and the MSS. Gospels of C.C.C, To the Rev. Mr. Lewis, of Mergate in Kent. N". XX. ^The Great Bible. Fol. 1549. Publ. Libr. A. 4—7. The Byhle in Englishe, that is, the Olde and New Testament, after the translacion appoi/nted to bee read in the Churches. ^ Lewis's Hist. pp. 99, 100. " Ibid. pp. 181, 182. 362 Letters to Imprynted at London in Fletestrete at the signe of the siinne, over aftainste the conduyte^ hy Edwarde Whitchurche, the xxix. day of December, theyeare ff our Lorde M.D.XLLX. Cum privilegio, &c. Then follows Cranmer's Prologue, and the siim.me and content of al the holy Scripture, &c. but imperfect, all the rest being torn out till the beginning of Genesis. The Psalms follow the correct edition of 1541, the same with our present Psalter. The Apocryphal books are here called Apocrypha, not Hagio- grapha : Title to N. T. is, The Newe Testament in Englyshe translated after the Greke, contayning these hooltes, &c. Pai't of Psalm xiv. as well as i Joh. v. 7. in parenthesis, and small letter^ as usual in the Great Bible. I have for some time missed this edition, wondering how there came to be none of this Bible between 154 1 and 1562. But this makes up the gap. This is of the same year with Becke's, (which follows Matthew's,) but after it, as I imagined before I observed the dates, from Becke's complaining in his Dedication that the Bible in the largest volume was grown scarce, and the price excessive. But the dates set it out of dispute ; Becke being in August, and this in December of the same year. And now I conceive you have had accounts of all the editions of the Great Bihle, or Cranmefs Bible, which stand thus by their years : 1539. By Grafton and Whitchurch. 1540. By Whitchurch. 1 541. By Grafton. 1 549. By Whitchurch. 1562. By Harrison. 1566. At Rouen, by C. Hamilton. 1568. Quarto, by Jugge and Cawood, with the large Liturgy prefixed. 1569. Quarto, by Jugge and Cawood again, as I suppose, by the jirint and character. This last has the short Li- turgy before it, the same as Rouen. ^Coverdale's Bible, Quarto, of 1553. Publ. Libr. A— 5— 4. I have been under a mistake in reckoning this to 1552, judging ° Lewis, pp. 196, 197. the Rev. Mr. Lewis. 363 only by the calendar, (which begins with 1^5 ^j) in imperfect copy. I have now a perfect book. The title-page thus : The whole Byhle. That is the holye Scripture of the Olde and Neio Testament, faitJifidlye translated into Englishe hy Mylcs Coverdale., and neidy overscne and correcte. M.D.hlll. ii Tessa, iii. Praye for us, that the worde of God may ha ve free passage and he glorified. Prynted at London hy Rycharde Jugge, dviellynge at the north dore of Powles at the sygne of the Byhle. Set forth with the Kinges moost gracious licence. I am clearly of opinion that the two Bibles of 1550 and 1553 are of the same impression, all but the preliminaries. They are exactly alike, and besides are a foreign print : printed, I sup- pose, at Zurich, by Christofer Froschover, A. D. 1550, as I find noted by Mr. Wanley, of one of them, who had seen it with the original title : though afterwards Hester and Jugge (printing only the preliminaries) pretended that the Bible itself was printed at London, or at least did not distinguish between what was really printed at London, and what was printed abroad. Tindale'.'i New Testament of 1536, Quarto. Publ. Libr. A— 6—1. I have now (which I before wanted) a perfect copy of this edition. The title-page is as follows: T/ie Ncioe Testament yet once agayne corrected hy Willyam Tin- dale: whereunto is added a necessarye table, wherein casely and lightelye maye be founde any storye contayned in the foure Evange- listcs, and in the Acfes of the Apostles. r S. Matthew. ._J >S. Marke. The Gospell of <, „' , j LuKe. [_ S. John. The Actes of the Apostles. Jesus sayd, Marke xvi. Go ye into all the worlde, and prcache the glad tydynges to all creatures : he that beleueth and is baptised shall be saved. Prynted in the yere of our Lorde God M.D.andXXXVI. P Lewis's Hist. j). 104. 364 Letters to The book is curious, and veiy full of wooden cuts all the way through, as well as in the Apocalypse : as to which, it follows the second edition of the Dutch, of which I have formerly spoken. After the N. T. are the Epistles taken out of the Olde Testament, but a leaf or two torn out at the end. I believe it was printed abroad, for two reasons ; first, because no place is mentioned in the title-page : and secondly, because instead of commas and semicolons, there are strokes | only, as usual in foreign prints. I must retract my opinion as to the copy I saw in Emanuel College. That, I believe, is a pure English edition, taken from this ; but how long after I cannot say. It may be a seventh or eight edition, or yet more distant, for any thing I know. I have met with another edition of Tindale's N. T. a small folio, or larger quarto than either of the former. Publ. Libr. A — 5 — 38. But the title-page being torn out, and there being no date, I know not how to make a judgment of it, more than that it is later than Tindale's of 1536. After the Epistles (Pistels) of the Old Testament, is added a table to fynde the Pistels and the Gospels \ after the use of Salisbury. And at the end of the table is, God save the Kynge \ and all his well-ioyllers. So ends the book. It has the same Prologue with Tindale's of 1536, and is plainly Tindale's New Testament. Somebody has written, in a spare leaf, Taierners N. Testament : perhai^s for no better reason than because his name begins with a T. and there is W. T. to the Cristen Reader prefixed to the Prologue though it should have been R. T. for Taverner. I have some reason to think (from the manner of spelling) that it is a Scotch edition, and perhaps as early as 1536: for Tho. Davidson was then printer at Edinburgh. But of this I must consider more maturely, as I have leisure. I have compared the two texts of Ezekiel which you tran- scribed into your letter, and which are called oure translation : and I find they agree with the common copies, two of which I have consulted, viz. Emanuel copy, and Bp. Moore's. I have given Joye's Apology to the young gentlemen to transcribe for you. Tindale's Epistle will not be met with, as I imagine, any where : but a great part of it is taken into Joye's Apologye, and so you will have both in one. As to the Doway'' translation of the O. T. the years 1609 1 Lewis's Hist. p. 286. the Rev. Mr. Lewis. 365 and 1610 were undoubtedly the years of the first impression. It appears plainly from the date of the imprimatur, and other marks, that so it must be. And as to the Rhemish"" N. T. I make no question but 1582 was the year of its first appearing, though I have not so full proof of it as of the other. I am examining carefully into what concerns Wickliff : and the result of my inquiries you shall have in due time. Company has broken in upon me while I was writing, and so I conclude the sooner. If I have forgotten any thing I intended to say now, I shall recollect it against my next. I rest Your faithful humble Servant, DAN. WATERLAND. July 29, 1 729. To the Reverend Mr. Lewis, of Margate in Kent. No. XXI. Dear Sir, I SEND you here my present thoughts about Wickliff's Bible, though I stick in the half way, because perhaps I may be able to go no further. But first let me transcribe a passage out of an Homily of Wicliff upon the Gospel, beginning at the 23rd verse of Matthew the xth, because I am to make some use of it. It runs thus in two copies, which I have by me. " 5 He (Antecrist) hath turned hyse clcrkes to covetyse and " worldely love, and so blynded the peple and derked the lawe " of Crist, that hys servauntes ben thikke, and fewe ben on " Cristes syde ; and algates they dyspysen that men shulden " knowe Crystes lyfe : for thenne Prestes schulden scheme of " hyre lyves, and specially these hye Prestes : for they reversen " Crist bothe in worde and in dede. And herfore on gret " Bj/schop of Englelond, as men sayen., is yvel payed that Goddes " lawe is wryfen in Englysche to lewede men, and he pursueth a " Prest for he wryteth to men this Englysche ; and sompneth hym, " and traveleth hym, that hyt is harde to hym to route: and this he "pursueth another Prest, by the helpe of the pharysees, for he " preacheth Cristes Gospel f rely uiythouten fables. • Lewis's Hist. p. 277. ^ Ibid. pp. 21, 22. 86G Letters to " O men that ben of Cristes halfe, helpe ye nowe ageynes " Antecrist. For the perelouse tyme is comen that Crist and " Poule tolden byfore. But on coumfort is of hiyghtes that they " saveren muche the Gospel, and have wylle to rede in Englysche " the Gospel of Cristes lyf. For after warde^ yef God wul, the " lordeschype schal be taken from Prestes, and so the stafe that " maketh hem hardy ageynes Crist and hys lawe for thre sectes " feyghten here ageynes Cristene mannes secte : the fyrst is the " Pope and the Cardynals, by false lawes that they han made : " the secounde is Emperour Byschopes, whuche dyspysen Cristes " lawe : the thrydde is these pharysees, possessyoners and " beggares : and alle these thre Goddes enemyes travelen in " ypocrisye, and in worldely covetyse, and ydelnesse in Goddes " lawe. Crist helpe hys Churche fro these fendes, for they " fyghten perylously." * By the on gret Byschop^ I understand the Archbishop of that time. By a Prest, I understand Wickliff himself : as it was natural to think of himself first, besides that the frequent sum- mons he had had, answer to the character here given. Who the other Priest was, you may consider : I guess it was Nicholas Hereford. The time I judge to be about 1382, from the description here given of it : besides that it is certain from other plain marks about Ui'ban and Clement, that these Homilies were made after 1378. The hiyglUes^ whether you interpret them of Jcaights properly so called, or of military men, (as hiyghtes in old English is milites, soldiers,) either way the fact is true ; and what Knighton has (Col. 1661, 1662.) may be a good com- ment upon what is here said. Now I come to the point. 1 . I observe that Wickliff here speaks of his having translated Goddes Icnoe, afterwards explained by Cristes lawe, and the Gospel of Cristes lyf. All which I understand of the New Testa- ment only. To which also agrees the language of Knighton who does not say that Wickliff translated the Bible, but Evangeliurii only ; and twice he observes the accuracy of expression^ Col. 2644, 2665. If the Bible had been translated in Knighton's time, and he had known it, why should he have said Evangelium only, rather than Biblia ? I persuade myself that Wickliff translated the New Testament only. No more is * Lewis thinks the one great Bishop Swynderby, of Leicester, pp. 22, 23. meant John Bokynhain, Bp. of Lin- " See Lewis, pp. 20, ?i. coin ; and another Priest, ^^'illia^^ de the Rev. Mr. Lewis. 367 here asserted, nor in Knighton ; besides that I can scarce con- ceive, how amidst so many avocations, and such a multitude of other works as he wrote^ he should have leisure sufficient to translate the whole Bible. Not to mention that the style of the O. T. and New, though they are tacked together, manifestly differ, what a multitude oi' forsothes and sothelis have you every where occurring in the translation of the Old T. and none almost in the New ; none in that which passes for Wickliff 's Testament, and which, I doubt not, is really his. In the other translation indeed, (one copy of which I have seen at Sidney College, another I once lent you,) there again are the forsothes and sothelis, as before, ad nauseam usque : and that Testament, (as I take it) really belongs to the translation of the Old, and both parts are of one author or contriver. 2. That translator both of Old and New came after Wickliff, and the same was the author of the Prologue published 1550. Wickliff was the first thai 2>uhlish€d the New T. in that kind of English ; I say published, because there certainly were Testa- ments, or parts of the N. T. drawn up for private use before, such as is the Bene't MS. P. vi. of which I sent you an ac- count ; and such was Q. Anne, wife to Richard II. mentioned by Abp. Parker and Foxe. But Wickliff imhlislied his version, made it common to every body, as far as he could. That he was the first who did so, I gather both from Knighton, and from what I have here quoted from himself. And if he was the first, then the other translator of consequence came after. That that other translator was author also of the Prologue, is, I think, well proved by Wharton in his Auctarium, p. 425. His argu- ments fully prove that the translator of the Old Testament (called Wickliff's) was the author of the Prologue. The N. T. is unconcerned in his reasoning. It is not improbable that that author, being incited by the publication of Wickliff's New Testa- ment, set himself to translate the Old : and when his hand was in, he translated both : just so did Tindale's New Testament pro- voke Coverdale and Rogers to undertake the entire translation of the Old, nine years after, or thereabout : and when their hands were in, they added a New Testament also, new vamped up and improved, to their editions of the Old. That translator in rendering the N. T. had Wickliff's to go upon : and so I ac- count for his coming so near it in the main : though, I think, he almost spoiled it by his forsothes and his sothelis ; Mhich later 368 Letters to copyists being sensible of, they retrenched many of them, and struck tliem out : and accordingly our College copy (more recent than Sidney's) has not near so many of them as the older copies had. 3. Who that translator of the entire Bible was, I cannot yet learn : perhaps at this distance it may be hard, or even impossi- ble, to discover. It was not Ti'evisa : I have read over formerly two folio volumes of his, and I have one of them now by me, and have looked into it ; but cannot find forsothe or sotheli occurring frequently m it, as would have done, had he been the author of that translation of the Bible. That man, whoever he was, seems to have thought that autem, vero, and such like particles, could not otherwise be justly rendered. Surely, if this was his superstition in one work, it must have appeared in every work of his of like kind. ^ I conclude then that Trevisa was not our man : and I very much suspect both Caxton and Bale in the report they make of his being a translator of the Bible, though how their mistake came I know not. I can hear of nobody that ever yet saw a Bible with a preface to it, beginning with. / Johan Trevisa a Freest, or youre Preeste. Indeed the Epistle Dedica- tory prefixed to his translation of Higden begins so. I had taken notice, in my Athanasian History, of Mr. Wharton's as- cribing the common translation called Wicklifi"s to Trevisa : and Mr. Wanley did me the favour, among other marginal notes, to remark hereupon as follows : " Herein Mr. Wharton was misled by John Bagford :" and a little after, " Trevisa is " said to have translated no more of the Bible than certain sen- " tences printed upon the walls of the chapel in Berkley Castle." 4. While I assert the New Testament, commonly bearing his name, to Wickliff", I do not mean that it is exactly such as came from his hands. I believe it has been smoothed and polished at least, and in some places corrected, since his time. For I ob- serve, that his translation of the Gospels read in the Church (contained in his Homilies) is more antique in the language, and is seldom exactly the same with his Testament as now read. But yet I do not see difference enough to make me at all question its being Wickliff's. I shall just observe to you how he translates and comments upon Matt. iii. 4. " This Jon hade clothes of the " heres of chamels, and a gurdel of a slyn ahoughte hys lendes, and Lewis, p. 66. the Efv. Mr. Leirls. 369 " the mete of this Jon was fruytte of the erthe, and honye of the " loode. Summe men sayen y* locusta is a luttel best, goode to " ete : — sumrae men sayen, it is an erbe that gadereth hony " upon hym : but hyt is lycly that hyt is an erbe that norysche " men, that they callen honysukkel, thing varyeth in mony cun- " treyes." Here you will observe that his note confirms the common rendering in WicklifF's N. T., while the other translation has locusts. I remember one place where ^VicklifF's Homilies are conform to ths; other translation, having kinps for the maffi, as that translation has, while the common one has astronomers. But I conceive, Wickliff, in his popular discourses, might choose to adapt himself to popular capacities or prejudices, though in a strict translation he would not take that liberty : or else we must Bay, that somebody has since corrected that place of Wickliif s N. T., changing kings into astronomers. You will observe from the whole drift of what I have been saying, that I admit two entire translations of the New T. and but one of the Old : and you will object perhaps, that the Regi- men Ecclesiae supposes two also of the Old. To this I answer, that that one translator of the entire Bible had several under- workers, or fellow-helpers, who translated parcels for him, as he owns in his Prologue, and probably several men the same par- cels : and hence it seems to be that the Lambeth MS. has a portion of sci-ipture, as far as Joshua, differing from the common version ; and the like might happen in other parts of the Bible : or if this account be not altogether satisfactory, yet you will please to remember, that before either Wickliff or this other translator, there were parcels of scripture translated for private use ; and so it might be from one of those private versions that the author of the Regimen quoted the verse of Ezekiel. I have now told you all my j)resent thoughts, or dreams, upon this dark subject. If you can make any use of these hints, either by improv- ing or correcting, I shall be very glad of it. I could have wished, now I have WicklifF's Homilies by me, and James's Apology also, that I had had your defence of Wickliff here also. 1 could better have judged of it : and perhaps I might have something in the MSS. to confirm what you have advanced, or to clear something up. If you have a mind still to send me it hither, and if there be blank pages on which I might enter remarks, or transcribe something out of the MSS., I shall not scruple the WATERLANU, VOL. VI. B b 870 Letters to f trouble, for the time I liave here, which may be about three months longer, or two and a half I shall be now and then sending you some gleanings of old editions of Bibles or Testa- ments. I have marked down fourteen editions of the Geneva ; one as late as 1644, Amsterdam, copied from the Edinburgh edition of 16 ic. 1 have also an 8vo. New T. by Jugge, in 1562, which has the verses distinguished, and is perhaps the first English edition that has so. I set many heads and hands to work to hunt for old Bibles, and raise great expectations of your performance on that head. I find the use and benefit of commu- nicating a design to many : every one almost helps something towards perfecting a work. I am, good Sir, Your very faithful humble Servant, DAN.WATERLAND. Magd. Coll. Aug. 5, 1729. Could not you write to some friend of Merton College, to look over Butler Contra Translationem Anglicanam, for you ? If they have the MS. it may probably furnish some historical hints, though the main of it be controversial. Gul. Butler lived in 141 o, according to Bale. As to 2 Cor. V. All my MSS. but one of Wickliff's T. have the explanatory words in the margin : one copy bearing date 1397, has in the margin thus : that is, Sacrifice for Synne. Austin. The copies of the other translation (Sidney, and mine) have the words in the text scored with a red line : that is, Redempcioun^ or Sacrifice for Synne. One copy of WicklifTs N. T. which I take to be recent in comparison, omits them quite, like the Surenden MS. To the Rev. Mr. Lewis, of Mergate in Kent. N". XXIT. Magd. Coll. August 17, 1729. Dear Sir, I HAVE the favour of your last, but desire that it may lie by a while, till I discharge myself of what I have further to add about the Bible called Wickliff's. What I last advanced was, the Rev. Mr. Lewis. ail I. That Wickliff translated the New Testament, and that only, and that he was the first publisher of such translation. I would rather now say, the first that set out an entire and naked version : for what was before done was by parts., and mingled with notes or comments. 2. That the translation of the whole Bible came after, and was made by the same person that made the Prologue printed in 1 550, which Prologue, I presume, you have. 3. That the same person who translated the Bible, and composed that Prologue, translated also the New Testament, which is full of forsothes, by which mark I know that author, and in which the Bible and this Testament tally exactly. Forsothe occurs no less than eleven times in the first five verses of the first of Matthew. It was a peculiarity of that author to make forsothe generally stand for aute)ii, or vero, or eniin. He owns that he so uses it, in his Prologue, chapter the last : and I know no author else of that time that so used. I think that in oih^rs, forsothe commonly is videlicet, ov profecto. These things supposed, (and indeed I see no reason yet to retract or alter a tittle,) 1 now proceed to search out the time., and author of that version of the whole Bible. The year of the Prologue may, I doubt not, be accurately determined by two or three historical marks dropped in chapter 13th. You may please to search the histories at leisure. I will content myself at present only with Wood's Antiq. Oxon. and AylifFe's ancient and present State of the University of Oxford^, There I find, that about 13H7, the University then made, or revived a law, that no one should be Inceptor in divinity, till he had run through the arts and sciences. It is to that law, though misrepresented in some measure, that the author of the Prologue, as T conceive, alludes, and heavily complains of, as then upon the anvil, and being of very ill consequence as he supposed. Again, the author of the Prologue speaks of Oxenford as drink- ing blood and sleing of quicke men at that time : which agi-ees well with Wood's and Ayliffe's accounts of the miserable feuds, and bloody skirmishes between the southern and northern scholars, in !3HS and 1389. This therefore was the time of the Prologue. The author of the Prologue further speaks of Divines being most charged with sodomy in the last parUameut : that circum- " Lewis, pp. 35, 36, H b % 3T2 Letters to stance I have not searched into. But from the two former historical notes I beg leave, for the present, to fix the date of the Prologue to the year 1388; and so the date of the Bible too, just then finished. The Testament of this version was not yet made : but probably came out the year following : and because there was yet no Testament of the same version with this Bible, Wickliff's Testament was tacked to it, and so it has been in most copies di-awn after, perhaps in all, and the last N. T. of the new version has gone single. Having thus guessed at the time, next guess we at the author. And here the first man I fix my eye upon is John Pcrviey, (or Purvie) (in Knighton, Purmye,) who was WicklifTs disciple, considerably before Wickliff's death, and the principal man of the Lollards after. Theologus facundus, glossographus insignis, legis prudentia clarus, LoUardorum librarius, et Wiclevi glossator. See Wood, and Bale, and Fox's Martyrs, vol. i. p. 708. He wrote a famous comment upon the Apocalypse in 1390, being then in prison, and had written several other things before. [He lived with Wicklif many years before he died, and assisted him in his studies &c. after he was seized with the palsie.] This is the man I pitch upon, for the translator of the Bible, and composer of that Prologue. And if one circumstance hits, (which I have sent to know the truth of,) I shall be much confirmed in this persuasion. There is in the library of Dublin College an old English Bible with this character at the end of the Apoca- lypse, There we have the very name of Pervie. If that Bible proves to be the same Bible, and the Prologue also the same, (there are both,) then I shall think what I now advance is something more than conjecture. I have employed a friend to write to Dublin, and 1 expect an answer in about a fortnight's time. So now I am come to the end of my speculations on this head; which conclude at length in this: that John Wickliff translated the New Testament before 1382, and John Pervie both Old and New, in 1388 and 1389. See Fox, p. 137. ed. i. Having some room left, I will correct a slip or two of Mr. Wharton in relation to this Bible. He had not seen copies enough to make a true report. In his Auctarium, p. 42 5, he intimates as if there were no marginal glosses to this Bible, y Lewis, pp. 34, 35. the Ree. Mr. Lewis. 373 excepting in the prophets. He grounded it upon what the prologue sa) s, chap. xi. and upon his view of the Lambeth copy. Eut if he had looked to the last chapter of the Prologue, he would have found, by the author's own account, that marginal glosses were also added in most of the other books, and particu- larly in the Psalter. And indeed Bishop Moore's copy shews it. The Pentateuch in that copy (and in another copy of Pepys's library, containing eight books) is full of such glosses, taken from Lyra and the older interlineary gloss : and there are some in several other books of scripture. Emanuel copy has but few in comparison : and the Bene't copy (which I just turned over) has still fewer ; or, I rather think, none : I saw none. Those glosses were left out of the ordinary copies, to save time, trouble, and expense. Mr. Wharton, p. 247, puzzles himself about a gloss occurring upon Daniel xith (he should have xiith) which seems to make the author of the version as early as 1229, He answers the difficulty tolei'ably. But he might have perfectly cleared it by looking into Lyra, and there seeing that the words are really Lyra's, (whom our author there barely translates.) and so are not at all pertinent to the question. And indeed the translator, as usual, at the end of the marginal gloss, has Lire here. I have still paper enough left to assure you, that Matthew's translation and Coverdale's (of the Bible) are not the same. A bare inspection into any chapter will shew that they are different. But there is one thing which you may know, and I cannot ; and that is, whether either of them be Tindale's, so far as Tindale went. I have not that part of Tindale. T suspect Tindale's and Matthew's to be the same. The Dedication and Preface of Matthew are different from Coverdale's. Matthew's Dedication (which I spoke of) concludes thus : " And blesse you at thys present with a sonne, by youre " most gracyous wyfe Queene Jane, which may prosperously and " fortunately raygne, and folowe the godly steppes of hys father: " and after youre Grace shall geve place to nature, and forsake " thys mortall lyfe, graunte you the rewarde of that unspeakable " and celestyal joye, which no eye hath seene nor eare hearde, " nor can ascende into the horte of man. So be it. " Youre Graces faythfiill and true subject, " THOMAS MATTHKW." Below II. Ji. (ill text letters.) 374 Letters to This I transcribe from Mr. Baker's transcript, prefixed to his Bible. I am, Sir, Your most faithful humble servant, DAN. WATERLAND. To the Reverend Mr. Lewis, of Merpate in Kent. N". XXIII. Taverner's Dedication. " TO the most noble, most myghtye, and most redoubted Prynce, Kynge Henry the VIII. Kynge of Englande and of " Fraunce, Defensour of the Fayth, Lorde of Ireland, and in " erth supreme heed, immediately under Chryst, of the Churche " of England, his humble servaunt Rychard Taverner desireth " all joye, felicitie, and longe lyfe. " How hyghly all England is bounden to your incomparable " Majestie for the infinite and manifolde benefites receyved at " your most gracious handes, from tyme to time without ceasing, " even from the begynning of your most noble raigne : truly no " mortal tonge is hable with wordes sufficiently to expresse, or " with thoughtes of hert worthely to conceyve : certes, it far " passeth bothe the sklender capacitie of my wyt, and also the " rude infancy of my tong to do either thone or thother : yea, " another Cicero or Demosthenes wer not ynough hereunto. " Wherfore oraittinge or rather leavinge to some other the just " encomye and commendacion of your Graces most ample dedes, " worthye of eternall memorie, yet this one thing I dare full well " affirme, that amonges all your Majesties deservinges, upon the " Cristen religion, (then which surely nothing can be greater,) " your Highnes never did thing more acceptable unto God, more " profitable unto the avauncement of true Christianitie, more " displeasant to the enemies of the same, and also to your Graces " enemies, than when your Majestie lycenced and wylled the " moost sacred Byble, conteynyng the unspotted and lyvely " worde of God, to be in the English tonge set forth to your " Hyghnes subjectes. Lewis, pp. 130 — 133. the Rev. Mr. Lewis. 375 " To the setting forth wherof, (most gracious and most re- " doubted Soveraigne Lorde,) lyke as certeyn men have neither " undiligently nor yet unlernedly traveled : so agayn it cannot " be denied, but that some faultes have escaped theii" handes. " Neither speke I this to deprave or mahgne their Industrie and " paynes taken in this behalf : no, rather I think them worthy " of no litle praise and thankes for the same, considering what " great utiletie and profit hath redounded to your Graces hole " realme by the publyshing and setting forth therof, although it " were not finisshed to the ful absolucion and perfection of the " same. For assuredly it is a worke of so great difficultie, I " mean so absolutely to translate the hole Bible that it be fault- " lesse, that I feare it can scace be doone of one or two persons, " but rather requyreth bothe a deeper confarrynge of many " lerned wittes togyther, and also a juster tyme, and longer " leysure. " Wherefore the premisses wel considered, forasmoch as the " prynters herof were very desirous to have this most sacred " volume of the Bible com forth as faultlesse and emendatly as " the shortnes of tyme for the recognising of the same wold " require, they desired me your most humble servant, for default " of a better lerned, diligently to overloke and peruse the hole " copy : and in case I shold fynd any notable default that neded " correction, to amend the same, according to the true ex- " emplars. Whiche thynge accordyng to my talent I have " gladly done. " These therfore my simple lucubracions and labours, to whom " might 1 bettor dedicate, then unto your most excellent and " noble Majestie, the only authour and grounde, nexte God, of " this so high a benefite unto your Graces people, I meane that " the holy scripture is communicate unto the same. " But now though many faultes perchaunce be yet loft behind " uncastigat, cither for lacke of lerning sufficient to so gret an " enterprise, or for default of leasure, I trust your Majestic and " all other that shal rede the same, wyll pardon me, consyderyng " (as I have alredy declared) how harde and difficile a thinge it " is, so to set forth this worke, as shal be in al pointes faultles " and without ro{)rehension. " And thus 1 connnit your most gracious and excellent Ma- " jestie to the tucion of the Highest, to whom be al honour, " glory, and prayse, worlde without ende. Amen." 376 letters to So ends the Dedication. Then follows, on the other side the same leaf, an exhoiiacion to the sfudi/e of the Holye Scripture, &c. Several hands, and marks such as mentioned, are in that very page, and so on in the foUouTng pages. Some account of th is Bible. » Bale's account (under K. Taverner, p. 698.) is short and true. He calls it, SacrorFi Bibliorura recognitio, seu potius vt-rsio nova. It is neither a bare revisal, or correct edition of the Bible, nor yet strictly a new version, but between both. It is Matthew's (Rogers's) Bible, but the translation itself corrected, wherever the editor saw proper. He takes in the greatest part of Mat- thew's marginal notes, but leaves several out, and inserts several of his own. I shall give a specimen in Gen. i. and Matt. i. Gen. i. " The fyrst boke of Moses called Genesis, or Generacion. " By the worde all thynges be create of God ; of man's cre- " ation, rule, and sustenaunce." The first marginal note, hrethed or stered, as in Matthew's : but under it is added a new one " Spirite signifyeth a breth, " or stirynge, and is taken somtyme for the wynde, as in the viii. " of this boke, a. but in this place the most parte of lerned men " understand it of the Holy Gost." He has one marginal note more, and no more at all in this chapter. It is lower down, at verse 2 2d, as now distinguished : " God blesseth, that is to say, prospereth his creatures." Re- ferences to texts in the margin are as in Matthew's. As to the version in this chapter, verse 2. " the Spirite of God was home, " upon," &c. Ver. 7. Instead of and it was $0, Taverner reads, and so it was doon. So again at the end of ver. 9th, nth. Ver. IT. Instead of that soice seed,he has, that bereth seed. The like change ver. 1 2th and 29th. The other variations are slighter than these mentioned. Matth. i. " The Gospell after Mattheice." The first marginal note as in Matthew's Bible, the second is omitted. The third, beginning with David and, is taken in. At Jechonias, is this new note : • This Jechonias is otherwise a Lewis, pp. 132, 133. the Rev. Mr. Lewis. 377 " called Jehoakiiu, and is the son of Jeohonias before nien- " cioned." At ver. 19. is this marginal note, " ensaniple, that is to say," as in Matthew's. But ^Matthew's preceding note is left out. He has no more notes but the last, " her fyrste sonne," which is also in the other. The genealogy of our Saviour is printed in columns, like as in Matthew's. Ver. 18. Taverner has espoused, instead maryed. Ver. 25. Tyll at last she brought forth, instead of till she had brought forth. Ver. 25. Her fyrst-borm son, for hyr fyrst sonne. This I suppose may be enough, for a taste of Taverner. Point- ing hands are very frequent in the margin, all over the Bible and Testament. But I see not the other mark except at the end of Books. ''Cranmer's Prologue is not in the editions of 1539 It is in some of the editions of 1540. There is one such in Bishop Moore's library : another in Lord Oxford's : but though the title-page in the last has, cum privilegio ad imprimendum solum. 1540; yet at the end it is sz\6.,fynyshed in Matj, Anno i /,4r. Which I have from Mr. Wanley's notes. But the other Bible in Bishop Moore's library (which has Oranmer's Prologue) has at the end, Fynyslied in Apryll. Anno M.CCCCG.XL. Qu. Whe- ther Booksellers began the new year in May ? '^Note, that the Bible of Lord Oxford's library is printede by Rycharde Grafton. There is another in the same YihrSiYy printede by Edimrd Withchurch, (Withchurch, for Whitchurch,) cum privilegio ad imprimendum solum. Anno 1.540. The date at the end wanting. Mr. Wanley remarks as follows : " Both these " two last mentioned Bibles I take to be of the same edition, " as also some others of different dates. The royal patent, ad "• imprimendum solum, was granted to Grafton and Whit- " church, who were partners, or to one of them. In the printing " of the stated number, so many were to bear Grafton's name ; " which done, his name was to be taken out of the form, and " Whitchurch's to be inserted in his place." By spurious edition, (which is my own word,) 1 mean the quarto edition of i.=;3H, which either stole into the world without Lewis, p. 137. Ibid, ut supra. S78 Letters to Coverdale's leave, or at least was published very incorrect, or with designed alterations, by Holybushe. Coverdale's own com- plaint of itd, in his Dedication before the octavo edition of 1539, (which I sent you a copy of,) is all the light I have. Of Primers. 1 have four by nie. The first printed at Paris, in lamo. mostly Latin, A. 1532. The second is the Bp. of Rochester's, in quarto, Anglo-Latin, in columns, London, 1539. The third is Henry the VIII. 's, 1545, in quarto. The fourth is K. Edward's, or Cranmer''s, in octavo, London 1551. That which you saw, as it is nearest the age, so it is most like the Bp. of Rochester's. But Bochester's is still a further im- provement or refinement. Henry VIII.'s of 1.545, and Edward's of i55i, agree as to Psalm Ixvi. with yours of 1546. But Ro- chester's is different from both your copies, and is very nearly the same with that of our Prayer-book, and Psalter. The Dedication of this Primer runs, " John, by God's grace, Bysshop " of Rochester, unto the right Honourable Thomas Lord Crum- " well," &c. Here is nothing of the Pystles or Gospels., excepting a table of them at the beginning of the book, with the initial words of each. I suppose you take the Pystles and Gospels bound up with your book, to be of later date than the Primer itself, and not propei'ly belonging to it, because you think them taken fi'om the Great Bible : and then the date of them will be uncertain. They may be as late as Edward's Prayer-book, or taken from it. But that you will judge of by comparing. I shall leave to Mr. Bouchery to copy out Joye's preface to Jeremy about thirteen pages octavo, and a specimen of the translation itself. He shall also transcribe Becke's Dedication, three full pages folio. I have not Strype's Ecclesiastical Memorials, nor do I at pre- sent know where I can borrow them. But I shall know, very pro- bably, in a little time, according as I meet with my acquaintance. So as to that part of your letter, let it rest with me ; or if those marginal notes you speak of be short, it may be as easy to refer me to them, and I can transcribe and send you them. The 1 Pet. ii. 13, 14, runs thus in the edition of Tindale, which I call the second Duich edition, or third edition absolutely. «• Lewis, p. 115 — 117. e Ibid. pp. 88, 89. the Rec. Mr. Lewis. 379 which is copied from the first of 1526. I never saw the first edition itself. 13. " Submitte yoiire selves unto all maner ordinaunce of men " for the Lordes sake : whether it be unto the kynge as unto " the chefe heade : 14. " Or unto the rulers, as unto them that are sente of him, " for the punyshment of evell doers, but for the prayse of them " that do well;' In the edition of 1536, thus : 13. "Submit youre selves unto all maner ordinaunce of man " for the Lordes sake : whether it be unto the kynge as unto " the chefe head : J 4. " Other unto rulars, as unto them that are sent of him " forothe punysshment of evyll dours, but for the laivde of them " that do well." This edition, which I called 1536 till I found the true one, is a faulty edition ; and by some mistake of the printer, I suppose, the words, as unto the chefe head, were omitted. I know not of what date that faulty edition was, only that it was after 1536, because it has the new corrections of that edition. I mentioned once another quarto edition, (or rather small folio,) which I suspect to be a Scotch one, because of the spelling nat, or natte, constantly for not ; and whan for ivhen, than for then, maister, faders, hetrauthed, prepaire, and the like. But considering that the stops are with strokes | | instead of commas or colons, (which is a foreign way, and more especially the Dutch,) I now rather think that the edition was made abroad, and had Scotch correctors. But all this is conjecture, and per- haps scarce worth mentioning. nt just comes into niy head to mention, that it might be proper to take some notice of Sir John Cheke's intended trans- lation in its place, though he went no further than St. Matthew's Gospel, and the first chapter of Mark, left in manuscript, in his own hand, in Bene't College, where I have seen it. Strype also in his Life takes notice of it. g There is a more considerable performance of Ambrose Ush- er's, an entire version, or nearly, of the Bible, left in manuscript, in Dublin library, of which 1 expect some at count in a short time. He was elder brother to the famous Primate, died young, Lewis, p. 186. E Ibid. pp. 339, 340. 380 Letters to but had made great advances in tlie Oriental languages, and had drawn up his version a little before our last translation, before i6 I think 1 have mentioned every thing of your last letter. Your very faithful humble Servant, DAN. WATERLAND. August 19, 1729. To the Rev. Mr. Lewis, of Mergate in Kent. hN^. XXIV. Dear Sib, I HAVE compared Strype's Eccles. Mem. vol. i. p. 306, 307, with Matthew's Bible : there are some slight differences. The first note, upon Mark i. runs thus : " It was then newe, and " now after xv. c. xxxvi. yeres, it is yet new : when will it then " be olde?" As to the note on Matt. xxv. Strype is exact: and so as to Matt, xvi ; but as to Matt, xviiith, after &c. read, that is, whatsoever And instead of what ye allow, read that ye alloiv, &c. While I am looking upon Matthew's Bible, let me observe to you, what perhaps I before omitted, that at the beginning of the Prophets are four great letters, R. G. for Richard Grafton, at the top of the page, and E. W. for Edward Whitchurch, at the bottom. This Bible then was printed for them two: and so was the Great Bible afterwards, in 1539, 1540. The use I here make of the observation is, to take notice further that when Cranmer and other Bishops undertook to set out a Bible, they pitched upon Matthew's Bible chiefly as their ground, which had had the royal license in 1537 ; but reformed and corrected it every where, and struck out the notes. I had once too implicitly believed that Coverdale's Bible was what they had gone upon; and I took the notion from what Brett says, p. 5, which I thought he had taken from good authority: and it was upon this *» This letter has no date ; but, bable that this preceded it. That it from the enlarged account given in the followed that of August 19th is evi- ne.xt letter, dated Oct. 19, 1729, and dent from what is said in each respect- from the latter parts of each relating to ing Strype's Eccl. Memorials. Wickliffe's translations, it seems pro- the Rev. Mr. Lenns. 381 presumption that I called the Great Bible Coverdale'e. I would now rather set the Bibles thus. 1537. Matthew's Bible, or Great Bible, with royal license, by Grafton and Whitchurch. 1539. The same corrected by Oranmer, &c. printed by Grafton and Whitchurch. 1 540. The same, with Cranmer's Prologue, and printed by Grafton and Whitchurch. 1 54 1. The same, but further corrected and improved by Tonstal and Heath. Or let Coverdale's and Matthew's Bible be reckoned distinct from the rest ; and let the name of Great Bible begin with the edition of 1539'. Indeed Matthew's had several editions afterwards, which may be properly called Matthew's, and reckoned to his, as that of 1549, by Raynoled and Hyll, and several of i,^^!, though all, strictly speaking, one edition. And to the head of Coverdale's may be thrown his quarto of 1550, which indeed is, properly, the second edition of his Bible ; and it never had more, unless Jugge's new vamping the same impres- sion, 1553, may be called another edition. But I leave it to you to sort the Bibles, as best suits with your own inclination, or conceptions. I think, as I once formerly hinted, that Taver- ner's and Becke's may be thrown under the head of Matthew's. But you will consider better of all these matters, as you draw up your work. ^Of Erasmus's Paraphrase in Eyiglish. The title-page is thus, to the first volume, containing the Gospels and Acts : The first Tome or Volume of the Paraphrase of Erasmus upon the Newe Testamente. Empreiited at London, in Fletestrete, at the signe of the Sunne, by Edwarde Whitchurche the last date of Januarie. Anno Domini 1548. Then follows a Dedication to K. Edward the Vlth, a very long one of twenty-one folio pages, by Nicolas Udall. Therein speaking of the Paraphrase, he says, " Whiche, like as the " moste vertuous Ladie Quene Katerin Dowagier, late wyfe of " your moste noble Father, and nowe of your ryght dere be- " loved uncle Syr Thomas Seimour Knyght, Lorde Seymour of " Sudley, and hygh Admerall of your seaes, did ryght graciously " procure to be translated into our vulgare toungue ; so your ' Lewis adopts this suggestion, p. 122. ^ Lewis, p. 161. 382 Letters to " mooste godly injunctions willed to be read, used, and studied by " every Curate and Pryeste, to the undoubted edifying," &c. Next follows a Preface to the Reader, by the same Nicolas Udall, and there he speaks of thanks as due " to Queue Ka- " terine Dowagier, by whose good nieanes and procurement this " present worke hath bene by soondrie menes labours turned " into our vulgare toungue."" After follows Erasmus's Preface to his Paraphrase on St. Matthew ; then the Paraphrase itself Before St. Mark with the Paraphrase is, the Preface of the Translator, as it is called, and it is inscribed to Quene Catherine, wife to H. VIII. hy Thomas Key, who therein says, " Your Grace — hath com- " maunded certayu well learned persons to translate the sayde " worke, the Paraphrase upon St. Mai'ke excepted, whiche the " right worshypfull maister Owen (a man of muche learning, " and no less honestie, and therefore worthyly physycian to the " Kynges most royal person) moved me, your Graces pleasure " fyrst known, to go in hand withal," &c. Before the translation of St. Luke with the Paraphrase, is a Preface, inscribed also to Q. Katerine, wife to H. VIII. hy Nicolas Udall. It was written in H. VIII. 's time, bearing date the last day of September, 1545. Speaking of his performance, he says, " I shall turne my style somewhat to treacte of Luke, " whom it pleased your Highnesse to coramitte unto me to be " translated " He speakes of Luke as his charge, and his whole charge, or province : observing to the Queen, that, as he had heard, she had appointed " others to the translatyng of the " other partes." So that it may seem from hence that Matthew was not translated by Udall, but by some other unknown hand. But see below. •Before John is another Preface by the same Udall, inscribed to Q,. Katerine late ivife to II. VIII. of most famous memorie. de- ceased. I do not find mention here of the translator of this part. But Mr. Baker, I see, has noted upon Maunsell's Catalogue, St. Johns Gospel translated by Fr. Mallet, which. I doubt not, he has good authority for. Before the Acts is another Preface, by the same Udall, in- 1 Lewis has given this preface having been specially appointed to pretty fully, and in it express mention translate that Gospel, is not here quot- is made of F. Mallet's being the trans- ed by Lewis, but an account is given lator, pp. 163 — 165. The preface to of Udall's Dedication of that transla- St. Luke, in which Udall speaks of his tion to the Queen, in pp. 159, 160. the Rev. Mr. Lewis. 383 scribed as before. In this Preface he says : ™ " Whiche Actes " I have by occasion of adding, digesting, and sorting the texte " with the paraphrase, throughly perused : and conferring the " same with the Latine, I have here and there dooen my good " will and diligence to make the Englysh aunswerable to the " Latine booke, at lestwise in sense : as by the same occasion, I " did also with Matthewe. In John, I have in a manier dooen " nothyng at all, saving only placed the texte, and divided the " paraphrase ; because I knewe the translatours therof, with " whose exquysite dooynges I might not without the cryme of " great arrogancie and presumpcion, be busye to entremedle." It does not fiom hence appear who translated Matthew, or the Acts: but they were persons whom Udall, it seems, might make free with, either being dead, or unknown, or known to be of inferior note and character. Bale ascribes the Acts to Udall, p. 717. Lady Mary and Dr. Mallet were to be treated with respect and ceremony. The ende of the first tome of the Paraphrasis, printed at London by Edwarde Whitchurche. Cvm privilegio, &c. " The seconde Tome, or Volume of the Paraphrase of Erasmus upon the New Testament : conteynyng the Epistles of St. Paul and other the Apostles. Wherunto is added a Paraphrase upon the Revelacioun of S. John. Imprinted at London in Fletestrete at the signe of the Sunne: By Edwarde Whitchurche, the xvi^/i daye of August. Anno Do. 1549. A Dedication to K. Edward VI. by Myles Coverdall. At the end of Galatians is Finis. So far Coverdale translated, as Maunsell in his Catalogue observes. And Bale also ascribes four books to him : that is to say, Romans, First and Second of Corinthians, and Galatians. Seven more of the Epistles were translated by John Olde ; whose preface is before them, and of whom see Bale, p. 721. The seven are, Ephesians, Philippians, 2 Thessalonians, 2 Timo- thy, and Philemon, done at the motion of his very hartie good frend, Edwarde Whitchurche. " Titus was undertaken and finished by Leonard Coxe, at the request of John Olde ; as Leonard Coxe himself declares, in his Dedication to the right riiorshipfull Master John Hales., prefixed to Titus. Lewis, p. 166. " Ibid. p. 167. " Ibid. p. 169. 384 Letters to Hebrews, T suppose, Aas done by John Okie, no other name appearing. PThe same John Olde translated the seven Canonical Epistles, dedicating his translation to the Lady Anne, Dutchess of Somerset. He takes notice of his having been now lately preferred to the vicarage of Cobington in Warwickshire, by this Lady Anne, at the request of Dr. Hugh Latimer. The Dedication bears date 15th of July, 1549. q The whole concludes with a Paraphrase, or Commentary on the Apocalypse, ending thus : The ende of the Revelacion of S. John, thus brefely expounded hy the servaunt of Christ, Leo Jude, a Minister in the Churche of Tipury : and translated out of the high Duche by Edmonde Alen. Of whom see Bale, p. 720: though Bale takes no notice of this translation. After writing this, I have looked into Strype, to compare his account. It agrees in the main with mine. But I wonder (if ever he saw the book itself) how he came to say nothing of Miles Coverdale's part in the work, whose Dedication is at the head of the second volume. He passes over Hebrews without the least mention of it : but he raises a doubt about Matthew, the Acts, Eomans, Corinthians, and Colossians. He thinks Q. Ka- therine might translate Matthew. I think not. Udall would have used her and the performance with more ceremony, had it been hers. He would at least have been as complaisant to her, as to Lady Mary and Dr. Mallet, who had translated St. John. As to Romans and Corinthians, I make no doubt but they were done by Coverdale. See above. All the doubt is, about Colos- sians and Hebrews. If Maunsell's Catalogue may be trusted, Coverdale translated the four first Epistles, and the Ephesians and all the rest of the Epistles by John Olde. Bale also is express in ascribing ten to John Olde, and he names both Colossians and Hebrews amongst them. See Bale, p 722. To me it seems pro- bable, that though at first he undertook seven only, yet he got his friend Cox to do the eighth, and took the other two to himself. But of this you may consider at leisure. ^1 can yet find nothing of John Aleph. I suspect it was a feigned name for somebody, like as Felinus (whom he translates) was Martin Bucer. I am still of opinion, tliat there were partial translations of V Lewis, p. 168. 'I Ibid, pp.169, 170. ' Ibid. p. 86. the Rev. Mr. Lewis. 385 the New Testament before Wickliff; and that Eene't MS. is one copy of that kind. And it is very probable that some great persons in England might have such translations in English, as there had been the like in French before. Dubigney in 1306 translated the Epistles and Gospels into French for the use of Johanna^ wife to the Duke of Burgundy. But if you have doubts of this matter, as to prior English translations, it may be enough to say, that the MS. of Bene't seems to be older. To me it is out of question : for though one may argue against this or that particular mark of antiquity, singled out from the rest ; yet when the whole tenor of the writing carries an ancient face, and different from the writings of Wickliff's time, the proof is the more convincing. I am collating your MS. of Wickliff Testament. That part especially which is of your own writing is very exact, and wants but little correction. But I wish you had previously settled the manner of dealing with 5. I am afraid you will find some dif- ficulty in directing the Printer. In my opinion, either the cha- racter itself should be printed, or else such letter or letters be put in its stead as have prevailed since the character has been left out. But if you think proper to have one certain character, or letter, to denote it, you cannot pitch upon any better than^/i, as you have done. Some other things I may have to mention I defer to another opportunity, and am. Sir, Your very faithful humble Servant, DAN. WATERLAND. To the Rev. Mr. Lewis, of Mergate in Kent. N°. XXV. ^Tlie first Tome or Volume of the Paraphrase of Erasmus upon the Newe Testamente. Emprented at London in Fletestrete, at the signe of the Sunne. By Edwarde Whitchurche the last daie of Januarie. Anno Domini 1548. s Lewis's Hist. p. 161 — 166. N. B. of the same work described in the This is merely an enlarged account preceding letter. WATEELAND, VOL. VI. C C 386 Letters to " To the moste puissant Prince and our moste redoubted Sove- " raigne Edwarde the Sixthe, by the Grace of God kyng of " Englande, Fraunce, and Irelande, defendour of the Faith, and " on yearth next and immediately under God, of the Churches " of Englande and Irelande the supreme Head, your moste " humble, lovyng, and obedient subjecte Nicolas Udall wisheth " al grace and peace from God, with long and the same moste " prosperous reigne over us, in all honour, health, and condigne " felicitee. " Moste noble and moste worthie Soveraigne," &c. The running title is. The Preface unto the Kynges Majestie. In this Preface or Dedication are these words : " This present Paraphrase of Erasmus, whiche like as the most vertuous Ladie Queue Katerin Dowagier, late wife of " your moste noble Father, and now of your ryght dere beloved " uncle Syr Thomas Seimour Knyght, Lorde Seymour of Sudley, " and hygh Admerall of your seaes, did ryght graciously procure " to be translated into our vulgare toungue, so your Majestie " more graciously hath by your mooste godly injunccions willed " to be read, used, and studied by every Curate and Pryeste, to " the undoubted edyfying as well of them, as of all other that " with a desyre to knowe God, shal eyther reade or heare ye " same. " I my self have in a small porcion of this worke filled one " roume of some other man that might have bene hable to do it " better then I have dooen. " In this present worke, nothing it is that I dooe or justely " maye take unto me as myne acte, savyng the translacion of " the Paraphrase upon Luke, and the digesting and placyng of " the texte throughout all the Ghospelles and the Actes, (except " the Ghospell of Marke,) to thentent the unlearned readers " maye perceyve where and how the processe and circumstaunce of the Paraphrase aunswereth to the texte, and how it joyneth " therwith." This Dedication contains pages twenty-one fol. The Preface unto the Reader, three pages long, begins thus : " To the jentel Christian reader Nicolas Udall wisheth health, " grace," &c. In the first page of the Preface are these words : " Accept it " willingly, and rendre thankes, first, to God, &c. and then the Reo. Mr. Lewis. 387 " to our moste Excellent Soveraigne, good kyng Edwarde the " Sixte, &c. and thirdlie, to Quene Katerine Dowagier, by " whose good meanes and procurement this present weorke " hath bene by soondrie menes labours turned into our vulgare " toungue." After Udall's Preface, follows Erasmus's Preface to Matthew, and then his Paraphrase in English; then Key's Dedication before St. Mark. " To the most excellent and vertuous Princesse Quene Cathe- " rine, wife to our moste gracious Soveraygne Lorde Henry the " Eyght, Kyng of Englande^ &c. — Thomas Key, her daily ora- " toure, wisheth perpetual felicitie. " Your Grace hath (as is saide) commaunded certeyn well " learned persons to translate the sayde worke, the paraphrase " upon S. Marke excepted, which the right worshipfuU Maister " Owen (a man of much learning, and no less honestie, and " therefore worthyly Physycian to the Kynges moste royal per- " son) moved me, your Graces pleasure fyrst known, to go in " hand withal, affirming that I should do a thyng ryght accept- " able unto your Hyghness, if I should diligently travel therin." The Dedication ends thus : " God long preserve our sayde " Soveraigne Lorde, your Grace, and the most comfortable " flower of all Englande, noble Prince Edward, in continual " honour, joy, and prosperitie." St. L/ake. UdaWs Dedication. Pages eleven. " To the moste vertuous Ladie and moste gracious Quene " Katerine, wife unto the moste victorious and moste noble " Prince Henry the Eight, Kyng of Englande, &c. Nicolas " Udall wisheth," &c. It concludes thus : " Yeven at London the last dale of Sep- " tembre, in the yere of our Lorde M.D.XLV." St. John. Udall's Dedication. Pages four. " To the moste vertuous Ladie and most gracious Quene Ka- " terine Dowagier, late wife to the moste noble Kyng Henry the " Eight, of moste famous memorie, deceassed, Nicolas Udall," &c. The Dedication runs all in praise of studious, learned, godly women, because of Lady Mary's translating St. John's Gospel. " And in thys behalfe lyke as to youre Hyghnesse mooste " noble Quene Katerine Dowagier, as well for composing and " settyng foorthe many godly Psalmes and dyverse other con- " templatyve meditacyons, as also for causynge these paraphrases 0 c 2 388 Letters to " of the mooste famous clerke and moste wryter Erasmus of " Roterodam to bee translated into oure vulgare language, Eng- ' ' lande can never be able to render thankes suffyciente : so maye " it never be able (as hir desertes require) enough to prayse " and magnifye the moost noble, the mooste vertuous, the " moste wittye, and the moste studyous Ladye Maries Grace, " daughter of the late mooste puissaunte and mooste victorious " Kyng Henry the Eyghte of moost famous memorie, and " mooste derely beloved systur to the Kynge our Soveraygne " Lorde that now is ; it may never be able (I say) enoughe to " prayse and magnifye hir Grace, for takynge suche greate " studye, peine and travayll in translatyng this paraphrase of " the sayed Erasmus upon Ghospell of John, at youre " Hyghnesse speciall contemplacion, as a noumbre of right wel " learned men woulde bothe have made courtesie at, and also woulde have broughte to wurse frame in the dooynge. " When she hadde wyth over peynfuU studye and labour of " wrytyng cast hir weake bodye in a grievous and long sick- " nesse, yet to the intente the dylygente Englyshe people " shoulde not be defrauded of the benefyte entended and ment " unto theym; she commytted the same weorke to Mayster " Frauncisce Malet, Doctour in the Facultee of Divinitee, wyth " all celeritee and expedicyon to befynished and made complete."' Actes. UdaWs Dedication. Three pages. " To the most vertuous Ladie Queue Kateryne Dowagier, " &c. Nycolas Udall, &c. " Which Actes I have by occasion of adding, digesting, and " sorting the texte with the paraphrase, throughly perused, and " conferryng the same with the Latine, I have here and there " dooen my good wyll and diligence to make the Englysh aun- " swerable to the Latine booke, at lestwyse in sense : as by the " same occasion, I did also with Mathewe. In John I have in " manier dooen nothyng at all, saving only placed the texte and " divided the paraphrase, because I knew the Translatours " thereof, with whose exquysite dooynges I might not, without " the cryme of great arrogancie and presumpcion, be busye to " entremedle."" N. B. From this passage of Udall, I conclude that Mr. Strype is mistaken in his conjecture of Queen Catherine's being trans- lator of St. Matthew ; for Udall would undoubtedly have been as complaisant to her as to Lady Mary and Dr. Mallet, and the Rev. Mr. Lewis. 389 would not have presumed to mend her translation, if he had known it to be hers, or suspected any such thing. Either, therefore, she had no hand in translating St. Matthew, or Udall knew nothing of it. But who the translator of Matthew was, I cannot guess ; nor who of the Acts. Udall himself did not know : they had a mind to be unknown. This first volume ends thus : The ende of the first tome of the Paraphrasis, printed at London hy Edwarde Whitchurche. Cmn pritilegio rertali ad imprimejidu solum. t Title-page to Vol. II. t The seconde Tome or Volume of the Paraphrase of Erasmus upon the Newe Testamente ; conteynyng the Epistles of S. Paul, and other the Apostles. Whereunto is added a Paraphrase upon the Revelacion of S. John. Imprinted at London in Fletestrete, at the signe of the Sunne. By Edwarde Whitchurche, the xvi. daye of August. Cum privilegio ad imprimenda solum. Anno Do. i549' Maunseirs Catalogue (p. 47) gives this short account of the second volume : " Paraphrase on the Epistles, whereunto is " added a Paraphrase on the Revelation. Romans, Corinth. " Gallath. translated by M. Coverdale. The Ephesians, and all " the rest of the Epistles, by John Olde. The Revelation by " Edmond Allen, printed by Edward Whitchurch, 1549. in Fol." Bale also, under Milo Coverdallus, takes notice of his trans- lating Erasmi Paraphrases in Paulu. Libr. 4. The volume begins with a Dedication to Edward the Sixth. " To the most excellent Prince, our moste deare Soveraigne " Lorde Kyng Edwarde the Sixte," &c. subscribed, " Your Majesties most humble and faithfull subjecte, " MYLES COVERDALL." Next follows A Prologe upon the Epistle of S. Paule to the Rornayns ; which, by comparing, 1 find was borrowed from Tin- dale's Testament. At the end of Galatians is Finis, because, as I suppose, there was the end of what Coverdale had translated. Before Ephesians is a Preface : " To the Christian Reader John " Olde wisheth grace, mercye," &c. " Forasmuche (most gentle reader) as every Pryest under a " certain degree in Scholes is bounden by the Kyngcs Majesties " most gracious Injunctions to have provided by a daye lymited ' Lewis's Hist. p. 167 — 170. 390 Letters, to " for his owne study and erudicioun y'' whole Paraphrase of D. " Erasmus upon the Newe Testamente both in Latine and Eng- " lish : And where I heard nevertheles, in the begynnyng of " this last somer, by the pryntour, my very hertie good frend " Edwarde Whitchurche, that the Paraphrases upon seven of " Paules Epistles, that is to saye, to the Ephesians, Philippians, " both thepistles to the Thessalonians, both to Timothie, and " thepistle to Philemon, were neither translated ready to the " prynte, ne yet appoynted certaynly to be translated of any " man, so as thefore mencioned Injunction should be lyke in this " case to be frustrate of his due execution, &c. seeing the- " forenamed seven Epistles — to be left untranslated ; I toke in " hande to translate them, at such seldome leasures as I pos- " siblie could from mine other prophane travailes, incident to " my drudging vocacion, spare, and now at last have finished " them," &c. To the seven here mentioned. Bale adds Titus, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, as translated by the same John Olde, p. 722. But Leonarde Coxe translated Titus ; whose Dedication is pre- fixed, and runs thus ; " To the right worschipfull Master John Hales I his servaunt Leonarde Coxe wisheth long and pros- *' perouse welfare. " Master John Olde, a man of right good learnyng, and " my very frende, brought unto me the Paraphrase of Erasmus " of Roterdame, upon St. Paules Epistle to Titus, the whiche I " had certain yeares gone translated into Englishe, requiring " that I should peruse it againe, and amende suche faultes as " were therin, eyther by the printer's neglygence, or myne over- " syght," This part, therefore, had not only been translated, but printed also some years before, and was now amended and reprinted. The seven canonical Epistles were all done by John Olde, and have his Preface or Dedication prefixed. " To the right excellent and most vertuous Lady, Anne Duch- " esse of Somerset, her Graces moste humble orator John Olde " wisheth true felicitie, and continuaunce of health in Christ " Jesu our only Saveour." " In the later ende of thys laste yeare, I toke in hande, " at the request of your Graces humble servaunt, my special " good frende, Edward Whitchurch, printour, to translate the " Paraphrases of Erasmus upon certain of Paules Epistles^ which tJie Rev. Mr. Lewis. 391 " were left untranslated for lacke of payne-takers in that matter, " forsomuche as the learned menne appoynted to thys purpose " of translacion had finished their limited tasks before : and " now, at the like request, I have made the like enterpryse to " translate the canonycall Epistles of St. Peter, Jude, J ames, " and John, &c. as a monument and reknowlaginge of my " moste bounden duetie of humble thankesgevinge unto your " Grace, for causinge me to bee called of late to a competent " vicarage, called Oobington, in Warwikeshire, at the humble " sute of the Keverende Ministre of Godde's worde, my singular " frende Doctour Hugh Latymer," &c. The date at the end, the xv of Julie M.D.XLIX. After the canonical Epistles, follows, A Paraphrase, or Commentarie upon the Revelacion of St. John, faytlifullye translated hy Edmond Alen. The conclusion thus. The ende of the Revelacion of 8. John thus irefely expounded hy the servaunt of Christ, Leo Jude, a minister in the Church of Tigury, and translated out of the High Duche, hy Edmonde Alen. Sir, I have here sent you larger extracts than before. You can compare this account with Strype's at leisure : I have not Strype now by me. Mr. Bouchery has finished his transcripts, and brought them to me. I have packed them up with your other papers, in order to take them to London with me some time this month, or the beginning of next. I have not yet had an oppor- tunity of going to Bene't College ; though I wish you had hinted to me what you expected from that MS. I still stick to Pervie, and believe that the Bodleian copy contains both his Bible and Testament. But I am always ready to alter my opinion upon new hght. I have had several letters from Mr. Russell. He surprises me by telling me that he still designs to publish Wick- liffe, according to his proposals ; and he says further, that he is best furnished of men with materials for a history of English versions and editions. I have offered myself as reconciler betwixt you, and have proposed his leaving the Testament to you, and taking the Bible only on himself. Whether this will satisfy, I know not. I have endeavoured to convince him that we do not want competent materials for a history of versions and editions ; but I tell him withal, that we should be glad of any supplemental 392 Letters to improvements from his collections. How he will take this, I do not know : but my advice to you is, if you will pennit me so far, to go on. He is still positive that the Old Translation is of 1260 or 1240; which I think impossible, that is, a contradiction to history and to the language of that version, which is much more modern. I should have been of opinion with you about the Prologue, and should have set it in 1396, if I could have reconciled it with the other two characters of time about Oxford, which plainly suit with 1388, and would have been very imper- tinent so late as 1396". "Wherefore please to consider, whether sodoi/iy might not have been complained of in Parliament any time after Pateshul's discoveries, which made a great noise in 1387 ; when the Londoners pasted up a bill of that kind upon Paul's church-door. I am, good Sir, Your very faithful humble Servant, DAN. WATERLAXD. Oct. 19th, 1 7:9. To the Reverend Mr. Lewis, of Mergate in Kent. NO. XXVI. Saturday, Xov. 15, 1729. St. Austin's. Dear, Sir, I BROUGHT your papers with me to Town last Thursday. You may let me know, at your leisure, whether you would have them sent to you by Parker. I have borrowed out of Sion College library, for ten days, L. Tomson's Testament, 8vo. Title-page thus : ^ The yew Testament of our Lord Jesus Christ, translated out of the GrecTc hy Theod. Beza. Whereunto are adjoyned hrief summaries of Doctrine upon the Evangelistes and Actes of the Apo- stles, together with the methode of tlie Epistles of the Apostles hy the said Theod. Beza. And also short Expositions on the phrases and hard places, taken out of the large annotations of the foresaid Authour and Joach. Camerarius, hy P. Loseler T^illerius. Englished hy L. Tomson. Lmprinted at London hy Christopher Barker dwelling " Lewis, p. 36. ^ Ibid. pp. 273, 274. the Rev. Mr. Lewis. 393 in Poides CJmrcJipeard at the signe of the Tigres Head, 1576. Cum Privilegio. Next follows a Dedication " To the Right Honourable M. Francis Walsinghara Esquier, " one of the principall Secretaries to hyr Excellent Majestie, " and of hir Highnesse Privie Councell : and to the Right " AVorshipfull M. Francis Hastings L. T. vvysheth prosperity in " this lyfe, and lyfe everlasting, in Christ oure Saviour." After the Dedication follows Beza's in English : " To the most famous Prince Lewys of Bourbon, Prince of " Conde, &c. and to the rest most famous and noble Dukes, " Marquises, Earles, Barons, and Gentlemen, which have em- " braced the true Gospel of Christ in the kingdome of Fraunce, " Theodorus Beza of Vezels, Minister of the Church of Geneva, " grace and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord " Jesus Christ." Date at the end, 1565. Next follows, " The Printer to the diligent reader." In my edition of Tomson's Bible, A. D. 1610, the New Testa- ment has nothing before it but this of " The Printer to the " diligent reader : " both Dedications omitted. The marginal notes in my edition and this are the same. But the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible of 1583 are quite different. The translation itself, so far as I have dipped into it, seems to be much the same with the Geneva. I think you told rae, you had one edition of Tomson's Bible : by that you may judge of this Testament, Dedications excepted ; and excepting also Junius's Notes on the Revelations, added in my edition of 1 610, not in the other of 1576. I have not now leisure to be more accurate in the comparison : and perhaps you will not think it necessary. If you do, please to acquaint me by the first post, before I return the book. The verses are distinguished as usual. There is no date at the end, only " Imprinted by Barker," as before. I wish you could bring me acquainted with Mr. Granger, whom you once mentioned, that I might get a sight of his Bibles while I am in Town. I conclude in haste. Yours most sincerely, DAN. WATERLAND. To the Reverend Mr. Lciois, of Mergate in Kent. 394 Letters to N°. XXVII. Deab Sir, Having this day waited on Lord Pembroke to see his curi- osities, I have a mind to write of what I saw, before it is out of my head. I saw Matthew's Bible with a title-page to it, which I had not seen before. If you shall want it, I will get it for you, the next time I go. My Lord shewed me two of Tindale's Testaments, both bearing date the same year, the year 1534. They are both Tindale's own. The first was near printed off before Joye's of the same year appeared. The Second was printed after Joye's at Antwerp by M. Emperour. It has the Epistle before it against Joye. From the lights I have had, I thus settle the editions of Tin- dale's T., which you may compare with your accounts. 71526. By Tindale himself. 8vo. Z1527. Dutch edition, i2ino. a Another Dutch, with figures in the Apocalypse. I ave seen it in Eman, Coll. Cant. It has red lines and red titles, i2mo. ^ A third Dutch, i2mo. like the first. c 1530. A fourth Dutch. d 1534. By Tindale, i2mo. Lord Pembroke. ^ 1534- By G. Joye. f 1534. By Tindale, with an additional epistle prefixed against Joye. Lord Pembr. s 1536. By Tindale, in 4to. Bibl. Publ. Cant. ^ 1536. By Tindale, i2mo. I have it with me. A large 4to. seems to be Scotch. Bibl. Publ. Cant. A small 4to. Eman. Coll. Cant. A small 8vo. uncertain date. I have it. These thirteen editions, which I have seen or read of, are all ancient. But the three last I can only guess at, as to date. You must tell me, if you would have any thing more particular about the two copies of Loi'd Pembroke ; for I shall see his Lordship again. y Lewis, p. 75. z Ibid. p. 80. a Ibid. p. 65.* b Ibid. p. 65.* c Ibid. p. 73.* Lewis's Hist. p. 105. k Ibid. p. 79. * 396 Letters to A Table for the iiii Evangelistes. A Table for the Actes of the Apostles. Title-page to the New Testament is thus : The Neice Testament. Anno M.D.XXXIIII. At the end, Pistles of the Old Testament. Last leaf torn out. ' TindaWs second, of the same year. First title-page torn off. Willyam Tindale unto the Christen Reader. ^ Willyam Tindale yet once more to the Christen Reader. This is the Epistle written against Jove, ending in the words here following : Finally, That New Testament thus dyligently corrected, hesyde this so oft puttinge oute this word Resurreccion, and I wote not what other chaimpes, (for I have not yet reade it over,) hath in the ende before the Table of the Epistles and Gospelles, this Tytle : Here endeth the New Testament dylygentlye oversene and correct and printed now agayne at Andwarp, by me Widoto of Christophall of Endhoven, in the year of our e Lorde A. M.D.XXXIIII. in Atigust. Which Tytle, reader, I have here put in, because by this thou sJialt hiowe the book the bettei'. Vale. "Title to the follomng Testament. The Newe Testament imprinted at Anioeip : by Marten Empe- rour. Anno M.D.XXXIIII. At the end, The Pistles of the Old Testammt. Last leaf torn out. ° The Bible o/1540. Title-page thus : The Bylle in Englyshe : that is to say, the Content of all the holy Scripture, both of the Olde and Neice Testament: xcith a Prologe therinto made by the Revcrende Father in God Thomas Arch Bisshop of Cantorbury. This is the Byble appointed to the use of > Lewis's Hist. p. 80.* ^ Ibid. p. 82. » Ibid. p. 85. « Ibid. p. 137. the Itev. Mr. Lewis. 397 the Churches. Prynted by Rychard Grafton. Cum 2^rivilegio. M.D.XL. At the end — The ende of the Newe Testament and of the whole Byhle fynished in Aprill. Anno M.CCCCC.LX : A Dno factu est istud. I have not yet had time to inquire after the books you mention ; nor to see Mr. Granger. He is hard to find. I have twice searched for him in Milk-street. I believe, you very rightly interpret Mr. Kussell. I beheve, it will be necessary for you to talk with me, in order to have some things explained. I had not room, in your papers, to explain every thing fully ; though, I am afraid, I crowded your margin too much. I am, dear Sir, Your very affectionate Friend And faithful humble Servant, DAN.WATERLAND. I shall have some letters to shew you when I see you : one I had from Oxford ; another from Ireland. To the Rev. Mr. Letois, of Mergate in Kent. No. XXIX. Dear Sir, I FOUND out Mr. Granger in Lime-street, who received me very courteously, and shewed me his two MSS. The largest is Wickliff's Testament, in 8vo, a fair copy, written in the year 1424. The date I judge of by the Almanack in the entrance, which begins with that year. It has the Lessons of the Old Testament (as usual) at the end, and they are of the new version, the same with those you have copied, of the version which I call Pervie's. The other MS. contains nothing but the Epistles, is in i2mo, very fairly written, and the explanatory or redundant parts scored with red lines. It is of the same version that Sidney College MS. is, and Dublin MS. and a third of Magdalen College, which I once lent you P. It is full of forsothes, as that version is : I call it Pervie's. But that I might be certain, I carried P Lewis's Hist. pp. 29 — 34. 398 Letters to with me Magdalen College MS. to compare with it. I found some slight differences, as 1 found also between Sidney MS. and Magdalen MS. For Magdalen MS. is not so old and so accurate a copy as it should be. I believe, Mr, Granger's, so far as it goes, would be found to agree exactly with the Sidney copy : only Sidney is entire, this but a part. I shall inquire after the copy you mention in the Library of the Dissenters ; and I design also, as I can find a little leisure, to see the copies of Bible and Testament in Sion College, and a copy also of Pervie's N. T. in the King's Library. Mr. Russell has been in Town some time. He is too full of the Revelations to mind any thing else. Mr. Whiston has had several debates with him, and expresses his dislike of his scheme, in very plain English, as his way is. I, for my part, decline look- ing into it, having no talent for expounding dark prophecies. qAs to Ambrose Usher, (the Archbishop's elder brother,) you may see some account of him in Usher's Life, prefixed to his Letters. All the account I have of his version, from Dublin, is as follows : " This translation being of the whole Bible, 0. and N .T. ia " dedicated by Ambrose Usher to King James the First, without " the date of the year. It is in 3 tomes, 4to.'" " Deut. ch. ii. ver. i , 2, (which in our translation is the second " and third,) TJien the Lord spake unto me, saying — You have " compassed this mount inough, turne you northward, q^ " N. This mark q^ is set at the end of each verse." I am not for your laying aside your design of printing Wick- liff's New Testament. It is a cui-iosity which many will be fond of ; and I depend not at all upon Mr. Russell. But if your History swells to too large a bulk to make an Introduction, you must be content to print them in two separate volumes. Have you got Nary's translation of the Bible a Popish translation after the Doway I I am told I may have it for three half-crowns. It was made about twenty years ago. Mr. Russell told me he had it ; and there is a bookseller in this town (whose name I have at present forgot) who also has it. I have not yet seen it. I have a roving thought just come into my head, for you to 1 Lewis's Hist. pp. 341, 342. was published in 1719. See Lewis's Cornelius Nary, Consultissim^ Hist. pp. 356, 357. Nary is also Facultatis Parisiensis Doctor. So mentioned, p. 45, as the last Roman Lewis interprets the initials in the Catholic translator of the N.T. into Title, C.N.C.F.P.D. This edition English. the Rev. Mr. Leiois. 399 consider of at leisure. What if your Introduction to Wickliff's N._T. should consist only of as accurate account as you can get of all the MSS. in England, either of the Bible, or parts of the Bible, and likewise of the Testament, or parts of it. I could assist you as to Cambridge, and perhaps some other places ; as York, Lambeth, Sion College, Cotton, King's, &c. And if you have ever an honest and laborious friend at Oxford, you may soon have an account of all there. But this take as a sudden thought only, which may want some digestion and maturation. sWhen you reprint your Life of WicklifF, I could be content to spare your vindication of Wickliff, which is not perhaps ne- cessary at this time, or may give offence. But when I have the favour of your company here, we may talk over all matters. ' I was once numbering up Bibles and Testaments called Wick- liff s, as nearly as I could, thus : Bibles. Testaments. Oxford - _ _ - - 8 ^3 Cambridge _ . . . 3 13 Lambeth, Sion College, Hereford - 3 3 Norfolk Libr. Westra. Cotton. 3 2 York - - . . . 2 Other places - 9 17 42 The whole number of entire Bibles and Testaments together will be about 60 ; and there are besides, parcels ten or a dozen, mentioned in the general Catalogue of MSS. But I shall look into Le Long, at leisure, to see what his accounts amount to, if you think it tanti, or if you like the project. I have a letter by me, sent me by the late Mr. Bowles, bearing date Aug. 13, 1729. It was in answer to a query I had made. Fairfax MS. a Bible, said (in the general Catalogue of MSS.) to have been translated 1408. I wondered at it. But my wonder ceased, when word was sent me, that what was written in the MS. was this only: the year of the Lord M.CCCC.VIII. this Book was endid. There s Two editions of the Life of Wic- p. 102. liffe had been printed before the date * Some account is given of most of of this Letter ; viz. in 1720 and 1723. these manuscripts in Lewis's Hist. See Masters's History of C.C.C. App. chap, i . 400 Letters to are indeed but three C's to be seen ; but by the blank appearing, it is plain enough that somebody had erased one, to enhance the age and value of the manuscript. I much value the copies that have dates. I have met with or heard of but five such : Eman. Coll. Cant. N. T. - - -1397. Oaius, Cant. N. T. - - - -1397. Fairfax Bible 1408. Mr. Granger's N. T. - - - - 1424. Pepys's i6mo. N. T. - - - - 1437. If I meet with any more in my searches, I will let you know. I suspect that many of the copies are later than 1437, because that copy has the table of old Lessons, according to the old ver- sion : while several other copies have them according to the newer, which I call Pervie's, the common one. I keep a former letter of yours still in my pocket, because I have not yet had leisure to look after the books you mentioned. * Mr. Russell calls the New Testament which has the forsothes in it (such as Sidney, Magd. Coll. and Granger's Epistles) the old version. I do not take it to be so. I think, it plainly tallies with the common Bible, which belongs to the same man that made the Prologue ; which Prologue I judge to have been made in 1388, from the characters of time relating to Oxford, as for- merly hinted : and the author of it was, I suppose, Pervie, whose name is affixed to the Dublin copy of the N. T. just before that Prologue. But I shall tire you. I long to see you here. I am Your very faithful Friend and humble Servant, DAN. WATERLAND. Watling Street, Jan. 20, 1729-30. To the Rev. Mr. Lewis, of Mergate in Kent. ^ This Mr. Russell, so often men- duced to Archbishop Tenison, and to tioned in these Letters, appears to have have obtained preferment in the been Mr. John Russell, Minister of Church. See Nichols's Liter. Anecd. Poole in Dorsetshire, and afterwards vol. v. p. 257. It further appears, from Preacher of St. John's, Wapping, Mr. Masters's Hist, of C. C. C. Cam- where he continued till his death, bridge, that Mr. Lewis had been under Throughhis intimacy withMr.Russell, the tuition of Mr. Russell, who kept a Mr. Lev^is is said to have been intro- school at Poole in Dorsetshire. the Rev. Mr. Lewis. 401 ^Manuscripts collated. 1 . Bishop Moore's folio Bible and Testament. Royal Library, Cambridge. 2. Emanuel College. Folio Bible and Testament. 3. Caius College. N. T. 4to. written 1397. 4. Eman. Coll. N. T. 8vo. written 1397. 5. Trin. Coll. 8vo. N. T. old hand. This comes nearest to the copy followed in this transcript ; has Lessons at the end. 6. Trin. Coll. Small folio N. T. more modern. 7. Pepys's Libi'ary. 4to. N. T. has the Epistle to Laodicea, and Lessons at the end. 8. Pepys's Library. Small i2mo. or i6mo. 2 vols. N. T. written 1 43 7 ; wants all the Prologues. 9. Jesus Coll. Small 8vo. has the Epistle to Laodicea, with Prologue prefixed. This MS. has also the contents of the books and chapters of the N. T. before it ; which none else, that I have seen, has. It has Lessons also at the end. 10. Christ. Coll. MS. 8vo. This came late to my hands, after I had finished my collation. But I run the places I had before marked over again, and compared this also : and thereupon made some alterations in my numbers, putting MSS. omnes 10, instead of MSS. omties 9, and the like. It is a good MS. and of the earlier kind, but is merely a N. Test, without any Calendar or "Tables. The other Version. 1. Sidney College. Small folio N. T. has Lessons at the end ; but not the same version with the former. 2. Magd. Coll. 8vo. N. T. N°. XXX. ^Parker's Editions. 1568. Lond. folio, I '^^If^^,' (Chr. Jiarker. " This Paper appears to be a post- several translations and editions, whe- script or appendix to the preceding ther printed or manuscript, which had Letter. been previously described or noticed, y This Paper (which has no date) and which are here arranged in chro- appears to be a recapitulation, digested nological order, under different heads or classes, of the WATERI.ANn, VOL. VI. D d 402 Letters to 1569. Lond. 8vo. with verses. By Jugge. i<72. Lond. fol.|^,^^^'^"f°^' ^^^ iDouble Psalms. ^ (Chr. Barker. ) 1573. Fol. et 4to. 1576, 1577, 1578, 1582, 158,5. 1586. London. 1587. Lond. 1592, 1593- 1595. Lond. By Christ. Barker. 1602. Lond. by Rob. Barker. Fol. Rhemish and Doway. ^1582. Rhemish Testament, 4to. By John Fogny. Rhemes. Fulkes. Edition with his remarks. 1589. By deputies of Chr. Barker. a i6o9."^Doway Bible, 4to. At Doway, by Laurence Icellam. 1610. j 1609, 16 10, of the Vulgate. 1602. Fulkes. 1617. Fulkes reprinted. ''1618. Cartwright. 1633. Fulkes. 4th edition. '^Authors of the Rhemish. } Cardinal Allen ) George Martin Richard Bristow )-Possevin. Select. Biblioth. 1. 2. c. 12. MSS. of Wickliff's N. T. Caius Coll. A. D. 1397. Ernanuel. Fol. Trin. Coll. 8vo. Trin. Coll. Folio. Pepys. 4to. Pepys. i6mo. A. D. 1437. Bene't. 8vo. Moore's Library. Fol. Windsor. Other Translation. Sidney Coll. Fol. Magd. Coll. 8vo. z Lewis's Hist. p. 277. b Ibid. p. 295. a Ibid. pp. 286, 287. Ibid. p. 291. the Rev. Mr. Lewis. 403 Rhemish Testament. 1582. Rhemis. Fogny. d 1600. Antwerp, by Dan. Vern. Editions of the whole Scripture, or any part. 1526. Tindale's New Testament. 8vo. 1527. Second edition, Dutch, i. Hamburg. 1529. Third edition, Dutch, 2. 1530. Fourth edition, Dutch, 3. 1534. Fifth edition, Dutch, 4. By Joye. Antw. printed by M. Emperour. 1534. Sixth edition, by Tindale himself. 1536. Seventh edition. 4to. 1536. Eighth edition. i2mo. 1 530, Tindale's Pentateuch, &c. ^1530. Aleph's Psalter at Argentine. i6mo. By Francis Foye. 153 1. Joye\s Esay. At Strasburgh. Svo. By Balthasar Back- neth. 1534. Joye's Jeremy. In May. Svo. 1534. Joye's Psalter. i6mo. by Martyne Emperour. Antwp. in August. 1535. Coverdale's Foho Bible. Zurich. 1537. Mathew's Folio Bible. Hamburg. 1538. Erasmus's Test. Anglo-Latin. By Rob. Redman. 1538. Coverdale's Anglo- Latin. By Hollybushe. 4to. 1539. Coverdale's N. T. Anglo-Latin. Svo. By Grafton and Whitchurch. 1539. Taverner's Folio Bible. By Biddell, for Barthelet. 1539. Cranmer's [Great) Bible. Folio. 1540. Cranmer's {The Great) Bible. Fol. by Grafton. 1541. Cranmer's, corrected by Tonstal and Heath. 1548. Mathewe's New Testament. Svo. Windsor. ^•^'^^■{•Udairs Translation of Erasmus's N. T. 1549. ) 1549. The Great Bible. Fol. By Edw. Whitchurch. J 54 9. Becke's Bible. Fol. Lond. By Day and Seres. 1549. Matthew's Bible. By Tho. Raynolde and Will Hyll. Lewis's Hist. p. 295. e Ibid. pp. 86, 87. D d 2 404 Letters to 1550. N. T. Anglo- Latin. By J. C. 1550. Coverdale's 4to Bible. 1550. Coverdale's conferred with Tindale's. Printed by R. Wolf. ^1551. Mathew's folio. By Nic. Hyll, for Joh.Wyghte. 155 T . Matthew's fol. By N. Hyll, for Rich^i. Kale, at the cost of men of the occupation. May 6. 1551. Matthew's folio revised. By Jo. Day, for Tho. Petite. 1551. Matthew's folio. By Nic. Hyll, for Tho. Petite. J 55 2. Jugge's Testament, with cuts. 4to. Bibl. Pepys. 1552. Bible. Lond. By Nich. Hyll. 4to. 1553. Jugge's Test, second impression. 1553. Coverdale's 4to Bible. ByJugge. Bibl. Cant. 1557. Geneva Testament. 1 2mo. Conrad Badius. First with distinction of verses. 1560. Geneva Bible. 4to. First edition with verses dis- tinguished. Geneva. 1568. 2 vols. fol. Lond. 1570. At Geneva. Folio. J572. In fol. et 4to. Lond. J575. At London. 1576. At London. Fol. By Chr. Barker. 1578. London. Large fol. Chr. Barker. J579. London. Chr. Barker. Folio. 1581. London. By Chr. Barker. Fol. (Ld. Oxf.) 1583. London. By Chr. Barker. Fol. (Eman.) 1589. London. By Chr. B. 4to. 1598. 1599. London. 4to. Deput. of Chr. Barker. 1 606. — 1 6c8. London. R. Barker. Bis 1610. Edinburgh. 1631. By John Bill. 1657. 1677. 1688. 1562. Cranmer's Bible. Fol. Lond. By Rich. Harrison. 1562. Jugge's Test. 8vo. with verses distinguished. 1566. Cranmer's folio. At Rouen. By Carmarden. f Lewis's Hist. p. 188. " This " several booksellers, whose names " edition," says Lewis, " was printed " were accordingly set to their re- " by different printers, at the cost of " spective parts of the impression." 1642. V Amsterdam. By Tho. Stafford. the Rev. Mr. Lewis. 405 1568. Cranmer's {The Great Bible). 4to. By Jugge and Cawood. Trill. Coll. 1569. Cranmers {The Great). 4to. By Jugge and Cawood. (Dr. Grey.) The same Liturgy with that of 1566. 1568. Parker's first edition. 1569. Parker's, in 8vo. 1571. Foxe's Saxon G. with Parker's. 1572. Parker's second edition, corrected. 1576. L. Tomson's translation of Beza's N.T. 8vo. J 582. Rhemish N. Testament. 1583. Tomson's translation of Beza's N. T. 1589. Tomson's second edition. 1 610. Tomson's third edition. Ambrose Usher's MS. 1 609 ]6 II Doway Bible. King James's Bible. DR. WA TERLAND'S LETTERS TO JOHN LOVEDAY, ESQ. MAGDALEN COLLEGE, OXFORD. 1 HE following Letters, fifteen in number, were addressed to John Loveday, Esq. of Magdalen College, Oxford, bearing date from the year 1735 to the year 1740. They were obligingly put into the hands of the Editor, by Loveday, Esq. of Oxon, grandson of the gentleman to whom they were written. Together with these were several rough drafts of Letters from Mr. Loveday to Dr. Waterland ; of which no other use has been made, than occasionally to subjoin extracts from them, in the Notes added by the Editor, for the purpose of illustrating Dr. Waterland's Letters. DR. WATERLAND'S LETTERS TO JOHN LOVEDAY, ESQ. MAGDALEN COLLEGE, OXFORD. No. I. Windsor, Jan. ist, 1734-5. Sir, I HAVE no thought of taking any pubHc notice myself of Mr. Jackson's late piece, full of romancing and railing all the way : but I shall not be sorry to have some strictures made upon it (for the reasons mentioned) by some other hand, and in such a way as is hinted. I may here make a few observations upon the piece, just sufficient to shew what I think of it in the general. 1 . The author begins with railing accusations of my ill nature, want of moderation, modesty, kc. which, I suppose, was to con- trive some pretence or cover for his own abusive way of writing, that it might seem to be occasioned by just provocations : every raihng book begins commonly in that way, and it is natural enough. I believe, nobody that has seen my book, can find any thing in it contrary to good nature or good manners. Several that dislike the doctrine, yet acknowledge, as I am told, the candid manner of treating the adversaries. T have said nothing against political toleration even of Arianism, though our laws do not tolerate it. All I have pleaded is only against ecclesiastical 410 Letters to toleration, or admitting to communion and to the right hand of fellowship. Even the chief Socinians themselves (those particular friends of toleration and moderation) yet carry their rigour as far as I have, and even against Socinians : for they' renounce communion with as many as refuse to worship Christ, yea, and they declare them no Christians ; as I take notice in my Remarks on Dr. Clarke's Catechism, p. 22^. And. were it not a thing noto- riously known, several more proofs might be added. Merely renouncing communion with others, is not properly punishing at all, either corporal or spiritual : though accidentally some inconveniences may arise to the persons so rejected. 2. A second thing I have to observe of Mr. J. That he gives up the whole point in question, the point of importance, in the very first page ; and therefore all the rest is impertinent, belong- ing to another question, the question concerning the truth of the doctrine. And if he was disposed to enter into that, he should have undertaken a full and just answer to my Second Defence, Sermons, and FaHher Defence : whereas, in truth, he has only, or mostly, brought up again the same old stuff which appeared be- fore in Clarke's Reply, concealing from his readers the repeated answers made by me, or others, to them. 3. He is never to be trusted in any thing he says of me. For (as if he had lost all fear of God, or all sense of the Ninth Com- mandment) he scarce can write a line or two of me, without some calumny, or gross misrepresentation ; which shews, how- ever, how much he is distressed for want of just matter to re- proach me with. None but the half-witted would ever make use of falsities, if truth would as well serve their present turn. What a piece of rhodomontade is his whole third page and part of the fourth ! But indeed the same strain runs quite through. 4. He deserves to be roundly reckoned with for what he ad- vances in page the eleventh, viz. that the pretending to be ce?iain (morally certain) of the right and reason of a cause, is pretending to be infallible. For since he is too modest, I presume, to think himself infallible, it follows that he is not morally certain of any thing, and therefore must be in just consequence a perfect sceptic. Further, as no man is more dogmatical or confident than * See vol. iv. p. 13. 14. of the present edition. John Looeday, Esq. 411 himself, though not morally certain of any thing, how will he justify his conduct s He has pronounced very confidently and dogmatically against the doctrine of all the Protestant Churches, (nay, of the Christian world in a manner, from the fourth century at least, by his own confession,) that it is Tritheistn or Sabellianism (pp. 2, 35, 38, 39, 51, 57,) that it is grossly irreligious, Antichristian, blasphemous, atheistical, di- aboHcal, (1, 58, 60, 62, 71, 132, 133;) and all this without being morally certain of the right or reason of the cause, and without being infallible. We know, indeed, that he has done it not only loithout moral certainty, but arjainst it. However, by his own account, and in consequence of his own argument, he has done it without certain grounds for so doing, and therefore is self -condemned, and guilty of a most flaming breach of Christ- ian charity, candour, justice, and common honesty. Rash ac- cusation, (and all is rash which has not certain ground to go upon,) and of such a kind, is desperate iniquity. Persuasion alone will not suffice : men ought to know what they say, and what they do. Papists are consistent in their censures, on the foot of their supposed infallibility, and Protestants likewise, on the foot of moral certainty : but such sceptical Arians as admit no certainty, ought to be exceeding modest in their censures, or rather to forbear censuring at all. But his Christian Liberty is marvellous. 5. Some notice should be taken, in the entrance of any answer to his book, of his avowed principle, as to the Son and Spirit being created, (pp. 55, 127,) and of the Son being once God, and afterwards ceasing to be so for a time, and then becoming God again, in a higher sense than before, pp. 73, 74. He calls upon us, p. 76, ridiculously, to prove that he and his friends make Christ a creature. This book of his is alone sufficient to prove it, or, if it be not, my arguments, nine in number, (in my Supplement to the Case of Arian Subscrip- tion, p. 20 b,) remain unanswered. But enough of thi.s. Sir, If the gentleman thinks of picking out my answers to the several particulars, the fifth chapter of my Farther Defence will be of great use to him, as to referring to the places where I See vol. ii, pp. 324, 325. of the present edition. 412 Letters to answer what relates particularly to the Fathers. But then please to observe, that if he makes use of the second edition of my Second Defence, he must look five pages forwards, to find the place referred to. For instance, if he sees p. 254. Second Defence, he should look for p. 259. Such is the difference of pages in the two editions, owing to the printer's want of forecast and care. If the gentleman pleases to write but on one side the papers, and to leave a blank page all the way, and will afterwards favour me with a sight of them, there will be room for me to supply any thing material upon the blank pages. In the mean while, as I have leisure, I shall be referring, on the margin of Jackson's book, to proper places ; and perhaps may send it up afterwards to Oxford, if the gentleman desires it. He may find some things which may escape me, and I may hit some things which escape him. As to I John v. 7. which the writer talks of, p. 67, as if I had lately received light, or changed my former sentiments, I pre- sume he builds it upon idle hearsay, or upon Whiston's Me- moirs, p. I o I . It happens unluckily for them both, that I gave my judgment of that text (the same as I have since) in the year 1723, in a Sermon then printed, entitled, A Familiar Discourse upon the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, p. 13^. Indeed, I avoided bringing that text into my controversial writings, partly because that dispute then lay between Martin and Emlyn, and chiefly, because I would not give the adversaries a handle for running out, perhaps forty or fifty pages upon a bye-point, when I did not want it. I knew that / and my Father are One, was strong enough for tico being one God ; and if two persons were ad- mitted to be so one, a third would be granted of course. So I avoided needless dispute, and waste of time and paper. I am, Sir, Your most humble Servant, DAN WATERLAND. It may be noted, that as I have proved that we cannot com- = See the present edition, vol. v. " many and very considerable ap- p. 350. The passage is this : " And " pearances of being truly genuine. " they are all three together said to " The doctrine however is certain '•be one; 'these three are one,' ^' from many other places of Scripture, " I John V. 7. which, though a dis- " whatever becomes of that text." " puted text, is yet not wthout very John Lovexlay, Esq. 413 municate with Arians, so Mr. J. has proved (if he has proved any thing) that they ounht not to comnninicate with us. How can they communicate with so Antichristian, blasphemous., atheis- tical, diabolical a party ? But that they should subscribe also such diabolical principles, is monstrous beyond expression. The Episcopians, indifferents, or neutrals, being now equally condemned on both sides, my book of Importance, as it seems, has gained its ends. And now we are to return to the point of the truth of our doctrine, where the adversary had been abun- dantly baffled before, and made to retreat to the question about importance. So they are driven backwards and forwards, reel and stagger, and are at their wits' end here, just as they are between worship and no worship, of Christ and the Holy Spirit. N°. II. Windsor, Jan. 2^rd, 1734-5. Sib, I DO not think of going to London suddenly. Several of the Bishops, and a good many of the Clergy, I find, were disposed to make me a compliment of what would not well suit either with sedentary temper, or niy uncertain state of health : so I have sent up my thanks, and begged myself off 'I. If any business should come on in Convocation afterwards, (which I do not ex- pect,) I hope to be us serviceable, or more so, in another way, than I could be in the post that was thought on. I intend (God willing) to send you what I promised by the next return of the carrier ; or else by Don Lewis, if he sliould meet you sooner. I was not well pleased that he had been inquiring after the gentleman's name, and was glad that you did 'I'his relates to the intention of choosing him Prolocutor of the Lower House of Convocation. In the Gen- tleman's Magazine for January 1735, [vol. V. p. 50.] it is stated, that l3r. Waterland was chosen Prolocutor. But the Biographia Britannica (art. Waterland, vol. vii. p. 41O9) says, " The Convocation meeting this year, " our Archdeacon was pitched upon " for Prolocutor of the Lower House, " and an elegant Latin speech was " prepared to be spoken, on present- " ing him to that House, by the " learned Dr. Cobden, Archdeacon of " London, liut he thought proper " to decline that office, which, in the " then state of the Church, must have " been attended with extraordinary " trouble ; as was foreseen by the " King, who therefore presently dis- " solved it." Dr. Lisle was chosen Prolocutor of the Convocation in the room of Dr. Waterland, on his de- clining the office. See Gent. Mag. Feb. 173.^, vol. V. p. 108. 414 Letters to not oblige him iu an imprudent I'equest. 1 had rather not know, that I may afterwards safely and truly say that I do not know who or what the gentleman is. If he has any occasion to write to me, he may write without setting any name, and I can direct my answer to you, with your good leave. In turning over Jackson's piece, I found myself sometimes tempted to scribble down a few thoughts that occurred, beyond my first design. For I designed no more than references. I hope, the gentleman, your friend, will pardon my indulging myself in a kind of natural infirmity, which prevailed upon me unawares. He will be at liberty either to make use of fresh hints or to neglect them, as he sees proper: and when he has finished his work, may commit what I send to the flames. I refer sometimes to two pamphlets, written by two ingenious men, and contrived to be, as it were, supplemental to my Defences : Brief animadversions on tv;o Pieces, by John Browne^. Printed for Innys, 1725. An Essay on Irenceus. By John Alexander. Printed for John Clark and Richard Hett, at the Bible and Crown in the Poultry, T727. Both the pieces are very well written ; and both of them went through my hands before they went to the press. In Mr. Browne's piece will be found just answers to several things brought up again in Jackson's last piece. Jackson's stock is but slender, and he serves up the same things again and again, as often as he publishes in the same cause ; never con- cerning himself to rejoin to what has been replied, or so much as to take notice of it : always objecting, never responding. That is his way. He has published in this cause: \.A Collection of (Queries. 2. An, Answer to Mr. Nye, the noted Socinian, whom he took to be the mouth of the orthodox. 3. The Reply to Dr. W.''s Defence : though he had but a very small hand in it, so far as the first rough draft. Mr. Whiston added, and Dr. Clarke new-modelled and enlarged : so it was more properly Dr. Clarke's Reply. 4. The True Narrative, in opposition to Dr. Berriman's Historical Account, 1725. which Dr. Berriman answered in his Defence, &c. 1731. 5. Remarks on Dr. TV.'s Second Defence, (which I ought to have mentioned sooner,) by 6 Author of Sermons at L. Moyer's Lect. and of a Letter to Mr. Jackson, on his " Plea for Human Reason." John Lovedat/, Esq. 415 Philalethes Cantabrigiensis, 1723. This was answered by Mr. Browne, 1725. 6. Christian Liberty., now under consideration. These are all I know of, that he has published, relating to the subject : unless I may mention, 7. Calumny no Conviction, which, if I remember, has here and there some things relating to the Trinity, and is such a piece of Billingsgate as can hardly be paralleled. His friends made him keep it up for some time, being ashamed of it. But at length (to reimburse the bookseller, or the author) it came abroad. He has not set his name, as I remember, to any of these seven, excepting to what he wrote against Nye. I have long neglected him, as being a profligate or (as Mr. Browne more genteelly calls him) a privi- leged writer, who takes the liberty to say any thing, and whose reproach is no scandal. But as he is now almost the only writer left on the Arian side, and as he is thought to be a first- rate-man by the ignoramuses of the party, I know not but that it may be of good service to call him to account once more, not only for his heterodoxy in faith, but for his viler offences against moral probity, decency, veracity. But I shall weary you with talking of this trifling man : pardon me thus far. I am, with great respect, Sir, Your obliged humble Servant, DAN. WATERLAND. N". III. Windsor, Jan. 2'jth, 1734-5. Sir, I HAVE sent what I promised : you may please to deliver it to the gentleman ; sealed or unsealed, as you judge proper. Perhaps, as the thing is to be burned afterwards, it may be best to have what is in it kept as a secret between him and me. Being suddenly called to London, (which I did not expect,) I have scarce had time to revise what I had scribbled, or to cor- rect any mistakes. However, since I am to be favoured with a sight of the gentleman's papers, before they go to the press, I can then, upon more mature consideration, correct any thing I may find amiss, and thereby prevent my leading him into any mistake. He will excuse it, if he sometimes finds some things, 416 Letters to written currente calamo, which a sudden heat produced, and which might better have been spared. My service to him, and tell him, I wish him good success in his kind and Christian undertaking. I go to London (God willing) on Thursday, and hope that I may be dismissed on Saturday : for it is not expected that the Convocation will sit to do business, at least not this winter. I am. Sir, Your most obedient humble Servant, DAN. WATERLAND. No. IV. Ttoickenham, March i.%th, 1734-5. Sib, I THINK of continuing, for the most part, here till Whitsun- day be over, and then to remove (God willing) to Cambridge. Your friend's papers, when ready, may best be directed for me at 3Ir. Warcupp's, at the White Lion, near Charing Cross : for Mr. Warcupp will always know where I am, and will convey any letters or parcels safely to my hands. If the gentleman happens to be at a loss for any other book, which I may be able to procure, I shall very readily serve him. I have thought of one book, which he should see, and which perhaps he will not readily come at. It is a book of Wesseling's, lately brought over from abroad I must be at Windsor the 25th instant, Tuesday next : and I intend to send Wesseling up to you by your carrier. It may be returned with the former, when done with, to Mr.Warcupp's, at the White Lion. I shall be under a disadvantage, as to revising and correcting papers, in this place, having few or no books with me relating to the subject. But if I should find a necessity of consulting any, I will go over to Windsor, (which is but twelve miles off,) f This, no doubt, was Wesseling's rjv 6\6yos. Horbery, inhis "Animad- P^o6a6^Z^Mw^i(^6er,publishedatFrank- " versions on Jackson's Christian fort, 1731. Several chapters in it " Liberty asserted," (p. 120,) refers to relate to the attempts of an author, the tenth chapter of this book of under the assumed name of Artemon, Wesseling's, to correct Jackson's in- to shew that the text in St. John, koi terpretation of a passage in Melito's ©for riv 6 Xoyor, ought to be Koi Qtov Apology. John Loveday, Esq. 417 for a day or two, on purpose. I have leisure enough here, and little or no business, more than taking care of the pulpit on Sun- days, and looking after some parish affairs on the week-days. I am. Sir, Your most humble Servant, DAN. WATERLAND. No. V. Twickenham, Apr. %nd, 1735. Sir, I RECEIVED the papers last night, and immediately fell to reading them, and before nine o'clock this morning got through all the four parts. Upon this cursory reading, I take the liberty to say, that they are very well written, that I am highly pleased with them, both for matter and manner, and do not doubt but that they will be well received by the public, and will be of good service to the Christian cause. The first leisure I have, I shall lay out upon a cool and deliberate reading of the same, in order to observe whether any thing needs correcting or altering. If I have any thing to remark, I think of doing it upon a separate paper, that nothing may appear upon his MS. and that he may judge of it himself before he takes any correction into his copy. Perhaps I may sometimes take the freedom to draw a line through a sentence, or expression, which I may wish to have struck out. But, so far as I can judge from the first reading, I shall have but very little to do by way of correction or im- provement. I shall probably return the papers in a week or ten days' time, by coach or carrier. I did not expect my scribbles again ; having destined them to tlie fire, had your friend so pleased. I sent Wessehng by the coach, I think ; and I hope you have received it before this. The book is curious, and worth the reading, on other accounts. WATERLAND, VOL. VI. 418 Letters to N°. VI. Magd. Coll. July 6th, 1735. Sir, I HAVE received ^Ir. Anoiiymous's piece, and have read it with much pleasure. The Preface particularly (I need say nothing of the rest) is extremely fine, and shews both the gentleman and the scholar. I am so cautious of making any discoveries, that I denied myself the pleasure of putting you in the list of presents, for a trifle of mine just published, on the subject of Fundamentals^. If you will be so kind as to tell me the Prelate you speak of, I will tell you whether it be proper for Anonymous to own his performance there. I know pretty well how men stand affected, having a general acquaintance. I cannot be particular in a post letter : but I heartily wish for an opportunity of seeing you, and then I could freely deliver my mind upon various subjects. I intend (God willing) to be at Twickenham on the 12th of August, to be ready for waiting at Kensington soon after. There is an odd piece upon the Sacrament lately published ^i, and supposed to come from a great hand, which makes much noise. By what I can judge of it, the merits of it will depend upon two previous questions, concerning the doctrine of Atonement, and Divine Grace. If those are well fixed, all the pretences of that book drop at once, and the Sacrament retains its ancient dignity : if not, the Sacrament must be understood in a low sense, and at the same time Socinianism must succeed in the room of primitive Christianity. But there is no fear of that, while there is any learning, or good sense, or conscience remaining amongst us. I am, good Sir, Your obliged humble Servant, DAN. WATERLAND. e His"Discourse on Fundamentals, ^ Hoadley's " Plain Account of the " being the substance of Two Charges " Nature and End of the Sacrament " delivered to the Middlesex Clergy, " of the Lord's Supper," published in " in 1734 and 1735," inserted in vol. June, 1735. V. of this edition. i John Loveday, Esq. 419 No. VII. Magd. Coll. July 15, 1735. Good Sir, I AM very glad that Mr. A.' is so happily fixed with a person who will esteem and value him the more, the more he knows him. I should be sorry if his Lordship should not discover, in a while, his pubhc merit in the orthodox cause : because I am very sure it would be there a high and lasting recommendation. I can now with great pleasure assure you, that the piece is much esteemed here by as many as have read it, and they are very inquisitive to know from what hand it came. I declare to them that I think myself much obliged to the gentleman who has done me more than justice so handsomely, and has been so kind as to send me a present, but that he is unknown to me by name : only I hope, some time or other, to learn who ho is, and to be acquainted with him, since a person of his merit cannot long be concealed. I should have been glad if your affairs would have permitted you to give me the pleasure of seeing you at Twickenham or at Windsor, and I will not yet despair. Or if I should happen to be at the Bath next September, (a journey which I have some fluctuating thoughts of,) I may possibly find you out there, 'if returned from Maidstone. If not, I wish you however as much pleasure, as there will be use, in the Oriental studies which you have in view. A very little assistance will put a man in a way to go on by himself : labour and assiduity must do the rest. My time will be taken up with other affairs, (for two or three months at least,) that I cannot sit down to do any thing upon the subject you mention. I hope there will be no occasion ; for many hands will be at work, or rather are at work now. I have seen a good Weekly Miscellany already, and I hear of a pam- phlet besides, but have not seen it. Some talk of Bishop Sher- lock's being engaged on the subject, and others of Dr. Stebbing. I have contented myself with weighing and considering the nature and texture of this new book. It is put together with abundance ' Mr. Anonymous. See preceding letter. E e 2 420 Letters to of art, and a kind of studied confusedness : and though he has here and there dropped very dangerous principles, yet he has thrown in so many salvoes and evasions elsewhere, that it will be difficult to reconcile the distant parts, or to make out his whole meaning. The design, no doubt, was, so to insinuate what he aims at, as to lay in at the same time for guards and fences against any attacks. I shall only observe, that he builds much upon the words, re- membrance of me, which he interprets sometimes of remembrance of Christ's bodi/ or blood, sometimes remembrance of an absent Saviour, or of an offering made, or a sacrifice, and frequently remembrance of Christ as our Head, Lord, Master, and once, Judge. He goes as high as his principles will suffer him to do, and confines not himself to the bare words of the institution, but takes in all that he conceives to be mrtually implied. Now, if he will but give us the like liberty with himself, we may interpret the remembrance of Christ so as to take in what scripture de- clares of his dignity, merits, and sufferings : and so, we shall re- member him as true God, God over all, (and the like,) conde- scending to become man, and to atone for the sins of mankind by his death. And if we so remember Him in the Eucharist, all will be right, and every thing we desire will naturally flow from it. It will then appear (which I believe is the real truth) that he and we do not so properly differ about the Sacrament itself, as about the previous doctrines, which must influence every article relating to the Sacrament, and must determine it to a high or a low sense. If I am right so far, then it is plain, that in the last result, this dispute about the Sacrament must terminate in the other dispute about the doctrine of the Trinity. For his scheme is nothing else but the doctrine of the Sacrament Socinianized ; ours is the Trinitarian doctrine of the Sacrament. I thank you for mentioning a book to me which I had never before heard of. I have since seen it. It is a thick folio, pom- pously printed, containing, in all, above eight hundred pages. Delaune and Keach were two Presbyterian^ Divines, as I con- k Mr. Loveday has noted in the doubtedly an Anabaptist, and took a margin, that they were Anabaptists, part in the controversies of that sect, and has referred to Neal, iv. 520. See Chalmers's Biographical Dic- Neal, however, speaks there of De- tionary, vol. xix. p. 274. laune only. But Keach also was un- John Lovedav, Esq. 42] ceive ; and this book of theirs was the work of twenty years or more. I have just run it over, to observe what it aims at. It is to reduce scripture tropes and metaphors to certain heads, and to explain them in order. It is a good Eepertorium for things of that kind, and may serve for a sort of Concordance of matters, so far. There is often more fancy than judgment shewn in drawing out parallels : but notwithstanding, it must be owned, that there is a treasury of good materials in it, regularly digest- ed ; and it is an useful book in its way. I may probably look further into it, as I have leisure. I am, Sir, Your much obliged humble Servant, DAN. WATERLAND. Instead of remembrance of me, it were better, I think, to render it, in commemoration of me. No. VIII. Twickenham, Sept. j8 Whiston pubHshed in June, 1736, came out in April, 1737. In the mean a tract entitled, " The Primitive Eu- while, he printed a Charge on " the " charist Revived ; occasioned by The " Doctrinal Use of the Christian Sa- " Plain Account," &c. " craments," which was published in 422 Letters to " Winchester Converts." The subject is too grave to be treated in that manner : and lightness begins not well on our side. It may furnish the adversaries with a handle for playing their ridicule, and with a plausible excuse for doing it. I hear that Mr. A — gh's piece" is mere ribaldry : I have not seen it. 1 thank you for acquainting me with your and my friend's name". I see no reason now for keeping it secret : the end I liad in view is already answered by concealing it hitherto. However, I have discovered no further yet to any one, but that he is a Fellow of a College in Oxford. One gentleman told me the other day, that he had heard his name. I asked him to tell it me ; but he said, he had forgot : so the discourse ended. I think, the sooner he is known, the earlier a reputation he will have : everybody that has seen the book speaks well of it, and none can justly do otherwise. Jackson has seen it, and calls it mine ; which is his way. He was told that I neither was the author nor knew the author. He was asked the reason of his thought : and then he referred to the Preface, as discovering private things. The gentleman told him, in return, that he saw no discoveries in the Preface, more than had been made long ago in a printed Preface of mine : as indeed there are not. But that raving creature loves to ascribe to me every thing written on my side ; that the orthodox cause may be represented as resting upon a single man. I shall be very glad of any opportunity of waiting upon you, if you come near where I shall be, or I where you : and I hope some time to be personally acquainted with Mr. Horbery. I can think of a way of making the thing known to Bishop Smalbroke, by ISIr. Welchraan in a letter, if I fail of an opportunity of seeing his Lordship in Town. I am, good Sir, Your very much obliged humble Servant, DAN. WATERLAND. I am told that the Dissenters in general condemn the " Plain " Account nay, one of them assured me yesterday, that even » This was a Mr. Ayscough, of C. " low ; and is the reputed author of C.C. as appears from Mr. Loveday's " the 'Reply to the Winchester Con- letter, who says of him, " he has been " verts.'" " too well known ever since his College ° Mr. Loveday had acquainted him, " published their case with relation to in a letter of Sept. 6, that Mr. Mat- " him intruded upon them for a Fel- thew Horbery, Fellow of Magd. Coll. John Loveday, Esq. 423 Chandler opens against it, as leading to Deism directly. I have not had leisure for any thing, except the sketching out a rough plan, which may want altering in the progress. I cannot sit down to write before the middle of next month ; and winter comes on, which is not the best season for me. Mr. Biscoe, in his Eemarks, has done very well, so far. N". IX. Windsor, Jan. 1736-7. Sir, I HAD the favour of your kind letter, containing several curious and useful improvements to Cave, which will deserve to bo inserted in their places by the editors?. The thought of doing something in that way was first suggested by me to Judge Reeves and Dr. J ones, who approved of it. Had it been thought on sooner, more might have been done in it, and the edition made more complete. But late as it was, it may be a considerable improvement. I had not leisure to undertake such employ myself ; but I spoke to the bookseller to move it to some proper person at Oxford, offering to draw out a scheme of what I con- ceived requisite to be done, and promising to furnish out some materials. T had noted several references to Fabricius and Oudin in my ow n Cave ; and I knew a friend of mine, (Dr. Bishop, of Ipswich,) who had carried the design much further than I had done. I procured his Cave, and joined it to my own : and these were to be the materials to begin with ; to which more of like kind might be added, upon further searches. Mr. Pote, having been at Oxford, comes and tells me, that he could find no gentleman there that had leisure enough upon his hands to Oxon. was the author of the Animad- versions on Jackson's Pamphlet. This tract was pubhshed in July, i73o> anonymously, under the title of" Ani- " madversions on a late Pamphlet, enti- " tied, Christian Liberty Asserted, "&c. P This is in answer to a letter of Mr. Loveday's, accompanied with several references and corrections for the new edition of Dr. Cave's Historia Literaria, then preparing under the superintendence or direction of Dr. Waterland ; though, as appears from this Letter, Dr. W. was obliged to consign the labour of carrying it through the press to other hands. In a subsequent letter from Mr. Loveday, that gentleman appears to have fur- nished a large supply of materials for the purpose. The first volume of this new edition of the Hist. Liter, was published in March, 1740. In the Preface, honourable mention is made of Dr. Waterland's assistance. 424 Letters to undertake such a work. Hereupon, I thought of a person here, (one of our Petty Canons,) and explained the design to him, and offered to put the materials into his hands, and to give him such further assistance as I could, while resident upon the place. He undertook it, and has spared no care or pains since the time that he engaged in it ; minuting down as many new editions as he or I could think of, and running over Tillemont, Ittigius, Henry, and others who had given account of such authors as are mentioned in Cave, and making references to them. All Fabri- cius's pieces he has looked into ; not excepting his latest alpha- betical account of authors of the middle ages, (entitled, Bihlio- theca Latina medics et infimce ^tatis, 1736,) left imperfect in the letter P, by the decease of that great man. Hearne's pieces had not been examined. They are veiy scarce, and I had none of them, but the Textus Roffensis. But I am assured, that they are in Eton College Library; and thither the gentleman has promised to go, some time this week, to take down the several references which you have been so kind to put us in mind of, and to enter them in the margin of Cave. Your observation about an edition of Philastrius, I doubt not, is very just : for I see in Fabricius's edition of 1721, he marks that edition of 161 1, as a quarto. So, if Cave himself has not corrected it before, it shall be corrected now, by putting 4to for 8vo. If you or any other curious gentleman has any further ad- ditions to supply us with, it may not be too late to take them in, and they will contribute to the perfection of this edition. The design is not so much to note where other authors differ from Dr. Cave, but where they treat of the same things after him, whether differing from him or adding to him : so that this edition may be a kind of index to later Bibliotheques, and a common Eepertorium for things of that kind. And if it can he made tolerably perfect, it will be of very great use and ease to the inquisitive. To instance only as to Fabricius. His Bihliotheca Grceca is in a very confused order, and it is not very easy, even with the help of his Index, to turn readily to the volume or place, where he treats particularly of this or that ecclesiastical writer. This new edition of Cave will now be a better index to Fabricius (so far as relates to writers mentioned in both) than Fabricius's own is ; and will besides have references, not only to the Bihliotheca Grceca, but to all his other works of that kind ; John Loveday, Esq. 425 such as his Bihliotheca Ecclesiastica, and his Latina, and his other Latina, and several more pieces. New editions will not always be particularly noted, if Fabricius has before taken notice of them : because a reference to Fabricius, in such cases, may be sufficient. As to any new edition, in whole or in part, by Mr. Hearne, it will be sufficient to note it in its proper place, in some such manner as this: Item, per Th. Hearne, Oxon. A.D. And where he has offered any useful remarks, Vid. Th. Hearne, &c. The like may be done with respect to any thing of Dr. Smith, whose Miscellanea I have not seen, but shall inquire for them. Probably, Dr. Cave himself, in the corrections he left behind, or additions, (which make about a quarter part of the whole,) may have taken in what Dr. Smith had furnished. I am glad to hear that our very ingenious and worthy friend, Mr, Horbery, has a Stall in Lichfield church, and heartily wish it may be but a step to greater preferment. He is my country- man, I find, by what you are pleased to tell me. There is (living, I think,) an old acquaintance of mine, Mr. Poolei, in the isle of Axholme, a very valuable man, both for learning and integrity ; but whom I have not seen nor heard of these many years. I think of staying here till this month is over, or perhaps longer, and then of removing to Twickenham; though I may often be moving backward and forward, there being but twelve miles distance. If any thing should call you this way, I shall think myself happy in the enjoyment of your good company here : and if you, or any friend of yours hath any more materials, to add to the perfection of the edition preparing, and will please to send them, you will thereby add to the obligations laid upon, Sir, Your most obliged and respectful humble Servant, DAN. WATERLAND. My work goes on like church-work, slowly : twenty-five sheets are printed : there will be about eleven more. Perhaps it may be finished by Lady-day ; if Dr. Warren's last part ("which, for the present, with my consent, employs the same press) does not throw it off to a later date. 1 Mr. Loveday has corrected the holme, for the hving of St. Anne's, in name of Poole to Hoole, and mentions, Manchester. This Mr. Hoole after- in a suhsequent letter, that Mr. Hor- wards published a small tract in i2mo. bery had once been Curate to Mr. entitled, " A Guide to Communicants; Hoole, who had left the isle of Ax- " or the common Christian instructed 426 Letters to N°. X. Twickenham, Feb.i^th, 1736-7. Good Sir, I RECEH-ED your former pcapers, (as well as the last, bearing date the 17th instant,) and left them at Windsor, in the hands of the person who takes care of the additional notes to Cave : only I contrived, first, to cut out your name and place, having no commission to make discovery of either. I left some hints of advice with him about the manner or method of minuting down any thing of that kind. It must be done in a very brief way, and generally by a reference only to such book of Hearne's as makes mention of any of those later authors. Pecock I happen to be pretty well acquainted with, having formerly seen and read his two manuscript pieces at Cambridge, and having sent large extracts out of them to Mr. Lewis, of ^lergate, who was then writing his Life"". His design was, to print in one volume the lives of Wickliffe, Pecock, and Fisher. He finished the work, but could not meet with suflScient encouragement from the booksellers : so it rests still in his hands ^ I saw part of it, and liked it well ; excepting only that he would be sometimes needlessly severe upon Hearne. I desired him to strike those places out, if ever he should publish. It seems, there was an old emulation between those two antiquaries. Yet good Mr. Baker, of St. John's, Cambridge, kept constant correspondence " in the Doctrine of the Eucharist, ^ How largely Waterland contri- " being an extract out of Dr. Water- buted to Lewis's Life of Pecock, is " land's Review of that Doctrine ; by evident from his correspondence with " way of Question and Answer. With Lewis in the foregoing part of this " Devotions for the Use of Commu- volume. " nicants. By Joseph Hoole, M. A. ^ It seems, by this, to have been " Rector of St. Anne's, in Manchester." Mr. Lewis's design to print these lives In the Preface he states, " that the together ; but that finding himself " great author of the Review was ac- obliged to abandon this intention, he " quainted with his design, had these printed the Life of Wicliffe separately, " papers laid before him, ajjproved of in 8vo. in the year 1720. The Life of " them, and was pleased to encourage Pecock, he says, in the title-page, was " the publication." Hence it a])pears, written in 1725, but it was not pub- that the acquaintance between Dr. W. lished till 1744, a considerable time and Mr. Hoole was renewed, after this after Waterland's death. The Life of letter to Mr. Loveday, and, not im- Fisher does not appear to have been probably, in consequence of it. Dr. ever published. ^Ir. Masters, in his W.'s Review was pubhshed in April Hist, of C.C.C. Cambridge, mentions 1 737, Mr. Hoole's Guide in 1 739. It it among the tracts left by him in MS. is an excellent manual. See Masters's Hist. Appendix, p. 103. John Lovedai/, Esq. 427 with both, and supplied them both perpetually with choice materials. While I was turning over Pecock's Repressor, I discovered an odd blunder in the Oxon. Catalogue of MSS. N. 2370. 190. p. 170 : Explicit coram Domino Rege in Capella sua apud HumMch. Mr. Lewis had desired me to inquire what county that Himhich was in : but upon carefully looking into the Notary's memo- randum, at the end of that copy of the Repressor, (the very copy upon which Pecock was condemned, and the only left remaining,) I found it to run thus : Exhibit : coram Domino, in Capella sua, apud Lamhith. The book was exhibited before his Grace the Archbishop, in his chapel at Lambeth ; and there poor Pecock received sentence : cruel enough, and executed afterwards with utmost rigour. The opinion, as I remember, which I then conceived of him was, that he was a very honest man, and one of the ablest Divines of that age. His misfortune was, that he undertook to defend a very corrupt Church against the Wicklevites, upon a Scriptural and rational foot. It was impossible for him to do it, but by softening and disguising several principles and practices then prevailing. His design was very like to what the Bishop of Meaux attempted in the last century : but Pecock was not altogether so artful, nor so well guarded. He made some con- cessions which were very just, but which so corrupt a state of the Church would not bear. His enemies (some through envy, some through superstitious zeal) took the advantage, and aggra- vated every thing to the utmost. And thus a good and great man fell a sacrifice. This, I remember, was my judgment of the man and his case, when I read his pieces, and looked into his history. Your last favour, which I received this morning, I intend to carry with me to Windsor (God willing) next Tuesday, and there to stay till the Toth or 12th of March, and then to return hither, and here to reside some time. I hope to leave such instructions with Mr. Chapman, Petty Canon of Windsor, as may be sufficient for his carrying on what concerns Cave in my absence. I have Alberti's late book of 1735, and shall leave it in Mr. Chapman's hands. An edition of Hesychius was intended by Mr. NimpscU, of Breslaw, who came over into England about 428 Letters to fifteen years ago, chiefly with a design to furnish himself with materials. I saw him at Cambridge, and afterwards sent him a letter, directed to him at Breslaw ; acquainting him, that Mr. jNIorland (who was brother to the late High-Master of St. PauFs) had left behind him a fair^ copy, which he had been twenty years pi'eparing, and which had near twenty thousand emendations in it, collected chiefly from old Lexicons, Scholiasts, &c. and that his son (a physician, living at St. Alban's,) would sell his fathers copy, at a reasonable price, I could not say what. Mr. Nimpsell wrote me word back, that being full of other employ, he had laid aside all thoughts of proceeding with Hesyehius. Whether Alberti knows any thing of those papers of Morland, I cannot say: neither have I seen Dr. Morland since, nor heard any thing of him ; nor do T know whether he is alive or dead. But it may be a great loss to the learned world, if those papers should be lost : not but that I make some allow- ances for Dr. Morland's flourishes, in setting off" his father's performances to best advantage i. I am glad to hear that Mr. Hoole is alive, and preferred somewhat higher (as I presume) in the Church. He is a person whom I have a great esteem for, though I have not seen him of a long time. Pray, my service to Mr. Horbery. Mr. Wheat- ley's Sermons, preached in Lady Moyer's Lecture, at St. Paul's, are in the press, more than half wrought off". They are well penned, with good judgment and accuracy, and will be useful to the Christian cause. If you have any acquaintance at Trinity College, will you be so kind as to inquire for me, at what time Sir Thomas Pope, their founder, died. I have looked into Wood, and several t Over the word fair, Mr. Loveday has put a Qu ? ^ On a loose paper, which accom- panies this letter, Mr. Loveday has made the following memorandum : "Alberti in his Pref. to Hesyehius, " p. xvii. speaking of the still further " improvements which might be made " upon his author, says, " Ceterum in Anglia Criticorum " feracissima, hie illic multa pra;terea " delitescere me docuit ante hos annos " Uteris Anglice conscriptis avawfio^ " aliquis : nomen enim reticuerat, " neque auctor quis fuerit intellexi. " Gratus tamen benevolum ipsius " animum agnosco. Inter ea recen- " sentur anecdota Doctorum Viro- " rum, Morlandi, Nimpselii Bresla- " viscensis, G. Langbanii, Badgeri, et " aliorum. De quibus adcuratius non " est quod moneam." On another paper, dated 1784, Mr. Loveday (as I suppose) has written the following memorandum : " The Manuscript Notes on Hesy- " chius, among the Rawlinson MSS. " in the Bodleian, are by Obadiah " Oddy J contained in two thick 4tos. " of an interleaved Hesyehius. There " are also many notes on this Lexicon " among St. Amand's books." John Loveday, Esq. 429 other historians and antiquai'ies, to find it, but have been disappointed. That gentleman was one of the executors of Lord Audley, founder of Magd. Coll. Cant., and he had the chief hand in compiling our Statutes. I wished to know, how long every one of the five executors Hved ; have discovered two, (who were Lady Audley and Lord North ;) the third is Sir Tho. Pope. No doubt but the College registers must have recorded the day of his death. I think Orthodoxy is in as promising a way as can be expected in such days of liberty : and the late promotion to Lambeth is a good omen on that side, the work of a kind Providence towards us. I wish you and him a worthy successor to fill the see of Oxford. It is said, that he and the Speaker join their interest in favour of Dr. Lisle : but I will not warrant the truth of it". I am, Sir, Your much obliged humble Servant, DAN. WATEKLAND. N". XL Windsor, March loih, 1736-7. Sir, I INTENDED to havG returned you Virunius, Synesius, and Ximenes, by the last carrier : but having a little leisure to look over your several papers, I thought it best to keep the books, till I could see the several entries in Cave's margin settled ac- cording to my mind ; which now I have seen done, as far as could well be done without Hearne's pieces. The rest I leave to Mr. Chapman, when he can procure those pieces, which he is promised a sight of. Some part of your remarks came too late ; as much as belonged to the last century : for that part of Cave's copy was gone to the press. There can be no doubt of what you hint concerning Virunius. The note at the end is plain. He lived in 1520, as I learn from Fabricius's Bibliotheca Ecclesi- astica, in his notes on Trythemius, p. 235. I can make no certain judgment of tho date of your Synesius, and therefore do " Dr. Seeker succeeded Potter in in 1743, being then made Bp. of St. the see of Oxford, on the translation Asaph, and afterwards translated to of Potter to Canterbury. Dr. Lisle the see of Norwich, 1748. He died was advanced to the episcopal bench in 1749. 430 Letters to forbear. As to Ximenes, I very much doubt, and have not time to make full inquiries. He died in 1516 or 1517. It ap- pears not likely that any thing of his should be first published so late as 156^, and without a name. I suspect, that either Arias Montanus, or others concerned in preparing the Antwerp Poly- glott, compiled this Onomasticon, partly from the last volume of the Complutensian, and partly from their own observations. But I have not leisure, at present, to make the just inquiries y. I return you my hearty thanks for Petrus Comestor, and Smith, which you are so kind as to lodge with me. I believe I shall put Comestor into Windsor Library, and make a reference to him in Cave's margin, as there reposited. I find that several observations contained in your papers are anticipated either in Ouclin, or in Fabricius's Bibliotheca medics et hifiiiKB Latinitatis. In such cases, it may be sufficient to refer to those two, or to them together with Hearne. In your last, you hint something of Hicks' and Hearne's Account of the Prima, or first Canonical Hour. No doubt but what the first hour of the day, in Roman account, began at six, as ours does at twelve, that is, midnight. But yet the way of reckoning one o'clock is to take the end of the first hour, not the beginning. So if ad primam means at 07ie o'clock^ it means at the end of the first hour, and answers to our seven. I took the hint first from Johnson of Cranbrook, in his first volume of Saxon Laws, Ann. 957, No. 19. Elfric's Canons. Upon considering it, I thought he must bo right : for that otherwise, in adjusting our computation to the Roman, we should take odd numbers to answer to their even numbers, and vice versa. Their nine o'clock is our three, their three our nine : and therefore their one must be our seven. Or if their one be our six, their three will be our eight, their six our eleven, their nine our two, and so on. Midday, in Latin account, is the sixth hour : not when the sixth hour begins, but when it ends, that is, twelve o'clock. I think Hicks, Hearne, and Johnson, are all right in the main thing. The first hour is the same here and there : but hours are not numbered or reckoned, till they are over, and ended. I have noted, at the end of my Somner, the old way of reckoning the hours, but for- got to note what MS. I took it from. The words run thus : Pryme is the first houre after the sunne rysinge. y Mr. Loveday here inserts, " v. " before Leusden's Onomasticum " alloquutio ad Benevolum Lectorem, " Sacrum." John Loveday, Esq. 431 The tweie houres after pryme is cleped imclerne. Midday is the thridd houre, that men clepeth the sext honre, that is, the middel of the day, when the sunne is at the highest. The thridd houre after midday is cleped the nynthe houre, nones. An houre before that the sunne go dovvne, is the eleventhe houre. The twehethe houre is complyn, when the sunne goeth adoun even in the west. I shall only observe from this account^ that if pryrae be the first hour after sun-rise, the reckoning must begin an hour after sun-rise; not at six, which is sun-rise, but at seven, an hour after: and thus complyn will answer to prime, being at the end of the twelfth hour, (at sun-set,) as prime is at the end of the first. But enough of this. By what you somewhere hint of the English Bibles, you seem not to have had a sight of Lewis's edition of WicklifTs New Testament ; which has a History of the English Translations of the Bible prefixed to it : a full and accurate performance^. Therefore I chose to refer to that History, rather than to Mr. Hearne, for an exact notitia of our versions of the Bible. No- thing before extant, relating to that subject, is to be compared with it. If any thing was wanting to make it complete, it was a thorough search into St. Paul's Library ; which was thought on too late, and the accounts (too hastily taken) were not so exact as might have been wished. I could wish that that History were printed separate Y, with such few further improvements as the author might make. But the booksellers discouraged him so far, by refusing to print his Three Lives, that, I beHeve, from that time he has been somewhat chagrined, and cares not how little he has to do with them. I am moving (God willing) from hence on Saturday, towards Twickenham ; but I shall take particular care to see your books packed up before I leave this place, and shall leave special orders to have them carefully delivered to the Oxford carrier at his next return. I shall take leave to pack up with them a few ^ Of the extent of Waterland's con- v It was afterwards printed sepa- tributions towards its fulness and ac- rately, in 8vo., in the year 17391 con- curacy, some judgment may be formed siderably improved and enlarged, by the foregoing letters to Mr. Lewis, 432 Letters to papers of mine, relating chiefly to Robert of Gloucester, which have lain with me above eleven years. I intended to have sent them to Mr. Hearne : but Mr. Baker hinted to me, that the telling him now of any improvements or corrections that might be made to his edition, would rather afilict than oblige him : upon which I forbore. And, I beheve, he never was told, that Trinity College MS. of R. Gl. (which he had often inquired after) was found, soon after his edition appeared. It is a fine old MS. far beyond that which he printed from, in every respect, and a great deal fuller. I guessed from four lines of that MS. that St. Paul's was formerly the temple of Ajyollo, not of Diana. If the conjecture be reasonable, there is an easy account of the name of Paul, as succeeding to the similar name of Apollo. And I think Bishop Stillingfleefs arguments against a Temple of Diana (in his Antiquity of London) will not be of the same force against this other supposition. I wish it could be known from whence Robert of Gloucester borrowed his intelligence. Speak- ing of Bladulf's flying in the air a while, and at length falling, he says : The wynd com mid stormes, tho wethelede his fetheres, The stringes that helde that gyn : for, the grete Wederes To borsten, and the King adoun fel open the rof Of Appollines temple, so that he al to drof. Appollines temple was at Londone, in that dawe : For that was here manner in that ulke lawe Then Bladulf ded was, and hadde swiche endinge : Thus was tho his kinedom bireved of the kinge. These lines, with four more before them, should come in the 29th page of Robert of Gloucester. Excuse this hasty scribble, and believe me to be, with very true respect. Your much obliged humble Servant, DAN. WATERLAND. My service to IVIr. Horbery. N". XII. Twickenham, March i^th, 1736-7. Sir, I HAD no thought of your ever returning the trifles I sent, and therefore desire you to think no more of it. It was a John Loveday^ Esq. 433 chance that they were kept so long within my Rob. of Gl. They were intended for Mr. Hearne : and now finding that you were particularly conversant in all his pieces, I thought they might not be altogether unacceptable to you. I have the substance of them in the margin of my Robt. of Gl. and at the end. Indeed, I drew that account out of what I had first written upon the leaves of the book itself, as I read the MS. I collated the MS. quite through, marking every considerable variation all the way, transcribing the additional verses, as far as the bottom of pages would permit, or small slips of paper would hold ; omitting only the large additions, which I had not room nor time fory. By the help of those memorandums I have transcribed into the other leaf the whole account of the Three Wonders, as it stands in our MS. only neglecting the Saxon Letters, which lately I have been little used to. I believe Hull, or Hul, is rightly inter- preted Hill: it is twice so used in p. 56, and again in p. 145, and again in the last line of p. 147, according to our MS. To the Hull of Kyla, &c. and so, I believe, constantly, wherever it is used. As to the book called Prick of Conscience, I have never seen it : otherwise I should soon know by the diction whether it was Hampole's, having carefully read his Psalter. I understand, however, that Hampole's Stimulus Conscientice, a Latin piece, is nothing akin to the other in matter or method ; and therefore, probably, they had not one author ^. While I was searching the age of the Anglo-Saxonic versions of the Athanasian Creed, (which I saw could not bo competently judged of without some insight into our old language.) I threw myself out into that kind of study ; which proved more enter- taining, upon a little use, than I once imagined. It was worth the pains, were it only to be master of Wanley's Catalogue, the best catalogue of MSS. that ever was drawn, and the best model and pattern for future catalogues. But there are many useful discoveries to be made in history and science from the old Saxon remains, and some from the old English also. I wonder that the curious men of your University have so long let Junius's Etymologicon of the English language lie neglected, and nobody has yet thought of printing it by subscription. It is most y Waterland's copy of Robert of Bodleian library. Gloucester, with the marginal and ^ V. Fabricii bibl. med. et infin. other notes here mentioned, is now Lat. iii. 554. among Ilawlinson's MSS. in the WATERI.AND, VOL. VI. F f 434 Letters to certainly a very curious piece, and would be highly instructive. Not that T ever expect a complete Etymolosricon from anv single hand: it requires a club of men, great linguists in their several ways ; some in the northern lanoruages, some in Greek and Latin, some in Welch, French, Italian, Spanish, and some in the Oriental. I easily see how and wh}' EtATnologists have so often failed, and thereby brought a kind of contempt upon the art ; Xon omnia possuirrus omnes. For our own language, a man must have Saxon. French, and Welsh, in order to make the first step in the evf)lution of our words : and if he would go higher, he must next have Greek, Chaldee, and Hebrew, if not more. Latin is of little use in the inquiry, except it be to shew how it was derived from the same common fountains with the Welsh and Saxon, which appear to be both of them as old, or older than the Latin, and came late in. Vossius (Gerard) is the most judicious Etymologist that the world has known. The next to him, in my mind, is a late author, a Welshman, I tliink, whose name I have forgot, though I have his book in my study at Windsor, and have not looked into it for ten years last past, or more ^. Our grammars of the English tongue have none of them been made by men competently qualified for the business. Wallis aimed well : Greenwood has improved upon him : none but a thorough Saxonist can ever do it to perfection : and he must be one that has traced its several changes and declensions in a course of 800 years, or more. Bishop Hutchinson, a while ago, (if he was the author of the piece dedicated to Lord Mac- clesfield,) trifled wretchedly on this head. But I know not why I thus run out in a letter, except it be to fill up my paper, now I have begun. When I return to Windsor I shall inquire what Fabricius has noted of the editions, or intended editions of Epiphanius. That man knew everj' thin? almost belonging to the Historia Liieraria : the world has a great loss by liis death, in the middle, or before the end of a very useful work. He died under the letter P, and in the fifth volume. I know not who will be able to supply the remainder, if he has not himself left it behind him in manuscript. Philo Judfeus, as I suppose you have heard, has long been in good hands, I mean Dr. Mangey's : and I presume it is in the press, and in some forwardness. Mr. Twell's Pococke. at two » This was Lhuyd's Glossography, as appears from the next letter. John Loveday, Esq. 435 presses, is near two- thirds printed off. The two foUo volumes of Popish Tracts I have heard but little of lately ; but I believe they are well nigh finished. My scribbles are swelled to p. 544, and will be near 600 ^ ; and they intend to wait upon you and Mr. Horbery sometime in April, as near as I can guess. If I should ever have the pleasure of seeing you at Windsor, I would take that opportunity of improving my small acquaintance with Mr. Baber, whom I once waited upon, along with Don Lewis. I shall step to Windsor now and then from hence, but shall not go to reside there till after I have been at Cambridge, and winter draws on, about the time you think of returning out of Holland. Excuse me, if I interfere with what concerns your election : I was lately told you were likely to have no opposition : but that you best know. We once thought it certain that Dr. Lisle was to be your Bishop. But it seems he is a cautious man, and thinks a lower station is safer from storms'^. I am, good Sir, Your most assured humble Servant, DAN. WATERLAND. N. B. To this letter is subjoined the account of The Three Wonders, extracted from Robert of Gloucester's poem, and referred to in the beginning of the letter. N". XIIL Twickenham, May \ Wi, 1737. Sir, Since the favour of your last, I have been at Windsor, and loft instructions tliero for inserting some things in Cave, pur- suant to the hints contained in your two last letters. I have also insisted upon it with Mr. Pote the bookseller, that he shall contrive to have every sheet hereafter brought from your press to Windsor, to Mr. Chapman there, in order to have it carefully revised and corrected by him : otherwise mistakes will creep in, to the great deti'imcnt of the edition. Mr. Chapman has taken vast pains in preparing the edition, and no one else can espy a ^ His work on the Eucharist, wliich had deehned e])isco|)al promotion, extended to about 600 i)ages. though he aftervvuids accejjtcd it. " It appears by this, that Dr. Fislp F f 2 436 Letters to fault of the press, or so easily correct it, as he can ; especially as to what concerns the additional references. I am very glad to hear that subscriptions are taking in for Junius. I have sent to Crownfield at Cambridge to put me into the list of subscribers. I suppose I shall see the proposals there : I have seen none yet, nor so much as heard any thing of them but fi'om your letter. Should not some way be taken to advertise it more, and to make it more generally known? I speak of it myself wherever I come, to encourage the design, and to promote subscriptions to it, and shall do so all along : it is a work of value, so far as T am able to judge from Wanley's account, and from what I know of the learned author of the work from his other writings. You guessed very right : Lhuyd was the man whose name I had forgot, but whose very judicious Glossography I formerly read over with great satisfaction, when I was minded to under- stand something of the use and value of the etymological art. I thought that he and Vossius shewed more judgment and less trifling, than any I had met with besides. I think of moving to Cambridge (God willing) in Whitsun- week, and to spend the summer there. The bill mis-titled /b;- the encouragement of learning is happily dropped. It is to be hoped some better bill may be prepared again.st another session. It w£fs well designed by the first promoters, but quite spoiled in the progress. The result of it, as new modelled, \vouId have been subjecting authors to attorneys and informers to such a degree, that very few. I believe, would have been ambitious that way for the future, had the bill passed. Abundant care was taken to secure fourteen copies for as many libraries ; but little or none taken to encourage learned men to write. If that project of fourteen copies were laid aside, a good bill might be prepared : or if some men's fondness for that unreasonable tax cannot be removed, the proper way would be, not to threaten authors with 50^. fine (half to the king and half to the informer) for neglect, or for any error in form, but to give every donor of fourteen copies a double or treble term, or a perpetuity, in his copy. That would be handsome encouragement, and would have good effect, and would not leave the defaulters liable to be harassed by officious or malicious informers. So as to second editions, instead of leaving authors to the mercy of informers, (in case they should add new improvements. Johl Looeday, Esq. 437 without printing the same separately,) it were sufficient to give every one liberty to print separate sheets that would, for the u^se of the public. Above all things, care should be taken to secure authors from lawsuits, (especially for innocent slips,) as well as from pirates, or else it is doing nothing. It were much better to risk the worst that pirates can do, than to be insured in such a way as may expose many an honest man to nmch greater hardships. At present, we stand pretty well upon the foot of Queen Anne's Act : but still I am in hopes, as circumstances may favour, that some additional encouragements to learning may bo thought on, and meet with acceptance in the two Houses. My service to good Mr. Horbery, and thank him for his last kind letter. I am, Sir, Your obliged humble Servant, DAN. WATERLAND P.S. I shall take care to do justice to your worthy President'', if I ever hear him reflected on : though I believe very little credit was given to those malicious aspersions by any one at that time ; and the honour since done him by the University has effectually wiped ofi^ all suspicions among men of any judg- ment. N". XIV. Sir, Twickmham, Octob i6th, I TAKK the freedom to recommend Mr. Checklcy, who waits upon you with this, to your favour, in any way you judge proper. You will see a brief account of him in the preamble^ <* Dr. Edward Butler, President of Magdalen College. ^ The following is a copy of the preamble here mentioned, from a tran- script made by Mr. Loveday : " Contributions, by the respective " colleges, to the Rev. Mr. John " Checkley of Bo.ston in New Kng- " land, known by his writings in de- " fence of the Christian Religion as " professed in the Church of England, " lately ordained Deacon by the Bi- " shop of St. Asaph, and Priest by the " Bishop of St. David's, both upon " Letters Dimissory from the Bishoi) " of London : appointed Missionary " to the Providence Plantation by the " Society for the Propagation of the " (lospel in Foreign Parts ; and pre- " paring shortly to return into his own " country, there to execute his mis- " sion." It appears that this Mr. Checkley had been a bookseller at Boston, 438 Letters to to the contributions which we raised for him vei'y lately, in our University. A further account of his past and present circum- stances I leave to him to give, if you shall please to admit him to the honour of your acquaintance. He suffered some years ago for defending Episcopacy with more learning and spirit than was agreeable to some persons. But I refer you to his book, and leave you to judge of him by that, after a perusal of it. I think of moving (God willing) to Windsor the latter end of this week, there to take up my winter quarters. I long to see how Cave is advanced. I am afraid it goes on slowly : but better so than to precipitate a work of that nature. I am, Sir, Your most humble Servant, DAN. WATERLAND. Mr Hoole. I believe, by this time is in the press with an Abridgment of Review, &c.^ N». XV. Magd. Coll. Cambridge, July 6th, 1740. Worthy Sir, I HAD the favour of your most obliging letter, the contents of which I shall presume, after you, to call words of course ; being such as naturally flow from an inbred goodness improved by a polite education. I take leave to congratulate you upon your happy change of state. May you find in it all the de- where (in the year 1723) he published an edition of " Leslie's Short Method " with the Deists ; with the Discourse " concerning Episcopacy; in Defence " of Christianity and the Church of " England, against the Deists and " the Dissenters." This publication drew upon him a prosecution for a libel, grounded on some passages in the Discourse on Episcopacy, alleged to have a design of drawing into dis- pute his then Majesty's title to the crown, and of scandalizing the Min- isters of the Gospel, by law esta- blished, in that province, &c. The jury found a special verdict ; upon which the court declared him gidlty. Mr. Checkley, in the year 1730, published at London the speech which he had made in his own de- fence upon his trial at Boston, in which he very ably exculpated him- self from the charge, and (as Dr. Waterland observes) " defended Epi- " scopacy with more learning and " spirit than was agreeable to some " persons." * See note on Letter IX. p. 425. John Loceday^ Esq. 439 sirable satisfaction which is used to go along witli minds well paired. Your kind opinion of my papers I thank you for. If they prove but any way serviceable to sincere and ingenuous inquirei s, I have my aim. They are such small quit-rents as 1 think myself in duty bound to pay, when I can, for the leisure and opportuni- ties wherewith God has blessed me. I am much pleased with the amiable character you give me of Mr. Bye. I shall bo sure to spread it, wherever I conceive that it may be of service to him. It will not be long before I must return to Twickenham, to stay there a month or two, in the neighbourhood of the town. In the mean season I am here, in an agreeable situation, amidst plenty of books, printed and manuscripts, entertaining myself, and serving distant friends in a literary way. We have lately here lost an excellent man, who lived and died in that pleasurable kind of toil : I am just come from the hearing a fine panegyric of him from St. Mary's pulpit. Mr. Baker is the person I mean ; as you would have imagined, without my naming him. He lived to a great age, but so lived as to make it necessary for those he leaves behind him, to think he died too soon. I am, good Sir, Your much obliged humble Servant, DAN. WATERLAND. N. B. Besides the foregoing letters, the papers transmitted from Mr. Loveday's Collection contain a long account by Dr. Watei'land of a MS. of the Lives of the Saints in the Library of Magdalen College, Cambridge, with several extracts from it, in a letter to Mr. Hearne, dated Nov. 17, 1725: also a paper addressed to Mr. Baker, giving an account of the principal variations of the printed copy of Robert of Glouce.ster from the MS. in Trinity College, Cambridge, with some Remarks on the Glossary^. There are, besides these, two letters to Dr. Water- land from Mr. Pownall. a gentleman of Lincoln, concerning some Saxon MSS. in the library belonging to Lincoln Cathedral. There is also the following paper, written by Dr. Waterland himself, concerning the different keeping of Easter-Sunday, in 8 Probably these are the notes mentioned at the beginning of Letter XII. 440 Letters to John Loveday, Esq. the year 577, which, as a matter of curiosity, seems worthy of being preserved ; Anno 577. Gold. N. 8. Cycle S. 26. Dom. Lett. C. That year Easter-Sunday was thus differently held : Hispani. Churches . . . March 21. GraUic Apr. i8. Alexandrians Apr. 25. Quaere, how and why • 1. The Spanish Churches at that time took March the 21st for the equinoctial full moon, or fourteenth day : and their rule then being to reckon from the fourteenth moon, and that proving to be Sunday, they thereupon kept their Easter. 2. The French being two days sooner in their reckoning, made March the 19th the last full moon of the old year, and April the 3rd following^ the first new, and consequently April 1 6th the first full moon, or fourteenth day. And they likewise then following the same rule of beginning at the sixteenth moon, now falling on April 18th, they thereupon kept their Easter. 3. The Alexandrians, following the same reckoning wth the French, as to the new and full moons, looked upon Apiil i8th as the first full moon, or fourteenth moon. But their rule being never to calculate Easter so soon as the fourteenth moon, (for fear of confonning too near to the Jews,) were obhged to put off their Easter to the Sunday following, namely, to Apr. 25. Which rule of theirs we follow at tliis day. DR. WATERLAND'S LETTERS TO THE REV. DR. ZACHARY GREY, BROWNE WILLIS, ESQ. AND THE REV. DR. WILLIAMS. The six following Letters were transcribed from the original manu- scripts, which form a part of Mr. Cole's Collections deposited in the British Museum. They occur in vol. xxx. pp. 17c, et seq. and in vol. xxxii. p. 225, of those Collections. DR. WATERLAND'S LETTERS TO THE REV. DR. GREY. N°. I. To the Reverend Dr. Grey. Windsor, Dec. loth, yj^S- Dear Sib, I OUGHT sooner to have acknowledged your last kind letter; but happening to write Mr. Chapman^, soon after I begged of him to make my compliments to you, and to give my answer in part. If Mr. Baker's friend succeeds so far as to get the Vice-Chancellor's hand, with the hands of some other Heads, he may be sure of mine, if wanted, to fill up the number. Please to present my most humble service to Mr. Baker. Mr. Peck has written to me on the affair you mentioned. I will write about it to our President, (now at Cripplegate,) in order to have the sense of the Society upon it. I am for encourag- ing all public tmrks: and I believe there will be no difficulty in the affair, provided there be no danger of giving offence to Mr. Pepys's relations For, since it was his own handy- work, perhaps they * Mr. Cole, in a note subjoined to ■> This probably relates to the col- one of the following letters, says, " Dr. lections Mr. Peck was making for his " Waterland was uncle or cousin to Desiderata Curiosa, the first volume " my brother-in-law, Mr. John Chap- of which appeared in 1732. Mr. " man, formerly of Magdalene Col- Pepys had been President to the Royal " lege, and afterwards at Moulton, in Society, and Secretary to the Ad- " Lincolnshire." miralty ; and bequeathed his library 444 Letters to may conceive, that we ought, in good manners at least, to con- sult them in it. Mr. Foulkes will wi-ite to you in a while, after he has well considered. Mr. Peck is so kind as to send me a Hst of several books re- lating to the Eucharist. If you write to him, please to return my thanks, and tell him, that if it be not too much trouble to him, and to his friend, I should be glad to see two or three of them : — The Christian's Manna, 1613. Lambert. Dancei. Isagoge, 1583. Beza3 Dialogi, 1561. The rest I either have already, or doubt whether they would be of any use to me. I thank you for the use of those you were so kind as to send up : I find some curiosities amongst them. I am, dear Sir, Your affectionate, humble Servant, DAN. WATERLAND. N°. II. To the Rev. Dr. Grey. Windsor, Feb. 5'/^, 1734-5. Rev. Sir, I THOUGHT myself highly obliged to you and ray other kind friends, for the honour they were pleased to do me in a late affair, and heartily sorry that I was forced, in a manner, to make further trial of their good nature and friendship, hy de- clining the office. I beg of you to believe, that as I received their compliments with aU possible respect, so I accept of their generous excusing me with all possible gratitude^. And whenever I shall have the pleasure of meeting you, you and I perhaps may talk more of that matter. (containing many rare and curious concurrence of the Royal Society and collections) to ^Iagdalene College, of Mr. Pepys's relations. Cambridge. (See Nicliolls's Liter. ^ This evidently refers to the in- Avecd. vol. i. p. 509. and vol. iv. p. tention of nominating Dr. Waterland 550.) It appears from this letter, that Prolocutor of the Lower House of Dr. Waterland was scrupulous of sup- Convocation. See his letter to Mr. plying Mr. Peck with materials from Loveday, (No. II.) Jan. 23d, 1734-5, Mr. Pepys's collections, without the adverting to the same circumstance. ihe Rev. Dr. Grey. 445 1 thank you for acquainting ine with what you are designing; I am very glad that you think of reprinting that excellent piece. I have no thoughts of replying to Barhcyrac's late ifisidf^; nei- ther indeed have 1 yet seen it ; but Mr. Johnson of our College sent me up some account of the manner and contents of it ; by which, I apprehend, that he has scarce entered into the main question, or set himself (as he ought to have done) to defend the charges he had before made against Athenagoras, Clemens, &c. but has contented himself with loose, roving talk, such as any one may throw out, when he cannot make a just reply. Mr. Johnson is going to publish De Officio Hominis et Civis, in Latin, with a short Preface and Notes. He asked me, if I would have him take any notice of what concerned me; and I sent him word, he might spend a page of his Preface that way, if he saw proper^. But if you will be so kind as to animadvert further in ijour Pre- face^, you will have a handsome occasion for so doing, and will have more room to spare for it ; and, I believe, you will find it little [more] than play to you, to deal with him on that subject. If you think of sending up papers to me, it will be best to direct them to Mr. Warcupps' for me ; and he will convey them safe to me, either at Twickenham or at Windsor, as may happen. And if I am capable of observing any thing upon them that may be useful, and to the purpose, I shall readily do it ; only I shall Barbeyrac's severe attacks upon the morality of the Fathers, in a Pre- face to his French translation of Puf- fendorf, de Jure Nat. et Gent, and in his work entitled, Traite de la Morale des Peres de VEylise, had been justly censured by Dr. Waterland, in the 7th chapter of his Importance of the Doctrine of the Trinity. Barbey- rac, in a Preface to a subsequent edition of Puffendorf, De Officio Ho- minis et Civis, in 17,34, animadverted with great asi)erity on Dr.Waterland's observations. This is the insult here alluded to. ^ The Preface to this work of Mr. Johnson's takes no notice of Barbey- rac's treatment of Waterland. The only reference to it occurs in a note, \). 12, in which he merely states the contro- versy which had passed between them, and closes the note with saying, " De " meritis hujus controversiac nil dice- '■ mus ; nan nostri est tantas compo- " nere lites." f Dr. Grey, it appears, ado])ted this suggestion. An offensive ]):imphlet had been published in 1722, entitled. The Spirit of Ecclesiastics of all Sects and Ages, as to the Doctrines of Moral- ity ; with a Preface, by the Author of the Independent Whiff. The work itself was nothing more than a translation of part of Barbeyrac's Preface to his French translation of Puffendorf. In answer to this. Dr. Grey published, in the same year. The Spirit of Infi- delity Detected; which tract he now, in i73ri, rejjrinted, with a Preface in Answer to Barbeyrac's Short Invective against Dr. Waterland, in his last French edition of Puffendorf, De Offi- cio Hominis et Civis, 446 Letters to be under a disadvantage at Ticickenham, where I have no books to consult. I am, dear Sir, Your affectionate and obliged humble Sen-ant, DAN. WATERLAND. P. S. I was told by Mr. Burton, that you was preparing a second part against Neal, which I hope is ti'ues. Neal and Chandler, I observe, are lashing the Estahlishriient of our ChurcTi, through the sides of the Papists, in their l &c. the Doctrine of the Trinity. 469 P. 514. 1. 36. " but the Gospel was worth it, and carried more than " enough in it to make mankind amends."] " Praestat salutiferam veri- tatem vel inter pugnas et contentiones retinere, quam menclacio altam inter quietem indormire. Sed nec ejusmodi concordiae ratio est ineunda quae vel Christianse religionis indoli repugnet, vel plures calamitates ge- neret quam illse ipsae dissensiones, non lacessitae aut irritatae produce- bant." PufFendorf. Jus Fecials Divinum, s. 3. p. 1 1. P. 5 15. 1. 21. " Though the censuring of men that corrupt the faith " may provoke, may increase ill blood, &c. yet it must be done."] " The Church was forced to oppose the Valentinians, Manichees, Arians, IMacedonians, &c. These were such invasions as seemed to commissionate all that could wield the sword of the Spirit to take it up, and engage in this warfare. But all the while, it was a sad dilemma to which the Church was driven. If she gave countenance to these seducers, she betrayed her faith ; if she entered the contest, she vio- lated her unity : the one would undermine her foundation, the other would make a breach in her walls." Causes of Decay., &c. c. 9. pp. 249, 250. P. 516. 1. 34. "And it would be but an ill way to preserve peace, " (if it might be called peace,) by forfeiting our Christianity."] " Pretiosum quidem nomen est pads, et pulchrum est nomen uni- tatis. Sed quis ambigat earn solam Ecclesiie atque Evangeliorura unitatem, pacem esse, quae Christi est?" Hilar, contra Auxent. 1263. edit. Benedict. Ibid, note q. Hoornbeeck, vol. i. Apparat. p. 73, 74. Buddeus, Miscel. Sacr. torn. i. pp. 319, 320. P. 517. 1. 8. "that no one ought to be excluded from Christian " communion, whatever his faith be, provided he acknowledges sacred " writ for his rule, and is ready to admit any creeds or confessions " drawn up entirely in scripture terms."] How common this pretext has been in the mouths of those who have had a mind to introduce new doctrines, is observed by Frid. Spanheim, Opp. torn. ii. pp. 982, 983- P. 518. 1. 15. Instead of, "the famous Abbot of St. Clare," 7-ead, Franciscus a Sancta Clara. P. 523. 1. I. "there is a medium between taking violent measures " with them, and treating them as fellow-Christians."] Mr. Chilling- worth, in answer to the Romanists, distinguishes very justly, in these words : " Neither do you obey our Saviour's command. Let both grow up till the harvest, who teach it to be lawful to root these tares, such are heretics, out of the world ; neither do Protestants disobey it, if they eject manifest heretics, and notorious sinners, out of the Church." 470 Notes on the Importance of CHAPTER VI. P. 524. note c. Stillingfleet, Vindic. 178. Vossius de Symbol, diss. i. p. 38. Suicer. Thesaur. torn. ii. p. 1093. P. 536. note a. Conf. Hoornbeeck, torn. i. 1. i. c. 9. p. 256. torn. iii. proleg. p. 65. Witsius in Symbol. Apostol. p. 17. P. 538. note i. Basnage, Annul, torn. i. p. 599. P. 541. note X. " Saltern in hoc acutius vidit Julianus Socinianis, quod Jesum a Johanne Deura esse pronunciatum non negavit ; si volu- isset autem — intendere, idem etiam ab aliis factum Apostolis intelligere voluisset." Fabric. Bibl. Grac. 1. iv. c. 5. p. 140. P. 550. 1. 6. " the ancient visionaries — being ashamed perhaps to " confess Christ crucified,"] Add, or afraid to suffer martyrdom for it. Ibid, note 2. Conf. Epiphan. xxiv. 4. Philastr. c. 32. P. 553. note 5. Compare Joh. iii. 16, 17, 18. P. 562. note g. Zornii Opusc. Sacr. torn. i. p. 77, &c. Frid. Span- heim. 0pp. torn. iii. p. 250. P. 566. 1. 28. "will conceive no high opinion of his [Le Clerc's] " veneration for the scriptures."] How slightly the Socinians in general think and speak of the inspiration of scripture, may be seen in Hoorn- beeck, Socin. Confut. torn. ii. lib. i. c. i. Ibid. 1. 29. "it is keeping them indeed, for the saving of appearances, " but in order to expose them the more insidiously."] The admitting only of a partial inspiration, is eluding, or evacuating, the authority of the whole Canon : it is, verbis ponere, re tollere. Ibid. 1.36. Instead of, "Deism," read immorality. Ibid. 1. 37. " thousands perhaps may be thus led — who could not " have been brought to it by the shorter, coarser methods."] It may be added, that a holy Ufc (were it possible, or consistent with heresy) is not the whole and entire end of the Christian religion. But forgiveness of sins must be considered, as well as an holy life. Sherlock, pp. 28, 305. Whatever is necessary to be believed for forgiveness of sins, is a fundamental, though we could not see how it affected morals. P. 572. note y. Conf. Philastr. 77. p. 196. P. 583. 1. 18. "and then the Father could be considered only as in- " habiting Jesus, a mere man, and a distinct person from him."] Conf. Athanas. tom. ii. p. 39. Epiphan. Hcer. 65. p. 614. P. 586. 1. 27. " But as that first Council [of Jerusalem] had its " use in the Church~so had this other also, [of Nice,] and has to this " day."] " Invaluit ilia quidem haeresis aliquantisper in Ecclesia : sed tanta cum pugna invecta est, ut nemini licuerit ignorare quae ejus fuisset origo. Ante fuit damnata ilia causa, quam victrix, ut scias the Doctrine of the Trinity. 471 earn judicio Ecclesiae periisse, potentia aulica revixisse." Roger. Boyle, Summ. Theol. Christ, p. io8. P. 588. note k. Conf. Basil, torn. iii. p. 307. A.D. 375. P. 589. 1.18. 5e/bre " Ignatius," insert as follows: Clemens Roma- nus, in his second Epistle, " Brethren, we ought to think of Christ as of God. — We ought not to think meanly of our Saviour. For if we think meanly of him, we hope to receive little." This intended against Cerinthus. See Bull. X). F. sect. 2. cap. 3. that thinking meanly of Christ, is hazarding salvation. P. 599. note d. Conf. Frid. Spanheim. Hist. Christian, sect. 3. p. 740. CHAPTER VII. P. 602. 1. 35. " Such unworthy suggestions," &c.] Compare what Dr. Wall observes of the Jesuits, as pretending that infant-baptism can- not be proved from scripture ; by which they serve some political ends. Wall, Hist, of Inf. Bapt. part 2. c. 8. pp. 458, 459. part 2. c. 2. s. 9. p. 278. s. 13. p. 279. second edition. P. 604. note <.] Gardiner, Cathol. circ. Trin. Fidei Delincatio, p. 153. Wall, p. 2. 0. 8. s. 6. pp.458, 459. P. 605. 1. 7. " there is something of equivocalness and ambiguity, for " the most part, in words, or phrases, though ever so well and wisely " chosen."] Vide Scrivener contra Dallmum, part 2. p. 108. Werenfelsii Dissert, de Logomachiis, p. i 24, &c. P. 606. 1. 23. "ambition," &c.] Valentinus. Tertullian. ad Valentin. 0.4. Marcion. Epiphan. Har. 42. Montanus, Novatianits. Euseb. vii. 43. Arius, Theodoret. vide Lactant. 1. 4. c. 30. P. 608. 1. 4. " Those that lived in or near the apostolical times," &c.] Confer Scrivener contra Dallceum, pp. 34, 35. P. 61 1, note p. Chillingvjorth, c. 2. s. 147. p. 98. P. 614. note b. Taylor, Liberty of Prophesying, p. 1 24. P. 618. 1. 26. For, " doctrines of the church," read, doctors. P. 62 1 . 1. 2 1 . " the use which might be made of the negative argu- " ment, supposing we could go no further, or had nothing more to " plead from antiquity."] " Summa eorum qure diximus, hue redit, non potuisse fieri ut Ecclesia universa, imprimis Ecclesia primorum sseculorum, in vicem capitum sive Articulorum Fidei falsitates am- plecteretur et ad posteros propagaret ; ut Ecclesia, inquam, univer- saliter antiquitus in fundamentis religionis erraret ; et hoc nobis con- stare ea certitudine qua sacris scripturis divinisque promissionibus assentimur. Quae vero fuerit publica et passim recepta primorum saeculorum doctrina, e priscorum doctorum consensu — patere certitu- dine morali, quae in illo quidem genere maxima sit, et formidinem 4/2 Notes on the Importance of oppositi sufficienter excludat." Georg. Calixt. Prooem. in Jugustin. de Doctrin. Christiana. P. 624. 1.25. "wounding Christianity itself through their sides."] " Re vera dicendum est, inter eos qui ah Ecclesia Papistica secesserunt, coraplures inveniri, qui Patrum scripta ob id unum legisse videantur, ut eos calumniis et raaledictis omne genus incessant. Quod ut forte baud ita mirandum sit in iis hominibus qui, etsi male dissimulant, nomine, ore, et moribus Judaismum inviti produnt ; vix tamen in iis tolerari potest, qui Christum sincere animo profitentur." Vindic. Veter. Script, contr. Joan. Hardnin. p. 60. P. 625. 1.30. "those who have — adhered strictly to antiquity — have *' done most honour to the perfection of scripture."] " Tanto sane ma- joris faciendus est consensus antiquitatis, quanto turpius quotidie labi eos videmus qui jus novandi sine fine ac modo sibi vindicant." Grotii Epist. p. 32. conf. p. 434. P. 629. 1.4. "divine attributes are ascribed to him."] Add, besides the works of creation. P. 631. 1. 7. "to the analogy of faith," &c.] AVhat analogy of faith properly means, see briefly explained in Jenkins's Remarks on some Books, p. 169. P. 637. note m. Conf. Zornii Opusc. Sacr. t. i. p. 613, 614. P. 644. note y. Hoornbeeck, Socin. Confut. tom. i. 1. i. c. 19. pp. 206, 207. Puffendorf. de Consensu et Dissensu Protestantiuni. Lubecse, 1695. sect. 14. pp. 80, 81. Frid. Spanheim. de Fundament. Disput. x. ss. 5, 6, 7. p. 1 33 I, &c. 0pp. tom. 3. Ibid. 1. 25. " as if all Christian doctrines were to be expunged out " of the list of necessaries, which have had the misfortune to be dis- " puted amongst us."] " Fidem non habent huic articulo, quia non est necessarius ad saluteni ; non est necessarius ad salutem, quia non habetur dare in scriptura sacra ; — non habetur clare in scriptura sacra, quod de textibus ei pertinentibus a multis doctis disputatur. — Hoc est, si diabolus potest hseresin in Ecclesia excitare, (et quod poterit, prffimoniti sumus) turn poterit efficere, ut quod antea semper et ubique videbatur necessarium ad salutem, non dehinc ut tale videatur. Quod est, religionem Christianam mutilare, et paulatim ad nihilum re- digere. Roger. Boyle, Episc. Clogherens. Summ. Theol. Christian, c. 16. p. 67. P. 653. note X. " Antiquae Ecclesiae plus tribui in Britannia quam in Gallia, miror a quoquam negari. In Canonibus Ecclesiae Anglicanaj conscriptis anno 157 t, hunc invenio :— /)«73rm«.5 vero, &c. Hanc le- gem an accepturi sint GaUice ministri, multum dubito." Grot. Epist. p. 21. A. D. 1615. the Doctrine of the Trinity. P. 654. 1. 19. Instead of, "the present Church speaks by scripture " and Fathers," read, it is the present Church that sjjeaks, though in the name of scripture and Fathers. P. 655. 1. 27. "let us not too hastily part with any thing," &c.] See Hooi-nbeeck, Socin. Confut. torn. i. c. 6. p. 86, &c. P. 656. 1. I 7. "for then a right belief would be no matter of choice, " nor faith any longer a virtue."] Conf. Chillingivorth, c. 2. s. 93. p. 77. and s. 96. p. 78. P. 660. note 0. Dr. Payne's Examination of the Sixth Note of the Church, A. D. 1687. Ibid. 1. 29. " that the Protestant cause could not desire any fairer " or greater advantage than to join issue upon the point of genuine " antiquity."] " Viderunt jam olim Jesuitce, monstrantibus non paucis eorum qui ductu Evangelii feliciores Christiani cultus semitas ingressi sunt, traditioncs scriptas, quas apud rerum antiquarum ignaros magni- fico tumore verborum ostentare solent, in plerisque fidei Romanse capitibus mutare. — Id autem cum fateri non possint, contendunt hodie passim negligendam esse antiquitatem, Patres falsariorum manus esse passos, in permultis recentiorum auctoritatem esse anteponendam." Vindic. contr. Harduin. pp. 5, 6. Ibid, note s. Zornius, p. 666. vide Payne's Sixth Note of the Church examined, p. 113, &c. P. 663. note b. Conf. Vitringa, Observ. Sacr. 1. iv. c. g. sect. 14. p. 925. edit. Amst. 1 727. P. 665. note /. Stillingfleet, Eccles. Cases, vol. i. p. 1 18. Ibid. 1. 14. " except it be as to the choice of some leader or "leaders."] See Causes of Decay of Christian Piety, c. 16. pp. 37^, 371. 372- CHAPTER VIII. P. 667. note h. Pro " significatur" lege signatur. Ibid, note k. 1. 7. Pro " ilium" tege ille ; and 1. 16. j)ro " impediris" lege prtepediris. Ibid. 1. 34. " and therefore Being of being, or Substance of substance, " (not beings or substances,) has been the catholic language."] See my Further Vindication, or Third Defence, vol. iii. pp. 40 — 46. Browne's Animadversions, ])p. 10, 11, 28, 29, 30. P. 673. note g. Conf. Fabric. Bibl. Grcec. 1. iv. c. 5. p. 141. P. 676. 1. 3. "all this discourse about being and person is foreign, " and not pertinent."] " Vadimonium deserunt, dum re 7nissa de voci- bus litigant : seu missa veritatis Siihstanliri, invadunt theologicum de- clarandi, explicandi, municndi modum." Frid. Spanhcim. Fil. torn. iii. pp. 1210, I 2 13. 474 Notes on the Importance of P. 677. note e. " Omnia quae in negotio Trinitatis dicuntur extra ea quae in sacris Uteris habentur, et pauca quae ad eorum explicationem consensus antiquus recepit, periculum habent. . . . Quae ad internam Dei naturam pertinent, aut circumscripte eloquenda, aut silentio veneranda sunt." Grotii Epist. 1 1 1 8. p. 5 14. P, 678. 1.28. "could there be any words thought on, either plainer " or stronger, to express a proper efficiency?"] See my second Sermon, where it is proved at large, that God the Son is properly Creator, and efficient Cause of all things made. P. 680. note t. See Pearson, Art. 2. p. 98. [p. 178. Oxford edit. 1833-] P. 683. 1. 6. " are yet but a very slender part of what the whole scrip- " ture aflfords uS"in that cause,"] " Mediatorem novi foederis esse Deum, evincunt infinita S. Scripturae loca, quae id nomen in proprio sensu ei tribuunt, ac talia opera quae non nisi in verum Deum cadere possunt. Quod et ipsa foederis indoles requirit ; cum nulla creatura ejus possit esse dignationis ut personam totius humani generis repraesentare possit cum tam nobili effectu qui creationi aequiparari possit. Ps. xlix. 8, 9. Atque idem falso minor aut inferior quoad essentiam Deo Patre fingi- tur ; cum non obscure contradictionem involvat, aliquem esse verum Deum et tamen minorem aut inferiorem quoad Essentiam esse Deo Pa- tre, qui a consensu omnium verus Deus est : sicuti et impossibile et contradictorium est, ahquid quod posterius tempore vero Deo ex- istere coepit, in veri Dei essentiam creatione, adoptione, aut quovis modo provehi." PufFendorf. De Consen.t. et Dissens. Protest, sect. 41. P- '45- ADDENDA. P. 684. note e. Conf. Hieronym. Ep. ad Heliodorum. P. 689. 1. 30. " if men come with humility, modesty, and circum- " spection, &c. there will be no great danger in examining every thing " with the utmost severity."] A thorough examination is indeed the safest. For, the greatest danger hes in examining by halves. P. 690. note a. 1. 5. After " communionem," add, to KaToKafi^dveiv ita- que per opprimere verti voluit. P. 691. note n. Conf. Coteler. Not. ad Ignat. Interp. ad Trail, p. 66. P. 695. 1. 16. " Some others are charged with secularity and selfish " views, but not all."] Col. ii. 18, 23. P. 696. 1. 6. " there lay all the stress."] See Stebbing's Defence of the Report, p. 1 89. fol. edit. Ibid. 1. 24. " artful professions," &c.] Vid. Dodwell. Diss, in Iren. iv. 23. p. 335. "Not to believe all necessary points, and to believe the Doctrine of the Trinity. none at all, is for the purpose of salvation all one ; and therefore he that does so may justly be said to destroy the Gospel of Christ, seeing he makes it ineffectual to the end for which it was intended, the salvation of men's souls." Chillingworth, c. 6. s. 75. p. 340. [vol. ii. p. 42 I . Oxford edit, i 838.] NOTES AT THE END OF THE BOOK. " Inter eos autem quos sola duntaxat discrepantia dogmata dis- jungunt, nullo interveniente emolumento quidam toto theologia syste- mate ac notorie fundament alihus articuUs dissentiunt. — Ad [quam] clas- sera referimus Socinianos et qui hisce proxime accedunt, tum ple- rasque Anabaptistartim familias, Tremulos seu Quackeros, et qui fanali- corum nomen merentur : qui articulos quos Protestantes palmarios habent, negant aut detorquent, et velut evacuant, ut amoto nucleo inania tantum putamina remaneant. Sic ut theologise systema ab istis formatum, a nostro plane abeat, et vix circa alia inter eos conve- niat quam quae ex ipso naturalis rationis lumine cognita sunt, aut ad regendos mores pertinent. Circa quos, quamdiu hypothesibus suis innituntur, nobiscum conciliandos satagere, vesanise proximum, ac plane inutile duco. Ac in id potius incumbendum fuerit, ut solida con- futatione, ea errorum gangriena comprematur, ne latius serpat: prae- sertim cum profanis hominibus admodum blandiatur, si nihil ad creden- dum proponatur nisi quod fatio capere possit, nec plus ab hominibus exigatur quam alias socialis indoles ad vitam honeste et tranquille agen- dam requirit. " Ex quo et illud consequitur, rationem istos valde fugisse qui con- ciliationem harum quoque sectarum quas tetigimus cum Protestan- tibus moliti sunt eoque fere vel Symbolum Apostolicum, vel aliam laxissimam formam pi'oposuerunt, velut ad concordiam Ecclesiasticam sufficere posset, circa isthtec consensisse ; circa reliquos articulos, extra earn formulam positos, perinde esse quid quisque sentiat, nec eum dissensum paci quidquam officere. Nam si formula concordise ita laxe concipiatur, ut eadem quibusvis sectariis ad palatum sit, theO' logia emerget oppido quam jejuna ac mutila." Puffendorf. Jus Feciale Divinum : sive de Consensu et Dissensu Protestantium, sect. 4. p. 82. Lubecse. 1695' " Cum ab una parte militet interpretatio et intelligentia Scripturse, subnixa notorio consensu omnium doctorum Ecclesiae primitivse, quo- rum ad nos scripta pervenerint, (horum enim consensus etiam se- 476 Notes on the Importance of quentium temporum testimonium includit) quosque nemo impietatis sine impietate accusare possit ; — ab altera autem parte militet conse- quents privatse qiias ego non possim solvere; — an his assentiri tenear ? Annon eum laude modestia;, vel saltem minori peccandi periculo illi assentiar ? Nam si non teneor, quae sit stultitia aut temeritas a piorum veterum unitate tarn manifesta, cum plerorumque Christianorum scandalo, discedere ? Si vero teneri me probaveris, turn deraum illam tecum ingrediar disputationem, an consequentice tuse tales sint ut respon- sionibus meis elidi nequeant." Epist. C. Bergii Ruaro, pp. 124, 125. script. A. D. 1626. "Nunc audio, quosdara conjicere, vobis Calvinistas sequentibus suc- cessuros Deistas, qui tollant ipsius S. Scripturas veritatem." Mersennus in Epist. ad Ruarum, p. 268. circiter A. D. 1664. " Libri quem molitur Bysterfeldius paginam unam vidi, vereor et ego, ne, quod Jeckermanno evenit, ei eveniat, et nimiae subtilitates aliqua parte ad impetum eorum quos pugnat, pateant ; omnia quae in ne- gotio Trinitatis dicuntur, extra ra Iv rals ypav, eavTov iKevuxrev popfprjv dovXov Xo/Scoi'. Hanc igitur hseresin, ad cujus mentionem pii omnes exhor- rent, invehi in Ecclesiam clamat Sibrandus, non errore aliquo et the Doctrine of the Trinity. 477 ignorantia, sed studio atque industria." Grotii Ord. Holland. Pietas. p. 99. Infidelitatis 4 species. 1. Gentilismus, materialiter maxima infidelitas, sed formaliter levior quam Judaisraus. 2. Judaismus est gravior infidelitas, quia acceperunt figiiram Evangelii quae erat quasi aurora respectu diei Evangelicae. 3. Heeresis, gravissima infidelitas, quae renititur fidei clarse. 4. Apostasia est fastigium hsereseos, scilicet generalis defectio a fide. Roger. Boyle, Summ. Theol. Christians, p. 204. ADDITIONAL NOTES ON REGENERATION STATED AND EXPLAINED. [See vol. iv. pp. 425—458.] Regenerated. 1. Considered as a hirth into a new state, as the entrance or first admis- sion into such and such privileges, first reception of the grants, entrance into sonship. 1 . Which grants may he considered as made and received, but not salutarily applied. 2. As salutarily applied. As a hirth it comes hut once, though the things received, as justifi- cation, remission, &c., are continued acts. It differs from them as first reception does from continuance of them, 2. Considered as a continuance of that state. When a man is said to retain his baptism, or to lose or forfeit it, the word means a baptismal state : so when regeneration is said to be retained or lost, it means a re- generate stale, or sonship. But as that state is never wholly lost, a man is never rebaptized or regenerated again, or entered into sonship. 3. Both considered as salutary, or not salutary ; imperfect as to their main end and use, or perfect with respect to their main end and use. The perfective addition is considered as an integral part of it : and then baptism, in a large sense, takes in its salutariness ; and regene- ration, in a large sense, takes in renovation, and is distinguished from it as whole from part. In this view^ a man may lose his sonship in part, which sonship is restored or repaired, by restoring that perfective part. Notes on Regeneration stated and explained. 479 4. Regeneration for baptism, or for the thing signified and exhibited in and by baptism. Baptism, in its whole notion, takes in sign and thing, comprehends God's part and man's part. Water and Spirit. To be va- hdly baptized is the same as to be regenerated of water and the Spirit, but abstracting from the question of savingly or not savingly ; for all regeneration is not saving, any more than all valid baptism. 5. Regeneration, or the grants once made and applied, are continued in and by the worthy receiving of the Eucharist, and is distinguished from that condition as a birth is from li/e, or as reception of life is from nu- trition of the same. Life is no more given, no more begun ; but it is repaired, renewed, preserved, nourished, kept up. P. 427, note i. Firmi/. p. 148, 149. Clem. Alex. \ ^G, ^^i. Hieronym. Pelagius, Theodorit. in loc. P. 428. note d. Gerhard. Loc. Com. torn. iv. 596. Whitby in loc'. P. 430. note I. 001/^,483. Wall, Def. p. 321. P. 43 1 . 1. 4. " the new man "] Leo L Serm. iv. in Solemn. Nativit. Ibid. 1. 15. "man's spiritual state."] Four states : L Ante legem. 2. Sub lege. 3. Sub gratia. 4. Sub pace plena. " In quacunque autem quatuor istarum velut setatum singulum quemque hominem gratia regenerationis invenerit, ibi ei remittuntur prseterita universa peccata, et reatus ille nascendo contractus, renas- cendo dissolvitur. Tamque multum valet quod spiritus ubi vult spiral, ut quidem secundam illam sewitutem sub lege non noverint, sed cum mandato incipient adjutorium habere divinum." Augustin. Enchirid. p. 241. Ibid. 1. 25. " demonstrates the same thing."] " Non est instituta re- generatio, nisi quia vitiosa est generatio, Ps. 1. 7." August. Ench. c. 46. p. 214. tom.vi. " Regeneratio spiritualis una est, sicut generatio car- nalis una est." Augustin. in Joh. tr. xii. " Baptismi finis est, ut signet et obsignet spiritualem nativitatem nostram, sive insitionem in Christum et receptionem in familiam ejus. Hoc in altero Sacramento, hoc est, ccena, locum non habet, quia hsec est signum et sigillum non regenerationis, sed nutritionis ac alimonia spiritualis; non foederis initi, sed continuati. — Semel per baptismum nascimur, sed ssepe per coenam nutrimur." Voss. t.vi. 320. 480 N^otes on Regeneration P. 432. note q. Adv. Pelag. 1. iv. c. 1 1. p. 490. torn. x. Wall, Inf. Bapt. part. i. p- 71. Defence, Append, p. 24. Ibid. 1. 5. "third birth."] Augustin. de Civit. Dei, 1. xx. c. 5. p. 577. — Tom. vii. c. 6. p. 580. — torn. x. 540, 541. Ibid, note s. Gataker Adversaria, p. 336. — " Peccata quse male agendo postea committuntur, possent et panitendo sanari, sicut etiara post baptismum videmus." August. Enchirid. c. 46. p. 214. torn. vi. Ibid. 1. 19. "a permanent state."] " So the word baptism, in ancient Church-writers, often signifies a baptismal state, a permanent privilege, or quality, or character, though baptism is but once, and admits no second. " Because that pious disposition is what he is indispensably obliged to arrive to ; and what by his very profession he is supposed to have already in some measure attained ; and what the generality of Chris- tians, in the primitive and purest times, actually did possess : therefore, a man's being ' born of God' signifies, in scripture phrase, the same as being a true and sincere Christian ; and ' ivhosoever is born of God,' is as much as if the Apostle had said, whoever pretends to be a good Christian." Clarke's Sem. vol. ix. p. 327. So, Whosoever is baptized into Christ has put on Christ. Gal. iii. 27. And, How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein ? Rom. vi. 2. Ibid. 1. 21. " the state he was once born into."] " So the word bap- tism is often used for baptismal state, as when a man is said to retain his baptism, or to retain it entire." C'oncil. Eliher. Ibid. 1. 28. " does not justify himself,"] " Regeneration seems to differ from justification, as the first act from the continuation of the same ; or as creation from conservation. Note, that justification and remission are things permanent and increasing; are continued acts." Bull, 437. 43 P. 433. 1. 5. "The thing granted,"] The grants themselves are con- tinued acts : but still regeneration is a name for the first conferring, or first reception of them. Ibid. 1. 20. " integral parts,"] " Chrism was thus an integral pai't of baptism, though not absolutely essential to it." Bingh. vol. iv. P- 3 74- Ibid. ]. 28. "a kind of renewal;"] "And therefore avamlvacri^, or (ivaKalvicris, is used sometimes for regeneration." See Suicer, t. i. p. 275. P. 434. 1. I. " Preventing grace"] Philipp. ii. 13; Ephes. ii. 3, 4; 2 Tim. i. 9 ; Tit. iii. 5 ; John xv. 6. Ibid, noted. "Corneho"] Aug. t. ix. 85, 138, 139, 140. Confer de Bapt. Aug. 1. iv. c. 24. p. 140. torn. ix. et sup. Levit. Q. 84. Chrvsost. in Joh. Horn. xxv. p. 146. torn. viii. QCcumen. in Act. x. 48, Cyprian. Epist. Ixxii. p. 128. Anonymus de Rebapt. p. 356. Hieronyra. stated and explained. 481 ad Heliodor. Ep. 5. p. 11. torn. iv. Bull, Examen ad Animadv. v. p. 16. P. 435. note r, Eph. ii. lo. Ibid, note x. Georgius Abbot. A. D. 1597. Apud Voss. torn. vi. p. 229. " Baptizari etenim est quasi in Ecclesiam ^-ewerarz ; et ut nil ssepius quam semel generatur ; ita decenter institutum fuit, ut nemo sse- pius quam semel baptizaretur." Ibid. 1. 27. "Regeneration and renovation"] One is the receiving life ; the other is part of the nutrition, or a condition of it. — One is both of body and soul ; the other of the soul only. — One the act of God towards us ; the other the act of God in us. P. 436. 1. 9. "regenerating act."] " Regeneratio ilia est opus divinse gratia, quia nec praecedentia nec sequentia merita nostra respicit, sed gratis propter Christum nobis contingit. " Quemadmodura nemo quippiam confert ut generetur, ita quoque ad spiritualem regenerationem nihil quicquam ex penu nostrarum virinm conferre possumus. Cum hac regeneratione conjuncta est renovatio, per quam natura nostra incipit legi divinae conformari. Sed propter illas novas qualitates non regeiieramur, &c. quin potius requiritur, ut prius per fidem in Christum mediatorem Deo reconciliemur , per Spiritum Sanctum regeneremur, et ex gratia, propter Christum, accipiamus vlo6e- aiav, antequam in operibus bonis ambulare possimus." Gerhard, Loc. Comm. torn. iii. 456. Ibid. 1. 24. "progress of the Christian life."] " Meminisse debemus tantummodo peccatorum omnium plenam perfectamque remissionem baptismo fieri ; horainis vero ipsius qiialitatem non totam continuo com- mutari," &c. Augustin, de Peccat. Meritis, 1. ii. c. 27. p. 64. torn. x. P. 437. note c. Voss. Hist. Pelag. 1. vi. Thes. xi. p. 746. tom. vi. Bull, Apolog. p. 668. Wells, 215. Ibid, note d. " Gratia Dei non solum reatus omnium prspteritorum solvitur in omnibus qui baptizantur in Christo, quod fit Spiritu regene- rationis ; verum etiam in graudibus voluntas ipsa sanatur, et prseparatur a Domino, quod fit spiritu fidei et charitatis. Augustin, Retract. 1. i. c. 13. p. 20. tom. i. edit. Bened. Ibid. 1. 17. "complete regeneration."] Not complete as to its ends and uses ; therefore not complete as to that larger notion of it, which takes in the ends and uses. As faith without works is a dead faith, so regeneration in an adult is a kind of dead or dormant regeneration : but yet, as faith is faith, though works do not follow, so is regeneration, regeneration. And as faith, in its precise notion, does not mean faith and works both, so neither does regeneration, in its precise notion, signify both regenera- WATERLAND, VOL. VI. 1 i 482 Notes on tioii and renovation. As faith is perfected by works, so is regeneration perfected by renovation. P. 438. 1. 24. " special cases."] Three ways the Spirit might be given : " 1. Aqmm praestare Spiritum sohtum. " 2. Et sanguinem proprium, hominibus prsestare Spiritum solitum. " 3. Et ipsum quoque Spiritum prsestare Spiritum sohtum." — Anonym, de Rehapt. p. 364. ed. Bened. Ibid. 1. 18. "sign."] Regeneration was prior to baptism under the patriarchal and legal states, and was therefore independent of the sign of water then, and may be now. See Aug. Enchirid. c. 1 19. p. 241. De Bapt. 1. iv. c. 24. p. 140. torn. ix. " In Corneho prsecessit sanctificatio spirituahs in dono Spiritus Sancti, et accessit sacramentum regenerationis in lavacro baptismi." August, ibid. Ibid, note h. For " quamdiu recenseatur," read, quamdiu non re- censeatur. P. 439. note 0. " Ipsum est quod in nobis celebratur magnum bap- tismatis sacramentum, ut quicunque ad istam pertinent gratiam, mori- antur peccato, sicut \pse peccato mortuus dicitur, quia mortuus est carni, hoc est, peccati simihtudini ; et vivant a lavacro renascendo, sicut ipse a sepulcro resurgendo, quanilibet corporis a?tatem gerant." August. Enchirid. c. 42. p. 213. torn. vi. " Ideo enim quisque renascitur, ut solvatur in eo quicquid peccati est cum quo nascitur." Ibid. 214. Confer Aug. Retract. 1. i. c. 13. \). 20. torn. i. edit. Bened. cited above. P. 440. note r. "A parvulo enim recens nato usque ad decrepitum senem, sicut nullus est prohibendus a baptismo, ita nullus est qui non peccato moriatur in baptismo : scd parvuli tantum originali, majores autem iis omnibus tnoriuntur peccatis qusecunque male vivendo addide- runt ad illud quod nascendo traxerunt." August. Enchirid. c.43. p. 213. tom. vi. P. 441. 1. 21. " becomes again whole and entire."] " Uti olim in cir- cumcisione ita nunc in baptismo : Deus quidem promittit gratiam, et vitam (Eternam, homo autem fidem et obedientiam. Quod si a pacto resi- liat homo, amittit ille quidem jus postulandi vitam seternam : at qui semper pacto stat, Deus, non perdit jus suum in hominem. Atqui bap- tismus additur foederi ex parte Dei; si igitur non ex parte Dei, sad ho- minis, rumpitur foedus, nihil attinet repeti, quod ex parte Dei [bap- tismus] obsignabat, sed duntaxat opus est ut homo per pcenitentiam redeat ad Deum, quo percipiat foederis in baptismo initi fructum. " Nempe, hie res se habet ut in matrimonio. Quemadmodum enim Regeneration slated and explained. 483 maritus si uxorem adulteram retinere volet, non earn novo se copulat matrimonio, sed ad prius revocat fcedus ; similiter Deus spiritualiter for- nicantes ad conjugii spiritualis semel initi foedus redire item jubet." Vos- silts, torn. vi. 3 20. P. 442. 1. 13. " ivater only"] " Certe qui nascuntur ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto, non aquw fiUos eos rite dixerit quisquam ; sed plane dicuntur filii Dei Patris, et matris Ecclesiae." Aug. Enchirid. c. 39. p. 212. torn. vi. Ibid. 1. 1 8. " but with proper distinctions."] John's baptism was distinguished from Christ's by this, that one was of water and the other of the Spirit. Acts i. 5 ; xi. 16. Conf. Anonym, de Rebapt. p. 354. See August, torn. ix. p. 158; and see p. 169, where Austin says, "Simon ille Magus natus erat ex aqua et Spiritu." " Christi baptismus est non in aqua tantum (sicut fuit Johannis) ve- rum etiam in Spiritu Sancto, ut de illo Spiritu regeneraretur quisquis in Christum credit, de quo Christus generatus regeneratione non eguit." August. Enchirid. c. 48. p. 214. tom.vi. Ibid, note b. Austin expressly allows the Spirit to be given in some part, or in some sense, in all true baptism. Tom. ix. 116, 117. And p. 169 he is express that Simon Magus was born of the Spirit. P. 443. 1. 14. " whether good or bad."] Vid. Austin, torn. ix. p. 1 1 7, Ibid. 1. 25. "disqualifications"] They ai'e therefore born 0/ 1 he Spirit, only not salutarily born. \\(}i.Aust. tom.ix. 169. Ibid, note c. Conf. August, torn. ix. pp. 86, 87, 88, 89, 1 17, 133. " Simon ille Magus natus erat ex aqua et Spiritu, et tamen non intra- vit in regnum coelorum." p. 169. A.D.400. Conf. p. 157, 158. " Simon ille de Actibus Apostolorum acceperat lavacrum aqua, verum quia Spiritum non habebat, indutus non erat Christum." Hieronym. ad Galat. torn. iv. p. 214. A. D. 388. " Idem Spiritus, etiam super indignos quoque sui, nonnunquam inve- nietur esse : non utique otiose, nec sine ratione, sed necessaria alicujus operationis gratia, sicut super Saul fuit, super quem factus est Spiritus Dei, et prophetavit." Anonym, de Rebaptismate. Inter 0pp. Cypriani, p. 364. ed. Bened. Compare St. Austin, p. 31, of Serm. note. Though Simon Magus was born of water and the Spirit, yet he was not born of God in the sense of i John iii. 9. "Qui natus est ex Deo habet caritatem. Ecce accepit sacramentum nativitatis homo baptizatus : sacramentum habet, et magnum sacra- mentum, divinum, sanctum, ineffabile. Considera quale : ut novum hominem faciat demissione omnium peccatorum. Attendat tanien in cor, si perfectum est ibi, quod factum est in corpore. Videat si habet caritatem, et tunc dicat, natus sum ex Deo. Habeat caritatem : aliter, I i 2 484 Notes on non se dicat, naittm ex Deo. Sed habeo, inquit, sacramentum. Audi apostolorum, i Cor. xiii. 2." August, torn. iii. par. 2. p. 859. A. D. 4 \ C). P. 444. 1. 10. "hitherto wanting."] Vid. August, dc Bapt. 1. i. c. 10. pp. 87, 88. torn. ix. Conf. 79, 81, 91, 121, 145, 169, 419, 427, 447, 620. P. 445. 1. 16. " Jezebel"] Buddei Eccles. Jposi. p. 401. Ibid, note Bishop Smalbroke's Answer to Quakers, p. 183. P. 446. 1. 3. " Galatians"] Vide Hieron. in loco, p. 278. tom.iv. Ibid, note h. Calv. Inst. 1. iv. c. 16. et Comm. in loco. Chamier, torn, iv. 1.5. c. 9. Gomarus, Opp. par. i. 261. Maresius, p. 456. Episcopius Dilcmm. Pontific. p. 159. Schlictingius in loco. Wolzogenius in loco. Hoornbeeckius, Theol. Fract. 1. ix. c. 22. Grotius in loco. Hottin- geru?, Thes. p. 246. Cocceius, torn. iv. 90. Ittigii Exercit. Theol. p. 80. P. 447. 1.29. "what has frequently happened,"] St. Saulien's con- fession to Mrs. Bourignon. Abridgment of her Life, p. 285. Conf. p. 238 ; and on Solid Virtue, part i. p. 86. " He told her, he was not what he had appeared to be ; that, having from his youth a haughty raind, he desired to distinguish himself from the people ; which, since he could not do by birth or wealth, he resolved to put on the appear- ance of virtue and piety, as being more esteemed, which made him prac- tise outward works of mortif cation and devotion; that he learned to speak after so sublime a manner of inumrd things, by reading carefully spiritual books, and ob.-erving her words, sentiments, and way of be- haviour; that the first time he saw her on the street, he was struck with love of her; and all he had done or said since was to insinuate into her friendship, and to enjoy her, by love or force, which he was resolved upon, though he should hang for it." Ibid, note /, ist parag. Conf. Buddeus, Eccles. Apost. p. 325. P. 448. note /, 3rd parag. " Cum — falsa dixisse deprehenderetur — ausus ejus sacrilegos fuisse, satis emineret, cum ea non solum ignorata, sed etiam falsa, tam vesana superbise vanitati diceret, ut ea tamquam di- vince personse tribuere sibi niteretur. In illo autem qui doctor, qui auctor, qui dux, et princeps eorum, quibus ilia suaderet ita fieri ausus est, ut qui eum sequerentur, non quemlibet hominem sed Spiritum tuum sanctum se sequi arbitrarentur ; quis tantam dementiam (sicubi falsa dix- isse convinceretur) non detestandam, longeque abjiciendam esse judica- ret?" August, de Bapt. p. iii. Ibid, note I, 5th parag. Dr. Hammond in the year 1654 says of it. "The opinion that of late begins to diffuse itself among some." Funda- ment. Opp. torn. iv. p. 317. Regeneration stated and explained. 485 p. 449. 1. 12. "some secret rules of their own breasts."] "Every one will have a familiar spirit of his own to teach him." Laney's Ser- mon on Comprehension, Gal.vi. 7, 8. A.D. 1675, p. 14. " Here is no place in the test (Rom. viii. 16.) for private revelations, and I wish they had none amongst us ; for under colour of tliem, every man will have a private spirit, though of his own making. Any vain dream or imagination, nay, any wicked or devilish suggestion, shall be an impulse of God's Spirit : it were happy for this kingdom and church if we could lay these familiar spirits : no schism in the church, no mischiefs in the commonwealth, no rebellious practice which was not carried on by the conduct and impulse of these spirits. Thus by them they trouble the world, deceive simple men, and work despite to the Spirit of God." Laney, p. 17. P. 450. 1. 2. " dictates of the Spirit."] To believe it a divine inspira- tion, and so not controllable by scripture ; this is to be mad, to be given up to all delusion, to surrender our hearts as a blank table for the devil to write what he pleases upon, and to pass it as the engravings of the finger of God. And if there be no light (i. e. no understanding) in us but what is divine, we must think every thing divine that is written there ; and then we are sealed up in error, from which there can be no returning, &c. Ibid, note n, 3rd parag, 1. 10. "pretended principle"] "Which, when any man comes to be persuaded are the immediate dictates of the Holy Ghost, then is his madness in perfection. The Quakers have never yet been able to give us any mark, or rule, or show of reason that they do not thus mistake all their own wild imaginations for the inspiration of God. That assurance does always accompany every error; for no man can be in any error who does not think himself to be in the right, else he were not in an error, but a wilful ob- stinacy, if he persisted in it after he knew it to be an error." Leslie, vol. ii. 262. P. 45 1, note t, " Simonians."] Vid. Buddeus, Eccles. Apost. p. 355. Ibid, note t, \. 5. "good ■iuorks."'\ " Si ergo per hsec miracula non fiat modo testimonium praesentiae Spiritus Sancti ; unde fit, unde cognoscit quisque accepisse se Spiritum Sanctum? Interroget cor suum; si diligit fratrem, manet Spiritus Dei in illo. Videat si est in illo dilectio pads et unitatis — dilectio Ecclesice toto terrarum orbe difFusK. — Ergo, si vis nosse quia accepisti Spiritum, interroga cor tuum ; ne forte sacrumentum habes, et virtuiem sacramenti non habes." August, tom.iii. par. 2. p. 868. See also the Valentinians, Bull, 531. Whitby's Preface to the frst Epistle of John, p. 747. P. 452, 1. 23. "workings of their own minds."] "When men talk so much of the Spirit, if they take notice what they ordinarily 7nean 486 Notes on by it, it is nothing else but a strong impetuous motion, whereby they are zealously and fervently carried in matters of religion ; so that fervour, zeal, and spirit are all one." Henry More, p. i6. P. 452. 1. 32. " Judas."] Judas and Ananias had impulses upon them to do evil ; therefore there is no trusting to iynpulses, barely considered as such. Judas and Ananias might have good meanings along with their impulses, (for false colours are easily laid upon any wickedness what- ever); therefore there is no trusting to impulses and good meanings jointly considered, much less to bare impulses considered by themselves, however strong or impetuous. P. 453. note b. Compare Mrs. Bourignon's Warning against Quakers, Pref. p. ix — xix. c. 17. Ibid. 1. 12. "good meanings."] He might have been made to think that he had not so absolutely dedicated all to God, as not to have re- served a liberty to himself of second thoughts : he might design what he reserved for piovs uses, being willing still to have it in his power to do acts of munijicence. As it was an heroic act, a kind of supererogation, to leave himself no private property, he might conceive that he had more liberty in such a case than in a point of strict duty. He was, no doubt, a very pious, zealous man ; but yet he had a mind to have the credit of greater piety than he really had. P. 454. 1. 28. " and therefore we have the Spirit."] See Homily for JVhitsunday, and Church on Regeneration, p. 42. P. 455. note i. See Laney on Gal. vi. 7, 8 ; p. 15. " To clear our understanding by removing pride and prejudice that obscure it, to inflame us with a true love of truth ; not to dictate or reveal any thing which is not seen in the Gospel, as well by the eyes of others as our own." ■' Testimonium illud internum non est testimonium proprie dictum, quasi Spiritus Sanctus cuiquam proprie revelaret speciatim, hoc vel illud dogma esse verum, ut ita illud cognoscat ex duplici revelatione, quorum altera est externa in verbo Dei, altera interna quam quilibet ac- cipiat immediate a Deo, non secus ac prophetse divinitus inspirati. Hie enim esset purus putus enthusiasmus, quem theologi omnes hie uno ore rejiciunt. Quae igitur hac in re partes sunt Spiritus Sancti .'' Audivimus ab initio rationes credendi tales esse ut in corde rite disposito, fidem producant. Haecvero cordis dispositio est gratiae Dei et Spiritus Sancti: unde petenda ab eo assiduis precibus," 8tc. Werenfels. torn. ii. Led. Hermeneut. p. 334. Ibid, note k. See Norris on Humil. p. 259. Ibid. 1. 5. " the proud Pharisee."] " Jam sciens homo gratia Dei se esse quod est, non incidat in alium superbioe laqueum, ut de ipsa Dei gratia se extollcndo spernat cteteros. Quo vitio alius ille Pharisaeus, Regeneration stated and explained. 487 et de bonis quae habebat Deo gratias agebat, et tarn se super puhlicanum peccata confitentem extoUebat." August", de S.Virginitale, c.43. p. 363. torn. vi. See Norris's Humility, 127, 129, 130, 174. Bull, Posth. vol. ii. p. 209. P. 455. 1. 18. "the life and spirit of true Christianity."] It is an unaccountable perverseness and madness to turn that into matter of pride and vainglory which was intended for the purposes of humility ; as also to turn the fear and love of God, which are the checks and restraints, into incentives to iniquitous proceedings ; as also to turn preservatives into snares, and food 'mio poison ; so as to leave no pos- sibility of cure without a miracle. More hopes of an atheist than of an enthusiast. P. 457. 1. 24. " immediate revelation."] " Quotus enim quisque nostrum per revelationem Christi didicit et non homine praedicante cognovit ?" Hieron. ad Gal. i. i. torn. iv. p. 230. Ibid. 1. 28. "delusions."'] See Leslie, vol. ii. p. 262. "There can be no returning while we keep in that principle. The scriptures can be no reproof or check upon us while we think that what we call light within is superior to the scriptures, and by which the scriptures themselves were given forth. And reason, which is human, and as these men term it carnal, can never be admitted by them to rectify what they think di- vine; so that all avenues are stopped to their recovery. This is the most dreadful condition that any man can be supposed to be in ; it is despe- rate to every thing but a miracle: therefore you see what reason we have to remove men from this principle." Ibid. Compare Bourignon's Warnings against Quakers. Pref. p. ix. p. 334. P. 458. 1. 7. "godly."] See Leslie, Pref. p. ii. Church, Pref. p. iv. ADDITIONAL NOTES ON THE SIXTH CHARGE, ENTITLED, THE SACRAMENTAL PART OF THE EUCHARIST EXPLAINED. [See vol. V. pp. 185 — 230.] V. 188. note 6. "Dr. Grabe"] " Grabium cujus ingenium novarum et portentosarum opinionum tenax nemini ignotum est." Deyling. Observat. Miscell. p. 177. " Nee tamen id dissimulamus, ipsum, antequam ad Anglos abiret, ad ecclesiam Romanam transire omnino voluisse, et quidem banc praecipue ob rationem, quod crediderat, successionem episcopatus ministeriique apostolici in ea sola inveniri." Pfaffius, p. 500. P. 189. note A. " 1 1 20"] o?* 1 130. Ibid. " Hugo de S. Victore dicit, quod Sacramentum ex sanctifi- catione invisibilem gratiam continet." Aquin. par. 3. Q. 62. Art. 3. p. 138. " Sacramentum est corporale vel materiale elementum — ex sanctifica- tione continens invisibilem et spiritualem gratiam." Hugo de S. Vict, t. iii. de Sacramentis, par. 9. c. i. p. 405. " Dona enim gratise spiritualia quasi qusedam invisibilia antidota sunt, quae dum in sacramentis visibilibus, quasi quibusdam vasculis, homini porriguntur, quid aliud quam ex patenti specie virtus occulta ostenditur " p. 406. edit. Colon. 1617. P. 190. 1. 4. Abp. Crunmer, pp. 338, 340, 341, 355. Ibid, note »2, " Novatian. c. xix."] xxiv. Ibid. After note m, add, Kaddirep yap to aajia eKe'ivo rjvcoTai tw Xpicrrw, ovTco Koi Tjixus avTO) fim Tov aprov rovTOV ivo{ip.{6a. ChrySOSt. in I Cov. Horn. 24. p. 2 13. Notes on the Sixth Charge. 489 P. 190. 1. 30. After "wine" insert "on earth." Which also seems to be the meaning of all the ancient Liturgies, in which it is prayed, that God would send down his Spirit upon the bread and wine in the Eucharist, p. 22. alias 246. Conf. Spalatens. 1. v. c. 6. p. 85. Salinas. P- 395- P. 191. 1. 8. "illapse"] The illapse of the second Person was prayed for likewise. " Sacerdotes quoque qui dant baptismum, et ad Eucharistiam Domini imprecantiir adventuni, faciunt oleum chrismatis, manum imponunt." Hieron. in Sophon. iii. p. 1673. " Crede adesse Dominum Jesum, invocatum precibus sacerdotum." Pseud. Ambr. de iis qui mysteriis initiantur. c. 5. But vid. Missal. Gallican. in Pfaffio 383. This relates to baptism. The whole Trinity sometimes invoked. Vid. Justin. Apol. 96. Cyrill. Mystag. i. t. vii. p. 308. conf. Pfaffius, 384, 385, 399. " Improprie ergo, in Sacramentis participandis, verba came vesci dicimur, cum came tantum per verbum facta vivificante vescamur. Sed nec ipsam carnem proprie sumimus, quee in pane sanctificato sub Sacramento nobis communicatur." Salmasius, contra Grot. p. 156. Ibid. 1. 17. "The work of the Holy Ghost upon the elements."] " 1. Papists say, the Holy Ghost transubstantiates the elements. " 2. Lutherans, that he unites them with the natural body locally present. " 3. Modern Greeks, that he Jills them with himself, or with his grace or energy. " 4. Ancients, that he makes them exhibitive symbols of Christ's body locally absent, and of all the benefits accruing from it. conveying them to the communicants in the use of the symbols. They are changed — They have a dignity and preeminence which they had not before — They are not now common bread or common wine, but the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ. A holy mystery — a covenant — a testimony — a perfect seal and sufficient warrant of God's promises," &c. Jewel, Treatise of the Sacraments, p. 274. ed. i6i i. " Consecratio nuUam pani et vino mutationem inducit nisi ut ex his fiat per earn sacramentum. Fides deinde sacramentum digne accipientis facit ut spiritaliter illud percipiat : id est, ut spiritali ejus virtuti com- municet, et Spiritus Dei particeps existat. Nec huic veritati obstat, quod Patres ssepe bvvaniv aprov appellent, &c. Non enim intelligunt cam esse panis virtutem, aut pani inesse, sed quia cum pane simul acci- pitur ab eo qui digne earn accipit." Salmasius, p. 429. P. 192. 1. 8. "first six centuries"] "When Gelasius speaks of the going of the sacraments into the divine substance, he meaneth not that the substances of the sacraments go into the substance of God, but that in the action of that mystery, to them that worthily receive the 490 Notes on the Sixth Charge. sacraments, io them they be turned into the Divine substance, through the working of the Holy Ghost, who raaketh the godly receivers to be partakers of the Divine nature and substance." Cranmer, 356. comp. 358. N. B. The outward change as to relative hohness, belongs to the elements, but the inward change to the persons only. P. 192. 1. 22. "signify — signifies"] Read, signified. Ibid, note t. "Jewel"] Add, Treatise of Sacraments. Add also, Sal- masius, pp. 350, 351, &c. Ibid. 1. 27. Dele " literally." P. 193. 1. 7. "spiritually"] The doctrine of eating spiritually was preserved even in Pasch. Radbert, Opp. pp. 1567, 1570, 1571. 1583, 1626. Ibid, note z. For " 168" read 164. Ibid. 1. 25. " longer"] That doctrine was preserved in the old English or Saxon Church down to the loth or iith century, as appears from ^Ifric, who thus speaks in his Saxon Homily on Easter- day : "We do now spiritually (jaj-clice) receive or eat Christ's body, and drink his blood, when we receive (or eat) with true belief, that holy housel (huj-el)." p. 3. ed. Lisle. " Non sit tamen sacramentum corpus ejus in quo passus est pro nobis, nec sanguis ejus quem pro nobis efFudit, sed spiritualiter corpus ejus efficitur et sanguis sicut manna quod de ccelo pluit, et aqua quae de petra fluxit." ^Ifric. ep. ad Wulstan. Wanley. 58. ann. circiter 950 et 941. Ibid, after note b, add. But they seem to have used type and symbol promiscuously, and to have rejected them both. Ovk tiire, TOVTo €(rTL TO (Tu/i/SoXov Tov crSfiaTos fJiov, Koi Tovro rov aifiaros fiov, dXXd TOVTO ftTTl TO (Toifia. fiov, KOI TO alfid fiov StSaCTKUJ/ rjfxas fJ-rj npbs TrjV (pvaiv opav TOV npoKcifiivov, uKKa bia Tr)s yevofifvrjs evxapuTTias et? aapKa Koi atfia p.(Tu^aK\ea6ai. Theodor. Mopsuest. in Possini Catena in Matth. xxvi. 26, p. 350. P. 194. 1. 10. " aphthartodocetse"] and Aphtharlista, a(f)6apTia-Tal. Ibid. 1. 14. "680."] 685. Oudin. t.i. p. 1663. Ibid, note c. " rebus"] Add, quae iis significantur. Ibid, note In the nth century arose another dispute, namely, whether the consecrated elements were themselves corruptible. So that the very premises on which Anastasius built his argument for the cor- ruptible nature of the thing signified was disputed. For since our Lord's body was held incorruptible, it was now pretended that the eucharistical body, being the same, was incorruptible also. Vide Salmasius, p. 344. the natural consequence of transubstantiation. Ibid. 1. 29. "Gaianites"] " Videntur isti homines credidisse omnem Notes on the Sixth Charge. 491 panem communem esse antitypum corporis Christi, quia Christus in pane sacramenta constituit sui corporis : at post consecrationem, cum desinat esse communis panis et simplex, desinere esse antitypum corporis, quia jam sit ipsum corpus." Salmas. pp. 340, 341. P. 194. 1. 33. " which was to be proved."] " Frivolum et ineptum est argumentum : ex re sequeretur imaginem cujushbet rei aut personse iis- dem vitiis plane esse obnoxiam ut ipsum architypum, vel ipsa res cujus est imago. — At ilH negant panem eucharistise, quem corruptibilem asse- verant, esse avTiTvivov corporis Christi. Sed quod negant, res ipsa, velint nohnt, ostendit." Salmasiiis, p. 343. P. 195. After note g, add, The Greeks that came later, Nicephorus, Theodorus Graptus, Samonas, Marcus Ephesius, Theophylaclus, Miletius, &c., followed the same scent. See P/affius, pp. 141, 142. And so Pasch. Radbert. in Matth. p. 1626. Ibid. After note i, add, N. B. After that transubstantiation took place, many denied that the consecrated elements were corruptible. This hap- pened in the i ith century, near 400 years after Anastasius. 1066. Vid. Guitmund. t. ii. p. 447. P. 196. 1. 16. "very difficult"] " Ut quotidie de novo creetur in- finitis in locis corpus Christi corruptibile, cum sanguine pariter cor- ruptibili, et separate a proprio corpore, ut effusus est ex latere ejus in cruce, id vero nullo modo credibile dictu est, nec possibile factu. — Non mirum est porro Grseculos istos neotericos doctores in re obscura exponenda, variis semetipsos implicasse contradictionibus." Salinas. PP- 345' 346. Ibid. 1. 24. *' his notion"] See the weakness and inconsistency of the notion fully exposed in Salmasius, p. 345, &c. " Isti volunt ex pane, corruptionis omni labi obnoxio, confici corpus Christi frangendum, similiter ut in cruce ipse fractus est, et multis aliis prseterea vitiis mucoris, jmtrefactionis, verminationis corrumpendum, quae non sensit tum corpus Christi : — Quod non solum est aTonaiTaTov, sed etiam maxime inipium cogitatu. Non rairum est porro Grtpculos istos," &c. Ibid. pp. 345, 346. Ibid, note o, " given"] Read, eaten. P. 197. 1. 23. " Damascen."] Read, John Damascen. Ibid. 1.31. "the ancients"] "Locutiones figurce, imaginis et antitypi aliquid mutationis octavo saculo apud Grsecos accepisse facile concipe- rim." Simon, not. ad Gabr. Sever. 23c. P. 198. After note q, add, Conf. Cone. Nicen. ii. Act. vi. p. 370. Hard. Ibid. After note r, add, Salmasius de Transubst. contra Grot. pp. 338, 339) Simon, not. in Gabr. Philadelph. p. 230. Pfaffius in Iren. Fragm. p. 140. Ibid. 1. 10. "very terms"] Vid. Jewel, Answer to Hard. p. 335. Sal- masius, p. 341, 445. 492 Notes on the Sixth Charge. P. 198. 1. 18. "and sometimes"] " Paulus Diaconus Aquileiensis A. D. 785. Prsescius conditor noster infirmitatis nostrae, ea potestate qua cuncta fecit ex nihilo, et corpus sibi ex carne semper-virginis, operante Sancto Spiritu, fabricavit, panem et vinum aqua mixtum, manente propria specie, in carneni et sanguinem suum, ad catholicam fidem, ob reparationem nostram Sancti Spiritus sanctificatione conver- tit." In Vit. Gregorii M. Then Paulus reports a pretended miracle of Gregory, to convert a woman and to confirm the doctrine. Ibid. After note 11, add, Conf. Paschal. Radb. c. 3. p. 1563. IV. 1565. 1588. Gratian. de Consecrat. dist. 2. Paulus Diaconus in Fit. Gregor. i. A.D. 734. Missal. Goth, in Missa Leudegarii A.D. 780. 'S>te^\\. Advers. A.D. 1 1 13. Ibid. After note x, add, Euseb. in Isai. p. 385. Cyrill. Hierosol. Catech. 17. c. 6. p. 266. Gregor. Nazianz. Or. 38, et 42. Marius Victorin. co?itr. Avian. 1. i. Gregor. Moral. 1. xviii. c. 12. Homil. in Evang. 33. Beda in loc. P. 199. 1. 34. " attem])ted not to get out"] Add, excepting only a few short hints. Ibid. 1. 26. " suggesting"] Add, and enforcing. P. 20c. Subjoin to note :;. Damascen had hinted this matter before, in his book, 1. iv. p. 270, but had not explicitly opened his meaning: "SlaTTfp (pv(riKS>s Sta rij? /Spcocrfcas 6 npror Koi 6 oluos (cai to vdcop dia rrjs TTOiTecas els cri/xa Kut aifia Tov ((t6lovtos Koi ttipovtos fiera^dWovrai , Kai yivovTai erepou aafxa irapa to nporepov avTOv uwixa' ovTios o Trjs npodeo'ecos apTos, olvos Tf Kai v8o>p, dia rrjs €inKKrj(r€oiTi](T(ixa tov XpicTTOv Kai aip,a, Kai ovk elai 8vo, dXX' ev Kai to aiiTo. Ibid. Add to note b. And others referred to by Zornius, Histor. Eu- charist. Infant, p. 437. P. 201. 1. 14. "divinely sanctified"] " Consecrare idem est Latinis scrijjtoribus quod deuin facere : ut de illis qui in numerum deorum refe- rebantur, quae est Graecorum caroBeaxris." Salmas. de Transubst. pp.437. 439- 44.3- Ibid. 1. 18. "replenished"] " Simulachi'a consecrari dicebantur, cum deus cui dedicabantur, in ea certis carminibus eliciebatur, ut divinitate sua ilia repleret, et in simulachro deus ipse prceaens haberi et coH vide- retur." Idem, p. 438. conf. 443. Ibid, note f. After (jiva-iK^s dele comma. Ibid. After note /, add, " Non enim 8vmp.iv aut virtutem divinam ex verbis consecrationis inditam esse pani crediderunt, quamvis et spiritual invocatum, de ccelo descendere dixerunt, et adesse, et praesentia sua vegetare et implere species elementorum in mensa dominica positas." Salmas. p. 443. conf. 446. P. 202. 1. 8. " 800."] Read, 806. Notes on the Sidth Charge. 493 P. 203. note n, " ibid."] Read, vid. P. 204. 1. 3. " figure, or image"] These words were kept in the Enghsh-Saxon Church 200 years hiter, as appears by /Elfric. " This mystery is a pledge and a figure : Christ's body is t7-uth itself: this pledge we do hold mystically, until we come to the truth itself, and then there is an end of the pledge." Sax. Horn, on Easter-day, pp. 7, 8. Ibid. 1. 10. " the western parts appear to have retained just ideas of " the holy Eucharist."] Yet Paulus Diaconus (who died in 801) is an exception, in what he says in his Life of Gregory. And one may rea- sonably judge that transubstantiation was then first creeping in, by their feigning of miracles to support the novelty. Ibid. 1. 23. "the great variety of systems soon set up"] Vid. Guit- mund. de Verit. Euchar. 1. i. pp. 441, 442. Bibl. PP. torn, xviii. 1. 3. p. 460. Algerus, torn. xxi. p. 251. P. 205. note s. Read, Sacrum, part 2. p. 6. About A.D. 1060. Ibid. 1. 15. " impanation, a name following the analogy of the word incarnation,"'\ A.D. 1070. circiter. Sic Guitmundus : " Quse insania est, ut Christum, ut ita dixerim, sua autoritate impatient et invinent ? Christum incarnari humansE redemptionis ratio exposcebat : at inipanari vel invinari Christum nulla expetit ratio." Bibl. PP. torn, xviii. p. 461. unde nova, hxc companatio ? Ibid. ^.^61. lib. iii. conf. p. 464. 1130. Algerus, p. 251. torn. xxi. Bibl. PP. p. 260. Ibid. After note /, add, "Ad banc ipsis fanaticam credulitatem prae- ivere veterum patrum scripta non bene intellecta, et recentiorum de realitate et prsesentia corporis C'hristi dogma. " Ex his duobus monstris tertium composuerunt de ista hypostatica unitate panis et divinitatis : quasi divinitas assumpto pane eum faceret corpus Christi, non mutata tamen nec destructa panis substantia." Salmas. p. 4 16. Ibid. J/ter note u, add, Salmasius, p. 390. Ibid. After note w, add, Paris, tom. xii. Colon, t. xxi. Lugd. p. 221. P. 206. " Quod Sacramentum est Augustino, Irenijuo est res terrena : quod huic res calcstis illi est res sacramenti, sive corpus Christi. — Hsec res sacramenti et virtus sacramenti, — etiam Veritas sacramenti dicitui-, et spiritus, et gratia nempe spiritalis, et corpus Christi, spiritale scilicet." Salmas. pp. 163. 165. The body considered as corporally present in heaven, is corpus naturale et sensibile, but considered as spiritually pre- sent in the Eucharist, is corpus spiritale, intelligibile. Ibid, note y,for (fiBopa^ read (f)6opas. Ibid, in fine add, Cranmer, b. iv. p. 276. Ibid. After note b, add, Conf. ejusdem Uemigii Exposit. Missee, Bibl. PP. tom. xvi. p. 957. sive de cclebratione missac. P. 207. 1. 18, /or " resolves" read resolved. 494 Notes on the Sixth Charge. P. 207. note c. Add, p. 287. ed. Hittorp. Ibid. 1. 37. See Cranmer, p. 356; above, [vol. v.] p. 192; Review, vol. iv. p. 691. et seqq. P. 308. 1. 9. " to the worthy only."] " Ea igitur communio spiritus et panis, spiritus et vini, quam Patres in his sacramentis fieri dicunt, non in ipso pane fit, neque in ipso calice, sed in corde sumentis per fi- dem." Salmasius, p. 429. See below, [vol. v.] pp. 210, 21 1. and com- pare P/affius, pp. 414. 431. 432. 446. " Ex istis apparet totidem exortas fuisse hsereses circa prasentiam corporis Christi in euchavistia quot olim fuere circa verbi incarnationem in eo mysterio : cum alii Kar dWoiwcriv earn extitisse dicerent, alii Kara fieTaKlvj]a-iv, alii Kara nepiKKaanov. Huic postremse par est Lutheranorum sententia." Sa/wzas. p. 422. " Non sanctificatur ut sit tam magnum Sacrament urn, nisi operante invisibiliter Spiritu Dei." Augustin. de Trin. 1. iii. c. 4. Ibid. 1. 15. "bread-sacrifice"] " Ne forte ob hoc censeamur indigni, si non satis discernimus illud, nec intelligimus, mysticum Christi corpus et sanguis quanta poUeat dignitate, quantaque prsemineat virtute, et discernatur a corporeo gustu, ut sit prcestantius omni sacrificio veteris testament!." Paschal. Radbert. c. 2. Opp. p. 1559. Algerus, 268. " Christi caro est, quae pro mundi vita adhuc hodie ofll'ertur." 555. When bread was once supposed to be literally that body which was sacrificed, it must of course be thought a sacrifice : hence bread- sacrifice. P. 209. note h, for "Cheniier" read Chamier, and add. See below, [vol. v.] p. 226. " Quomodo, dicente Bernardo, confertur Canonicatus per dationem lihri, Abbatis prsefectura per baculum, Episcopatus per an- nulum : quomodo de consensu contrahentium per traditionem authentici instrumenti confertur hsereditas, quomodo etiam ex nummo uno fit arrha, quae valet ad solutionem mille nummorum ; sic ex pacto et conventione inter Deum et hominem, ad dignatn sacramentorum perceptionem gratia divina confertur, et coelestis hsereditatis arrha. Quae est sententia non nostra duntaxat ecclesice, sed et primorum Romanensium, tum veterum Halensis, Gandavensis, Bonaventura, Scoti ; tum etiam multorum recen- tium, Cani, Vasquesii." Ward, p. 44. Ibid. 1. 7. " in his hands"] Read, into his hands. Ibid. 1. II. " into his mouth."] " His body and blood are by this Sacrament assured to be no less ours than his — He hath made himself all ours. Ours his passions, ours his merits, ours his victory, ours his glory. And therefore he giveth himself and all his in this sacrament wholly up to us." Archbishop Sandys, Serm.XV. p. 134. See Review, vol. iv. p. 567. Ibid, note i. " were the same"] A.D. 89c. Ratram opposed transub- i Notes on the Sixth Charge. 495 stant. A. D. 1035. circit. Berengarius began to oppose that doctrine: condemned in several Councils, 1050. 1053. 1055. 1059. 1078. 1079. He died A. D. 1088. P. 209. "the elements are that"] Read, the elements literally are that. Ibid, in fin. Add, The Anglo-Saxon Church retained the old dis- tinctions till the close of the loth century, as appears from ^Ifrick's Saxon Homily on Easter-day, p. 7. He was Abp. of Cant. 993. and died A. D. 1006. P. 210. 1. II. Dele " eleventh or". Ibid. 1. 13. For "Arnoldus" read Arnaldus. Ibid. 1. 14. For " 1 140" read 11 62. Ibid. 1. 17. " I."] " Invocatio ilia Dei et benedictio non illigat Spi- ritum pani, nec includit; sed panem sanctificat, ut possit ab eo qui fidem habet, et mundus est, digne et cum efficacia, non solum sacramentaliter, sed etiam spiritaliter participari." Salrnas. p. 428. " Nos non dicimus Sacramenta conferre gratiara per ullam illis inditam aut vim aut qualitatem, sive naturalem sive supernaturalem, quod est gratiam conferre per modum causae physicae : sed dicuntur ex nostrae Ecclesise sententia", &c. Ward, Determ. p. 44. See below, [vol. v.] p. 226. " Cum patres haec conjuncta esse asserunt, et Sacramentum a sua virtute minime sejungi dicunt, non intelligunt eum spiritum, sive spiritalem gratiam, pani ipsi inseparahiliter adhaerere, sed in ipso corde ipsius accipientis eam unitatem effici per Jidem : quam qui non praestat, is non communicat corpori, sed sacramentum, hoc est, nudum signum accipit, non virtutem sacramenti : signum non rem signi percipit." Sal- masius, 427. See above, [vol. v.] p. 207. below, 227, and Pfaffius, 414. 431- 432- 446. P. 210. After note q, add, Compare Cranmer, pp. 34. 56. 58. 74. 141. 172. 192. 208. 211. 212. 327. 413. Ibid, note q, 1. 13. /or "speech" read speaking. Ibid. 1. iS. For " made" read ordained. P. 211. note r, 1. pen. After " p. 102." insert. Discuss. Dialysis, p. 78. Ibid. After note r, add, " Here you grant that Christ's body was made of bread. And then it must follow, that either Christ had two bodies, (the one made of flesh of the Virgin Mary, the other of bread,) or else that the selfsame body was made of two diverse matters, and at diverse and sondry times." Cranmer, 297. P. 212. 1.5. "the notion of two true bodies of Christ"] Sec Cran- mer, p. 267. Ibid. 1. 10. "that momentous principle"] Hee Review, vol.iv. l)p. 387. 590. 600. 604. 606. 607. 608. Ibid. 1. 30. For " it " read them. 496 Notes on the Sijcth Charge. P. 213. 1. 10. "the system which he had before formed in his "mind"] " Patrum multitudine putavit Harchius suum illud commen- tum aperte confirmari ; illis certe non dissimihs quibus si specillis vin- dicibus utantur viridia omnia apparent." Beza, 182. fol. edit. P. 214. 1. 9. " Dat ergo nobis Christus in hoc Sacramento duplicem spiritum suum, existens verus Elias. In pane quidem spiritum pro- prium verbum ipsum etDei sapientiam: in vino spiritum qui a Patre pro- cedit etFilio: in utroque vero essentiani totius beatse Trinitatis." Harch. p. 182. Patr. Consens. P. 216. I. 28. " and with them"] Yet he blames the Papists in strong terms, p. 232 of the same treatise^, of 1576. " Veritatem ipsam pro imagine praetendunt, et signum adorant simphciter pro signato. Et cum corpus Christi (quod est ecclesia per eucharistise panem figurata) debuis- sent et commendasse et obtulisse Deo patri, per Christum, ipsum Christum Deo patri commendant, et eum pro propria et novo Ecclesise sacrificio, se in manibus tenere, hie in terra vere carneum, cruentum, osseumqiie, et ore comedere persuadent : parum memores ilhus Origenis in Leviticum dicentis : jejunans debes adire pontificem Christum, qui utique non in terra quarendus est, sed in ccelo, et per ipsum debes offerre Deo hostiam." Harch. Pa^r. Consens. p. 232. " Christus spiritualis oSeitur mente et manu re vera: at Christus homo carneus et animatus offertur sola mente, per ipsius symbola, panem et vinum." p. 240. " Quern ve non reddet Deo Patri propitium unigenitus Dei Filius in hoc pane praesens et oblatus ?" p. 264. P. 218. note a. Fur " reportarem" read reportarim. P. 220. After note 0. add, Chamier. Panstrat. vol. iv. pp. 91. 93. Hooktr, book v. n. 57. 67. Ibid. After note s, add, Sadeel, pp. 145. 203. 421. P. 221. After note y, add, 172. Rivet, t. ii. 136. Hooker, book v. n. 67. Towerson, 245. P. 222. 1. 4. " distinction between external and internal eating"] The same distinction was observed for the same purpose. G. Paschal. Radbert. p. 1568. Ibid. 1. 20. "joining together incompatible ideas"] "Duplex est homo, qui comedit, externus et internus : duplex manducatio, qua come- ditur, externa et interna : duplex etiam cibus qui coraeditur, externus et internus : externus cibus ab externo homine, externa manducatione comeditur : interaus ab interno interna manducatione participatur." Salmasius, p. 426. P. 224. 1. 3. " the great question between the Romanists and us."] " Missa^ sicubi a sacerdote celebrari solet, neque sacrificium propitians est, neque laudis aut gratiarum actionis, neque Deo accepta aut probata, sed horribilis et delestabilis res, de qua Servatoris illud verissirae dici Notes on the Sixth Charge. 497 poterit, Quod celsum est coram hominibus, id abommandum est coram Deo." Cranmer, Defens. Doctrin. de Sacramento, p. 150. P. 225. Jfter note «, add, Davenant. Determ. p. 108. Salmasius, p. 429, &c. Ward, 7)e8r]V Ae^j] 6apcra\(a>s, t] 6eov ay/caXicreir Xelpecriv, als biopv^as efiov Td- vi. 274. 6. 4- ii. 64, 84, 88. iii. 287. 6. 6, 7. iv. 301 n. 6. 13. i. 408. 7. 19. ii. 37 n. 7. 27. iv. 715 II. 8. 3. ii. 99. 9. 4. iv. 235. 9. 6. V. 649 n. 10. 8. V. 126 n. 10. 16. iv. S77 II. 70.1; n. 10. 1 7. ii. 37 n. iv. 328 n. 10. 20. i. 408. 11. 15. ii. 9S n. II. 26. iv. 325 n. 13. I, 2. i. 408. iv. 336 n. 13. 3. i. 408. 16. I. iv. 103 n. 16. 2. iv. 103 n. 506 n. 16. 3. iv. 506 n. 51 1 n. 18. 2. ii. 98 n. 20. 2. vi. 99. 20. 10, 11. iv. 245 n. 21. 5. V. 126 n. 2 I. 23. V. 630 II. 23- 3. 4- 748 11. 7S4 n. 23- 5- ^- 749 n- 23. 14. iv. 57S n. 24. 16. iv. 225 n. 25. 4. iii. 693 n. iv. 160. 25. 17. iv. 263 n. 25. 18, 19. iv. 264 II. •26. 3. iv. 518 n. •26. 17, 18. i. 312 n. 27. 9. vi. 274. 27. 26. iv. 361 n. 28. 36, 37. iv. 363 n. 29. 12. iv. 723 n. 30. I. iv. 325 II. 30. 6. iv. 577 II. 705 n. 30. 12. iv. 160 n. 30. 19. iv. 325 n. 32. 1 7. iv. 633. 32.35- iv. 775 n. v. 59811. 32. 39. ii. 37 n. 95. 33. 27. ii. 37 n. JOSHUA. 2. 4. vind. iv. 242. 2. 9, 1 1, iv. 243 n. 244 n. 3. 10. iv. 251 n. 5. 2 — 9. iv. 192 n. 194 II. .1;. 4, 6. vi. 91. 6. 17. iv. 227 n. 9. 14, 15. iv. 722 n. 9. 23. iv. 270 n. 9. 24. iv. 245 n. JO. 12. vind. iv. 244. 13. 6. iv. 25 r n. 13. 22. V. 754 n. 16. 10. viiul. iv. 257. 17. 12. iv. 252. 17. 15. ii. 98 n. 17. 18. iv. 251 n. 23. 1 3. iv. 252 n. 24. 2. ii. 656 n. 24. 10. v. 750 n. 24. 14—25- 'V- 703 n- 24. 19. ii. 88 n. 24. 21, 24, 25. iv. 708 n. JUDGES. 1. 19. iv. 252. 2. I, 2, 3. iv. 252 II. 2. 21. iv. 252. 3. 13. iv. 264 n. 3.15. iv. 253 n. 3, 20, 21. vind. iv. 253. 4. 9. iv. 255 n. 4. 2 1. vind. iv. 254. 5. 23. iv. 254 n. 319 n. 5. 24. iv. 254 n. 6- 3. 33- 264 n. 7. 12. iv. 264 II. 9. 8. iv. 15s n. 9. 13. vind. iv. 256. 10. 1 2. iv. 264 n. 1 1. 30. vind. iv. 257. 1 1. 40. iv. 259 n. 14. 3. iv. 194 n. 21. 5. iv. 227 n. I SAMUEL. 2. 12. v. 64 n. 2. 25 — 28. iv. 227 n. 3. 19, 20. iv. 361. 6. 7. iv. 527 n. 6. 19. iv. 527 n. vind. iv. 259- 7. 3. iv. 765 n. 8. 7. vind. iv. 260. 10. 8. vi. 99. 1 1. 8. iv. 272 n. 13. q— 14. iv. 457 n. 14. 6. iv. 194 u. 14. 18, 19. vi. 99. 14. 24. iv. 227 n. 14. 36. vi. 99. 15. 3. ii. 98 n. 15. 20. v. 679 n. 15. 22. iv. 70 n. 343 n. iv. 741 n. i.S. 23. iv. 66 n. 1 .1;. 29. iv. 180 n. 16. 1. iv. 266 n. 16. e,. iv. 265 n. 16. 7. ii. 99. 16. 12, 13. iv. 266 II. 17. 26. iv. 227 n. 19. 24. iv. 332 n. 21. 2. iv. 267 n. 21. 6. i v. 119 n. 23. 17. iv. 266 n. 24. 20. iv. 266 II. 25. vind. iv. 265 n. 25. 16. iv. 266. 27. 8. iv. 267 n. 28. 12 — 16. v. 762 n. 28. i.S, 16. sermon upon, V- 759- 28. 17, 18. iv. 66 n. 28. 19. V. 761. 2 SAMUEL. 1. 20. iv. 194 n. 5. 2, 3. V. 321 n. 6. 7. iv. 456 n. 527 n. 6. 20. iv. 332 II. 7. 24. iv. 706 u. 12. iv. 335 II. 12. I. iv. J 55 n. 12. 7. V. 679 n. 12. II, 12. V. 359 n. 12. 13. iv. 642 n. 12. 18. iv. 225 n. 12. 24. iv. 103 II. 12. 31. iv. 322 II. 15. 1 1. V. 318 n. 16. 7, 8. V. 506 n. 16. 10, 1 1, iv. 268 n. V. 359 n. 492 n. 16. 12. iv. 268 n. 16. 22. V. 359 n. 18. 23. iv. 312 n. 19.9, II, 12, 14, 15. V. 313. 314- 19. 22, 23. iv. 268 II. 19. 41, 42, 43. v. 314. 20. I, 2. sermon upon, v. 313- 20.3, 4, 6, 7, 14, J 5- V. 316. 21. I. vind. iv. 269. 22. 47. ii. 1 1 7. 24. I. vind. iv. 271. 24. 9. iv. 272' n. 24- 24. V. 155. I KINGS. 2. 5, 6, 8. iv. 268 n. 2. 9. iv. 268 n. 3. II. V. 600 II. 4- 25- V. 325 n. 4. 31. iv. 317 n. 5. 7. iv. 29s n. 8. 39. i. 326. ii. 92. iss- 555- 8. 41, 42, 43. iv. 295 n. 8. 46. v. 638 n. 649 n. 8. 64. iv. 527. 10. 9. iv. 295 n. 11. 12, 33. V. 319 II. 12. 19. V. 319 n. 12. 27, 28, 29. iv. 31 1 n. 13. vind. iv. 274. 13- 2, 3- - .136 n. 13- 4- iv. 327 n. 13. 14. iv. 274 n. 14. 9. ii. 656. 14. 25, 26, 27. iv. 317 n. 1 7. I. vind. iv. 277. 18. 4, 13, 19. iv. 312 n. 502 INDEX OF TEXTS 18. 39. iv. 703 n. 19. 10, 14. iv. 312 n. 19. 15. iv. 279 n. 280 n. 21. 29. V. 610 n. 22. iv. 336 n. 353 n. 22. 6, 7. iv. 31 1 n. 22. 8. iv. 309 n. 22. II, 12. iv. 31 1 n. 22. 18. iv. 309 n. 22. ig. iv. 155 n. 22. 22. iv. 311 n. 22. 23. iv. 311 n. 313 11. 22. 24. iv. 3 1 1 n. 22. 26, 27. iv. 309 n. 2 KINGS. I. v. 762 n. 1. 9. vind. iv. 277. 2. 12. iv. f>39 n. 1. 17. iv. 313 n. 2. 23, 24. vind. iv. 321 n. iv. 278 n. 3. 27. iv. 368 n. 5. 14. iv. 66q n. 5. 27. iv. 280 n. 7. 2, 17. iv. 327 n. 8. iv. 280 II. 8. 8, 9. i^. 280 n. 8. 10. vind. iv. 279 n. 8- 13- V. 317 n. 14. 1;, 6. iv. 225 n. 16. 3. iv. 368 n. 19. 14. V. 275 n. 19. 15. i. 209n.ii. 37 n. 74. iii. 288, 293, 421 n. 19- 35- 319 n- 20. 7. iv. 669 n. 22. 20. iv. 313 n. 23. 3. iv. 704 n. 23. 26. iv. 224 n. 1 CHRONICLES. 6. 33. vi. 99. 10. 13. V. 763 n. 13. 9, 10. iv. 456 n. 527 n. 14. 17. iv. 29-; n. 15. 17, 19. iv. 317 n. 20. 3. iv. 322 n. 11. I. iv. 271 n. 21. S- iv. 272 n. '5- I— S- iv. 317 n- 29. II. ii. 37 n. 2 CHRONICLES. 2. 12. iv. 295 n. 6. 36. V. 638 n. 9. 23. iv. 295. 12. 2, 3. iv. 317 n. 13. II. ii. 656. 15. 12. iv. 703 n. 15. 14. iv. 709 n. 723 n. 15. 15. iv. 709 n. 16. I. iv. 313 \\. 18. 5, 6. iv 311 n. 18. 17. iv. 309 n. )8. 10, II. iv. 31 1 n. 18. 18 — 22. vind. iv. 309. 18. 21. iv. 3 II n. 18. 22. iv. 311 n. 313 n. 18. 23. iv. 311 n. 18. 25, 26. iv. 309 n. 19. 7. iv. 328 n. 23. 16. iv. 703 n. 709 n. 26. 16. vi. 1 52 n. 28. 3. iv. 368 n. 29. 10. iv. 704 n. 709 n. 30. I. iv. 781 n. 30. II. ii. 108 n. 30. 16. iv. 738 n. 30. 18. iv. 495 n. 30. 27. iv. 741 11. 32. V. 573 n. 33. 26. iv. 346 n. 34. 28. vind. iv. 313. 34. 31. iv. 704 n. 709 n. 34. 32. iv. 704 n. 35. 3 — 6. iv. 181 n. 35. 6. iv. 765 n. 35. II. iv. 738 n. 36. IS, 16. iv. 327 n. 36. 22, 23. iv. 296 n. V. 18 n. EZRA. I. r, 2. iv. 296 n. V. 18 n. 6. 10. iv. 296 n. V. i8 n. 7. 12, 13. iv. 297 n. V. 18 n. 8. 20. iv. 227 n. 10. 3. iv. 709 n. 10. 5. iv. 723 n. NEHEMIAH. 9. 6. i. 380. ii. 628. 9. 38. iv. 709 n. 10. 28. iM. 709 11. 10. 29. iv. 709 n. 723 n. 10. 34. v. 153 n. 10 39. iv. 709 n. '3- I- V. 755 n. 13. 31. V. 153 n. ESTHER. 7- V. 573 n. JOB. 1. 6. iv. 314. 2. I. vind. iv. 314. 2. 10. V. 480 n. 4. 17. ii. 99. 4. 18. V. 649 n. 5. 7. ii. 99. 9. 4. ii. 37 n. 9. 8. i. 290. 12. 16. ii. 37 n. 14. I. iv. 432 n. 15. 14. iv. 432 n. v. 649 n. IJ. IS. v. 649 n. 16. 2. V. 510 II. 22. 2, 3. V. 647 11. 22. 6. iv. 332 n. 25- 4- iv. 432 n- 25. 5. V. 649 n. 26. 7 — 13. ii. 74. iii. 293. 26 I 2. iv. 3 18 n. 27. s, 6. V. 586 n. 31. 24. iv. 639. 33. 10. iv. 230. 35. 7. V. 647 n. 36. 4, 26. ii. 37 n. 37. 16. ii. 37 n. 38. ii. 3; II. 41. 9. iv. 350 n. 42. 2. ii. 37 n. PSALMS. 2. 7. iv. 26. 2. 8. ii. 171. 3. iv. 317 n. 4. iv. 160 n. 4. 5. iv. 730 n. 7. iv. 317 n. 8. 4. ii. 37 n. 14. vi. 312, 327, 342, 34S, 358, 362- 14. I. iv. 358 n. 14. 3. V. 647 n. 14- 5i 6, 7. vi. 339. 16. 2. V. 647 n. 16. 10. iv. 313 n. 18. 46. ii. 117. 19. iv. 160 n. 19. I. ii. 74. iii. 294. 19. 12. iv. 436 n. V. 535. 19. 13. sermon upon, v. 538. 21.13. ii. 117. 24. 8. i. 292. ii. 481, 482, 490. 24. 10. i. 292, 538 n. ii. 142. 143, 481, 482, 490. 32. 1. iv. 660. 33. 6. ii. 62. 33. 9. ii. 63. 34. 8. ii. 520. 36. 10. iv. 350 II. 35- 35- '■■ 549- 38- 18. iv. 518 n. 42. iv. 317 n. 43. iv. 317 11. 45. vi. 36 n. 45. 7. iii. 264. 46. 10. i. 292. ii. 490. 47. 2. il. 529. 47. s. i. 292. i>- 481, 529. 50. I. i. 292. ii. 137, 489, 491. 50. 3. i. 292. ii. 491. 50. 12. iv. 738 n. SO. 13. iv. 738 n. V. 261. SO. 14. iv. 730 11. 740 11. 50. 1 5. iv. 730 n. 50. 23. V. 2fil. 51. 2. iv. 436 n. 51. 3. vi. 329, 332. 51. 10. ii. 642. iv. 43611. V. 694 n. EXPLAINED OR REFERRED TO. 503 51. 17. iv. 730 n. 732, 740 n. 749. V. 1-24. n. 745 n. 51. 19. V. 153. S3- I- i*'- 358 n- 55- 317 n. !;5. 19. ii. 147 II. 56. II. ii. 99. 68. i. 293. ii. 491. 68. 4. i. 29V 68. 18. iii. "268. 69. 31. iv. 730 n. 73. 13. iv. 43611. 76. I. i. 293. ii. 487. 77. 17. iv. 179 n. 78. 35. ii. 99. 81. I r, 12. iv. 363 n. 82. I. i. 293,302,487,491, 492. 82. 2. ii. 48 r. 82. 6. i. 307. 82. 18. ii. 168 n. 83. 18. i. 312 n. ii. 92. 86. 10. ii. 97 n. 87. 4. iv. 318 n. 87. 5. ii. 168 n. 89. II, 12. ii. 74. iii. 294. 89. 35. iv. 241 n. 89. 39 — 49. vind. iv. 316. 89. 49. iv. 241 n. go. 2. i. 340. ii. 147 n. 90. 3. ii. 99. 90. 100. vi. 91. 93. 2. i. 340. ii. 37 n. 14711. 94. iv. 328, 331. 95- vi. 34^- 96. 3. iv. 295 n. 96. 4. V. 29. 96. 5. ii. 74. iii. 294. V. 29. 96. 9. ii. 117 II. 97. i. 428. 98. 2. V. 29. 99. I. i. 293. ii. 481, 487. V. 493 n. 99. 6. vi. 99. 101. 19. ii. 642. 102. 15. V. 29. 102. 25. i. 308. ii. 59. 75. iii. 288. 102. 26. ii. 75. 102. 27. ii. 59. 105. 9. iv. 703 n. 106. 21. ii. 656. '06. 33. V. 523 n. 109. ii. SOI. vind. iv. 318. 110. I. ii. 88. 1 10. 4. V. 107 n. 1 16. 12 — 15. iv. 750. 116. 17. iv. 730 n. 1 18. 6, 8. ii. 9Q. 1 18. 28. ii. 1 17. 119. 9. iv. 436 n. 1 19. 18. V. 688 n. 132. II. iv. 241 n. 135. 35. iii. 26C). "37- 3- iv. 323 n- 137- 8, 9. vind. iv. 322. 138. 6. V. 61 1 n. 139. 2. iii. 407. 139' 7- ii- 37 n- 139. 8. V. 432 n. 141. 2. iv. 509 n. 730 n. 748. 143. 7, 12. iv. 30 n. 148. 5. ii. 63, 77 n. 148. 7— '3- ii- 70- PROVERBS. I. 24, 25, 28. V. 766 n. 3- 34- v.572n. 6o7n. 61 in. 4. 23. V. 237 n. sermon upon, 463. 4. 27. V. 653 n. 6. II. V. 571 n. 6. 17. V. 572 n. 8. ii. 415. 8. «22. i. 340. ii. 148. shewn not to make the Son a creature, ii.633,635. how- explained by Dionysius of Rome, 633. by Euse- bius, 635, 642. by Aiia- stasius, 636. and by Faustinus, ib, 9. 2, iv. 511. II. 14. iii. 626n. v. 572 n. 13. 10. V. 425 n. 13- 24- V. 375 n. IS- 8. iv. 793. 15- 25- V. 572 n. >S- 33- V. S7S n. 16. 3. V. 489 n. 16. 4. two seiTOons upon, V. 479, 488. 16. 5. V. 572 n. 16. 18. sermon npon,v.568. 16. 33. V. 482 n. 17. 14. V. 318 n. 18. 12. V. S75 n. 18. 14. sermon upon, V.549. 19. 14. V. 446. 19. 17- iv. 741, 743- 19, 18. V. 37S n, 19. 21. V. 484. 20. 9. V. 649 n. 22- 15- V. 375 n. 22. 16. sermon upon,v. ^69. 23. 9. iv. 71 n. 24. 6. V. 572 n. 24. 21. V. 344". 24. 34. V. 571 n. ECCLESIASTES. 5. I, 2. iv. 765 n. 7. 14. sermon upon, v. 356. 7. 19. iv. 162 n. 7. 20. V. 638 n. 649 n. 12. T. ii. 88 n. 12. 7. v. 674 n. ISAIAH. I. II. iv. 71 n. 327n. 738n. 747. V. 261. I. 12. iv. 71 n. 327 n. I. 13, 14. iv. 327 n. I. 15. iv. 793 n. I. 16. iv. 72 n. 327 n. 436 n. 730 n. vi. 17. I. 17. iv. 72 n. 327 n. I. 18. i. 295. vind. iv. 326. I. 20. vi. 17. 1. 26, 27. iv. 329 n. 2. II. ii. 92, 117. 2. 17. ii. 1 17. 4. 6. V. 261. 5. 19. iv. 359 n. 5. 26. vind. iv. 329. 6. i. 467. iii. 288. 6. 1. ii. 43. iii. 278. 6. 2. ii. 43. 6. 3- ii- 43. 143- iii- 276, 303- 6. 5. i. 538 n. ii. 143. 6. is. ii. 88n. iii. 276,303. 6. 9. ii. 123 n. iii. 278. iv. 31 n. 7- 14- iv. 37"- 7. 18. iv. 330, 331. 8. 18. iv. 336 n. v. 280 n. 8. 20. iv. 455 n. 9. 6. i. 326. ii. 137, 555, 565. iii. 289. iv. 502 n. 9. 7. iii. 304. 9- 9- ii- 565- 10. 12, 15. V. 486 n. 10. 21. i. 326. ii. 137, SSS- 1 1. 6. iv. 152. 12. 2. i. 47. ii. 487. 13. 16. iv. 324 n. 16. 8. iv. 722 n. 20. 2,3. iv. 332 n. 20. 3,4. vind. iv. 331. 26. 4. ii. 37 II. 29. 13. iii. 559 n. 30. 10. iv. 3 10 n. 34. 4. iv. 157 n. 35. 4. i. 47. ii. 487, 489, 49', 492- 37- V. 573 n. 38. 14. V. 275 n. 38. 21. iv. 699. 40. i. 409 n. iii. 42 1 n. 40. 3. i. 308. iii. 288. 40. 9, 10, &<;. iii. 288. 40. 10, 1 1, ii. 129. 40.12. i. 380 n. ii.74. iii. 294. 40.13,18 — 21, &c. i.38on. 40. 22. i. 293. 40. 26. ii. 74. iii. 294. 4 1.4. ii. 143,14411. iii. 289. 41. 23. iii. 449 n- 42. 5. i. 380 n. ii. 37 n. iii. 294. 42. 8. i. 311, 312 n. 317, 319, 380 II. ii. 44. 503, 504 INDEX OF TEXTS 526, 530. iii. 287, 2S8, 289. 43. 1. 1.293.38011. ii. 53, 74, 116, 175. iii. 294. 43. 10. i. 275, 281, 340, 380 II. 408. ii. 144 n. 404. iii. 287. 43. 1 1, ii. 92. 43. 25. V. 64911. 44.6. i. 293,326,340. ii. 97 n- 143' 144 n. 493, 555. iii. 289. 44. 7. ii. 14411. 44. 8. 1.275,317. ii. 14411. 404. iii. 287. 44. 24. i. 290, 293. ii. 91, 97 n. 44. 25. iv. 33611. 360 n. 44. 26. iv. 361 n. 45. 1. iv. 280 n. 45- S- V 2755^82,317,409 n. ii. 7s, 404. iii. 287, 288, 294, 521 n. 45. 6. i. 40911. ii.45,75. iii. 288,294,42111. iv. 29711. 45- 7- i- 40911. ii.37n. 45, 75. iii. 288, 421 n. V. 359 n. 480 n. 4S- '2- 75- 45. 14, 15. i. 293. ii. 97, 489, ^91, 493, 498. 45. 18. ii. 37 11. 45.21. ii. 45. 111,287,289. 45. 22. 1. 316. iii. 277. vi, 27 n. 45. 23. 1. 316. iii. 277. iv. 240 n. 46. 9. i. 275. ii. 404. 47. 6. iv. 323 n. 48. 9. V. 649 II. 48. II. i. 317, 319. 11.526, 530. iii. 2S8. 48. 12. ii. 144 II. 111.289. 48. 16. ii. 123 ti. 48. 19. iv. 290 n. 49. 15. 11. 108 11. 49. 18. iv. 241 11. 50. 16, 17. iv. J41 u. 51. 9. iv. 318 n. 52. I. iv. 194 n. 53. 4. iii. 267. 53. 4—12. iv. 573 n. V. 176 n. S3. 8. 111. 71, 264. 53. 10, II, 12. v. 133 n. 17711. 54. 5. vi. 36 n. 54- 13- i- 314- 56. 20. iv. 731 n. 57. 15. ii. 37n. iv. 73011. 58. 4—7. iv. 343 n. 58. II. iv. 350. 62. 8. iv. 241 n. 63. 1 7. viiid. iv. 339. 71, I. iii. 264. JEREMIAH. I- 6, 7- iv.35i- 1. 17. iv. 241 n. 2. 13. Iv. 350)1. 3. 13. V.9311. 4. 4. Iv. 577 n. 705 n. 4. 7. iv. 340 n. 4. 10. viiid. iv. 340. 4. 18. iv. 341 n. 5. 31. lv.3ion. 6. 1 4. iv. 310 II. 7. 22, 23. vind. iv. 741 n. iv. 342. 10. 10. 1. 38011. 40911. 111. 288, 421 n. 10. 1 1. 1. 316 n. 380 n. 409 n. ii. 75, 89. 111. 288, 294, 421 n. 10. 12. i. 38011. 40911. ii. 3711. 75. iii. 294, 421 n. 13. 4. vind. iv. 345. >3- 4. S> 6. iv. 347 n. 14. 13. iv. 31011. 457 n. 14. 14, 15. iv. 457 n. 15.4. iv. 224 n. 15. 18. vind. iv. 349. 15. 19, 20, 21. iv. 350 n. 16. 13. iv. 363 n. 17. 10. i.326. 11. 155, SS5- 17- 13- S.Son. 20. 7. vind iv. 350. 22. 5. iv. 240 n. 22. 30. iv. 280 n. 23. 6. vi. 36 n. 23- 15- iv. 3ion- 23. 16. iv. 31011. 342 n. 23. 17. iv. 342 n. 23. 21. iv.3ion. 457 n. 23. 22. iv. 457 n. 23. 23, 24- "•37n- 23- 25, 30- iv. 3'on. 24. 7. iv. 436 n. 25. 15, &c. iv. 35611. 352. 27. 2. iv. 159 n. 27. 2, 3. vind. iv. 351 n. 27. 9. iv. 3 10 n. 27. 14, 15.lv. 31011.45711. 28. 10, II, 12. iv. 352. 28. 15, 16, 17. iv. 35911. 29. 7. lv.323n. 29. 9. iv. 45711. 29. 21, 22. iv. 359 n. 31. 29, 30. iv. 22411. 31. 31, 32. Iv. 359n. 31. 34. iv. 51011. 32. 27. 11. 45. 33. 22. iv. 290n. 44. 26. iv. 241 n. 5 1. 14. Iv. 241 II. S'- 34> 35- iv. 24111. 51. 61, 63. iv. 34611. LAMKNTATIONS OF JEREMIAH. 2. 6. iv. 70 n. 3- 37, 38- V. 480 11. 5. iv. 224 n. EZEKIEL. 1. I, 2. iv. 35711. 3. I, 2. Iv. 35611. 3. 22, 23. iv. 356. 4. I, &c. vind. iv. 353. 5. I. Iv. 456 n. 8. I. iv.357. 8. 8. iv. 338 n. 'I- 3- iv. 3591. 11. 19. iv. 43611. 12. 3—7. iv. 357. 12. 6. iv. 336 n. 12. 8. iv. 337n. 357 n. 12. 9. iv.3S7n. 12. II. iv. 336 n. 12. 21, 22. vind. iv. 358. 13. 2,3,6,7, 10, 16, 17. iv. 359"- 13. 18. iv. 310 n. 14. 4. iv. 223 n. 14. 9. vind. iv. 359. 16. 7. iv. 290 n. 18. 2. iv. 224 11. 18. 20. iv. 222 n. 18. 30. V. 694 n. 18. .-(I. iv. 436 n. v.694n. 20. 9. iv. 297 n. v. 649n. 20. 1 1. Iv. 362. 20. 13. iv. 72 n. 362. 20. 14. iv. 29711. V. 649n. 20. 16. iv. 72 n. 20, 18. iv. 362. 20. 22. iv. 297n. V. 649 11. 20. 24. iv. 72 n. 20. 25. vind. iv. 361. 20. 26, 31. iv. 362. 20. 39. iv. 363 n. 20. 44. V. 649 II. 22. 8. iv. 71 n. 23. 38. iv. 72 n. 24. 24. iv. 336 n. 28. 2. 1. 305. 36. 22, 23. iv. 297 n. 36. 26. iv. 297 n. 436 n. 41. 22. iv. 576 n. 44. 7—16. iv. 576 n. DANIEL. 2. II. 1. 304. 2. 20. ii.37 n. 2. 47- ii. 530. 3. 29. Iv. 296 n. V. 18 n. 4. I, 2. iv. 296 n. V. 18 n. 4. 34. li. ii7n. 4. 36. iii. 299. 6. 7. ii. 25. 6. 25, 26. iv. 296 n. V. 18 n. 7. 13. 11. 548, 662. 7. 14. ii. 662. 7. 16. V. 263 n. 8. iv. 70 n. 8. 17, 18. V. 684 n. 9. 24. iv. 497n. EXPLAINED OR REFERRED TO. 505 10. g. V. 684 n. 12. 3- V. 33911. 12. 13. iii. 304. HOSEA. I. 2. vind. iv. 364. I. 6. i. 308. 1. 7. i. 293, 308, 309. ii. 130. iii. 289. 2. 18, 19. vi. 36 n. 2. 23. ii. 123 Ii. 4. 8. iv. 576 n. 6. 6. iv. 69 ft. 70, 343 n. 741 n. V. 127. 11. 9. i. 294. ii. 99, 491. 12. 5. i. 312. n. 14. 2. iv. 73 n. V. 264 n. JOEL. 3. ii. 492. 3. 16. i. 293. ii. 487. AMOS. I. ii. 492. I. 2. i. 293. ii. 487, 3. 6. V. 359, 480 n. 4. 2. iv. 241 n. 4. 13, ii 642. 5. 18. iv. 359 n. 8. 7. iv. 241 n. 8. II. iv. 302 n. JONAH. I. 17. iv. 154. 3. 5, 8, 9. V. 19 n. MICAH. I. I. iv. 368 n. 1. 14. iv. 350 n. 2. 1 1, iv. 310 II. 5. 2. ii. 147. 6. 6, 7. iv. 738 n. 6. 7. vind. iv. 368. 7. 18. i. 294, 295. ii. . 487. HABAKKUK. I. 12. ii. 147 n. I. 13. V. 619 n. 3. 3. i. 294. ii. 487- /ACHARIAH. 1. 15. iv. 323 n. 2. 8. i. 538 n. ii. 492. 3. I, 2. vind. iv. 370. 6. 1 2, 13. iii. 679 II. 7- 5- iv- 343 10. 8. iv. 329 n. 330. 10. 12. i. 294. ii. 491. It. 12, iv. 2.S9. 11. 13. i.308. J 2. 5. ii. 143. 12. 10. i. 308. ii, .14, iii. 289, 426 n. 13. 2. ii. 86 n. 14. 9. ii. 86. MALACHI. I. 7. iv. 57611. I. 10. V. 261. I. 1 1, iv. 509 n. 730, 741 n. 1. 1 2. iv. 576 n. 2. 15. vi. 118. 3. I. ii. 129. 3- 4. S- iv- 730 n- 3. 6. i. 311. ii. 37 n. 45, 154. iii. 289. TOBIT. 3. 1 6. iv. 741 u. 4. 8,9. V. 563 n. 12. 12. iv. 741 n. 1 2. 15. iv. 698 n. WISD. OF SOLOMON. 2. 24. iv. 1 72 n. 3. I. V. 674 II. 7. 25, 26. ii. 104 n. 9. 8. iv. 741 n. 9. 16. iv. 348 n. 1 2. 10. iv. 346 n. ECCLESIASTICUS. 3. 30. V. 281 n. 10. 9, 18. V. 573 n. 22. 22. V. 532 n. 35. 2. iv. 730 n. V. 281 n. 35- '2- iv. 328 n. 44. 20, 22, 23. iv. 703 n. 4.S- 7. I.S- iv- 703 n. 46. 20. V. 763 n. 47. 1 1, iv. 642 n. BARUCH. 3- 35- i- 294- ii- 97 49', 493- n. 4- 7- iv- 633 n. I I MACCABEES. I. 63. vi. 105. j 2. 41. iv. 1 19 n. : 12. 21. iv. 204 n. i 2 MACCABEES. 6. 18, 20. iv. 119 n. ST. aiATTHEW. 1.18. vi. 309, 310. I. 19. vi. 377. I. 23. ii. 128. iv. 37 n. 502 11. '-25- vi.377. 3. 2. vi. 325, 329, 332. '43- j 3- iv. 67611. 3. 4. vi. 368. 3. 16. ii. 120. 4. I. ii. 123 n. 4. 4. ii. 98 n. 4. 10. i. 407, 411. ii. 653. iii. 288, 42 1 n. a- 13- V. 55on. 5. 16. sermon upon, v. 331. 5. 19. iii. 470. 5- 23, 24- iv- 271 n. 5. 44. iv. 321. V. 602 n. 5. 45. V. 6o2n. 605 n. 5. 48. ii. 154- 6. 2. V. 700 n. 6. 24. ii. 18. 6. 31. V. 495 n. 6- 33- iv- 58 n- vi. 4. 7. 12. iii. 409 n. 410 n. 7. 22. V. 758 n. 7. 23. iv. 276 n. V. 758 11. 8. 15. iii. 481 n. 8. 32. iv. 313 n. 9. 1 1, iv. 69. 9. 13. iv. 58 n. 69 n. 343 n. v. 590 n. 9. 22. vi. 27 n. 10. 14, 15. iv. 701 n. 10. 20. ii. 120. 10. 23. vi. 365. 10. 32- V. 339 n. lo- 33- iv- 58 n. 10- 34j 3.=;. 36. V. 422 n. 10. 35. iii. 514 n. 10. 38. iv. 58 n. 11. II. iv. 432 11. II. 27. ii. 90, 405, 413. 11. 28. V. 556. 12, 3, 4. iv. 119 n. 12. 7. iv. 69. vi. 133. 12. 18. ii. 123 n. iii. 55. 12. 24. v. 706 n. 12. 26, 27. V. 707 n. 12. 28. V. 712 II. 1 2. 3 I . ii. 123 II. 12. 31, 32. sermon upon, v. V. 706. 12. 32. ii. I .>3 n. iv. 58 n. 12.36. iii. 489 n. V. 70911. 12. 40. iv. 154 n. 12. 41. V. 19 n. 1 2. 50. iv. 639 n. 15. 4 — 9. iii. 481 n. 15. II. iv. 531 n. 15. 18, 19. v. 238 n. 16. 12. i. 441. 16. 19. iv. 642 n. 16. 24. iv. 58 n. 16. 27. ii. 43, <34- 17. 3. V. 762 n. 17. 12- iv. 575 n. 18. 14. V. 588 n. 18. 16, 17, 18. iv. 642 n. 18. 20. ii. 164. iv. 520 n. 54211. 607 n. 774 n. 19. 9. iii. 637. 19. 28. ii. 43, iv. 432 n. 20. 16. sermon upon, V. 61 7. 506 INDEX OF TEXTS 20. 28. iv. 51311. V. 133. 21. 31. V. 573 n. 60911. 21. 41,43. iv. 302 n. 22. 7. iv. 70t I). 22. 31. i. 279. V. 667 n. 22. 32. i. 279. 22. 33. V. 672 n. 22. 39. sermon upon, v. 436- 22. 44. ii. 87. 23- 12. V. 57j. 23. 17. iv. 528 n. 23. 19. iv. 528 n. V. 742 n. 23- 35.36. iv. 223 n. 24. 6. ii. 108 n. 24. 24. iii. 481 n. 24- 36- i- 332. ii- 162,557. 24- 37)39- '62. 25. 24. iv. 782 n. 25. 30. v. 646 n. 25- 31- "-43- 25- 36. iv.332n. 25. 40. V. 13411. 444 n. 25. 41,42,43. V. 530 n. 25- 4.';- v.444n. 25. 46. iii. 229, 244. 26. iv. 491. 26. 2 iv. 65 n. 26. (I. ii. 163. 26. 26. iv. 522 n. 26. 28. iv. io2,s i4n. 662 n. 26. 38. iii. 298. 26. 41. V. 640 n. 26. 41. two sermons upon, V. 518, 528. 27. 2. vi. 247. 27.9,10. i. 309. iii. 289. 27. 46. iii. 298. 28. 18. i. 329, 330, 434. ii. 680. iv. 27, 529 n. a8. 19. ii. 473 n- 518, 520. iv. 439 n. 529 n. vi.64. 28. 20. ii. 163, 164. iv. 520 n. 542 n. 60711. V. 354 n. 687 n. ST. MARK. I. 3. i. 309. iii. 289. iv. 644 n. I. 7. vi. 318, 320. 1. 5. iv. 643 n. 2. 7. iv. 642 11. 2. 9. iv- 643 II. 3. 30. v. 70Q n. 712 n. 5. 30. v. 221 n. 5. 34. vi. 27 n. 6. 22. vi. 318, 320. 7. IS, 23. V. 238 n. 9. 13. ii. io8n. iv. 575 n. 9. 22. ii. 108 n. 9- 50- V. 550 n. 10. II. iii. 637 n. 10. 15. v.46sn. 10. 43. ii. 108 n. 10. 45. V. 133 n. 10. 52. vi. 27 n. 12. I. vi. 313,320. 12. 26. V. 667 n. 1 2. 29. ii. 84, 528. iii. 287. 12. 32. ii. 738. 12. 36. ii. 87, 528. 12. 38. vi. 318,320. 12. 43, 44. sermon upon, ^- 559- 13. 7, 20. ii. 108 n. 13. 22. iii. 481 n. 13. 24. ii. 108 n. 13- 32. 1.332. ii. 162, 557. 13. 34. ii. 162. 13. 37. v.640n. 14. iv. 491. 14. 24. iv. 103. 14. 29. ii. 108 n. 14. 34. iii. 298. 14. 36. ii. :o8 n. 14. 52. iv. 332 n. 15. 34. iii. 298. 16. 6. iii. 231. 16. 15. iii. 400 n. 16. 16. iii. 400 n. iv. 95 n. 438 n. 439 n. 706 n. v, 92. vi. 10 n. ST. LUKE. I. 6. iv. 327 n. V. 531 n. 638 n. vi. 6 n. I. 16, I 7. i. 308, 128, 129. iii. 288. iv. 502 n. 1- 33- "'• iOA- iv. 28. r. 35. interpreted of the Word by the earhest fathers, iii. 571. v. 189, 198 n. two explanations of, iv. 25, 29. which Waterland prefers, 32. '• 43- iv. 37- I. 46. V). 318. 1. 76. ii. 129, 168. 2. 7. iii. 144. vi. 3 1 8. 2. 1 1, i. 309. iii. 289. 2. 13, 14. iii. 680. 2- 52- i- 332. ii. 163. iii. 298. 3.4. ii. 129. 5. 16. vi. 88 n. 3. 38. ii. 750. 4. I. ii. 123 n. 4. 4. ii. 99. 4. 6. i. 408. 4. 8. i. 318. iv. 27. 4. 14. ii. 120. v 20. iv. 643 n. 5. 32. V. 639n. 6. 19. V. 221 n. 6. 45. V. 463 n. 7. 28. iv. 432 n. 7. 34. iv. 457 "- 7. 50. vi. 2 7n. 8. 46. V. 22 1 n. 8. 48. vi. 27 n. 9. 26. ii. 43. 9. 55. iv. 216, 321 n. 9. 56. iv. 216. 10. 7. V. 63 n. 10. 22. ii. 413 n. 11. 13. iv. 6760. 12. 8. V. 339 n- 12. 48. V. 452. 13. 2,3. two sermons upon, V. 497, 508. 13. 15. iv. 1 19 n. 14. 5. iv. 1 19 n. 14. II. v. 575 n. 14. 21-24. iv. 701 n. '4- 34- V. 550 n. 15. 2. V. 589 n. 15. 6. V. 587 n. IS- 7- v.639n. 15. 7. sermon upon, v. 587 n. >5- 31- V-. 591 n. '5- 32- V. 594 n. 16. 1 1, vi. 729 n. 16. 18. iii. 637 n. 16. 30. ii. 108 n. 17. 3, 4. iv. 774 n. 17. 10. iv. 90 n. sermon upon, V. 64!;. 1 7. 19. vi. 427 n. 18. 4. ii. q9. 18. 8. V. 600 n. 18. II. iv. 455 n. 18. 13. iv. 794 n. 18. 14. iv. 794 n. V. 575 n. seiTnon upon, 606. 19. 20. iv. 782 n. 20. 36. iv. 26. 20- 37, 38. sermon upon, V. 667. 20. 39. V. 672 n. 21.4. V. 560. 21. 9. ii. 108 n. 22. iv. 491. 22. 3. iv. 453 n. 22. 17. iv. 481 n. 22. 19. iv. 498 n. 708 n. 22. 20. iv. 103, 497 n. 649 n. 22. 44. iv. 298. 23. 34. iv. 8 n. V. 731 n. 23. 46. iv. 8 n. V. 133 n. 24. 26. iii. 55. 24. 30, 35. remark upon, iv. 472 1). 24. 49. vi. 88 n. 24. 51. iv. 8 n. 24. 52. i. 326. ii. 653. iv. 8 n. ST. JOHN. I. I. i. 275, 281, 313, 316, 317. 330. 430- 43 5. 492 > 526. ii. 41, 96, 109, 156, 404, 410, 510, 516, 517, .■IS I. 59S, 680, 741. iii. EXPLAINED OR REFERRED TO. 507 2()0, 296, 314, 414, 505, 650, 663. iv. 27. ex- plained, ii. 524. common interpretation vindicated, iii. 312. I. 1,2. the AriaTi interpre- tation shewn to be of no force, iii. 66fi. I. 1,2, 3. iv. 502 n. I. r — 16. exidained, iii. 542-546. I. 2. iii. 6S4. iv. 1 1. I- 3- i- 3»3, 380, 383. ii. 34i 41, 48, 50, 6(, 68, 147, 628. iii. 13, 290, 292. iv. 28 n. 1 . 4. iii. 548. iv. 729 n. 1.6. i. 314. 1. 8. ii. 34. iii. 315- 1 . 9. iv. 729 n. I. 10. i. 330, 383. ii. 34, 52, 147 n. iii. 290, 292. iv. 28 n. I. II. i. 330, 430. ii. 34, 52. iii. 292, 315. I. 12. i. 314. iii. 315. iv. 432 n- 4.?3i'- I. 13. i. 314. I. 14. ii. 34, 159. iii. 314, 3>5- I. 15, 16. ii. 159. 1.17. iv. 729 n. I. 18. i. 314. ii. 599. iii. 55- 1.19. iv. 103 n. I. 20. i. 430. I. 29. iv. 488 n. 513 n. I. 30. ii. 57 n. 1.32. ii. 1 23 n. 1. 47. sermon upon, v. 577. 2. 19. iv. 26 II. 2. 21. i. 440. 2. 24. i. 326. ii. 9: n. 155, .5.^S• 2. 25. II. 155. 3. 3. vi. 10 n. 3- 3.4>5- vi. 17. 3. 5. i. 138, 213. iv. 81, 90 n. 95, 438 n. 446 n. 563, 578 n. 644 n. 668 n. 706 II. vi. 9 n. 1 1 n. 16, •7) 48, .S4. 98 n. 103, 106, 149 n. 150. how understood, iv. 428 n. 3. 8. ii. 120, 81 n. 3. 10. iv. 430 n. 3. 14. iv. 159 n. V. 741 n. vi. 27 n. 3. 15. iv. 159 n. 3. 16. iv. 422. V. 628 n. 631 n. 3. 16, 17, 18. vi. 470. 3. 19. iii. 486 11. iv. 169 n. 3. 23. ii. 132. 3. 34. ii. 1 22 11. v. 7 I 2 n. 3. 36. iii. 317, 400 n. 4. 9. iii. 422. 4. 23. iv. 747. V. 1 24 n. 4. 24. iii. 3 1 3, 3 1 7. v.263n. 5. 4. iv. 676 n. 5. 10—13. ii. 132. 5. 17. ii. 55,8c. 5. 18. i. 380, 464. 5. 19. i. 440, 441. ii. 55, 80, 125, 161. vindicated and explained, 686. 5. 20. i. 441. 5. 22. i. 431, 434. ii. 24, 531, 680. iv. 26. S- 23- i- 3.51.407,422,423, 434, 464. ii. 24, 653, 66 1 , 664, 679, 680, 685. iii. 295. iv. 13 n. 58 n. ex- plained, ii. 686. 5. 25. i. 439. iii. 317. 5. 26. iii 317. 5. 28. ii.SS4. iii 229,244. 5. 30. i. 301. 5. 40. iii. 317. 5- 4.'i- iv. 343 n- 5. 46, 47. V. 43 n. 6. i. 157. 6. 27 — 63. spiritual eatinfj and drinking explained, iv. 535. sentiments of the fathers with respect to this chapter, how mis- understood by some, 542, 543. their real senti- ments, 543 — 564. many apply it to the eucharist, hut do not interpret it of the eucharist primarily, 562. from the hegiiming of the fifth century it began to be nnderstond directly of the eucharist, 563. o])inions of the mo- derns concerning it, 564. the Komanists generally are for the sacramental construction, 565. the re- formers generally have rejected that view, ib. 6. 32. iv. 159 n. 729 n. 6- 3.^- 317- 'V. 159 "• 3.i> 36- explained, iv. 42. 6- 45- j- 3«.S- 6. 48. iv. 538 n. 6.51. iv. 536 n. 531 n. V. 6. 51 — 58. iv. 625 n. 6.53. i. 213. iv. 90 n. iv. adv. 536 n. vi. 48, 52, 54, 58, 60, 62 n. 64 n. 150. 6. 54. iv. 536 n. 588 n. i 59.V 6. 55. iv. 538 n. I 6. 56. iv. 536 n. 542 n. 588 n. 604 n. 668 n. 674 n. 6. 57. iv. 538 n. vi. 58. 6. 63. iv. 716 II. 7. 17. v. 465 n. 7. 39. ii. 1 20. 8. ii. 74 n. 8. 12. iii. 317. 8. 16. iii. 416. 8. 28. ii. 161. 8. 36. iii. 593 n. 8. 44. iv. 162 n. 172 n. 373 n- 8. 54. i. 279. 8. 56. V. 650 n. 8. 58. i. 464. 9. 7. iv. 669. 9. 23, 24. iv. 729 n. 9. 41. V. 541. 10. 10. iii. 317. 10. 1 1, ii. 129. v. 133 n. 10. 15, 17. V. 133 n. 171 n. 10. 18. iv. 26 n. V. 133 n. 171 n. 10. 30. i. 301, 484, 538. ii. 125. 10. 34. i. 302. 10. 35. i. 302, 306. 10. 36. i. 306. iv. 25 n. 10. 38. iv. 34 n. 11. 11,16. ii. 108 n. II. 25. iii. 317. 1 1. 33. iii. 298. 1 1. 5 I, 52. iv. 513 n. 1 2. 8. iv. 65 n. 12. 24. iv. 561 n. 12. 27. iii. 298. 12. 32. V. 741 n. 12. 35. iii. 544 n. 12. 40. iii. 276, 278. 12.41. i. 464, 467, 538. -ii. 43, 143. iii. 2 76, 278, 289, 303- 13. I. iv. 492 n. 493. 13. 2. iv.452. v. 492n. 493. 13. 2t. iii. 298. 13. 23. iv. 776 n. V. 439n. 13. 27. iv. 313 u. 453 n. 13- 31,32. i. 422. 14. 9. i. 301. ii. 125. 14. 10. ii. 125, 157, 158. iv. 34. 14. 1 1, iii. 317. iv. 34. 14. 13. i. 422. ii. 655. 14. 14. ii. 655. 14. 15. iv. 451 n. 14. 16. iii. 432 n. iv. 29 n. 542 n. 588 11. v. •)54 II. 686 n. 687 n. 14. 1 7. iv. 542 n. 88 n. 14. 20. iv. 34. 14. 23. iii. 432 II. iv. 34 n. 542 n. 588 n. V. 351 n. 354 n. 684 n. 687 n. 508 INDEX OF TEXTS 14. 26. iv. 34, 529 II. 1 5. I. iv. 729 n. 15. 4. iv. 54211. 15. 6. vi. 48. 15. 10. ii. 688. 15- 13- V. 133 n. 631 n. 15. 16. iv. 702 n. 16. 2. iii. 486 n. iv. 452 n. 16. 7. ii. 108 n. v. 354 n. 686 n. 16. 13. ii. 120. iii. 55 1 n. V. 687 n. 16. 14. ii. 121, 122. 16. 15. ii. 120 n. 145. 16. 16, 26. iv. 34 n. 16. 30. i. 326. ii. 9211. 155, 555- 17. iii. 53. 17. I. i. 422. ii. 670. 17. 3. i. 279. ii. 422,42?) 428,477. 17. 4. i. 422. 17. 5. i. 422, 431. ii. 43, 125, 682. 17. 10. ii. 125, 401. 17. II. ii. 163. 17. 19. iv. 752. 17. 20. V. 168. 17. 21. iv. 34. explained, iii. 305. 17. 21, 22, 23. ii. 586. 17- 23- iv.34- 18. 28. iv. 492 n. 493. 19. 14. iv. 492 n. 493. 19. 26. iv. 6390. 77611. v. 439 n- 19. 27. iv. 639 n. 19. 34. ii. 143. iii. 550. 19. 36. iv. 103 11. '9- 37- »• 3°*^- i'-44) '43- iii. 289, 426 II. 20. 2. iv. 776 n. V. 439 n. 10. 21, 22, 23. vi. 88 11. 20. 22. iv. 642 11. 20. 23. iv. 642 n. 643 n. 20. 28. ii. 129. iii. 288. iv. 8 n. 26 n. 21. 7. iv. 332. n. 776 n. v. 439 n- 21. 17. ii. 155. 21. 20. iv. 77611. v. 43911. THE ACTS. I. 2. ii. 123 n. I. 1;. V. 687. vi. 483. I. 8. v. 687. I. 16, 20. iv. 31911. 1. 24. i. 326. ii. 92 n. 155, SSS- 29'- 2. vi. 129. 2. 3. vi. 88 11. 2. 4. ii. 120, 123 n. iv. 30 n. vi. 88 V. 2. 13. V. 709 11. 2. 17, 18. iv. 3on. 2- 3'- iii- S.v 2. 33. ii. 122. iv. 30 n. 2. 38. ii. 173 n. iv. 87 II. 578 n. 644 n. vi. 1 1 n. 2. 42. iv. 472, 473, 782 II. 2. 45. ii. 1 23 n. 2. 46. ii. 123 u. iv. 473, 782 n. 414 II. common translation of, disap- proved, iv. 473 n. 3. 12. i. 438. 3. 13. i. 279. ii. 423. 3- 17. V. 731 n. 3- 27. ii. 173 n. 4. 31. iv. 667 n. vi. 90. 4- 33. iv. 667n. 5. 3, 4. ii. 123 n. iv. 32. 4S3 n- 5. 5. iv. 216 n. 5. 9. ii. 120. 5. 13. iii. 690 n. 6. 7. iii. 434 n. 7. 30. i. 538. iv. 530 n. 7. 31, 32. i. 538. 7- 42. iv. 363 11. 7- 43- i-303- 7- 47. ii. 108 11. 7- 51. ii. 123 n. V. 690 n. 709 n. 712 n. 7' 53. iii. 55. 7. i;9. i. 423n. iii. 295. iv. 8n. 7* 60. iv. 8 n. 8. 4. vi. 90. 8. 9. iv. 168 n. 446 n. V. 695 n. 8. lO. iv. 446n. V. 695 n. 8. 1 1, iv. 168 n. 8. 12. ii. 186 n. 8. 16. ii. 1 73 n. 8. 18, 19. iv. 446 n. V. 695 n. 8. 22. iv. 444 n. 8. 29. ii. 120. 8. 37. ii. i86n. iv. 439n. 8. 39. ii. 120. 9- vi. 221 n. 9- 4, 5. sermon upon, v. 726. 9- 6. vi. 12 11. 9- 14. iii. 295. 9- 15. ii. 123 n. vi. 221 n. 9- 17, 20. vi. 90. 9- 21. v. 734. "o- 1^-355 II- 356- 10. 4. iv. 509 n. 730 n. 741 n. V. 264 n. 10. 10. iv. 335 n. 10. 12. iv. 3 1 2 11. 10. 14. iv.356 10. 15. iv. 86 n. lo. 17. iv. 335 n. 10. 19. ii. 120. 10. 36. i. 326. ii. 555. 10. 38, ii. 123 11. iv. 27. 10. 47. iv. 439n. 10. 48. ii. 173 n. vi. 131. 11. 4, 5. iv. 335 n. II. 14. iv. 86 11. II. 16. vi. 483. II. 19. vi. 89. 11. 42, 46. iv. 670 n. 12. 10. iv. 271 n. 12. 15. v. 670 n. 13. 2. ii. 1 23 n. iv. 3 1 n. vs. 89, 90, 221. 13. 3. vi. 89, 90, 221. 13. 8. iv. 168 n. 13. II. iv. 2 16 n. •3- 33- iv- 26. 13. 39. iv. 643 n. 13. 43. iv. 666 n. 13. 46. iii. 463 n. 14. i. 414. 14. II. i. 305. ii. 20> 14. 12. ii. 20. 14. 15. ii. 176. 14. 23. vi. 90. 14. 26. iv. 666 n. 15. V.524. 15. 5. iii. 696 n. 15. 8. ii. 155. 15. 9. iv.436n. 15. 40. iv. 666 n. 16. 3. V. 75 n. 16. 7. ii 120. iv. 38 n. 17. 6. iii. Si4n. v. 422 n, 17. II. V. 656 n. 1 7. 14. V. 688 n. 18. 28. V. 65411. 19. 5. ii. 173 n. 19. 1 1, ii. 60. 19. 16. iv. 332 n. 20. 7. iv. 472, 670 n. 782 n. vi. 90. 20. 24. iv. 666 n. 20. 28. i. 464. iii. 426 n. iv. 507 n. 20. 29, 30. iii. 481 n. 482 II. 21. II. iv. 159 n. 352 n. 21. 21 — 26. v. 75 n. i2. r6. ii. 173 n. iv. 87 n. 578 n. 642 n. 645 n. vi. 12 n. 22. 25. V. 575 n. 23. 1. V. 678 11. 732 II. 23. 8. V. 668 n. 24. 16. V. 638 n. 678 u. 25. 8. V. 678 n. 26.9. iii. 486 n. iv. 452n. V. 730 11. 26. 16. vi. 22 ( n. 26. 19. V. 691 n. 27. 31. V. 490 n. 28. 25, 26. ii. [23 n. iii. 27s, 278. iv. 31 n. ROMANS. I. 3. ii. i38n. EXPLAINED OR REFERRED TO. 509 I. 4. ii. 138 n, iv. 27. 455 I. 5. iii. 4.U n. iv. 455 n. I. 7. iv. 8 n. I. 9 iii. 313, I. 14. iv. 455 n. I. 17. vi. 4 n. 23 n. I. 20. i. 341. ii. 73- 723- iii. 263, 29.?, 368. I. 11. i. 409. I. 23, 24, 25. iii. 373 n. I. 24. iv. 363 n. I. 2.S- n, 75, 138, 176. iii. 294. 1. 28. iv. 302 II. 2. I. iii. 464 n. 2. 14. ii. 723. 2. 25, 26. explained, iv. 73. 2. 27. ii. 723. 2. 28. iv. 577 n. 2. 2Q. iv. 577 n. 705 II. \: 262 n. 3. iv. 497 n. 3. 5. vi. 4 n. 3. 8. V. 705 n. 3. 12. V. 647 n. 3. 20. iv. 137. 3. 21. vi. 4 n. 3. 22. vi. 4 n. 23 n. 3. 24. iv. 643 3. 25. iv. 514 n. 643 n. vi. 4 11. 23 n. 26 n. 3. 26. vi. 4 n. 3. 27. vi. 37 n. 3. 28. vi. 23 n. 3. 29. v. 28. 3. 30. vi. 4 n. 23 n. 3. 31. vi. 29 n. 37 n. 4. I. v. 262 n. 4. 2. vi. 23 n. 37 n. 4- i''- 575- vi. 23 4. 4. vi. 34 n. 37 ri. 4. 5. vi. 4 n. 4. 6, 7, 8. vi. 20. 4. 9- "V- 575- 4. II. iv. 102 n. 70s n. vi. 103. 4. 17, 18. iv. 202 n. 4. 22. iv. 575. 4. 23, 24. iv. 202 n. 4. 25. iv. 202 II. 513. n. vi. 4 n. 5. I. iv. 643 n. 5. 2. vi. 23 n. 5- S- iv. 529 n. 5. 6. iv. 513 n. 529 n. v. 171 n. 5. 7- V. 630 n. 5. 8. V. 171 n. 630 II. vi. 462. .q. 9. iv. S"4 n. 5. 9, 10, II. iv. 541 n. 5. 10. iv. 514 n. V. 177 n. v. 631 n. 5. II. iv. 514 n. 643 n. 5. 13, 14. ii. 108. 5. 18. vi. 4 n. 6. I. vi. 37 II. 6. 2. vi. 480 n. 6. 3. ii. 17311. iv. 621 n. vi. 12 n. ft. 4. vi. 1 2 n. 6. 4 — 8. iv. 577 n. 6. 5. iv. 621 n. 6. 5 — 8. iv. 541 n. 6. 6. v. 264 n. 6. 8,9. iv. 577 n. 6. 10, II. iv. 439 n. 6- 13- iv. 730 "• 7. 6. V. 1 24 n. 262 n. 7. 7. iv. 141 n. 8. vi. 21. 8. I. iv. 4^5 u. V. 643 n. 8. 2. V. 462 n. 8. 9. ii. 120. iv. 38 n. 629 n. 667 II. 8. 10. iv. 667 n. 674 n. 8. II. iv. 674 n. 8. 14. ii. 120. iv. 433 n. 451 n. 667 n. V. 643 n. explained, 686. 8. 15. iv. 432 n. 433 II. 8. 16. vi. 485. 8. 17. V. 687 n. 8 18. iv. 423 n. 8. 26. V. 640 n. 689 n. 8. 32. vi. 462. 8. 33. iv. 615 n. 642 n. vi. 4u. 8. 34. iv. 615 n. 9. I. ii. 123 n. iv. 8 n. 9. 3. V. 454. e.xplaiiied, ib. sermon upon, 626. 9. 4. ii. 54. 9. 5. i. 275, 281, 317. ii. 26, 54, 138, 168, 216, 404, 413. ,S28, 555. iii. 14, 28, 47, 290, 301, 41 1 n. iv. 8 II. 24 II. 502 n. 9. 6. V. 1 12 n. 9. 9. i. 326. 9. 30. iii. 690 n. vi. 4 n. 341- 9. 30, 31, 32. vi. 26 n. 9. 31. vi. 4 n. 34. n. 0- 3-- vi. 23 n. 34 n. 10. iv. 160 n. 10. 3. vi. 4 n. 10. 5. iv. 361 n. 10. 6. iv. 1 60 n. 10. 12. i. 326. ii. 555. 10. 13. i. 423 n. 10. 13, 14, 15. vi. 10 n. 10. 18. iv. 160 n. 11. 6. vi. 34 n. 37 n. 1 1. 24. ii. 723. 1 1. 34. ii. 64. 1 1. 3;. ii. 54. iii. 428 n. II. 36. i. 382. ii. 51, 54, 56, 518, 519. 12. I. iv. 730 n. 750, 758 n. V. 124 n. 156 n. 263 II. 745 n- 12. 2. iv. 433 II. 12. 14. iv. 32 I, 326 n. 12. 18. sermon upon, v. 417. 12. 19. iv. 775 n. V. 598 n. 11. 20. V. 600. 12. 21. sermon upon, v. 596. »3- 4- iv. 374 775 n- 13. 12. iv. 435 n. 13. 14. iv. 435 n. 14. iii. 403 n. V. 75 n. 14. 9. ii. 114 n. V. 171 n. 14. 10. iii. 276. 14. II. i. 316. iii. 276. 14. 18. V. 638 n. 14. 19. iv. 404. 15. iii. 403 n. V. 75 n. 15. 4. V. 88 n. 15. 16. iv. 667 n. 730 n. 73 I n. V. 264 n. 15. 1 8. iii. 434 u. 15. 19. ii. 120, 123 n. iv. 30 n. 15. 30. ii. 120. iv. 8 n. 16. 17. iii. 456 n. 482 n. 515, 696. 16. 18. iii. 456 II. 482 n. 696. 16. 19. iii. 434 n. 16. 20, 24. iv. 8 n. 666 n. 16. 25. iv. 703 n. 16. 26. iii. 434 n. 1 CORINTHIANS. I. 2. i. 423 n. I. 3. iv. S n. I. 4. iv. 666 n. I. 7. vi. 181. I. 9. iv. 627 n. I. II, 12. iv. 769 11. I. 20. iv. 360 n. I. 23. iii. 475 n. I. 29. vi. 37 n. 1. 30. vi. 4 n. 36 n. I- 31- yi- 37 2. 2. ii. 91. iv. 514 n. V. 95 n. 2. 4. ii. 120, 123 n. iv. 30 n. 2. 5. ii. 123 n. iv. 30 n. 2. 8. ii. 143. iii. 426 n. 2. 10. ii. 120, 123 n. iv. 30 n. 38 n. 2. 1 1, ii. 91, 120, 123 n. 405. iv. 30 n. 38 n. V. 35° 3. 10. iv. 666 n. V. 88 n. 3. 12, 15. V. 88 n. 3. 16. ii. 120, 123 n. iv. 33, 542 n. 588 n. 63s n. 674 II. V. 686 n. 510 INDEX OF TEXTS 3. 17. iv. 5811. 1 4. I. V. 278 n. j 4- 3> 4- S- 679 "• 1 4. 4. ii. 528. I 4. II. iv. 332 n. 4. 21. iii. 472 n. 5. 3. iv. 607 11. 5. 5. iii. 442 n. 460 n. 472, 482 n. ir. 37 n. 5. 6. iii. 458 11. 5. 7. iii. 458 n. iv. 103 n. 160 n. 488 n. 514 n. 577 n. 77011. v. 235 n. 5. 8. iv. 770 n. 5. II, 12, 13. iv. 782 11. 6. 9, 10. V. 530. 6. II. ii. 120. iv. 578 n. 643 n. 667 II. vi. 9 n. 15 n. 6. 15. iv. 768 n. 6. 15, 16, 17. iv. 62911. 6. 15 — 20. iv. 635 n. 6. 16. iv. 575 II. 768 n. 6. 17- iv. 5751. 66711. 674 11. V. 350 n. 6. 19. ii. 12311. iv. 33,542 n. 588 n. 674 n. v. 687 n. 6.20. ii. 11411. iv. 51411. V. i24n. 7. 22, 23. ii. 114 n. 8. 4. i. 279, 2S0. iii. 28, 287. 8. 5. i. 279, 280, 491. 8. 6. i. 279, 280, 491. ii. 19. .S'. 54. 61, 147 n. 422, 426, 566, 568, 692, 694, 697, 699, 701, 719, 766. iii. 28, 48, 53, 238, 292. iv. 28. 8. II. V. 171 n. 8. 16. ii. 674. 9. 9. iii. 6q3 n. 9. 12. ii. 108. 9- 19—23 V- 75 n- 9. 27. iv. 275 n. V. 639 n. 10. iv. 103. 10. I — 4. iv. 705 n. 10.3. iv. 57on. V. 267 n. 10.4. iv. 88 n. 57011. 576 n. V. 192 n. 195 n. 267 n. 10. 7. iv. 612. 10. 9. i. 316 10. 14. iv. 612, 72 1 n. 10. 15. iv. 612. 10. 16. iv. 87 n. 473 n. 522 n. 524 n. 525, 544, 546, i;79 n. 582, 638, 648, 667, 669 n. 710, 717, 718. V. 183. explained, and \Tndicated from mis- constructions, iv. 610. objections answered, 626. PufFendorfs interpreta- tion, 638. 10. 16 — 21. i. 450. v. 235 n. 10.17. iv. 549. 669 n. 671 n. 730. V. 183 n. 10. 18. iv. 87 n. 576 n. 10. 20. iv. 76S n. 10. 21. iv. 631 n. 632, 768 n. 10. 22. iv. 475. 11. iv. 491. 1 1. 4. iv. 86 II. 11. 14. explained, ii. 723. II. 18. iv. 768 n. II. 19. iii. 457 n. 465 n. 656. iv. 168 n. 768 n. II. 20. iv. 474 n. 475. 1 1. 21. vi. 448. 11.24. iv. 498 n. 649 n. II. 25. iv. 103, 497 u. 498 n. 708 n. 11.26. iv. 489, 495 11. 498 n. 518 n. 621 n. v. 134, i79n. II. 27. iv. 58n. 466 n. 528 D. 616, 631 n. 767, 769. V- 157- II. 27, 28, 29. iv. 495 n. 1 1. 28. iv. 653, 766 u. 767, 770 n. II. 29. iv. 466 n. 538 n. 631 n. 766 n. I I. 30. iv. 104 n. 529 II. 11. 33, 34. iv. 768 n. 12. vi. 87, 93. 12.3. iii. 481. iv. 673n. 12. 3 — II. iv. 668 n. 12. 4. ii. 123 n. iv. 30 n. 12. 4, 5, 6. iv. 529 n. 12. 5,6. ii. 12311. 12.7. ii. I23n. iv. 673 n. 12. 8. ii. 123 n. iv. 30 n. 12. 1 1, ii. 123 n. iv. 30 n. 31 n. 12. 13. i. 157. iv.82,438 n. 578 n. 604 n. 668 n. 673 n. vi. 9 n. 1 2 n. 12. 29. vi. 182 n. 12. 31. iv. 673 n. 13. 1—13- iv. 67311. 13. 2. vi. 484. 13. 3. iv. 69 n. 13. 13. vi. 27 n. 14. ii. 302. 14. 2. ii. 123 n. 14. 16. iv. 484. '4- 33- V. 701 n. 15. iii. 402. 15. 3. V. 171 n. 15- 9- V- 73° n- 15. 10. iv. 666 n. 15. 14, 17. iii. 446 n. 15. 22. iv. 146 n. 15. 24. ii. 445,662. iii. 304. explained, iv. 23. 15. 27. ii. 139, 412,414. iv. 27. 15. 28. li. 445. IV. 23. 15. 29. iv. 578 n. 15. 32. iv. 303 n. 15. 44. v. 267 n. 15. 51. iii. 244. 16. 2. v. 134 n. 16. 22. iv. 325 n. 16. 23. iv. 8 n. 666 11. 2 CORINTHIANS. I. 2. iv. 8 n. I. 12. iv. 666 n. I. 21. iv. 530 n. I. 22. iv. 530 n. 674 n. 1. 24. iii. 511 n. 2. 6, 7. iv. 782 n. 3. 2,3. iv. 575 n. 3. 3. ii. 120. 3. 6. V. 262. 3. 7, 13, 14. iv. 160 n. 3. 17. ii. 120, 123 n. iv. 31 n. 3. 18. ii. 1 20. 4. 3. iii. 486 n. 4. 4. i. 305, 491. ii. 21, 42. iii. 486 n. iv. 454 n. 4. 14, i.s, 16. iv. 629 n. 4. 16. iv. 434n. 5- I'i. 370. 5. 7. iv. 603 n. .V 14. iv. 613 n. 5. 15. iv. 613 n. V. 171 n. 5. 16. ii. 108 n. V. 262 n. 5- 17- iv- 435 n- 5. 18, 19. iv. 5 14 n. 5. 21. iv. 613 II. 7 15 n. V. 630 II. vi. 4 n. 36 n. 6. I. iv. 666 n. 6. 16. iv. 642 n. 588 n. 674 n. 7. I. iv. 436n. 7. 6. ii. 108 11. 8. I. iv. 667 11. 10. 2. iv. 457 n. 11. 3. iv. 167 n. 1720. I' - 5- V. 575 I'- ll. 13. iii. 402. II. 13, 14, 15. iii. 695 11. iv. 457 n. V. 702 n. II. 14. iv. 3 1 5 n. 11. 31. ii. 138 n. 12. 7, 8, 9. iv. 8 n. 12. 9. iv. 667 n. 12. II. V. 575 11. 654 n. 12. 16. ii. 108 n. 13. s,. iii. 401 n. iv. 635 n. 684 n. 13. 13. iv. 627. 13. 14. ii. 1230. iii. 432 n. iv. 8 n. 530 n. 666 11. sermon upon, v. 344. GALATIANS. I.I. vi. 89, 221 n. I. 3. iv. 8 n. EXPLAINED OR REFERRED TO. 511 I. 4. IV. 513 n. I. 6. iii. 401 n. I. 6—9. V. 82 n. I. 7. iii. 401 n. 457. I. 7, 8, 9. V. 75 n. 95 n. I. 8. iii. 281, 401 n. 457, 482 n. 696 n. iv. 325 n. I. 9. iii. 457 n. 482 n. iv. 1. 23, 24. V. 734 n. 2. J. V. 75 n. 16. vi. 23 n. ■20. iv. 605 n. vi. 23 n. 21. iii. 40t n. 137. v. 75 n. 82 n. vi. 23 n. 1. iv. 51 1 n. 2. iii. 569 n. 61 7 n. 3. 3. v. 262 n. 3. 6. iv. 575 n. vi. 23 n. 3. 8. V. 650 n. vi. 4 n. 23 n. 3. 10. iv. 361 n. 3. II. iv. 138 n. vi. 23 11. 3. 12. iv. 361 n. 3. 13. iv. 513 n. v. 630 n, 14. vi. 23 n. 19. iv. 703 n. 21. iv. 138 n. 22. iv. 138 n. vi. 23 n. 24. vi. 23. 3. 26. iv. 7. n. vi. 13 n. 33 n. 3. 27. iv. 435 n. 439 n. 578 n. 604 n. 605 II. 669 n. vi. 13 n. 23 n. 4. I. i. 493. 4. 1;. iv. 432 n. 4 6. ii. 120. iv. 38 n. 4. 8. i. 409, 490, 491. ii. 23. 720. 7^2- 7^3. 7H> 726. iii. 294, 373 n. 17. iii. 69s n. 19. iv. 445 n. 22. iv. 160 n. 23. V. 262 n. 24. iv. 159 n. 29. V. 262 n. 2. iii. 401 n. 2> 3. 4- iv. 54' n. 3. iv. 74 n. 705. 4. V. 93 n. 95 n. 5. vi. 23 n. 6. v. 652 n. 9. iii. 458 n. 5. 10. iii. 458 n. 482 n. 5. 12. iii. 458 n. 482 n. v. 75 n- 5. 16, 18. iv. 455 n. 5. 19. iii. 402 n. 5. 19, 20, 21. V. 530 n. 5. 20. iii. 402 n. 465 n. 485 n. 5. 22. iv. 451 n. 673 n. 674 n. V. 693 n. 5 23- iv. 451 n. V. 693 n. 5. 25. V. 693 n. 6. 6. iv. 620 n. 6. 7, 8. vi. 485. 6. 10. v. 438, 439 n. sermon upon, V. 299. 6. 12. V. 721 n, 6. 14. V. 651. 6. i.s. iv. 435 n. 6. 18 iv. 8 n. 666 n. EPHESIANS. I. 2. iv. 8 n. I- 3- V. 739 n- I. 5. iv. 432 n. I. 7. iv. 514 n. 1. 13, 14. iv. 674 u. I. 17, 21. iv. 27, 529 n. I. 22. i 329, 330. ii. 412. iv. 529 n. 1. 23. iv. 675 n. 2. 3, 4. vi. 480. 2. 9. vi. 37 n. 2. 10. V. 652 n. vi. 480. 2. 1 1. V. 764 n. 2. 12. iv. 139 n. 2. 13. iv. 54t n. 2. 16. iv. 79 n. 541 n. v. 177 n. 2. 20. V. 93 n. 2. 21, 22. ii. 123 n. iv. 674 n. 3. 7. iv. 666 n. 3- 9- ii- SS.61, iii- 292, 627 n. 3. 14, 16. ii. 120. 3. 17. iv. 604 n. 3. 18, 19. iii. 424 n. 3. 20, 21. ii. 662. 4. vi. 87, 93. 4. 6. i. 279, 280. ii. 138, 422, 429, 431. iii. 15, 48, 5'- 4. II, 12, 13. V. 718 n. 4. 14. sermon upon, v. 717 n. 4. 23, 24. iv. 434 n. 4. 30. ii. 120. iv. 674 n. v. 641 n. 687 n. 690 n. 709 n. 5. I. iv. 716 n. 5. I, 2. sermon upon, v. 736 n. 5. 2. iv. 182 n. 513 n. V. 264 n. 292 n. 5. 9. iv. 674 n. 5. 25. iv. 645 n. vi. 13 n. 5. 26. iv. 438 n. 578 n. 64s n. 668 n. vi. 1 3 n. 5. 30. iv. 601 n. 608 n. V. 1 15 n. 212 n. 5. 31, 32. iv. 160 n. 162 n. vi. 24 n. 6. 14. iv. 435 n. 6. 23. iv. 8 n. PHILIPPIANS. I. 2. iv. 8 n. I. 19. ii. 120. iv. 38 n. 1. 27, 28. iii. 514. 2. I. iv. 627 n. 2. 3. ii. 103, 1 18. 2. 4. ii. 103. vi. 465. 2. 5. V. 632 n. 2. 5 — 1 1, ii. 102. 2. 6. i. 275, 282, 284, 431. ii. 297, 404, 548. V. 629 n 632 n. 2. 6, 7, 8. iv. 508 n. 2. 7. iii. 66 n. v. 264, 629 n. 2. 8. V. 133 n. 741 n. 2. 9. i. 231. ii. 670. iii. 54. 2. 9, 10, II. ii. 24. iv. 27. 2. 10. i. 316, 431, 434. ii. 680. iii. 277, 423 n. iv. 6. 2. II. i. 422, 434. ii. 668 n. 680, 701. iii. 54 n. 277. iv. 6. 2. 12. V. 643 n. 683 n. 693 n. 2. 13. iii. 290 n. V. 643 n. 683 II. 688 II. vi. 480. 2. 17. iv. 730 II. V. 156 n. 264 n. 2. 19, 24. iv. 8 n. 3. 2. iii. 402. 3. 4. V. 262 n. 3. 8. V. 93 n. 95 n. 3- 9- 93 »• 95 vi. 4 n- 23 n. 3. 10. iv. 541 n. 627 n. vi. 23 n. 3. 1 1, iv. S4I n. 3. 15, 16 V. 88 n. 3. 19. i. 304. iv. 639 n. 4. 15. iv. 620. 4. 18. iv. 730 n. 741, 743. v. 264 n. 281 II. 4. 23. iv. 8 n. 666 n. COLOSSIANS. I. 2. iv. 8 n. I. 13, ii. 56. I. 14. iv. 514 n. I. 14 — 20. iv. 508 n. I. 15. ii. 56, 103, 107, 139. IS7) 519- ii'- 268, 290. 677 n. I. 15 — 12. iii. S44. I. 16. i. 380,383,430, 434, 435. ii. 56, 61, 69, 107, 1.39. 147 "57, 628, 663, 679. iii. 13, 290, 292> .S43 n. I. 17. i. 380, 430, 434. ii. 56, i.'9, >57. >f'4. 223. 628, 679. iii. 13, 292. I. 18. ii. 54 n. 157. I. 19. ii. 157. iv. 22 n. I. 20. V, 177 n. ! r. 20, 2 1, 22. iv. 514 n. 22. iv. 514 n. 512 INDEX OF TEXTS 1. 26. iv. 703 n. 2. 2 — -lo. iii. 544. 2. 3. ii. 156. 2. g. ii. 108 n. 2. 9. ii. 157, 158. iv. 22 n. 2. 11. iv. 102 n. 490 II. 706 n. vi. 103. 2. 11, 12, 13. iv. 87 n. 578 II. vi. 13 n. 2. 12. iv. 81, 102 n. 644 n. 706 n. 2. 13. iv. 578 n. 643 11. 2. 14. V. 740 n. 2. 16, 17. iii. 403 n. v. 75. n. 2. i8, 23. vi. 474. 3. 2. v."558. 3. 3. iii. 317. iv. 58 n. 3. 5. V. 264 n. 3. 10. iv. 434 n. 3. II. iv. 24 n. 3. 12. iv. 435 n. 1 THESSALONIANS. I. I. iv. 8 n. 3. II. i. 4'3 n. 467. iv. 8 n. 4. 8. ii. 99. 5. 8. iv. 435 II. 5. 10. V. 171. S. 14, 15. V. 438 n. 5. 17. iv. 58 11. 5. 19. iv. 58 11. V. 641 n. 709 n. 5. 21. V. 678 n. sermon upon, 655. 5. 28. iv. « n. 666 n. 2 THESSALONIANS. 1. 2. iv. 8 II. 2. 8. ii. 134. 2. 1 1, iii. 486 n. iv. 363. 2. 12. iii. 486 n. 2. 13. iv. 629 n. 667 n. 2. 14. iv. 639 II. 2. 16, 17. iv. 8 n. 3. 14. iii. 472 n. 3. 16. iv. 8 n. 3. 18. iv. 8. 666 n. I TIMOTHY. I. 2. iv. 8 n. 666 n. I. 5. V. 652 n. 1. 10. iii. 401 n. I. 12. iv. 8 n. I. 13. v. 731 n. 1. 15. V. 678 n. 729 n. I. 16. ii. 108 n. I. [9. iii. 482 n. 1. 20. iii. 402 n. 459 n. 482 n. iv. 168 n, V. 722 n. 2. c,. ii. 99, 701. 2. 6, 8. iv. 513 n. 2. 14. iv. 162 n. 3. vi. 259. 3. 2 — 1 2. vi. 164. 3. 9, 10. iii. 5 1 6 n. 3. 16. i. 464. ii. 158 n. iii. 55° n- 4. I, 2, 3. iii. 4S2 n. 4. 5. iv. 527 n. 4. 6. iii. 401 n. J. 20. iv. 271 II. 5. 22. iii. 516 n. 6. 2—5. iii. 459 n. 6. 3. V. 88 n. 6. 3, 4, 5. iii. 482 n. 6. 14. ii. 134 n. 6. 15. i. 326. ii. 143, 555. 2 TIMOTHY. I. 2. iv. 8 n. 666 n. I. 3. V. 454 n. 627 n. I. 6. V. 641 n. I. 9. vi. 480. I. 10. ii. 134 n. I. 12. ii. 108 n. 1. 23. iii. 401 n. V. 88 n. 2. 16, 17, 18. iii. 402 n. 459 n. 482 n. 2. 17,18. iv. 168 II. V. 722 n. 2. 24. V. 439 n. 3. 1, 2. sermon upon, v. 446. 3. I — 9. iii. 482 n. 3. 5. V. 446. 3. 15. iv. 141 n. 3. I 7. iv. 1 44 n. 4. I. ii. 134 n. 4. 3. iii. 401 n. 4. 6. iv. 730 n. V. 156 n. 264 n. 4. 7. iv. 1 22 n. V. 680 n. 4. 8. ii. 134 n. V. 680 n. 4. 10. V. 722 n. 4. 14. iv. 168 II. 325 n. iv. 777 n. v. 600 n. 722 n. 4. 1 6. iv. 776 n. 4. I 7, 18, 22. iv. 8. TITUS, r. I. V. 88 n. vi. 463. I. 2. iv. 703 n. vi. 463. I. 3. vi. I n. I. 4. iv. 8 n. 666 n. 1. 6. vi. 164. 1. 10, 1 1, iii. 460 n. V. 72 1 n. r. 13. iii. 401 n. 460 n. iv. 271 n. 2. I, 2. iii. 4CI n. 2. 1 1, iv. 666 n. 2. 13. ii. 134. iii. 489. iv. 502 n. 2. 14. ii. 134. 3. 2. v. 439 n. 3. 4. ii. 99, 528. 3. 4, s, 6. iv. c,2g n. how understood, iv. 724. 3. 5. iv. 81, 86 n. 436 n. 446 II. 578 n. 645 n. 668 n. vi. 480. 3. 5, 6, 7. vi. 9 n. 13 n. 3. 6. ii. 528. 3. 7- vi. 4 n. 3. 10. iii. 469 n. 482 n. 3.10, II. e.«plained,iii.46l. 3. II. iii. 482 n. PHILEMON. 25. iv. 8 n. 666 n. HEBREW'S. I. 2. 1.-428, 434. ii. 55, 58, 61, «04, 550. iii. 13, 292, 680 n. iv. 26, 27, 508 n. I. 3. i. 27s, 282, 285, 286, 428, 430, 434. ii. 58, 104, 'SI, 404, 502. iii. 677 n. iv. 514 n. 511; n. I. 6. i. 407, 423, 428, 431. ii. 164 n. 653, 661. iii. 295- j*'- 7) 9 n- .S02 n. r. 8. i. 275, 281, 307. ii. 404. iii. 290, 304. iv. 9 n. I. 9. i. 307. ii. 661. I. 10. i. 308, 329, 380, 383. 1. 58, 69, 152, 628, 663, 680. iii. 289, 292, 505. iv. 9 n. 28 n. 502 n. the Arian interpretation shewn to he of no force, iii. 666. 674. I. II. ii. 85, 152. iv. 9 n. 1. 12. ii. 58, 351, 154. iv. 9n. !. 14. iv. 314 n. 677 n. 2. 4. ii. 123 n. iv. 30 n. 2- 9. iv. 513 n. 2. 10. ii. 51, 58, 518. 2. II. ii. 58. iii. 680 n. 2. 1 2. ii. 58. 2. 17. iv. 5 (5 n. 3. 2 — 6. iv. 502 n. 3. 4. ii. 72. iii. 293. 3. 6. ii. 72. iv. 26. V. 642 n. 3. 14. iv. 643 n. V. 642 n. 4. 3. iv. 160 n. 4. 12. ii. 92 n. 156. iii. 291. 4. 13. ii. 156. 5. I. iv. 515 n. V. 739 n. 5. 6. V. 167 n. 5. 7. V. 147 n. S- 8. V. 133. 5. 10, 1 1. V. 167 n. 6. 6. iv. 434 n. 6. 1 1, 12. V. 643 n. 6. 13. iv. 240 n. 6. 17, 18. iii. 627 n. 6. 20. V. 167 n. 7. I — 24. V. 167 n. 7. 3. ii.isi. V. 173 n. 23s n. 7. 9. iv. S7S n. 7. II, 13, 14. V. 173 n. 7. 16. V. 173 n. 262 II. 7. 17. V. 173 n. 7. 19. iv. 141 n. 7. 25. iii. 59. iv. 515 n. v. 2, ^.S EXPLAINED OR REFERRED TO. 513 7- 27- iv. 513 n. 8. 2. iv. 728 n. 8. 3. iv. 515 n. 8. 5. iv. 702 n. V. 127. 9. iv. 497 n. 9. 9. V. 124 n. 164 n. 9. II. iv. 728 n. 9. 12. iv. 515 n. 715 n. v. 225 n. 9. 12, 13, 14. V. 17711. 9. 13. iv. 508 n. V. 124 n. 164 n. 9. 14. iv.SoSn. Si3n. 515 n. V. 12411. 130 n. 742 n. vi. 462. 9. 16, 17. iv. 708 n. 9.22. iv. 5i4n. V. 17711. 9- 2.3- 5«5 n- 9. 24. iv. 15811. 51511. 516 n. 728 n. 9. 25. iv. 515 n. 9. 26. iv. 513 n. 515 n. 9. 27. V. 168 n. 9. 28. iv. 51311. 515 n. V. 17711. 10. iv. 497 n. 10. I. iv. 158 n. 514 n. 702 n. 10. 3. iv. 51011. 10. 4. iii. 425 n. V. 164 n. 10. 12. iv. 513 n. 10. 19. iv. 514 n. 10. 21, 22, 23. vi. I4n. 10. 22. iv. 578 n. 645 n. 10. 23, 24. v. 666 n. !0. 26 — 31. iii. 486 n. 10. 29. v. r68 n. 10. 30. iv. 775 n. 11. iv. 113. '11. I. vi. 26 n. II. 4. V. 53 n. II. 13. v. 329 n. vi. 26 n. 1 1. 14. vi. 26 n. II. 17. iv. 202 n. 1 1. 19. iv. 202 n. 575 n. II. 26. V. 5311. 45311. 11. 31. iv. 242, 243. 12. 2. ii. 144. V. 53 n. 12. 6, 7, 8. V. 512 11. 12. 14. V. 438 II. 636 n. 654 n. vi. 7. 12. 16. iv. 208 n. 12. 22, 23, 24. iv. 765 n. 12. 24. iv. 51411. 12. 28. iv. 667 n. 13. 8. ii. 153. 13. 10. ii. 23. iv. 637. v. 235 n. 268 n. explained, iv. 540 11. 13. 12. v. 168 n. 13- 15- iv- 730 n- 7S3 n- V. 147 n. 264 n. 644 n. 13. 16. iv. 73on. V. 182 n. 264 n. 281 n. 645 n. 13. 21. ii. 26. iii. 290. WATERT-AND, VOL. ST. JAMES. 1.6. V. 444 11. I. 17. ii. 154. I. 25. vi. 28. 1. 27. iv. 72 n. 2. 10. iv. 69 n. 2. 12. vi. 28. 2. 14 — 26. v.652n. vi. 28 n. 3711. 2- IS- iv. 332 n- 2. 21, 22, 23. iv. 122 1). 2. 23. vi. 28. 2. 25. iv. 242. 2. 26. iv. 125 n. 3. 2. iv. 452 n. V. 523 n. 638 n. 680 n. 4. V.425 n. 4. 6. iv. 667 11. V. 572 n. 607 n. 611 n. 4. 7. iv. 58 n. 72 n. 4. 8. iv. 436 n. S- H- iv. 7311. 5. 15. iv. 73 n. 525 n. 1 ST. PETER. I. 2. iv. 529 n. 666 II. I. 3. iv. 432 n. I. II. ii. 120. iv. 38 n. I. 18. iv. 103 n. I. 19. ii. 1 1411. iv. 513 n. I. 20. iv. 703 n. 1.22. iv. 436 II. 1. 23. iv. 43211. 2. 3, 4. iv. 8 n. 2, 5. iv. 67411. 73011. 763 II. V. 124 n. 147 n. 263 n. 26711. 74411. 2. 9. iv. 730 n. 763 n. V. 277 n. 2. 1 1. V. 32911. 2. 13. ii. 642. V. 701 n. vi- 32s, 358, 378. 2. 14. iv. 374 n. vi. 378. 2. 16. V. 749 n. 2. 21. iv. 513. 2. 22. iv. 182 n. 2. 24. iv. 513 n. V. 1 76 n. 630 n. 741 n. 3. 9. V. 32711. 3. 15. iv. 271 n. V. 656 n. 3. 18. iii. 55011. iv. si3n. V.631 n. 3. 21. i. 148. ii. 186 n. iv. 8711. 9411. 439 n. 57811. 645 n. 681 n. 706 n. vi. 1511. 3. 22. iv. 43911. 4. I. iii. 550 n. iv. 513 n. 4. 6. vi. 310. 4. 10. iv. 666 n. 4. 1 1 . ii. 26. iii. 290. iv. 8 n. 4. 14. ii. 120.. 4. 17, 18. V. 516. 5. 5. V. 572 n. 607 n. 61 1. 5. 8. iv. 1 68 n. 31411. 666 n. vr. 2 ST. PETER. I. I. vi. 4 n. I. 2. iv. 666 n. I. 5,6, 7. V. 44511. 1. 5—10. vi. 37 n. 2. I. iii. 32611.46511. 48211. 2. 2, 3. iii. 482 n. 2. 14. iv. 321 n. 2. 15. iv. 239 n. V. 721 n. 753 n- 2. 16. iv. 23711. 23911. V. 751 n. 2. 20. iii. 486 n. 2.21. iii. 486 n. iv. ;94n. 2. 22. iii. 486 n. 3. 3. iv. 168 n. 35911. 3- 4- iv- 3S9 n- 3. 14. ii. 108 n. 3. 1 6. iii. 3 1 6. 3. 18. i. 423 II. ii. 26. iii. 290. iv. 8 n. 667 n. I ST. JOHN. I. I. iii. 548 n. 550 n. I. 2. i.316. ii. 34, 130. iii. 54811. 550 n. I. 3. iv. 627 n. I. 5. iii. 312,545 »• I. 7. iv. 9011. 508 n. 5 14 n. vi. 462. I. 8. V. 637 n. 649 n. 680 n, I. 9. iv. 43611. 1. 10. V. 637 n. 2. I. iii. 59. 2. 2. iv. 51411. 515 n. 2. 12. iv. 643 n. 2. 15. iv. 58 n. 2. 18. iii. 483 n. 548 n. 2. 19. iii. 548 n. 2. 22. 111.48311. 547 n. 548 n- 553 ". 2- 23. Hi. 548 n. 553 n. 557 n. 2. 26. Hi. 483 n. 3- vi. 310. 3. 3. iv. 636 n. 3. 7—10. vi. 37 n. 3. 8. iv. 16211. 453 n. V. 531 n. 3. 9. iv. 432 n. 452 n. V. 531 n. 692 n. 703 II. vi. 483- 3. 9, 10. sermon upon, v. 63s- 3. 10. iv. 452 n. 3. 16. V. 133 n. 171 n. 454 n. 632 n. 3. 21, 22. sermon upon, v. 676. 3. 23. ill. 549 n. 3. 24. v. 692. 4. I. ill. 482 n. 483 n. v. 656. sermon upon, v. 695. 4. 2. iii. 481 n. 589 n. 4. 3. 111.40211. 481 n. 48311. l1 514 INDEX OF TEXTS, &c. 547 n. 548 n. 58911. v. 221 n. 4. 7- >v. 632 n. 4. 8. iii. 312. 4. 9. V. 628 n. 631 n. 4. 10. iv. 514 n. 702 n. 4. 15. iii. 54911. 4. 16. iii. 312. 4. 17, 18. V. 683 n. 450 n. 4. 20, 21. V. 444 11. 5. I. iii. 549 n. iv. 432 n. 5. 4. iv. 432n. S- S- "i- 549 n- 5. 6. iii. S49 n. 551 n. 5. 7. i. 18, 19,255,477- iii- SS' n- V. 350 n. vi. 312, 31.^, .S27. 342, 344, 34S> 358, 362, 412. has very inany and very consider- able appearances of being truly genuine, v. 350. 5. 8, 9, II. iii. 55 in. 552 u. 5. 12, 13. ii. 132. 5. 16. iv. 776 n. 5. 18. iv. 432 n. V. 703 n. 5. 20. ii. 130, 429. iii. 289, 548 n. 552 n. iv. 502 n. 2 ST. JOHN. 3. iv. 9 n. 666 n. 7. iii. 402 n. 483 n. 547 n- 548 n. 550 n. 9. iii. 402 n. 481 n. 696n. 10. iii. 468 n. 481 n. 513 n. 696 n. iv. 782 n. 11. iii. 402 II. 468 n. 481 n. 485 n. 513 n. 19. V. 95 n. 3 ST. JOHN. 1. V. 720 n. 9. iv. 475 n. V. 720 n. JO. iii. 513 n. iv.47S n. ST. JUDE. 2. V. 721 n. 3. iii. 401 n. 58 n. 4. iii- 520. 6. V. 744 n. II. iv. 239 n. V. 753 n. REVELATIONS. I. I. ii. 161. I. 4. ii. 123 n. 141, 564. iv. 9 n. 666 n. I. 5. i. 434. ii. 17, 26, 123 n. 662. iv. 9 n. 514 n. 1.6. i. 434. ii. 24, 26, 662. iii. 290. iv. 763 n. vi. 164. I. 7. ii. 141. 1.8. 1.326,339,340,537. ii. 141, 144 n. 146, 414. SS5> 568, 754. iii. 47, 289. proofs of this text applying to the Son and not to the Father, ii. 562. I. II. ii. 141 n. 144 n. I. 16. ii. 1 56. I. 17. i. 326, 339. ii. 141, 143. 144 n- 5SS- iii- 289. V. 684. 1. 18. ii. i4t n. 144 n. 2, 3. i.326. ii. 92 n. 555. 2. 4. ii. 108 n. 2. 5. iv. 302 n. 445 n. 2. 6. ii. 108 11. 2. 8. ii. 141 n. 144 n. 2. 12. ii. 156. 2. 14. iii. 513 n. iv. 238 n. ^- 721, 753 n- 2. 15. iii. 513 n. iv. 238 n. 2. 16. ii. 156. iv. 445 n. 2. 20. iii. 513 n. iv. 445 n. 2. 21. iv. 445 n. 2. 23. ii. 156. iii. 290. 3- 3- i^- 445 n- 3. 14. ii. S3, 144n. 3. 19. iv. 445 n. V. 512 n. 3. 21. iii. 679 n. 4. 8. ii. 142,565. 4. 10. i.3i6n. ii.519, 682. 4. II. i. 316 n. ii.519, 662, 682. 5. 6. iv. 515 n. 5.8. i. 423n. 434. ii. 165 n. iii. 295. iv. 508 n. 730 n. 741, 744 n. 748. v. 152 n. 263 n. 744 n. 5- 9- i-434- ii.662. iv.si4 n. V. 177 n. 5. 10. i\: 763 n. 5. II, 12, 13. iii. 42311. iv. 911. 5. 1 2. ii. 24, 26, 662. iii. 290. 5. 13. i. 423 n. ii. 26. iii. 295, 305) iv. 502 n. 5. 14. i. 434. 6. 9. iv. 540 n. V. 263 n. 7. 3. V. 280 n. vi. 108. 7. 10. i. 423 n. iii. 423 n. 7. 14. iv. 23 n. 514 n. V. 743 n. 8. 3. iv. 508 n. 730 n. 741 n. 744 n. V. 263 n. 268 n. 744 n. 8. 4. iv. 508 n. 730 n. v. 263 n. 744 n. 8. 5. iv. 731 n. 741 n. v. 268 n. 11. I, 3. ii. 513. 12. 9. iv. 172 n. 12. 11,12. iii. 680 n. 13. 16. ii. 144 n. 14. 12. iii. 401 n. 17. 14. i.326. ii. 143, SSS- 19. I, 2. ii. 662. 19. 10. i. 318, 409. iii. 288, 421 n. 19. II. ii. 135. 19. 12. ii. 91, 164, 405. 19. 13. ii. 34, 156. iii. 315. 19. 15. ii. 156. 19. 16. i.326. ii. 135, 143, 555. iv. 23 n. 28. 19. 17. ii. 135. 19. 19. ii. 135. 20. 2. iv. 172 n. 20. 6. iv. 763 n. V. 277 n. 21. 6. ii. 141, 143, 144 n. iii, 289. 21. 8. iii. 400 n. 21. 22. ii.94,422. iv.24n. V. 3Son. 21. 23. ii. 94, 422. iv. 24n. 22. 1. ii. 94, 422. iii. 679 n. iv. 24 n. V. 350 n. 22. 3. iv. 24 n. 22. 6. i. 308. 22. 9. i.409. iii. 288, 421 n. 22. 12. ii. 129. 22. 13. i.326, 339,340- ii- 14', 143, 144D- 555- iii- 289. 22. 16. i. 308. 22. 21. iv. 666 n. INDEX. AbARBENEL, (Abrabanel,) Isaac, W. 343. 366. Abassine church, has not even the Apo- stles' Creed from its ignorance of Latin forms, iii. 190. Abbadie, James, II. 144 n. iii. 415 n. Abbo, or Albo, Floriacensis, iii. 170 n. 184 n. 238 n. abbot of Fleury, or St. Benedict upon the Loire, 125. had some difference with Arnulphus, bishop of Orleans, ib. wrote an apology re- specting it, ib. his testimony respecting the use of the Athanasian Creed, ib. Abbot, George, archbishop of Canterbury, vi. 132, 481. Abbot, RoVjert, bishop of Salisbury, v. 141. Abelard, Peter, iii. 148, 233 n. 238. no- tice of his comment on the Athanasian Creed, 140. Abernethy, John, iv. 415. Abrabanel, see Abarbenel. Abraham, 1. 132. his intention of sacrific- ing his son, vindicated, iv. 201. bishop Cumberland's explanation, 202. Acacius, ii. 371. Accursius, Mariangelus, vi. 269. Achadeus, see Amadeus. Achillas, bishop of Alexandria, iii. 600. Acosta, Uriel, v. 65 n. loi n. vi. 460. Actions, when formally good and perfect, iv. 133. in a strict sense, none but the divine actions have an exact conformity to the reasons of things, ib. Acts, (divine,) nature of, hard to under- stand, ii. 624. Adalbertus, made a bishop, iii. 124. his testimony of the general reception of the Athanasian Creed, ib. Adam, i. 132. Adamantius, iv. 687 n. Addison, Joseph, iv. 404. v. 62 n. Adrian I., pope, iii. 156, 183, 185. Adults, if fitly prepared, justified in bap- tism, V. 33. A'Ahic, archbishop of Canterbury, vi. 490, 493. his death, 195. /Eneas, bishop of Paris, iii. 109, 124, 171. wrote a treatise against the Greeks, ib. yEthiopia, church of, St. Matthew its founder, vi. 272. Aetius, an heretic, i. 382, 404, 480, ii. 504, 632. iii. 89, 638, 682. Affirmative prior in order of nature to the negative, iii. 386. Agde, council of, iv. 793, 797, 798. first obliged the laity to receive the commu- nion thrice a year at least, 797. Agellius, Anthony, a Novatian bishop, ii. 225 n- 374- aytvriTos, and ayfvvrjTos, used promiscu- ously, till the Arian controversy gave occasion for their being accurately dis- tinguished, i. 363 n. an inquiry into the original meaning of ayivriTos, ii. 573. not used in the sense of aytwriTos, ib. used by the ancient philosophers to signify necessary existence, 575. applied by the fathers to what is supposed to have been produced or begotten, ib. though probably used in a higher sense when applied to the Father, 576, 577. aytwriTos, an inquiry into the time when this term was first applied to the Son, '■• 573) 576. ay(vr\Tos not previously used in the same sense, ib. Agens, unus inlelligens, and unum intel- ligens ^pens, diffeience between, ii.332. Agobardus, archbishop of Lyons, wrote against Felix Orgelitanus, iii. 123. Agrippinus, vi. 176. Ahyto, see Hallo. Aikin, Dr., i. 262 n. Ainsworth, Henry, iv. 576 n. Alberti, John, vi. 427. Albertinus, iv. 446 n. 475, 524 n. 528 n. 529, 534 n. 536 n. 537 n. 542 n. 54S n. 553 n- 565 n- 574 S^o n. 581 n. 587 n. 590 n. 591, 595 n. 596 n. 598 n. 629 n. 635 n. 636 n. 64O n. 6;8 n. 683 n. 688 n. 694 n. 757 n. 758 n. v. 115 n. 162 n. 165, 167 n. 189 n. 190 n. 191 n. 192 n. 193 n. 195, 198 n. 200 n. — 203 n. 205 n. — 208 n. 220 n. 225 n. 226 n. 228 n. 241 n. 256 n. 259 n. vi. 46 n. 71. Albertus Ulagnus, iii. 340, 343. notice of. I. I 2 51G INDEX. 327 n. 329. applied necessity in a sober / but nevv sense to the Divine essence, 327 n. 329. considered the existence of the Deity not demonstrable h priori, 329. was the preceptor of Aquinas, ib. Albo, see Alibo. Alcuinus, iii. 259 n. 260 n. ri. 247. the book de Divinis Officiis falsely ascribed to him, V. 207. Aldrich, Henry, iv. 695 n. his statement respecting the real presence in the eucharist, 607. Aleph, John, vi. 305, 307, 321, 403. pro- bably a feigned name, 384. Alexander, v. 97. excommunicated by St. Paul for denial of a future resur- rection, iii. 402. Alexander Alensis, see Alexander of Hales. Alexander, bishop of Ale.xandria, I. 287, .S5S> 358, 360 n. 393 n. 485, 487, 498 n. ii. 104 n. 149 n. 150, 151 n. 153 n. 369, 383 n. 417, 585 n. 586 n. 600, 615, 618, 675, 728. iii. 79 n. 5SS n. 58.;. iv. 37. vi. 180. called the Father and the Son Sio irpayiJi.a.Ta., i. 285. dis- tinguished between eternal and self- existent, 354. vindicated, ii. 420. his epistle inserted by Montfaucon in his edition of Athanasius's works, ib. as- serts the necessary existence and su- preme divinity of the Son, 421. ex- press for his eternal generation, iii. 22. a defender of the cathohc faith against 1 his presbyter Arius, 88. did not believe that the Father is naturally governor over the Son, ib. his testimony and that of his clergj' respecting Christ's divinity, iii. 600. 1 Alexander Aphrodisiensis, a celebrated ' Peripatetic, iii. 325. when he flourished, ib. his opinion that the existence of a Deity cannot be proved a priori, 326. Alexander, bishop of Constantinople, i. 285. iii. 585. ; Alexander of Hales, (Alensis,) iii. 1 28, 246 n. v. 288 n. when he flourished, iii. 329. notice of his Comment on the Athanasian Creed in his Summa, 141. ascribes Gennadius's treatise de Eccles. Dogmal. to St. Austin, according to the ! common error of that time, ti. his opi nion ' that the word necessity is improperly applied to the Deity, 327 n. Alexander, Natalis, iii. 151, 182, 216 n. 632 n. 638 n. iv. 174 n. 176, 190 n. 192 n. 196 n. 203, 295. vi. 70 n. pub- lished an Ecclesiastical History, iii. 115. speaks respectfully of Antelmi's opinion respecting the Athanasian Creed, but prefers Quesnel's hypothesis, ib. 1 1 7. Alexander IV., pope, iii. 187 n. Alexander, John, I. 242. iii. 529, 678 n. his Essay on Irenceus passed through Waterland's hands before it was printed, vi. 414. his Essay commended, iii. 572. Alexandria, Athansius presided in a synod there that compromised the dispute about hypostasis, ii. 711. Alexandria, church of, iii. 203. St. Mark its founder, vi. 272. Alexius IV., emperor of the east, iii. 171. Alfred, king, translated the Bible into his native tongue, vi. 359. Algazel, iii. 327. Algerus, v. 288 n. vi. 493, 494. aAAa, frequent in scripture instead of oAA' Sfxais, signifying hmcbeit, or nevertheless, ii. 108. instances, ih. and n. Allatius, Leo, ii. 426 n. iii. 128, 196 n. vi. 69 n. published his Syntagma de Symbolo S. Athanasii, in modern Greek, iii. I TO. \ery scarce, ib. his opinion re- specting the Creed. 117. Allegorizing, see Scripture. Allegory, how it differs from parable, iv. 159- Allen, Edmund, vi. 389. translated Jude's Exposition of the Apocalj-pse from German into English, 384, 391. Allen, William, cardinal, v. 225, 272 n. 284 n. 292. vi. 497. one of the Rhemish translators of the New Testament, 402. Allix, Peter, ii. 148 n. 591 n. iii. 580 n. 590 n. iv. 292 n. 636, 790 n. v. 188 n. I9S- Almighty, the imperfect rendering of ■navTOKpaTwp, a divine title given to Christ in scripture, ii. 141. Alogi, iii. 6c6 n. a branch of the Ebionites, 579. rejected St. John's Gospel, 673. Alpha and Omega, a divine title given to Christ in scripture, ii. 143. Alstedius, John Henry, iii. 182. Altar, in the Christian church, what, v. 269. how so called, iv. 749. Altimura, Stephan. de, i. e. Le Quien. Amadeus, or Achadeus, count, iii. 157. Amalarius Trevirensis, vi. 247. Ambition, what, v. 570. Ambrose, St., i. 415, 548 n. ii. 13 n. 33 n. 43 n. 44 n. 60, 77 n. 87 n. 89 n. f 09 n. 125 n- '.33 n- 141 n. 142, 143, 151 n. 153 n. 156 n. 168 n. 173 n. 239 n. 428, 429, 498 n. 549, 563, 570 n. 602, 61 1 n. 746 n. iii. 91, 200, 202, 206 n. 226 n. 227 n. 234, 684 n. iv. 195, 561, 580 n. 653, 683, 691 n. 752 n. v. 13, 107 n. 175 n. 19S n. 275, 277 n. 283 n. his declaration respecting the incarnation, iii. 208. the first that applies the term of mass to the eucharist, iv. 490. the book de SacrameJitis not justly ascribed to him, 683. conjectures respecting its date and author, ib. a passage of his touching the eucharistic elements, ex- plained, v. 286. the Comment on St. Paul's Epistles under his name, per- haps written by Hilary the deacon, vi. 1 19, 181. INDEX. 517 Ambrosian Latin MS. of the Athanasian Creed, iii. 221 n. — 229 n. 235 11. 243. notice of, 154. a copy of it published by 3Iuratorius, ib. the MS. came from the monastery of Bobbio, ib. Ambrosian III. MS. Fortunatus's Com- ment on the Athanasian Creed, iii. «»4, 134- Ambrosian Hbrary has two anonymous MS. comments on the Athanasian Creed, iii. 148. Ambrosian monks particularly venerated the Athanasian Creed, iii. 160. Amelius, said to have borrowed from the scriptures, v. 13, 16. Amerbachius, Vitus, iii. 168. Ames, Joseph, vi. 303 n. Ammonius, iv. 431 n. 'Afa-y/cT) in Greek, or nccessilas in Latin, liad not the same sense as necessity bears, when we say that God exists by necessity of nature, ii. 13. which was expressed by ipvau, or koto 249 n- 250 n. 257 n. 369 n. 370> 37I) 372, 383 n. 392 n. 393 n. 410, 418, 419 n. 420 n. 426 — 429, 430, n. 439> 441, 446 n. 456, 464, 469 n. 49s n. 498 n. 504, 535, 538 n. 563, 570 n. 572, 574, 577, 578 n. 581 n. 585 n. 516 n. 587 n. 590 n. 591 n. 592 n. 601, 602, 603 n. 604, 607 n. 611, 612 n. 615 n. 634, 63s, 636, 639, 674 n. 675, 679, 683, 688, 689 n. 702, 719 n. 722 n. 728, 738, 739, 740. iii. 16, 23, 79 n. 86, 89, 175, i;6, 199, 206 n. 218, 219, 482, 534, 582, 585 n. 586 n. 587 n. 590 n. 598 n. 6or, 602, 673 n. 678 n. iv. 297 n. 536, 545 n. 660 n. V. 13, 24, lion. 112, 198 n. 207 u. 251. vi. 126, 180, 209, 446, 464, 484. vin- dicated and explained, ii. 430 n. 431, 702, 703, 747, 748 n. iii. 29. time of his flourishing, 89. his reasoning that the M'ord is comprehended in Job ix. 8. and Isaiah xliv. 24., i. 290. resolved the unity (with respect to the Father and the Son) into Sonship, or unity of principle, 323, 324 n. makes ttoiijttJs to signify more than TexfiTijs, 383 n. a passage of his, pretended to make the Son a creature, explained, 390, 391. considered that the Son was worship- ped by Abraham, Moses, &c. and the Jewish church, 432. falsely charged by Dr. ^Vhitby of beUeving one individual hypostasis, 507. instances of his being misinterpreted by him, 513, 523, 524, 528. always distinguished between diioovcriov and bfioiovaiov, 5 13. what churches, according to hiro, maintained the Nicene faith after the sj-nod of Ariminum, 548, 549. his description of the Son's concern in the creation, ii. 80 n. his works carefully preserved, 418. his opinion of Eusebius's Arian- ism, 495. was condemned by the false Sardican council, 604. argued strenu- ously for the Son's eternal generation, 617. on what ground, ib. vindicated Origen's doctrine, 639. presided in the synod at Alexandria, that compromised the disp\ite about hypostasis, 711. sum- mary of Gregory Nazianzen's panegyric upon him, 714, 715. a passage therein considered by Whiston as making Athanasius the inventor of the divinity of the Son, vindicated and explained, 715, 716, 717. in what sense he uses the word /j-ovapx^a-, iii- 77 n. wrote against Arius, 89. did not believe that the Father is natnrat/y governor over the Son, ib. opinions of learned mo- derns for and against his being the author of the Athanasian Creed, 108 — 117. and of ancients, 122, 123, 124, 126, 127 — •131- notice of various MSS. of the Athanasian Creed, with titles ascribing the Creed to him, 150 — 160. probable reason for his name becoming affixed to the Athanasian Creed, 217. refuted the Arian pretence of tradition, 659. his Comment on John vi. vii., iv. 556, 557. commended, i6. time of his death, iii. 197. Ensebius of Verceil his great friend, 1 76. Athanasius, Brief Notes on the Creed of, a Socinian pamphlet answered by dean Sherlock, i. 32. Athanasius, bishop of Spire, iii. 219. con- jectured by Sandius to be the author of the Athanasian Creed, iii. Athelard, archbishop, iii. 185. Athelstan, king, iii. 169, 184. Athelstan's psalter, iii. 153. notice of, 154. Athenaeus, v. 38 n. Athenagoras, i. 287, 323, 352,363 n. 364, 365 n. 366 u. 384 n. 389 n. 443 n. 472,489, 499 n. ii. 31 n. 46, sin. 57 n. 77 n. 122 n. 148 n. 149 n. 150, 192 n. 220, 221, 223, 224 n. 228, 243, 534, .';37, 598, 643, 666, 671, 710. iii. 35 n. 609, 662, 676. iv. 739. V. 131 n. 243 n. 246, 254, 255 n. vi. 445. time of his writing, ii. 439, 580. considered the Son to be included in the one God, i. 289. ii. 88. vindicated, 89. resolved the unity into communion of substance, i. 322, 323. in the hypothesis of the temporal generation of the Son, 359. iii. 22. yet allows the eternal genera- tion of the Atiyos by implication, ii. 441, 442. declared that the Son was not made at his procession or generation, but had existed in the Father, as the Logos, from all eternity, i. 362. speaks INDEX. 525 of no higher generation thaa the pro- cession, ii. 597. supposed the procession to be after the creating of the unformed mass of things, i. 366. held the neces- sary existence of the Word, ii. 580, 581, 597. is express for a difference of order among the divine persons, hut not of dominion or worsliip, 442. his declaration that the Creator alone is to be worshipped, i. 418. but this in- cludes the Son, 423. vindicated from Dr. Whitby's misinterpretations, 511, 514. ii. 243. his declaration respecting the Trinity, 178. iii. 594. did not be- lieve that the Father is naturally go- vernor over the Son, 82 vindicated from Barbeyrac's charges against him, 637. Atonement by Christ's blood, a funda- mental docti'ine, v. 82. Atterbury, Francis, iv. 411. Atterbury, Lewis, iv. 411. Atticus, said to have borrowed from the scriptures, v. 13. Attributes, what, iii. 378. Attributes, divine, ascribed to Christ in scripture, i. 326, 327. ii. 143. Eternity, 146. Immutability, 152. Omniscience, 155. Omnipresence, 164. Auctoritas, often no more than paternilas in the Latin father.s, ii. 399. Audians, iv. 786. Audley, lord, founder of Blagdalerie col- lege, Cambridge, vi. 429. sir T. Pope one of his executors, ib. two others, ib. Audley, lady, vi. 429. Audley End, Essex, the possessor of this estate appoints the master of Jlagda- lene college, Cambridge, i. 8 n. and is visitor of the college, ib. the estate is now in the possession of lord Bray- brooke, ib. Augsburg, church of, iii. 159. Augustan Confession drawn up by Me- lancthon, v. 393. the Articles of the church of England followed its jilan, ib. Augustin, see jluslin. Augustine, the monk, iii. 193. Aurelian, Walt., vi. 63 n. Aurelius, bishop of Carthage, iii. 7.13. iv. 9. Austin, Augustin, St., i. 285, 290, 329 n. 347 n. 415, 439, 468, 488 n. 490 n. 542, 544 n. 548 n. 549 n. ii. 13 n. 49 n. 58 n. 60, 100 n. 109 n. iii n. 125 n. i.5.^n. 131;, 136 n. 141 n. i73n. 376, 391 n. 418 n. 428, 429, 433, 457 n. 466, 479 n. 563, 591 n. 602, 608, 609, 630 n. 687,697, 712 n. 723 n. iii. 57, 60, 1 15, 1 18, 141, 162 n. 200, 202, 204, 208, 209, 212 n. 214, 218, 220, 221, 228, 229, 234, 238, 257, 268 n. 479 n. 5*7 n- .54.? D. 550 n- 555 577 n. 585 n. 620. iv. 10, 39, 40 n. 180 n. 190 n. 211 n. 221 n. 306 n. 366 n. 428 n. 430 n. 432 n. 434 n. 438 n. 440 n. — 443 n. 448 n. 487, 490 n. 512 n. 536 n. 537 n. 545 n. 563, 570 n. 577 n- 580 n. 589, 598 n. 629 n. 653, 723 n. 730, 731 n. 733, 736 n. 741 u. 745 n- 753, 759 n- 7^0, 773, 796, 797. v. 1 3, 19 n. 1 1 1 n. 125, 126 n. 127, 128, 131 n. 156 n. 167 n. 175 n. 184 n. 191 n. 192 n. 194 n. 198 n. 203 n. 205, 208 n. 223 n. 234 n. 236 n. 239 n. 240 n. 247, 248 n. 252, 257, 259, 262, 265 n. 270 n. 2730. 274, 275, 277, 282, 2S3, 285 n. 396, 400, 404, 405, 412, 4? 3, 414, 710. vi. 6 n. 8 n. 16 n. 17 n. 30 n. 34 n. 38 n. 58, 6r, 64, 68 n. 70 n. 71, ICO, 114, 171, 176, 179, 185, 193, 201, 202, 203, 207, 208, 243, 272, 464, 479—484, 485, 487, 494. his de- claration that either Father and Son are one Ijord God, or else that Christ is not Lord God at all, i. 278. his opinion as to the generation of the Son being by the Father's will, 348. his argument for Christ being uncreated, 389. his de- fence of the Trinity in Unity, 480 n. 488 I). 502. a proof how far he was from Sabellianism, which some have weakly pretended to charge him with, 544 n. vindicated from a censure of Dr. Clarke's, 561. his comment on the word name, in the form of baptism, being in the singular number, ii. i76n. rather against considering Origen as orthodox, 641. Gennadius's treatise de Eccles. Dogmat. formerly commonly ascribed to him, iii. 141. asserted and cleared the procession from the Soii, 201. supposed to have drawn up the recan- tation treatise (Libellus, Salitfactionis) of Leporius, 209, 213. Hilary, arch- bishop of Aries, a great admirer and follower of him, 215. notice respecting his allegorizing scripture, 692. a proper allegorist, iv. 164. greatly admired and followed by Fulgentius, 564. his defini- tion of sacrifice, 728. v. 124 n. Bellar- mine's artful contrivance to evade it, refuted, 130. his sentiments as to gospel sacrifices, iv. 760. view respecting visi- ble sacrifices explained, v. 240. why his treatise de Civilale Dei may he considered his masterpiece, iv. 760. imposed upon by the Manichees, v. 40. his opinion of the need and efficacy of baptism, vi. 21, 42 — 48, 50. what he meant by his famed maxim that good works follow after justification, 21. uses the words good works in two senses, 3011. his sentiments as to infant com- munion considered, 43. calls the I^ord's Prayer a quotidian baptism, 51. the Hypognosticon, sometimes ascribed to him, belongs to Mercator, 59. his opin- ion re.specting children that die unbap- tized, 107. and touching lay-baptism, 526 INDEX. 122, 196, 197. his controversy with the Donatists about schismatical clerg)', 171, 194. confuted St. Cyprian's opin- ion, 172. when he died, iv. 761. Author and Governor of the universe, whosoever is so, is, in the Arian notion, allowed to be God, i. 317. Authority sometimes signifies paternity, ii. 417. often used without reference to dominion, iii. 60. Authorized version of the scriptures too often follows the Geneva version, iv. 341. a very good one, and upon the whole scarce inferior to any, yet capa- ble of very great improvement, ib. Autun, council of, iii. 113, 136. iv. 798. held under Leodegarius, iii. 118. pro- bably when, ib. its words probably re- specting the Athanasian Creed, ib. Pa- pebroehius's opinion to the contrary op- posed, ib. objections against the council considered, 120. its canons, by whom published, and where from, ib. Autun, see of, next in dignity to the me- tropolitical see of Lyons, iii. 1 20. Avarice, reflections upon, v. 458. Averroes, iii. 327. Avicen, iii. 327. Avitus, bishop of Vienne, iii. 211, 219, 235. a^'iwfia, in what sense used by Basil, ii. 638. A.^ioms and first principles perceivalde by intuition, not demonstration, iii. 387. Ayliffe, — , vi. 371. Ayscough, — , of Corpus Christi college, Oxford, notice respecting, vi. 421. B. Baber, — , vi 435. Bachiarii fides, in a MS. at Treves, iii. 154 n. Backneth, Balthasar, vi. 351, 403. Bacon, Francis, earl of Verulam, i. 196. V. 73. vi. 463. Bacon, Roger, of the order of Friars IMi- nors, when he flourished, iii. 330. his character, 331. styled the admirable Doctor, ib. Badger, vi. 428 n. Badius, Conradus, vi. 325, 404. Bagford, John, vi. 368. Baifius, Lazarus, Fi ancis L's legate at Ve- nice, iii. 174, 177 and n. 233 n. 236 n. Baker, — , of St. John's college, Cam- bridge, i. 254- v-i. 308, 310, 325, 329, 343, 35i> 352. 353. 356, 360, 361, 374, 382, 426, 432, 439, 443. Baker, — , life, iv. 413. Balaam, sermon on the history and cha- racter of, v. 747. Balaamites and Nicolaitans, their same meaning, iv. 239. Balbus, see Januensis. Baldensal, or Boldesale, William of, a German knight, the first writer that ascribes the Athanasian Creed to Eu- sebius, bishop of Verceil, along with Athanasius, iii. 131. the probable rea- son, ib. his treatise, the History of Piedmont, unpublished, ib. the MS. in the duke of Savoy's library, ib. Bale, John, bishop of Ossorj-, iii. 143 — 145. iv. 196. vi. 270, 302, 307, 368, 370, 372, 376, 38.?, 384. 389, 39°- an error of his respecting Trevisa noticed, iii. 145 n. Balguy, _, iv. 415. Ball, John, notice of a tract of his in de- fence of the doctrine of the Trinity, iii. 523. Balhol college library, Oxford, has a MS. of S. Bruno's Comment on the Atha- nasian Creed, iii. 139. Balsamon, Theodore, iv. 788. vi. 112 n. 126, 210. Baltus, John Francis, iii. 639 n. 642 n. v. 12 n. 16 n. confuted the pretences of Le Clerc against the opinion that pa- gan writers borrowed from the Jews, 14. Baluzius, Stephen, iii. 121, 122. vi. 63 n. Bancroft, Richard, archbishop of Can- terbury, ii. 690 n. iv. 603. vi. 82, 124, 127, 128. Baptism, form of, an argument for Christ's divinity, ii. 171. proof that this form was used in the primitive church, 1 72. the import of this form shewn first from the nature and reason of the thing, 174, 175. secondly, from the testimonies of the ancients, 177. the form being changed and corrupted by heretics, a further argument, 187. used by the Jews, in the admission of proselytes to their religion, 1 73. a profession of faith required in the primitive church pre- vious to baptism, 186, 187. understood by the texts, Titus iii. 4, 5, 6. iv. 427. and John iii. 5, 428. without baptism a person is not regenerate, 438. titles applied to baptism by the ancients, 446 n. disparaged by being considered merely as a positive duty instead of a religious rite, 468. a proof that it is not a bare duty, 469. notice of its being called a sacrament, 482. the water, how supposed by the ancients to be sancti- fied, 530. consideration of the scripture phrases respecting baptism, 577. its spiritual graces according to St. Paul, 578. remission of sins ordinarily con- ferred in baptism, 644. considered by St. Austin and the schoolmen not only to look backward to sins past, but for- wards also to future sins, 646. differ- ence of the remission in baptism and in the eucharist, 652. what the an- cients taught concerning the illapse of the Holy Spirit in baptism, 675. two or three forms of invocation for the Holy Spirit in baptism, 683. when this prac- INDEX. 527 tice commenced, 686. a federal rite, 705. remissness respecting baptism be- gan ill the fourth century, 785. cate- chumens kept back till duly qualified, 789. form of baptism altered by the Eunomians, as supporting the divinity of Christ, V. 112. contains a sort of oblation, 182. why considered by the ancients a sort of sacrifice, 184. an- ciently reckoned the grand absolution, 282. St. Austin's opinions of its efficacy, vi. 43 — 48, 50. ordinarily the necessary outward mean or instnmient of justifi- cation, vi. 10, 32. proved from scrip- ture, ib. and the ancients, 1 6. the fa- thers had an idea that the application of water in baptism secured the body to an happy resurrection, while the Spirit more immediately secured the soul, 14. some moderns have considered justifi- cation as antecedent to baptism, 22. real statement respecting justification in baptism, 33. not so absolutely ne- cessary to salvation as some have pre- tended, 213. the word baptism used for baptismal state, 480. see Lay-baptism, Regeneration, and Sacraments. Baptizing, in the name of Christ Jesus, how to be understood, ii. 172, 173. in the name of the Trinity, what it im- ports, 174, 175. Barbeyrac, John, iv. 109, 112 n. 287, 300 n. v. 401. professor of civil law at Groniiigen, iii. 634. translated Puffen- dorf and Grotius into French, ib. at- tacked the fathers in his prefatory dis- course to his French translation of Puffendorf de Jure Natures et Gen- tium, and in his Traiti de la Morale des Peres de PEglise, i. 95. iii. 635 n. answered by Ceillier, 635. animadverted upon by Buddaeus, ib. observations on i his charges, 636, 639. specimens of his manner, 636. part of his French pre- face published in English under the title of the Spirit of Ecclesiastics in all Ages, i. 95. iii. 635. answered by Dr. Grey, 635. his attack on the fathers censured by Waterland, vi. 445 n. on whose observations he animadverted with great asperity, ib. his invective answered by Dr. Grey, ib. Barker, Christopher, vi. 350, 351, 352, 356, .392> 40'» 4025 404- Barker, John, i. 8 n. Barker, Robert, vi. 352, 402, 404. Barker, Samuel, tutor of Magdalene col- lege, Cambridge, i. 8. was the son of John Barker, 8 n. admitted as sizer, in Magdalene college, ib. his rise in college, ib. Barlow, Thomas, i. 99. iii. 368 n. 372 n. fellow of Queen's college, Oxford, and afterwards bishop of Lincoln, when he flourished, 344. character of his 3Ieta- physical Exercises, ib. hisopinion against the Divine existence being demonstra- ble a priori, ib. his censure of Suarez for considering it possible in some sort, 345. scrupulous in admitting that any of the Divine attributes might be pi'oved a priori, 347. Barlow, William, published a relation of the Hampton-Court conference, iv. 603 n. made bishop of Rochester, ib. translated to Lincoln, ib. his death, ib. his sentiments respecting the eucharis- tic elements, 603. observations there- upon, 605. Barnabas, St., i. 329 n. ii. 207, 630 n. iv. 732. v. 175, 237. his epistle mis- represented by Dr. Whitby, i. 513. his opinion of the need and efficacy of bap- tism, vi. 16. Barnes, John, a moderate Romanist, who met with hard usage for speaking the truth respecting the eucharist, v. 236. Barnes, Joseph, v. S7 u. Baro, Dr. Peter, ii. 342, 343. notice of his explanation of the Lambeth Arti- cles, 344. proceedings against him at Cambridge for Anti-Calvinism, stopped by lord Burghley, 345. Baronius, Caesar, ii. 495. iii. iir, 114, 190. iv. 496 n. Barradas, Sebastian, v. 165 n. Barret, — , proceedings against him at Cambridge as an Anti-Calvinist, ii. 342. Barrow, Isaac, i. 165. iii. 351. iv. 378, 415- Barthelet, Thomas, vi. 502, 331, 344, 403- . Bartholinus, iv. 409, 4 10. Bartylmew, — , de Proprietatibus Rerum, translated into English by Trevisa, iii. 145- Basil, St., i. 287, 290, 348, 382, 393 n. 4'S> 470 1- 471. 489, S'4. S3on. 542. ii. 13 n. 3 in. 33 n. 43 n. 44 n. 58 n. 62 n. 63 n. 65, 133 n. 135, 2l6n. 231, 234. 239 n- 25°! 251, 372, 420, 425, 429, 464, 468 n. 504, 540 n. 541 n. .S45 n- 559; .S75 "• 597. 605, 606, 607, 609, 611 n. 618, 625, 632, 636 n. 639, 702, 713 n. 741, 723 n. iii. 23, 35 n. 76, 91, 438, 455 n. 568 n. 590 n. 601, 602, 603, 643 n. 67011. 67811. 680 n. 682 n. iv. 354, 366, 438 n. 476, 680, 687 n. 707 n. 757 n. 785 n. 788, 790 n. 791 n. V. ii3n. J31 n. 135 n. 156 n. 17s n. 198 n. 24S- vi- 114— "9. 171. 175, 272, 339, 446 n. 471, 476. ex- plained and defended, ii. 751. resolved the unity (with respect to the Father and the Son) into Sonship, or unity of principle, i. 324. his explanation of Matth. xxiv. 36. and Mark xiii. 32., 337. vindicated from the misrepresen- tations of Dr. Whitby, 513, 518, 525, 53 ■> 532. his opinion of the Son's ne- 528 INDEX. cessary existence vindicated and ex- plained, ii. 605, 606. a friend of Ori- gen, 639. his opinion of his orthodoxy, ib. in what sense he used dli'tu/na, 646. refuted the pretence of tradition claimed by the Macedonians, iii. 659. hy what names he calls the eucharist, iv. 474. how he understood John vi., 560. Gre- gory Nyssen his younger brother, 682. a Commentary upon Isaiah ascribed to him by some critics, disallowed by others, 759. his opinion of the need and efficacy of baptism, vi. 20. and touching lay-baptism, 186. his epistle received by the Greek church, 178. Basil library, has a IMS. of Bruno's, with Hampole's Comment on the Athana- sian Creed, iii. 141. Basilides, ii. 38.^ iii. 550, 691. taught that this world was made by angels, 1 ii. 76. his error about the crucifixion, iii. 550. his pretence of tradition re- futed, 658. disbelieved the resurrection of the body, v. 1 10 n. Basnage, Samuel, iii. 611 n. 685 n. iv. 192 n. 475 n. 477 n. 548 n. 726 n. 753 "- 779 n- v. i7n. 20 n, 143 n. 278 n. vi. 470. a very learned Cal- vinist, iv. 726. Bates, Dr.Wm., a nonconformist, iii. 399. Baxter, Richard, iii. 399. his high opinion of the Athanasian Creed, 251. Bayle, Peter, ii. 378. iii. 480 n. 490 n. 609, 646 n. iv. i87n. 189, 287. v. 35 n. 36 n. 38 n. 43 n. 44 n. 45 n. 53 n. 57 n. 210 n. 217 n. 224. vi. 269. convicted of a fallacy, iii. 503 n. Bayus, — , v. 240 n. Beaucbamp, lady, i. 251. Beauchamp, Lewis, i. 251. Beaumont, Joseph, regius professor of di- vinity at Cambridge, iv. 436 n. Becke, Edmund, vi. 306, 312, 313, 362, 378, 381, 403. notice of his impression of the Bible, 332. Becket, Thomas, archbishop of Canter- bury, iii. 157. Bede, venerable, iv. 570 n. 798. v. 165 n. 283 n. vi. 58, 62 n. 63 n. 67, 241 n. 243, 268, 303, 356,491. "translated " the Bilile into Saxon," 359. Bedell, 'William, bishop of Kilmore, re- commended tlie revival of infant com- munion, v. 403. vi. 421. Bedford, Arthur, i. 236. iv. 203, 247 n. 258, 271 n. 273, 292 n. 317, 324 n. 346 n. 367. V. 233 n. Begetting, its meaning, as aj)plied to the Deity, ii. 611. Beginning and the Ending, a divine title given to Christ in scripture, ii. 141. Being, may signify either simply what exists, or what exists separately, i. 371, 465. Being and Person, how they dif- fer when a])plied to the Trinity, 465. the precise difference between divine intelligent Being, and divine Person, iii. 278. Beleth, — •, vi. 338. a celebrated Paris di- vine, iii. 1 2 7. the oldest writer that takes notice of the Athanasian Creed's being commonly ascribed to Anastasius, though he himself ascribes it to Athanasius, ih. BeUarmine, Robert, cardinal, ii. 672. iii. 440. iv. 665. V. 123, 125, 126, 142 n. 143 n. 226, 256 n. 261 n. 2C6, 282 n. 284, 408. vi. 34 n. his reasonings against spiritual sacrifice being true sacrifice, confuted, v. 127. his artful contrivance to evade the old definitions of sacrifice, 130. his definition of sacri- fice, 132 n. irreconcilable with the sa- crifice of the cross, 133. Bene't college hbrary, Cambridge, iii. 160. vi. 3or, 303, 313, 317,318, 367. .^73, 379; 385, 402. notice of a MS. Commen- tary there of the Psalms and Hymns of the church, and of the Athanasian Creed, iii. 145, 146. has a MS. of Gre- gory's Psalter, 151. notice of its Latin MSS. of the Athanasian Creed, 156, '57) '."iS, 222 n. 227 n. has a MS. of the Galilean Psalter, 163 n. Benigiuis, St., of Dijon, library of the monastery of, iii. 1 20. Benjamin, the Jew, v. 256. Bennet, Thomas, i. 48 n. 64, 306 n. ii. 163 n. 285, 286, 316 n. 330, 34'>3S3. 358, 359' 360, 412. iii. 680. iv. 132 n. 406, 412, 449 n. 454 n. V. 397 n. vi. 162, 165, 166, 169, 182, 213, 215, 231. Benson, — , vi. 3 1 9 n. Bentley, Richard, i. 17 n. 19, 20, 31, 22, 24, 236, 254. iv. 410. master of Trinity college, Cambridge, the thanks of the senate unanimously voted to him for his reply to CoUins's Discourse on Free- Thinking, i. 11. which he had answered under the name of Phile- leutherus Lipsiensis, ib. preached his celebrated sermon against popery, 14. framed the University address to George I. on the suppression of the rebellion, ib. and assisted in carrying it through the Caput, where it had been stopped once, ib. his allusion to this occurrence in one of his letters, 1 5. advised that the supporters of the Brunswick interests in Cambridge .should be patronised by the crown, 16. made regius professor of divinity, 18. A^''aterland probably prevented from trjang to obtain the post, out of esteem for him, ib. anecdote of an observa- tion of Watei'land on his prelection on I John V. 7., ib. the correctness of this anecdote questionable, and why, 19. what perhaps was his and Waterland's opinion on the subject, ib. his extra- ordinary claim of a large additional fee I N D E X. 529 for presenting certain doctors to their degrees brought on a controversy, ?.o, 11. suspended for it l)y the vice-chan- cellor, and degraded by the senate, i. 21. at last restored again, 22. Berengarius, vi. 495. Berengaud, ii. 53. Bergius, C'., vi. 476. Berkley, Thomas lord, iii. 144 n. 145 n. vi. 338, 402. Bernard, St., ii. 623. iii. 685, 686. iv. 571. vi. 494. Berno, Augiensis, iii. 165. Berriman, Dr. John, i. 51 n. 236. a friend of AVaterland's, 190 n. much aided by Waterland in his Meyer's Lectures, 241. Berriman, William, i. 236, 241. iii. 437 n. 438 n. 525 n. 530 n. 555 n. 585 n. 587 n. 588 n. 617 n. 685 n. iv. 9 n. 27 n. 36 u. 39 n. supposed to have been the author of A seasonable Re- view of Mr. Whislon's Account of pri- mitive Doxologies, and of A second Re- view in answer to Mr. Whislon's second Letter, i. 50 n. Bertram, (Ratram,) monk of Corbey, iii. 109, 124, 171. iv. 570 n. vi. 494. his opinion respecting the eucharistic ele- ments, v. 206. Beryllus, bishop of Bostra in Arabia, ii. 553. his notion respecting Christ's di- vinity, iii. 582, 584. set right by Ori- gen, 584. his honesty in retracting his eiTor, ib. Bessarion, John, iv. 691. Beughem, Cornelius a, Embricensis, vi. 269. Beveridge, VViUiam, bishop of St. Asaph, iii. 622 n. 632 n. 648 n. 652 n. iv. 411. 415, 428 n. 435 n. 472 n. 481 n. 7S4n. 786 n. 788 n. V. ii2n. his opinion re- specting the Athanasian Creed, iii. 113. Beza, Theodore, iii. 55. iv. 472 n. 601 n. 668n. 706,800. V. I34n. 206 n. 209 n. 39.^1 405> 444, 496. notice of his confutation of Harchius's scheme re- specting the eucharist, v. 218. Bible, Wliarton was of opinion that the version commonly ascribed to WicklifF was really done by Trevisa, iii. 144. his reasons unsatisfactory to others, and in part confuted, ib. Waterland's observations on the subject, 145. said to be translated into Sclavonian bv Cy- rill and Methodius, 193, Waterland's letters to licwis touching a liistory of the English translations of the Bible, vi. 300—405. Bidden, see liyddell. Biddle, John, i. 29, 33, 35, 119. Biel, Gabriel, considered tiiat the unity of God was not demonstrable from natural reason, iii. 374 n. VOL. VI. Bigotry, its common acceptation, v. 45. shewn to belong more to infidels than to Christians, ib. Bill, John, vi. 404. Bilson, Thomas, bishop of Winchester, V. 133, 162 n. 167 n. 176, i93n. 198 n. 203 n. 223 n. 261 n. vi. T24, 129. Bingham, Joseph, i. 225, 229, 424, 425 n. ii. 173 n. 186 n. 189 n. 467, 675 n. iii. 121,45811. 460 n. 516 n. 525 n. 587 n. 639 n. iv. 9n. ion. 87 n. 414, 43111. 438 n. adv. 477 n. 479 n. 481 n. 490 n. 534 n- 56311. 597". 650,65111. 652, 659 n. 660 n. 680 n. 686 u. 688 n. 694 n. 695 n. 707 n. 748 n. 767 n. 770 n. 774 n. 777 n. 779 n. 785 n. 789 n. 790 n. 793 n. 800 11. 801 n. v. 75 n. 112 n. 408 n. 410, 411 n. 412. vi. 6 n. 17 n. 19 n. 43 n. 46 n. 63 n. 64 u. 69 n. 71 n. 76, 96, 109, no, III, 114, 121, 122, 123, 125, 132, 147, 174, 178, 180, 199, 204, 208, 209, 214, 216, 218 n. 233,480. encomium on his Ori- gines Ecclesiasticce, iii. 115. considers Vigilius Taps^sis as the author of the Athanasian Creed, ib. 117. his opinion respecting the commencement of infant communion, v. 404. his reputation in- jured by the second part of his Scholas- tical History of Lay-Baptisin, vi. 196. Binius, Severin, vi. 83 n. Biographia Britannica, an error in, i. 251 n. Biscoe, Richard, i. 236. vi. 423. Bishop, Dr., iii. 419 n. 552 n. 594. vi. 423. abridged bishop Pearson's Exposi- tion of the Creed for the use of common readers, iv. 35. Bishops, wlien independent bishops were accountable to other bishops in the an- cient church, and \vhere they were not, iii. 599. Bisliops' Bible, notice of, vi. 337. Bisterfield, — , i. 307 ii. vi. 476. Blackburne, Francis, archdeacon of Cleve- land, i. 64. Blackball, Offspring, bishop of Exeter, iv. 407, 409, 423, 452 n. Blackwall, Authony, iv. 341. vi. 13 n. Blair, James, i. 253 n. iv. 415, 771 n. some notice of him, 417. born and bred in Scotland, ib. prevailed on by bishop Conipton to go as missionary into Vir- ginia, ib. made by that bishoj) his com- missary there, 418. the original pro- jector and first president of AVilliam and JMary college there, ib. notice of his Discourses ou the Sermon on the Mount, 419. by whom encouraged to print them, ib. the second edition, ib. character and style of the work, 420. specimens, 421. Waterland's preface to the second edition, 416. Blanc, M. le, iv. 625 n. v. 225 n. vi. 27 n. M m 530 I N D wlien he flourished, iii. 349. declares against the possibihty of proving the Divine existence a priori, ib. Blastares, — , vi. 126. Blesaed, title of, always used by the Jews to express the one God of Israel, ii. 1.^8. Blessing, a considerable part of the Aaronical priesthood, v. 126 n. Blount, Charles, iv. 161, 178, 1 79. v. 49 n. Bobbio, monastery of, in Hifjh Lombardy, founded by Colurabanus, iii. 154. Bochart, Samuel, iv. 161, 173 n. 174 n. 176 n. 20.?, 238 n. 260, 272, 273 n. 278 n. 330 n- 345> 34^, 347> 354, 35611- 705 n. Bodleian library, Oxford, i. 5, 167, 231, 233. iii. 146 n. 160, 26.; n. vi. 336, 348, 360, 391, 433 n. BIS. Junius, N°. xxv. (Foi tunatus's Comment on the Atlia- nasian Creed,) iii. 135, 271. has two editions and tvv'o 3ISS. of S. Bruno's Comment on the Athanasian Creed, 137? '38. has two MSS. of Neckham's Comment on the same, 140. notice of its JMS. of the Athanasian Creed, 160, 224 n. 229 n. ' Body, the fathers had an idea that its re- surrection was secured by the applica- tion of water in baptism, vi. 427. Body of our Lord, four senses of, iv. 588. Boetius, translated certain of Aristotle's works, iii. 327 n. Boistallerius, Joannes Huraltus, iii. I74n. Bokynham, John, bishop of Lincoln, vi. 366 n. Boldesale, see Baldensal. Bona, John, cardinal, iii. 131, 160, 163 n. 164 n. 180, 185, 186 n. 187 n. 189 n. 192 n. iv. 793 n. V. 28^ n. 405, 410. vi. 70 n. 33B. his opinion respecting the Athanasian Ci-eed, iii. no, 117. Bonaventura, — , vi. 494. Boniface IV., pope, vi. 293. Boniface, bishop of 3Ientz, iii. 219. died anno 754., 121. Book of Common Prayer, the reading psalms therein taken from the Gallican Psalter, iii. 164. Booth, — , dean of Windsor, i. 238. Borromieo, Frederic, cardinal, iii. i54n. Bos, Lambert, iii. 544, 689, 690. Bossu, Rene le, iv. 708. Bossuet, James, bishop of Meaux, ii. 378. iii. 604. vi. 427. Bouchery, — , vl. 378, 391. Bourignon, ■ — , vi. 487. Bourignon, Mrs., vi. 484, 487. Bowels, — , vi. 399. Boyle, Robert, iii. 649. iv. 287 n. v. 54 n. Boyle, Roger, bishop of Clogher, v. loon. vi. 464, 471, 472. his four species of infidelity, vi. 477. Boyse, Joseph, ii. 163 n. iii. 282. Braccara, council of, iv. 798. E X. Brachet, see Mitiliere. Bradford, John, iv. 603, 606. Bradwardine, Tliomas, archbishop of Can- terbury, iii. 355 n. 368 n. 386 n. Bragg, — , iv. 415. Bramhall, John, archbishop of Armagh, V. 138. vi. 133. Bra}', Thomas, iv. 419. Braybrooke, lord, the present possessor of Audley End, Esse.^ i. 8 n. in right of which estate he has the right of ap- pointing the master of Magdalene col- lege, Cambridge, ib. and of being the visitor of the college, ib. Breaking of bread, notice respecting this title of the eucharist, iv. 472. Brerewood, — , vi. 68 n. Brett, Thomas, i. 163, 207, 208, 226, 229, 231, 255. iv. 689. V. 150 n. 151 n. 170U. 1 71 n. ) 72 n. 1 74 n. 1 79 n. vi. 80, 87 n. 88, 89, IIS, 117, ii8, 121, 123, 178, 180 n. 192, 193, 221, 336, 380. the celebrated non-juror, one of the most learned and acute theologians of his time, i. 166. Johnson his friend, ib. notice of the peculiarity of his discourse respecting the Communion, ib. notice of Waterland's MS. censures on this work, 167. published Remarks on Dr. Waterland's Review of the Doctrine of the Eucharist, in defence of Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, 204. Brevint, Daniel, dean of Lincoln, v. 132 n. 161 n. 162 n. 167 n. 173, 262 n. 282 n. 286 n. 293 n. vi. I79n. his notion of the eucharistic sacrifice, v. 139. notice of his publications, 139 n. when made dean of Lincoln, ib. his death, ib. Brice, A., iii. 523 n. Bristow,Richard,oneof the Rhemish trans- lators of the New Testament, vi. 402, British Museum, vi. 442. Brochmand, v. 139 n. Brocklesby, ii. SHn. Browne, John, i. 242. iii. 406 n. 415 n. vi. 464, 473. author of sermons at L. I\I oyer's lecture, and of a letter to Jlr. Jackson on his Plea of Human Reason, 4.14 n. 415. his Brief Ani- madversions on two pieces passed through Waterland's hands before it was printed, 414. Bruno, bishop of Wurtzburgh, iii. 137, 148, 222 n. 224n. 229n. 257, 261 n. 262 n. vi. 247. wrote a Comment on the Athanasian Creed, iii. 137 n. the various editions of it, ib. notice of the various MSS. of it, 138. notice respect- ing certain paragraphs of Fortunatus's Comment being inserted in it, 139. Bruno's BIS. of the Gallican Psalter, iii. 163 n. Brunswick, duke of, iii. 127. I N D Bryan, Austin, i. 227. editor of Plutarch's Lives, ill. his deatli, ib. Bryhng, Nicolas, a printer of Basil, iii. 1 74, 1 76, 1 77,2330. 23s n. 240U. 244 n. vi. 239. Bucer, Martin, ii. 351 n. iv. 589 n. 698 n. 705 n. V. 223, 286 n. wrote under the feigned name of Felinus, vi. 384. Bucherus, iv. 494 n 498 n. 524n. 709 n. V. 20 II. Buckeridge, John, bishop of Ely, v. 293 n. his notion of the eucharistic sacri- fice, 137. Budda?us, John Francis, i. 196. iii. 446 n. 458 n- 459 n- 483"- S^S"- 5^7 n. e,^^ »• 53811. 542 n. 543 n. 544 n. S46 n. 549 552 n. 555 n. 564 n. 586 n. 615 n. 638 n. 643 n. 646 n. 692 n. 693 n. 'V- 153. '58 n. 163 n. 165 n. 195 n. 239 n. 286 n. 604 n. 605 n. 640 n. 64tn. 684 n. 705 n. 7i6n. 726n. 727, 733". 742 n. V. 3n. 15 n. ign.— 2in. 49 n. 530. 99 n. loSn. 205 n. 261 n. 272 n. vi. 5 n. 461, 463, 469, 484, 485. his censure of those who denied the importance of the doctrine of the Tri- nity, iii. 398 n. observation on his rule of interpreting scripture, 630. animad- verted upon Barbeyrac's attacl< upon the morality of the fathers, 635. briefly examined Le Clerc's treatise appended to Grotius de Ver'U. Relic/. Christ. 644 n. his character, iv. 726. wrote against Dr. Grabe's view of the eucharist, ib. his jtraise of the fathers, v. 401. Bulgaria, part of Turkey, iii. 193. when it received Christianity, ib. the dispute M-hether it belonged to the bishop of Rome or Constantinople, ended in fa- vour of the latter, ib. its language a dialect of the Sclavonian, ib. Bull, — , of Queen's college, Cambridge, i. 1 1. Bull, George, bishop of St. David's, i. 34, 53-56, 64, 73,87, 89, 92, 99, 119, 222, 271, 272, 285, 330 n. 342, 348, 352 n. 357) 359 360, 362 n. 365 n. 366 n. 368 n. 369 n. 381 n. 386 n. 389, 390, 404 n. 425 n. 444 n. 498 n. 499 n. 509 n. Sion. 514 n. 545 n. 546. ii. 1 16 n. 152 n. 165, 173 n. 177 n. 179 n. 190 n. 192, 207, 208, 211, 212, 214 n. 220,221, 222, 230, 250, 251, 252, 253, 257 n. 258, 286, 287, 330, 340, 341. 368, 372» 377) 378, 392 n. 394 n. 419, 420 n. 422 n. 439 n. 441, 445 n- 449 n. 45°. 45^ n- 454, 455. 457. 460 n. 461, 464 n. 467, 475, 477, 482, 483 n. 484 n. 490 II. 492, 528, 535. 5.^8, 552, 558, 580, 581, 587 n. 590. 595 59''. 597. 598 599> '5oo, f)i2n. 632, 635 n. 637, 638, 639, 642, 643, 672 n. 675 n. 677 n. 678 n. 700, 728 n. 744, 752, 756 n. 767, 768. iii. 1 2, 2 1 n. 56, 72, 80 n.— 85 n. 86, 87 E X. 531 n. 8«, 90 n. 398, 419 n. 421 n. 423 n. 424 n. 428 n. 434 n. 451 n. 454, 5^8 n- 530 n- 532 n. 535, 539 n. 542 n. 543 n. 545 546 n. 548 n. 549 n. 55211- 553 n- 555 "- 557 "- 558 n. 550, 564 n- 565. 566, 567, 5 75, 576 n. 578 n. 582n. 590, S9i,594n. 596 n. 597 n. 655 n. 660 n. 661 n. 6780. 680 n. iv. II, 25 n. 26, 27 n. 28 n. 37, 137 n- 1391- 142 n. 177, 287 n. 299, 414, 421, 427 n. 432 n. 434 n. 438 n. 451 n. 508 n. 642, 644 n. 703 n. 726. V. 55 n. 190, 3S9, 390—397. vi. 5 n. 6 n. 8 n. 22 n. 30 n. 471,480, 481, 485. vindicated, ii. 483, 484. took the lead in defence of the Trinity and of our Lord's divinity, i. 28. against whom he chiefly wrote Iiis Defensio Fidei Ni- cencs, ib. against whom his Judicium EcclesicB Calholicce, 29. and against whom his Primiiiva et Apostolica Tra- dltio, ib. his object in these works, ib. M^aterland's statement of the method he pursued, 271. why he wrote in La- tin, 273. why he took no public part in the warfare between the Tritheists and Nominalists, as they were called, 33. his Discourse on the Doctrine of the Catholic Church for the first three ages of Christianity concerning the Trinity, in opposition to Sabellianism and Tri- theism, was written for private use, at the request of lord Arundel, ib. re- solved the unity (with res])ect to the Father and the Son) into Sonship, or unity of principle, 323. exceptions against Hei). i. 10. being applied to Christ, confuted l)y him, 330 n. his reasons to shew, that if Irenaus attri- buted any ignorance to Christ, he did it in respect of his human nature, 333. effectually defended Origen's orthodoxy, 389. his observation on the Trinity, 434 n. unanswerably defended the Ante-Nicene fathers from the notion of their favouring the Arian scheme, 503, 509, 518, 541. vindicated against Dr. Whitby's misrepresentaticm, 507, 508, 509, 513, 518. ii. 200, 201, 205. why Whitby was not answered more particularly, 218. his sense of otKovoixia vindicated, i. 518, 519. encomium on his Defence of the Nicene Creed, 520. the plain question lietween him and the Arians, 509. what he meant by the specific unity which he denied, and by the numerical unity which he main- tained, 547, 548. unanswerably vindi- cated the church of ICngland doctrines of predestination and original sin from a Calvinistic sense, ii. 286, 287. though a defender of Eusebius, yet makes no account of what he wrote before the Nicene council, 417. defended or ex- cused Eusel)ius from the charge of Ari- M m 2 532 I N D anism, 495. his reasons for Theophi- lus's believing the Son to be a real per- son before the procession, 597. objec- tions against them answered, 598. traced the Arian doctrines up to the old Gnostics, 612. never yet confuted, nor ever will be, ib. his sentiments, as to the worship of the Son, vindicated and explained, 677. notice of his reply to Episcopius, iii. 523. use made of it by Waterland, 524. his vindication and solutions of a passage in Justin, 559 — 563. remarks on Le Cierc's observa- tions upon them, 564 — 566. Clarke's encomium on his Harmorda Aposlolica, V. 388. his explanation of the bishop's opinion of the instrumentalitv of faith, v. 389. his distinction between regene- ration and justification, vi. 480. Bullinger, Henry, iv. 591. Burchard, — , vi. 63 n. Burgundy, Johanna, duchess of, vi. 385. Burnet, Gilbert, bishop of Sanim, i. 229. 317, 347 n- 351- if- 41. 56 n. 86 n. 88, 126 n. 406, 412, 414, 418 n. 461, 482, 515 n. 517 n. 628. V. 397 n. vi. 75. 3«2 n- Burnet, Gilbert, son of the preceding, i. 232 n. Burnet, Thomas, master of the Charter- house, ii. 693 n. iii. 413. iv.161,162,178 n. I79n. 411. an injudicious allegorist of scripture, 164. Burney, Dr., i. 15. Burton, — , vi. 446. Bury, Dr. Author, rector of Exeter col- lege, Oxford, iv. 768 n. wrote The Naked Gospel in su])port of Anti-Tri- nitarianism, i. 29. Bury, John, vi. 248, 260, 262. Butler, Charles, i. 78 n. 79 n. Butler, Edward, president of Magdalen college, Oxford, vi. 427. Butler, Joseph, bishop of Durham, iv. 415. notice of his anonymous letters to Dr. Clarke, respecting his reasoning a priori to prove the being and attri- butes of God, i. 108. written whilst he was prepai'ing himself for a dissenting teacher, 109 n. Butler, William, vi. 370. Buxtorf, John, iv. 271 n. 272, 273, 334. 473 n- 494. 49.S n. 496 n. 497 n. 524. vi. 105 n. Byddell, John, vi. 331, 403. Bye, — , vi. 439. C. C, p., iii. 395 n. 451 n. 493 n. C'abasilas, Nicolaus, vi. 65 n. 68 n. Cabassiitius, John, iii. 121. his opinion respecting the Athanasian Creed, 113. Cajsar, Julius, iv. 409. Cajsariensis, Andreas, ii. 53 n. 141 n. Caesarius, bishop of Aries, iii. 211, 219, 222 n. 257. v. 167, E X. Cagliari, formerly Caralis, vi. 191. Cainites, iii. 606 n. Cailif, the pore, vi. 24 1. Caius, a Roman presbyter, iii. 577, 578, 579.581.615- Caius college library, Cambridge, vi. 400, 401, 402. Cajetan, cardinal, iii. 347. v. 165 n. Calamities, two sermons on the case of passing judgment concerning them, v. 497, 508. Calamy, Edmund, ii. 412 n. iii. 250. iv, 407, 409. vi. 270 n. vindicated, ii. 765. and praised, 766. notice of his Sermons concerning the Doctrine of the Trinity, i. loi. Caleca, Manuel, a Latinizing Greek, iii. 131, 172, 173, i89n. Calixtus, Georgius, v. 92 n. vi. 472. Callimachus, iv. 413. Calmet, Augustine, iv. 192 n. 31 7 n. 366. Calovius, Abraham, ii. 495. iii. 606 n. iv. 366 n. 466 n. 616 n. Calvin, John, ii. 351 n. iv. 367 n. 599 n. 600, 654, 668 n. 800. v. 125. vi. 94, 104, 143, 325, 484. notice of his opin- ion respecting the eucharistic elements, iv. 600. his sentiments respecting lay- baptism, vi. 95. Calvinism prevailed in Cambridge about the end of the sixteenth century, ii. 342. proceedings there against Mr. Barret as an Anti-Calvinist, ib. the condition of Calvinism in Ireland at the begin- ning of the seventeenth century, 346. Calvinists, more severely censured than Socinians by the Remonstrants, iii. 445. Calvinists and Lutherans differ more in words than in ideas as to the eucharist, iv. 638. Calvinists, considered lay-baptism invalid, vi. 93. Calvisius, Seth, iii. 181. Calvoer, Gaspar, iv. 779 n. 793 n. v. 255 n. vi. 64 n. Cambray, see Fenelon. Cambridge, archdeacon, i. 5. Cambridge, university of, Calvinism pre' valent there about the end of the six- teenth century, ii. 342. proceedings there against IMr. Barret as an Anti- Calvinist, ib. usual for the heads of houses to apply for a degree by manda- mus, i. 9. bishop JMoore's library given to them by George 1, 1 1. their address to him in consequence, 12 n. his an- swer, 13 n. their controversy with the college of physicians about imiversity graduates in medicine, 12. political animosity raged with much fury in the university, 13. the Hanoverian succes- sion at that time not being the pre- vailing sentiment, ib. their address to George I on the suppression of the rebellion, 15 n. supposed to have been I N D framert l)y Dr. Beiitley, 14. what op- position it met with, ib. Dr.Middleton's acronnt of the Imsiness, 16 n. Cambridge university library, iii. 188. vi. 240, 249, 250, 321', 325, 328, 346, 347, 361, 364, 394, 401. notice of its BIS. of the Roman Psalter with the Atha- nasian Creed, iii. 159. Camerarius, Joachimus, ii. 495. vi. 392. Campbell, George, v. 5 r n. Cangius, (Chai'les du Cange du Fresiie,) iv. 431 n. 49011. V. 288 n. Canterl)nry, church of, used the Roman instead of the Gallican Psalter, and why, iii. 1 63. Cantilupe, Walter de, bishop of Worces- ter, iii. 129. Canus, Melchior, v. 127 n. vi. 494. Cappellus, Ludovicus, iv. 281, 494. vi. 481. Caralis, now Cagliari, vi. 191. Carlisle, bishop of, see E. Law. Carlisle, lord, iii. 191. Carmarden, Richard, vi. 326, 327, 404. Caroline, queen, consort of George I, i. 263. present at the conference (held at her desire) between Dr. Clarke and Dr. Hawarden respecting the Trinity, 78 n. Caroline, queen, consort of George II, i^- .387, 389- Caroline books, statement of, respecting the eucharistic elements, v. 203. Carpocrates, iii. 606 n. taught that this lower world was made by angels, ii. 76. Carpzovius, Benedict, iv. 162 n. 165, 273, 276 n. 278 n. 300 n. 315 n. 3i6n. 320 ■ 328 n. 339 n. 354 n. 360 n. 364 n. 365 n. V. 6 n. 14 n. 20 n. professor of divinity at Leipsic, iv. 365. Carranza, Bartholomew, iii. 148. Carrillus, Alphonsus, archbishop of To- ledo, iii. 147. Cartes, Rene des, iii. 684. valued himself on inventing a new argument for the existence of God, which was afterwards found to be a paralogism, ancient, and to have been confuted by Aquinas, 380. Carthage, council of, iv. 430 n. 790 n. Carthage, third council of, iv. 476. when and i)y whom held, 10. notice of a direction about prayer, ib. Carthage, fourth council of, vi. 125. Carthusian monks particularly venerated the Athanasian Creed, iii. 160. Carthusianus, v. 165 n. Cartwright, — , vi. 45 1 . Cartwright, Thomas, iv. 800. vi. 22 n. 104, 127, 402. Margaret professor of divinity at Cambridge, sowed the seeds of Calvinism there, ii. 342. Casalius, Gaspar, iii. 340. v. 143 n. Casaubon, Isaac, iii. 652 n. 654 n. iv. 473 n. 474 n. 490,524,545 n. 578 n. sgi', 65 1 n. defended the protestants from E X. 533 jMaldonate's attack for calling the eucharist a supper, 475. Casaul)on, Meric, iv. 454 n. Cassander, George, v. 2 1 1 , 2 1 2 . Cassian, (St. John,) iii. 210. Cassin, (mount,) monks of, iii. 159- Cassiodorus, Ularcus Aurelius, iv. 768 n. V. 167 n. Castalio, Sebastian, iv. 257, 271. Castro, Alphonsus li, v. 1 56 n. notice of a famous woi-k of his, 125. Catullus, iv. 413. Catechumens, who so called in the ancient church, iv. 43S. Cause, a true and proper. Dr. Clarke's notion of, ii. 321 n. in what sense the Father is the cause of the Son, 526. Causality, its old sense, iii. 35. Cave, William, i. 510 n. 513 n. 548. ii. 214 n. 378, 632. iii. 1 16, 577 n. 633 n. 634 n. 638, 639 n. 641 n. 645 n. iv. 414 n. 415, 472 n. V. 400 n. 404 n. vi. 97, 113, 124, 167, 27s, 435,438-. praised for his knowledge of ecclesiastical an- tiquity, i. 512. vindicated from Dr. Whitby's misrepresentation, 512,513. ii. 224, 225, 226, 227. and proved to maintain the eternity of the Son, 225 n. defended or excused Eusebius from the charge of Arianism, 495. his opinion respecting the age, &c. of the Athana- sian Creed, iii. 112, 117. inclines to ascribe it to VigiUus Tapsensis, ib. his censure of Ruffinus's history, vi. 181. his Ilistoria Lileraria published by Dr. Wharton, i. 242. Waterland con- tributed towards it, ib, many materials supplied by Mr. Loveday for this new edition, vi. 423 n. which was at first prepared under \^'aterland's superin- tendence, till he was obliged to put it into other hands, ib. Cawood, John, vi. 352, 358, 362, 405. Caxton, William, iii. 145. vi. 267, 268, 302, 357, 368. how far he continued Iligden's Polychronicon, iii. 145. Cazanovius, a Polish knight, iii. 191, 193. Cecil, sir William, lord Burleigh, vi. 336, 338, 3.^9. 352- Cellier, Remi, a Roman catholic, answered Barbeyrac's attack upon the morality of the fathers, iii. 635. Celsus, i. 410. iii. 610, 642. iv. 192. v. 40, 46. Cene, Charles le, iv. 257, 320 n. 333 n. 339 n- 340 n- 34' 3^0 n. 364, 366 n. Censures of heretics not to be forborne through fear of retaliation, iii. 512, 513. what cautions necessary, 516. popish persecutions not hereby sanctioned, 52"). ecclesiastical censures distinct from civil penalties, ib. Cerdo, ii. 383. iii. 606 n. tauglit in reality that thi.s lower world was made by 534 INDEX. angels, ii. 76. disbelieved the resurrec- tion of the body, v. 1 10 n. Cerinthians, iii. 577, 589, 680. opposed the divinity of Christ, vi. 208. Cerinthus, ii. 30, 132, 432. iii. 548, 552, 5S3, 554. 577, S^^, 583, 584, 590, 606 n. 681 n. vi. 471. believed the Aij- /xiovpyhs, or Creator, to be separate and estranged from God, ii. 40. made a distinction between the upper and lower world, pretending they had not one author, 50. taught that this lower world was made by angels, 76. believed Christ to be a mere man, 132, 159. for what condemned by the ancients, 728. anecdote of St. John's retiring from a bath on meeting him there, iii. 468. when he lived, .537. his errors respecting Christ. 538. St. John wrote his Gospel and his first Epistle against him, 539, 547. was Ebion's master, SS4- Certainty, (proper,) may exist without infallil)ility, iii. 495. Chillingworth's proof against papists, ib. 'W'aterland's proof, 498. protestant certainty con- trasted with popish infallibility, 500. the ground of this certainty is moral evidence, 501. Chafy, — , master of Sidney college, Cam- bridge, i. s- Chalcedon, council of, iii. 202, 249. Chalcidius, ii. 57on. Chalmers, Alexander, i. 3, 239 n. vi.420n. Chambers, Ephraim, iv. 413. Chamier, Daniel, ii. 495. iv. 558 n. 560 n. 568 n. 594 n. V. 192 n. 206 n. 208 n. 224 n. 225 n. 272 n. vi. 484, 496. enco- mium of his defence of the eucharist against the Romanists, v. 225. Chandler, Edward, bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, i. 362. ii. 31. iv. 27 n. 33411. 336 n. 338 n- 392. vi. 446. Chapman, John, i. 254. vi. 429, 435, 443. author of Eusebius in answer to the Moral Philosopher, i. 248. petty canon of Windsor, vi. 427. superintended the new edition of Cave's Hisloria Lite- raria, ib. Characteristics of the true God applied to the Son, i. 326. Characters appropriated to the one true God, applied to Christ, ii. 547. without limitations, ib. Charde, Thomas, vi. 356. Charismata, what, iii. 617. how long they continued, ib. Charity, a sermon upon the true nature of, V. 559. Charity and kind offices the best conquest over an enemy, a sermon on this subject, V. 596. Charlemagne, iii. 119, 122, 184, 185. v. 203 n. 274. vi. 292, 293. founded the monastery of Mount Ohvet in Jeru- salem, iii. 185. had a great respect for the Athanasian Creed, 122,185. had it presented in form to Adrian I, 122. notice of the 3IS. presented. 56. pre- served in the library at Vienna, ib. Charles iii. 168. Cliarlesthe Bald, iii. 157. Charles I, ii. 271, 286, 288, 333, 349, 350- Charles II, iii. 191. Charles IX, iii. i74n. Chaucer, Geoffrey, vi. 25, 261, 290, 293. Chauvin, Stephen, iii. 336 n. 353 n. 354 n. 355 n. Checkley, John, some account of, vi. 438. Cheke, sir John, vi. 306,313, 335> 379- Chemnitius, Martin, iv. 665, 719. v. 125 n. 162 n. Cheselden, William, i. 247, 248. Chester, l)ishop of, see Law. Cheyne, George, iv. 409, 410. Chillingworth, M-'illiam, i. 196. iii. 503. 517, 6o4n. 624. iv. 129 n. 415. v. 73 n. 84 n. 89 n. 92 n. vi. 459, 460, 461, 466, 470, 471, 473, 47=;. notice of his scruples about the Fourth Command- ment and Athanasian Creed, iii. 247. got over them, and subscribed, 248. became chancellor of Sanim, ib. Chosen, its meaning in the text. Many are called, but few chosen, v. 621. Chrastovius, V. 223n. 261 n. 2'jyn. 278n. Christ, his divinity how equivocally ac- knowledged by the Arians, i. 274. Christ is either supreme God, or no God at all, 277, 306. he is not excluded from our service or adoration among the nominal gods, 2 78. but all are ex- cluded except the one supreme God, therefore Christ must be a partaker of the same undivided Godhead, ib. the Father is styled the only true God, primarily not exclusively, 279, 287. and may be called the one or only God without the least diminution of the Son's di^•inity, 280. the priority of order is also ascribed to him, 281. Christ never pretended to an equality with the Father in respect of his ori- ginal, knowing himself to be second only in order, 282, 283. for had he and the Father been both equal in respect of original, both imbegotten, they had been two Gods, 283. Origen's reason- ing on Heb. i. 3. favourable to Christ's divinity, 286. testimonies of the an- cients, that those passages in scripture which assert the unity do not exclude the Son from being the one supreme God, 288. passages of the Old Testa- ment i-elating to the God of the Jews applied to Christ by the Ante-Nicene fathers, 291. how they reasoned on them, 297. the Arian method of ex- plaining them away, refuted, 295. ac- cording to the ancients, the Son was INDEX. 535 God, and so called in his own Person, 302. that he was God in his own Person, as being God's Son, ib. and that he was God's Son, as having the divine substance communicated from the Father, ib. John x. 35, 36. and lleb. i. 8, 9. proved not to contradict Christ's divinity, 306, 307. his being sanctified by tlie Father also shewn not to contradict it, 308. proofs that Christ is not called God in a subor- dinate or improper sense, ib. among others the term Jehovah is applied to him in his own Person, and in his own right, 308, 309, 310. the admitting of a priority of order in the Father does not imply that the Son is a subordinate God, 316 n. the Arian definition of God, as the Author and Gocernor of the universe, proved not to answer their purpose, 317. in opposition to Dr. Clarke, it is proved that if there be a supreme and a subordinate God, they make two Gods, or else one of them is no God, contrary to his supposition, 326. it is further proved that the cha- racteristics applied to the one true God are applied likewise to the S 50, S.3> 55. 56, 58, 59. 60, 63, 64, 66, 68, 70, 72, 73, 77> 78, 79 n- 80, 81, 82, 85, 98, loi n. 102, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, no, III, 112, 113, 114, 116, 119, 120, 121 n. 143, 144, 145, '46, I47> 148, 153, 162, 231, 232, 234, 254, 256, 263, 269, 270, 284, 294 n. 296, 297, 302, 309, 319, 333, 335, 337, 344, 345, 348, 449' 369. 370, 373) 374, 378, 381, 396 n. 437, 445, 446, 456, 472, 484, 496. 499' 541, 555, 556, 558. ii- 9. 10, II, 12, 13, 14, 15, 40 n. 43 n. 56 n. 60 n. 86 n. 100 n. 123 n. 126 n. I2'jn. 128 n. 131 n. 133 n. 134 n. 135 n. 138 n. 139 n. 141 n. 142 n. 146 n. 150 n. 153 n. 156 n. 157 n. 158, 159 n. 160 n. 161 n. 162 n. 16S n. 177, 188 n. 19311- 279, 282, 284, 285, 286, 315, 316, 319 n. 327 n. 337, 358, 359, 397, 412, 421, 430, 433, 477, 502, 510 n. 5 ' 2, 525, 527, 532, 536, 539) 544, 546, 557, 560, 564, 568, 569, 574, 587, 601, 603 — 605, 607, 608, 609, 611, 619, 620, 625, 627, 628, 632, 633, 647, 648, 649, 650, 659, 685, 691, 692, 695, 700, 7°4, 705, 708, 718, 720, 721, 722, 723, 730, 73 1) 732, 733, 734, 736, 737, 738, 756, 759) 765, 767, 768. iii. 4, 44, 45, 46, 50, 61, 62, 290 n. 295 n. 296 n. 334 n. 356 n.— 379 n. 503 n. 662 n. 679. iv. 109, 128, 130, 134 n. 136, 137 '39> '40, I4', '44, 146, 412, 657 n. V. 83 n. 94 n. 95 n. 397 n. vi. 38, 446, 461, 466, 468, 480. probably omitted a i)assage respecting subscrip- tion to the Articles in his second edi- tion of his Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity, in consequence of Dr. Water- land's divinity act at Cambridge on Arian subscription, i. 10. Dr.W.'s no- tice of this omission, 270, 271. ii. 262. the passage offensive even to his friends, i. 58. Whiston's censure of it, ii. 360. his literary character, i. 34. disclaimed the character of an Anti-Trinitarian, 35. the professed design of his Scrip- ture Doctrine of the Trinity, 35. the latitudinarian princi]iles he introduced into it, ib. by whom this work was attacked, 36. and by whom defended, ib, notice of Dr. Wells's Remarks on his Introduction to his Scripture Doc- trine, ib. of his re))ly, in which he shews himself averse from all church authority, 37. and of Dr. Wells's second letter, 38. what part IMr. Nelson took in this controversy, ih. notice of Dr. Knight's Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity vindicated from the Misrepre- sentations of Dr. Clarke, ib. its charac- 540 INDEX. ter, ib. answered bv Dr. Clarke, 39. further maintained by Dr. K., ib. again answered by Dr. C, i6. notice of bishop Gastrell's Remarks on his Scripture Doctrine, ib. character of the answer he pubhshed to it, ib. notice of Dr. Edwards's Brief Critical Remarks on his reply to Mr. Nelson and Dr. Gas- trell, ib. and of Jlr. Welchman's tract, entitled, Dr. Clarke''s Scripture Doc- trine of the Trinity examined, 40. one of the ablest answers was, Blr. Potter's Vindication of our Blessed Saviour''s Divinity, chiefly against Dr. Clarke, 41. notice of this tract, ib. there is no answer extant, by Dr. C. to Mr. Potter, Welchman, or Dr. Edwards, 42 n. no- tice of Mr. R. Jlayo's Plain Argu- ment against Dr. Clarke''s Doctrine concerning the Trinity, 42. answered by him, ib. what brought VVaterland into the controversy, 43. Dr. C. bore a considerable part in Jackson's Answer to Waterland's Queries, 44. his repu- tation perceptibly declined on Water- land's taking the field, 45. his ar- rangement of scripture quotations in- ferior to Waterland's, 47. probably as- sisted Sykes in his Modest Plea, &c., 48 n. notice of his tract, entitled, The Modest Plea continued, or a brief Answer to Dr. Waterland's Queries re- lating to the Trinity, 48. his system sup])oses a supreme and a subordinate God, 49. whether his pretence, that the authority of the Father and Son being one, though they are two distinct beings, makes them not to be two Gods, &c. be not trifling and incon- sistent, 320. his criticisms on a passage of Clement of Alexandria answered, 338 n. whether eternity does not imply necessary ejcistence of the Son, which is inconsistent with his scheme, 344. and whether he has not equivo- cated iipon the word will, ib. the fal- lacy that runs through his performance is, that the Son cannot be truly and essentially God, unless he be self-exist- ent, and unoriginate in every sense, 346 n. an instance of his mistranslation, 348 n. in what sense can he pretend that all divine powers, except absolute supremacy and independency, are com- municated to the Son, 376, 378. whe- ther, if by divine powers, he meant powers given by God, (in the same sense as angelical powers are divine powers,) it be not equivocating, and saying nothing, 379. his sense of a pas- sage in Origen confuted, 389. whether by denying the consubstantiality of the Son, he does not affirm him to be a creature, e{ ovk ovtwv, 397. and whe- ther he must not of consequence affirm of the Son, that there was a time when he was not, 398. proved to be an Arian 399, 400. and that his attempt is vain to pretend to any middle way between the orthodox and the Arians, 399, 401. the inferences to be drawn from these circumstances, 405. whether he hath not given a partial account of John v. ■23, 436. whether he need have cited three hundred texts, to prove what no- body denies, a subordination, in some sense, of the Son to the Father, could he have found hut one plain text against his eternity, or consubstan- tiality, the points in question, 447. whether he be not forced to supply his want of scripture proof by very strained and remote inferences, 450. whether his whole performance, whenever he differs from catholics, be any thing more than the assertion, that being and person are the same, and that tliere is no medium between trilheism and Sa- bellianism, 463. he depends chiefly, not on scripture, nor on antiquity, but on a vain philosophical principle, 464. his system how chargeable with tritheism, 470. whether his notion of the Trinity be more clear and intelligible than the orthodox notion, 474, 480. the groimd of his scheme is Sabellian, and the su- perstructure tritheistic, and the whole hangs loosely together, 483. instance of luifairly quoting Chrysostom, 489, 560. whether, notwithstanding his equivocation, Gal. iv. 8. is not decisive of the dispute, 490. whether he did not equivocate or prevaricate in saying, the generality of writers before the council of Nice were, on the whole, clearly on his side, 501. whether he may not be supposed to say, the fathers are on his side, with the same meaning and re- serve that he pretends our church- forms to favour him, that is, provided he may interpret them as he pleases, 520. endeavours to lessen the esteem of the ancients, all the while that he pre- sumes they are on his side, (a sure mark that he suspects them,) 521. in- stances of his perverting the sense of some of the Ante-Nicene writers, 523. his disingenuity with respect to what he considers concessions from these writers, 533. and his method altogether disapproved, 534. the object of his book according to Waterland, ii. 13. his ob- jections against Christ's omniscience answered, 160. his pleas in favour of Arian subscription answered, 269, 271, 272, 273, 274, 276, 277, 284, 285, 287, 289, 290. his interpetations of passages in the Athanasian Creed, and other parts of the Liturgy against the true doctrine of the Trinity, confuted, INDEX. 541 -294 — 305. the doctrine of the Trinity, according to liim and his followers, contrasted with the same doctrine ac- cording to the church of England, 218. how far he was concerned in Jackson's Reply to Dr. Waterlancfs Defence of his Queries, i. 68 n. his notion of indivi- dual substance, ii. 620. by denying the Son's necessary existence, he makes him a creature, 650. his notion of idol mediators, 656. doubtful as to the scriptural sense of God, 681. pretends that Christ's honour is founded upon the power of judgment committed to him, 685. this opinion refuted, ib. an error in his demonstration of the ex- istence of a First Cause, 695. the cause of it, 696. denied that two persons could be one necessary being or sub- stance, 698, 699. what propositions of his are contrary to the Ante-Nicene writers, 733. notice of his anonymous Observations on Dr. TVater land's Se- cond Defence, i. 72. further particulars respecting it, 77. notice of Waterland's Further Vindication of Christ's Di- vinity, in reply to these Observations, 77 — 80. to which he made no reply, 81. Mr. Butler's account of his conference with Dr. Hawarden about the Trinity, held by desire of queen Caroline, con- sort of George 1, 78 n. notice of his reasoning to prove the existence of God a priori, 106. and of his Demon- stration of the Being and Attributes of God, not generally approved of, 108. iii. 42. of bishop Butler's objections, i. 108, 109. and of Gretton's Review of the Argument i\ priori, &c., 109. what he takes to be the reason why matter is incapable of thought, iii. 42. shewn to have made raistatements respecting the Athanasian Creed, ii6. his objections against the use of it answered, 246. his Exposition of the Church Catechism, published the same year of his death by his own desire, i. 143. notice of Waterland's Remarks upon it, ib. whicli were answered by Dr. Sykes, 1 46. general ol)servations on his Expo- sition, iv. 3. objections to his confining worship to the Father only, 5. to his withholding altogether the title of God from the Sou and Holy Ghost, 14. to his method of judging of fun- damentals, 15. to his explanation of the Creed, 21. in the titles, Father and Ahnighty, ib. 22. in his account of the Son, 24. and of the Holy Ghost, 29. objections to his explanation of the First Commandment, 35. and of the form of Baptism, 38. and of the Lord's Supper, 40, 54- no fault to be found with his morality, 48. objections to his distinction between moral duties and positive institutions, 54. his opinion con- cerning moral obligation controverted by J. Clarke, 62. his Arian opinions took deep root among several communi- ties of dissenters, i. loi. on good terms with Waterland notwithstanding their difference in religious points, 263. Claude, John, iv. 597 n. 609 n. v. 193 n. 195 n. 200 n. 201 n. 202 n. 203 n. 205 n. Claudianus Blamertus, iii. 204. Claudius Taurinensis, v. 165 n. Clayton, Dr., ii. 345. Cleanthes, said to have borrowed from the scriptures, v. 9. Clearchus, a disciple of Aristotle, v. 7, 9. Clemens Alexandrinus, i. 287, 290 n. 291 n. 292 n. 349 n. 351, 368 n. 420, 424, 455 n. 472, 513, 514, 518 n. ii. 33 n. 37 n- 46, .52, 54 n. 77 n. 97 n. 105 n. 108 n. 122 n. 130 n. 132 n. 136, 137) 142 n. 148 n. 157, iCo, 165 n, 192 n. 229, 233, 253 n. 394, 41 1, 445 n- 447. 473 n- 478, 485, 507, 51% 521—523, 548 n. 553, 560, 573, 574, 591 n- 630 n- 635, 637, 657, 658 n. 660 n. 666, 672, 710, 727 n. 748 n. 754, 755. iii. 36 n. 64, 72, 73, 79 n. 483 n. 572 n. 581, 609, 611, 612, 658 n. 662, 676, 690 n. iv. 221 n. 484, 505, 524 n. 630 n. 660 n. 673 n. 675, 741 n. 766 n. 767, 783. v. 5. n. 6 n. 7 n. 13 n. 17 n. 20 n. 22 n. iii n. 124 n. 126 n. 131 n. 140 n. 1560. 167 n. 190 n. 191 n. 206, 207 n. 243 n. 246 n. 25s n. 257, 264 n. 268 n. 269 n. 276 n. 407, 454. vi. 479. ex- plained, ii. 435. considered Exodus xx. 2. as spoken by Christ in his own person, i. 295. his observation upon the article 6 before Qihs set in its true light, 314. his delaration of tlie Son's omniscience, 338. applied Trpo(\6wv both to tlie Son's generation and ma- nifestation, 368 n. styled the Son Cre- ator, 384 n. Iiis declaration that worship was due only to God the Creator, 419. therein including the Son, 424. a great admirer of the Septuagint, ii. 137. liis declaration respecting the Trinity, 180. allowance must be made for him while he is adapting the Platonic to the Christian Trinity, if he uses the Pla- tonic terms, though they may not quadrate exactly, 454. time of his writ- ing, 45 1, his testimony as to the Father and Son being the only God, 452. vin- dicated, 451. texts mentioning God ap- plied by him to Christ, 4S8. obser- vation respecting his Paidagoyue, ib. objections answered, ib. proof of his holding the necessary existence of the Son, 584. his opinion respecting the procession explained, 599. in what sense he used rh &uov, 66"/. in the 542 INDEX. hypothesis of the temporal generation of the Son, iii. 23. did not believe that tlie Father is naturalty governor over the Son, 83. his opinion that the ex- istence of a Deity cannot he proved « priori, 325. vindicated from Barbey- rac's charges against him, 637. a per- son of infinite reading, and of great reputation in the Christian church, iv. 586. his sentiments respecting the eu- charistic elements, 587. his view of John vi. 547. his opinion of gospel sa- crifices, 744. maintained that pagan writers borrowed from the scriptures, V. 9. what particular notions, 10. his opinion of the need and efficacy of bap- tism, vi. 1 7. Clemens Romarnis, i. 509. ii. 112 n. 207, 214, 215, 250, 253, 376, SS3- iii- 571 n. 615. iv. 73 ',. V. 133 n. 175. vi. 160 n. 182, 471. the common date of his Epistle, iv. 476. the more probable date according to Lardner, 477. terms applied to him by the eucharist, ib. maintained that all that have been saved from the beginning of the world have been saved by Chri.st, v. 25 n. his interpretation of the doctrine of justifying faith, vi. 23. Clement, vi. 366. Clementine Liturgy, notice respecting, iv. II. contains addresses to the Son and Holy Ghost as well as to the Father, ib. not thought ever to have been in public use, 653. the oldest e.xtant, ib. its pro- bable age, ib. Clendon, — , 35. Clerc, John le, i. 93, 510 11. ii. 214 n. 491;, 672 n. 696 n. 722 n. iii. 566, 567, 576, 638, 647 n. 663 n. 686 n. 695 n. iv. 169 n. 177 n. 179 n. 191, 230, 238 n. 246 n. 255 n. 257 — 260, 264 n. 269 n. 271 n. 272 n. 273, 280, 281 n. 291 n. 313 n. 317 n. 319, 326, 330 n. 339 n- 368 n. 632 n. 633, 703 n. 705 n. 727 n. 768 n. v. 12 n. io8 n. vi. 41 n. 447. the Historical Vivdication of the leaked Gospel, in support of Anti- Trinitarianism, ascribed to him, i. 29. his solving a difiiculty as to the men- tioning of the name Jehovah previous to Exodus vi. 2, 3. by a prolepsis, disapproved, 310 n. endeavoured to turn several passages, wherein the Je- hovah is mentioned, to one particular sense in favour of the .Saliellians, 311 n. adopted in part the Photinian notion of the Logos, ii. 33. remarks on his observations on bishop liuH's defence of a passage in Justin, iii. 564 — 567. censure of his treatise at the end of Grotins de Verit. Reliy. Christ. 644, 645. the treatise briefly examined by Budda;us, 644, 645. his Comment on Psalm cxxxvii. 8. censured, iv. 324. as also that on Jei-. iv. 10., 342. slighted the opinion that pagan writers bor- rowed from the Jews, v. 14. answered by Baltus, ib. Clergy defended for lieing paid, v. 63. not allowed to marry twice in the an- cient church, ^ i. 164. bishop Peacock's statement touching divers orders of clergy, vi. 293. see Minister. Clergy, sons of, a sermon preached before, V. 331- Clarke, Gilbert, i. 29, 514, 519. ii. 244. Cloppenburg, — , v. 130 n. 272 n. Cobden, Edward, archdeacon of Ijondon, i. 239. vi. 413 n. his intended address for presenting ^Vaterland as prolocutor of the convocation, i. 239 n. Cocceius, John, iv. 163 n. 350 n. vi. 484. Cochleus, Johannes, iii. 137. Coequality, how consistent with subor- dination, ii. 400. and with priority of order, 456. confounded with co-ordina- tion by the Arians, ib. Coeternal, a word of a fixed and known sense in ecclesiastical writers : :iever used to signify any thing less than ab- solute eternity, without beginning, and without end, ii. 297. Coeternity of the Logos with the Father asserted by the ancient catholics, though not considered precisely under the for- mality of a Son, i. 359. Cohen, an Hebrew term, its signification, v. 279. Coint, Charles le, iii. 1 20. Coke, sir Edward, ii. 271 n. Colbatch, Dr., i. 21, 22. Colbert, MS. Athan. Creed, iii. 227 n. 228 n. 229 n. 230 n. Colbertine Latin MS. of the Athanasiaii Creed, notice of, iii. 153, 155. copied from the Treves MS., ib. notice of an- other in that library that belonged to Charles the Bald, it,"]- Cole, William, i. 4, 251 n. 252. vi. 442, 443 n- Colet, John, Dean of St. Paul's, iii. 686. College de propaganda Fide, iii. 110. CoUiber, S., iv. 57 n. 126 n. 147 n. hi.s opinion of the inferiority of positive duties to moral ones, controverted, 77. Collier, Jeremy, ii. 345 n. iii. 145 n. 4 10 n. iv. 404, 686 n. 69s n. v. 269 n. Collier, Thomas, iv. 448. Collins, Anthony, i. 119. Columbanus, founded the monastery of Bobbio in High Lombardy, iii. 154. Combe, Dr., i. 233. Combelis, Francis, iii. 131, 171 n. 190 n. 2CO n. 220 n. Comber, Thomas, Dean of Durham, iii. 151. his opinion respecting the Atha- nasian Creed, 113, 117. Comenius, ii. 378. Commandment, the First, Avhat sort of INDEX. 543 polytlieism it has chiefly respect to, ii. 20. Commandments, the Ten, in old English, fiom MS., vi. 242. Commemoration, notice respecting this title of the encharist, iv. 486. Communion : proofs that communion ought not to be held with those who openly reject the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, iii. 456. from scripture te.xts, 456 — 470. from jiiety to God, 471. and charity towards men, 472. justice to our own souls, 473. objec- tions removed, and some vulgar mis- takes rectified, ib. Communion, church, terms of, somewhat stricter than the necessary terms of salvation, v. 78. and why, ib. see Fun- damentals. Communion, notice respecting this title of the eucharist, iv. 473. an argument in favour of frequent neglect of the com- munion answered, 121. the exercise of the love of God, and of faith, hope, charity, and humility essentially re- quisite to its worthy reception, 128. Communion service in the English Liturgy, observations upon, iv. 696 — 698. Comparatives expressed by negatives in scripture, instances, iv. 343 n. Compton, Henry, bishop of London, i. 1 37. iv. 417. Conceitedness, what, v. 569. Concessions, effect of, iii. 475. Conde, Lewis de Bourbon, prince of, vi. 303- C(mderius, iv. 430 n. C(mdignity, merit of, invented by Ro- manists, vi. 34. opposed to the true doctrine of justification, ib. Confucius, iii. 643. (Jongruity, merit of, invented by the schoolmen, vi. 34. opposed to the true doctrine of justification, ib. Conscience, see (iood life. Consequential proof, little sliort of express text, V. 9t. Conservation, near akin to creation, ii. 519. has been styhd continual creation, ib. Consislentes, the fourth order of penitents among the ancients, notice respecting them, iv. 791. Constans, vi. 293. Constantine, emperor, i. 352. ii. 591 n. 616 n. iv. 756. V. 191 n. 248. vi. 293. his declaration concerning the proces- sion of the Son, i. 365. ordered the Arians to be called Porphyrians, and why, ii. 370. bishop Peacock's state- ment touching his donation to the see of Rome, vi. 292. Constantine Copronymus, emperor, v. 201, 202. held the council of Constantino- ple, 201. Constantinople, church of, whether it re- ceived the Athanasian Creed, iii. 194. Constantinople, council of, v. 208. vi. 273, 464. held iinder the emperor Constantine Copronymus, v. 201. in- serted the words vph Trduritiv aldvaiv into the Nicene Creed, iii. 21. intend- ing thereby the eternal generation of the Son, ib. its reasoning against the use of irafiges, v. 116. its opinion re- specting the eucharistic elements, 201. Constantinopohtan Creed is the Nicene interpolated, iii. 249. Constantius, emperor, vi. 293. favoured the Arians, ii. 715. his death, ib. Constantius, presliyter, iii. 216. Consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, how eli;ded by the Arians, and asserted by the ancient catholics, i. 495. Consulistantiation, ol)jections against, iv. 614. its rise, v. 205. Controversy, the difficulties in proving a point, or establishing a doctrine, ii. 6. why the objector's is an easier part, 7. the three requisites in controversy, ib. observations on each, ib. what would follow, if every thing controverted were to be set aside, 16. the use and value of ecclesiastical antiquity with respect to controversies of faith, iii. 601. objec- tions answered, 624. Conybeare, John, bp. of Bristol, iv. 415. Cooke, — , i. 226. Coordination, confounded with coequality by Arians, ii. 456. Coordination and siiI)ordination respect order, iii. 34, 35. Corban, its meaning, v. 334 n. Corbet, John, a nonconformist, iii. 399. Cornelius Ncpos, iv. 407. Cornwall, Folliot Herbert Walker, bishop of AVorcx'ster, i. 5. Corpus Christi college library, Oxford, vi. 300. Cosin, John, bishop of Durham, iv. 414, 570 n. 572 n. 579 n. 598 n. 601 n. v. 122 n. 193 n. 205 n. 211, 212. Cossart, Gabriel, iii. 177. (Josterus, — , v. 101 n. vi. 460. Cotelerius, John Baptist, i. 348 n. 381 n. ii. 219, 220, 591 n. iv. 581 n. v. 408. vi. 474. Cotes, Roger, i. 1 1. Cotta, iv. 276 n. 286 n. Cotton Library, iii. 109. has the oldest known Latin MS. of the Athanasian Creed, according to archbishop Usher. 150, 151. not now to bo found, 151. notice of Athelstan's Psalter there, 152, 154. notice of its MS. of the Gallican Psalter with the Athanasian Creed, 159, 163 n. and of the Roman Psalter with that Creed, 152, 159. notice of its Fi'ench version of that Creed, 168. 544 INDEX. Cotton MS. of Athanasian Creed, iii. 222 n. 229 n. Courayer, Peter Francis, i. 78 n. Covel, John, iii. 196. iv. 534 n. 692 n. 694 n. 763 n. V. 192 n. 201 n. 203 n. 405. vi. 69 n. Covenant between God and man, obser- vations respecting, iv. 701. definition of a covenant in its general nature, 702. Christian covenant includes the Founder and principal Covenanter, v. 80. a subject capable of being covenanted with, 81. a charter of foundation, ih. a Mediator, ib. conditions to be performed, 82. aids or means to enable to perform- ance, ib. and sanctions to bind the cove- nant, and to secure obedience, 84. see Fundamentals. Covenanted mercies, when not denied to persons erring fundamentally, v. 103. Coverdale, Miles, iii. 164. vi. 305, 324, 325) 354, 357> 361, 373i 378> 381, 383, 384, 389. 403. 404- Coverdale's Bible, notice respecting, vi. 312, 326, 327, 341, 346, 3^2. Coverdale's New Testament Anglo-Lat., vi. 345- Coxe, Leonard, vi. 383, 384, 390. Crakenthorp, Dr. Richard, his notion of the eucharistic sacrifice, v. 142. Cranmer, Thomas, archbishop of Canter- bury, i. 167, 196. iii. 189. iv. 530 n. 570 u. 610, 656 n. 6S9 n. 69s n. v. 209, 210, 264 n. 278 n. 281 n. 293 n. 296 n. vi. 338, 343, 348, 3S0, 357, 358, 362, 377, 378, 380, 381, 396, 403—405, 488, 490, 493—497. his sentiments against interpreting John vi. primarily of the eucharist, iv. 566 n. his opinion respecting the eucharistic elements, 601. Craven, — , master of Sidney college, i. 35. Creation, the ancients considered the Trinity to be concerned in concert in it, i. 365, 366, 381. ii. 629, 630. with what design, i. 382. attributed to the Son as much as to the Father, 381. Dr. Clarlte's meaning of the word re- futed, 388. the ground and reason of religious worship in scripture, 430. proved to be an argument of Christ's divinity, from reason, ii. 69. from scripture, 72. from antiquity, 76. often insisted on by God liiraself as his pecu- liar characteristic, 73. and so ascribed to him in scripture, 74. considered Ijy the ancients as an indisputable mark of a divine immutable nature, 77. the absurdity of attributing it to a creature, 79, 80. Creator, the Son strictly and properly ef- Jicient Cause and Creator of all things, ii. 50. proved from the New Testament, ib. from the Old, 62. and from the suflFrage of antiquity, 63. Creator of the upper and lower world not one and the same, according to Cerinthus, 50. the Father is primarily Creator, the Son secondarily or subordinately, and both one Creator, 5 1 8. see ArifiiovpySs. Creature, no medium between being a creature and being essentially God, i. 395. ii. 76, 644. 645. the nature of a creature, v. 348. Creature-worship, looked upon as idolatry by the Jews before Christ, ii. 669. answers to certain arguments in its defence, iii. 420. Credulity, its true acceptation, v. 42. shewn to belong more to infidels than to Christians, ib. Creed, reserved by Waterland to be the rendering of symbolum, or avufioXov, iii. 128. Creed of Jerusalem, probably the oldest extant, ii. 190. Creed, an old English, from a MS., vi. 241. see Apostles' Creed. Creeds at first designed only as hints and minutes of the main credenda in re- ligion, ii. 188. at first used only in the office of baptism, 189. why consequently they were brief, ib. how they became gradually enlarged, ib. are not complete catalogues of fundamentals, but short summaries of the Christian faith, 190. the whole design and end of cre«ls, iii. 248, 252, 254. when and why en- larged in the primitive times, 249. creeds, of some shape or other, are favoured by all parties, 509, 688. the protestant churches vindicated for im- posing creeds, 509, 510. ancient creeds always contained the doctrine of the Trinity, 524. notice concerning them, 525. all not equally explicit, 528. why, 531. shorter creeds generally more obscure and ambiguous, iv. 20. first set forth the dioXoyia, and then the otKovo/xia, 28. CrelliuR, John, i. 40, 93. ii. 100 n. 162. iii. 567, 663. iv. 523, 617 n. 709 n. 722 n. 770 n. a great refiner of the Socinian system, 722. Crellius, Samuel, descended from John Crellius, iii. 567. wrote under the name of Artemonius and Lucas Mellienis, ib. his strange emendation of John i. i., 567 n. how he tried to evade the force of John i. I., 673. Crisp, Tobias, iv. 287 n. Critias, V. 57. an unworthy pupil of Socrates, 69. one of the thirty tyrants of Athens, ib. Cronus, probably Ham, iv. 192 n. Cross, the, how considered an altar, v. 741- Crousaz, John Peter de, iii. 677 n. 684. Crownfield, J., iii. 634 n. iv. 197 n. vi. 436. I N D Crumwell, Thomas lord, vi. 346, 378. Cudworth, Ralph, i. 165, 345 363 378, 4'5> 543- 22, 9011. 497, 562, 574 n. 575j 578 n. 589 n. 626, 701. iii. 62, 325, 326. iv. 634, 637, 705 u. 712 n. 725, 737 11. 738 II. V. 52 n. 53 n. 57 n. 272 II. 289 n. 294 11. when he floui islied, iii. 348. his character, ib. charged witli giving too much counte- nance to the Arian hypothesis in his Intellectual System, i. 34. his opinion respecting the Athanasian Creed, iii. Ill, 117. declares the demonstration of the Divine existence « priori to be impossible and contradictions, 348. what he means by necessary/ schesis, 355. his notion respecting the Lord's tiiipper defended, iv. 712, 721. Culmer, Richard, scholar of Jlagdalene college, Cambridge, vi. 311. Culverwell, Nathaniel, fellow of Emma- imel college, Cambridge, when he flou- rished, iii. 344. maintained the Divine existence not to be demonstrable « pri- ori, ib. wrote a Discourse of the Light of Nature, ib. Cumberland, Richard, bishop of Peter- borough, iv. 57, 109, 120, 186 n. 192 n. 202, 203, 204 n. 234 n. 264 n. 280 n. 293 n. v. 19 n. 67 n. Gumming, John, i. 100 n. iii. 498 n. v. 91 n. Curcellseus, Stephen de, i. 29. ii. 562. iv. 80. Curtius, — , iii. 638 n. Curtius, Quintus, iv. 413. Cyparissiota, Johannes, iii. 175. siirnamed the Wise, 131. his Decads published in Latin, in the Bibliotheques of Turria- nus's version, ib. Cyprian, St., i. 292 n. — 294 n. 297, 306. ii. 87 n. 97 n. 105 n. 122 n. 128 n. 132 n. 137 n. 142 n. 172 n. 173, 426, 478, 498 n. 657, 668 n. 678. iii. 463 n. 484; 516, 525 n- 526 n. 571 n. 599. iv. 427 n. 474, 484, 48c;, 486 n. 511, 587, 597 n. 652, 675, 679, 691, 706 n. 707 n. 767, 772, 792. V. 12611. 131 n. 156 n. 157 n. 1651). 167 n. 190 n. 207 n. 260, 261, 267 n. 281, 285, 400, 40.^) 404, 405) 406.— 409. vi. 58, 65, i<3> 114) '15) 116, 167, 175, 176, 220, 230 n. 464, 480. time of his writing, ii. 467, 490. texts respecting God ap- plied by him to Christ, 490, 491. ob- jections answered, 491. did not believe that the Father is naturally governor over the Son, iii. 85. his testimony re- specting the doctrine of the Trinity, 596. wliat were his sentiments respect- ing John vi., 495. notice of his calling the eucharist the offering of Christ's body and blood, iv. 479. how explained, ib. notice of his applying the title of sacrament to the eucharist, 482. his I E X. 545 sentiments respecting the eucliaristic elements, 592. his opinion of gospel sacrifices, 749. observations thereupon, 750. why probably he styled the eu- charist a sacrifice, 751. a particular passage of his considered, ib. a jiassage of his touching the eucharist explained, v. 269. the piece de Cocna ascribed to him, written by Arnoldus, 210. his Comment on the form of baptism, ii. 183. his opinion of the need and efficacy of baptism, vi. 19. his opinion against lay-baptism, 169. his argument that heresy and schism nulled orders, con- futed by St. Austin, 172. how he dif- fered from the church with relation to schismatics, 173. Cyril of Alexandria, i. 287, 364 n. 383 n. 41S, 431 n. 439, 453 n. 471 n. 504 n. 542, 562. ii. 13 n. 33 n. 60, 80 n. 95 n. 113 n. 125 n. 151 n. 153 n. 156 n. 157, 186 n. 225 n. 239 n. 429,464, 506 n. 571 n. 575, 580, 602 n. 606, 687. iii. 78, 210, 682 n. 690. iv. 173 n. 174 n. 192 11. 306 n, 332 n. 344, 366, 513 n. 540 n. 560 n. 589 n. 594 n. 595 n. 675, 707, n. 741 n. 752 n. 756, 76011. v. 511. 13, 113 n. iifn. 126 n. 135 II. 167 n. 19s n. 208 n. 252, 254, 25s n. 258. vi. 14 n. how he understood ovx ap-naynhv fiyriffaro, &c. as applied to Christ, ii. lion, how he explained John vi., iv. 562. his sentiments as to gospel sacri- fices, 759. considered Christian sacri- fices to be immaterial, v. 245. a pas- sage of his about unbloody sacrifice ex- ])lained, 252. Cyril of Jerusalem, i. 357 n. 371 n. 38 cn. 406 n. 426 n. 443 n. 486, 488, 504 n. ii. 33 n. 43 II. 53, 55 n. 60, 63 n. 65, 97 n. 105 n. 125 n. i37n. 14711. 15311. 186 n. 189, 394 n. 410, 466, 498 n. 585 n. 586 n. 630 n. 636, 672 n. 674, 675. iii. 79 n. 248 n. 253 n. 482 n. 525, 528, 534. iv. 21, 2411. 2811. 430 n. 436 n. 536 n. 65311. 65911. 660 n. 675, 680, 687 n. 688, 690, 693, 694, 758 n. 759 n. 764 n. 770 n. 772. v. 208 n. 277 n. 407. vi. 14 n. 489, 492. his declaration concerning the Trinity, ii. 121 n. his orthodoxy unquestionable, 636. always looked upon as a very moderate man, and not so vehement against the Arians as many others, iii. 90. did not believe that the Father is naturally governor over the Son, ib. how he interpreted John vi., iv. 559. his sentiments respecting the eucharis- tic elements, 593. what he meant by unbloody service, v. 249. his ojiinion of the need and efficacy of bajitism, vi. 19. Cyrill, a Greek, he and Methodius first planted Christianity in Servia, iii. 193. are said to have invented the Sdavonian WATRRLANI), VOL. VI. N n 546 I N D E X. letters, ib. and to have translated the scriptures into Sclavonian, ib. Cyrus, iv. 296, 324. v. 18. Cyzicenus, ii. 495. D. Dachselius, — , iv. 271. Daille, (Dallaeus,) John, iii. 620, 622, 633 n. 634 n. 652 n. 660 n. v. 91 n. 104 n. 143 n. 255 u. 268 n. 400, 406, 407, 410 n. 41 1 n. vi. 41 n. 45 n. 53 n. 54 n. 67 n. 447,460. attacked the an- cients in his treatise on The right Use of the Fathers, i. 95. his opinion of the use and value of the ancient fa- thers, iii. 619. answers to his charges of obscurity in them, 632. Aainoviov, in the New Testament, gene- rally signifies some evil spirit, iv. 632. Damascenus, John, i. 504 n. ii. 13 n. 222 u. 239, 240, 241 n. 541 n. 545 n. 571 n. 586, 614 n. iii. 206, 543 n. 577 11. 578 n. 5S5 n. 67311. iv. 25, 432 n. 438 n. 545 n. 653 n. 668 n. 768 n. 769 n. V. 167 n. 189, 194 n. 198 n. 199 n. 202, 253 n. vi. 13 n. 14 n. 491, 492. surnamed 3Iansur, the father of tlie modern Greeks, and their great oracle, v. 197. his character, ib. obser- vations on his erroneous opinions re- specting the elements in the eucharist, 197, 204. his Epist. ad Zachar. pro- bably genuine, 200. a new edition of his works published by Le Quien, iii. 115. Damasus, i. 549. iii. 163, 260 n. 262 n. 264 n. vi. 292. Damnation, held by Origen not to be eternal, iii. 244. Danjeus, Lambert, iv. 483 n. 539 n. 564 n- 579 655 n. vi. 444. Danhawerus, — , iii. 251 n. iv. 366 n. Darius, iv. 296. v. 13. Darkness, Magian notion of, iii. 544, 690, 691. Daubuz, — , iv. 157, 158 n. Davenant, John, bishop of Salisbury, v. 92 n. 141. vi. 497. David, iii. 667. Davidson, Thomas, printer at Edinburgh, vi. 364. Davies, John, president of Queen's col- lege, Cambridge, i. 20. vi. 303. Dawes, sir Wilham, archbishop of York, i. 4, 254. presented AVaterland to the chancellorship of York, 23 7. his letter of thanks to him for his history of the Athanasian Creed, ib. Dr. Waterland's dedication of his Critical History of the Athanasian Creed to him, iii. 99. Dawson, Thomas, vi. 356. Day, John, printer, vi. 305, 332, 333, 359' 403, 404- Deacons, a disputed point among the ancients, whether they could baptize, vi. 204. did not ordinarily do it, ib. looked upon as priests of the third or- der, ib. Dealing of God with mankind, a sermon on the general rule of, v. 617. Deceivers and deceived, the case of, con- sidered in a sermon, v. 717. Degrees, see Lambet/i. Deism, the dupe to atheism or popery, iv. 50. first or principally introduced into England by Hobbes, v. 34. notice of its rise abroad, 35. deism a more re- fined atheism, iO. motives to prose- lytism, 62 n. why no uniform system is adopted, 68 n. Deity, existence of, cannot be proved « priori in the opinion of Clemens of Alexandria, iii. 325. and of Alexander Aphrodisiensis, 326. proof that the an- cient fathers did not consider it de- monstrable a priori, ib. testimonies of schoolmen and modern divines to the same effect, 329, &c. allowable, accord- ing to Richard of Middleton, to argue a priori from the Divine existence to attributes, or from attribute to attribute, 331. Puteanus's opinion to the same effect, 342. remarks on the concurrence of all these testimonies, 350. seri ice of this historical view, 351. the supposed argument a priori shewn to be very loose and precarious, having nothing to stand upon but an abuse of equivocal terms, 352. amounts to little more than ringing changes on the word necessity, 353. the way of coming at it, 356. ob- servations thereon, 357. shewn further to be manifestly absurd, 360. for the antecedent necessity cannot be a princi- ple extrinsic, ib. nor the substance itself, 361. nor any attribute or property, ib. an examination of the several pleas or excuses for the argument a priori, 363. — 379. the liurtful tendency of insisting so much upon the pretended argument a priori, both with regard to religion and science, 380. tends rather to over- turn the existence of a First Cause, 381. particularly unfavourable to the article of the Trinity, 383. metaphysical ne- cessity imports immutable existence, proper to God only, 355. why it may be called modal necessity, ib. immuta- bility of the Deity how proved, 369. notion of a Deity, probably descended by tradition to the pagans, iv. 300. Dejected mind, a sermon on its misery, causes, and remedies, v. 549. Delany, Dr. Patrick, his Revelation ex- amined with Candour, translated into German by Lemker, vi. 452 n. 453. Delarue, Charles, iv. 1 65 n. Delaune, — , vi. 420. Delaune, William, president of St. John's college, Oxford, i. 20 n. author of an INDEX. 547 excellent sermon on original sin, ib. published first singly, afterwards in a volume of discourses, if>. Delayne, Walter, vi. 306, 324, 361. Arifitovpyhs, or Creator, supposed by Ce- rinthus to be separate and estranged from God, ii. 40. Democritus, " founder of the atomical philosophy," iv. 377. " an atheistical scheme," ib. Demonstration, mischief often done by pretending to stricter demonstration than the subject-matter admits of, iii. 371. not intended that moral or theo- logical matters should be governed by metaphysical or mathematical demon- strations, 374. Demophilus, bishop of Constantinople, an Arian, ii. 718. Demosthenes, iv. 403, 409. Deneltert, bishop of Worcester, iii. 184. Derived and underived powers, observa- tions respecting, ii. 543, 556. Desaguliers, John Theophilus, iv. 410. Deyling, — , iv. 429 n. 435 n. 477 n. 479 n. 490 n. 494, 496 n. 578 n. 586 n. 597 n. 598 n. 640 n. 653 n. 686 n. 696 n. 702 n. 705 n. 716 n. 721 n. 727, 738 n. 740 n. 752 n. 7580. 763 n. 782 n. V. 130 n. X43 n. 255 n. 261 n. 264 n. vi. 5 n. 488. 5io, with a genitive after it, is frequently used, as well in scripture as in ecclesi- astical writers, to express the efficient cause, i. 382. the Arian pretence of its denoting inferiority when applied to the Son, refuted, ii. 51. notice respect- ing 81a, 518, SI 9. Diagoras, story of his prosecution for atheism, iv. 377. StadrjKT] signifies covenant rather than testament, iv. 708. Didymus, ii. 120 n. 121 n. 124 n. 125 n. 133 n. 160 n. 161 n. 429. flourished about 370, 639. zealinis for the ortho- dox doctrine of the Trinity, ib. zealous also for Origen, ib. his defence of the divinity of the Holy Ghost translated by Jerome, 640. Dignity, how ambiguously used by Ari- ans, ii. 399. ^iKaioaiivi), its meaning in certain texts, • vi. 4 n. 8i/caiai(7is, observation respecting this word, vi. 4 n. Diodorus Siculus, iv. 192. Diogenes Laertius, ii. 573 n. 586 n. iv. 412. Dionysius of Alexandria, i. 287, 356 n. 358, 389 n. 499, 500. ii. 31 n. 104 n. 137 n- '49 n- 15°) ^SOf 372, 470, 549, 586 n. 600, 615, 643. iii. 22, 79 n. 534, 580, 6i;9. iv. 784 n. explained, ii. 420. time of liis v/riting, iii. 86. maintained that the Father was always Father, and never was without his Son, i. 357. and asserted the eternal generation in terms, ib. iii. 22, 24. his declaration concern- ing the Trinity, ii. 1S5. his orthodoxy as to the Trinity vindicated by bishop Bull, 638. a great admirer of Origen, ib. did not believe that the Father is naturally governor over the Son, iii. 86. suspected in his writings against the Sabellians to lean too far the other way, 598. declares it to be uninten- tional, 599. anecdote of his sending the eucharist to Serapion at the point of death, iv. 652. Dionysius Exiguus, iv. 684 n. 787. Dionysius, bishop of IMilan, iii. 175. Dionysius, Periegetes, iv. 407. Dionysius, bishop of Rome, i. 389 n. 485. ii. 149 n. 150, 223, 586 n. 600, 6x8, 637> 638, 643, 702. iii. 36 n. 598. time of his writing, ii. 468. his de- claration of the eternity of the Son, i. 357. his sense as to tritheism, 470 n. his sentiments respecting the Trinity, ii. 1 84. only a small fragment of him preserved by Athanasius, 468. of ad- mirable use to prove the Trinity, ib. the four hypotheses intimated therein, ib, all condemned but the true one, ib. the Unity, how solved by him, 469. his explanation of Prov. viii. 22., 634. probably believed the eternal genera- tion of the Son, iii. 22. in what sense he uses the word novapxia, 76. did not believe that the Father is naturally governor over the Son, 86. his tes- timony respecting Christ's divinity, 598. Dionysius, episcopus Zienensis el Firmi- ensis, iii. 177 n. Disney, Dr., i. 3, 48. 50, 64, 67, 146. Dissenters, Dr. Clarke's Arian opinion took deep root among several commu- nities, i. loi n. Ditheism chargeable on modern Arians, 527, 528, 529, 531, 532, 533. Ditton, Humphrey, iii. 501 n. v. 44 n. 51 n. vi. 467. when he floiu'ishcd, iii. 350. a very good writer and close rea- soner, ib. wrote on the resurrection of Christ, 350 n. Divine attributes and powers attributed by Dr. Clarke to the Son in an equi- vocating sense, i. 376. Divine nature, abstracted from the consi- deration of the distinction of Persons, definition of, i. 494. Divinitas, meaning of, in Tertullian, i. .324- Divinity, how absurdly ascribed to Clirist by the Arians, i. 273, 274. Docette or Phantiisiastai, iii. 549, 550, 584. v. 97. denied tlie humanity of Christ, ii. 159. iii. 401. St. John's censures of them, iii. 401, 402. N n 2 548 I N D followers of Simon Magus, 548. their error, rh. Dodd, William, i. 233. Dodwell, Henry, iii. 180, 181 n. 55011. 568 n. 569 II. 580 n. 607 n. 614 n. 615 n. 61711. 64811. 65011. 65811. 68411. 692. iv. 415, 509 n. 68411. 68511. 702 II. 704 11. 706 n. 722 n. 732, 741 n. 750, 76411. V. i24n. 243"- 245 n- 250 n. 262 n. 264 n. 268 n. vi. 67 n. Ill n. 151 n. 152, 164, 166, 167, 203, 204, 474. his opinion respecting per- sons who die unbaptized, 107. Doing good, a sermon on the duty of, V. 299. Dolensis, Alexander, vi. 269. Dominion, the scripture notion of the word God, according to Dr. Clarke, i. 303, 492. disproved, 303. the true scripture notion of the word, 305, 306. a relative term, ii. 518. how it apper- tains to each Person in the Trinity, 734. why God could not be God merely in the sense of dominion, iii. 58. Dominion, supremacy of, why voluntary, and an extrinsic relation, iii. 11. how far it may be called natural and neces- sary, 12. Domnulus, iii. 216 n. Donatists, vi. 192, 193, 196. upon what they founded the vahdity of baptism, 193. St. Austin maintained against them that heresy did not vacate orders, 171, 194. Donatus, yElius, vi. 268, 269, 270, 302. preceptor in grammar to St. Jerome, 269. Donatus, how it became a general name for a grammar, vi. 268. Dorrington, IMiss, i. 252 n. Dorrington, Theophihis, translated Puf- fendorf's Divine feudal Laiv, iv. 638 n. his explanation of 1 Cor. x. 16. relating to the eucharist, 638. Douza, George, iii. 190 n. Douza, John, iii. 190 n. Dow, — , V. 269 n. Doway version of the Old Testament, date of, vi. 364, 402. Downing, — , iii. 413 n. Doxology in the singing psalms, attempt- ed to be altered by the Arian party, i. 50. the alteration opposed by bishop Robinson, ib. Doxologies of the ancients, how to be understood, i. 426. catholic forms of doxologies how distinguishable from Arian, ii. 233. Doxologies, primitive, a seasonable Re- view of Mr. Whistoris Account of, and A second Review in answer to Mr. Whiston's second Letter, were sup- posed to be written by Dr. W. Berri- man, i. 50 n. Drusius, John, iv. 367 n. E X. Dubigney, — , vi. 385. Dublin College library, v. 243, 397. Ducarel, Andrew Coltee, vi. 352 n. Dudithius, an Anti-Trinitarian, iii. 112. Suvayueis, in what sense applied to the Tri- nity by the ancients, i. 285, 286. Swa/iis vif/idTov, a name of the Logos in the opinion of many of the ancients, iv. 25. Dunlop, AVilliam, v. 102 n. Dupin, see du Pin. Duplesis, — , V. 162 n. Durell, John, iii. 164. Durants, or Durandus, William, iii. 335. the elder, bishop of Menda, 130. notice and correction of his testimony as to the Athanasian Creed, ib. Duties do not flow from the relations, but from the known relations, iv. 143. dis- tinction between duties and sacraments, 624. see Moral duties. E. E. H., iii. 597 n. 601 n. Earth, creation of, a proof of Christ's di- vinity, ii. 69. Easter-Sunday, the different time of keeping, in the year 577, vi. 440. which rule now followed in England, ib. Ebion, ii. 728. iii. 540, 541, 547, 548, 554, S77> 582, 586, 590, 606 n. for what condemned by the ancients, ii. 728. St. John wrote his First Epistle against him, iii. 547. the disciple of Cerinthus, 554. probable that there really was such a person, 555. Ebionites, iii. 577, 589. believed Christ to be a mere man, ii. 132, 159. the chief impiety of their heresy, 727. whether founded by Ebion, iii. 555. their errors respecting Christ, ib. cen- sures of the Ante-Nicene fathers in order, against them, 556—575. re- ceived only St. Matthew's Gospel, and that curtailed, and rejected all St. Paul's writings, 561. why, 568. what difference of doctrine caused two sorts among them, 5 74. the Alogi a branch of them, 579. Ecclesiastical antiquity, see Fathers. Echard, Laurence, iv. 402, 406. Economy of the divine nature, ii. 516. Edgar, king, iii. 158. Education, religious, a sermon upon, V. 370. Edward VI, vi. 324, 346, 353, 354, 356, 378, 381, 386, 387, 389. Edwards, John, ii. 722 n. iii. 230 n, iv. 448 n. notice of his Brief critical Re- marks on Dr. Clarke's reply to Mr. Nelson and Dr. Gastrell, i. 39. Egyptians, v. 1 7. see Circumcision. Einem, Jo. Just, von, iv. 668 n. (Is often put for iv, iii, 55. INDEX. 549 fKTicre, what its signification may be in Prov. viii. 22. ii. 634, 636, 642. El, in Hebrew, as Jerome observes, is for the most part the proper title of the one true God, ii. 136. Elderfield, — , iv. 429 n. Eliberis, see Elvira. Eligius Noviomensis, v. 285 n. Elipandus, council of Frankfort called against the heresy of Fehx and him, iii. 121. Elizabeth, queen, iii. 230 n. vi. 324, 337, 340- Eisner, James, iii. 458 n. iv. 632, 698 n. Elvira, or Eliberis, council of, iv. 474, 785. vi. 112, 203. when held, 118, 1 76. by how many bishops, ib. obser- vations on its decision touching lay- baptism, 176. Emanation, see Generation. Emannel, or God wiifi us, a divine title given to Christ in scnpture, ii. 127. Emanuel college library, Cambridge, vi. 265, 305) .308, 310, 330, 344, 350, .?S3> 361, 364. 373. 394, 400. 401. 402, 404. has a MS. of ^V'icklitf's Bible, iii. 144. Emlyn, Thoma.s, i. 35, 59, 63, 102, 119, 256, 383, 516 n. ii. 10, 163 n. i88 n. 625, 759. iii. 282, 291 n. 298 n. 299 n. iv. 5 n. vi.412. cast of his writings, i. 120. his remark that the scriptures require no accurate philosophical no- tions of God's eternity, omnipresence, &c., 469. his reason why the pagan philosophers did not believe Christ- ianity, confuted, 462. was for laying baptism aside among the posterity of baptized Christians, ii. 188 n. Emperour, Jlarten, vi. 307, 308, 323, 394, 396, 403- Emphatical appellations, how to be inter- preted, ii. 19, 26. Eiicratitfe, the, a sect, why so called, v. III. why called also Aquarians, ih. Endhoven, Christophall, his widow printed Tindal's New Testament, 153.V, vi. 396. Endor, see Samuel. Enemy, see Charity. English language, what languages an English etjTnologist oiight to know, vi. 433- Enjedine, — , iii. 663. Enthusiasm, dangerons tendency of, iv. 1 422. its meaning, v. 51. shewn to belong more to infidels than to Christ- ians, ib. Ephesius, Marcus, iii. 196 n. Ephesus, church of, St. John its founder, vi. 272. Ephesus, council of, vi. 464. its order respecting the Nicene Creed explained, iii. 249. Ephraem. Antioch. iv. 599 n. Ephrsem Syrus, iv. 653. v. 208 n. 249 n. a passage of his explained, 258 n. Epictetus, iv. 413. v. 16 n. Epicureans, object and peculiarity of their tenets, iv. 285. Epicurus, V. 37, 38, 42, 46, 48, 66. 'E7ri0ac€ia, the appearing , always, in the New Testament, ascribed to the Son alone, ii. 134. 67n;3-h 509. 549- 553, 562, 563, 568, 573, 574, 611 n. 614 n. 618, 630, 632, 63;, 675, 679, 681, 683, 684, 687, 688, 691, 700, 724, 740, 748 n. 755. iii. 21, 22, 79, 89, 469 n. 483 n. 484 n- 556 n. 577, 579 n. 581, 582 n. 584 n. 586 n. 608 n. 659 n. iv. 37, 228 n. 229 n. 306 n. 320 n. 332 n. 339 n. 487, 501 n. 536 n. 652, 653 n. 660 n. 691, 753 n. 765 n. 772. v. 5 n. 7 n. 22 n. 124 n. 126 n. 131 n. 135 n. 156 n. 167 n. 175 n. 233 n. 244, 254, 255 n. 261, 273, 275, 278 n. 289 n. 290 n. vi. 97, 471, 492. explained, iii. 77. lime of his writing, ii. 475. had a tincture of Arianisra, 16. especially be- ■ fore the council of Nice, ib. his testi- | mony notwithstanding as to the Father ! and Son being one God, ib. 476. a j passage of his against the Sabellians vindicated, i. 285. acknowledged one God in three Persons, 287. an apology for his bold and free expressions, thought by some favourable to the Arians, 324. his famed piece against 3Iarcellus relates to the SabeUian con- troversy, 339. how he understood Kara aipKa, as appUed to the Son, 349 n. his opinion as to the Creation, 381, styled Christ great Architect of the uni%-erse, 383, 3 84. considered that the Son was worshipped by Abraham, Closes, &C. and the Jewish church, 432. a passage of his explained, 547. was a favourer of the Arians, (of the men at least, if not of their cause,) yet everywhere says many high and great things of the Son's creating and govern- ing the whole universe, ii. Si. a passage to this effect, ib. if he was an Arian, he was the most inconsistent one that ever was, ib. of little authority in any controversy, 216. why difficult to know what judgment to make of him, 410. bishop Bull, though a defender of him, yet makes no account of what he wrote before the Nicene council, 41 7. diversity of opinion respecting his Arianism, 495. authors who have chai^jed him ^■ith it, ib. those who have defended, or at least excused him, ib. a few strictures upon him, ib. objections answered or explained, ib. differed, perhaps, in the manner of expressing the Unity, still beUeving the essential divinirs- of the Son, 499. would not be difficult to acquit him of the charge of Arianism, at least after the Nicene council, 500. instances to that effect, ib. denied the Son to be to5 /ht; ovtos, 500, 501. in what sense only he pro- bably denied him to be athios, 501. instances from his Commentary- on the Psalms in favour of Christ's di\-inity, 502, 503. had a confused mixture of catholic and Arian tenets, such as could not stand with each other in true reasoning, 504. his charge against Marcellus, 522, 523. a great admirer of Origen, 549. no reconciling him perfectly with himself at different times, 600. ilontfaucon's censure of him, as eommonly wresting scripture, and the church's doctrine to his own private fancies, perhaps too severe, 614. his Demomtratio Ecangelica of no con- sideration, 631. his interpretation of Prov. viii. 22., 635, 642. apologized for Origen, against the chaises of 3Iethodius, 638. orthodox himself at that time, 639. how he understood John vi., iv. 555. his statements re- specting gospel sacrifices, 755. what he meant by unbloody sacrifices, v. 248. his explanation of the Aaronical and 3Ielchizedekian sacrifices, 270. a pas- sage of his explained touching a memorial being a sacrifice, 291. main- tained that pagan T^Titers borrowed from the scriptures, 12. Eusebius Emisenus, see Faustus Reiensis. Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, one of the chief promoters of the Arian cause, ii. 369 n. 371, 632. bishop of Constan- tinople, 7 1 7. quoted as evidence of the meaning of rijs ovaias, 392 n. Eusebius, bishop of Verceil, iii. 175, 219. considered bv Baldensal as coadjutor to Athanasius in composing the Atha- nasian Creed, 131. probably for what reason, ib. a great friend of Athana- sius, 176. Eustathius, ii. 376, 585 n. 649, 723 n. Euthymius, v. 165 n. 167 n. Eutropius, iv. 413. Eua,-ches, i. 446. iii. 115, 201, 204, 209. I N D 211,411. maintained that two 7iatures could not make one person in Christ, i. 481. Eutychians, iii. 203, 204, 254. charged with reviving the Apollinarian heresy, 206. why called Aphthartodocetae, v. 194. and Gaianites, ib. Christ's man- hood and godhead proved from the eucharist not to make one nature, against them, 115. Eutychianus, vi. 126, 210. Eutychins of Alexandria, vi. 247. his derivation of Pontius, 241 n. Evander, v. 57. Eveleigh, Josiah, i. loon. iii. 398. €| ovK ovTti>v, the true signification of the phrase, ii. 500. Exaltation of Christ by the Father, Phil. ii. 9. what it means, ii. 112 — 117. Exclusive terms, not to be interpreted with the utmost rigour, as may he proved by many instances in sacred and profane writings, ii. 91. little stress laid on these terms by the fathers, 97 n. mav admit of lac'd exceptions, 405, 424. instances, ib. rule for their interpretation, 424. how to be under- stood, 527. how used by the ancients, 665. Excommunication, observations respect- ing the nature of this punishment, iii. 460. delivering over to Satan an old form, 459, 684. Exeter, relation of some differences among the dissenting teachers there respecting Arianism, i. 99, 100. unitarians now abound there, 10 ( n. Exeter, synod of, iii. 130. Exoncontii, a set of Arians, i. 404. Expiation, resolves solely into the sacri- fice of Christ, V. 148. Extension necessarily includes parts, ii. 620. F. Faber, George Stanley, i. 251 n. Fabian, pope, ii. 437, 589, 638. VI. 270. Fable, what, iv. 156. Fabricins, John Albert, i. 83, 331, 352 n. 365 n. 366 n. ii. i79n. 378, 439 n. 463, 464, 495, 612 n. 632 n. iii. 87 n. 110, 121, 127 n. 176 n. 178, 325 n. 53on- 555 '>- 568 n. 639 n. 682 n. iv. 195 n. 205 n. 286 n. 300 n. 429 n. 633 n. 656 n. 683 n. 684 n. 689, 690 n. 696 n. 698 II. V. 5 n. 6 n. 15 n. 57 n. 114 n. r94 n. 195 n. 1970. 200 n. 251 n. vi. 239, 273, 423, 429, 430, 433, 473- li''* ju(ignient of \\'histon's attempt to substitute the larger for the smaller epistles of Ignatius, ii. 590 n. and also of his attempt about the Apo- stolical Constitutions, ii. ,^91 n. his Dib- imtheca Cwvceca highly valut^d liy all men of letters, iii. 115. his opinion rcsi>ect- E X. 553 ing the Athanasian Creed, ib. 117. en- comium of him, vi. 434. Facundus Hermianensis, ii. 710. iv. 599 n. V. 278 n. Faith, Norris's explanation of, iii. 435. the will shewn to be concerned in it, 436. its twofold meaning, vi. 8 n. the instrument of reception of justification on man's part, 23, 26, 27 n. how faith as a condition diifers from faith as the instrument of justification, vi. 29. Falkner, — , iv. 801 n. Fall of man, reasons against considering it fictitious, iv. j6i. False propliets, observations respecting, iv. 3^0. Father, the first Person in the Trinity, styled the only true God, primarili/, not exclusively, i. 279. a priority in order ascribed to him, 28 r. the term b @(hs generally reserved to him, and why, 315. a pri(hily of nature, not of time or duration, ascribed by all ca- tholics to him over the Son, 3^6. how the Father and the Son are both con- sidered as one Creator, ii. 21, 61, 518. why the titles one or only God, are mostly applied to him, 447. iii. 301. and why he primarily is considered as God, ii. 98. all perfections common to Father and Son, only not coordinately, 393. what supremacy he possesses over the Son, 400. headship or priority of order in him, always supposed by the ancients, 417. the Son and Holy Ghost are God in the same sense, but not in the same emphatical manner as the Father, 425. and he is therefore most frequently termed God, ib. the Father, as he that send.s, greater than the Son, the Person sent, 426. the ancients, sometimes considered the Father the Head of both the other Persons, 430. Father used by certain of the ancients sometimes in a restrained sense, some- times in a larger, 431. term of Fatlicr denotes a relation of order, and a par- ticular manner of existing, 510, 511. not any diiference in any essential per- fection, 511. self-exi.stence, as peculiar to him, is negative and relative, 545. scarce any proof of his eternity left by the Arians in eluding the proof of the Son's eternity, 565. why he was never said by the ancients to exist by necessity of nature, 570. this title applied to the first Person in the Trinity implied the divinity of the Son according to the ancients, iii. 533, 534, 535. its mean- ing in the Apostles' Creed, iv. 21. Fathers, api)lied various passages in the Old Testament relating to the God of the Jews to Christ, i. 291. how they reasoned on them, 297. the Arian method of explaining them away re- 554 INDEX. futed, 295. the strict sense in which the ancients applied the word God to the Son, 299. according to the ancients, the Son was God, and so called in his own person, 302. also, that he was God in his own person, as being God's Son, ib. and that he was God's Son, as having the divine substance commu- ntcated from the Father, ib. the Ante- Nicene writers sparing in speaking of the eternal generation, that is, sparing as to the phrase, not as to the thing itself, 353. disown creature-worship, 418. several positions of theirs adverse to Arianism, ^o^. how perverted by Dr. Clarke, 521. of what authority in controversies, 538, 539, 541. the ad- vantage of a cause supported by them, _i;40. if some of the Ante-Nicene fathers supposed the generation, or Trpo(\€v .369. Gennadius Massiliensis, iii. 214, 228 n. 229 n. 230 n. 244. iv. 797. V. 404. vi. E X. 557 66. his treatise de Eccles. Dogmat. formerly ascribed commonly to St. Austin, iii. 141. this treatise in a MS. at Treves, 154 Gentilly, synod of, iii. 171. Genttem'in instructed, iv. 399. George I, i. 78 n. presented bishop Moore's library to the university of Cambridge, 11. their address to him in consequence, 12 n. his answer, 13 n. the address of the university of Cam- bridge to him upon the suppiession of the rebellion, 15 n. supposed to have been framed by Dr. Bentley, 14. what opposition it met with in Cambridge, ib. Middleton's account of the busi- ness, 17 n. the king visits Cambridge, 19. George II. as prince of Wales, i. 14 n. IS n. Gerhard, John, iv. 435 n. 437 n. 538 n. 63s"- 636 n. 655 n. 665, 668 n. 719. v. 272 n. vi. 10 n. 479 n. 481. con- sidered the unity of God not demon- strable from natural reason, iii. 374. Germany, church of, when it received tlie Athanasian Creed, iii. 183. Gesnerus, iv. 366 n. Gibson, Edmund, bishop of London, i. 84,137.238,254- iii- 475- iv. I3in- 136 n. 13711. i39n. 141 n. 384,419. animadverted on Tindal in his two Pastoral Letters, i. 124. to which Tin- dal pulilished a reply, ib. presented ^\'aterland to the archdeaconry of IMiddlesex, 189, 238. Gillius, Christopher, iii. 360 n. 368 n. 369 n. 37411. 381 n. 386 n. a Spanish divine and Jesuit, when he flourished, 339. his character, ih. proved the Di- vine existence not to be demonstrable « priori, 340. Glanvil, Bartholomew, vi. 301. Glassius, Solomon, i. 133. iv. 153 n. — I56n. 15811. 159,165,31311. 320 n. .333; 340 34' '1- 566 "• V. 262 n. W'aterland's pattern in his Dissertation on the Interpretation of Scripture, iv. 15 >• Glaucias, iii. 658. Gnostics, iii. 589. their conceit about the Word, ii. 583. certain of their errors alluded to in the proem of St. John's Gospel, iii. 543 — 546, 690. the crea- tion of the visible world by God most high, proved against them from the eucharist, v. 109. and also the resur- rection of the body, 1 10. Goar, James, iv. 654, 689 n. 790 n. Gobar, Stephen, iv. 752 n. God, the strict sense in which the word was ap])lied by the ancients to the Son, i. 299. the Arians attempt to distinguish the word into supreme and subordinate (iod, 302. ii. 89. but the 558 INDEX. first and most general distinction of the senses of the word God should be into proper and improper, i. 302. ac- cording to Dr. Clarke, the proper scripture notion of God is dominion ; and that therefore any person having dominion is, according to the scripture notion, truly and properly God, 303. his method of proof refuted, ib. how the word is partially applied to angels or men, or things inanimate, 304, 305. why the heathen idols are termed gods in scripture, at the same time that they are said to be no gods, 304. the true scripture notion of one that is tmly [ and properly God, 305. ii. 37. so that [ the Arian distinction of a supreme and subordinate God resolves into a God and no God, i. 306. the nature of God affirmed by the Eunomians and some of the Arians to be comprehensible, 453. what notion the ancient Chris- tians had of one that is truly and really God, ii. 38. the word God may 1 perhaps be understood in an iiidefinite | sense (as appUcable to the whole Tri- j nity) as often as the context or other j circumstances do not confine its sig- [ nification and intent to one Person only, 93, 99. why the Father is pri- marily considered as God, 98. not a j word of office or dominion, but of nature and substance, 415. the Son and Holy Ghost are God in the same sense of the word, but not in the same emphatical manner as the Father, 425. another God constantly denied by the ancients, 437, 438. Father and Son declared by the ancients to be one, or the same God, 438, 439. a higher and lower sense of the word God admitted by Novatiau, 476. to what extent, 477. adopted by certain moderns, ib. what this notion had to recommend it, ib. what charge it was liable to, 477, 478. the term God denotes absolute per- fection, 510. applied in the same sense to Father and Son, ib. Tertullian's dis- tinction between God and Lord, 518. the term God, not taken essentially but personally in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds, 706. why God could not be God merely in the sense of do- minion, iii. 58. the sense in which the word God is used in Scripture does not militate against the doctrine of the Trinit)', 275. the Father sometimes styled, by way of eminence, the one or only God, 301. the term God only applied to angels and men in a loose, figurate, and improper sense, ib. see Deity. God's moral attributes are founded in his natural perfections, iii. 67. God, over all, blessed for ever, a divine title given to Christ in scripture, ii. 138. God the Father, Phil. ii. 11., accuracy of this expression, ii. 118. God with us, or Emmanuel, a divine title given to Christ in scripture, ii. 1 28. Godolphin, — , provost of Eton and dean of St. Paul's, i. 236. Gomarus, Francis, vi. 484. Gooch, Dr., i. 22, 25. Good life, the surest title to a good con- science, a sermon on this subject, v. 676. Good works are necessary conditions, without which no man shall see God ; but yet they have no proper efficacy in themselves for the justifying us, iv. 85. good works reckoned among Christian sacrifices, v. 276. Clai-ke's explanation of the Article upon Good M'orks, v. 394. may precede justification but not grace, 397. the scripture doctrine of the unprofitableness of man's best per- formance no excuse for slackness in good works, 645. good works, condi- tions of justification, vi. 29. why they have been objected to as conditions, 30. Goodall, — , provost of Eton, i. 5. Goodman, — , iv. 399. Gorionides, Josephus, iii. 177 n. Gorrham, — , iii. 143. Gosset, Dr., i. 233. Gotha library has a MS. of Bruno's, with Hampole's Comment on the Athanasian Creed, iii. 141. Gothescalcus, iii. 137. Gough, Richard, vi. 303 n. Government the (strength of any) lies more in the affections than in the con- sciences of the people, v. 321. Grabe, John Ernest, i. i36n. 204, 329 n. ii. 138 n. 368, 377 n. 378, 412 n. 448 n. 455 n. 488 n. 552, 579 n. 580 n. S91 n. iii. 72, 155, 451 n. 525 n. 540, 591, 609 n. 655 n. 662 n. O91, 692. iv. 528 n. 545 n. 598, 686, 726, 727. V. 5 n. 158 n. 190 n. 636 n. vi. 6 n. 27 n. 488. when he published his Irenseus, iv. 726. his view of the eu- charist written against by Buddaeus, ib. his notion of the sacramental part of the eucharist refuted, v. 188. Grace, its various meanings, iv. 666. its limited sense, ib. instances in scripture, 667. doctrine of grace consistent with human liberty, 700. grace precedes good works, v. 397. its meaning in an emphatical sense, 688. its several kinds, ib. Gradus, used in the sense of order by TertuUian, ii. 459. Grafton, Richard, vi. 268, 330, 341, 343, 344 n. 346, 362, 377, 380, 381, 396) 403- Grammatical figures, how many and what, iv. 153 n. I N D Granger, — , vi. 360, 393, ^95, 397, 398) 400. Gratiaii, v. 210. vi. 123, 492. Gray, John, iii. 395 n. Great God, a divine title given to Christ in scripture, ii. 134. Greek church, notwithstanding its cor- ruptions, retains the divinity of Christ, ii. 387. whetlier it received the Atha- nasian Creed, iii. 189. received the Nicene Council with the greatest vene- ration, 194. its opinion respecting the procession of the Holy Ghost, 437. not a fundamental mistake according to Sherlock, ib. its sentiments respecting the eucharist, iv. 609 n. communicated weekly in the seventli century, 798. gives the eucharist to infants, v. 405. re- ceived St. Basil's Epistle, v. 1 78. Green, — , i. 22. Greenwood, — , vi. 434. Gregorian sacramentary, vi. 67. Gregorius Bceticus, iii. 262 n. v. 190 n. Gregorius de Valentia, iii. 343, 347. v. 143 n. 165. when he flourished, iii. 335. wrote Commentaries on Aquinas's Sum, iO. declares the Divine existence not to lie demonstrable d priori, ih. Gregory, — , iv. 412. Gregory I, pope, surnamed the Great, iii. 120, 125, 150, IS.3> '55)257- iv.684, 791 n. V. 12611. 131 n. 156 n. 175, 248 n. 276 n. vi. 243, 4Q2. Gregory IX, pope, iii. 108, 109,112, 150, 240 n. Gregory, bishop of Alexandi-ia, ii. 715. Gregory Nazianzen, i. 287, 290, 347 n. 360 n. 372, 393 n. 415, 478, 538 n. 542, 562. ii. 20 n. 31 n. 62 n. 141 n. 151 n. 153 n. 160 n. 222 n. 372, 417 n. 498 n. 504, 524 n. 538 n. 540 n. 541 n. 543 n. 544 n. 559, 560, 563, 599 n. 602 n. 687 n. 689 n. 71 1, 717, 746 n. 748 n. 749. iii. 36 n. 79 n. 87, 91, 118, 200 n. 202, 204, 222, 539 n. 641 n. 643 n. 682 n. iv. 432 n. 440 n. 489, 585 n. 621 n. 660 n. 682 n. 707 n. 741 n. 785 n. V. I3r n. 156 n. 189 n. 191 n. 207 n. 241 n. 249 n. 264 n. 276 n. 278 n. vi. 15 n. 18 n. 94 n. 121, 446 n. 492, 500. his idea of the unity of the Godhead vindicated from Dr. Clarke's misrepresentation, i. 529. a friend and admirer of Origen, ii. 639. iv. 489. defended his orthodoxy, ii. 639. summary of his panegyric on Athanasius, 714, 715, 716. a passage of his vindicated and explained, which had been considered by Whiston, as making Athanasius the inventor of the divinity of the Son, 714 — 717. his de- claration respecting the incarnation, iii. 207. had a vast esteem for the council of Nice, iii. 641. St. Jerome his scholar, iv. 489. why called the Divine, E X. 559 757. his sentiments as to gospel sacri- lices, ib. what he meant by unbloody sacrifices, v. 251. his opinion respecting children that die unbaptized, vi. 107. his opinion toiiching the ministration of baptism, with observations there- upon, 188. Gregory of Neocssarea, (commonly called Thaumaturgus, iii. 535.) i. 384, 518. ii. 250,251,372. iii. 91. his orthodoxy as to the Trinity vindicated by bishop Bull, ii. 638. a great admirer of Origen, ib. did not believe that the Father is naturally governor over the Son, iii. 87. his Creed considered by the best critics to be genuine, ib. 530 n. copy of it, ib. Gregory Nyssen, i. 287, 290, 348, 415, 443 n. 481, 488 n. 542. ii. 43 n. 44 n. 60 n. 113 n. 136 n. 151 n. 159 n. 239 n. 401, 402, 466 n. 580 n. 585 n. 609, 636 n. 637, 667, 719 n. 722 n. iii. 23, 77, 79 n. 87 n. 91, 206, 438, 53°) 533, 590 »• iv. 306 n. 560, 596 n. 682 n. 694, 752 n. 756 n. 768 n. 785 n. v. Ii2n. 207 n. vi. 14 n. 44611. 464. wrote against Eunomius, the shrewdest and sharpest Arian of that age, ii. 373. his opinion of the Son's necessary ex- istence vindicated and explained, 607. a defender of Origen, 641. Basil's younger brother, iv. 682. his Oratio Catcclietiea probably interpolated, v. 200. the treatise de Pmnitentia ascribed to him, written by Asterius Amasenus, 251. Gregory of Tours, iii. 136. iv. 792. vi. 66. introduced the Gallican Psalter into Gaul, iii. 163. died, 180. Gretton, Dr., i. 112, 114. iii. 364 n. 369 II- 370 37111- 373 n- 375 ". 377 "- 383 11. 386 n. his review of the argu- ment a priori to prove the Divine ex- istence commended, 363. Grey, Dr. Zachary, i. 4, 163, 221, 254. vi. 405, 451. published anonymously The Spirit of Infidelity detected, in answer to The Spirit of Eccleaia.stic/is in all ages, which was a translation of part of Barlieyrac's jireface to his trans- lation of Puffendorf de Jure Natures et Gentium, i. 95. defended Wateiland from Barbeyrac's invective, in the pre- face to his Spirit of Infidelity detected, vi. 445 n. published an examination of three volumes of Neal's History of the Puritans, 446 n. also of the fourteenth chapter of sir Isaac Newton's obser- vations on the Prophecies of Daniel, touching saint-worship, 448 n. Water- land's letters to him, 443. Grigg, — , master of Clare-hall, Cam- bridge, i. 20. Grostead, — , vi. 243. Grotius, Hugo, i. 284. ii. 138 n. iii. 55, 456 n. 48 511 n. 616 n. 619 n. 634 n. 560 I N D 644 n. iv. 109, 163 n. 246 II. 299, 342 n. 411, 412, 414, 516 n. 668 n. 706, 707 n. V. 18 n. 20 II. 21 n. 25, 152 n. 191 n. 211 n. 28611. vi. 463, 472, 474, 476, 477, 484. his Comment on Isaiah xhL 8., i. 319. translated into French by Barbeyrac, iii. 634. had a great esteem for the fathers, 643. his treatise of morality, by ■nhom approved, by Avhom condemned, 646. wrote against by J. a Felden, ili. Gnaldo, monk of Corbey, wrote the life of Ansoharius, in vei'se, iii. J 26. as- cribed the Athanasian Creed to Atha- nasius, ib. Gualtier, Thomas, vi. 334. Guarin, Peter, iv. 313 n. 320 n. 333 n. .^,S9 n- .^4' "■ 343 Guile, why so prevalent, v. 578. Guitmund, — , vi. 491, 493. Gundling, Wolfgang, iii. 174, 175 — 178, 190. wrote notes on Zialowski's piece relating to the religion of the Greek churches, 1 12. his opinion respecting the Athanasian Creed, 112, 117. Gurdon, — , i. 236. Gussetius, — , iv. 194 n. H. Hakewill, George, v. 132 n. JHakspanius, Theodore, or Thierri, iv. 367 n. Halensis, — , vi. 494. Hales, John, iv. 700 n. vi. 383, 390. Hales, Stephen, iv. 413. Hall, Edward, vi. 268. Hallet, Joseph, a dissenting teacher at Exeter, espoused the cause of the Arians, i. 99. Halloixius, Peter, iv. 545 n. Hamilton, R. and C, vi. 327. Hammond, Henry, i. 196, 273. iii. 463 n. 464 n. 468 n. 48t, 511 n. 654 n. iv. 88, 31711. 320 n. 40S, 414, 668 n. v. 73, 407. vi. 22 n. 89, 91, 466, 484. his notion cf the eucharistic sacrifice, V. 138. Hampole, Richard, Richard RoUe of Hampole, iii. 143, 146. vi. 300, 314, 357, 361, 433. a monk of the order of St. Austin, iii. 141. notice of his Com- mentary on the Athanasian Creed, 142. particular notice of a copy in Magdalen college library, Oxford, iO. whether a certain Commentary of the Psalms and Hymns of the Church, and of the Athanasian Creed, I;e his, 146. made a translation of the Psalms, vi. 300. par- ticulars respecting it, 315. Hancock, Dr., v. 151. Harcliius, Jodocus, v. 209, 227. v. 496. a German physician, notice of his sys- tem respecting the eucharist, 212, 213. and of Beza's confutation of it, 218. Ilardetihig men's hearts, its meaning, when God is said to do so, iv. 247. E X. Harduin, John, iii. 121, 125. iv. 750 n. 762, 784, 785 n. 791 n. V. 114. vi. 63. Hardt, Hermannus van der, iv. 161 n. Hare, Francis, iii. 628 n. 684 n. 689 n. canon residentiary of St. Paul's, after- wards bishop of Chichester, i. 236. Harleian library, iii. 169. notice of its ]\JS. of S. Bruno's Comment on the Athanasian Creed, modern, 139. a copy of the original IMS., ib. notice of its MS. of the Galilean Psalter, with the Athanasian Creed, 158, 163 n. and of another MS. of the Athanasian Creed, 1 59. has a line old Latin Bible, with the three versions of the Psalter, by Jerome, 165. see Lord Oxford. Harris, John, iii. 191 n. iv. 409. v. 168 n. Harrison, Richard, vi. 3 1 2, 344, 362, 405. Harsnet, Samuel, archbishop of York, ii. 343, 346, 347- Hartop, Peter, i. 51 n. Hastings, Francis, vi. 393. Hatto, otherwise called Hetto, and Ahyto, bishop of Basil, iii. 183, 189 n. notice of his Capitular, or book of Constitu- tions, 122. Hatton, lord viscount, v. 84 n. Haughtiness, what, v. 570. Hawarden, Dr., a Roman catholic clergy- man, ]Mr. Butler's account of his con- ference with Dr. Clarke about the Trinity, held by the desire of queen Caroline, consort of George I, i. 79 n. this conference the cause of his publish- ing an Answer to Dr. Clarke and Mr. W/iiston, &.C., ib. Haymo, Halberst., iv. 540. v. 165 n. 275 n. one of Gregory IX. 's legates in the conferences with the Greeks at Con- .stantinople, iii. 1 28. Haywood, Dr., of St. John's college, Ox- ford, iii. 135. vi. 262. Headship, or priority of order of the Father acknowledged by the ancients, ii. 417. Heald, — , i. 22. Hearne, Thomas, i. 233, 243, 2!i4. vi. 261, 264, 265, 361, 424, 425, 426, 427, 430, 432. mistakes in his Glossary to Robert of Gloucester, vi. 261, 263, 265. Heart, a sermon on the duty of keeping the, v. 462. how the issues of life, in a religious aspect, depend upon the heart, 464. Heath, Nicholas, archbishop of \ork, iii. 164. vi. 30s, 327, 343> 344, 357, 38i- Heaven, a behef of, a fundamental doc- trine, V. 84. Heavens, creation of, a proof of Christ's divinity, ii. 71. Hebrew language, notice of a common idiom of, i v. 2 7 1 . when to be studied, 4 1 3. Hegesippus, iii. 61 1, 615. Heideggerus, Henricus, iv, 195 n. 196 n. INDEX. 561 2o.^, 208 n. his opinion respecting the Athanasian Creed, iii. 112, 117. wrote a running Commentary on it, 112. Hell, Christ's descent into, uncertain in what sense it was understood by the composers of the Apostles' Creed, ii. 284. our church has left that article at large, intending a latitude, ib. the be- lief of hell a fundamental doctrine, v. 84. Helvicus, Christopher, iii. 182. Hemmingius — , ii. 352 n. Henry VIII, vi. 374, 378. Henry, Matthew, vi. 424. Herbert, Edward lord, i. 119, 120. iii. 644. V. 99 n. loi. vi. 36 n. 461. Hereford, Nicholas, vi. 366. Heresy and infidelity, their common origin, i. 118. have often appeared together, 119. Heresy worse than immorality, iii. 478. bishop Taylor's opinion to the same effect, 687. further observations re- specting it, 695. Heresy did not vacate holy orders, ac- cording to St. Austin, vi. 194. Heresies arose even in the time of the Apostles, some denying the divinity, others the humanity of our Lord, ii. 29, 30- Heretic, who to be considered such, iii. 461. objections to Dr. Whitby's addi- tion to this definition, 461, 465. here- tics not innocuous, 477. the plea of sincerity in their favour, considered, 485. censures of heretics not to be for- borne for fear of retaliation, 512, 513. what cautions necessary, 516. popish persecutions not hereby sanctioned, 5 20. Hermantiiis, Godfredus, iii. 120. Hermas, i. 330. ii. 105 n. 445, 552, 554, 630 n. iii. 571 n. v. 190 n. his inter- pretation of the exaltation of Christ by the Father, Phil. ii. 9., 86 n. his opinion of the need and efficacy of baptism, vi. 16. Hermippus, the pagan biographer, v. 6, 10. Hermogenes, asserted matter to be self- e.vislent, ii. 462. Herodian, iv. 413. Herodotus, iv. 192, 413. Herveus Dolensis, see Anselm, Hesiod, iv. 409. said to have bori-owed from the scriptures, v. 5, 9. Heskyns, — , vi. 497. Hester, Andrew, vi. 346, 363. Hesychius, iv. 487, 646 n. 752 n. v. 165 n. 224 n. vi. 50 n. notice of preparations for a new edition of his Lexicon, vi. 427. Hett, Richard, iii. 529 n. 572 n. vi. 414. Hetto, see Hallo. Heylin, Dr. Peter, ii. 34r, 343, 345 n. 346 n. 347 n. 350. v. 144. vi. 8 n. Hickes, George, i. 204. iii. 152 11. 170, 196 n. 604 n. 654 n. 660 n. 713. v. 139 n. 168, 172 n. 278 n. 27911. vi. 87 n. 152, 203, 219, 318 n. 319, 430. observation on his notions of the eu- charistic sacrifices, v. 145, 146. Hickman, — , iv. 415. Hierocles, v. 40. said to have borrowed from the scriptures, 16. Higden, Ranulph, or Ralph, a monk of Chester, vi. 301, 368. his Polychroni- con translated by Trevisa, iii. 143, 144 11. Hilary, bishop of Aries, i. 8. reasons in favour of his being the author of the Athanasian Creed, iii. 214, &c. his Life written by Honoratus, ib. though some doubt whether Ravennius, bishop of Aries, wrote it, 214 n. was a great admirer and follower of St. Austin, 215. had first been abbot of Lerin, ib. notice of his Life of the elder Hono- ratus, ib. objections against his being the author of the Athanasian Creed considered, 217. reasons for his con- cealing his name, ib. disapproved St. Austin's doctrines about grace, 218. sum of Waterland's opinion respecting this Creed, 219. his high opinion of it, 220. the original Creed, with parallel passages and various lections, 220 — 230. Hilary, bishop of Poictiers, i. 283, 287, ?,h^ 4'5. 439. 47'» 482 n. 488 n. 489, 5+2, 545 n. 546, 548. ii. 13 n. 33 n- 34 n- 43 SS n- ^3 n. 88 n. 105 n. 109 n. 124 n. 157, 159 n. 371, 394 n. 410, 428 n. 429, 4O0 n. 464 n. 466, 498 n. 499, 504, 538 n. 602, 603, 604, 608 n. 609, 616 n. 617, 618, 636 n. 668 n. 687, 688, 695 n. 702, 703, 746 n. 747 n. 750 n. iii. 23, 53 n. 161, 219. 408, 533, 555 n- 579 587 n- 603 n. 638. iv. 489, 752 n. 757 n. V. 126 n. 131 11. 156 n. 190 n. 191 n. vi. 14 n. 464, 469. his explanation of Heb. i. 8, 9. as not excluding Christ's divinity, i. 307. resolved the Unity into Sonship, or unity of principle, 323. con- sidered ante tempora to be the same as semper, 355. his declaration as to the equality of the Son, 442. misinter- preted by Dr. Whitby, 526. his reason, ing that the \\'ord is a person, because it is said to be wilh God, not in God, as would have been said were it an attribute or quality only of the Father, ii. 34 n. one of the greatest bishops of the west, and may justly be called the we.stern Athanasius, 371. charged Eusebius with Arianism, 495. once judged kindly of the council of Sir- mium, but afterwards altered his senti- ments, 602. endeavoured to interpret the confession of the false Sardican WATERLAND, VOL. VI. 0 0 562 INDEX. council to a catholic sense, 604. forced to apologize for his well-meant endea- vours, being in consequence suspected himself, 605. uses the expression tres substanl'uB, 713. did not believe that the Father is naturally governor over the Son, iii. 90. reasons against his being the author of the Athanasian Creed, 217. by what names he calls the eucharist, iv. 474. how he understood John vi., 559. proved the real union of the Father and the Son from the sacra- ments against the Arians, v. 113. Hilary, the deacon, iv. 668 n. 675 n. vi. 147, 206. his opinion of the need and efficacy of baptism, 20. perhaps the au- thor of the Commentary on St. Paul's Epistles, under the name of St. Ambrose, 119, i8i. (see Pseud-Ambrose.) a stiff and rigid Luciferian^ 181. whether he considered the office of baptizing and preaching separable, ih. Hildebertus Cenomanensis, iv, 599 n. Hildegarde, iii. 149. the celebrated abbess of St. Rupert's Blount near Binghen on the Rhine, wrote explications of St. Benedict's Rule, and the Athanasian Creed, 140. to be seen in Bibl. PP., ib. Hill, — , tutor of Magd. coll. Camb., i. 7 n. Hill, Nicolas, printer, vi. 352, 404. Hill, William, printer, vi. 349, 381, 403. Hincmar, archbishop of Rheims, iii. 109, 119, 123, 124, 137, 167, 178, 211 n. 214, 240. the first writer that gave the Athanasian Creed the name it bears at this day, 123. Hippolytus, i. 280 n. 285 n. 293 n. 350, 352, .SS6 n. 360 n. 361 n. 364 n. 381 n. 389 n. 430 n. 465 n. 46S n. 472, 489, 499 n- 500. 504 n. 514, S«6 n. 518 n. 538. ii. 31 u. 37 n. 52, 62 n. 63 n. 105 n. 112, 115 n. 122 n. 132 n. 136, 138 n. 141 n. 142 n. 149 n. 150, 165 n. 253 n. 411, 430 n. 438 n. 478, 498 n. 524 n. 528, 541 n. 542, 553, 563, 586 n. 591 n. 615, 630 n. 657, 710, 727 n. iii. 16, 23, 76, 572, 580. iv. 511. V. 112 n. 190 n. 273. vindi- cated, ii. 413, 414, 431. time of his writing, 462, 490. his declaration of the Trinity, i. 287 n. his Comment on Phil. ii. 9., 331. his book against Noetus still extant, 339. how he interpreted KOTa adpKa, as applied to the Son, 349 n. made the generation of the Son tem- porary, 359. ii. 595, 599. iii. 22. and supposed it to be posterior to the crea- tion, i. 366. explaining this generation, however, by manifestation, 367. ii. S93. yet did not make the Word an attri- bute only before the procession, 599. considered the filiation not completed till he had run through the last sort of Son- ship, in becoming man, i. 367. his be- lief that the one God consists of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, 469, 470. his doxology, 469 n. his declarations for Christ's divinity, 485 n. and against Sabellians, ib. comments upon them, 488. doubtful whether his piece de Antichrislo be genuine, ii. 136 n. his declaration concerning the Trinity, 182. no doubt of his piece being genuine, at least in part, 463. how far interpolated, ib. his testimony as to the Father and Son being one God, 464. vindicated, ib. a text relative to creation applied by him to Christ, 490. did not believe that the Father is naturally governor over the Son, iii. 84. the Appendix of Ter- tuUian's book of Prescriptions supposed by some to be little else but an extract from Hippolytus's Treatise against He- resies, iii. 580. was a disciple of Ire- na!us, iv. 511. Historical Vindication of the Naked Gos- pel, in support of Anti-Trinitariauism, ascribed to Le Clerc, i. 29. Hoadly, Benjamin, bishop of Bangor, i, 61, 143. 164, i68, 203, 231, 255. ii. 270, 287. iv. 407, 409. notice of his Plain Account of the Lord's Supper, i. 161, 162. vi. 418, 419. lowers the im- portance of that sacrament, i. 83. by whom controverted, 163. vi. 448, 449, Waterland considered it as Socinian- izing the sacrament, i. 163. gained cele- brity by his writings against church- authority, 161. Hobbes, William, i. 119. iii. 643. iv. 262 n. V. 33, 42, 46, 49, 61, 65, 66 n. the first or principal man that introduced deism into England, v. 34. little more than a disciple of Epicurus, 46. Hodius, Humphrey, iii. 162 n. — 165 n. 187 n. V. s n. 6 n. i2 n. 17 n. vi. 338. Holiness, relative, its meaning under the Old Testament, and the various de- grees of it, iv. 527. the rabbins reckon ten degrees, 527 n. HoUybushe, John, vi. 345, 378, 403. Holstein, duke of, iii. 191 n. Holy, the ancient spelling for wholly, iii. 230 n. Holy Ghost, consideration of his divinity waved, for if the Son's divinity be suf- ficiently cleared, the Holy Spirit's may be admitted without scruple, 467 n. ii. 121. supposed by the ancients to be implied in Gen. i. 26. Psal. xxxiii. 6, 9. and cxlviii. 5., 62, 63. various names of the Holy Ghost in scripture, 120. his operations, gifts, and graces, with the glory of them, ascribed to Christ, 121. his person, character, and offices, ac- coi'ding to the scriptures, 122, 123. the procession of the Holy Ghost, whether temporal or eternal, left undecided by our church in the opinion of Dr. Ben- I N D net, 286. Waterland considers that the church has determined it, ib. is God in the same sense, but not in the same emphatical manner as the Father, 425. instances of worship being paid to him in the scriptures, iv. 8. proof that it was also offered by the primitive Chris- tians, 9. proofs of his personality and divinity, 30. observations on his opera- tions in the two sacraments, 81, 82. v. 189, 191. his sanctifying grace confer- red in the eucharist, iv. 666. testimonies of the fathers to the point, 675. what the ancients taught concerning the descent or illapse of the Holy Spirit upon the symbols, or upon the com- municants, iO. two or three forms of invocation for the Holy Spirit in bap- tism, 683. when this practice com- menced, 686. his divinity and assistance fundamental doctrines, v. 83. his divi- nity proved from the form of baptism, 113. what he is considered by the ancients to do to the eucharistic ele- ments, 258. a sermon on the nature and manner in which the Holy Spirit may be supposed to operate upon us ; and on the marks and tokens of such operation, 686. another on the springs and motives of false pretences to tlie Holy Spirit ; with the rules and marks of trying and detecting them, 695. another on the precise nature of the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, 706. see Procession. Homer, iv. 241 n. 403, 411, 412, 413. said to have borrowed from the scrip- tures, v. 5, 7, 9. Honoratus, the elder, ai chbishop of Aries, his life written by Hilary, his successor, iii. 215. Honoratus of Marseilles, wrote the life of Hilary bishoj) of Aries, iii. 214. though some doubt whether Ravennius, bishop of Aries, was the author, 214 n. Hoiiorius, V. 288 n. a scholastic divine of the church of Autim, iii. 126. notice of his Pearl of Ike Soul, ib. his testimony as to the use of the Athanasian Creed, ilj. to whom he ascribes it, ib. a chro- nological error of his, ib. Honour, how it differs from worship, ii. 663. Honours to be proportionate to the excel- lency of the object, ii. 25. Hooker, Kichard, i. 168. ii. 343, 347. iv. 128, 428 n. 438 n. 439 n. 462 n. 530, 572 n. 600 n. 800 n. v. 209, 225. vi. 22 n. 27 n. 82, 104, 124, 127, 128, 468, 496. observation on his assertion that we have jiroperly now no sacrifice, v. 140. see Webiler. Hoolc, Joseph, notice of, vi. 425, 428, 438. Hooper, John, bishop of (iloucester, ii. 347- 'V. 497 1- E X. 563 Hoornbeck, John, i. 196. iv. 671 n. 672 n. 701 n. 705 n. V. 74 n. 75 n. 76 n. 78 n. Son. 82n. 8g n. 91 n. 94n. 99 n. 100 n. 102 n. vi. 464, 467 — 473, 484. Hophni, v. 59, 64. Horace, iv. 411. Horbery, Matthew, fellow of Magdalen college, Oxford, i. 242, 254. vi. 416 n. 435) 437- his theological writings of great excellence, ib. i. i 1 6. notice of his promotion, 242. vi. 425. praise of his posthumous Sermons, i. 242 n. publish- ed a dissertation on the Eternity of future Punishments, ib. author of the Animadversions on Jackson's Christian Liberty asserted, 116. vi. 422. praise of his Animadversions, 417, 419. Hormisdas, pope, iii. 202. Horneius, Joannes, iii. 194 n. Hosius, condemned by the false Sardican council, ii. 604. Hospinian, Ralph, iv. 490. v. 162 n. 205 n. 212 n. 261 n. 278 n. 286 n. 405. Hottinger, John Henry, iv. 705 n. vi. 484. Hours, the old way of reckoning, vi. 430. Howe, — , iii. 412. Huber, Samuel, ii. 3^4. Huet, Peter Daniel, bishop of Avranches, 203, 254, 258, 377, 391 n. 588, 600, 641 n. iii. 564. iv. 195 n. 591 n. 678, 679 n. v. 5 n. 1 2 n. 20 n. 2 1 n. notice of a posthumous work of his, iii. 688. went too far in deducing all the heathen mythology from scripture history, v. 15. Hugh, king of France, iii. 125. Hugo, iv. 439 n. Hugo, one of Gregory IX. 's legates in the conferences with the Greeks at Con- stantinople, iii. 128. Hugo, cardinal, v. 165 n. Hulsemannus, ■ — , iii. 251 n. Human sacrifices, by what learned men considered to have been before Abra- ham's time, iv. 203. who have been of a contrary opinion, ib. VVaterland's view of the matter, ib. Human sacrifices, by what countries offered, iv. 228. Humphrey, Dr., iv. 418 n. Huntla?us, (jordon, v. 143 n. Hutcheson, Dr. Francis, iv. 411, 412. Hutchings, John, i. 251 n. Hutchinson, bishop, vi. 434. Huygens, Clhristian, iv. 410. Hyde, Dr. Thomas, iv. 187, 203, 293 n. 296 n. Hydruntinus, Nicholas, iii. 171, 195. na- tive of Otranto, 127. sided with the Greeks, and wrote in Greek against the Latins, ib. Hymenaeus, v. 97. excommunicated by St. Paul for denial of a future resurrection, iii. 402. Hypo.stasis, or Person of the Father and Son, one and the same, acconlii>g to the 002 564 INDEX. Sabellian doctrine, i. 3.58, 3,^9, 498. in what sense the catholics professed either three, or one only, i. 478, 497. Hypostasis signified person during the 1 time of the Sabellian controversy, ii. 561. a debate respecting hypostasis be- gun at Antiooh, 711. the Arian use of the phrase, ib. the Sabellian, ib. the difference, how compromised in a synod at Alexandria, ih. the phrase xpeis {nro 558. his testimony respecting Christ's divinity, 589. used the phrase breaking bread for the communion, iv. 473. the first that applied the term eucharist to the communion, 484. pro- bably did not interpret John vi. of the eucharist, 544. his sentiments respect- ing the eucharistic elements, 580. Illustrations, see Similitudes. Image, a medium of worship, ii. 665. use of them disproved from the eucharist, V. 116. bishop Peacock's defence of them, vi. 281. Imbonatus, iii. 178 n. I Immensus, its sense in the Athanasian Creed, iii. 233. Immersion, observation respecting, v. 370. Immutability, a divine attribute ascribed to Christ in scripture, ii, 152. Impanation, what tenet respecting the eucharistic elements implied by this term, v. 20.^. Imposture, Prideaux's marks and charac- ters of, V. 65 n. chargeable on infidels, 66. Imprecations in scripture, defence of, iv. 3'o> 3^5- Incarnation, doctrine of, as expressed in catholic writers from 373 to 431., iii. ■207. Incomprehensible, its sense in the Atha- nasian Creed, iii. 233. Incursion, sins of daily, what, v. 638. Indefeotil)ility of the church cannot sub- sist without episcopal succe.ssion, vi. 85. Individual, whetlier any thing individual can be communicated, i. 374. Dr. Clarke's notion of individual substance, ii. 620. the school definition of indi- vidual, 622. Individuation, no certain principle of, ii. 206, 619. Infallibility, the papists maintain that without infallibility there can be no proper certainty, iii. 495. Chilling- worth's answer, ib. popish infallibility contrasted with protestant certainty, 500. Infant communion, reason and time of its origin, iv. 563. and adv. Clarke's ob- servations on Waterland's tract u()on Infant Communion, v. 399. bishop Be- dell recommended the revival of infant communion, 403. ]Mr. Peirce also pub- lished an essay in its favour, ib. opin- ions of learned moderns on this point, ib. practised in the Greek church, 405. view taken by the council of Trent, 406. what handle has been made of the ancients practising it, vi. 41 . St. Austin's sentiments on the subject considered, 43. pope Innocent the First's, 57. Pla- nus Mercator's, 58. Faustus Reiensis's, 60. Gelasius's, 16. Fulgentius's solution of the very case, when proposed to him, 61. the fir.st rise of the doctrine of the strict necessity of infant communion, 63. ai-chbishop Lanfranc disowned and argued against it, 64. modern Greeks in favour of it, ib. at what age the ancients admitted children to the com- munion, and why, 65. the question, whether infant communion be neces- sary at the present day, considered, 69. notice of the conduct of both Roman- ists and protestants with regard to the INDEX. 565 charge against the ancients on this point, 70. Infants, justified in baptism, vi. 32. Inferior worship, see Worship. Inferiority, and subordination, difference between, ii. 11, 12. Infidel writers, arguments in favour of en- forcing the law against them, in defence of Christianity, iv. 374 — 392. Infidehty and heresy, their common origin, i. 1 1 8. have often appeared together, 119. four species of infidehty, according to Roger Boyle, vi. 477. Infinite powers, whether necessary to the work of redemption, ii. 567. imply eternal duration, ib. Infinity, remarks on the idea of, iii. Infirmity, two sennons upon the nature and kinds of sins of, v. 518. Inhabitation, or ireptxtupri'^ts, its meaning, as applied to the Trinity, ii. 203. Innocent I, pope, iv. 751 n. v. 404, 405, 406 made bishop of Rome, iv. 563. intro- duced the doctrine of infant commu- nion, ib. his sentiments touching it, vi- 57- Innocent III, pope, iii. 171. Innocent V, pope, see Tarenlinus. Innys, William, iii. 670 n. vi. 304, 414. Insincerity, why so prevalent, v. 578. Insolence, what, v. 570. Inspiration, used in a just and solier sense in the Liturgy, iv. 449. Integrity of manners, a sermon on the true wisdom of, v. 577. Intelligent Being, or Agent, is with the Arians equivalent to Person, ii. 320 n. shewn not to be so, 650, 653. the tnie meaning, 707. Interpretation of scripture divided into literal, figurative, and mystical, iv. 152. literal interpretation, ib. subdi- vided into historical and doctrinal, ih. figurative interpretation, ib. different kinds of it, 153. mystical interpreta- tion, 154. the words bear one sense, but the thing is expressive of some- thing spiritual or sublime, ib. is dis- tributed into parabolical, symbolical, typical, and allegorical, 155. paraboli- cal, ib. symbolical, 157. particularly the language of prophecy, ib. hardly differs from parabolical, 158. a dis- tinction between them, ih. typical in- terpretation, ib. allegorical, 159. ex- amjiles, 160 n. distinguished into di- dactical, tropological, and anagogical, 160. their meaning, ib. to allegorize well a nice affair, 164. Waterland's opinion of it, ih. St. Austin and Vi- tringa proper allegorists, ib. Origen and Burnet injudicious, ib. a sketch of the several divisions and subdivisions of scripture interpretation, 165. literal interpretation, when preferable, 332, 345- Intuition, not demonstration, belongs to first principles and axioms, iii. 387. Irena>us, i. 280 n. 287, 288, 291 n. 292 n. 293 n. 294 n. 295 n. 297, 306 n. .325, 35^. 381 n. 384, 385, 386 n. 389 n. 463, 472, 513, 530, 541. ii. 31 n. 37 n. 40 n. 46, 51 n. 52, 62 n. 63 n. 64 n. 65 n. 76 n. 77 n. 8i n. 87 n. 96 n. 108 n. 1 12 n. 1 14 n. 115 n. 122 n. 128 n. 129 n. 130 n. 131 n. 132 n. 137, 148 n. 155 n. 160 n. 162, 165 n. 172 n. 179, 180 n. 187 n. 216 n. 229, 230, 249. 378, 4H. 430. 431. 43S »• 436, 440, 446, 447, 465, 473 n. 478, 524 n. 527, 552 n. 553, 554, 557, 558 n. 560, 576 n. 577, 582, 583, 584, 585, 613, 618, 629 n. 630 n. 643, 653 n. 657, 660 n. 667, 672 n. 673, 683, 697, 722, 727, 741, 749. iii. 16, 30, 71, 463 n. 469, 483, 484 n- 528, 529, .'i38, 539 n- S40> 542 n. 545 n. 546 n. 547, 550 n. 556 n. 560, 581, 608 n. 609 — 612, 615, 616, 617, 618 n. 662, 676. iv. 8, 9, 37, 366, 440 n. 447, 45 • n. 475 n. 485, 524 n. 526 n. 531, 534, 545, 629 n. 674, 687, 741 n. 746, 753 n. 772. V. 109 n. 1 10 n. 1 1 1 n- 131 n- "33 '52 182, 190, 191 n. 207 n. 216, 254, 260, 263 n. 264 n. 268 n. 273, 277 n. 281 n. 636 n. vi. 14 n. 464. vindicated and ex- plained, ii. 430, 435, 436, 557—560. different supposed eras of his birth, iii. 692. the time of his writing, ii. 443, 487, 582. his Comment on Exod. iii. 6. which he understood as spoken by Christ, i. 295. vindication against his Comment on Matth. xxiv. 26. and Mark xiii. 22. about ignorance in Christ's being misinterpreted, 333, 334, 335. how he interpreted koto, aipKa, as applied to the Son, 349 n. frequently asserted the eternity of the Word, and also the eternal generation, by necessary implication, 353. ex- pressly styled the Son ayevriTos, 363. declared the whole Trinity to be con- cerned in the creation, 384 n. 385. his declaration that worship is due to God alone, 419. therein including the Son, 424. assigned the creation to the Word, 430 n. maintained that the Logos was worshipped of old, together with the Father, 432. his sentiments respecting the Son vindicated against Dr. Whitby and Mr. Emlyn, 515, 516. another passage of his cleared from misrepresentation, 525, 561. his notion of God, ii. 38. considered the Septuagint as an inspired performance, 137. his testimony as to the Father and Son being one God, 443. vindi- 566 INDEX. cated, 444. styles the Father only God, in opposition to the Valentinian j5Dons, never in opposition to the Son, 448. his argument that the Son is the true and only God from his forgiving sins, ib. declares that the Son has no God above him, 449, 450. texts mentioning God applied by him to Christ, 487. objections answered, ib. proof of his holding the necessary existence of the Son, 582. seems from hints to have asserted his eternal generation, 599. 111. 22, 24. reasons for reading ayiv-q- ros, not ay^vvriTos, in a certain passage of his, ii. 750. the passage explained, ib. did not believe that the Father is naturally governor over the Son, iii. 82. his censiire of the Ebionites, 568, 569, 570. miracles and prophecies had not ceased in his time, 569. Alex- ander's Essay on this father com- mended, 572. his testimony respecting Christ's divinity, 592. notice of his calling the eucharist an oblation, iv. 478. Hippolytus a disciple of his, 511. did not interpret John vi. of the eu- charist, 546. his sentiments respecting the eucharistic elements, 582. his opinion of the gospel sacrifices, 740. his opinion of the need and efficacy of baptism, vi. 1 7. Isaiah, vi. 351. Iscah, generally considered another name of Sarai, iv. 187. Ischyras, vi. 209, 210. usurped the office of presbyter, 209. called to account by Athanasius, ib. fled to the Eusebian faction, who made him bishop of Mareotis, ib. excommunicated by the Sardican council, ib. and why, ib. Isidorus Hispalensis, (of Seville,) iii. iii, 118, 260 n. ■262 n. 265 n. 268 n. v. 167 n. vi. 96, 123. his definition of sacrifice explained, v. 288. Isidorus Mercator, iv. 787. Isidorus Pelusiota, iv. 489, 578 n. 594 n. 763, 781 n. V. 131 n. 165 n. 167 n. 252, 256, 277 n. vi. 476. was a disciple of Chrysostom, v. 238. Isocrates, iv. 409. Italy, church of, when it received the Athanasian Creed, iii. 185. Ittigius, Thomas, ii. 590 n. iii. 484 n. 555 n- 577 S91 .';45 «• 684 n. vi. 424, 484. a learned Lutheran, iv. 726. Ivo C'arnotensis, iii. 257. vi, 63 n. J. Jackson, Cyril, dean of Christ Church, Oxford, i. 9 n. Jaclcson, John, i. 3, 56, 98, 102, m, 112, 120, 225, 231, 25s, 256. ii. 117 n. iii. 4. 45> 95. 288 n. 291 n. 292 n. 293 n. 298 n. 299 n. v. 167 n. 281 n. vi. 453 n. notice of his scurrilous invective under the title of " Memoirs " of the Life and Writings of Dr. " Waterland, &c. by a Clergyman," i. 3. how he forced Waterland to take a public part in the Trinitarian con- troversy, 43, 44, 269, 270. Dr. Clarke bore a considerable part in his Answer to W^aterland's Queries, 44, 45. notice of his Reply to Dr. Tfaterland's De- fence of his Queries, 68. how far lie was assisted in it by Dr. Clarke, 68 n. this Reply a more elaborate and able performance than his Answer, 70. answered by Waterland in his Second Vindication of Christ's Divinity, &c. ib. and considered by him to contain the whole strength of the Arian cause, ii. 367. put forth his Remarks on Dr. Waterland's Second Defence of some Queries, under the title of Philalcthes Cantabrigiensis, i. 73. object of these Remarks, ib. how executed, 75. not noticed by Waterland, and why, 76, 77. put forth Further Remarks (under the same title) on Dr. Waterland's Further Vindication, 81. which Dr. Waterland did not answer, ib. pub- lishes his Christian Liberty asserted, and his Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Dr. Waterland, which were not answered by Waterland, 116. his Christian Liberty answered by Horbery, 116. vi. 422 n. Waterland's remarks on his Christian Liberty, 409, 414. his Plea for Human Reason answered by Browne, 414 n. list of his jmblications, 414. Jacobus, R., V, 293 n. Jamblichus, said to have borrowed from the scriptures, v. 16. James, St., founder of the church of Jerusalem, vi. 272. James I, king of Great Britain, ii. 271, 286. vi. 129, 398. James, — , regius professor of divinity at Cambridge, i. 9. James, Richard, vi. 249, 369. Jane, queen, vi. 361, 373. Jansenius, bishop of Ghent, v. 143 n. 163, 165 n. Januensis, Johannes, iii. 143, 246 n. sometimes styled Jo. Balbus, 129. Jarchi, Solomon, iv. 347. Jefferies, judge, iv. 380. Jehovah, meaning of the term, i. 308, 309, 310. ii. 44, 514, 515. applied to Christ in his own person, and in his own right, 308, 309. ii. 139. the Arian explanation of the word, 65 . disproved, ib. Jehovah the incommunicable name of the one true God, 67. the Son of God considered as such by St. John, 42. instances of the one true God in- sisting jipon his being Jehovah, 44. INDEX. 567 Jehovah, the Hebrew for Lord in Deut. vi. 4., 85. Jehovah Elohim, the incommunicable name of the one true God, ii. 128. the corresponding name in the New Testa- ment, Lord God, given to Christ, ib. .Jekyll, sir Joseph, master of the rolls, the Mortmain Act brought into par- liament by him, vi. 449 n. Jenkins, Robert, i. 254. iii. 638 n. iv. 161 n. 205 n. 229 n. 246 n. 257 n. 27311. 289, 292 n. 294 n. 295, 299 n. 300 n. 320 n. 338 n. 349 n. 355, 367 n. 412, 768 n. V. 5 n. 22 u. 24 n. vi. 472. Jeroboam, v. 58, 59. Jerome, i. 285, 290, 402 n. 530 n. 538 n. 548. ii. 43 n- 44 n. 132 n. 133 n. 136 n. 137, 141 n. 142, 143, 147 n. 189, 212, 257 n. 376, 413 n. 414 n. 429, 430 n. 498 n. 561, 563, 586 n. 589, 591 n. 637, 639, 640 n. 641 n. 695 n. 696, 710, 711 n. iii. 16, 206 n. 208, 268 n. 438 n. 463 n. 482 n. 517 n. 540, 541 n. 547, 55S, 568 n. 584 n. 587, 588, 608 n. 639 n. 691. iv. 320 n. 332 n. 333 n. 338 n. 345 n. .?55» .^59 n- .367; 428 n. 443 n. 580 n. 588 n. 616 n. 656 n. 708 n. 773,796. V. I26n. 131 n. 133 n. 165 n. 167 n. 175 n. 206, 257, 263 n. 272 277 n. 278 n. vi. 63 n. 87, 88, 97, 119, 121, 122, 144, 180, 181, 200, 203, 204 n. 206, 243, 353, 474, 479, 480. 483, 484, 487, 489. his proof tliat the Son is not excluded by i Cor. viii. 6. from being the one God, i. 280 n. his Comment on the form of baptism, ii. 176 n. charged Eusebius with Arian- ism, 495. translated DidjTnus in de- fence of the divinity of the Holy Ghost, 640. at first a great admirer and defender of Origen, ib. afterwards a vehement impugner, ib. concerned in the Roman, Gallican, and Hebraic Psalters, iii. 162, 163, 164. observa- tions respecting a passage of his con- tradicting himself and all antiquity, 575. notice of the threefold method of commenting on scripture laid down by him, 694. how he interpreted John vi., iv. 561. his opinion of the Aaronical and Melchizedekian sacrifices, v. 272, 273. whether for or against lay-bap- tism, vi. 191. once a scholar of Gregory Nazianzen, iv. 489. taught grammar by Donatus, vi. 269. Jerusalem, church of, St. James its founder, vi. 272. Jerusalem, council of, notice of, i. 547. Jemsalem Creed, see Creed of Jerusalem. .Jesse, bishop of Amiens, vi. 64. Jesus college library, Cambridge, vi. 401. Jewel, John, bishop of Salisbury, iv. 567 n. 570 n. 603, 752 n. v. 167 n. igi n. 192 n. 193 n. 198 n. 201 n. 203 n. 206 n. 209, 210, 21 1 n. 223 n. 247 n. 261 n. 278 n. vi. 27 n. 35, 491. notice of his challenge to the Romanists, iii. 660. his statement of the difl^erent opinions touching the work of the Holy Ghost upon the elements in the eucharist, vi. 489. Jews, after Christ's time, corrupted some copies of the Septuagint, ii. 137. notice respecting their population, iv. 290. standing evidences of the truth of di- vine revelations, 302. notice of their being considered a contemptible people, v. 14. well vindicated by Josephus, ib. Job, book of, observation on its structure, iv. 315. Job himself probably the au- thor of the main part, ib. Jobius, i. 437 n. ii. 43 n. 476 n. 767 n. John, St., the undoubted author of the Gospel that bears his name, ii. 29. was the youngest of the apostles, and sur- vived the rest, ib. woTild have suffered in Domitian's persecution had he not been miraculously preserved, ib. ba- nished to Patraos, where he was favoured with revelations, ib. spent the short remainder of his days, after his exile, at Ephesus, ib. for what purpose, and at whose request, he wi-ote his Gospel, 30, 132. his first chapter establishes the divinity, per- sonality, and incarnation of the Son, ib. which chapter has been the more tampered wth for its very plainness, ill. four interpretations given to it, 30. observations on the Sabeiiian in- terpretation, ib. reasons for ttie per- sonality of the Ijogos, 33. the name expressly applied liy St. John in Rev. xix. 13. to Christ, 34. observations on the Socinian interpretation, 35. and on the Arian, ib. the catholic con- struction, 36. asserted and maintained, 37. cl seq. reasons for believing that St. John, in calling the M''ord God, meant one that is truly God, 39. con- sidered the Son of God as the tnie Jehovah, 42. wrote his Epistle parti- cularly against the error of Cerinthus, 132 n. anecdote of his retiring from a bath on meeting Cerinthus, iii. 469. and of his reclaiming a robber, 483. that he wrote his Gospel and his first Epistle against Cerinthus and Ebion, shewn to be probable from external evidence, 539, 540, 547. and from in- ternal characters, 542, 548. founder of the church of Ephesus, vi. 272. his Gospel rejected by the Alogi, and by Theodotus, iii. 673. John, patriarch of Antioch, his Creed respecting the incarnation, iii. 210. John of Jerusalem, iii. 122. a defender of Oiigeu, ii. 641. 568 INDEX. Johii II, pope, iii. 203. Johnson, — , vi. 244. Johnson, Dr. H. B., vi. 167. Johnson, John, i. 163, 231, 555. iv. 42, 472 n. 477 n. sun. 539 n. 544n. 545 n. 546 n. 549 n. 553 n. 556 n. 557 n. 558 n. 561 n. 562 n. 587 n. 590 n. 598 n. 609 n. 618 n. 652 n. 678 n. 679 n. 686, 707 n. 71 3 n. 714 n. 7i5n. 732 n. 737 n. 739 n. 743 n. 749 n. 752 n. 753 n. 771 n. Soon. v. 207 n. 222n. 228 n. 241, 246 n. 248 n. 249 n. 251 n. 255 n. 261 n. 265 n. 266 n. 281 n, 287 n. 289 n. vi. 203, 430, 445, 447. the intimate friend of Dr. Brett, i. 166. notice of the peculiarities of his Un- bloody Sacrifice, ib. and of ^Vate^land's MS. censures on it, 167. his Unbloody Sacrifice defended by Dr. Brett against Waterland, 204. observation on his notion of the eucharistic sacrifice, V. 146. the excesses of his scheme in depreciating spiritual sacrifices, 151. in overvaluing material sacrifices, 155. some excesses in relation to our Lord's supposed sacrifice in the eucharist, 161. and in relation to the sacrifice of the cross, 172. a brief analysis of his system, 180. Jones, Dr., vi. 423. Jones, Jonathan, Instruciions to the Bi- shop of St. David's in Defence of Re- ligious Liberty, published under that name, probably assumed, i. 434. notice of the Instructions, and of A\'^aterland's Defence of the bishop, in answer to it, ib. Jones, John, i. 221. Jortin, John, archdeacon of London, an intimate acquaintance of bishop Law, i. 113 n. Josephus, iv. 195 n. 294 n. 300 n. v. 18 n. 20 n. 24, 763. vindicated the Jews from the charge of being contemptible, 14- Jovian, emperor, ii. 715, 717. Jove, G., fellow of Peter college, Cam- bridge, vi. 305— 309, 314, 323, 351, .^64, 394) .^96, 403- Judaizers, the impugners of Christ's di- vinity, anciently so called, iii. 590. Judaizing Christians, their error, iii. 401. St. Paul's censure of them, ib. Jude, Leo, his exposition of the Apoca- lypse, translated from German into Enghsh by E. Alen, vi. 384, 391. Judgment committed to the Son not the sole foundation for the honour due to him, i. 436. the Socinian foundation for the worship of Christ, ii. 681. adopted by Dr. Clarke, 685. this opinion confuted, ib. Judgment, why assigned peculiarly to Christ, ii. 552. Jugge, Richard, vi. 313, 336, 341, 348, .358,362, 363. 370, 381, 40i» 404) 405- Julian, emperor, ii. 186, 715. iii. 541, 610, 642. iv. 37, 192. V. 16, 46, 255. his death, ii. 715. Julianus, cardinal, iii. 173. Julius, condemned by the false Sardican council, ii. 609. Julius, pope, iii. 131, 173, 199. Juhus Firmicus, v. 167 n. 207 n. 271 n. Junius, Franciscus, iii. 236 n. 257. iv. ^520. 339, 367 n- vi. 393, 433, 436. Jurieu, Peter, iii. 532. v. 163 n. Justification, bishop Van I\IUdert's ob- servations on AVaterland's tract upon, i. 221. Clarke's account of this treatise, V. 388. AVaterland's explanation of the iith, i2th, and 13th Articles touching justification, 392. good works may precede justification but not grace, 397. justification of sinners comes to the same with remission, iv. 642. distinc- tion to be made between present and final justification, 643. what St. Paul meant by justification by faith, v. 649, 650. what the name imports, vi. 3. active and passive, ib. what the thing contains, 5. how distinguished from renovation and regeneration, 7. sanc- tification and justification near allied, but not the same thing, ib. distinction between them, ib. and between regene- ration and justification, ih. concurring causes on God's part, and on man's, to produce and to preserve justification, 9. the Trinity, ij. baptism, 10. proved from scripture, ib. and the ancients, 16. some moderns have considered jus- tification as antecedent to baptism, 22. faith, emphatically the instrument whereby we receive the grant of justi- fication, ib. 26. conditions of justifi- cation, 28. faith, in an enlarged sense, ib. 29. good works, 30. why the latter have been objected to, as conditions, ib. extremes that have been run into respecting justification, 33. how the following have fallen into the proud extreme, as disdaining to accept the grace of God, or the merits of Christ ; viz. pagans, ib. pharisaical Jews, 34. Pelagians, ib. schoolmen and Roman, ists, ib. Socinians, 35. deists, ib. all who boast of a sinless perfection in this life, ib. those who think their good deeds will atone for their evil deeds, ib. the libertine extreme, 33,36,37. Bull's distinction between it and regeneration, 480. Ju.stin, iv. 407. Justin Martyr, i. 291 n. 292 n. 293 n. 356 n- 359' 389. 463, 465 n- 489. 498, 499 "- 5"4, 526, 529, 537 n. ii. 31 n. 51 n. 57 n. 60 n. 62 n. 64 n. 129 n. i37n. 142 n. 148 n. 159 n. i6on. 165 n. 172, i92n. 213,229,249,439,465, INDEX. 569 4V8, 527, 529, 553, 609, 611 n. 614 n. 615, 616 n. 630 n. 635, 660 n. 666, 703, 710, 72711. 741, 742, 749. 7^5- iii. 23, 70, 482 n. 48411. 545 n. 571 n. 581, 590, 609, 617, 661, 662, 676. iv. 9) 39. 89, 300 n. 484, 486, 496, 503, 504, 52411. 525 n. 52911. 531, 534, 539> 674, 687, 691, 707 n. 746, 767 n. V. 114 n. 124 II. 126 n. 131 II. 135 n. 182 n. 190, 207 n. 254, 255 n. 259, 276 n. 277 n. vi. 489. explained, ii. 436, 486. time of liis writing, 438, 481. his declaration that Christ was the Lord and God who appeared to Moses, Ahraham, and Jacob, i. 296. resolved his divinity into his Sonship, and his Sonship into communication of the same divine substance, 297, 323. to prove Christ's divinity was his avowed design throughout his dialogue, 297. the conclusion he draws from the whole, 298. his reading of Exodus vi. 3.. 311 n. in what sense he made the generation of the Son voluntartj, 350. considered Christ to be a Son Kara ffovKrjv, but not God Kara ^ov\r]v, 350 n. this passage vindicated from Whitby's misinterpretation, ii. 254. made the Son's generation temporary, 359' some passages cited from him, proving the coeternity of the Son, with i observations on them, 362 n. 369. in- terpreted generation by manifestation, 367. his declaration that worship is due to God alone, 418. but then he maintains the Son to be God, and therefore also to be worshipped, 423. a passage of his respecting the God of Abraham, and the divinity of the Son, vindicated from Dr. Whitby's misin- terpretation, 526. ii. 234. and another from Dr. Clarke's, i. 561. his notion ; of God, ii. 38. his Comment with re- spect to the Trinity, 177. his testi- mony as to Father and Son being one | God, 438. texts of scripture belonging to the one God supreme, applied by him to God the Son, 48 1 . objections answered, ib. his account and testi- mony of Christ's divinity, 506. iii. 59 r. proof of his holding the necessary ex- istence of the Son, ii. 578. speaks of no generation higher than that volun- tary antemundane generation, other- wise called manifestation, 593. vindi- cated from making the Son God by voluntary appointment, 593, 594. in what sense his words koto /SouArjv may be understood, ib. his explanation of the Father's being I>ord of the Son, 595. the Son proceeded, in time, ac- cording to him, ib. iii. 22. his main- taining the worship of the Son, de- fended and explained, ii. 672. did not believe that the P'ather is naturally governor over the Son, iii. 8r. a pas- sage of his considered by some as prov- ing that the impugners of Christ's di- vinity were received as brethren by the primitive church, 558. bishop Bull's vindication of the passage, and solutions to objections, 560 — 564. re- marks on Le Clerc's observations, 564 — ^566. terms applied by him to the eucharist, iv. 477. JMede's explanation of ava.fjLVT)(rts in a passage of his, dis- puted, 486. his sentiments res])ecting the eucharistic elements, 582. his opin- ion of gospel sacrifices, 734. an appar- ent inconsistency of his considered, 736 — 739. considered Christian sacrifices to be immaterial, v. 242. seems to have led the way in the distinction of bloody and unbloody sacrifice, 246. maintained that pagan writers bor- rowed from the scriptures, 7. his opinion of the need and efficacy of baptism, vi. 17. Tatian his scholar, v. 8. Justinian, emperor, ii. 377, 641. iii. 203. Juvenal, iv. 411. K. Kale, Richard, vi. 404. KOTO .407- _ Macedonians, iii. 254, 681 n. their pre- tence of tradition refuted by St. Basil, iii. 659. why called Pneumatomachi, v. 1 13. their baptisms admitted by the church, vi. 1 75. Jlacedonius, bishop of Constantinople, an Arian, ii. 717. Alaclaurin, Colin, iv. 408. Madox, Isaac, bishoj) of ^V'orcester, pub- lished an examination of IS'eal's first volume of his History of the Puritans, vi. 446 n. Maifeius, Scipio, iv. 687 n. Jlagdalen college library, Oxford, iii. 143. particular notice of its copy of Ham- pole's Comment on the Athanasian Creed, 142. the catalogue ascribes it to Janueusis, o^ving to what, ib. Magdalene college, Cambridge, the mas- tership of, is in the gift of the possessor of the estate at Audley End, Essex, who is also visitor of the college, i. 8 n. lord Braybrooke now possesses the es- tates, ib. founded by lord Audley, vi. 429. its statutes chiefly drawn np by sir T. Pope his executor, ib. has Pepys's library, 244, 264. Magdalene college library, Cambridge, iii. 170. vi. 368, 398, 400, 401, 402, 439. see Pepys. Magiau notion of light and darkness, iii. 690. Magistrates not appointed to dispense vengeance, iv. 775. Magnes, v. 195 n. Mahometans do not circumcise earlier than at thirteen years of age, iv. 195. what opinion they entertained of Christ, 501. Maimbourgh, Louis, iii. 416 n. his His- tory of Arianism, translated by Dr.Web- ster, i. 244. Maimonides, Moses, iv. 238, 334, 335, .338, 347 3SS. 367- V. 751. Malbranch, — , vi. 468. Maldonate, John, a Jesuit, iv. 428, 476. v. 143 n. 16511. 405,409,410. vi. 23 n. 71. attacked the protestants for calling the eucharist a supper, answered by Casaubon, iv. 475. Mallet, Francis, vi. 382, 384, 388. Blan, the creation of, a proof of Christ's divinity, ii. 69. his state before the fall, according to bishop Bull, iv. 177. Manby, R., v. 385 n. Mandamus, usual for the heads of houses in Cambridge to apply for a degree by mandamus, i. 9. Mangey, Thomas, iv. 9 n. Manicha-us, i. 446. iii. 606 n. IManichees, imposed upon St. Austin, v, 40. some of their absurd tenets, 41. Manifestation, voluntary antemundaue generation, so called, ii. 592. proof that a manifestation might be called a generation, 593. Manilius, I\Iarcus, iv. 413. Mankind, see Dealing. Manton, Dr. Thomas, a nonconformist, iii. 399. Mapletoft, John, iv. 711 n. Marcellus, i. 315 n. ii. 370, 375, 406. Eusebius's work against him very cele- 574 I N D brated, i. 339. too scrupulous about admitting three hypostases, ii. 370. strengthened the Arian cause by his injudicious solution of the Homoousian doctrine, 504. Eusebius's charge against him, 522. Marcellus, Julius, iii. 1 78 n. Marcion, ii. 383. iii. 598, 606 n. iv. 250 n. vi. 471. thought to have taught in reality that this lower world was made by angels, ii. 76. maintained the doctrine of two principles, 703. held the soul to be the substance of its Creator, iii. 74. anecdote of Polycarp's retiring upon meeting him, iii. 469 n. disbelieved the resurrection of the body, v. 109 n. Marcionites, assert three absolute, origi- nal, coordinate divinities, i. 467. ii. 468. their pretence of tradition refuted, 111. 658. the humanity of Christ proved against them from the eucharist, v. 1 1 1. Marcltius, John, iv. ]86n. 430 n. Marcus, Ephesius, vi. 491. Marcus, Closes, iv. 273 n. Maresius, — , iv. 670 n. 672 u. vi. 484. Marius Mercator, his sentiments touch- ing infant communion, vi. 58. the Hypognosticon, sometimes ascribed to St. Austin, now believed to belong to him, 59. Marius Victorinus, i. 280 n. 348, 549 n. ii. 464, 498 n. 592 n. 609. iii. 16, 23. vi. 492. an obscure and perplexed writer, ii. 605. his opinion of the Son's generation explained, ib. Mark, St., founder of the church of Alexandria, vi. 272. Marriage ceremony, whether necessary to be performed by a minister, vi. 100, 154. 1.57- Marriage, a second, unqualified a man for holy orders in the ancient church, vi. 112. Tertullian's arguments against it, 164. Marsh, Herbert, bishop of Peterborough, 5- Marshall, — , iv. 660 n. v. 407. Marsham, sir John, iv. 192, 203, 227 n. v. 12 n. 20 n. slighted the opinion that pagan writers borrowed from the Jews, 16. answered by Witsius, ib. Martene, Edmund, iii. 239 n. iv. 779 n. vi. 63 n. 67 n. 68 n. Marter, Anthony, vi. 345, Martial, iv. 413. Martiany, John, vi. 238. editor of Je- rome, iii. 162. Martin, — , vi. 412. Martin, David, ii. I34n. 13., n. Martin, George, one of the Rhemish translators of the New Testament, vi. 402. Martinus, Braccarensis, iv. 798. Martyr, Peter, iv. 542 n. 640 n. 668 n. V. 146 n. 167 n. 228 n. 261 n. 278 n. » E X. 28 1 n. vi. 497. how he understood John vi., iv. 568. Marvell, Andrew, iii. 506. Mary II, iv. 418. Mary, princess, vi. 383, 384, 387, 388. 3Iascon, second council of, iv. 789. Masius, Andrew, or Dumas, vi. 92. Mason, Francis, v. 137 n. 142, 152, 162 n. 167 n. 261 n. 268 n. Blass, notice respecting this title of the eucharist, iv. 490. its original mean- ing, ib. IMasse Crede, title of, of some antiquity, vi. 247. Massuet, Rene, ii. 378, 436 n. 558, 584 n. 613. iii. 71 n. 72 n. 691, 692. Masters, Robert, i. 3. vi. 270 n. 399 n. 400 n. 426 n. Mathematics, how far they admit reason- ing « priori, iii. 377. Matilda, vi. 292. flatter, why incapable of thought, ac- cording to Dr. Clarke, iii. 42 n. Matthew, St., founder of the church of ..Ethiopia, vi. 272. Matthew, Thomas, vi. 305, 312, 313,314, 324, .^'.2, 333, 354, 3S7, 36", 362, 373, 376, 380, 381, 394, 395, 403, 404. no- tice respecting his Bible, 312, 329, 349. this Bible most pleased the puritans till the Geneva Bible succeeded in its room, ib. 3Iatthias, St., iii. 658. Maunsell, _, vi. 307, 335, 346, 351, 352, 382, 383. 384, 389- Mawson, Matthias, bishop of Ely, i. 25, 24S-. Maximin, ii. 136, 662 n. iii. 60. Maximus, Madaureusis, iii. 642 n. Maximus, Taurinensis, ii. 466 n. 467 n. iv. 683 n. 687. Maximus Tyrius, said to have borrowed from the scriptures, v. 16. IMayler, John, vi. 324. Mayo, Richard, notice of his Plain Ar- gument against Dr. Clarke's Doctrine concerning the Trinity, i. 42. Mede, Joseph, i. 165, 196, 204. ii. 701. iv. 103, 259, 472 n. 529, 570 n. 704, 722 n. 72s n. 726, 752, 771. V. 74 n. 87, 285 n. 289 n. his explanation of avd/xfriais, in a passage of Justin, dis- puted, iv. 486. observations on his scheme of considering the eucharist a material sacrilice, v. 143. Mediator, considered two ways, by nature, or by office, ii. 431, 657. how Chi-ist is both, ib. Blediatoi-ial office of Christ, why no ground of worship, ii. 24, 26. his me- diatorship, as God-man, a fundamental doctrine, v. 81. Mediatorial worship considered at large, ii. 654. in what sense assigned by Arians to Christ, 658. I N D Medium of worship explained, ii. 655. its four senses, ib. IVIef^astlienes, a pagan writer, v. 5, 9. IVIeisner, Balth., iv. 366 n. 506 n. Slelancholy, see Religious Melancholy. Melancthon, Philip, ii. 351 n. 352 n. 726. V. 125 n. 281 n. his definition of God, i. 394. drew up the Augustan Confes- sion, V. 393. Melchizedekians, iii. 581. Meletius, iii. 190 n. vi. 491. Chrysostom bred up under him, ii. 641. Melito, i. 356 n. 504 n. ii. 524 n. SS3. 637> 657. iii. 581. Mellierus, Lucas, see S. Crelliiis. Memorial, notice respecting this title of the eucharist, iv. 486. v. 295. Menander, taught that this lower world was made by angels, ii. 76. Menandrians, iii. 550. Menardus, Nich. Ungues, iv. 688 n. 733. Menophantus, ii. 371. Mentz, Carthusian monks of, iii. 160. Mersennus, — , vi. 476. Merton college library, Oxford, has a MS. of S. Bruno's Comment on the Atha- nasian Creed, iii. 138. Messenger, or angel, applied to the Son, concerns only his office, not his nature, iii. 304. JMetaphysics, true use of, in revealed religion, i. 258. the catholics falsely charged with the abuse of them, 449, 461. the last resort of the Arians, ii. 385, 432, 433, 465, 626, 692, 699, 7.38, 7S3) 755? 760. instances of their false metaphysics, 384. true metaphy- sics, true divinity, 385. first brought in by heretics, 755. used by the ca- tholics in necessity and in self-defence, iii. 4.^8, 439. ft€Te'xeiv and Koivwvuv, distinction be- tween, iv. 61 1. Blethodius, i. 389 n. ii. 222, 230, 417, 586 n. 593, 600, 618, 635, 643. iii. 27, 87, 268 n. used Suo dvvd/xeii, with respect to the Father and the Sou, meaning two Persons, i. 286. his Com- ment on Psalm ii. 7., 357, 367, 511. what lie meant by caUing the Father &papxos apxh, •'• 121. how he inter- preted iv ^PXV ^^'^ Iteginning of Genesis, 223. his Sympoiion considered by Photius to be very much corrupted and adulterated, 600. a man of ortho- dox principles, 638. the first that began to impugn some of Origen's doctrines, ib. express for the eternal generation of the Son, iii. 22, 24. I\Iethodius, a Greek, he and Cyrill first planted Christianity in Servia, iii. 193. are said to have invented the Sdavonian letters, ib. and to have translated the scriptures into Sclavonian, ib. Metrophanes Critopulus, iii. 194. E X. 575 Meyer, — , v. 20 n. Michaelis, Henricus, iv. 353 n. Middleton, Dr. (lonyers, i. 22, 23, 231, 247, 250, 255, 256. his unworthy in- sinuations on Waterland being appoint- ed a chaplain to the king, i6, 17 n. the origin of his hostility to him uncertain, 16 n. bore a personal ill-will to Water- land, from his being his too successful competitor in literature and public esteem, 124. notice of his rash anony- mous letter to Dr. M'aterland, contain- ing Remarks on his Scripture Vindi- cated, ib. considers the Mosaic account of the fall as a mystical fable, 125. circumcision not to rest upon divine authority, ib. qualifies the divine origin of the Jewish religion, ib. gives up the account of the confusion at Babel, ib. his plan of answering Tindal, ib. Dr. Pearce (anonymously) the first who publislied a reply to this letter, 126. against which he published a Defence , to which Pearce put forth a reply, 127. upon which he published Some Remarks, ib. notice of them, ib. holds the scrip- tures are not of absolute and universal inspiration, 128. his views, ii. he also published Remarks on some Observa- tions addressed to him by some other writer, 130. Middleton, Mrs., i. 78. Mighty God, a divine title given to Christ in scripture, ii. 136. Milevis, council of, vi. 57. Militiere, alias Brachet, v. 224. Mill, John, ii. 1 20 n. 138 n. 158 n. 216 n. 463. iii. 426 n. iv. 507 n. 595 n. 672 n. vi. 465. Millius, David, iv. 195 n. 501 n. Jlillington, — , tutor of ]^lagdalene col lege, Cambridge, i. 8 n. Milnes, — , iv. 409, 410. Miltiades, iii. 581. 3Iincha, its meaning, v. 234 n. Mind, see Dejected Mind. Minister, his pait in the marriage cere- mony not essential, vi. 154 — 157. see Clergy. Minos's laws borrowed in part from the scriptures, v. 9. Minucius Felix, iv. 748. v. 131 n. 24411. 255 n. 281 n. maintained that pagan writers borrowed from the scriptures, 10 n. IMiracles had not ceased in the churcli in the time of Irenaeus, iii. 569. lasted for three centuries, 642. liow to be distin- guished, iv. 235. Myrror of Chaslilc, vi. 240. Mode, one remove further otf than attri- bute from substance, iii. 378. Modes of ea.isting, as applied to the Trinity, what it was designed to de- note, ii. 204. 576 INDEX. Modest Plea, i. 6i. ii. 46, 86 n. 95 n. 130 n- 133 n. 13511. 13811. 139 n. 14011. 14611. 15011. 15311. 283,29511. 305. ii. 318,319,321, 322. Modest Plea continued, or An Answer to Dr. JVaterland's Queries, ii. 144 n. Waterland's strictures upon, 8, 56 n. 58 II. what he considers the sentiments of its author, 8, 9. Mohna, Lewis, iii. 343. Movapx'", ill what sense used by pope Dionysins, iii. 76. and by Athanasius, 77 n- Monk, — , dean of Peterborough, i. 4. /jiovoyevris, the divinity of Christ implied by this title, iii. 535. Montague, Richard, bishop of Chichester, ii. 341, 348. V. 12911. 132 n. 16211. 223 n. his notion of the eucharistic sacrifice, 138. Montanists, their baptisms rejected by the church, vi. 1 75. Montauus, iv. 448 n. vi. 471. Moiitanus, Benedict Arias, vi. 430. Montfaucon, Bernard de, i. 363 n. 548. ii. 378, 420, 478, 495, 499, 500, 501, 5i6n. S78n. 728 n. iii. 117, I2I, 139, '5h 154. 156, i57> 160, 161, 169, 171, 174 n. 175, 176, 182, 205 n. 212 n. 236 n. iv. 708 n. vi. 239. his censure of Eusebius, ii. 614. perhaps too severe, ib. edited Athanasius, iii. 114. high character of his Dissertation on the Athanasian Creed, ib. his opinions re- specting the Creed, ib. 117. Moore, John, bishop of Ely, vi. 306, 311, 335. 349. 355. 364, 373, 377> 4°!, 402. his library presented by George I to the university of Cambridge, i. 1 1. con- sisted of about 30,000 volumes, bought for 6000 guineas, 1 1 11. Moral good and evil constituted by the divine law, iv. 61. Moral evidence, observations respecting, iii. 501. Moral proofs, if not so strictly demon- strative as metaphysical, are yet better suited to common capacities, iii. 382. Moral probabilities have sometimes an irresistible strength little short of the strictest demonstration, ii. 69, 72. Moral goodness, some tlioughts upon, vi. 453- Moral obligation, see Obligation. IMoral virtues and positive institutions, a comparison between, iv. 46. should not [ be opposed, ib. distinction between I moral virtues and moral duties, 54, 55. and l)etween moral and positive duties, 56. the terms not the most proper, 57. the meaning of moral law in a re- strained sense, ib. and of positive divine law, ib. doubtful whether some laws in scriptare should be called natural or positive, ib. a better division Tvould be into natural and supernatural, 58. in what sense, ib. subdividing supernatural into constant and occasional, ib. or into moral and positive, 59. in what sense, ib. difference of supernatural moral duties considered materially and for- mally, ib. instances of transient and permanent positive precepts or duties, ib. under the permanent may be classed the Christian sacraments, ib. positive precepts, though considered merely as prescribed, yet are always founded on reasons, though perhaps but partially known to us, ib. 7 7. of the comparative value, excellency, or obligation of moral and positive precepts or duties, ib. what constitutes an action morally good, 60. in positive duties, though the matter in itself considered is indifferent, yet the obedience is moral, ib. positive commands of God are as strictly obli- gatory as any other commands for the time being, 61. there may be as great virtue (or greater) in obeying positive precepts, as in obeying moral ones, 63. there may be as great, or greater, ini- quity and impiety in disobeying posi- tive precepts, than in disobeying moral ones, 65. the comparative value of any duties, above other duties, depends not upon their positive or moral nature, but upon their relation to and connec- tion with the general good of the whole intelligent system, considered in its largest compass, both of e.xtent and duration, 66. any pretence of setting up moral duties in opposition to religious duties, is undermining morality instead of serving it, 68. objections to the fore- going principles from scripture an- swered, ib. those also from the nature or reason of the thing answered, 74. it is begging the question to say, that all positive duties are instrumental parts only of religion, 75. they may be as direct religion, or even more direct religion, than any moral performances, ib. of the two sacraments considered as positive institutions, 78. the occasion and rise of this famed distinction be- tween moral and positive duties, 98. deism sprang from thence, 99. moral and positive duties both spring from God's command, 1 16, 1 17. but in moral duties we see the reasons first, and then come at the knowledge of the law ; in positive duties, we know the laws themselves first, and afterwards the reasons, so far as we at all know them, 1 1 7. God's liberty is greater in matters of a positive than of a moral nature, ours is not, ib. necessity some- times alters both moral and positive precepts, 118. the disobeying a positive precept is immoral, as well as the dis- 1 N D obeying a moral one, 119. the question of preference depends not upon the moral or positive nature of the precepts, hut upon the time and other circum- stances, 120. positive precepts may in certain cases be greater virtue, tliough not more truly virtue, than moral du- ties, 123. obedience to God in positive instances shewn to he moral, 124. vir- tuous practices want Christ's expiation, 130. pagan virtues not so valuable as evangelical, 131. what sort of virtues pagan virtues are, 132. the mischief of depreciating positive duties, 147. Morality can never subsist in practice, but upon a scripture foot, iv. 100. cannot subsist without God, 114, 148. morality without religion, on the whole, does more harm than good, 121. the best part of pagan morality probably derived from tradition, 301. Morality improved after Christianity ap- peared, v. 16. More, Dr. Henry, iv. 454. vi. 486. Morgan, — , i. 102, 1 19, 1 20, 257. iii. 298. Morinus, — , iv. 652 n. 659 n. Morland, — , vi. 428. Mornajus, — , v. 162 n. 223 n. ^Mortmain act, by whom brought into par- liament, vi. 449 n. account of its passing, i6. Waterland's notice of it, 450. Morton, Thomas, bishop of Durham, iv. S4I n. 560 n. 570 n. 580 n. 595 n. 694 n. 672 n. v. 132 n. 137 n. 162 n. 165 n. 167 n. 281 n. 282 n. 293 n. his distinction respecting the eucharistic sacritice, 142. Mosheim, John Laurence, iii. 555 n. 556, 564 n. 570 n. 576 n. 594 n. 595, 608, 615, 661 n. iv. 501 n. 632 n. 705 n. 717 n. 718 n. 720 n. 721 n. 722 n. 727 n. his explanation of i Cor. x. 16, &c. censured, 634 — 638. his objection to Cud worth's notion of the Lord's supper considered, 717, 719. Moulin, Peter du, ii. 495. v. 228 n. 261 n. Mount Olivet, Latin monks of, notice of their Apologetical Letter to pope Leo III, iii. 122. Mo\'er, lady Rebecca, i. 235. of the parish of St. Andrew's, Holborn, exti-act of her will, founding the lectures named after her, 50 n. consulted tlie l)ishopof London for a fit lecturer, who recommended Dr. Waterland, 51. Moyer, Eliza, i. 50 n. IMoyer, Lydia, i. 5 i n. Moyne, Stephen le, ii. 348, 420 n. 439 n. 443 n. 477, 586 n. 643, 672 n. V. 114 n. Jlullerus, Matthaeus, iv. 314 n. ]\Iunich library, part of the Palatine library transferred to it, iii. 173. a'Muratori, Lewis Anthony, i. 82. iii. 117, 119, 120, 148, 151, 154, 182, 190, 212 n. 257. iv. 746, 747 n. published E X. 577 Anecdota out of the Ambrosian library at IMilan, iii. 1 14. and therein an ancient Comment on the Athanasian Creed, ascribed to Venantius Fortunatus, ib. 134. whom he cenjectures might have been the author of the Creed itself, ib. his conjecture groundless, 135. dis- approves of Quesnel's persuasion, but speaks favourably of Antelmi's, 114. when he published Tertulhan's Book of Prayer, iv. 747. Musajus, vi. 126, 210. said to have bor- rowed from the scriptures, v. 9. Muscovite and Russian church, notice of its divine service, iii. 191, 192. received the Athanasian Creed, 191. without. the article of the procession from the Son, 192. its rule respecting the age for re- ceiving the communion, vi. 68. Musschenbroeck, Peter de, iv. 413. Jlysteries, what meant by the terra, iii. 406. what meant by believing them, i. 453. reduced to seven cases, 454. and illustrated, 457. N. leaked Gospel, written by Dr. Bury in favour of Anti-Trinitarianism, i. 29. Napier, John, notice of his two Treatises on the Apocalypse, vi. 349. Nary,Cornehus, made a popish translation of the Bible after the Doway version, vi. 398. Narcissus, ii. 371. condemned as an enemy to the Nicene faith, vi. 209. Nation, — , iii. 395 n. National visitations are for the most part chastisements for national sins, v. 360. Natural religion unable to teach how God is to be worshipped, iv. 136. or reconciled to man, ib. or to prove the certainty of a future state of rewards and punishments, 139. or to shew the duties we are to practise to one another, 140. reason insufficient to be a guide in matters of religion, 141. the religion of nature imperfect, ib. men were never left to the mere law of nature, no not in paradise, ib. Christianity more than a republication of the original law of nature, 1 43. cannot subsist in any vigour without revealed, 167. set up to rival supernatural, both by ancient and modern infidels, v. 4. apologists maintain that it borrows from divine revelation, ib. viz. Aristobulus the Jew, 5. Josephus, 6. Justin INlartyr, 7. Tatian, 8. Theophilus, ib. Clemens of Alexandria, 9. Tertullian, 10. Minucius P'elix, ih. Origen, ib. Lactantius, 11. Eusebius, 12. Theodoret, 13. in what instances it has borrowed, 7 — 10, 19, 20. notice of those who have too much slighted this opinion, 14. a fair state- WATEELAND, VOL. VI. 578 INDEX. ment of the case, 15. the various ways through which the pagans might derive supernatural notices and revealed light, ib. by reading of the scriptures, 16. by conversing with Jews, 17. or with those that had conversed with them, ib. or by public edicts, 18. or by tradition from Abraham, 16. or from Noah, 19. the insufficiency of natural light, 22, 56 n. revelations net con- sidered needless by pagans, 23. the old and well tried principles of the ancient apologists, ib. Nazar»ans, uncertain who or what they were, iii. 565. Neal, Daniel, vi. 420 n. an Examination of the first volume of his Historv of the Puritans published by Dr. Madox, 446. and of the rest by Dr. Grey, ib. Neander, Michael, iii. 177. Nebuchadnezzar, iv. 295. v. 18. Necessaries distinguished from funda- mentals, v. 77. Necessary acts, called acts by the ancients, J'- 393- ' i Necessary agents, no absurdity, i. 3 70. 1 Necessary doctrines, a phrase, why dis- i approved of by Waterland, iii. 399. how 1 to be ascertained, 445, 450, 455. Necessary existence, what, iii. 386. not [ the same as self-existence or as eternity, ' i. 344. how proved not to he the same as that of eternity, ib. but may be ; implied in it, 345. necessary existence j essential to God, 491. how expressed | by the ancients, ii. 13. {necessary existence being a school term, and I none of the most proper, 16.) how asserted of the Son, by the catholics, ^3' '55 S/i) 572. denied by the Arians, ii. 12. distinct from unorigin- ateness, 511. signified by ayiirqros by the ancient philosophers, 575. also by (pvffei, or Kara (pixriv, 580. if the same ! as self-existence it could not serve the \ Arian cause, 610. no medium between ' it and creature, 644. ■ I^ecessary generation how expressed bv the fathers, ii. 13. Necessitas, see 'AvayKr\. \ Necessity, its meaning among the fatliers, \ 5691 570. the verj- name rejected by j the ancient fathers, as not applicable to the Deity at all, understanding it con- stantly in its ancient compulsive sense, iii. 326. when the word first came into use, 327. the various^ acceptations of this word, 353. divided into logical, moral, physical, and metaphysical, ii. logical necessity, ib. necessitas consequentis to be referred to this head, 354. moral necessity, ib. is conditional or hypo- thetical, ib. physical necessity, ib. often called absolute necessity, ib. in \\hat sense, 356. when called causal, 354. what meant by necessity antecedent, or a priori, and a posteriori, ib. metaphy- sical necessity imports immutable exist- ence proper to God only, 355. sometimes called by Cudworth a necessary schesis, ib. why it may be called modal necessity, ib. in what sense it may be termed ab- solute, 356. difference between modal and causal necessity, 355. observations on these different kinds, ib. Necessity of nature, why neither the Father nor the Son were ever said by the ancients to exist by necessit)' of nature, ii. 569, 570. Neckham, Alexander, abbot of Cirences- ter, iii. 1 40. two 3ISS. of his Comment on the Athanasian Creed in the Bodleian, ib. Nectarius, bishop of Constantinople, ii. , 225 n. 374. Needham, Peter, preached a sermon at Cambridge against poperv', which was printed at AVaterland's desire, i. 14. edited Theophrastus, ib. Negative, subsequent in order of nature to the affii-mative, iii. 3S6. Negatives put for comparatives in scn'p- ture, instances, iv. 343 n. Neighbour, a sermon on the duty of loving our neighbour as ourselves, v. 436. what neighbour means, 437. what this love is, 439. Nelson, Robert, i. 29. ii. 258 n. 269, 362, 377 n- 378 n. 512, 768 n. iii. 451 n. 564 n. 604 n. 399, 414, 667 n. what part he took in the controversy with Dr.Clark^ ^i. 38. I^^ess, most of our abstract words, which now terminate in )iess, anciently had the termination of hede, vi. 261, 317. Nestorian heresy, catholics charged with tenets similar to it by the Apollinarians, iii. 206. Nestorians, iii. 249, 254. the division of Christ's manhood from the Godhead disproved against them from the eu- charist, V. 115. Nestorius, i. 446. iii. 115, 205, 209, 211, 41 1, vi. 59. maintained that two na- tures could not make one person in Christ, i. 481. Neumannus, Georgius, iv. 156 n. 157 n. Neville, Hon. George, master of Magdalene college, Cambridge, i. 4, 8 n. 23 1, 234 n. , 238 n. New Testament, objections against those who would set aside the Epistles as of no weight in deciding fundamentals, iv. 18 n. Newton, sir Isaac, iv. 157, 292 n. 296 n. 412, 413. vi. 446, 450 n. his observations on the prophecies of Daniel censured, 447> 450- the fourteenth chapter an- swered by Dr. Grey, 448 n. Nice, council of, iv. 474, 595 n. 790 n. I N D 791 n. vi. 176, 196, 208, 491. notice of this council, i. 546, S47> S49> 559- when held, vi. 179. by how many bi- shops, ib. the Arian attempt to prove this council chargeable with Arianism on Waterland's princijiles, disproved, ii. 390. it may be questioned, whether it maintained the eternal generation of the Son, iii, 21. received by the Greeks with the greatest veneration, 194. con- demned Arius, .sSC. comparison be- tween this council and that of Arinii- nnm, ib. vastly esteemed by Gregory Nazianzen, 641. its opinion respecting the eucharistic elements, v. 202, 204. its canon touching the Novatian clergy, vi. 179. and the Pauhanists, 180. Nice, second council of, ii. 495. iv. 599 n. V. 253 n. its method of eluding the •'irgument drawn from the eucliarist against the use of images, 116. gave rise to transubstantiation, 117. Nicene Creed, irph iravTiau alwvuv inserted in that Creed by the Constantinopoh- tan council, iii. 21. intending thereby the eternal generation of the Son, ib. Papebrochius's opinion that the ex- pression failh of Athatiasius, in the confession of the Autun council, means the Nicene Creed, opposed, 119. this Creed prevailed in the east, and the Apostolical or Roman Creed in the west, ib. when received into France, ib. the only general Creed common to all the churches, 197. order of the council of Ephesus concerning it explained, 249. the Coustantinopolitan Creed is tlie Nicene interpolated, ib. see Creed of the Apostles. Nicephorus, ii. 495. v. 202, 405. vi. 491. Nicetas Serron, iv. 432 n. NichoUs, Dr. , i-ector of St. Giles, Cripple- gate, i. 225. NichoUs, John, i. 3, 221, 242 n. 256. vi. 303 n- 3.5' n- 400- NichoUs, William, iii. 250. iv. 161 n. 177 n. 179 n. 183 n. 291 n. 299 n. 300 n. 413. V. 22 n. 33 n. 49 n. 51 n. his cen- sure of those who denied the import- ance of the doctrine of the Trinity, iii. 398. his defence of the church of Eng- land, shewing wherein it differs from the remonstrants, commended, iv. 80. observation on his notion of a sacrifice, V. 143- Nicolaitans, iii. 695. v. 97. the same as Balaamites, iv. 239. import of their name, v. 753. notice of them, 721. some of their false tenets, iii. 470, 483. Nicolson, James, vi. 345. Nicolson, VVm., bishop of Carlisle, vi. 270. Niin])sell, — , of lireslaw, vi. 427, 428 n. Ninevites, observation on their re|)ent- ance, as recorded in scripture, v. 1 8, 1 9. Nisselius, Georgius, iii. 173, r78n. E X. 579 Nithardus, iii. 168. Noah, i. 132. Noetians, iii. 580. v. 1 1 1. Noetus, i. 289, 446, 478. ii. 395, 541, 542, 563, 710. iii. 579, 582. iv. 35. Hippo- lytus's book against him still extant, i. 339. maintained there was only one hypostasis, 450, 468, 478. and charged the catholics with tritheism, 468. as- serted that the Logos v/as not a distinct Person from the Father, ii. 33, 413, 414. Noldius, Christian, iv. 252 n. 320 n. 333 .337 n- 349- Nominal God, Christ not excluded from worship as such, i. 278. Nominalists, or nominal Trinitarians, to which party in the Trinitarian contro- versy applied, i. 33. Noon, J., iii. 3, 425 n. iv. 95 n. Norfolk library, now belongs to the Royal Society, iii. 158. notice of its MSS. of the Gallican Psalter with the Athana- sian Creed, 158, 159. Norfolk MS. of the Gospels in English; Wharton is positive this version is by Wickliff, iii. 144, 169. Norris, John, ii. 495. iii. 313, 317, 318, 406 n. iv. 56 n. 41 1,412, 415. vi. 29 n. 70 n. 487. his ex]ilanation of faith, iii. 435. sometimes trifles in what relates to his World of Ideas, iv. 412. North, lord, vi. 429. Nottingham, lord chancellor, i. 24 n. Nottingham, earl of, i. 71, 235. ii. 379, 380, 755 n. wrote two tracts in defence of tlie Trinity, in answer to Whiston, i. 24. for which he received a vote of thanks from tiie university of Cam- bridge, ib. was the son of lord chan- cellor Nottingham, 24 n. why he him- self declined the post of lord high chancellor, ib. was a])|)(iinted one of the principal secretaries of state, ib. Nourry, Nicholas le, ii. 378, 457, 461, 472. 473, 474, 490 »• 494, 643, 672 n. 75511. iii. 72, 8 in. 82 n. 8811. 594 n. 638 n. iv. 699 n. v. 5 n. 1 2 n. Novatian, i. 282, 283, 284, 291 n. 292 n. 293 297. 332 "• 350, 358, 432 n. 463 n. ii. 52 n. 53, 57 n. 81 n. 104 n. 105 n. 122 n. 128 n. i3on. 132 n. 165 n. 192 n. 416, 426, 478, 505, 509, 526, 554 n. 586 n. 600, 618, 657, 668 n. 678, 687, 697, 703, 727 n. iii. 76, 401 536, 550, 563 n. 571 n. 590, 631 n. V. 190 n. 191 n. vi. 471. presbyter of Rome, ii. 476. vindicated, 427. time of his writing, 492. his remark on John xvii. 3., i. 279. considered Christ not excluded by Isaiah xlv. 5. from being the one God, 282. his proof of Christ's divinity, ib. his Comment on Phil. ii. 6. vindicated from misinterpretation, 282. liis reasons for interpreting the angel that appeared to Agar, Gen. xvi., of p p a 589 INDEX. Christ, 295, 296. resolves the divinity of Clirist into his Sonship, and Sonship into communication of the same divine substance, 297. applied God to the Son, in its strict sense, 299. resolved the Unity into communionof substance, 323. how he interpreted Kara aapxa, applied to the Son, 349 n. his reason why the Son must have alwa>/s existed in the Father, as properly understood, 354 — 356. asserted a temporary and eternal generation, 359. considered the Logos to have existed in, before he proceeded from, the Father, 361. distinguished between procession and creation, 362. his reasoning that Christ could not be a mere man, having made the world, 430 n. his Comment on Gen. xxxi. in proof of Christ's divinity, 433 n. his arguments for Christ's divinity, and against Sabellians, 485. Comment on them, 486. vindicated from Dr. Whit- by's misrepresentation, 526. his inter- pretation of ovx apTrayfibf fiyiiaaTo, &c. as applied to Christ, ii. 109. how reconcilable with the catholic sense, he and Novatus began the Novatian schism in the year 251, 477. orthodox, in the main, as to the Trinity, ib. ad- mitted an higher and lower sense of the word God, ih. to what extent, ib. texts respecting God a))plied by him to Christ, 492. not consistent with his own principles in solving the Unity, yet orthodox as to the Son's essential divinity, ib. was none of the most judi- cious, nor without his singularities, ib. objections answered, 493. his account of Christ's divinity, 507, 743, 744. iii. 597.3 schismatic, and of no considerable authority, ii. 509. defended from mis- representation, 552. notice of his prin- ciples, 743. loved to imitate TertuUian in many things, 747. probably beheved the eternal generation of the Son, iii. 22. probably did not believe that the Father is naturally governor over the Sou, 85. how he understood John vi., iv. 555. Novatians, v. 710. orthodox in the doc- trine of the Trinity, iii. 597. Novatus of Carthage, he and Novatian began the Novatian schism, ii. 476. Nowel, Alexander, vi. 27 n. Numa, V. 57, 58. said to have borrowed from the scriptures, v. 9. Numbers are purely intellectual, and be- yond all imagery, iii. 406. Numenius, a Pythagorean, v. 9, 10, 13. said to have borrowed from the scrip- tures, 13, 16. Numerical, in the phrase one numerical essence, equivocal, iii. 452. Nursing, observations respecting, v. 371. Nye, — , ii. 76 n. v. 42 n. condemned the catholic scheme of the Trinity as tri- theism, i. 473. and called the Arian heresy " a more absurd and less de- " fensible tritheism," ib. O. 0 (the article,) its addition or omission makes no alteration in the sense of the word Qehs, i. 314. ii. 42. why & Qths was generally applied to the Father only, 1.315. b 0ei>s and 0eJ>s in general not distin- guished by the fathers, ii. 520, 523. how distinguished by Eusebius, 522. d Ibv, what, ii. 515. Oaths, observations respecting, iv. 240. general definition of an oath, 241. Oblation, notice respecting this title of the eucharist, iv. 476. Obligation : the objection answered, that if obligation be resolved into the arbi- trary will of God, he might have com- manded vice instead of virtue, iv. 114. not antecedent to all law, but resoh'ahle into some divine law, 61, 108. Ocellus Lucanus, ii. 574. Ockley, Simon, ii. 591 n. Oddy, Obadiah, vi. 428 n. Odo Cameracensis, v. 205. vi. 243. CEcuraenius, i. 285. iii. 680 n. iv. 487 n. 540 n. 768 n. 769 n. v. 166 n. vi. 480. Offerre, its signification in church writers, when absolutely put, vi. 167. Orlearius, Gottofredus, a learned Luther- an of Leipsic, iii. 594 n. iv. 432 n. 632. V. 221 n. Old Whig, ill character of this periodical, i. 257. Olde, John, vi. 383, 384, 389, 390. Olivet, (Mount,) monastery of, in Jerusa- lem, founded by Charlemagne, iii. 185. notice of the Apologetical Letter of the monks to pope Leo III, respecting the procession of the Holy Ghost, 187. Omnipresence, a divine attribute ascribed to Christ in scripture, ii. 164. Omniscience of the Son, one and the same with tlie Father, i. 332. asserted by Ante-Nicene writers, 337. the ab- surdity of the distinction of absolute and relative omniscience, 332. a diiane attribute ascribed to Christ in scrip- ture, ii. 155. defended, 556, 557. _ djjLOiovffiov and buoovaiov distinguished between by Athanasius, i. 514 n. 6fiLoov(Tios, as u.sed by the Nicene fathers, expresses their .sense of Christ's divinity, but not their whole sense, i. 543, 545. Onatus, ii. 394 n. One God, or only true God, not ascribed to the Father, in opposition to, or ex- clusive of the Son, either in scripture or by the ancients, i. 279, 287. in what sense to be understood, ii. 90, 92. iii. 25. the expressions used in the same manner by the primitive writers, ii. INDEX. 581 96, 665, 666. why tliese titles are [ mostly applied to the Father, ii. 97. Only-begotten, applied to Christ, declared ; him to be of the same nature with God the Father, according to the ancients, i ii. 192. Opits, iii. 606 n. Optatus, bishop of Milevis, iv. 680. v. 208 n. 251, 269 n. 279 n. vi. 94, i 20, 201, 203, 205 n. 207. his idea respect- ing baptism, 186. Oratores Grwci, iv. 413. Order, the word, how used, iii. 35. its meaning, 36. Orders, not vacated by heresy, according to St. Austin, vi. 195. Ordination rendered doubtful in the opinion of some by the non-admission of lay-baptism, vi. 83. whether, null by a previous invalidity of baptism, 216. Ordo Romaniis, vi. 67. Oriental churches, whether they received the Athanasian Creed, iii. 189, 190. why they frequently addressed their prayers to the Son, 255. Origen, i. 285 n. 286, 287, 292 n. 314, 330, 331 n. 356 n. 358, 362 n. 366, 420, 424, 425, 443 n. 463, 472, 489, 499 n. 500, 504 n. 538. ii. 31 n. 32 n. 33 n. 40 n. 60, 62 n. 63 n. 64 n. 77 n. 81 n. 97 n. 104 n. 105 n. 108 n. irin. 112 n. 118 n. 122 n. 132 n. 136 n. 141 n. 142, 148 n. 149 n. 150, 151 n. >S3 155 n- '56 n. 157, 158, 160 n. 164 n. i6s n. 203, 227, 230, 257, 354, 372. 373, 376, .391 "• 394. 427) 478, 520, 522, 523, 524 n- 528 n. 549, 553, 560, 561, 563, 564, S9' 600,615, 618, 630 n. 632, 633, 631;, 643, 667, 689, 7or, 752. iii. 22, 64, 163, 229, 260 n. 542 n. 556 n. 58911. 611,612, 659, 690. iv. 9, 37, 192 n. 195 n. 298 n. 606 n. 330 n. 427 n. 428 n. 432 n. 484, 487, 488, 504, 505 n. si6n. 531, 532 n. 533 n. 534, 536 n. 580 n. 589, 65 I, 660 n. 675, 677, 678, 679 n. 687, 691, 741 n. 764 n. 767, 772. V. 24, 48 n. I 26 n. 130 n. 1 31 n. 135 n. 156 n. 165 n. 167 n. 175 n. 184 n. 191 n. 195 n. 207 n. 237 n. 244 n. 247 n. 248 n. 2.S4, 255 n. 256, 260 n. 264 n. 265, 268 n. 276, 277 n. 281 n. 283 n. 407, 710. vindicated and explained, ii. 419. iii. 75. time of his writing, ii. 465, 490, 586. his Comment on Heh. i. 3., i. 286. resolved the Unity into com- munion of Godhead, 323. using the word ©eJrijj, by which he generally, if not constantly, signifies substance, ib. asserted the Son's omniscience, 338. how he understood Kara crdpKa, as ap- plied to the Son, 349 n. his Comment on Psalm ii. 7. in favour of the Son's eternal generation, 353. styled the Son ayeinrros, 356 n. called both the Father and the Son A-i^jj.tovpyhs, (with what distinction, 383 n. 384 n.) and yet de- nied there were more Creators than one, 384. his orthodoxy effectually de- fended by bishop Bull, 389. vindicated against the charge of reckoning the Son among the Sri/j.{ovpyi)fj.ara, 389, 390. another passage of his, wherein he dis- tinguishes the Son from the Srifj.iovp- yri/xaTa, by ascribing worship to him, 419, 424, 425. his book against Celsus, the most valuable and uncorrupt of all his works, and almost the only one to be entirely depended on, as giving his own true sense, or that of the church in his time, 425. ii. 257, 436. the sum of his doctrine with regard to the Son's divinity, i. 425, 468 n. 485 n. 487. his distinct statement of the Sabellian no- tion, 478 n. his notion as to the Logos, ii. 31 n. seems to have indulged some fanciful conjectures, as to ascribing any part of creation to any creature, in some of his looser writings, if they be his : but in his more accurate and certainly genuine works nothing appears of it, but the contrary, 7O n. his interpreta- tion of ovx apvayfihv ^yqcaTo, &c. as applied to Christ, 109. how reconcilable with the catholic sense, 1 10. his ob- servations on the form of baptism, i8i. in what sense he denied Christ to be God over all, 2 1 6. his declaration re- specting the Unity, 217. his book against Celsus proves him plainly to be Anti-Arian, 257. a remark on his opinion as to the Son being a second hypostasis, 370. one of the most learn- ed and considerable H'riters of his age, 465. his testimony as to the Father and Son being one God vindicated, 466. his less accurate or interpolated writings of no weight, any further than they agree with his piece against Celsus, 467. the first writer now extant that makes mention of two or more hypostases in the Trinity, 468. two texts respecting God applied by him to Christ, 490. proof of his holding the necessary existence of the Son, 586. much clamoured against by the Eustathian party, and why, 589, 640. why, per- haps, he was obliged to purge himself to pope Fabian, ib. greatly admired by Eusebius, 549. and by Gregory Thaumaturgus and Dionysius of Alex- andria, 638. and l)y Gregory Nazian- zen, iv. 489. Methodius first began to impugn some of his doctrines, ii. 638. other assailants, 640, 641. Athauasius stood up for him, 639. his different apologists, 638, 639. Jerome at first his defender, afterward his impugner, 640. his faith in the Trinity proved to be correct by bishop Bull from his 582 INDEX. treatise against Celsus, 642. observa- tions on his use of the word Srjfiiovpyhs, 631. in what sense he uses rh &uoy, 667. and ayeVrjToc, 668. his assigning worship to the Son, defended, and ex- plained, 673 — 677. his account of the Sabeilian notion of the Father and Son, very distinct and accurate, 707. ex- press for the eternal generation of the Son, iii. 22, 24. did not believe that the Father is naturally governor over the Son, 84. considered damnation not to be eternal, 244. and its fire not to be real, ih. his censures of the Ebionites, 574. recovered Beryllus from his error respecting Christ's divinity, 584. an injudicious allegorist of Scripture, iv. 164. his doctrine as to the consecration of the elements in the eucharist, 532, 633. what were his sentiments respect- ing John vi., 551. also respecting the eucharistic elements, 491. his opinion of gospel sacrifices, 748. maintained that pagan writers borrowed from the scriptures, v. i o. some account of that great man and his writings, and their hard fate in the world, ii. 638. his works much corrupted, 418. when he wrote his homilies on St. IMatthew, iv. 532 n. and his book against Celsus, ib. when he died, ib. Original, unity of, why necessary in unity of Godhead as well as unity of substance, ii-_S37- Original sin, proved from the ancient practice of baptizing infants, v. 115. Origination, what use made of, by the ancients, ii. 702. Orleans, council of, iv. 793. Orleans, F. J. d', v. 326 n. Orosius, Paul, iii. 244. Orpheus, v. 18 n. said to have borrowed from the scriptures, 1;, '1, 9, 13. Osma, Peter, d', called in Latin Petrus de Osoma, or Petnis Oxomensis, or Uxomensis, iii. 147. notice of his Latin Comment on the Athanasian Creed, 147, 148. was professor of divi- nity at Salamanca, 147. one of the most learned and valuable men of his time, 148. fell under the censure of a provincial synod for certain positions against the corruptions of popery, ib. forced to submit, and abjure his positions, ib. Ostervald, John Frederic, iii. 645. iv. 415- Otfridus, iii. 130 n. 183. monk of Weis- seuberg, a MS. of his German version of the Athanasian Creed in tiie royal library at Vienna, 169. Otho, l)ishop of Frisinghen, iii. 126, 130. the first who pretends to name the place where Athanasius is supposed to have made his Creed, Triei's, or Treves, 126. Antelmi's conjecture of the ground of this supposition, ib. Ottius, Joannes Baptista, vi. 300. Oudin, Casimir, i. 82. iii. 120, 140, 182, 212 n. 56S n. iv. 683 n. v. 253 n. vi. 67 n. 248, 262, 269, 423, 430, 490. published a Commentary to tlie eccle- siastical writers, iii. 116. ascribes the Athanasian Creed to Vigilius Tapsen- sis, ib. a mistake of his respecting the Athanasian Creed, 123. Ovtriai, in what sense used by the an- cients with respect to the Trinity, i. 285,286. ouTor, notice respecting, in John i. 2, iii. 314- Outram, — , iv. 181 n. 513 n. 540 n. 705 n. 716 n, 752 n. v. 167 n. 234 n. 263 n. 279 n. Overall, John, bishop of Norwich, ii. 345. Ovid, iv. 409, 413. Owen, Dr. John, a nonconformist, iii. 399- Oxford, bishop of, see B. Kennel and J. Poller. Oxford, lord, vi. 311, 329, 343, 351, 35^, 360, 377, 404. see Harleian library. Oxford, university of, their controversy with the college of physicians about university graduates in medicine, i. 12. said to have defended the validity of lay-baptism, vi. 132. P. Pacian, remarks proving his testimony to be against lay-baptism, vi. 185. Pagans, see Natural Religion. Pagi, Anthony, ii. 495. iii. 121, 159, 1 79. his opinion respecting the Athanasian Creed, 114, 117. Pain, Thomas, vi. 270 n. Pains, strictly speaking, are all felt in the mind, v. 551. Palatine library transferred partly to the Vatican, the rest to Munich, iii. 173. Pa]ey, WiUiam, i. 113 n. Pamelius, James, iii. 74 n. vi. 113. Pamphilus, i. 358, 499 n. 149 n. 257 n. 553, 588 n. S91 n. 600, 618, 723 n. iii. 574, 575. clear and full for the eternal generation of the Son, i. 358. iii. 22. his comment on the form of baptism, ii. 183 n. apologized for Origen against the charges of Methodius, 638. Pantheistic system, notice of, v. 52. its origin, 53. TlavTOKpdruip, imperfectly rendered* by Almighty, a divine title given to Christ in scripture, ii. 140, 565. does not ne- cessarily prove him to be the Jehovah in the strict sense of that name, 416. Papebrochius, his opinion that the ex- pression. Faith of Athanasius, in the confession of the Autun council means the Nicene Creed, opposed, iii. 119. INDEX. 583 Paper came not into frequent or common use before the thirteenth century, iii. 173. yet cotton paper was sometimes used as early as the tenth century, ib. Papists maintain that there can be no proper certainty witliout infallil)ility, iii. 495. Chillingwortli's answer to pa- pists, ifi. fomented the rebeUion in 1715., V. 322. Pappus, Johannes, iii. 256 n. 577 n. iv. 366 n. Pai'ables, how distinguished, iv. 156. how different from a continued metaphor, ib. from allegory, 159. Paris, royal library of, notice of its Latin MS. of the Athanasian Creed, iii. 156, 221 n. 222 n. and of its MS. Greek version of the same, 174. Pardie, Ignatius, Gaston, iv. 407. Parens, David, iii. 136, 25 1 n. iv. 367 n. Parens, Philip, iii. 251 n. Parker, — , vi. 306, 359, 360, 392. Parker, Matthew, archbishop of Canter- bury, iii. 157, 381 n. iv. 109. v. 34 n. 46 n. vi.306, 313, 338, 340, 348, 357, .^S9> 367, 401, 405. notice of his Bible, iv. 230. vi. 335, 352. Parmenides, ii. 573. Parr, Dr., v. 403. Participles ending in ing, in old English anciently ended in ande, vi. 313, 317. Parts, necessarily included in extension, ii. 620. Paschasius Radbertus, iv. 599 n. v. 167 n. 205, 288 n. vi. 14 n. 490, 491, 492, 494. 496- Passover, a federal rite, iv. 705. notice respecting it, as a title of the eucharist, 488. Pateschul, — , vi. 392. Patricius, his pretended writings of sus- pected credit, v. 288 n. Patrick, Simon, bishop of Ely, iii. 623 n. 653 n. 655 n. iv. 179 n. 184 n. 196, 203, 238 n. 246 n. 255 n. 257 n. 273, 281 n. 317 n. 414, 620 n. 705 n. 709 n. 722 n. V. 158 n. 223 n. 268 n. 293 n. vi. 450 n. his notion of the eucharistic sacrifices, v. 138. Patripassians, Sabellians, why so called, iii. 231. Paul, St., ii. 388. iii. 372, 373, 493, 658. his wish that he were accursed from Clirist for his lirethren, explained in a sermon, v. 626. his case in persecuting the church, considered in a sermon, 727. Paul of Samosata, liishop of Antioch, i. 446, 479. 54''- ii- 395. 684, 718 n. 719 n. 727 n. 728 n. iii. 582, 586, 590. iv. 35. vi. 180. his heresy, i. 469. ii. 718. maintained that the Logos was not a distinct Person from the Father, ii. 33. his doctrine respecting two hypo- stases, 250. deposed for heresy in deny- ing Christ's divinity, iii. 585. Paul, father, iv. 414. v. 411 n. Paulianists, why so called, vi. 180. de- nied Christ's divinity, ib. their baptism or orders not allowed by the council of Nice, ib. Pan linns, iii. 684. Paululus, Robertas, presbyter of Amiens, iii. 127. Paulus diaconus Aquileiensis, vi. 492, 493- . Fausanias, ii. 570 n. Payne, — , iv. 725 n. 758 n. v. 132 n. 162 n. 167 n. 281 n. 293 n. vi. 473. resolved the Unity (with respect to the Father and the Son) into Sonship, or unity of principle, i. 323. Peaceableness, a sermon on the nature of, V. 4c 7. its foundation, 418. its extent, 420. its particular duties and offices, 425- Peacock, Reginald, bishop of Chichester, vi. 244, 249, 263. twelve letters of \Faterland to Lewis, chiefly relating to the bishop's life and writings, 236. his English books or tracts, 249. those that were promised only, so far as ap- pears, 231. his published Latin works, 254. those that were promised, ib. his censure of the Lollards, 255. main- tained that the church had not erred in matter of faith, ib. his character, 253, 427. his principles, and the turn of his thoughts touching the disputes with the Lollards, 257. -his judgment as to the deference due to scripture, or to papal authority, 259. notice of his being abjured as heretic, imprisoned, and his books burnt, 267. reason of his fall, 427. his reasoning to prove that the law of nature is prior to all scripture, and therefore not grounded thereupon, 276 — 281. his defence of images, 281. and pilgrimages, 283. his statement respecting Constantine's donation to the see of Rome, 292. and concerning divers orders of clergy, 293. a summary of his replies to divers objections against the church of Rome, 297. Pearce, Zachary, bishop of Rochester, i. 164, 165, 255. his literary character, 126. wrote an anonymous reply to Dr. Jliddleton's letter on Waterland's Scripture Vindicated, ib. against which 3Iiddleton put forth a Defence, ib. to which he published a Reply, 127. no- tice of it, ib. upon which Middleton published Some Remarks, ib. notice of his amicable dispute with Waterland respecting the eucharist, i. 164. re- marks thereon, 165. Pearson, John, bisliop of Chester, i. 285, 349. 5 '3 n. ii. 108 n. 128, 129 n. 138, 158 n. "276, 417, 427. 5'4, 5'6, .';28, 533, 537, 5.38, 669, 683, 697 n, 702, 584 I N D 703, 706, 767, 768. iii. 12, 36 n. 60, ?44)3i3, 35i»S77n- 589"- S90)5iSn- iv. 2 1, 22 n. 28 n. 29, 31 11. 32, 33 n. 37 n. 406, 412, 432 n. 472 n. 507 n. 645 n. vi. 13 n. 248, 462, 474. cor- rected, iii. 318. resolved the Unity (with respect to the Father and the Son) into Sonship, or unity of princi- ple, i. 323. his opinion respecting the Athanasian Creed, iii. iii, 117. his Exposition of the Apostles' Creed, one of the best books in our language, iv. 35. abridged by Dr. Bishop for the use of common readers, 36. Peck, Francis, vi. 443, 444, 449. Peckham, John, archbishop of Canter- bury, iv. 766 n. Peirce, James, i. 102, 224. iii. 291 n. 300 n. iv. 563 n. V. 407, 408, 409, 411 n. 412. vi. 65 n. 69 n. a dissent- ing teacher at Exeter, espoused the cause of the Arians, i. 99. published an Essay in favour of Infant Commu- nion, V. 403. vi. 42 n. objections to his notion of its antiquity, 407, &c. Pelagius, iii. 202 n. 222, 226, 227, 229. iv. 616 n. 668 n. 768 n. v. 165 n. 167 n. vi. 58. his declaration respecting the incarnation, iii. 209. original sin proved from the practice of baptism against liim, v. 115. Pelagius I, pope, iii. 203. Pelling, Dr., iv. 626 n. 648 n. 706 n. 721, 722 n. 723,' 724 n. 725 n. v. 209 n. Pembroke, earl of, vi. 394, 395. Pepin, king of France, iii. 1 19, 1 71. vi.292. Peploe, Samuel, afterwards bishop of Chester, i. 23. Pepuzians, iii. 606 n. their baptisms re- jected by the church, vi. 175. allowed women to be priests, 1 14. Pepys, Samuel, president of the Royal Society, and Secretary to the Admiralty, vi. 443 n. bequeathed his library to JMagdalene college, Cambridge, 443. Pepys's library at Jlagdalene college, Cambridge, iii. 170. vi. 244, 246, 264, 343) 358, 373. 400, 401, 402, 404. Pererius, — , vi. 23 n. Perfection, see Regenerate state. Perfections of the Father and of the Son are equal, and the same in kind and in number, though differing in the man- ner of existing, ii. 393, 671. rifpixt^P^f'S; see Inhabitation. Perizonius, James, iii. 244 n. 254 n. iv. 186 n. V. 40 n. Perkins, William, iii. 445 n. v. 138. Perron, James David du, cardinal, ii. 377, 495. iii. 364 n. v. 228. Persecutions not sanctioned by allowing of censures against heretics, iii. 519. Persians had, or might have had, a true notion of religion from the Jews, v. 17. Persius, iv. 411. E X. Person, when this term was first intro- duced respecting the Trinity, ii. 541. how understood by Sabellius, 542. the true notion of it, 650. not reciprocal with intelligent agent, ii. 27, 650. pre- cise difference between divine Person and divine intelligent Agent, i. 465. iii. 278. see Hypostasis. Personality of the Son, whilst in and with the Father, and before his tempo- rary generation, asserted by the an- cients, i. 360. Pervie, or Purvie, John, vi. 391, 400. WicklilF's disciple, 372. aided him in his studies, ib. wrote a famous Com- ment on the Apocalypse, ib. probably the author of the version of the Bible commonly ascribed to Wicliff, ib. Petavius, Dionysius, i. 28, 337, 347 n. 348, 381 n. 439. ii. 14 n. 31 n. 40 n. 44 n. 5 1 n. 63 n. 104 n. 1 76 n. 186 n. 202, 203, 251, 258, 377, 391 n. 426 n. 428 n. 464 n. 493, 495, 524 n. 578 n. 591 n. 592 n. 658, 688, 695 n. 719 n. iii. 204, 206, 450, 454, 604 n. iv. 9. V. 131 n. vi. 464. when he flourished, iii. 343. declares against the Divine ex- istence being demonstrable a priori, 344. published Epiphanius, 109. notice of his opinion re.specting the Athanasian Creed, ib. 1 1 7. Peter, St., iii. 658. founder of the church of Antioch, vi. 272. Petit, Thomas, v. 92 n. vi. 344, 404. Petrus, one of Gregory IX.'s legates in the conferences with the Greeks at Constantinople, iii. 128. Petrus Chrysologus, ii. 593 n. Petrus Comestor, vi. 430. Petrus Florissiensis, or Floreffiensis, otherwise called Petrus de Harentals, iii. 143. wrote in 1374., ib. Petty, sir Wilham, iv. 291 n. Peutinger, Charles, iii. 139. Peutinger, Conrad, iii. 139. Pfaffins, John Christopher, iv. 42, 103, 477 n. 479 n. 494 n. — 498 n. 506 n. 529. 531, 534) 581, 586 n. 591 n. 640 n. 641 n. 686, 687, 693 n. 715, 720, 727, 728 n. 732, 734 n. 737, 742 n. 758 n. 772 n. V. 110 n. 162 n. 167, 205 n. vi. 488, 489, 49') 494) 495> 497. his opinion of the rise of infant communion, v. 406. PfeifFer, Augustus, iv. 153 n. 154 n. 157 n. 173 n. 174 n. 176 n. 208 n. 258 n. 273, 314 n. 360 n. 366, 367. an emi- nent Leipsic divine, 365. Phaedrns, iv. 407. Phantasiastae, see Docctai. Pharisee, see Publican. Pherecydes, said to have borrowed from the scriptures, v. 1 3. Philalethes Cantabri(/iensis,!i title assumed by Mv. Jackson, whom see. INDEX. 585 Philastrius, ii. 6r2. iii. 222 n. 238,54311. ."iSon- 555 n- 556 n. syyn. 57811. 585 n. 590 n. 673 n. iv. 306 n. 434 n. V. 1 3, 1 7 n. 1 1 1 n. 1 31 n. 167 n. 198 n. 259, 275. vi. 424, 470, a favourer of Origen, ii. 641. I'liileleidhcrits Lipsiensis, the name under wliicli Dr. Bentlev answered Collins's Discourse on Freethinking, i. i r. Philetus, V. 97. excommunicated by St. Paul for denial of a future resurrection, iii. 402. Philips, — , a paintei', i. 25 1 n. Philo Jud;eus, i. 364 n. ii. 62, 476 n. 506 n. 573, 576, 632, 684. iii. 70. iv. 221 n. V. 20, 24 n. I24n. vi. 434. Philosophical principles, why scarcely ad- missible to argue upon such, with respect to the Trinity and such like mysteries, i. 464. Philostorgius, i. 453. ii. 505, 678. iii. 682 n. Phinehas, v. 59, 64. Phocas, emperor, vi. 293. Phoebadius, i. 283. ii.34n. 141 n. 151 n. 460 n. 563, 616 n. iii. 23, 89 n. his interpretation of Phil. ii. 6. as applied to Christ, ii. 1 10 n. Photinians, iii. 242, 254, 383. Photinus, ii. 395, 684. maintained that the Logos was not a distinct Person from the Father, ii. 33. his doctrine respecting two hypostases, 250. con- demned by the council of Sirmium, ii. 602. Photius, patriarch of Constantinople, i. 547 n. ii. 239, 257 n. 377, 420, 455, 463. iv. 436n. 604 n. charged Eusebius with Arianisni, ii. 495. considered Me- thodius's Symposion to be very much corrupted and adulterated, 600. judged too severely sometimes of the ancients, 639- Phurnutus, ii. 570. 4>u(r€i, in what sense commonly used by the ancients, ii. 580. opposed to 6iu(rij, see 'hviryK-q. Physicians, college of, in London, notice of their controversy with the two uni- versities aljout their graduates in medi- cine, i. 12. Picherellus, a Romanist, v. 162, 163. his character, ih. Piedmont, a IMS. history of, by Balden- sal, in the duke of Savoy's library, iii. 131- Pierius, ii. 417. called the Father and the Son, oixrlas Svo, meaning only two distinct Persons, i. 285. Piers Plowman, vi. 264, 2O6. Piety not instnimental to social virtues, but the source and foimtain of them, iv. 76. Pilgrimages, bishop Peacock's defence of, vi. 283. Pin, M. du, ii. 239, 378. iii. 120. iv. 406, 414, 498 n. vi. 83 n. 197. ascribes the Atlianasian Creed to Vigilius Tapsen- sis, iii. 113. his opinion respecting its age, &c. iO. 117. Pindar, said to have borrowed from the scriptures, v. 9. Piscator, — , iv. 339 n. Pithoeus, iv. 360 n. Pitts, — , vi. 270. Pius V, pope, iii. 163, 164. iv. 599 n. vi. 230. Placette, John de la, iii. 645. iv. 140 n. 141, 771 n. Plaifere, _, ii. 341, 347 n. 350 n. 352, 353. Plain, its signification, iii. 233 n. Planudes, Maximus, iii. 173. Plato, i. 345. ii. 240, 402, 570, 573, 574, 575- iv. 413, 698 n. 729. v. 9,124 n. his distinction between ttoujtjjj and Syifiiovpyhs according to Justin Jlartyr, ii. 229. the first who attempted to prove the immortality of the soul by argument, iv. 299 n. said to have bor- rowed from Moses's Law, v. 5, 7, 9, II, 12, 13, 17. Lactantius's opinion, II, 12. Platonists, what opinion they entertained of Christ, iv. 501. Plautus, iv. 413. Pliny the elder, ii. 586 n. Pliny the younger, iii. 610. iv. 413, 480, 723 n. 783. Plotinus, i. 34. ii. 394 n- S70> 574, 57^, 607 n. 725 n. said to have borrowed from the scriptures, v. 13, 16. Plumptre, — , professor of physic at Cambridge, i. 247 n. 248, 249. Plusiadenus, Johannes, (afterwards Jose- phus,) a Latinizing Greek, iii. 131. wrote a Dialogue in defence of the Latins, ib. Plutarch, ii. 577 n. iv. 413. v. 13, 16, 48 n. 57. said to have borrowed from the scriptures, 13. Pneumatomachi, another name for the Macedonians, v. 113. Pocock, Edward, iv. 365 — 367. vi. 434. Polanus, Amandus, iv. 367 n. a learned Calvinist, v. 136. considered the eu- chariet a tn;e sacrifice, ib. Pole, Reginald, cardinal, iii. 170, 233 n. Polidore Virgil, vi. 359. Polycarj), i. 511. ii. 215, 219, 233, 234, 680. iii. 469, 540, 550 n. 608, 615. vi. 466. a disciple of Ignatius, iii. 483. anecdote of his retiring upon meeting Marcion, 469 n. Polytheism, two kinds of, ii. 20. what sort tile First Commandment has chiefly respect to, ib. 588 INDEX. Pomp in religious services, observations upon, vi. 273. Pontius, two derivations of, 241. Pool, Matthew, iv. 317 n. 330 n. 351 n. 363 n. 428 n. Poole, — , vi. 425. Pope, Alexander, i. 247, 249, 250. Pope, sir Thomas, founder of Trinity college, Oxford, one of lord Audley's executors, vi. 428. had the chief hand in compiling the statutes of Jlagdalene college, Cambridge, 429. Porphyry, i. 410. iii. 642. v. 13, 16, 46, 124 n! 155. Porlo, what its signification may be in Irenaeus, ii. 450. Positive institutions or duties, see Moral virtues. Post-oblation in the eucharist, called also commemoration, what, v. 183. Pote, — , vi. 423. Potho Prumiensis, v. 167 n. Pott, — -, archdeacon of London, i. 5, 23 1 . vi. 458. Potter, Edward, of Emmanuel college, Cambridge, i. 36, 273. pref. his Vindi- cation of our Blessed Savionr^s Divinity, chiefly against Dr. Clarke, was one of the ablest answers to Dr. C, i. 41. notice of it, ib. Potter, John, archbishop of Canterbury, i. 254. ii. 303, 362. iii. 460 n. 472 n. S I3n. iv. 402, 415, 481 n. 525 n. 701 n. 704n. 706 n. 710, 722 n. vi. 208, 429 n. 464, 465, 469. the offer of a bishop- ric to A^'aterland pi-obably owing to him, i. 245. his tribute to M'^aterland's memory, 253. explanation of his state- ment respecting the eucharistic sacri- fice, V. 294 n. Powers, (divine,) in what sense ascribed to Christ by modern Arians, ii. 628. Pownall, Thomas, vi. 439. Poynet, Ponet, John, bishop of ^Vin- chester, vi. 31 n. died in exile at Stras- burg, V. 209. object of his drawing up his Diallacticon, ib. edited after his death by Sturmius, 210. a brief ac- count of his main principles touching the eucharist, ib. Prayer, how to be understood in its most proper sense, ii. 675. prayer and thanksgiving, what founded upon, 24. in what light considered as parts of religious worship, 24, 25. Prayers, why generally to be offered rather through the Son than to him, ii. 670. most of them, but not all, ad- dressed to the Father in ancient litur- gies, and in the English liturgy, iv. I o, I I . Prayer Books of king Edward, iii. 230 n. Praxeans, iii. 580, 583. v. in. men of the same principles with those of Sabel- lius, ii. 406. -axeas, i. 322 n. 339, 446. ii. 395, 460, 542, 710. iii. 74, 582, 590. iv. 35. his heresy, i. 468. of the same principles, in the main, witli Noetus and Sabellius, 289. made one single hypostasis the one God, with three names, 449, 478. charged the church with tritheism, but was answered by Tertullian, 468, 498, maintained that the Logos was not a distinct Person from the Father, ii. 33. Precarious being, modern Arians charged with making the Son to be such, ii. 546. the proper and full notion of the term, ib. Precepts, affirmative and negative, the former admit of intermissions, the other not, iv. 123. Predestination and original sin, church of England doctrines of, unanswerably vindicated from a Calvinistic sense by bishop Bull, ii, 286, 287. remarks on the meaning of the seventeenth Article, 348. Prepositions, what may be inferred from the scripture usage of them with re- spect to the Father and the Son, ii. 51. Prescience, notice of the seeming repug- nancy between it and free-will, ii. 693 n. divine prescience of future contingents not considered by Episcopius necessary to be beheved, iii. 448. proofs in favour of such a prescience, 449. Presumptuous sins, a sermon on the na- ture and danger of, v. 538. Pride, reflections upon, v. 425, 457. a sermon, shewing shame and contempt to be the end of pride, 568. what pride is, 569. the scripture doctrine of the improfitableness of man's best per- formances, an argument against spi- ritual pride, 645. Prideaux, Humphrey, dean of Norwich, iii. 690. iv. 248 n. 287 n. 296 n. 376, 698 n. V. 6 n. 17 n. 21 n. his marks and characters of imposture, 65 n. Priest, its proper meaning, v. 739. how far ministers are strictly priests in the service of the eucharist, iv. 731. who are deemed such among protestauts, v. ^78. , . . . Priestcraft, not the cause of Christianity, ^- 5". 58- meaning of the term, 59. Priesthood held by women among some ancient sects, vi. 1 14. Primasius, iv. 487 n. 540 n. v. 165 n. 167 n. Prime, at what hour performed, iii. 123, 189. Primitive church, of what authority in controversy, i. 538, .S39, S4i- a safer rule to go by than private reasoning in a matter above our comprehension, 641. the three ways of ascertaining its sen- timents relative to any doctrine, iii. 524. miracles and propheciest still con- INDEX. 587 tinned with it in the time of Irenfeus, 1 569- . I Primmers, iii. 230 n. 233 n. Principles, first, and axioms perceival)le hy intuition, not demonstration, iii. 387. see Religions principles. Priority of order, in the Father, does not imply that the Son is a subordinate : God, i. 316 n. consistent with co- i equahty, ii. 456. Trph aldvwv, or vph Travrcev atwvuv, mean- ing of, as a|jplied by the ancient writers to God the Son, i. 355. j Probable, misconceptions arising from its being in its philosophical but unusual sense, iii. 501. Procession of the Holy Ghost, whether temporal or eternal, left undecided by our church in the opinion of Dr. Ben- net, ii. 285. Waterland considers that the church has determined it, 286. Procession from the Son, entertained both by Greeks and Latins, iii. 201. ex- pressed frequently in sense, though rarely in terms, ib. asserted and clear- ed by St. Austin, ib. notice of the dis- pute respecting it between the Greeks and Latins, 237. opinion of the Greek church respecting it, 437. Proclus, ii. 570 n. 580 n, 724 n. 725 n. said to have borrowed from the scrip- tures, V. 16. Procopius, V. 13s n. 156 n. 245. Prolation, or generation, used as equi- valent words by Irenseus, i. 353. Proper, its various meanings, v. 283 n. Propertius, iv. 413. Prophecies had not ceased in the church in the time of Irenaeus, iii. 569. Prophets, see False prophets. Propitiatory, its larger sense, v. 281. ■irp6a-wwov, in what different senses used by the ancients, ii. 54r. the ancient catholic sense of the word, ib. difference between it and vir6a'ra 254' j^- 4'9- opposed the attempt of the Arians to alter the Doxology in the singing Psalms, i. 50. ii. 4. rudely attacked by Whiston, Sykes, and others in consequence, i. 50. appointed Wa- terland the first lady Bloyer's lecturer, 50, 51. the sermons dedicated to him, ii. 3! Rocca, Angelas, vi. '26g. Rogers, (alias Matthew,) John, vi. 329, 357, 367- Rogers, Dr. John, ii. 264, 334. iii. 460 n. 467 n. 488 n. 490 n. 493 n. 511 n. 515 n. 519, 525 n. 605 n. iv. 392. his rules for intei'preting scripture, iii. 631. Rohault, James, iv. 409, 410. Rolle, see Hampole. Roman Creed, see Apostles' Creed. Roman Psalter, notice of certain MSS. of, with the Athanasian Creed, iii. 151, 152, 159- Romanensis lingua, or Rustica Romana, the language spoken in France in the ninth century, iii. 168. Rome, church of, notwithstanding its cor- ruptions, retains the divinity of Christ, ii. 387. when it received the Athana- sian Creed, iii. 186, 189. backward in admitting any alteration, 187. when it used the Nicene Creed, ih. its method of treating scripture and the fathers, 654. observations respecting its pre- tence of tradition, 659. pleads for two or more true constructions of scripture, iv. 153. destroys the outward sign of the eucharist, 484. its view of remis- sion of sins in the eucharist considered, 664. sometimes distinguishes between excluding men absolutely from Christ- ian communion, and peremptorily sen- tencing the same men to eternal damn- ation, V. 78. motives of l)elief in that church, according to Chillingworth, vi. 4S9- Rome, see of, bishop Peacock's statement respecting Constantine's donation to, vi. 292. Ross, — , iv. 257, 259, 341 n. Rotharis, iii. 186. Rowning, John, iv. 410. Royal library, iii. 169, 2 22 n. 227 n. 229 n. vi. 317, 345. notice of a J\JS. Commentary there of the Psalms and Hymns of the Church, and of the Athanasian Creed, iii. 145. and of a Roman Psalter, with the Athanasian Creed, 157. and of a MS. there of the Athanasian Creed that belonged to Lewis IX, 159. Royal Society library, iii. 72. vi. 301,320. possesses the Norfolk library, iii. 158. Ruarus, v. 1 1 8 n. one of the shrewdest and learnedest of the Socinians, iv. 663. Rubric of the commissioners for reviewal of the Liturgy, 1689, respecting the Athanasian Creed, iii. 249. Ruelius, Joannes Ludovicus, his opinion respecting the Athanasian Creed, iii. Ill, 117. Ruffinus, ii. 257 n. 376, 394 n. 418 n. 563. 6371 638, 641 n. 689. iii. 87, 257, 261 n. 264 n. 267 n. 2C8 n. S3 r, 533, 555 n. 575. iv.2i, 28. v. 198 n. vi. 119, 151 n. 180, 181. Cave's censure of his History, 181. Ruinart, Thierry, ii. 420 n. 437, 476. Rupertus Tuitiensis, ii. 461 n. 617 n. V. 205. Russell, John, iii. 146. vi. 300, 302, 304, 3' 7, 360, 361, 39I' 397) 398- minister of Poole, Dorset, and preacher of St. John's, Wapping, 4C0 n. his service to Mr. Lewis, ib. Russian church, see Muscovite church. Rymer, Thomas, iv. 469. vi. 356. S. Sa, Emanuel de, v. 165 n. Sabbath, probably instituted soon after the creation, iv. 292. Sabellianism was, that Father and Son were one and the same hypostasis, or Person, i. 338, 498. ii. 703. its essence, 718. the Sabellian doctrine of the Tri- nity, 468. Origen's account of it very distinct and accurate, 707. the catholic doctrine the medium between it and Arianism, i. 467. SabeUianism and Arianism how near akin, 481. where they differ, ib. Socinianism near to Sabellianism, 482. Sabellianism more consistent than Arianism, but Arian- ism more pious, 483. SabeUians, iii. 254, 580, 583. v. ill. in the controversy between the catholics and SabeUians, what point alone was necessary for the catholics to prove, i. 517. their interpretation of John i. 1, with observations on it, ii. 30, 48, 58. how they explained away the person- ahty of the Logos, 31, 32. the mean- ing of hypostasis, ii. 71 1. their peculiar tenet, 541. iii. 231, 232. called in con- sequence Patripassians, 231. Sabellius, i. 289, 446. ii. 468, 477, 523, 707, 710, 713, 714, 7i9n. iv. 211, 582, 651, 675. iv. 31;. his heresy, i. 468. iii. 260. maintained that there was one hypostasis only, under three names, 175, 203. charged the catholics with tritheism, 193, 222. how thought to have refined on the Noetian scheme, 193. maintained that two real persons cannot he one being or substance, 205. asserted that the Logos was not a dis- tinct Person from the Father, ii. 33. INDEX. 591 how he misinterpreted Person, as ap- plied to tlie Trinity, 542. for what condemned by the ancients, 728. Sacrament, notice respecting this title of the eucharist, iv. 480. Sacramenia, in the plural, often used by the fathers for a single sacrament, vi. 45 n- Sacraments and duties,distinction between, iv. 624. the Jewish sacrifices also sacra- ments, V. 272. sacraments, the two, con- sidered as positive institutions, iv. 78. shewn to be, in some sense, means to moral, to Christian virtue, both naturally and supernaturally, ib. the right and worthy use of them is not only a means to virtue, but is virtue, is part of our moral and Christian holiness, piety and perfec- tion, 82. they are further the instituted ordinary means of applying the benefit of the great atonement to every worthy receiver, 85. they may be compared to moral duties, and in some cases prefer- red to them, according as the circum- stances direct, 91. the two sacraments shewn on scripture grounds to be federal rites, 102. essential to the Christian covenant, v. 82. are in fact its seals, 8.^. their subserviency to true and sound faith, 107. are stand- ing monuments of the trutli of Clirist- tianity, 108. are also of service for the supporting of particular doctrines against various unbelievers, ib. the humanity of Christ proved against the Docetai and the Marcionites from the eucharist, 108, 1 1 i. also the creation of the visilde world by God most high against the Valentinian Gnostics, ib. also the resurrection of the body, 110. also the use of wine against the Encra- tita', or Aquarians, iii. also the doc- trine of the Trinity, from the form of baptism, against various heretics, ib, also the divinity of Christ, against the Arians, 112. also the real union of Father and Son, from both the sacra- ments, 113. also the divinity of the Holy Ghost, from the form of baptism, against the Macedonians, ib. also the nonabsori)tion of Christ's manhood in his Godhead, from the eucharist, against the ApoUinarians and Eutychians, ib. 115. also original sin, from the ancient practice of baptism, against Pelagius, ib. also the non-division of the man- hood of Christ from the Godhead, from the eucharist, against the Nestorians, ib. also the non-use of images, 1 1 6. also the falsehood of Socinus's tenets from both the sacraments, 117, 118. Sacrifice, notice respecting this title of the eucharist, iv. 484. how understood, 485. what the fathers really meant by the word, and in what sense they applied it to the eucharist, 727 n. what they judged to be the truest saci'ifice, 729. man's duty to offer up spiritual sacrifice, enforced in a sermon, v. 737. Sacrifice, spiritual, true sacrifice, v. 123. what is meant by it, 124. Plato's defi- nition of sacrifice, 1 24 n. St. Austin's, 124. Aquinas's, 125. this notion ad- mitted by the early reformers, and even by the Romanists, ib. how material things came to be considered essential to a true sacrifice, 125. how the pro- testants answered the charge of the Romanists, that they had no sacrifice, ib. 126. spiritual sacrifices proved to be true sacrifices against Bellarmine, 127. his artful contrivance to evade the old definitions of sacrifice, refuted, 130. his definition of a sacrifice, 132 n. ir- reconcilable with the sacrifice of the cross, 133. archbishop Sandys's defini- tion, 134 n. references to testimonies of the ancients against material sacri- fice, 135 n. notice of protestants who adhered to the old definitions, 136. and of those who used diffei'ent lan- guage in explaining it, 140. and of those who considered it a material sa- crifice, 143. excesses of Johnson's scheme in depreciating spiritual sacri- fices, 151. in overvaluing material sa- crifices, 155. his excesses in relation to our Lord's supposed sacrifice in the eucharist, 161. and in relation to the sacrifice of the cross, 172. a brief ana- lyses of his system, 180. why the eu- charist is particularly called a sacrifice, 184. authors who have owned external sacrifices, 223 n. meaning of extrinsic and intrinsic sacrifices, ib. distinctions of sacrifice, 233. patriarchal, pagan, Mosaic, and Christian, ib. the two oldest names of sacrifice, 234 n. active and passive, 234. this distinction of use in explaining the fathers, 235. extrin- sic and intrinsic, 236. self-sacrifice the greatest sacrifice, 237. visible and in- visible, 239. material and immaterial, or corporeal and incoi'poreal, 242. bloody and unbloody, 246. a distinct- tion borrowed from the Pythagoieans, ih. Justin Martyr seems to have led the way, ib. testimonies of the ancients, to sliew that unbloody sacrifice was never a name for the eucharistic ele- ments, 247. smoky and unsmoky, 254. false and tiiie,the preceding distinctions, 259. discriminate Christian from Jewish and pagan sacrifices ; the following re- spect only the Jewish and Christian, 260. old and new, ib. legal or literal, and spiri- tual or evangelical, or carnal and sitiri- tnal, or earthly and spiritual, or typical and true, or symbolical and true, 262, 263. thelegalsacrificesshewn to betypical i92 INDEX. of our Lord's sacrifice, and symbolical of ours, 263. Aaronical and jlelchize- dekian, 26S. testimonies of the fathers, to this distinction, 270, 272. the Jew- ish sacrifices also sacraments, 272. the following distinctions regard Christian sacrifices alone, 276. external and in- ternal, ih. private and puhlic, ib. lay and clerical, 277. gratulatorv and pro- pitiatorj-, 280. sacrifice in a large, ge- neral sense, and sacrifice in a more re- strained, eminent, or eraphatical mean- ing, 282. the Lord's sacrifice eminently the Sacrifice, ib. the eucharist emphati- cally the sacrifice of the church, ib. real and nominal, 284. comprising in- strumental and real, ib. verbal and real, 287. material things considered as sa- crifices under the law but not under the gospel, 289. commemorative and real, 290. what meant by terming the eu- charist a commemorative sacrifice, 292. Sacrificers, who are deemed such among protestants, v. 277, 278. Sacrifices, probably of divine appointment, iv. 181, 292, 300, 344. V. 20. their object, iv. 182. Sadducees, their distinguishing principles, V. 668. disputable whether they re- ceived only iMoses's books as canonical scripture, 671. Sadeel, Anthony, vi. 496, 497. Salisbury, bishop of, see G. Bumet. Salisbury,-, William, vi. 353 n. Sallust, ii. 576 n, 725 n. Sallustius, Caius Crispus, iv. 409. Salmasius, Claude, iv. 671 n. 708 n. v. 158 n. 162 n. vi. 489 — 497. Salmasius, alias Simplicius ^'erinus, v. 282 n. Salmeron, — , v. 101 n. 143 n. 165 n. vi. 460. Salmon, — , iv. 407, 413. Saltmarsh, — , iv. 287 n. Salvation, necessary terms of, somewhat less strict than those of church-commu- nion, V. 78. and ^^ hy, ib. see Regene- rate stale. Salvian, iii. 492 n. Sameness made by union, ii. 62:, 671, ;o8, 709. Sameness, common to the Trinity, how far explicable, ii. 544, 556. Samonas, vi. 491. Samuel, sermon upon his ajipearance to Sa\il at Endor, v. 759. Sanchoniatho, iv. 192. Sancta Clara Franciscus a, vi. 469. pub- lished a book to make the Thirty-nine | Articles speak popish sentiments, iii.5 1 7. Sanctification and justification near allied, but not the same thing, vi. 7. distinc- , tion between them, ib. see JIo/i/ Ghost. Sancto \'ictore, Hugo de, v. 189 n. vi. ; 488. Sandius, Christopher, i. 28, 514. ii. 244, 378, 495, 633. iii. 564 n. the famous Arian, iii. 1 11. falsely maintained that the opinion of the Homoousians and Sabellians respecting the Son of God was the same, i. 507 n. ascribes the Athanasian Creed to Athanasius, bi- shop of Spire, iii. III. his opinion re- specting its age, &e., ib. 117. Sandys, Edwin, archbishop of York, vi. 494. his definition of sacrifice, v. 134 n. Saporis, king, v. 248. Saracens circumcised at about thirteen years of age, iv. 195. Sardican council, the false one, ii. 618, or synod of Philippopolis, in the year 347, condemned Athanasius, Hosius, and Julius, as they themselves had been condemned by the true Sardican council, 604. Hilary endeavoured to interpret their confession to a catholic sense, ib. Sarum IMS. of an Anglo-Saxon version of the Athanasian Creed, iii. 1 69. Saturnilians, iii. 550. Saturnilus, ii. 577. Saturninus, iii. 606 n. vi. 187. taught that this lower world was made by an- gels, ii. 76. Saul, see Samuel. Saulien, St., vi. 484. Saunderson, Nicholas, iv. 411, 413. Saurin, James, iv. 185 n. 192 n. 196. Savoy, library of the duke of, at Turin, had Baldensal's MS. History of Pied- mont, iii. 131. Saxon Gospels, notice of, vi. 358. Saywell, — , iii. 655. Scaliger, — , iv. 472 n. 494, 496 n. Scandret, — , iv. 469. v. 172 n. Scepticism, its creed, iii. 688. SchafTmannus, — , iv. 367 n. Scharpius, — , v. 223 n. a learned Calvin- ist, 136. when he published his Cur- siis Tlieologiciis, ib. considered the eu- charist a true sacrifice, ib. Schelstrate, Emanuel, iv. 786, 788. Schlicting, Siichting, — , iv. 466, 500 n. 506 n. 617 n. 622 n. 623 n. 662, 663, 709 n. 770 n. vi. 484. Schniidius, Erasmus, iv. 55. Schoolmen, inclined to theism, iii. 328. great masters in abstract reasoning, ib. their characters vindicated in that re- spect, ib. testimonies from many of them that the existence of the Deity is not demonstrable a priori, 329, ficc. how they unde.signedly hurt the doc- trine of the Trinity, 537. School-notions, a term of art applied by the Arians to the catholic jtrevailing notions of the Trinity, i. 536. Schroerus, Joannes Fridericus, iv. 186 n. V. 18 11. INDEX. 593 Sclavoniau letters, said to lie invented by Cyrill and Methodius, iii. 193. Scortia, Baptist, v. 130 n. 143 n. Scott, Dr. John, iv. 40;, 409, 414. Scotus, Joannes Duns, iii. 340 n. vi. 494. when he flourished, iii. 333. styled doctor Subtilis, ib. a rival of Aquinas, ib. founder of a new sect among the schoolmen, ib. declares the Divine exist- ence not demonstrable a priori, 333. Scotus, Michael, iii. 327. Scrij)ture, the use and value of ecclesias- tical antiquity in interpreting scripture, iii. 602. objections answered, 624. the rule of truth, but not the rule of inter- pretation for church forms, iv. 15. no- tice respecting the fathers allegorizing scripture, iii. 649, 692. the threefold method of interpreting scripture laid down by St. Jerome, 694. the ancient fathers the best comment on it in the estimation of the church of England, iv. 49. how disparaged by enthusiasm, 422. scripture alone our complete rule of faith and manners, 461. for the right understanding of it, it is of great moment to know what the most emi- nent writers or teachers, ancient or modern, have thought liefore us on the same subject, 461 — 465. more especially to observe what they iman- imously agreed in, 461. divine law is the authentic rule of action, but the common reason of mankind is the rule of interpretation, ib. the novelty of any interpretation is of itself a strong pre- sumption against it, 465. the fact of ex- tracts of scripture being translated into Greek before the time of Alexander the Great not now commonly admitted, v. 5. bishop Peacocke considered that the jiope (X)uldchangeanyordinanceof an apostle, but not of Christ, contained in holy writ, vi. 259. his reasonings to prove the law of nature prior to all scripture, and therefore not grounded tliereupon, 276 — 281. see Authorized version and Interp? elation. Scrivener,—, iii.398n. 62211. 632n.634n. 655 n. 660 n. v. 401 n. vi. 47 1. Scriverius, Peter, vi. 269. Seeker, Thomas, (afterwards archbishop of Canterlniry,) succeeded Potter in the see of Oxford, vi. 429 n. Sedulius, Caelius, or Cajcilius, iv. 540 n. V. 165 n. Seed, Jeremiah, i. 3, 10, 73, 241;, 250, 263. iv. 415.V.385 n. ministerof Twickenham chapel, i. 239. his Jloycr's Lectures commended, ib. his high character, 239 n. Seldcn, John, iv. 109, 188 n. 226 n. 258 n. 429 n. V. 12 n. 21 n. Self-condemnation, two kinds of, iii. 464. Self-existence, or aseity, is negative, ii. WATKRLAND, VOL. VI. 696. its meaning, ib. idea of self- existence, not the same with that of necessary existence, or of eternity, i. 344. its difference from that of neces- sary existence shewn, 345. not an es- sential character of God, 490. con- sidered as negative and relative, and called a personal character, ib. ii. 545. as distinct from necessary existence, expressive only of the order and man- ner in which the perfections are in the Father, 512, 545. confounded with necessary existence by the Arians, 632. question upon which the learned have differed concerning it, 695. Self-love, a sermon upon the nature and kinds of, v. 446. Self-sacrifice, the greatest sacrifice, v. 237. Selfishness, rtflections upon, v. 442. Semi-Arianism, perfect nonsense and contradiction, i. 404. Semi-Arians and Arians, both come to one at last, i. 393. Seneca, Lucius Aunaeus, iii. 133 n. iv. 413. V. 16, 65 n. Sensuality, reflections upon, v. 458. Septuagint, v. 16. a very unusual freedom employed in the version of Isaiah ix. 6, ii. 136. how probably it arose, 137. the [ Septuagint considered as an inspired performance by Irena'us, ib- Clement of Alexandria equally an admirer of it, 137. uses Kvpios Suvdfiiwv and Kvpios TravToicparccp indifferently for the same Hebrew words, 142. Serapion, bishop of Antioch, ii. 553. vi. 97, I 148. anecdote of Dionysius, bishop of i Alexandria, his sending the eucliarist I to him when dying, iv. 652. Serarius, Nicolaus, iii. 177 n. 256 n. ; Seros,\\ illiam, printer, vi. 332, 333, 403. Sermons of the eighteenth century vindi- cated, i. 2 19. Servia, now a province of Turkey, iii. 192. its first reception of Christianity, 193. Sethoitts, iii. 606 n. Seventh day, observations resjtecting the origin of its sacredness, v. 20. Severians, iii. 606 n. Severus, Alexander, iv. 501 n. Se.xtus Empiricns, ii. 586 n. v. 57. Seymour, queen Catharine, vi. 381, 382, 384, 386—388. Seymour, Thomas lord, vi. 381, 386. Shaftesbury, earl of, iv. 192 n. 200 n. 226 n. 361. V. 45 n. 52 n. retailed by Tindal, i. 122. Sharpe, John, archbishop of York, iv. 404, 407, 409, 429 n. 431 n. 435 n. 452 n. 569, 670, 725 n. 748 n. 758 n. 762 n. as judicious a divine as any our church has had, 762. his observations upon the computations by weeks, v. 27. Sharrock, — , iv. 109, 151 u. 134 n. 203, 287 n. V. 54 n. 397 n. Q q 594 I N D Sheba, queen of, uncertain whether she became a Jewish proselyte, iv. 295. Shepherd's Almanack, or Calendar, when first composed in French, vi. 244. twice translated in English, when the last time, ib. Sherlock, Thomas, bishop of London, son of dean Sherlock, i. 10, 32, 64, 196, 254. ii. 330. iii. 399,424,431, 437, 535 n- 611 n.6i6n. 650, 664 n. iv. 25 n. 26 n. 223 n. 226n. 415, 801 n. v. 28,79n. 81 n. 82 n. 83 n. 87 n. vi. 419, 42 1, 461, 462, 464, 467,470. probabl)' drew up, as vice- chancellor of Cambridge, their address of thanks to George I, for his present of bishop Hloore's library, i. 1 2 n. his politics suspected of being against the Hajioveiian succession, 13. supposed to be the author of the Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet, vi. 157. Sherlock, Dr. M'illiam, afterwards dean of St. Paul's, father of bishop Sherlock, i. 32, 198. iv. 415. V. 73 n. an answer to what tracts he wrote, his Vindication 0/ the Doctrine of the Trinity, i. 32. his method of explaining the mystery dis- approved even l)y many of the advocates of the same doctrine, ib. Dr. \\'allis considered some of his illustrations as approaching to tritheism, ib. Dr. South attacked him on the same grounds, ib. these two in turn were charged with Sabellianism, ib. his view of the doc- trine publicly prohibited at Oxford, ib. the royal authority interfered to check the heat of this controversy, ib. Shuckford, Samuel, iv. 196, 199 n. 203, 220 n. 293 n. v. 10 n. Sidney college library, Cambridge, i. 5. vi- 3°', 315, 3»6, 3"7, 318, 319. 320. 367, 368, 370, 397, 400, 40 r, 402. has a very old copy of Hanipole's Com- mentary of the Psalms and Hymns of the Church, iii. 146. Sidonius, v. 278 n. Silvester, Pope, vi. 293. Silvius, Eusel)ius, iii. 216 n. Simeon Thessalonicensis, vi. 68 n. Similitudes, or illustrations used by the ancients to denote the connection be- tween the Father and the Son, notice of them, ii. 614. Simon Magus, ii. 30. iii. 547. v. 97. vi. 483. borrowing Platonic sentiments, asserted that this lower world was made by angels, ii. 76. his followers called Doceta?, iii. 547. taught that men are saved by grace only, without any regard to good works, v. 635. Simon Tornacensis, priest of Tournay, taught divinity at Paris, iii. 140. his MS. works in many libraries, ib. amongst them an Exposition of the Athanasian Creed, ib. of which Oudiii gives an account, ib. EX. Simon, Richard, vi. 69 n. 491. Simonians, iii. 550,680. one of their tenets, iv. 451. Simplicity of God, why a mystery, i. 458. how beset with difficulties, 16. Simplicity of mind, a sermon on the true wisdom of, v. 577. Simplicius, ii. 575. Simphcius Verinus, see Salmasi'is. Simpson, Thomas, iv. 408, 409. Sin, material and formal, iii. 492. Sincerity divided into two kinds, iii. 485. the plea of sincerity, in behalf of teachers of false doctrines, considered , ib. Sinner, see Repenting Sinner. Sins in general, their nature, kinds, and measures, v. 539. definition of sin, ib. sins of commission and omission, what, ib. sins of ignorance, what, 541. of infirmity, what, 542. of presumption, what, ib. sins reducible to three heads, 708. see Infirmity, Presumptuous sins. Remission, and Venial sins. Sion college library, vi. 305, 392, 398. Siricius, pope, iv. 792. Sirmium, council of, ii 609, 618. composed mostly of men of Arian principles, 602. Hilary once judged kindly of them, yet afterwards altered his sentiments, ib. Tillemont's opinion of them, ib. con- demned Photinus, ib. their opinion of the Son's generation, 258. Sirraondus, Jacobus, iii. 120, 122, 123, 21 1 n, 212 n. Sisinnius, of the Novatian sect, i. 355. ii. 225 n. 374, 375. Skuish, Squisius, or Squisus, John, vi. 270. Slade, — , iv. 148. Slichting, see Schlicting. Smalbroke, Richard, bishoj) of St. David's, i. 242. ii. 590 n. 591 n. iii. 419, 648. vi. 422, 484. notice of Waterland's Defence of him in relation to the charge of persecution, in answer to J. Jones, 134- Smalcius, Valentine, iv. 483, 500 n. 519 n. 522, 525, 622, 623 n. 662. Smith, — , ii. 271. Smith, John, iv. 335, 347, 35 2, 355, 358 n. 367 n. V. 48 n. Smith, Thomas, iii. 151 n. 153 n. 190. iv. 545 n. V. loi n. 405. vi. 69 n. 303, 425. drew up a catalogue of the Cotton MSS., iii. 155. Smith, Thomas, vi. 461. Smyth, Richard, vi. 497. Socinian congregations now in England were formerlv I'nitarian, which had sprung from Arian, i. 101 n. Sociniauism, near to Sabellianism, i. 482. Socinians, iii. 583. iv. 770. interpret those texts of Scripture, which speak of the Son's power of creating, of a metapho- rical creation, i. 386. why they adopted INDEX. 595 this idea, ii. 78. those wlio deny the personality of the Logos are rather Photiniaiis, or Sabelliaiis, 33. the So- ciiiiaii inter])retatioii of the beginning of St. Jolm's Gospel, with observations on it, 35,48. the later Socinians have rather closed in with the Sabellian construction, 35, 78. found the worship of Christ on his power of judging, 680. notice of their j)retence of tradition, iii. 661. either ignorantly or artfully con- found the Kbionites and Nazaraians, ii. reject the invisible grace of the eucha- rist, iv. 483. their scheme of the eucha- rist, 671. their objections against remis- sion of sins in the eucharist answered, 65 7 — 664. their objections against sanc- tirication being conveyed in the eucha- rist groundless, 699. mischief of their view of the eucharist, 764. Socinus, Faustus, ii. 33. iii. Cio, 625, 651, 655 n- 663, 673. iv. 462, 465, 466 n. 4^3) 505 n- 512, 615 11. 61 7 n. 661,662, 670,671,672,709,723. V. 175. allowed that St. John, as well as the Jews, understood that our Lord had declared himself er/iial with God, in John v. 17., i. 439. his unhappy conduct, iii. 476. i why he inter])reted avaixviiais, with reference to the eucharist, commemora- tion, iv. 507. his character, v. 117. his lieresy, iO. his attenij)ts against the sacraments, and why, 117, 118. Socrates, said to have borrowed from the scri])tures, v. 5,9, 13. perhaps tlu'ongh tlie Phcenicians, 17. his virtues inferior to the same virtues in any saint, iv. 135. | Critias, one of the thirty tyrants of Athens, an unwoi'thy pupil of his, v. 5 7. Socrates, i. 287,346n. 39311. 402 n. 4S3n. 503)547"- .'i4«- i^Sn- 369". 3701'. 374>375) ST*^) 475, 495) 553, 603 n. 639 n. 642, 649, 728 n. iii. 438 n. v. 1 1 2 n. 587 n. 608, 659 n. iv. 788 n. defends Origen's orthodoxy, ii. 641. Solilidians, iv. 98. Solomon, iii. 667. Solon said to have borrowed from the scriptures, v. 7, 9, 13. Somerset, Anne, duchess of, vi. 384, 390. Somerset, duke of, when belieaded, vi. 350- Somerset, duke of, chancellor of the uni- versity of t'and)ridge, i. 12 n. Son, see Christ. | Song of Songs, vi. 36 n. .So])liianus, Nicolaus, iii. 177 n. ! .Sophocles, iv. 41 1. Souls, the Marcionite and Manichsean notion of souls was, that they were the very substance of God, ii. 473. uni- versally held by the ancients that Christ had a human soul, 552. strictly speaking, all pains are in the soul, v. 55«- South, Robert, i. 64. ii. 204, 205, 330. iv. 287 n. 407, 409. V. 54 n. attacked dean Sherlock's Vindication of the Trinity as approaching to tritheism, i. 32. was himself chai-gcd with Sabelli- anism, iO. his party called Nominal- ists, 33. Sozomenes, i. 393 n. 402 n. 503, 547 n. 548. ii. 213,375, 376> 649. iii. 587 n. 659 n. iv. 756 n. 792. vi. 119, 126, 180. defended Origen's orthodoxy, ii. 641. Space, remarks on the idea of, iii. 384, 385- Spagne, M. de, iv. 351 n. Spain, church of, when it received the Athanasian Creed, iii. 180. their offices much the same as the Gallican, ib. 181, Spain, council of, iii. 139. notice of an interpolation in its confession, 109 n. Spalatensis, v. i37n. 156 n. 162 n. 167 n. 192 n. 206 u. 223 n. 281 n. 293 n. 295 n. vi. 489, 497. observation on his denying the eucharist to be a true saci'i- lice, v. 141. Spanheini, Frederic, i. 196. iv. 314 n. v. 73 n. 74 n. 75 n. 84 n. 86 n. 88 n. 89 n. 91 n. 100 n. 102 n. 114 n. 268 n. vi. 27 n. 30 n. 461,464, 467, 469, 47 1, 472, 473- Spanheim, Frederic, the son, vi. 5 n. Sparrow, Anthony, bishop of Norwich, iii. 653 n. vl. 124, 132. Speech, see Thought. Spelman, Sir Henry, iv. 766 n. Spencer, John, iii. 617 n. iv. 361, 704 n. 707 n. V. 14 n. 2011. 21 n. slighted the opinion that pagan writers borrowed from the Jews, 14. answered by Wh- sius, ih. Spinkes, — , iv. 575 n. Spinosa, Benedict de, i. 119. iv. 262. v. 34, 42, 43 n. 44 n. 46, 49, 61, 65, 66 n. originally a Jew, 53. Spirit, secret feelings or impulses of, warnings against entertaining this idea, iv. 452, 4SS- Spirits, a sermon on the trial of, v. 695. Spiritual, sometimes means the same with mystical, v. 267 n. Spondanus, John, iii. 190. Spiat, Thomas, bishop of Rochester, iv. 407, 409- ^ Squisius, or Skuisb, John, vi. 270. St. George, — , archdeacon, iv. 415. St. German de Prez, library of, has a MS. of S. Bruno's Conmient on the Athanasian Creed, iii. 139. also a MS. of the Creed itself, 156, 222 n. 225 n. — 229 n. St. .James, library of, see Royal library. St. John's college library, Cambridge, iii. 146. vi. 240, 341, 347, 357. notice of its MS. containing an English version Q q 2 596 INDEX. of the Psalms and Hymns of the Church, the Athanasian Creed, Latin and English, and Proverlis, Euclesias- tes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and Ec- clesiasticus, in English, iii. 143. notice of its MS. of a triple Psalter, with the Atlianasian Creed, 15'), 225 n. has a MS. of the three versions of the Psalter hy Jerome, 1 65. St. John's college librarj', Oxford, i. 5, 227, 231. has a MS. of S. Bruno's Comment on the Athanasian Creed, iii. 139. St. Leger, see Leodegnrius. Stackhouse, Thomas, iv. 415. Stafford, Thomas, vi. 404. Stanhope, George, dean of Canterbury, 414. 4.35 n. Stanley, — , dean of St. Asaph, and canon residentiary of St. Paul's, i. 236. Stapleton, Thomas, vi. 22 n. State-craft, not the cause of Christianity, V. 58. Stationary days, 'Wednesdays and Fridays, iv. 784. Stationers, company of, notice of a re- newal of a lease for printing granted to them by the university of Cambridge, i. 24. Staunton, — , notice of his three anony- mous tracts against the divinity of Christ, i. 103, 104. a man of mean literary attainments, with an obliquity in his understanding, 10.5. notice of Waterland's letters to him, 103. the letters, iii. 309, &c. his scheme accord- ing to Waterland, ih, Stebbing, Dr., i. 163, 231, 236, 256. ii. 264. iii. 519 n. iv. 82, 95, 124 n. 449 n. vi. 419, 421, 465, 474. Steele, sir Richard, iii. 499. Stephen,pope, ii. 371. iii. 516. vi.116,492. Stephens, Henry, iii. 174, 177, 233 n. Stephens, Robert, vi. 325. Stenberus, — , iv. 365 n. 366. Stiliingfleet, Edward, bishop of M'orces- ter, i. 196, 541. ii. 22, 192, 378, 394 n. 562,696. iii. 420 n. 455 n. 498 n. 536, 590 n. 614, 621, 628 n. 654, 660 n. 661 n. iv. 39, i86n. 224, 338 n. 349, 355.367,411,414,421- V. 57n. 73 n. 77n. 88n. 92n. ii2n. I24n. vi.3on. 432,461,470,473. notice of his Vindi- cation of the Trhiity, i. 34. his opinion of the use and value of the ancient fathers, iii. 619. Stoics, said to have borrowed from the scriptures, v. 9. Strabo, iii. 441 n. Strabo, Walafrid, iii. 163 n. v. 275 n. vi. 68 n. Strauchius, yEgidius, iv. 411. Strype, Jolm, ii. 342 n. — 345 n. vi. 307, 33S. 343. 352, 378, 379, 380, 384, 388, 39'- Student, advice to a young student at the university, iv. 393. directions for a re- ligions and sober life, 398. a method of study, 400. directions for the study of philosophy, i6. of classics, 401. of divi- nity, 403. a co\irse of studies, 406. Sturmius, edited bishop Poynet's Diallac- ticon, V. 210. Suarez, Francis, ii. 713 n. iii. 340, 343, 347. V. 130 n. 131 n. I43n. i65n. the famous schoolman and Jesuit, when he flourished, iii. 336. condemned all reasoning a priori to the existence of the Deity, ib. yet by a kind of artifi- cial turn conceived he had done the thing, if), his reasoning on the subject, 337. remarks upon it, 338. Gillius censured it, 341. and bishop Barlow, 345 »• Subordinate, its meaning, ii. 525. Subordinate God, the absurdity of calling Chri.st so, i. 277, 306, 307. he being not subordinate in nature or power, but only in order, 381. Subordination in order does not imply in- feriority of nature, i. 448. ii. 11, 12. Subordination of order, which is natural, and subordination in office, which is economical, allowed by Waterland, ii. , 456. Subordination proves nothing but a dis- tinction of persons, order, and offices, no difference of nature, or perfections, or Godhead, ii. 5 1 2. Subordination and coordination respect order, iii. 34, 35. Subordination of the Son, how consistent with his coequality, ii. 400. observa- tions upon it, 766. Subscription to forms, if not in the true and proper sense of the words, and the known intent of the impnsers and com- pilers, is a dangero'.is prevarication, i. 271. not a term of lay-communion, but of ministerial conformity, or ac- ceptance of trusts and privileges, ii. 330- SubiistenlliB trcs, a term invented instead of tres substantial, ii. 713. Substance, according to the common use of language, when used in the singular number, is supposed to be intrinsic to the thing spoken of, whose substance it is ; and indeed to be the thing itself, i. 303 n. meaning of substance as ap- plied to the Godhead, ii. 126. when this term was introduced respecting the Trinity, 542. one eternal substance, not three, professed by the catholic church, i. 478. Dr. Clarke's notion of individual substance, ii. 620. singular identical substance, what, 708. Substantia, the Latins could hardly bear the phrase of tres substantits, ii. 712. and why, ib. what it was understood I N D to mean, ib. therefore una substantia became common, ib. though Ires sub- stantia was used liy some, 713. una substantia did not obtain witliout diffi- cnlty, ib. see Hypostasis. Suetonius, \v. 413. Suffolk and Bindon, earl of, i. 8. Suicer, John Gaspard, i. 356 n. 363 n. ii. 4on. S52n. 578n. iii. 197 n. 458, 463 n. 5i6n. 547 n. 637 n. iv. 431, 435 u. 445 n- 473 «. 474, 49°, 5^8 n. 578 n. 651 n. 748 n. 758. V. 201 n. 405. vi. 69 n. 470, 480. Suidas, V. 38 n. Siilpicius Severus, i. 548. ii.^i^. iii.587n. a kind of neuter in the controversy about Origen, ii. 641. Superstition, its proper import, v. 47. shewn to belong more to infidels than to Christians, 48. Superstition and idolatry better than atheism or no religion, iv. 300. Supposita tria, a term invented instead of tres substanlifp, ii. 713. Supremacy of order or of office, consistent with equality of nature, i. 443. ii. 512. negative/^ consideied in opposition to any superior nature, one of the cha- racters of any Person that is truly God, ii. 38. so that he is not truly God who is not supreme God, ib. Supremacy nf nature, or supremacy of perfection, what, ii. 399. supremacy of dominion and sovereignty included there- in, 400. supremacy nf order, what, and in wliom existing, ib. supremacy of cffice, what, ib. Supremacy of the Father, how believed by the ancients, ii. 752, 753, 756. the Arian view of supremacy, iii. 10. how maintained by the ancients, ib. there may be some difficulties to tlieir way of reconciling the equality and supremacy together, ib. supremacy of dominion, why voluntary, and an extrinsic re- lation, 12. how far it may be called natural and necessary, ih. Supreme God, what, ii. 508, 687. an im- proper phrase, ih. how mostly used by the atu;ients, ib. not used instead of one (lod by the sacred wiiters, 529. the expression borrowed from pagan writers, ib. the expression why used by modern Arians, 644. Supreme God, Christ such, or not at all, * i. 276, 306. Supreme God, and subordinate God, ar- gument to prove them two Gods, ii. 19. Surenhusius, William, i. 307 n. 308 n. 316 n. 330 n. iv. 3 19 n. Sutdiffe, IVIatthew, v. 278 u. 282 n. Sv/yndcrby, William de, vi. 366 n. Sykes, — , i. 7. Sykes, Artlmr Ashley, i. 59,98, 102, 120, 254, 2S5> 256. iv. t44. was the author E X. 597 of Modest Plea for the Baptismal and Scripture-notion of the Trinity, i. 43. its object, 48 n. Dr. Clarke pro- bably assisted in its composition, ib, notice of his Case of Subscription to the Thirty-Nine Articles considered, occasioned by Dr. WaterlamCs Case of Arian Subscription, 63. the fallacy that i-uns through it, 65. notice of \A'ater- land's Reply, entitled, A Supplement to the Case of Arian Subscription con- sidered, 66. and of Sykes's Reply to this Supplement, 67. which was not noticed by Waterland, ib. his way of evading arguments drawn from the Iviturgy against Arianism, ii. 314. did not allow the distinction of divine and human nature in Christ, 321 n. wrote a defence of C'larke's Ej;positiort of the ChuTch-Catectiism in answer to Water- land's Remarks, i. 146. the most ex- ceptionable part of his Answer relates to the Lord's Supper, 147. and in con- sequence Waterland published his tract, The Nature, Obligation, and Efficacy of the Christiari Sacraments considered, 148. notice of it, iA. notice of Sykes's Defence of his Answer, 155. and of its Appendix, 158. and of Waterland's Reply in his Supplement to his former treatise, ib. and of Sykes's rejoinder in his True foundations of natural and revealed Religion, i6o. and of Water- land's notice of this in his Postscript to his second part of Scripture Vindicated, 130. and of Sykes's short answer to this Postscript, 132. Waterland pur- sued this controversy no further, ib. his Innoceiicy of Error answered by Dr. Webster, i. 245 n. see Modest Plea, Syn)urgins, Frederic, ii. 574. Sylvius, iii. 196 n. Symbol, difference lietween type and symbol, v. 234 n. Symmachus, iv. 708 n. Synesius, ii. 695 n. vi. 429. T. Table, the Lord's, why so called, and why called an altar, v. 269 n. Tacitus, iv. 413. wittily styled by Ter- tullian menrtadorum loquacissimus, v, 14 n. Tac(iuet, Andrew, iv. 407. Tanner, — , iii. 343. Tapper, Ruardus, v. 143 n. Tarentinus, Joannes, vi. 244, 261, 275. very probably Pater of Tarentum, a noted scholastic divine, 239. when made archbishop of Lyons, 240. and pope under the name of Innocent V, ib, published a Compendium of Theology, ib. Tarnovius, Joannes, iv. 365 n. Tatian, i. 314 n. 350, 352, 361 n. 365 n. 598 INDEX. 463,498)499"- Si8u. ii. 3111. 230, 253 n. 443, 598, 616 n. 618, 635, 666. iii. 5S1, 60611. Justin's scholar, ii. 596. V. 8. speaks only of a temporal gene- ration, or procession, i. 359. ii. 596. iii. 22. yet did not make the word a mere attrilmte before his procession, ii. 597. asserted Christ to be Creator, i. 384 n. confined worship to God alone, yet did not exclude the Son, 418, 424. maintained that pagan writers borrow- ed from the scriptm-es, v. 8. j Tavemer, Richard, vi. 30.^, 312, 313, 330, 364, 381, 403. notice of his Bible, 300, 376. the dedication, 373. Taylor, Abraham, iii. 419, 426, 455, 530 n. 53711. 552 n. 678 n. iv. 90. 23 n. 39 n- Taylor, John, editor of Demosthenes, an intimate acquaintance of bishop Law, i- 113 n. Taylor, Jeremy, bishop of Down, iii. 664n. 687. iv. 399, 625, 649 n. 665 n. 780, 800. V. 138, 28611. vi. 69 n. 131, 471. his opinion respecting the Atha- nasian Creed, iii. 109, 117. notice of his false suppositions respecting the Apo- j sdes' Creed, 252. Temple, is the house of God, not the house of a creature as such, iv. 33. Temple, sir William, iv. 404. v. 323 n. Teiiison, Thomas, archbishop of Canter- bury, vi. 399 u. i Tentzelius, Ernestus, iii. loi, 103, no, 117, 120, 124, 127, 141, 151, 161, ' 169, 190, 192 n. 194 n. 251 n. iv. 481 n. V. 255 n. a learned Lutheran, notice of his Judicia Eruditonim de Symb. Athanas., iii. 113. Terence, iv. 402, 407, 408. TertuUian, i. 279n. 287, 290 n. agin. 292 n. 293 n. 295 n. 297, 299, 350, 352, 360 n. 364 n. 381 n. 420, 433 n. 443 n- 44411- 463. 472, 498, 499. 500. 515, 518 n. 530 n. 541. ii. 32 n. 33 n. 34 n. 39 n. 40 n. 46, 5 1 n. 55 n. 57 n. 62 n. 63 n. 77 n. 81 n. 95 n. 96 n. 104 n. 105 n. 107, 109, 122 n. 125, 128 n. 130 n. 132 n. 141 n. 142 n. 148 n. 149 n. 150, 155 n. 161 n. 165 n. 16S n. 172 n. 184, 186 n. 187 n. 192 n. 193 n. ■ 249 n. 252 n. 253 n. 378, 391, 406, i 417. 43i> 437, 441, 445, 472, 473 n. 478, 479 n. 480, 481 n. 494 n. 498 n. ' 528, 540 n. 541 n. 542, 553, 563, 564, 577, 586, 591 n. 599, 613, 616 n. 629 n. 630 n. 653 n. 657, 660 n. 666,672, 687, 697, 707, 710, 711 n. 727 n. 747 n. 750 n. iii. 16, 31, 32, 35, 57, 64, 65, 7i> 76, 462 n. 482 n. 517 n. 5 18 n. 524 n. 526, 529, 538, 545 n. 547, 548 1- SS5 n- 556 n. 560, 571 n. 572 n. 573, 380, 582, 590, 608 n. 611,612, 61^ n. 617, 623 n. 662, 667 n. 694. iv. 35 n. I75n. 182 n. 221 n. 226 n. 240 I n. 248 n. 250 n. 300 n. 328 n. 430 n. 438 n. 470 n. 475, 476 n. 481, 484, 485, 628 n. 633 n. 659 n. 675, 676, 686, 707 n. 764 n. 772, 784. v. 109 n. — ^ii2n. i26n. 131 n. 135 n. 15411. 165, 167 n. 174, 182, 189 n. 191 n. 243 n. 247, 254, 255 n. 261 n. 262 n. 263 n. 269 n. 277 n. 281, 285. vi. 15, 96, 100, 114, 116, 121, 122, 201, 203, 462, 471. time of his writing, ii. 457, 489. ^•^ndicated and explained, 435, 440. his Comment on Phil. ii. 6., i. 284 n. his argument that Isaiah xlv. 5. does not exclude the Son from being the one God, 288. interprets Isaiah i. 18. and ]Micah vii. as spoken by Christ in his own Person, 295. a passage of his brought forward by the Arians in disparagement of Christ's divinity, ex- plained, 300. his declarations that there is but one supreme God, 306 n. 322. another passage of his explained, 322 n. resolved unity of Godhead into unity of substance and original, 323. his sense of Divinitas, 324. encountered the no- tion of one hypostasis in his book against Praxeas, 339. Kara aapKa, how understood by him, as applied to the Son, 349 n. made the generation of the Son temporary, 359. ii. 460. iii. 22. his distinction between ratio and sermo, i.361. ii. 461. seems to have considered the generation of the Son to be pos- terior to the creation, at the same time beheving his prior existence, i. 366. what he conceived to be the perfecta nativitas sermonis, 367. his declaration that worship is due to God, the Creator, alone, 418. but he must therein in- clude the Son, 424. answered Praxeas's charges of tritheism against the catho- hcs, 468. his declaration as to the unili/ of substance, 484, 485, 486. a passage of his misrepresented by Dr. Whitby, 515, 516. ascribed ignorance to the Son, in respect only of his humanity, 5 I 7. apphed Rev. i. 8. to the Son, 538. his notion as to the Logos, ii. 31 n. 37 n. his ai-giiment for the personality of the Logos, from all things having been made by him, 34 n. his notion of God, 39. his declaration and testimony re- specting the Trinity, 121 n. 181, 534. iii. 595. two passages of his vindicated from ^VhitbVs misrepresentation, ii. 245, 246. his testimony as to the three Persons being one God, 45 7. vindicated, ib. was a Montanist when he wrote against Praxeas, but probably wrote his Apology before he was a Jlontanist, ib. uses gradus in the sense of order, 460. conceived that the Sonship com- menced with the ])rocession, 461, 462. what use he made of this idea, 462. texts mentioning Gcd applied by him I N D to Christ, 489. objections answered, ilt. his account of Christ's divinity, 507. his distinction l)etween God and Lord, 518. rejects the notion of an inferior God as a pagan dream, 534. makes the Son subordinate in order or office, not in dominion, 535. his opinion respect- ing the summiim magnum, ib. into wliat he resolved the unity of God, 536. did not beheve that the Father is naturally governor over the Son, iii. 83. his censures of the El)ionites, 573. notice respecting the Appendix to his book of Prescripti(!ns, 580. observation of his preferring tradition to scripture in certain controversies, 613. notice of his calHng the eucharist an oblation, iv. 478. and of his applying the title of sacrament to the eucharist, 48 r. did not interpret John vi. of the eucharist, 549. his sentiments respecting the eucharistic elements, 589. his opinion of gospel sacrifices, 745. his opinion respecting Abel's sacrifices explained, v. 266. his Book of Prayer, when pub- lished by Muratorius, iv. 746. main- tained tliat pagan writers borrowed from the scriptures, v. 10. wittily styled Tacitus mendaciorum loquucissimus, 14. liis opinion of the need and efficacy of baptism, vi. 18. certain particularities of his on the point of delaying it, 19. his testimony touching lay-baptism, 78, III. observations on his opinion of lay- baptism in cases of extreme necessity, 161. good reasons to prove that he did not sjjeak the sense or practice of tlie church, r66. observations in relation to him, [68. Test act, a motion respecting, lost in the liouse of commons, vi. 450 n. Water- land's notice of it, 449. Thales, ii. 573. said to Iiave borrowed from the scriptures, v. 9, 13. Thanksgiving, see Prayer. Qelov, th, its difference from 0(6Tris, i. 504. rh, its signification, ii. 667, C68. Theocritus, iv. 409. Theodades, iv. 658. Theodoret, i. 346 n. 355, 356 n. 402 n. 453 n. 468 n. 469 n. 548. ii. 133 n. 188 n. 369, 463, 467 n, .';70 n. 573, 577, 614 n. 636 n. 649, 678. iii. 56, 208, 469 n. 481 n. 482 n. i;43 n. 550 n- 555 556 n. 568 n. 577 57^ »• 579 n. .f;8i n. 585 n. 586 n. 59° 680 n. 682. iv. 13 n. 345, 354, 366, 450 n. 476 n. 487 n. 540 n. 578 n. 659 n. 768 n. 769. V. 25, 1 1 1 n. 1 12 n. 165 n. 167 n. 201 n. 208 n. 636 n. vi. 151 n. 471, 479. defended or ex- cused Eusebius from the charge of A- rianism, ii. 495. a favourer of Origen, 641. maintained that pagan writers borrowed from the scriptures, v. 13. E X. 599 ! Theodorus, iv. 306 n. 798 11. v. 112 n. 220 n. Theodorus Abucara, ii. 524. iii. 36 n. Theodorus Graptus, vi. 491. Theodorus Heracleotes, v. 195 n. Theodorus Mojisnestenus, ii. 371. iv. 430 n. V. 195 n. vi. 490. condemned as an enemy to the Nicene faith, 209. Theodorus Raithu, when he flourished, V. 200 n. Theodosius, emperor, ii. 374. Tlieodotians, iii. 580. Theodotion, the Ephesian, iii. 569, 570. iv. 708 n. Theodotus, ii. 728. iii. 577, 582, 590, 606 n. 548. a currier of Byzantium, iii. 577. what led to his denying the divinity of Christ, ib. name of his he- resy, lb. how he may be said to have l)een the founder of it, ih. 578. excom- municated, 579. Hi])polytus's notice of him, ih. Theodotus Trapezita, his dis- ciple, 581. and Artemon, ib. rejected St. John's Gospel, 673. Theodotus, Trapezita, a disciple of Theo- dotus the curriei', iii. 58 1 . his conceit, ib. Theodulphus, bishop of Orleans, iii. 112, 124. V. 27s n. Theognostus, i. 389 n. 499 n. ii. 239, 586, 615, 643. iii. 22, 88, 659. Theophilus, laid severe charges against Origen, ii. 641 . Theophilus, liishop of Alexandria, iv. 678. Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, i. 361 n. 498. ii. 54 n. 57 n. 62 n. 130 n. 148 n. 192 n. 376, 443, 478, 577 n. S9S n. 616 u. 629 n. 630 n. 635, 666, 672. iii. 676, 427 n. 675 n. V. 20 n. 24 n. 57 n. time of his writing, ii. 486. a passage of his vindicated from Arian misinter- pretation, i. 299. made the generation of the Son /emporar/y, 359. iii. 22. de- clared the Logos to l)e iiairavThs, i. 361. his statement that God alone is to lie worshipped, 418. yet he owns the Son to be God, and therefore to be wor- shipped, 423. how to be imderstood where he speaks of K6-yos (vSidderos, and K6yos irpoipopiKhi, ii. 31 n. proved to have acknowledged God the Son to be the true God, ii. 486. his account of Christ's divinity, 507. bishop Bull's reasons for Theophilus's believing tlie Son to be a real Person before the i)ro- cession, 597. objections against them answered, 598. the first writer exstant that uses the word Trinity, 710. did not believe that the Father is naturally governor over the Son, iii. 82. main- tained that pagan writers borrowed from the scriptures, v. 8. Theophrastus, iv. 407. v. 24 n. Theophylact, i. 285, 291 n. iii. 680 n. 690. iv. 25, 436 n. 487 n. 525 n. 540n. 668 n. 768 n. 769 n. v. 165 n. 167 n. 600 I N D E X. 1980. vi. 247, 491. his derivation of Pontius, 241. &ehs is not altered in sense hy the ad- dition or omission of an article, i. 314. why 6 Qihs was generally aj>plied to the Father only, 315. 0(hs and o Q(hs in general not distinguished by the fa- thers, ii. 520, 52.5. how distinguished by Eusebius, 522. 0e 389. 394; 395, 396, 403. 405- an account of his seven editions of the New Testa- ment, chiefly from Joye's Apology, vi. 307, 363- Titelmannus, — , v. 165 n. Tithe, Prideaux's observations respecting its origin, v. 2 1. Titles, divine, given to Christ in scrip- ture, ii. 120. God, 126. God with us, or, Emmanuel, 127. Lord God, 128. true God, 130. great God, 134. mighty God, 1 36. over all, God blessed for ever, 138. Jehovah,! ^g. Almighty, ni. Lord of glory, 143. King nf kings, and Lord of lords, ib. First and Last, Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the Ending, ib. Titles, reser\-ed by way of eminency to distinguish the first Person of the Godhead by the Post-Nicene fathers, ii. 428. Titus of Bostra, an orthodox man, ii. 639. an advocate of Origen, ib. Todd, H. J., i. 5, 25. vi. 306 n. Toland, John, i. 119. iii. 564 n. v. 49. his Creed as drawn out by Fay, 43 n. Toledo, first council of, iv. 795. fourth, iii. 180. eleventh, vi. 66. Toletanus, ii. 571 n. Tomson, Laurence, vi. 357, 392, 405. Tonstal, Cuthbert, bishop of Durham, iii. 164. V. 288 n. vi. 305, 327, 343, 344, 557. 381, 403- Touttt'e, — , iii. 78, 528. iv. 595 n. 597 n. 598 n. 688 n. 692. vi. 71. To^verson, Gabriel, iv. 469 n. 470, 473 n. 648 n. 705 n. 708 n. 775 n. 776 n. v. 162 n. 293 n. vi. 69 n. 496. Townshend, viscount, i. 12 n. 14 n. vi. 450, 452. secretary of state, i. 238. Tradition, divided into oral and written, ii. 7^4. written tradition of what use, ib. Tradition preferred to scripture by Ter- tuUian in certain controversies, iii. 613, INDEX. 601 defended from the censure of Buddseiis, 615. notice of several pretences of tra- dition, 658. Traheron, Bartholomew, librarian to Ed- ward VI, vi. 356. notice of his Expo- sition of part of St. John's Gospel, ib. and of his Exposition of the fourth chapter of the Revelations, ib. Transulistantiation, the seeds of this er- ri)r, how first sown, v. 117. its origin, 205. when the term first came into use, iv. n. when the doctrine was first made an article of faith, ih. and reestablished, ib. objections against it, 613. cannot be disproved by arguments drawn from the word remembrance applied to the eucharist, 520. Trapp, Joseph, i. 236, 241. iii. 455 n. vi. 461, 463, 466. Tregonwell, sir John, i. 251. Tregonwell, John, of Anderston, i. 251. Tregonwell, Jane, married to Dr. Water- land, i. 251. her death, ib. Tremelliu.s, Immannul, iv. 252 n. 339. Trent, council of, v. 126. authorized the Gallicau Psalter, iii. 164. reestablished the doctrine of transubstantiation, iv. 509 n. its view of infant communion, v. 406, 410. Treves I^atin MS. of the Athanasian Creed, notice of, iii. 153. the Colbert MS. copied from it, ib. 156. Trevisa, John, vi. 238, 301, 304, 314, 357, 368. Cornish man, vicar of Berke- ly, iii. 144. flourished temp. Richard II, ib. translated Higden's Polychro- nicon, 144 n. 145. how far he carried it down, 145 n. and Bartylmew de Proprietatibus Rerum, ib. Wharton was of opinion that the version of the Bible, ascribed to Wickliff, was really done by him, 144. his reasons un- satisfactory to others, and in part con- futed, ib. Waterland's observations on the subject, ib. Caxton and Bale both assert that he did really translate the Bible, 145. Trinity, controversy respecting, some ac- count of, previous to Waterland's writ- ings, i. 18. Dr. Sherlock charged with tritheism in his defence of the doctrine, 32. and Drs. Wallis and South with Sabellianism, ib. Dr. Clarke's view of the doctrine, 35. Ephes. iv. 6. One Ood and Father of all, who is above all, and throiiyh all, and in you all, gene- rally understood of the whole Trinity by the ancients ; above all, as Father : through all, by the Word ; and in all, by the Holy Ghost, ii. 280. the an- cients considered the Trinity to be con- cerned in concert in the creation of the world, 366, 381. ii. 66, 76, 82, 629, 630. with what design, i. 381, the Trinity as fully and clearly to be ap- prehended (perhaps more so) as eter- nity, omnipresence, or the like, 460. ii. 693 n. certain terms and expressions applied to the Trinity, not to enlarge our views, but to secure the plain fun- damental truth, i. 461. the Trinity in Unity, how proved by scrii)ture, 466, 467. what heretics against this doctrine sprung up in the primitive church, 468. Dr. Clarke's notion of the Trinity as nnintelligilile as the orthodox notion, 474. the catholic doctrine of the Tri- nity, 502. not probable that the pri- mitive church should mistake in so material a point as the Trinity, or that the catholic writers should all mistake in their account of it, 540. suj)posed by the ancient fathers to be intimated in the Old Testament, ii. 64, 65. their arguments from some texts barely pro- bable, 65. this doctrine the only se- curity against a plurality of Gods, or against Sabellianism, 83. no pronouns strictly ap])licable to the Trinity in Unity, 97. in what sense perhaps pro- nouns may primarily refer to the Fa- ther, 98 n. TertuUian's declaration re- specting the Trinity, 121 n. and Cyrill's of Jerusalem, i6. the three Persons dis- tinguished by their modes of e.xisting, 204. the article of our church on tbe Trinity shewn to have only one sense, and not four according to an Ariari explanation, 278. the doctrine of the Trinity, accordizig to Dr. Clarke and his followers, contrasted with the same doctrine according to the church of England, 318. the four hypotheses con- cerning the Trinity intimated in the fragment of Dionysius of Rome, 468. all condemned but the true one, ib. the fact of three Persons being one God may be kiK)wn from Scripture, although we are ignorant of the manner of their union, 623. analogous illustrations, ib. the catholic doctrine, 700. metaphy- sical oljjections against this doctrine are not so much owing to any difficulty in the conception of the doctrine, but to the difficulty of defining what the words and phrases employed shall import, 709. proof of it, 710. upon what occasions the distinction of Persons, and unity of substance, began to be expressed, 710, 711. who first used the terms, 710. Theophilus the first writer extant, in whom the word Trinity is found, ib. other terms how applied, 711, 712. the difficulty of finding appropriate terms shewn, 712, 713. what terms were adopted, 713. a short method of ending the controversy respecting the Trinity, 762. what the doctrine is, ib. whether it be po.ssible, ib. and whether it be true, 763. observations on the sub- 602 INDEX. stance and Persons of the Trinity, iil. 19. what the ancients thought of the reference of one Person to the other, as Head, 26, 40. none of tlie three Per- sons entirely independent of each other, 60. the sense in u-hich tlie term God is used in scripture does not militate against the doctrine of the Trinity, 275. an inability to explain the modus, or manner, how three Persons are one Being, or one God, no o!)jection against the Trinity, 278. notice respecting those who deny the importance of the doc- trine of the Trinity, 396. their chief reasons, 403. general principles on which they build who assert its im- j)ortance, 399. the doctrine shewn to be sufficiently clear to be a fundamen- tal article, both as to the matter of the doctrine, and as to the proofs on which it rests, 401;. how proved not to be un- intelligible to common Christians, 407, 408. two arguments to evince the ir- resistible force of scripture proofs of the Trinity, 414, 415. the same doc- trine shewn to be not speculative but practical, 416. how undesignedly hurt by the schoolmen, 437. further shewn to be sufficiently insisted upon in scrip- ture to be deemed an article of prime importance, 440. Episcopius's senti- ments on this subject, ib. the form of baptism a proof of the importance of the doctrine, 455. shewn, that commu- nion ought not to be held with men that openly reject the fundamental doc- trines of Christianity, 456. objections answered, and vulgar mistakes rectified, 473. a view of the judgment and prac- tice of the primitive churches as to the necessity of believing the doctrine of the Trinity, 523. this doctrine always a part of ancient creeds, 524. proofs, 528, 529, 530. although all are not e- qually explicit, 528, why, 531. yet even the shorter creeds contain the sum and substance of this doctrine, if fairly in- terpreted, if>. the doctrine proved to be considered important by the ancients from the censures passed upon the im- pugners of it, 537. the Trinity in Unity a fundamental doctrine, v. 83. the Trinity proved from the form of baptism against ancient heretics, iii. a familiar discourse on the doctrine of the Trinity, 345. cause and time of one Sunday being set apart as Trinity-Sun- day, 346. the nature of the three di- vine Persons, 348. their distinction, 349. their union, 350. their offices, ib. the importance and use of these great articles of our Christian faith, 352. Trinity, a Modest Plea for the Baptismal and Scripture Notion of, written by Dr. Sykes, i. 42, 43. I Trinity, Hemai ks upon Dr. Clarke's Scrip- ture Doctrine of, the work of bishop Gastrell, i. 39. Trinity, Scripture doctrine of, vindicated from the Misrepresentations of Dr. Clarke : the author of this pamphlet was Dr. J. Knight, i. 38. Trinity college library, Cambridge, vi. 240, 249, 250, 261, 264, 265, 266,301, 3'7j .^52, 357, 40', 402, 4.39- notice of a M8., {Rythmiis Anglicus,) iii. 130 n. has a MS. of S. Bruno's Comment on the Athanasian Creed, 138. its pro- bable age, i/j. notice of a MS. Com- mentary there of the Psalms and Hymns of the Church, and of the Athanasian Creed, 145. has a MS. of the three versions of the Psalter by Jerome, 165. notice of its Normanno- Oallican version of the Athanasian Creed, 1O8. Tritheism, the catholic doctrine the me- dium between it and Sabellianism, i. 467. refuted as charged on the catho- lics, 451,466. fixed upon the Arians, 469. the ancient fathers' sense of it, ib. charge of tritheism constantly denied by the ancients, ii. 434. Tritheists, or real Trinitarians, to which party in the Trinitarian conti-oversy applied, i. 33. Trommius, Abraham, i. 313. ii. 142. Trtie God, a divine title given to Christ in scripture, ii. 130. TniUa, council of, iv. 476, 790 n. vi. 113 n. Truman, — , vi. 8 n. 22 n. 34 n. Turner, Dr., v. 151 n. 168 n. Turner, Robert, ii. 590 n. 591 n. iii. 661 n. Turretinus Aljjhonsus, i. 196. iii. 443 n. 453 n. 644 n. iv. 490, 646 n. v. 73 n. 74 n. 75 n. 79 n. 84 n. 88 n. 90 n. 91 n. 94n. 99n. 100 u. 102 n. vi.461. Turrianus, — , iii. 131. Turribius, of Spain, iii. 202. Twells, Leonard, i. 236. iii. 552 n. iv. 271 n. 708 n. vi. 434. Twisse, William, v. 143. Two Gods, the consequence of the Arian scheme, i. 321. Two Gods, and two Blasters, how to be vinderstood, ii. 18. Type, definition of, iv. 159 n. difference between type and symbol, v. 234 n. Tyrrel, — , iv. 109 n. Tyson, — , of Pembroke-hall, Cambridge, a Jacobite, i. 14. U. Udall, Nicolas, v. 324, 38 f, 382, 386, 387, 388, 389, 403. Ullerston, Dr., iii. 143. Unbaptized persons, when not excluded from uncovenanted mercies, v. 103 n. INDEX. 603 opinions of some as to what will liecome of them after death, vi. 107. Unbloody sacrifice, first mentioned by Atlienagoras, iv. 470. in what sense, ib. Uncreated, the Son asserted to be so in scriptnre, i. 388. and by the Ante- Nicene writers, 389. that he was created, not affirmed or supposed by Origen, 390. Union makes oneness, or sameness, ii. 622, 6;i, 708, 709. Union of three Persons in one God may be known from scripture, although we are ignorant of the manner of their union, ii. 623. analogous illustrations, ib. real union of the Father and the Son proved from both the sacraments, V. 113. Union, perfect, of all Christians impro- bable, V. 76. Unitarians at the reformation began with Arianism, and for the most part settled into Socinianism, which is near to Sabellianism, i. 101 n. 482. Unitarians, or Sociiiians, a brief history o/, answered by dean Sherlock, i. 32. Unity of authority, and unity of Godhead, distinct things, i. 323. unity of God- head cannot be asserted but upon an equahty of nature, and unity of prin- ciple, 471. the scripture-notion of the divine unity, stated and cleared, ii. 84. under what salvos, or qualifying consi- derations, we may reasonably under- stand the general doctrine of God the Father's being the only true God, or Lord, 88. objections against explaining those texts that assert him to be so, by supposing a supreme and inferior God, and sui)reme and inferior worship, 89. the other way of supposing that one only, or the like, may admit of some latitude of construction, shewn at large, 90. the Son shewn not to be excluded liy those texts, that declared the Father to be the one God, 91. indeed the word (iod may perhaps be understood in an indejinite sense, (as applicable to the whole Trinity,) as often as the context or other circumstances do not confine its signification and intent to one Per- son only, 93. why it was needless, that a saving clause, such as, except my Son and Holy Spirit, should have been added to such texts, 94. why it might have been hurtful, 95. the primitive writers followed the same style with lespect to the titles, one, or only God, 96. what to be inferred from the scrip, ture declarations of the unity, 98. in what sense bishop Ihill denied a specific Unity, and maintained a nnuierical \ Unity, 202, 203. resolved by the ' ancients into consnbslantiality, itisepa- i rability, and unity of origination, 434. ' 537. how solved by Dionysius of Rome, 469. texts relating thereto, considered by the ancients as excluding idols, but not the Son, 434. what was anciently looked upon as the assertion of the Unity, 533. whether demonstrable from natural reason, iii. 372 — 374. unity of kind and number, where inconsistent, and where consistent, 60, 61. Unity of God not iitcmisislent with the Divinity of Christ, being Remarks on Dr. WaterlatuVs Vindication, &c. strictures on this pamphlet, ii. 16, 17. its author takes the Arian hypothesis, 1 7. all he undertakes to prove is, that some of Dr. W.'s argimients against Arianism are not conclusive, ib. the sum of what he pretends to, 18. obser- vations on his opinions as to religious worship, 22. Unoriginateness distinct from necessaiy existence, ii. 511. Unprofitableness of man's best perform- ances, a sermon upon the scripture doctrine of, v. 645. Unscriptural words made use of by the catholics to defend their doctrines, in answer to unscriptural objections made against them by their adversaries, i. 462. v7repv\p6iii interpreted by So^d^w, ii. 549. vir6 4.S3, 436-, Warburton, William, bishop of Gloucester, i. 247, 248, 249. his animosity against ^^'aterland, 256. AVarcupp, — , vi. 415. Ward, Samuel, master of Sidney college, Cambridge, iv. 530 n. 641 n. 646 n. v. 403. vi. 494—497. Ward, Seth, bishop of Salisbury, wrote a treatise on the existence and attributes of God, iii. 35 1. Warren, Dr. Richard, i. 290. iv. 633. vi. 426. fellow of Jesus college, Cambridge, rector of Cavendish, and afterwards archdeacon of Suifolk, vi. 448 n. pub- lished an Answer to Hoadly's Plain Account of the Sacrament, ii. AVater- laiid's praise of it, 448. VV'aterland, Daniel, his high reputation as a theological writer, i. i. yet there had been no entire collection of his writings before this edition, 2. the design of l)ishop Van Mildert's pre- liminary essay, ib. little known of Dr. W.'s personal history, ib. from what sources derived, 2 — 5. notice of " Me- " moirs of the Life and Writings of Dr. Waterland, &c. by a Clergyman," 3. which was nothing but a scurrilous attack by Mr. Jackson, ib. born at Walesby, Lincolnshire, Feb. 14, 1683., 7. second son of the Rev. II. Waterland, ib. his early talents, by whom cultivated, ib. admitted sizer of Magdalene college, Cambridge, 1699., ih. became succes- sively scholar, fellow, tutor, and dean, 8. appointed by the earl of Suffolk and Bindon master of the college in 1713., ib. and presented by him to the living of Ellingham in Norfolk, ib. continued tutor some years after he became head of the college, ib. used to study late at night, 9. probably shortened his life by too intense api)lication, ib. was one of the university examiners and modera- tors in 1 7 10., ih. and employed, whilst yet a junior member of the senate, in several syndicates, ib. in Nov. 1712. he E X. 605 preached the commemoration sermon, ib. and in July 1713. the assize sermon, ib. graduated regularly in divinity, in.'.tead cf applying for a degree by mandamus, as is usual with heads of houses in that university, ib. Seed's notice of his celebrated divinity action, the question, whether Arian subscrip- tion was lawful, 10. this performance probably caused Dr. Clarke to omit a passage respecting subscription to the Articles in his second edition of his Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity, ib. drew up the vote of thanks by the senate to Dr. Bentley for his answer to Collins, II. elected vice-chancellor in November 1715-, ib. exerted himself in the arrangements for the university's reception of bishop Moore's librai y, ib. the controversy between the two uni- versities and the college of physicians happened in his vite-chancellorship, 12, 13. was successful in allaying the political animosities that raged in the university respecting the Hanoverian succession, 1 3. made one of the chaplains in ordinary to the king, 16. prol'ably at Dr. Bentley 's suggestion, ib. jliddltton's unworthy insinuations about his ap- pointment, ib. the origin of his hostility uncertain, 16 n. prevented from op- posing Bentley in the professorship of divinity from esteem for him, 18. an- ecdote of liis observation on Bentley's prelection on i John v. 7, the correct- ness of this anecdote questionable, and why, 19. what, perhaps, was his and Bentley's opinion of the matter, ib. had the degree of D.D. conferred upon him when the king visited Cambridge, 20. the Biograjdiia Britannica wrong in saying he was incurporaled at Oxford, 20 n. was ])robably only admitted ad eundetn, ib. avoided as much as possible the contest between the university and Dr. Bentley respecting his claim of ad- ditional fees for presenting to degrees, 20, 22. appointed to convey the uni- versity's vote of thanks to liishop Gastrell for maintaining the university degrees against the Lambeth degrees, 23. and to the earl of Nottingham for writing in defence of the Trinity in answer to Whiston, 24. concerned in certain negotiations between the uni- versity and the company of stationers in London, ib. in a political contest for the ap])ointment of a vice-chancellor, i. 26. in maintaining the rights of the university against the town, ib. and in revising the list of benefactors to the iniiversity,ji. subscribed twenty guineas towards beautifying his college chapel, lb. notice of his Vindication nf Christ's Divinity, being a Defence of some 606 INDEX. Queries relating to Dr-darke's Scheme of the holy Ti inily, 28. Dr.W.'s own account of the cause of liis drawing up these Queries, and afterwards piibhsh- ing a Defence of them, 43, 269, &c. liis defence of his general title, viz. A Vindication of Cliri^t's Divinity, 273. Dr. Clarke's reputation perce])tibly de- clined upon his taking the field, 45. t)ishop V^an Mildert's observations on lu's Queries, and Jackson's answer, ib. liis arrangement of scripture quotations superior to Dr. Clarke's, 47. notice of Dr. Clarke's tract in reply to him, entitled. The Hlodest Plea co7ili?iued, or a brief Answer to Dr. lVaterland''s Queries relating to the Trinity, 48. ap- jwinted first lady Hloyer's lecturer after the publication of his Defence of the Queries, 50. dedicated his lectures to the Bishop of London, 5 1 . the preface contains remarks upon the JModest Plea continued, and upon lenity of God not inconsistent with the Divinity of Christ, 52. character of both, ib. these lectures, according to the author, (ii. 5.) may be looked >ipon as a supplement to his Vindication of Christ's Divinity, 52. yet the work may be considered an entire and perfect treatise in itself, 53. the argiuneut from worship omitted, having fully treated of it in the Vindi- cation, ii. 5. the Vindication chiefly upon the offensive, ib. tlie sermons proceed more directly, giving the di- rect scripture proofs, ib. his strictures on the Modest Plea continued, 8. why he wrote no particular reply to it, ib. what he conjectured was the object of Dr. Clarke's book, 12. his strictures on a pamphlet entitled, Unity of God not inconsistent with the Divinity of Christ, S(c., 16, 17. clears himself from the charge of making three Persons one Person, 26, 27. his short strictures on Whitby's Modest Disquisitions on Bishop Bull's Defence of the Nicene Creed, i. 507. notice of Whitby's Re- ply to them, 55. and of his Answer to the Reply, ib. bishop Van IMildert's notice of Whitby's second Part of a Reply, S/. circumstances that induced A\'aterland to publish The Case of Arian Subscription considered, 58, 59. bishop V^an Mildert considers it one of his ablest productions, 60. answered by Sykes in The Case of Subscription to the Thirty- Nine Articles considered, 63. notice of this answer, ib. the fal- lacy that runs through it, 65. notice of Waterland's Reply, entitled, A Supplement to the Case of Arian Subscription considered, 66. his vindi- cation of the Articles from the charge of admitting none but a Calvinistic construction completely satisfactory, ib. notice of Sykes's Reply to this Supple- ment, 67. not noticed by 'Waterland, ib. notice of Jackson's Reply to Dr. JVaterland's Defence of his Queries, 68. how far Dr. Clarke was concerned in it, 68 n. answered by Waterland in his Second Vindication of ChrisCs Divinity, &c., 70. the whole force of his intellectual powers and erudition collected in this work, 73. yet it was prepared in two months, ib. his chief object in this Vindication is to clear the sense of the Ante-Nicene church, ii. 368. his answer to Whiston's ob- jection against the suffrage of the Ante-Nicene church being claimed in favour of the Athanasian doctrines, ib. his objections against a proposal for determining the controversy by scrip- ture alone, laying aside not only anti- quity, but also those texts of scripture that are disputed, 379. his defence for entithng his two tracts Vindications of Christ's Divinity, 382. what he princi- pally intended by the motto prefixed to his first Vindication, 386. his remarks as to the sincerity of both parties, 388. his justification of his application of the terms Ariaiis and Arianism, 389. answers the charge of concealing the material point in question, 396. notice of Jackson's Remarks, and Clarke's Observations on his second Defence of some Queries, i. 73. why he did not notice Jackson's Remarks, 76. some particulars respecting his Further Vindication of Christ's Divinity, in answer to Dr. Clarke's Observations, 77 — 81. which was answered by Jack- son's Further Remarks, &.C., 81. which Remarks remained unnoticed by Waterland, ib. and here this con- troversy ended, ib. between the pub- lication of his Second Vindication and his Further Vindication he wrote his Critical History of the Athanasian Creed, ib. object of this work, 81. iii. 105. method of it, i. 82. iii. 122. some information respecting the circum- stances that gave rise to his Answer to some Queries printed at Exon, relating to the Arian controversy, i. 99. notice of his tract, entitled. The Scriptures and the Arians compared, &c., 102. occasion of his correspondence with Mr. Staunton concerning the Trinity, 103. his amiableness how shewn in this controversy, 105. origin of his Disser- tation upon the Argument a priori for proving the Existence of a First Cause, 105, III. at first added anonymously to BIr. Law's Enquiry, (who was his intimate friend,) iii. notice of this Dissertation, ib. his services in the INDEX. 607 Ti-initariaii controversy, ii6. did not notice any of Jackson's fin-ther writings against him, ib. the Memoirs of his liife and \rritings by Jackson, too scurrilous to be reph'ed to, ib. outline of his work, entitled, T/ie Importance of the Doctrine of the Trimly asserted, 86. when and where reprinted, 97. notice of his Remarks on Clarke's Ex- position of the Church Catechi.\m, 143. replied to by Sykes, 145. the most ex- ceptionable part of whose answer being i-elative to the I^ord's Supper, he in consequence published his tract on The Nature, Obligation, and Efficacy of the Christian Sacraments, 148. notice of! it, ib. notice of Sykes's Defence of his Answer, 155. and of Waterland's re- j ply in his Supplement to his former treatise, 1.^8. and of Sykes's rejoinder in his True foundations of natural and revealed Religimi, 160. and of! Waterland's notice of this in his Pcst- script to his second part of Scripture [ Vindicated, i.^o. and of Sykes's short | answer to this Postscript, 132. Water- land ])ursued this controversy no fur- ther, ib. his controversial ^^ ritings in ' defence of Christianity against deists, 118. wrote the first part of his Scrip- ture Vindicated in answer to Tindal's Christianity as old as the Creation, 121. notice of it, 121, 122. the first part extends only to the end of Gene- sis, 1 22. this part noticed by Tindal in his reply to bishop Gilison's second Pastoral liCtter, 124. this publication he deemed unworthy of a reply, ib. anonymously but fiercely attacked by Dr. IVIiddleton, ib, who bore him per- sonal ill-will, from his being his too successful competitor in literature and public esteem, ib. IVliddleton's letter answered first by Dr. Pearce, 126. against which Middleton published a Defence, ib. notice of it, ib. Ai''ater- land took no part in these disputes, but went on with his second part of Scripture Vindicated, 130. notice of it, ib. and of his third jiart, 1 33. designed a fourth part vindicating the New Tes- tament in like manner, which however never aj)])eared, ib. the three parts subseq\iently published together with a general ])reface, ib. notice of his De- fence of the liishop of St. David''s, 1 34. his Advice to a Student, drawn up for his university pupils, and not intended for publication, 137. notice of his Recommendatory Preface to the second edition of Mr. Blair's Sermons, ib. and of his Discourse on Regeneration, 138. why very seasonable at the time, 139, 140. high encomium of it, 140. notice of his Charge on the doctrinal use of the sacrament, 164, 203. particulars of his amicable dispute with Dr. Pearce, respecting the eucharist, 165. Dr. Brett defended Johnson's Unbloody Sacrijice against him, 204. notice of his MS. censures of Brett's and Johnson's pub- lications on the same subject, 167. general account of his Review of the Doctrine of the Eucharist, &c., 168. its object, ib. Dr. Berriman his friend, 190 n. notice of his primary Charge on the alleged independence of natural re- ligion upon that which is revealed, 190. notice of his second Charge in defence of revealed religion, 192. most of his observations therein were levelled a- gainst Tindal's Christianity as old as the Creation, 195. notice of Discourse of Fundamentals, comprising the sub- stance of two Charges, 196. and of his three Charges respectirg the eiicharist and sacrifices, with observations upon them, 205, 206. notices respecting his five occa.sional sermons, 214, 215. con- fidtd his papers to his former pupil, the Kev. J. Clarke, to publish such as he thought proper after his death, 216. who .selected thirty-three sermons and two tracts, one on justification, the other on infant communion, 217. ob- servations upon the sermons, ib. upon the tract on justification, 221. and upon that on infant communion, 223. Clarke's preface to these writings, v. 385. notice of his two Letters on lay- baptism, i. 224. was first in favour of it, but afterwards altered his opinion, vi. 76. Mr. Kelsall's answer to the first, 81. notice of his letters to Mr. Lewis, i. 229. and to other correspondents, 230. observations respecting his BIS. notes on his own and on other writings, 231. laboured much for the improve- ment of Hearne's edition of llobert of Gloucester, 233. his annotations on the holy scriptures inserted in Dr. Dodd's Commentary on the Bible, ib. his ac- count of his declining to be prolocutor of the lower house of convocation, 1 735., vi. 413, 444. Browne's Animadversions on two pieces, and Alexander's Essay on Irena;us, passed through his hands before they were printed, 414. how far concerned about the new edition of Cave's Historia Litcraria, 423. his thoughts on moral goodness, 454. his services as master of his college, and vice-chancellor of the university, i. 234. recommended by bishop Ilobinsou as the first lady Moyer's lecturer, ib. presented by the dean and chapter of St. Paul's to the living of St. Austin and St. Faith, London, ih. promoted to the chancellorship of York, by sir W. Dawes, archbishop of York, 237. 608 INDEX. the archbishop's lettei- of thanks to him for his Histor)' of the Athana- sian Creed, ih. through whom made canon of Windsor, 238. obtains the vicarage of Twickenham from that chapter, and resigns the hving of St. Austin and St. Faith, ib. collated by l)ishop Gibson to the archdeaconry of Middlesex, 189, 238. intimate with Seed, 239. chosen prolocutor of the lower house of convocation, but declines the post, and why, 239. vi. 413, 444. Dr. Cobden's intended address on his presentation, i. 239 n. his literaiy aid to other authors, 241. particularly to John Berriman's Moyer's Lectures, ib. Wharton's edition of Cave's Historia Lileraria, 242. and Fiddes's Body of Divinity, ib. the offer of the bishopric of Llandaff made to him, probably through archbishop Potter, 24.V why he declined it, ib. notice of an ill-natured story respecting him, 248. his patience and resignation in his last illness, 250. his interment, 251. had man-ied Jane Tregonwell, ih. archbishop Potter's tribute to his memory, 2 ;; 3. his literary acquaintances, 254. deference jjaid to him, ib. character of his opponents, ib. Warburton's animosity against him, 256. praised by foreigners, 257. the good that his controversial writings produced, i/;. his style, 261. his temper j and disposition, 262. he and Dr. Clarke i on good terms, notwithstanding their difference in religious points, 263. chronological order of his works, 264 n. the arrangement in this edition, i. 265. most of his books in Rawlinson's col- lection in the Bodleian, 248 n. M'aterland, Henry, rector of Walesby and Flixborough, the father of Daniel Waterland by a second wife, i. 7. was the son of John AVaterland, presbyter of Braughton, 7 n. and had been a scholar of Jlagdalene college, Cam- bridge, ib. Waterland, Henry, i. 252. AVaterland, Henry, notice of, i. 252. his preferment, ib. Waterland, Isaac, i. 253 n. AVaterland, John, jiresbyter of Braughton, grandfather of Daniel, i. 7 n. Waterland, 3Iartin, his death, i. 253 n. Wateiland, Samuel, i. 253 n. Waterland, Dr. Theodore, i. 1, 264. bro- ther of Daniel, educated at Clare-hall, Cambridge, where he became fellow, i. 251, 252. afterwards fellow of Magda- lene college, 252. his preferments, ib. preached lady iMoyer's lectures, but did not publish them, ib. his only publi- cation an accession sermon at Cam- bridge, ib. I Waterland, Mrs., see J. Tregonwell. Watts, Isaac, iv. 415. Watts, J., iv. 186 n. Webster, "William, i. 256. iii. 416 n. translated Maimbourg's History of Arianism, i. 244. notice of the two Dissertations he prefi.'ied, 245 n. edi- tor of the Weekly Uliscel/any, under the name of Richard Hooker, 248. Weekly Miscelluny, see Webster. \Veeks, computation by, archbishop Sharpe's illustration of, v. 27. Welchman, Edward, i. 560. iii. 401 11. 595. iv. 217 n. vi. 422. author of an illustration of the Thirty-nine Articles, notice of his tract, entitled, Dr. darkens Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity ex- amined, i. 40. Wells, Edward, iii. 511 n. iv. 47, 317 n. 33° n- .Ui»3S4n. 364n. 365 n. 366, 41 1, 068 n. vi. 481. notice of his Re- marks on Dr. Clarke's Introduction to his Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity, i. 36. replied to by Dr. Clarke, who attacked some untenable positions he had advanced, 37. notice of his second letter in answer to Dr. Clarke, 38. Weudelinus, — , vi. 104 n. Werenfels, Samuel, iv. 718 n. vi. 47 r, 486. Wesley, John, i. 139, 221. Wesseling, — , vi. 414, 417. Wesselius, Joannes, iv. 429 n. vi. 24 n. 36 n. West, Gilbert, iv. 412, 415. AVharton, Henry, iii. 145, 16S, 169. vi. 244, 248, 2c,o, 254, 25s, 259, 260, 301, 320, 360, 367, 368, 381. edited Cave'.s Historia Literaria, i. 242. was of opinion that the version of the Bible, commonly ascribed to W'ickliff, was really done by Trevisa, iii. 144. is positive the Norfolk IMS. of the Gosi)els belongs to Wickliff, ib. his reasons un- satisfactory to othere, and in part con- futed, ib. \\'aterland's observations on the subject, ib. Wheatly, Charles, i. 163, 227, 231, 232, 24 1, 254. iv. 695 n. 800 n. vi. 262, 263, 354. once a fellow of St. John's college, Oxford, i. 231. notice of Waterland's MS. notes on his Illustration of the Common Prayer, 5. character of his Moyer's Lectures, vi. 428. published an anonymous tract against Hoadly's Plain Accovnt of the Sacrament, 449. well spoken of, ib. Whelock, Abraham, vi. 242 n. Winston, ^1'illiara, i. 3, 19, 35, go, 59, 63, 64, 71, 102, 119, 163, 225, 255. ii. 318, 380, 429, 463, 588, 625, 633, 649. 705. 714, 752. 755- 2S8 n. 298 n. 662 n. iv. 290 n. 291, 391 , 407, 411. V. 6 n. vi. 398, 412, 421, 446. notice of his character, i. 119. his cen- sure of Dr. Clarke's method of vindi- cating Arian subscription, ii. 360. his INDEX. 609 olijectiou against the stiffiage of the Ante-Nicene church being claimed in favour of the Athanasian doctrines answered, 3(19. Fahriiiiis's censure of his attempt to substitute the larger for the smaller Epistles of Ignatius, 590 n. and of his attempt abo\it the Apostohcal Constitutions, 591 n. his proof of the Son being a creature from Prov. viii. 22. refuted, 633, 634, 635. his censure of Athauasius on this point answered, 635. Whittaker, William, ii. 343, 344, 349, iii. 660 n. V. 227 11. regius professor of divinity at Cambridge, furthered the growth of Calvinism there, ii. 342. drew up the Lambeth Articles, 344. ^^hitby, Daniel, i. 90, 94, 95, 98, 102, 120, 231, 254, 284, 349, 356 n. 462, 502, 541, 714. iii. 95, 456 n. 468 n. 481, 511 n. 624n. 625 n. 633 n. 66on. iv. 82, 305 n. 321; n. 410, 414, 428 n. 4.^51- 4S3"- 4,SS "• 47.^, .S48n. 553, 632, 752 n. V. S7 n. 92 n. vi. 26, 41 n. 62 n. 485. a ([uotation proving his former belief in Christ's divinity, i. 283. • an instance of his misquoting authori- ties, 350. his notion of mysteries ex- posed, 453. censured for his disbelief of the Trinity, 459. praised for his former good service to the church, 507. notice of his Dii,(juiiiitiones modestce on bisho[) Bull's Defence of the Xicene Creed, i. 53. his two preliminary maxims, 54. strictures on tliese Disquisitions, shew- ing their general fallacies and particular defects, 507. his first fallacy is his ' making essence and person to signify j the same, ib. further commented on in M'aterland's Answer to his Reply, ii 200. his second is, in arguing from the expressions of Arians to those of Ante- | Nicene writers, i. 510. further noticed [ in the Answer to his Reiily, ii. 211. his [ third is, in arguing against the faith of the Ante- Nicene fathers in Christ's divinity, from tlieir often distinguislu'ng God from C!hrist, and calling the Father God absolutely, i. 511. this fallacy en- larged upon, ii. 214. his misquotations, i. 511. ii. 219. his misconstructions and misrepresentations, i. 511. ii. 221, 224, 228, 231, 234, 242, 243, 244, 246, j 250, 251. charged witli falsely styling Barnabas's Epistle spurious, i. 513. ii. 252. and with giving a partial account , of the ancient doxologies, i. 514. ii. 233. j Waterland's Answer to his Reply, 199. bishop Van Mildert's notice of both the Reply and the Answer, i. 55. why Waterland did not answer his Modest Disquisitions more fully in his Defence, &c., ii. 218. his method of managing the controversy, according to M'aterland, 256. bishop Van Mildert's notice of his second part of a Reply, i. 57. objections to his addition to the definition of the word heretic, iii. 461, 466. his opinion of the u.se and value of the ancient fathers, 620. his objections against the use of them in interpreting scripture answered, 626. observations on his censures of their scripture criticisms, 648, 652, 654. his view in disparaging them, 663 n. his explanation of 1 Cor. X. 16, &c. censured, iv 626, 627, 628. Whitchurch, Edward, vi. 324, 330, 341, 344 n. 346, 362, 377, 3S0, 381,383, 38s. .^89, 390, 403. M'hite, Dr., ii. 348. White, Francis, bishop of Ely, obser- vation on his notion of the eucharistic sacrifice, v. 140. M'hitefield, George, i. 139. v. 388 n. 391 n. 392 n. 304 n. 397. Whitgift, John, archbishop of Canter- bury, iv. 800. vi. 22 n. 82, 124, 127, 128. his opinion as to the proceedings at Cambridge against Barret for Anti- Calvinisu], ii. 342, 343, 344. though he countenanced the I^ambeth Articles, yet he might not Iiave understood them in so strict a sense as Whitaker, who drew them up, 336. Whole Duly of Man, iv. 399. Wholly, anciently spelt holy, iii. 2 50. Wicked men, the providential instruments of good, two sermons on this subject, V. 479> 4SS. Wicklilf, John, iii. 145, 240. vi. 238, 240, 243, 246, 247, 248, 263, 264, 265, 3 '7. 319) 320, 35,9' 360, 365, 383, 3yi;, 402. notice of an English Coumunt on the Athanasian Creed ascribed to him by Waterland, iii. 143. on what gro\mds, ib. a MS. of his Bible in Emainiel college library, Cambridge, 144. Wharton was of o|)inion that the version, commonly ascrilied to him, was really Trevisa's, ill. his reasons unsatisfactory to others, and in i)urt confuted, ib. AVaterland's observations on the subject, 145. Wharton is positive that the Norfolk -MS of the Gospels is a version done by \Vickliff, 144. two copies of his tran.slation of the Testament in Mag- dalene college library, Cambridge, vi. 261;. a co])y annexed to his Bible in Einamiel college libiary, ib. observa- tions respecting MS. copies of his translation of the Testament, 300, 303. conjectures concerning his Bible, 365, 370. probably translated the New Tes- tament only, 366, 371. M'ickliffites, vi. 253, 258. Wilkins, John, bishoj) of Chester, iii. 169, 372 n. iv. 287 u. 321, 414. V. 54 n. 67 n. vi. 30 306, 312 n. Will, and arbitrary will, distinct, i. 349. how the Son may be said to have been WATERLAND, VOL. VI. B r (510 INDEX. hegotteii with the will of the Father, 347, 561. how the ancients held eter- nal generation to be an act of the will, ii. 590. in what senses used by the fathei-s, 592. its different meanings as applied to temporal and to etenial ge- neration, 610. Will, or the Father's Will, n name given by some of the ancients to the Son, ii. 59 1- Willehad, St., bishop of Breme, iii. t8^, 185. M'iUiara III, iv. 418. M'lUiam and 3Iary college in Virginia, Rev. J. Blair its original projector and first president, iv.418. Williams, — , i. 22;. president of St. John's college, Cambridge, vi. 452. Williams, Dr., v. 28. WilHs, Browne, vi. 451. Wimbledon, — , vi. 264. Windsor college library, vi. 315, 324, 402, 403. Wingate, Edmund, iv. 407. Wise, Dr., v. 151 n. Witsius Hermannus, i. 196. iii. 602 n. iv. 187 n. 192 n. 195 n. 196 n. 203 n. j 25611. 28 in. 298 n. 300 n. 316 n. 320! n- .332 n- 33.1 n. 341 n. 354, 367 n. 705 n. 716 n. 752 n. v. i2n. 17 n. 19 n. 20 n. 73 n. 93 n. 130 n. vi. 461. 469. his censure of those who denied the importance of the doctrine of the Trinity, iii. 398 n. and of the remon- strants for not considering the doctrine 1 of tlie Trinity practical, 41 7 II. confuted | the pretences of JIarsham and Spencer ' against the opinion that pagan writers ; borrowed from the Jews, v. T4. 1 Witty, — , iv. 161 n. 162 n. ; Wolff, R., \-i 352, 404. I Wolfiiis, John Christopher, iii. 434 n. ] 456 n. 458 n. 460 n. 690, 691 n. iv. 273, 428 n. 430 n. 435 n. 473- 49^ n. .1508 n. .;ion. 57811. 60511. 632,633, 706 n. 708 11. 716 n. 768 n. v. 6 n. 221 n. 263 n. 264 n. vi. 13 n. 15 n. 462. WoUaston, William, iii. 351, 370 n. iv. 112 n. 415. Wolsey, Thomas, cardinal, vi. 270. Wolzogenins, — , iv. 506 n. ^23. vi. 484. Women had tlie priestliood among some ancient sects, vi. i 1 4. Wood, Anthony, vi. 371, 372. Woolston, Thomas, iv. 381, 387. AVord, see Aiyos. M'orde, M'ynkyn de, vi. 268. AVorld, the upper and lower not created by one .\uthor, according to Cerinthus, ii. 50. creation of the w^irld by God most high proved from the encharist, V. 109. see Revelation. M'orship, religious, appropriated to the supreme God only in scripture, i. 407. creation the ground and reason of wor- ship in scripture, 430 some probable reasons why God ma)- have reserved divine worship to himself alone, 410. no distinction in scripture between ab- solute and inferiiir worship, 410. ii. 89. the same proved also from the practice of the primitive martyrs, i. 416. and from the doctrine of the an- cient church, 417. proof that relative inferior worship may not be paid to anv creature, 411. religious worship due to Christ, 420. upon what princi- ples given to him by the primitive Christians, 423. how the worship paid to him redounds to the Father, 425. due to him, as Creator and Preserver, long before the commencing of his me- diatorial kingdom, 429, proves Christ to be the one God, ii. 21. the Arian notion of worship refuted, 22. the only scriptural foundation of any religious worship is the divinity of the Person, 25. the mediatorial office of Christ cannot be the foundation of his wor- ship, and why, 23, 25. observations on the opinions of the author of Unity of God nut inconsistent ivith the Divinity of Christ, with respect to religious «'or- ship, 22, 23. prayer and thanksgiving, as parts of religious worship, how con- sidered, 24. mediatorial worship con- sidered at large, 655. only one, and has respect to the divinity of the Per- son to be worshipped, otherwise it Is idolatry, 659, 660. how understood by the ancients, 666. who made no dis- tinction of supreme and inferior wor- ship, 668. why the worship of the Son, although terminating in the Father, cannot be an inferior woi-ship, 669. why his worship may be considered as ultimately resting in the Father, ib. in- ferior worship disproved, 670. how it differs from honour, 663. worship of the Son not founded on his power of judging, 680 — 681. this was the So- cinian idea, ib. the old Arian founda- tion for his worship, 684. why princi- pally required to be given to God, 722, 723. scripture knows nothing of crea- ture worship, or inferior, relative or mediate, iii. 291, 297. observations on divine worship, 420. instances from scripture, of worship being paid to the Son and Holy Ghost, iv. 8. proof that it was also offered by the primitive Christians, 9. Wotton, William, ii. 107 n. iii. 170, 640, 643 n. iv. 186 n. 430 n. Wrangham, archdeacon, i. 5. Wray, Christopher, i. 7 n. Wurtzburgh, library of, has the oldest BIS. of S. Bruno's Comment on the I N D Athanasian Creed, iii. 138. which was left by him as a legacy to that church, ib. its age, ib. Wyghte, John, vi. 404. X. Xenophanes, ii. 585 n. Xenophon, iv. 407, 408. said to have borrowed from the scriptures, v. 9. Ximenes, Francis, cardinal, vi. 4-29, 430. Y. York, archbishop of, see sir tV. Dawes. York, cathedral library of, has a IMS. of S. Bruno's Comment on the Athanasian Creed, iv. 139. its probable age, ib. Young, Dr., dean of Sarum, i. 104. iv. 407, 409. vi. 447. Young, Patrick, iii. 175. Younger, — , canon residentiary of St. Paul's, i. 236. Z. Zach. Mitylen., ii. 695. Zaleuciis's laws borrowed in part from the scriptures, v. 9. Zanchius, Jerome, iv. 367 n. 641 n. v. 223 u. 228 n. 281 n. 286 n. vi. 104. Zeltner, — , v. 143 n. Zeno Veronensis, i. 356 n. 367 n. ii. 460 E X. 611 u. 498 n. 586 n. 593 n. 595 n. 616 n. 695 743 n. iii. 23, 90, 429. v. 138 n. 250. his statement as to the proces- sion of the Son, i. 361 u. and as to the undivided nature of the Father and the Son, 443 n. Zephyrin, pope, iii. 581. Zialowski, Eustratius Johannides, Gund- ling wrote notes on his piece relating to the religion of the Greek churches, iii. 112. Zois, vi. 187. Zoroastres, iv. 296. v. 17. Zornius, — , iii. 634 n. 658 n. iv. 497 n. 540 n. 702 n. 703 n. 707 n. 708 n. 727, 752 n. v. 114 n. 264 n. 401. vi. 65 n. 470, 472, 473> 492- Zuinglians, iv. 462. considered lay-bap- tism invalid, vi. 94. contrary to Zuin- glius, ib. Zuinglius, Ulricus, v. 405. vi. 94. his views respecting the eucharist how faulty, iv. 599. what apology made for him, 600. Zwicker, Daniel, i. 28. ii. 378. iii. 564. bishop Bull's Primiliva el Aposiolica Traddio written expressly against him, i. 29. rejected the proeme of St. John's Gospel, iii. 673. THE END. BOOKS PRINTED FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD, SOLD BY John Henry Parker, Oxford, and 377, Strand, London ; and E. Gardner, 7, Paternoster Row, London : At the following Prices in sheets. BeVERIDGE'S Discourse upon the XXXIX Articles. Tlie third com- plete edition. 1847. 7*- BINGHAM'S Works, edited by the Rev. R. Bingham, jun. M.A. A new edition, in 10 vols. 1855. 8vo. 5^. BRAGGE'S Works, on the Miracles, Parables, &c. 5 vols. 1833. 8vo. il. 10s. BULL'S Works, with Nelson's Life, by the Rev. E. Burton, D. D. A new edition. 8 vols. 1846. 8vo. 2I. 5s. BURNET'S History of the Reformation of the Church of England. A new edition, with a copious Index. 7 vols. 1829. 8vo. 3Z. 6s. 6d. Exposition of the XXXIX Articles. 1846. 8vo. 6s. 6d. BURTON'S (Edward) Testimonies of the Ante-Nicene Fathers to the Divinity of Christ. Second edition. 1829. 8vo. 13s. to the Doctrine of the Trinity and of the Divinity of the Holy Ghost. 1 831. 8vo. 5*. THE TWO BOOKS OF COMMON PRAYER, set forth by authority of Parliament in the Reign of King Edward the Sixth : compared with each other. Third edition. 1852. 8vo. 6s. 6d. History of Conferences on the Book of Common Prayer from 1551 to 1690. Third edition. 1849. 8vo. 7s. Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum. The Reformation of the Ecclesi- astical Laws as attempted in the reigns of King Henry VIII, King Edward VI, and Queen Elizabeth. 1850. 8vo. 6s. CHILLINGWORTH'S Works. 3 vols. 1838. 8vo. il COMBER'S Companion to the Temple, &c. 7 vols. 1841. 8vo. 2I. CRANMER'S Works, collected and arranged by the Rev. H.Jenkins, M.A. Fellow of Oriel College. 4 vols. 1834. 8vo. 2I. 8s. FLEETWOOD'S (Bp.) Works. A new edition. 3 vols. 1854. 8vo. il. FULLER'S Church History of Britain, edited by the Rev. J. S. Brkwer. 6 vols. 1845. 3^- HAMMOND'S Parajjhrase and Annotations on the New Testament. 4 vols. 1845. 8vo. \l. Hs. WATERLANn, VOL. VI. SS <>I4 Book ^ printed for the University of Oxford. HAMMOND'S Paraphrase on the Psalms, edited by the Rev. T. Brancker. 1850. 2 vols. 8vo. il. HOOKER'S Ecclesiastical Polity, and other Works, with his Life by Walton, and additions, arranged by the Rev. John Keble, M.A. Third edition. 3 vols. 1844. 8vo. il. los. HOOPER'S, (Bishop George) Works. 2 vols. 8vo. 1855. 15s. INETT'S History of the English Church. By the Rev. J. Griffiths, M.A. A new edition, in 2 vols. 1855. 8vo. il. los. JACKSON'S (Dr. Thomas) Works. 12 vols. 1844. 8vo. 4/. los. JEWEL'S Works. A new edition, edited by the Rev. R, W. Jelf, D. D. 8 vols. 1847. 8vo. 3Z. 8s. LESLIE'S (C.) Theological Works. 7 vols. 1832. 8vo. 2I. 12s. 6d. NEWCOME'S (Abp.) Observations on our Lord's Conduct. 1852. 8vo. 7s. 6d. PEARSON'S Exposition of the Creed. A new edition, revised and corrected by the Rev. E. Burton, D. D. 2 vols. 1847. 8vo. 9s. Minor TheologicEd Works, now first collected, with a Memoir of the Author, Notes, and Index. By Edward Churton, M.A. 2 vols. 1844. 8vo. 19s. SANDERSON'S Works, now first collected by W. Jacobson, D. D. 6 vols. 1854. 8vo. \l. i6s. SCOTT'S Christian Life, and other Works. 6 vols. 1826. 8vo. 2I. 5s. SHARP'S (Abp. John) Theological Works. 5 vols. 1829. 8vo. il. 13s. 6d. SIXTY SERMONS preached upon several occasions. By GEORGE SMALRIDGE, D. D. sometime Bishop of Bristol, and Dean of Christ Church, Oxford. A new edition. 1852. 2 vols. 8vo. 15s. in boards. SOUTH (Robert). Sermons Preached upon several Occasions. 5 vols. 1842. 8vo. 2I. 8s. STILLINGFLEET'S Origines Britannicae. With Lloyd's Historical Account of (Church Government. Edited by T. P. Pantin, M. A. 2 vols. 1842. 8vo. i/. Rational Account of the Grounds of Protestant Rehgion : being a Vindi- cation of Abp. Laud's Relation of a Conference &c. 2 vols. 1844. 8vo. i6s. WALL'S History of Infant Baptism, with Gale's Reflections, and Wall's Defence. A new edition, by the Rev. H.Cotton, D.C. L. 4 vols. 1845. 8vo. il. ICS. WYCLIFFE'S BIBLE, edited by Forshall and Madden. 4 vols. 1850. royal 4to. 5Z. 5s. CATENA GR.ECORUM PATRUM in Novum Testamentum Tom. VIII. Ed. J.A.Cramer, S.T.P. 1838-44. 8vo. 4Z. 14s. PATRUM APOSTOLICORUM quae supersunt opera; Gr. et Lat. Ed. GuL. Jacobson, S.T. P. Tom. II. 1847. 8vo. il. 1 1012 01083 2824 j HIGHSMITH #45230