4

we fincerely refuse to eat the flesh, and drink the blood of the Son of man, we have no life in us.'

For, my lord, if fincerity in refufing to eat this flesh, be the fame title to God's favour that the eating of it with fincerity is, it is plain, there is no more advantage in eating, than in not. eating; and confequently it is as well to say, that except we forbear eating the flesh of the Son of man, we have no life in us, as to fay, that except we eat the flesh of the Son of man, we have no life in us, there being plainly from this doctrine, no more danger in forbearing to eat, than in eating; nor any more neceffity of eating, than of forbearing to eat, fince both these practices are equally good and advantageous with fincerity, and equally bad and infignificant without it.

And now, my lord, let the world judge, whether you could have thought of doctrine more contradictory to the exprefs words of our Saviour, and all the inftituted terms of falvation, than this of yours about fincerity, which makes it no more necessary to obferve the inftituted terms of falvation, than to break them; and which alfo makes it as proper to declare it as dangerous to obferve fuch inftitutions, as to reject them. This I have fhewn particularly in baptifm, where your doctrine makes it as proper to fay, he that is baptized fhall be damned, as to say, that he who is not baptized fhall be damned; and in the fame manner does it contradict and confound the Scriptures, and make the contrary to every inftitution as much a means of salvation, as the inftitution itself."

Your lordship has given us a demonftration, as you call it, that your doctrine of fincerity and private persuasion is right.

Thus you afk: "What is it that juftified the Protestants-in setting up their own bishops? Was it, that the popish doctrines were actually corrupt, or that the Proteftants were perfuaded in their own confciences, that they were fo? The latter without doubt." And then comes your demonstration, in this manner; "take away from them this perfuafion, and they are so far from being justified, that they are condemned for their departure; give them this perfuafion again, they are condemned if they do not feparate*."

You want to be fhewn the fallacy in this demonstration, which I hope I fhall fhew to your fatisfaction.

* Prefer. p. 85. Anfwer to Repr. p. 1031

It is granted, that corruption in religion is no justification of those who leave it, unless they are perfuaded of that corruption.

It is also granted, that they who are fully perfuaded that a religion is finful, are obliged to feparate from it, though it should not be finful. But then it does by no means follow, that they who leave a true religion, and they who leave a false religion, through their particular perfuafions, are equally juftified, or have an equal title to the fame degree of God's favour.

Here lies the great fallacy in this argument, that you use the fame word (viz. juftified) in relation to both these people in the very same sense; whereas if they are justified, (if this word must be used) it is in a very different fenfe and different measure, and are not entitled to the fame degree of God's favour. Now, a fallacy in this point deftroys the whole demonftration, for the queftion wholly turns upon this point, whether they who are fincere in a true religion, and they who are fincere in a false religion, are equally juftified and entitled to the fame degrees of God's favour.

This very thing was objected to you by the learned Committee, who faid, "that an erroneous confcience was never, till now, allowed wholly to justify men in their errors *.”

To which you have no better answer to make than this, “That it must either juflify them or not justify them. It must either wholly justify them, or not juftify them at all."

My lord, I fuppofe a man is juftified by his living foberly, righteously, and godly in this prefent world. I afk therefore, does his living soberly justify him wholly, or does it not justify him at all? If it justifies him wholly, then there is no occafion of his living righteously and godly; if it does not justify him at all, then there is no need of his living foberly,

Your answer to the Committee has just as much fenfe or divinity in it, as there is in this argument.

Here I must desire, that it may be observed, that the question is, not whether fincerity in any religion, does not recommend us to the favour of God, but whether we are entitled to the fame degrees of God's favour, whether we are fincere in a true or falfe way of worship.

I fhall therefore farther confider this point.

First, If true and right religion hath any thing in its own nature to recommend us to God, then fincerity in this true and right religion must recommend us more to God, than fincerity in a false and wrong religion; because we have a recommendation from our religion, as well as from our fincerity in it. For inftance; if it be in any degree in the world more acceptable to God, that we should follow Chrift, than Mahomet, our fincerity in following Christ must recommend us to just fo much more of God's favour, than our fincerity in following Mahomet; as it is more acceptable to him that we fhould follow one than the other. Now to fay that true and right religion has nothing in its own nature to recommend us to God, is saying, that things true and right are no more acceptable to God, than things falfe and wrong; but as it would be blafphemy to say this, fo it is very little less to say, that fincerity in a false and wrong religion is just the same justification or recommendation to the favour of God, that fincerity in the true and right religion is.

Farther; The whole end and defign of religion is, to recommend us to the favour of God. If therefore we can suppose a religion inftituted by God, which does no more, as fuch, recommend us to the favour of God, than a religion invented by men or devils, as fuch, recommends us to the favour of God; then we must also suppose, that God has inftituted a religion which does not at all answer the general end and design of religion, viz. the recommending us to the favour of God.

Unless therefore we will prophanely declare, that God has infituted a religion, which, as fuch, does us no fervice, nor any better promotes the general end of religion, than any corrupt inventions of men, we must affirm, that fincerity in his religion will entitle us to greater degrees of his favour, than fincerity in a religion not from him.

Secondly, If there be any real excellency or goodness in one religion which is not in another, then it is certain, that fincerity does not equally juftify us in any religion; and on the contrary, it is as certain, that if fincerity in any religion does entitle us to the fame degrees of God's favour, then there is no fuch thing as any real excellency or goodness in one religion, which is not in another.

When you was charged with destroying all difference between religions by this account of fincerity, you retreat to an answer as

weak as could poffibly have been thought of. Thus you fay; "What I faid about private perfuafion relates to the juftification of the man before God, and not to the excellency of one communion above another, which it leaves just as it found it*."

Here, my lord, you fuppofe that one religion may very much exceed another religion in goodness and excellency, and yet that this goodness and excellency has nothing to do with the justification of perfons; for you say, you was not speaking of the excellency of one communion above another, but of what relates to the justification of a man, &c. which plainly fhews that you do not allow the excellency of religion to have any thing to do with the juftification of men; for if you did, it must have been neceffary to speak of the excellency of one religion above another, when you was speaking of what it is which juftifies a man before God.

Now, my lord, to grant that there is an excellency and goodnefs in fome religion, and yet exclude this excellent and good religion, from having any more in it to justify and recommend us to the favour of God, than what is to be found in any other religion lefs excellent; is just as good fenfe, as to allow, that some food is much more excellent and proper than other food; and yet exclude this most excellent proper food, from having any thing in it to preserve health and strength, more than in any other food.

For the goodness and excellency of religion, is as truly a relative goodness and excellency, as the goodness and excellency of food is a relative goodness and excellency. And as that food can only be faid to be better than another food, because it has a better effect upon the body than any other food; fo that religion can only be faid to be better than another, because it raises us higher in the favour of God than any other religion.

It is therefore most certain, that if any one religion can be said to be better than another, it must be, because one religion may be of more advantage to us than another.

For as religion in general is good, because it does us good, and brings us into favour with God; fo the particular excellency and goodness of any religion, muft confift in this, that it does us a more particular good, and raises us to higher degrees of God's favour, than a lefs excellent religion would have done.

Anfwer to Repr. p. 113.

1

So that when your lordship talks of the excellency of one religion above another, as having nothing in it, as fuch, to recommend us to higher degrees of God's favour, or effect our justification; it is fully as abfurd, as to fay, that though one kind of learning may be more excellent than another kind of learning, yet no men are more excellent or valuable for having one kind of learning than another.

For as no kind of learning can be faid to be peculiarly excellent, but because it gives fome peculiar excellency to those who are masters of it; fo no kind of religion can be said to be more excellent than another, unless those who profefs it, reap fome advantage from it, which is not to be had from a religion lefs

excellent.

From all this, it appears, firft, that there can be no fuch thing as any goodness or excellency in one religion above another, but as it procures a peculiar good and advantage to those who profefs it.

Secondly, That your lordship can allow no other goodness or excellency in religion, even from your own exprefs words, but what implies as great an absurdity, as to allow of good food, good learning, or good advice, which can do nobody any good at all.

For fince you exprefsly exclude the goodness or excellency of any religion from having any part in recommending us to the favour of God, and will only allow it to carry us fo far, as fincerity in a worse religion will carry us; it is certain, that this good and excellent religion, is just as good as that, which does us no good at all.

So that whether you will yet own that you have destroyed all the difference betwixt religions, or not, I cannot tell; yet I imagine every one will fee that you have only left fuch a goodness in one religion above another, as can do nobody any good at all.

The fhort is this; if you will own there is no excellency in one religion above another, then you are guilty of making Chriftianity no better than Mahometanifm; but if you will acknowledge a goodnefs and excellency in one religion above another, and yet contend that it is fincerity alone, which does us any good, or recommends us to the favour of God, in all religions alike; this is as abfurd, as to fay, fuch a thing is much better for us than any other thing, and yet affert, that any other thing will do us as much good as that.

5