Words are thefe, My Spirit that is upon thee, and my Words, which I have put into thy Mouth, shall not depart out of thy Mouth; nor out of the Mouth of thy Seeds nor out of the Mouth of thy Seed's Seed; Says the Lord from hence forth and for ever. Ifa, so. v. 21.

G. My Lord, this Promife was firft made to the « Jewish Church, and belongs literally to her, and much more uncontestably than to the Church of « Rome, to whom no Promife whatfoever was made. «< Nor has she any other Pretence to the Promifs « made to the Church in General, than her fuppofed Supremacy over all the other Chriftian Churches, « which is difputed with her, and denied by the o- « ther Churches. But there was none to dipute it « with the Jewish Church: for she was then the only vifible Church of God upon Earth. And if the Pro- « mifes made to her can fail, in vain do's the Church « of Rome, or even the whole Gentile Church claim « thefe Promises as indefeasible and unalterable to « her. For, if the Promises made to the whole Church « of God upon Earth can fail at one Time, they may likewife at another, and there can be no Certain- « ty. pag. 28. «

се

L. Sr, your firft Propofition, which is the Groundwork of all the reft, viz. that the Promise of Ifaiah was first made to the Jewish Church, and belongs literally to her, is without the leaft Foundation of Truth. To make Good what I fay, I ask whether the Church, which the Meffias at his Coming was to establish upon Earth, was the Jewish or Chriftian Church?

G. The latter without all Difpute.

L. I ask again, whether it be not the Chriftian Church, the future Splendor whereof the Prophet defcribes by the Concourfe of Nations flocking to her, Ifa. 60. ¥.1.2, &c.

G. There can be no doubt of it,

L. This, Sr, fuffices to decide to whole Matter. For the Promife in Question is literally and solely made to this Church; being placed between two Propheties, which are both relating to the Chriftian Church alone. 'Tis usher'd in by that, which foretells the Eftablishment of the Church by the Coming of the Meffias which can be no other than the Chriftian Church. And it is immediately follow'd by the other, which contains a Defcription of her future Encreafe and Splendor. And I leave any one to Judge, whether it be confiftent with good Senfe to understand both the Predictions literally and folely of the Christian Church, and the Promise, which has a manifeft Connection with them, of the Jewish.

Thus, Sr, the Foundation, you have laid, is rotten, and the Superftructure, you have built upon it, muft fall of Courfe. However to fupport it, you have again Recourfe to that wretched Equivocation relating to the Church of Rome, and therefore can mean nothing elfe but the Dioceß of Rome, to which you fay no Promise whatsoever was made. And who fays the Contrary? The Promises were made to that Church, whereof St Peter was conftituted Head, and his Succeffors after him that is, to the Church of Chrift, or Catholick Church in General. You add: Nor has she any other Pretence to the Promifes made to the Church in General but her fuppofed Supremacy over all other Christian Churches, which is difputed with her and denied by the other Churches. St, the Church in Communion with the Succeffors of St Peter is the whole Catholick Church, to which the Promises were made: and the fupreme Government of this Church is lodg'd in it's Bishop, precisely as he is the Succeffor of St Peter, and Christ's Vicar upon Earth. And they, who difpute that Title with him, may much more legally, difpute the Title to the Crown with

their lawful Sovereign, the one being of Divine, the other of human Institution only.

What you add that there was none to dispute the Supremacy with the Jewish Church: if you mean, that the Jewish Church itself was fupreme, I have not Penetration enough to make Sense of it. For fince, as you fay, she was the only visible Church of God upon Earth, how could she be call'd fupreme, which implies a Comparison ? She had indeed a high Priest, who govern'd her as Head; and in whom we may fay the Supremacy was lodg'd. But let me tell you, Sr, this was difputed by the Schifmatical Churches, that were amongst the Jews, as thofe of the Samaritans and Saducees, who difown'd the fupreme Authority of the high Prieft, as much as you do that of the Pope. The Argument, you conclude with, is wholly built upon the Suppofition, that a Promife of perpetual Infallibility was made to the Jewish Church, which never has been, nor ever will be proved. For, if fuch a Promife had been made, it would certainly have had it's Effect; unless you will fay, that God's Promifes can fail.

G. No that's impoffible. But we may mistake « his Promifes, and not understand them aright. And we may not perform the Conditions required. « pag. 28. «

L. But, Sr, the Promises of Infallibility made to the Church of Christ are Pofitive and Unconditional.

се

G. There is still a Condition implied. That is, of « Obedience which our Saviour has fully exemplified in the Parable of the Husbandmen, who did " not render the Fruits of the Vineyard, pag. 28.

I

§. 23.

All God's Promifes are not Conditional.

Defire you, Sr, to quote the Gospel, Chapter, and Verfe, that we may examine the Parable, you mention.

G. The Parable is related both by St Mathew. C. 21. v. 33. &c. and by St Luke. C. 20. v. 9. &c.

L. Very well, Sr. And you produce this Parable as a full Example, that all Promifes made to the Chri ftian Church are conditional.

G. I do, My Lord.

L. And truly, Sr, you must have a good Affutance to do it. For the Chriftian Church is not the leaft concern'd in that Parable, as the very Jewish Priests and Scribes, to whom it was fpoken, will inform you. Luke 20. . 19.

The whole Drift of the Parable was to forewarn the Fws of their approaching Reprobation, and Ruine: But particularly the Priests and Scribes, who came to Chrift in the Temple to question him concerning This Authority and Doctrine, faying to him, by whose Authority dost thou thefe Things? Or who is he, who gave thee this Authority? Math. 21. . 23. Luke 20. v. 1. 力。 Whereupon our Saviour propofed the foremention'd Parable, which contains a prediction of two Things. 1. That the Iews should foon after treat him, as the Husbandmen in the Parable treated the Heir of the Vineyard. And 2. That they should be punish'd by God, as the Husbandmen were punish'd by the Lord of the Vineyard. And the Jewish Priests and Scri bes were fo fully convinced, that they themselves were the Perfons pointed at in the Parable, that (as St Luke tells us .19.) from that very Hour they fought

to

to lay Hands on Chrift, for they perceived that he had poken that Parable against them. And is not this now a wonderful Example to convince us, that all the Promifes made to the Chriftian Church are conditio nal? You may as well quote it for a Prediction of the Fall of the Monument, For it has full as much Connection with it.

There is indeed a Part added to the Application of the Parable made by Christ himself, which belongs to the Chriftian Church. But it implies the very Reverse of what you maintain, Chrift's Words are thefe. Therefore I say unto you, the Kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a Nation bringing forth the Fruit thereof. Math. 21. V. 43. Which Words plainly infinuate this Difference between the Synagogue, and the Church of Chrift; that whereas the Kingdom of God was to be taken from the former, which did not bring forth the Fruits thereof, it should not be taken from the latter, which would bring forth the Fruits thereof. Whence it follows, that the Church of Chrift will never imitate the Apoftacy and Fall of the Jewish Synagogue. And, by Confequence, the Promife of Infallibility made to her is abfolute and Unconditional. Because no Condition of Obedience can be implied, when Obedience itself is a Part of the Promile; as it must certainly be to verify our Saviour's Words faying, that the Nation or People, to which the Kingdom of God was to be given, should bring forth the Fruit thereof.

G. My Lord, As Treafon forfeits an Eftate or « Honours given by a Prince, tho in never fo pofi- « tive Terms, and without any Condition exprefs'd, « but that of Allegiance to the Prince is always im- « plied; fo the Church may forfeit her Charter, pag. «

28.29. "

L. I anfwer first, that if a Prince could as infal

Q