Hey on Article XIV: Of Works of Supererogation

1. The Hifory of this Article need not be long; especially as the subject of it is so connected with the subjects of the twenty-second Article.— The Romanists wish to find something of the notion of Supererogation in the fifth Century, particularly in the works of Augustin ; but what he says wants one essential, the zransfer of merits. Bishop Porteus, in his brief confutation of Popery, extracted, in a good measure, from Archbishop Secker, (Part ii. Chap. vin.), says, that Indulgences, except as mitigations of Ecclesiastical censures, were not © known for at least 600 years, perhaps much longer; - Works of Supererogation might be much longer still before they were definitely taught, I have a memorandum of their appear-

ing

BOOK IV. 1. 401

ing fir in the twelfth Century; that Century, in which the Popes established their Sovereignty ; and in which the remission of certain sins“ was reserved to the Pope and Bishops ; but, when I looked last into Forbes, he did not give me a distinct idea on this head: suppose distinct knowledge is not ealy to be had, and the matter is not important; so Jam not accurate about it. Mosheim places the rise of the doctrine of Supererogation in the thir- teenth Century, which will be authority enough for us. |

The principal thing to be observed is, that the Romanists spoke of Christ as having suf- fered, (independently, I think, of the redemption of mankind) more than he needed to have suf- fered, and therefore part of his merits might, ac- cording to them, be considered as laid up in a treasury; Now in whole disposal should this trea- sure be, but in that of the Church? and who should act for the Church, but its earthly Head, the Pope — But not only Christ had a superabund- ance of merit, but some of the most eminent of the Saints; they might have enjoyed this world innocently; therefore all their self-denial and vo- luntary suffering, was so much more than innocence ; it was merit; and merit which might be transferred to poor ordinary, sinful Christians : such was the merit of performing acts of supererogation.

The spiritual treasury of merits, thus amassed, was sometimes said not ro have the power of de- livering from eternal punishment, but only from that temporary Purgatory, of which we shall have occasion to speak something Hereafterè; yet it is

thought, Dupin’s Compendium, 12th Cent last chapter. See 13th Cent. Part 2. Chap. 3. Sect. 1.—or octavo, Vol. 3. page 242. Under the twenty-second Article. CC 2

402 Book iv.

thought, that, in the minds of the common peo- ple, eternal punishment and temporary, being both after death, were sometimes confounded ; and that such confusion was rather encouraged . But how was any one to get any of this treasure to be ap- plied for his own benefit ? by Charity, either done in his life-time, or by will; “Charity shall cover the multitude of fins ;” charitable bequests must by no means be discouraged ; they would gene- rally be larger than charitable presents; some ex- pedients must be found to make them efficacious ; Here was great {cope for zraffc, or sale of spiritual _ for temporal; and the abuses run into were

o great, as to occasion the beginning of the Re- formation: the Council of Trent itself made decrees against them : yet candour must remember, that the gains arising were not applied to the enriching of private individuais ; chiefly to the enriching of some religious Order: and some, probably, to advancing the honour of Religion.

The Council of Trent seems to avoid the term Supererogation, though it calls Indulgences “ cæ- lestes Ecclesiæ f Thesauros.” — This conduct favours the idea, that the Romish Church rather wishes to have the doctrine of Supererogation believed by the people, than precisely taugt to all men of im- proved minds. — The Rhemish Testament, which was intended for those who understood English and not Latin, speaks* plainly. ** Holy Sainctes, or other vertuous persons, may in measure and pro- portion of other mens necessities and deservings, allotte unto them, as wel the supererogation of their spiritual workes, as those that abound 1n ede

goods,

4 See Bishop Porteus, Part 2. Chap. 8, * x Pet. iv. 8. End of twenty-first Session.

• On 2 Cor. viii. 14. and fee Index, under- Werl and Counsels, | |

BOOK IV. ART. XIV. SECT: 11. 493

goods, may give almes of their superfluities, to them which are in neceflitie.” —The necęssary doc- trine seems to have adopted reformed notions in this particular; for here Reformation began ; it uses the fext, (Luke xvii. 10.) which is in our Article; and exhorts men to keep continually advancing in virtue; and represents them, the farther they ad- vance, as being the more indebted to God for his Grace, which enabled them to advance. It also represents our duties as being enjoined, not for any benefit to God, but merely for our own® good. — The third part of our Homily on Good Works, turns to ridicule the Lamps always running over, the markets of merits, the works of overflowing abundance, of supererogating Papists : and by so doing, shews how necessary it was, at the time of the Reformation, to expose the corrupt practices and superstitions of the Romish Church, to the People; and to declare against such corruptions in the new body of doctrines.

As the subject of works of supererogation is intimately connected with the subjects of Article XX11, you may ask, why is it placed ere? Be- cause it is in the midst of Articles, which shew the absurdity of it; and even on the principles of the Romanists themselves. It relates to the ations of individuals, and to their being accepted and rewarded by the Deity.

11. We may now proceed to explanation. The chief thing to be explained is the ile, Of works of supererogation.” — Rogare legem, is to propose a law, or ase the people whether it may proceed : Erogare, is properly to make a law, or an order, for paying wy sum out of a public zreasury; but

the

Of good works; not very far from the end: the pages are not numbered. C 3

404 BOOK Iv. ART. X1V, SECT. 11.

the word is used also for paying, or laying out. — In Luke x. 35, weoodamavaw, to spend over and above, is translated, in the Vulgate, by supererogo; which, as one single word, does not seem pefectly classical, though it might be really in / at Rome; but that is the case with several expressions, taken from common life, which are found in the Vul- gate’, Now here are wo as of beneficence men- tioned, as done by the good Samaritan ; one defi- nite, the other indefinite ; the definite, giving two denarn ; the indefinite, saying, * whatsoever thou spendest more, quodcunque supererogaveris, when I come again I will repay thee.” —The Fathers, in pressing duties, determinate and indeterminate, though not belonging to acts of beneficence, had sometimes recourse to this passage of Scrip- ture. I do not wonder at their dwelling on any- thing so excellent; they would compare definite commands, or prohibitions, to the two pence*;

and things left to expedience, to the unlimited order of the Samaritan :—and sometimes, (perhaps more frequently) any commands, though not very definite, such as duo præcepta caritatis, (the love of God and man, I suppose,) to the sum paid, and mere ad- vice, such as St. Paul sometimes gives, to the inde- finite commission. — Hence the famous distinction of Precepts and Counsels, præcepta et consilia; or

commands i Book 1. Chap. 1x. Set. vir.

• See Nicholls on the Article.—I see in Cave’s Hist. Lit. that one part of Fulgentius’s 2d Book ad Monimum, is, de 8. # auli Supererogatione.

Monimus had been puzzled about Augustin’s comparison of Paul’s advice 1 Cor. vii. 25. to the unlimited commission, «« quodcunque supererogaveris,” &c.; especially when he com- pared that comparison with others, arising out of the same passage, by Ambrose and Optatus; he applies to Fulgentius to reconcile them; Fulgentius labours at it; but J have not ex-

amined nicely: he says, interpretations will be different; but I find no idea of transferring merit.

BOOK IV. 111. 405

commands and advice. An ordinary good Christian, the notion is, obeys all Precepts; but he must be something great and extraordinary, who aims at Counsels; which are sometimes called evangelical perfeftions. He who obeys precepts, will have some reward; but he who obeys counsels, will be re- warded much more nobly. He who disobeys precepts (I speak as a Romanist) will be punisted; but he who does not comply with Counsels, will suffer no pu- nishment, merely on that account.

I see nothing farther to explain, The word * arrogance” may arise from the idea of man’s being sinful, and yet pretending to dispose of the rewards of God; * impiety,” from the idea of our being indebted to God, and yet making him, as it were our debtor. Our church says nothing, in this Article, of the merits of Christ; but only of the merit of human creatures *.

111. We may therefore immediately begin upon our Proof. ] do but perceive one proposition, but it must be framed with a view to the sense of Supere- rogation at the time when our Article was made: * which they call works of Supererogation” — call so, at this time, say our Reformers.

We may not suppose any one man to have fo much merit, that some of it can be transferred to lessen the punishment of another man.” 1

5 his

which cannot be said to be antiquated : Gay says, of Courtiers,

They give you good counsel, themselves to defend.

m e Voluntary works be/ides, over and above,” &c. Could one fee an instance of this use of the word “ besides,” in any author about the time of the Reformation? the word be/rdes occurs in Art. xx; but, if. it has the same force here as there, it is a preposition as usual, aud the words * over and above” are synonymous to it, or explanatory of it.

| C04

—

• þ. _— S

— £<

_—

_

LE.

Dot 2B Couch AA. —UͥU . <tr ern ein —2＋—3ꝶ3323 ores 4 oe OH, oe ed CA. FOO 1

_—

8 S.. > *

• 4D. < 2 — D

GR Mat. ct a . 5 = - \ -—_

9 LY S—_ »

S —— 4 - […] x’ — —

—

406 BOOK 1V. 111.

This might be left as proved by the eleventh, - twelfth, and fifteenth Articles. If we are not jus- tified by works, we cannot be more than justified by them. If our Christian virtues are in themselves imperfect, and are only accepted through Christ, we can have no merits in our disposal. If all men are sinners, they want all their merit for themselves, and more than“ all. In the Lord’s prayer, we desire God to forgive us our trespasses. We are commanded to love God with / our heart; to do all to the glory of God; can we do more ?—we are bought with a“ price; have such persons any services to give away ?—There is no abiding place, where we may stop as though we were? already perfect, and say, here I am, I need make no fur- ther advancement in virtue; we are to press for- ward ; we are to run 10? as to obtain; to rive to enter in at the strait gate.—And, as we must take our idea of works of Supererogation, from the practice of the Romanists at the time of the Re- formation, we may reason from the human com- mandments as censured in the New Testament, in Matt. xv. o. and Col. ii. 18. 20—23. to the still more foolish and corrupt human commandments of the Romanists; 1 think our Homily reasons thus with great force*, |

| Iv. The

n Ludlam’s 5th Essay, page 10.

© 1 Cor. v1. 20. Phil. iii. 12, 13, 14.

q x Cor. ix. 24. where the context is in our favour.— See Locke’s Paraphrase and Contents,

r Luke xiii. 24. :

Although Hammond gives a favourable interpretation of ehexobenoxias, Col. ii. 23, (which it may bear), yet that docs not affect the Scope of the passage, Col. ii. 20—23, which is against superstitious restraints on natural Liberty, imposed by man. My idea of the passage, after reading Hammond, is this; If ye be dead with Chiift from [Jewish ordinances]

worldly elements, why do you dogmatize, as if you still lived n the world [under such lavish ordinances] ? [why do you | | dogmatically

iv. The proofs of the eleventh, twelfth, and fifteenth Articles are proofs of this Article; if, after such proofs, any difficulty remains, it will be best cleared up by answering objefions. Bishop Burnet concludes his exposition with saying, * the thing is so plain, that it has no fort of difficulty in it.” But it seems to me, that an acute Romanist might give us some trouble; if not so as to affect our opinion, and hinder our affenting to the Ar- tide, yet so as to perplex us about extricating it from all confusion, and setting it clear of snares and entanglements. Let us then suppose such an one to make the following objection :

Can a man do nothing beyond bare duty? 1s all virtue to be measured by rule and compass? are no noble effusions, no generous exertions, to be encouraged ? are we to aim at nothing great, no- thing graceful? It will be more easy to examine these questions, if we proceed methodically ; sup- pole then the objector to say, to the same purpole, take a man, that you would 7 not blame; cannot another excell him? may not you coolly esteem and like the first, and feel much towards the other ; love, approbation, high esteem, admiration ? And yet, if the. first be innocent, he must have merit enough; has not then the other more than barely enough? and what could he do better with some of it than transfer it A man may have more in- terest sometimes than he wants for introducing

himse’f

dogmatically enjoin,] touch not, taste not, handle not, [ meats, and wines, and women]; all which 1. turn to cor- ruption, by abuse, [to unnatural indulgences], — to the injunctions and teachings of [superstitious] men; which [abstinences] have an appearance of prudence, in the way of voluntary religion, and humility, and mortification of the Body; but have no real tendency to N any honourable [and well-regulated] gratification of the bodily appetites. — This para- phrase will be of use in Art. xxX1 1. Sect. xvIII.

408 BOOK iv. Iv.

himself to an advantage; he may have interest enough to be able to introduce a friend.

And does not common language shew, that this is common reason ?—Praije is not bestowed, nor rewards conferred, on those, who merely perform their duty. And it is fo common to say, such a man gave more, or did more than he was under ob- ligation to do, that we must look upon common language, as establishing or implying the distinc- tion between precepts and counsels.

Nay farther, does not Scripture confirm the same thing? does it not make ule of praise and reward as incentives? does it not exhort or advise some men to do more than men need do ?—as in the case of him, who was to /el//* all he had and give to the poor :—and of St. Paul, who preached gratis, foregoing the stipend to which he had a“ right, (for St. Paul’s example is to us as exhortation ;) and who himself gives counse/*, where he will not give precept ; to which last instance may be joined the favourable mention of those, who © made themselves Eunuchs? for the kingdom of Heaven’s fake.”

If we can answer this objection satisfactorily, we have nothing more to fear from our present Ar- tide: it is partly of a moral nature. We must allow, that one man may be only just free from blame, yet an object of calm esteem and bene- volence, whilst another, who is compared with him, may be much admired : let us give these two characters names ; the former 1s A, the latter wa

First,

t Matt. xix. 21,—Luke xviii. 22.

u 1 Cor. ix. 12—18. of which Mr. Locke says, (Contents to Set. v.) in the person of St. Paul, «I do not coutent my self with doing barely what is my duty.“

• 1 Cor. vii. 25. 7 Matt. xix. 12.

‘BOOK IV. 409

First, when A and B stand thus compared, A may be really less worthy than B; yet that may not be the reason why he is less admired; nor does it follow, because he 1s not blamed by man, that he is innocent in the fight of God; in such sort, that he must escape punishment : nor, because B 1s admired, can we infer, that he has any merit to spare. Nor that, if he had, he could fraufer it, or any man for him: But this must be expressed more at large.—The reason why A is not Hamed, is, because he does what 1s prescribed in a definite manner, or performs determinate duties: men find it, generally speaking, inconvenient, or wrong, sometimes impracticable, to blame any who per- form those duties, the circumstances of which can be particularly marked and insisted on ; hence it 1s habitual to confine blame to violation of such duties :—and, in like manner, it 1s habitual to praise only the performance of determinate duties; it being always evident, that they may be evaded by any one, who wishes to evade them, and wants principles :—add, that if a man performs indeter- minate duties, such as beneficence, forgiveness, gratitude, &c. with any danger to himself, or in

any unexpected manner, a pleasing wonder heightens

moral approbation; so that, though a man neg- lected some determinate duties; (for people are often generous, who are not {trictly 7), yet if he overpowered blame, by the force of these more pleasing sentiments, he might be admired, and ap- plauded.—But though 4, the harmless or blame- less man, 1s generally treated as innocent, by man, yet he will not be so by his own conscience, or by * God the * judge of all,” if he neglects indetermi- nate duties, which he has opportunity of practis- ing; if he never gives, or forgives : —though there-

fore

z Heb. x11. 23.

8 ® FIRED 3 1 ä 9 […] _ […] - T * - © — a […] : _— o TC - - . […] 6 - l = FY — 222 pe […] .. 4 - -2 DA — 5 = a - […] —

—

Rs

— p

[…] ——

= N

——

— ——

——L

—

= D . — o — —

fore he may not be blamed by man, he may be punished by God: consequently nothing can be grounded on B’s being better than A is; whereas the objector supposed, that A was innocent, or had merit enough, and B more than A. Nor, because B is admired by man, has he therefore any merit to spare; he may be punisiable for neglect of deter- minate duties, or even of F indeterminate; — his obe- dience 1s impeisect, though it may be Ariting; and fo he would tell you Aimself: What military Com- mander, of real merit, would say of himself, that he had done more than his thor Let such an one might say of an inferior officer, whose merit was much below his own, that he had done his duty; but this would mean only, that he had done all which could be demanded of him: —it is here worth observing, that language varies, when a man speaks of /imself and of others. But, if the obedience of B, the admired character, 1s con- fessedly imperfect, if he may be blamed by God, who knows all his circumstances, can he have any merit to spare ? — nay, suppose that both A and B get some reward, yet may they not be susceptible of reward in different degrees“ and may not God Feward them in proportion to their real merits ?— When B has got a certain reward, he is not full, incapable of receiving more. — As to a man’s hav- ing interest to introduce a Friend, that is founded on no general principle: in different cases in com- mon life it depends so very much upon particular circumstances, that no argument can be deduced from it.

Secondly, though A may be only just not blamed, and B may be admired, yet it is possible A may be as good a man as B, or much better. — Suppose A regular, industrious, frogal, kind to his

neighbours in a plain ard, not diminishing his power

power of providing for his family; suppose B ge- nerous, but beyond his fortune; brave, willing to sacrifice any advantages, to encounter any dangers for his fellow-creatures in distress; A might only just escape blame, and B be generally admired; and yet I should hold A’s the better character. But, suppose A this fort of plain benevolent man, and B a Simeon Stilites *: how great then would be the difference in point of admiration in favour of B, (taking a proper age to judge) in point of real worth, in favour of Al—-No man, who aims at extraordinary merit, can pursue one thing, with-

out neglecting another: his worth must depend on

the value of what he negle&s. A canonized Saint has generally left substantial duties to ordinary men; these would be less admired than himlelt, but might often have much more real worth.

The best plan then is, to set each man on watch- ing what opportunities of doing good his station affords, without neglecting anything, which is really more valuable than what he aims at ; and on exerting himself to the utmost in improving such opportunities. As he’went forward, he would see perpetually new openings, which would occasion new exertions. How much better is this than turning a man’s attention on the misguiding dis- tinction between precepts and counsels] fit only to make men idle or vain !—It men are indolently dis- posed, the distinction between precepts and coun-

4 {els

eaven: Simeon might bring our A, and, taking his own ad-

mission for granted, desire an inferior place for poor A, on

account of his (Simeon’s) merits; Peter might examine both;

order A to be admitted to a good place, and order Simeon to be

kicked down into the nether parts, &c. &c.

: a #

: mw ( iy C If I bi) * ö * H

• sels will make them rest in determinate duties; if more active and ambitious, it will make them ar- rogant, as if they were * what even God could not require.

But our objector refers to common language, with

regard to Praise, Reward, and doing more than a man is obliged to do; as favouring the distinction between precepts and counsels: this part of the objection is, in effect, already answered. Praise and reward are not, amongst men, proportioned to real worth; but depend upon what we expect; which depends upon what we are accustomed to.— We praise nothing that is common, however useful it may be; and how much soever we praised it when it was uncommon : and reward is praise car- ried into action. We Hame a breach of any com- mon rules of conduct, because that is a shock and disappointment to us. When we say, a man gave more than he was obliged to give, we generally mean, that he gave more than the petitioner could have demanded, or than the Magistrate could have insisted on. Per- haps a man, of whom we should fay this, did not give so much as he was under obligation to give, in the judgment of God, who knew all his circum- stances. If a man wants to have distinct ideas, when he hears it said, such a man gave more than he needed to give; he will always ask, more in whose judgment ?

A man may be conceived to give so much, that God will reward him (Prov. xix. 17.); he may give more, God may reward him more ; he may give more still, God may reward him 4%; because he neglected something, in the last instance, to which he was more strongly obliged. We are to aim at a maximum of good, upon the whole.

Precepts > Art. x11. SeQ, XX111,

Precepts and counsels seem only to differ as duties determinate and indeterminate ; the general reason

why a direction is made a counse] rather than a precept, or an indeterminate duty, rather than a determinate one, is, because circumstances are so variable, that a calculation of them must be left to the Agent: but this is nothing to the essence of duty; nor to the judgment of God.

It must be owned, that a man is sometimes blamed for neglect of indeterminate duties; but that is when they are very common, and the eva- fion of them gross. But, even in these cases, they are blamed more by the rash and censorious, than by the candid and considerate : and what is fault in such blame, is not to be made the ground of objection here.

We should never forget, that language is secretly guided by convenience“, and use. Praise and blame, on that account, as well as on account of what was mentioned before, seldom mark the real worth of actions. Babes in Christ, and ‘tis the same in morals, must have milk, and not strong * meat. A discreet Pastor thinks what he may blame with success; if he succeeds at first, he will venture farther ; and sometimes he finds difficulty; for encouragement makes some men remiss, others it quickens ; blame revolts some men, though it corrects others; and the same kind of thing tends to fix the standard of blame and praise in the world at large.

I cannot quit the subject of language without repeating, that, when I am speaking of others, duty means, what I can claim; when of myself, it is, what I can do.

| v. Our

© Introd. to second part of the Articles, Sect. 1v. * 1 Cor, iii. 1, 2.

[ ’ [

v. Our objector alledges, that Scripture en-

courages the distinction between precepts and

counsels; that is, encourages the notion, that a man may, in many cases, do more than he is obliged to do. To this part of the objection, re- lating to Scripture, no general answer seems neces- sary, except, that the language of Scripture is common language * What 1s said therefore of praise and reward in Scripture, mult be interpreted as it is in common life. The particular /ances al- ledged from Scripture certainly deserve some answer ;—//hy our Saviour told the young man,

who wished to be his follower, to „el all he had,

and give to the poor, I think no man may be able perfectly to fee: the case was evidently extraor- dinary, and such as no man should copy, except he was able to make the proper * allowance for dif- fereace of circumstances: was any one to do the same now, he might be * worse than an! Iufidel.”

. — There is an appearance, that the young man was

too sanguine; wanted to wndertake what he would not have had the resolution to per in to the end; this is a temper of youth; and our Saviour might mean to convince him, that he was fit for what he aimed at; and might require that sacrifice of him, without which he would have been a troublesome disciple, if not an Apostate *; but, if I was to make an hundred conjectures, I should end with saying, that it is not probable that we should see the whole wisdom of our Lord’s proposal. —St. Paul preached gratis; but there is no appearance that he thought God was his

debtor

© Tntrod. to on Part, Se, x11. f Book 1. Chap. x 5 1 Tim. v. 8.

h This passage 0; e is considered again, Art. xxxv Lit. Sect. vi.

i 1 Cor. ix, 12—18,

debtor on that account: having an opportunity of doing credit to the Gospel, he did it; but his reason for speaking of his motives, was, that his disinterestedness was turned against him by a rival party; and he was even said not to be a true“ Apostle, because he had not the stipend of one. Had Paul accepted a stipend, no man would have blamed him; but yet if he had neglected any opportunity of furthering the Gospel, he might have had blame from God, or a less reward,

What belongs to voluntary abstinence from marriage, for the sake of promoting the interests of Religion, may be deferred to the thirty-second Article: the passages are generally urged on our present subject, and therefore are mentioned here; but what is said on other passages may sufficiently, for the present, obviate difficulties re- lating to them.

Barbeyrac, on Grotius de Jure, &c. 1. 2. 9. has a long note on the distinction between Precepts and Counsels.

vr. The expression, © Charity /hall cover the mul- titude of fins,” —seems to me to mean, that, as all rules of Virtue are only modifications of benevo- lence, or charity: where we want rules, if we act from the fundamental principle, Benevolence, as well as we can, we shall be excused for any mistakes, which we may run into: —it is probable, that we run into many faults eyery day; but they are undistinguished faults, unnoticed ; the crowd, the herd, “the multitude of sins; or what the Psalmist calls, our“ secret * fins,” as opposed to such as are te pre sumptuous.

vii. I will now venture to proceed to our Ap- plication; though it does not seem necessary, in | ticating * Locke on 1 Cor. Section v. Contents, 1 Palm xix. 12, 13. vol. III. Do

416 BOOK IV, ART. XIV, SECT, vit.

treating the present Article, to detain you by forms of assent. As to mutual concessions, IJ will read you what Dupin says ® on the Article. There does not seem to be much hope from it”. Baxter, in his Catholic Theology, which 1s all reconciling, declines the attempt to reconcile Papists and Protestants in those doctrines, which have in view the accumula- tion of wealth,—Something might possibly arise from the different senses, in which we use the word duty, when we speak of ourselves, and others : the popish doctrine is of the duties of others, the Saints; our Article runs in the name of the Agent; and speaks of duties as done to God. We are by no means against voluntary exertions ; we think every such exertion will have its adequate reward ; —the more the better, so long as the greatest possible good is aimed at upon the whole; so long as we neglect no stronger obligation for a weaker. Improvements seem to depend much on settling, in each case, the comparative worth of ordinary life and extraordinary exertions : and something

| might result from reducing indeterminate duties to | determinate.

= Mosheim, Vol. 6. 8vo. page 77, being Append. 3.

n Would not Dupm be Amt Catisfod K* is here said; that good Christians must exert themselves beyond what is required, in some sense ? |

o [Inns have reduced the indeterminate duty of Hospitality to a determinate bargain: and services, which might once have canonized a Saint, may now be compensated by the stipend of a

missionary.

• ARTICLE

Notes

• See 1 Cor. vil. 6. 26, 26, 40.—also 2 Cor, viii. 8, 10.— fly the Vulgate, de Virginibus autem præceptum Domini non habeos consilium autem do, &c. Counsel is an English word for advice,
• See Middleton’s free Inquiry, p. 165. —A passage translated from Theodoret.— Suppose a dialogue was composed, after the manner of Lucian, between Simeon Stilites knocking at the ate of heaven, and St. Peter, as porter, keeping the E of