the true Sacraments 45. Q. Doth the efficacy and being of the Sacrament depend upon the intention of the Priest or Minister A. Neither is he that planteth any thing neither he that watereth but God that giveth the encrease 1 Cor. 3.7 Notwithstanding every way whether in pretence or in truth Christ is preached I therein do rejoyce Phil. 1.18 Note The Ordinances of God depâ—â—â— not upon the holiness or intention of 〈◊〉 person that doth administer them but on the work of the spirit and the word 〈…〉 institution containing a precept for the 〈◊〉 of them and a promise of benefit 〈◊〉 them Note The Papists holding the intentiâ—â— of the Priest to be necessary to the makiâ—â— of a Sacrament hang their faith and salâ—â—tion upon great uncertainties they h 〈…〉 they cannot be saved without Baptism thâ—â— Baptism is no Baptism if the Priest did nâ—â— intend to make it a Sacrament How caâ— a Papist be sure of the Priests intention thus they hang their salvation upon thâ— meer will of an impious Priest They can be sure that they have any Sacraments oâ— Priests among them I must be certain thaâ— he is a Priest that Consecrates and that hâ— hath an intention to make a Sacrament but how can I be sure of this how can be sure of his Priesthood For I must firsâ— be assured of the Priesthood of him thaâ— Baptized him and of the intention of the Bishop that ordained him and of the intention of the Archbishop that ordained that Bishop which is impossible for me so that according to their own principles they can have no certainty that they are Christians 46. Q. Do the Sacraments confer grace by the meer work done the meer Sacramental action So that there needs no preparation qualification faith or devotion in those who receive A. Baptism doth save not the putting away of the filth of the flesh but he answer of a good Conscience 1 Pet. 3.21 Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of this Bread and drink of this cup 1 Cor. 11.28 Note The Papists teach that the Sacramental signs as water in Baptism c. have in them inherent power and vertue to work and produce grace as physick to cure fire to burn and that the Sacraments do always confer grace in the very moment of time when received But this is most absurd and false For 1. It is injurious to God for he only who made the heart can sanctifie it for the cleansing of the Soul by grace infused is of the same nature with Creation 2. It is plainly contrary to the Doctrine of the Apostles in the forementioned places 3. The Sacramental signs touch not the soul For instance water in Baptism toucheth not the Soul therefore cannot work grace in it 4. The word preached doth not profit without faith therefore much less Sacraments 5. Did the Sacrament conferr grace upon Judas did Simon Magus receive grace by Baptism doth not St. Peter say the contrary Act. 8.13 with 23. 6. The Scripture ascribes grace to God only as the immediate worker of it in us 7. If there be seven Sacraments and they confer grace by the meer work done it is strange that the Papists should have no more grace having so many and so efficacious Sacraments Note We grant the Sacraments are not meer signs but efficacious to work grace if they be rightly used we say 1. They are efficacious not by the meer work done but by the power and operation of the spirit 1 Cor. 12.13 Matth. 3.11 As Elishas bough made Iron to swim Moses Rod divided the Red Sea not by inherent force in it self but by the power of God 2. The efficacy of the Sacraments is not tyed to that moment of time wherein they are administred John 3.8 3. They become effectual means of salvation to such only as by faith receive them Mark 16.16 47. Q. Is water the only visible substantial sign to be used in Baptism A. I Baptize you with water Math. 3.11 Can any forbid water that these should not be Baptized Act. 10.47 Note The Papists use Salt Oyl and Spittle with many superstitious Ceremonies additions to the institution of Christ in Baptism King James of famous memory in his Apology hath these words The Queen my Mother at my Baptism although I was Baptized by a Popish Archbishop sent him word to forbear to use the spettle in my Baptism which was obeyed being indeed a filthy and apish trick Her own very words were that she would not have a Pockie Priest to spet in her Childs mouth 48. Q. Are all that die without Baptism undoubtedly damned and shut out of Heaven A. Baptism doth now save us not the putting away of the filth of the flesh but the answer of a good Conscience 1 Pet. 3.21 Mark 16.16 Note The Papists teach that all unbaptized are damned this is false for then 1. The penitent Thief could not be saved conrary to Luk. 23.43 2. Innumerable Infants must be damned for the neglect of their Parents a cruel uncharitable censure contrary to Gen. 17.7.1 Cor. 7.14 Rom. 4.11 Math. 19.14 Note Not the meer want but the contempt of Baptism is damnable Luke 7.31 The holy Ghost may be had without Baptism so it be not contemned therefore Salvation also Act. 10.47 Note John 3.5 is not to be understood of material water but rather of the sanctifying grace of Christ whereas water in Baptism is a sign The words of our Saviour are not properly of the external Sacrament more than John 6. Of the other Sacrament except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood ye have no life in you whereas all Infants are excluded from that Sacrament and consequently should be excluded from eternal life if the words were meant of the outward Sacrament It is a true rule in Divinity given by the ancient Fathers that the visible Sacrament is then supplyed invisibly when not the contempt of Religion but some inevitable necessity doth exclude the mystery of Baptism 49. Q. Is the Popish Sacrifice of the Masse a most abominable Idol is Christ offered up as a Sacrifice in the Lords Supper by the Priest Doth the Scripture say that Christ is often offered up as a Sacrifice for us or that he was only once offered up as a Sacrifice for us when he dyed upon the Cross A. Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many Heb. 9.28 We are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus once for all Heb. 10.10 Christ after he had offered one Sacrifice for fins for ever sate down at the right hand of God Heb. 10.12 By one offering Christ hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified Heb. 10.14 Christ hath once suffered for sins that he might bring us to God 1 Pet. 3.18 Note The Papists say that in the Lords Supper the Minister is a Priest properly and doth offer up Christs body and blood as a Sacrifice to God for obtaining the pardon of
sins the Remission of pain and guilt for the living and the dead This Doctrine is most filthy and injurious to that All sufficient Sacrifice of Christ offered once for ever upon the Cross here again the Popish-Doctrine razeth the foundation of Religion to the very bottom Note A real and outward Sacrifice is against the nature of a Sacrament especially the Supper of the Lord for one end thereof is to keep in memory the Sacrifice of Christ Again in a Sacrament God gives Christ to us whereas in a real Sacrifice God receives from man he gives something to God in the Popish Sacrifice of the Masse the Priest pretends to give Christ to God Note The Masse may well be so called for it 's a Mass and heap of blasphemies and abominations it is like a Beggars Cloak patch't up with many pieces one Pope puts in one patch another another it was not fully patch't up as now it is till twelve hundred years after Christ Note The Masse being Idolatrous it is not lawful to be present at it as appears by 1 Cor. 10.14 Flee from Idolatry these Scriptures forbid going to Masse 2 Cor. 6.16 17.1 Cor. 10.21 Psal 26. 4.1 Joh. 5.21.1 King 19.18.1 Cor. 6. 20. Rev. 21.8 Rev. 13.7 It is not lawful for a man outwardly to accommodate himself to Popish Idolatry though he doth keep his heart to God and in his mind address all Religious worship to God alone Matt. 10.33 Rom. 10.10 The example of Naaman 2 King 5.18 will not excuse our Masse Gospellers for 1. Naaman made open profession by word and deed of Adoring the true God only 2 King 5.17 2. His bowing was only a civil honour to the King his Master who leaned upon him as t is the custom of Princes in state to do when the King bowed Naaman must stoop also to hold up and support the King 50. Q. Is Christ Corporally in the Lords Supper Is there a change of the substance of the Bread Wine into the substance of Christs body and blood or shall Christs body abide in Heaven till the end of the World A. He shall send Jesus Christ whom the Heavens must receive until the times of restitution of all things Act. 3.21 The poor ye have alwayes me ye have not alwayes Mark 14.7 Christ sits at the right hand of God Col. 3.1 This do in remembrance of me 1 Cor. 11.26 They follow the Lamb whethersoever he goes Rev. 14.4 A Spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have Luk. 24.39 Jesus took bread and break it 1 Cor. 11.24 As oft as ye eat this bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lords death till he come 1 Cor. 11.26 Note The Popish Doctrine of Transubstantiation viz. The change of the Bread and Wine into the natural body and blood of Christ is repugnant to plain Testimonies of Scripture overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament hath given occasion to most grosse Idolatry and manifold Superstitions doth contain infinite absurdities and contradictions as 1. Then Christ must hold himself in his own hands yea devour and eat up himself and yet sit whole and entire at the Table with his Disciples 2. His body must be in a Thousand places at the same time 3. His whole body must be in every Communicants mouth at once 4. His whole body must be less in quantity than the least limb of his body 5. His body must at the same time be broken and yet not broken 6. His body must at the same time both ascend and descend 7. His body must be subject to corruption and putrefaction c. Note Matth. 26.26 This is my body is to be understood this doth signifie and represent my body Christ is called a Rock 1 Cor. 10.4 A door Joh. 10.9 A Vine John 15.1 Believers are called one bread 1 Cor. 10.4 Can any one be so senseless as to think that Christ was Transubstantiated or turned into a Rock a Door a Vine or the whole Church into Bread Note The Papists have infinite disputes and cannot agree among themselves whether Christs body be made in the Bread or brought into it whether his body under the form of bread be living have all the parts of a man have weight Why it is not perceived whether the Priest make his Maker by blessing the Elements or by saying This is my body c. The ancient Fathers say nothing of Transubstantiation the first determination of it was 1200 years after Christ for the proof of it they alledge this miracle that on a time St. Francis found a Spider in the Communion Cup which he would not cast out but drank up with the Wine afterwards rubbing his thigh where it itched the Spider came whole out of his thigh without harm to either Note John 6. Is not to be understood of any corporal eating of Christ in the Sacrament as Papists falsly pretend but of spiritual eating and drinking by faith whether in the Sacrament or without as is plain John 6.35 John 6.47 51. Q. Are not the Papists guilty of horrible Idolatry in giving Divine worship to the Sacrament In giving the same Religious worship to the bread which the Priest holds in his hands which is due to the true God In adoring a Breaden God A. Thou shalt have no other Gods before me Exod. 20.3 Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only Matth. 4.10 My glory will I not give to another Esa 42.8 Note The Papist adore and give Divine worship to the very Sacrament and require it of all who have Communion with them there they err again in the very foundation for that we should give Religious worship to God alone is the first and principle command of Gods Law and it is the great and chief foundation of the Gospel as our Saviour teaches John 17.3 It was the main crime of the Jews and also of the Heathens to render to the Creature the glory and adoration due to God The N. Testament threatens eternal Damnation to Idolaters 1 Cor. 6.10 Rev. 21.8 Note It will not at all excuse the Papists to say that they worship not the bread but Christ for they suppose the bread to be Christ this argument cannot excuse the Papists from Idolatry for if it doth it will excuse the greatest Heathen Idolater for those Heathens that worshipped the Sun did suppose the Sun to be God they that worshipped Jupiter did suppose him to be God If this will excuse from Idolatry ye shall not find any thing that can be justly called Idolatry Gal. 4.8 52. Q. Should people receive but half the Sacrament the bread but not the cup of the Lord A. He took the Cup and gave it to them saying drink ye all of it Matth. 26.27 He took the Cup and gave it to them and they all drank of it Mark 14.23 Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that Cup 1 Cor. 11.28 see 1 Cor. 10.16 Note The Papists are guilty
of plain Sacriledge in robbing Gods people of the mystical Cup for whom Christ did shed his most precious blood 53. Q. Rehearse those Scriptures that mention the use of Oyle in the miraculous curing of Diseases A. They anointed with Oyle many that were sick and healed them Mark 16.13 Is any sick let the Elders of the Church pray over him and anoint him with Oyle in the name of the Lord Jam. 5.14 Note The Church of Rome without shame fain a Sacrament of a Ceremony used only for health of body whereas spiritual grace not bodily health is the proper effect of a Sacrament Why do they not also make Sacraments of Clay and Spittle Handkerchiefs and Aprons for these as well as Oyl were sometimes used as signs in miraculous healing of Diseases the gift of healing being ceased it is absurd to keep up the sign much more absurd to make it a Sacrament as the Papists do calling it extream unction to propose their hypocritical pageantry is enough to confute it the matter must be oile Olive consecrated by a Bishop He that Administers it must be a Priest the person receiving it must be one thought to be at the point of death The members anointed are the eyes cars nose mouth hands reins The form by this holy oile and his tender mercy God forgive thee the effects and vertue expulsion of the reliques of sin strengthning against Satan pardon of sin healing the body if it be for the good of the sick mans soul Oh abominable blind Superstition Q. 54. Have Monkish vowes any ground and warrant in Gods word or be they contrary to it A. Why are ye Subject to Ordinanc touch not tast not handle not after the Commandements and Doctrines of men which things indeed have a shew of wisdome in will-worship and humility in neglecting of the body Col 2.23 Better it is that thou shouldest not vow than that thou shouldest vow and not pay Eccl. 5.5 Stana fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made you free Gal. 5.1 Note The Papists place a great part of their Religion in Monkish vowes which are principally three 1. The vow of single life and Chastity 2. The vow of Poverty and Begging 3. The vow of regular Obedience to be governed by their Superiour or Abbot in all things All these vowes are sinful for 1. They are against Christian liberty 2. Some of them are out of the power and ability of him that voweth as the vow of perpetual chastity in single life 3. They abolish the Order which God hath set viz. That every one should have some particular calling whereby he may be profitable to humane Society 4. These vows are Idolatrous and Superstitious for they are made and observed with an opinion of Gods worship of merit and of the state of perfection 5. These vowes are made in meer fraud and hypocrisie Monks and Fryers pretend chastity and practice uncleanness pretend poverty and yet abound in wealth here in England they hadabove a third part of the Lands in this Kingdome and yet these are the men that make to God a solemn vow of poverty 6. These vowes are expresly against Gods word 1. The vow of single life is contrary to 1 Cor 7.9 Math. 19.11 Heb. 13.4 2. The vow of regular Obedience is contrary to 1 Cor. 7.23 3. The vow of poverty and begging is contrary to Deut. 15. 4. 2 Thes 3.10 1 Tim. 5.16 Act. 20.35 Note The first occasion of Monks was persecution Christians were forced to hide themselves in Woods and Caves these may be called Golden Monks that which brought the Monastick state into esteem was the severity and strictness of the beginners of it but this was of short continuance some of the ancient Fathers magnifie it highly because they lived not to see the bad effects of it when it came into a Settlement Note The difference between Monks and Fryers Monks have nothing in propriety but all in common these having lost their credit another order came up who would be called Fryers these pretend to strict poverty to have nothing in common nor propriety but are Mendicants begging their subsistance But after a little time these Fryers obtained leave from the Popes to have Houses Lands and Money and heaped up much wealth yet notwithstanding they pretend to keep their solemn vow of poverty because they have only the use possession and enjoyment of their Houses Goods and Estates but the property and Dominion of them is not in themselves but in the Pope all this pretence of poverty is a meer Juggle and fit only to deceive the simple for poverty cannot consist with a plentiful use of wealth supposing it could be without property or Dominion FINIS ERRATA PAge 7 l. 6. read Power p. 14. l. 16. r. sort p. 15. l. 23. r. venial l. 27. r. God offended by them p. 19 l. 23 r. he had made p. 22. l. 15. r. sitteth p. 26. l. 4. r civil p. 31 l. 3 after we add have p. 38. l. 16 r. Chimerical p. 62. add and. p. 63. l 6. r. brake A Catalogue of Books to be sold by Tho. Parkhurst at the Bible and three Crowns in Cheap-side near Mercers-Chappel Quarto's THe Morning-Exercise against Popery or the principal Errours of the Church of Rome Detected and Confuted in a Morning-Lecture preached lately in Southwark By several Ministers of the Gospel in or near London Large Octavo Captives bound in Chains made free by Christ their Surety or the Misery of graceless Sinners and their Recovery by Christ their Saviour By Tho. Doolittle Speculum Sherlockianum or a Looking-Glass in which the Admirers of Mr. Sherlock may behold the Man as to his Accuracy Judgment Orthodoxy The Childs Delight together with an English Grammar An Exposition of the Assembly's-Catechism By Tho. Lye Small Octavo A Religious Family or a Treatise in which is 1. The Beauty and Excellency of a pious and well-ordered Family described 2. The single Mans Family-Book faithfully prescribed By Phil. Lamb. Index Biblicus Multijugus or a Table to the Holy Scripture wherein each of its Books Chapters and divers Matters are distinguished and Epitomized The almost-Christian Discovered or the False-Professor tryed and cast By Matth. Mead. The Godly Mans Ark or the City of Refuge in the Day of his Distress with Mrs. Moores Evidences for Heaven By Edm. Calamy The true Bounds of Christian-Freedom By S. Bolton The sinfulness of Sin and the Fulness of Christ By Will. Bridge A Discourse against Transubstantiation or an Answer to the ordinary Question whether a Man may be saved in the Roman-Catholick Religion By J. G. D. D.