presumed to understand their own Religion the first Reformers who were all educated in Popery might be as well presumed to understand what Popery then was and therefore there can be no reason to suspect that they Mis-represented Popery out of Ignorance Nor is it more probable that they should Mis-represent Popery out of Interest and Design for if they were conscious to themselves that Popery was not so bad as they represent it to be why should they themselves have set up for Reformers and what hope could they have that at that time when Popery was so well known they should perswade the World to believe their Mis-representations Was it so desirable a thing for men to bring all the Powers of the Church and Court of Rome upon themselves meerly to gratifie a Mis-representing humour Do these men remember what our Reformers suffered for opposing Popery the loss of their Estates their Liberties their Lives all the Vengeance of a blind and enraged Zeal And did they undergo all this with such constancy and Christian patience only for the sake of telling Lyes and raising scandalous Reports of the Church of Rome We think it a very good Argument that the Apostles and first Preachers of Christianity were very honest men and had no design to cheat the World because they served no worldly Interest by it but chearfully exposed themselves to all manner of Sufferings in Preaching the Gospel and why does not the same Argument prove our first Reformers to be honest men and then they could not be wilful Mis-representers Nay if we will but allow them to have been cunning men and it is evident they did not want wit they would never have undertaken so hopeless a design as to run down Popery meerly by Mis-representing it when had their Exceptions against Popery been onely Mis-representations of their own all the World could have confuted them had the first Reformers been onely Mis-representers can we think that they could have imposed upon such vast numbers of Men Learned and Unlearned who knew and saw what Popery was They were no Fools themselves and therefore could not hope to impose such a Cheat upon the World. 2. Ask them again How old this Complaint is of Protestant Mis-representations of Popery how long it has been discovered that Popery has been thus Abused and Mis-represented were the first Reformers charged with these Mis-representations by their Adversaries in those days did they deny that they gave Religious Worship to Saints and Angels and the Virgin Mary to Images and Reliques did they cry out of Mis-representations when they were charged with such Doctrines and Practices as these or did they defend them and endeavour to answer those Arguments which the Reformers brought against them And yet methinks if Popery had been so grosly Mis-represented by the Reformers this would as soon have been discovered by the Learned Papists of those days as by our late Representer but it is most likely they did not then think Popery so much Mis-represented for if they had they would certainly have complained of it So that the high improbability of the thing is a sufficient Reason to Unlearned Protestants to reject this Charge of Protestant Mis-representations of Popery as nothing else but a Popish Calumny against Protestants and to conclude that if Popery be Mis-represented now it is onely by themselves and that is the very truth of the Case Secondly Let us consider this Charge of Mis-representations in the Consequences of it It would a little puzzle a man to guess what service they intend to do the Church of Rome by it For 1. By complaining of such Mis-representations of Popery they plainly confess that those Doctrines and Practices which we charge the Church of Rome with are very bad and fit to be rejected and abhorred of all Christians This the Representer himself confesses and is very Copious and Rhetorical upon it Now this is of mighty dangerous consequence for if it appears that we have not Mis-represented them that the Doctrines and Practices we charge them with are truly the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome then by their own confession Popery is a very bad Religion and to be rejected by Christians Then there was a very just reason for our Separation from the Church of Rome and we are no longer either Schismaticks or Hereticks and if the Cause be put upon this Issue we need desire no better Vindication of the Church of England for if they cannot prove us Hereticks or Schismaticks till they can prove us Mis-representers I believe we are pretty secure for this Age. 2. These men who complain so much of Mis-representing endeavour to make the Doctrines of the Church of Rome look as like Protestant Doctrines as possibly they can as if there were little or no difference between them Now methinks this is no great reason for a Protestant to turn Papist that the Popish Faith is so much the better the nearer it comes to the Protestant Faith. The truth is the chief Mystery in this late Trade of Representing and Mis-representing is no more but this to joyn a Protestant Faith with Popish Practices to believe as Protestants do and to do as Papists do As to give some few instances of this in the Papist Mis-represented and Represented The Papist Represented believes it damnable to Worship Stocks and Stones for Gods to Pray to Pictures or Images of Christ the Virgin Mary or any other Saints This is good Protestant Doctrine but then this Papist says his Prayers before an Image Kneels and Bows before it and pays all external Acts of Adoration to Christ and the Saints as represented by their Images though it is not properly the Image he honours but Christ and his Saints by the Images Which is down-right Popery in Practice Thus he believes it is a most damnable Idolatry to make Gods of men either living or dead Which is the Protestant Faith but yet he prays to Saints and beggs their Intercession without believing them to be Gods or his Redeemers which is Popery in Practice He believes it damnable to think the Virgin Mary more powerful in Heaven than Christ. Which is Protestant Doctrine but yet he prays to Her ostner than either to God or Christ says ten Ave-Maries for one Pater Noster which is a Popish Devotion He believes it unlawful to commit Idolatry and most damnable to Worship any Breaden God. Which is spoke like a Protestant but yet he pays Divine Adoration to the Sacrament which is done like a Papist And thus in most of those thirty seven Particulars of the double Characters of a Papist Mis-represented his great Art is to Reconcile a Protestant Faith with Popish Practices So that this new way of Representing Popery is no reason to a Protestant to alter his Faith because it seems they believe in many things just as we do but I think it is a very great reason for a Papist to alter his Practice because a Protestant Faith and
say is the Protestant Heresie and the foundation of Protestant uncertainty if they once open this gap to Hereticks into the Church there is great danger that more will run out at it than will come in and it is well if the Church itself staies behind for what becomes of the Church of Rome if all their glorious Cant of the Infallibility of Church and Popes and General Councils be at last resolved into a private Spirit while these men go about to Dispute Hereticks into their Church they unavoidably give up the Cause of the Church and of Infallibility which is the way to Dispute a great many good Catholicks out of it who are kept there only by the power of a blind and implicite Faith. Here then let our Protestant fix his foot and not stir an inch till they disown Infallibility and confess that every man can and must judge for himself in matters of Religion according to the proofs that are offered to him For will a wise man Dispute with one who he knows banters him all the while who appeals to his private judgment as all men do who dispute with one another and at the same time cries down this private Spirit as the cause of Schisms and Heresies and Blasphemies and every thing that is evil no man of any spirit but will scorn to dispute with one who intends only to put a trick on him and to out wit him if he can and in truth it is no more to endeavour to dispute a man into Popery when the Fundamental Principle of Popery is that we must not Reason and Dispute but believe that we must take our Faith upon the Authority of the Church without asking any questions about it There are two or three things which may be answered to this 1. That though Disputing be not a proper way for Papists to take yet it is the only way that can be taken with Protestants who are all for Disputing and will believe nothing without a Reason and therefore Protestants ought not to blame Papists for Disputing unless they would be good Catholicks without it Now in answer to this I have something to say to Papists and something to Protestants 1. As for the Papists what necessity soever they be in of Disputing I desire to know with what face they can reproach Protestants with adhering to their own private judgments when they themselves are such zealous Disputants which is an Appeal to every private mans judgment if ever they make any Converts they must be beholden to mens private judgments for it for I think men cannot change their Opinions without exercising a private judgment about it and I suppose when they dispute with men to make them Papists they intend to convert them by their own private judgments Now what difference is there between mens using their private judgments to turn Papists or to turn Protestants one indeed may be false and the other true but private judgment is private judgment still and if it be so great a fault for men to use their own private judgments it is as great a fault in a Papist as it is in a Protestant So that at least as to Converts the Church of Rome has no advantage in this particular over Protestant Churches some by the exercise of their own Reason and judgment go over to the Church of Rome and some to the Church of England some are disputed into Popery and some into Protestantism and therefore for the sake of their beloved Converts and their beloved Disputations they ought to be more favourable to a private Spirit The truth is by Disputing with Hereticks they give up their Cause and confess that in all Disputes of Religion there lies an Appeal to every mans private Judgment and Conscience and should they lose this point by their Disputing all the Converts they make cannot recompence such a loss 2. As for Protestants though they have no other way to satisfie themselves or to convince others but by Reason and Discourse yet this is no reason why they should Dispute with those men who disown the judgment of Reason as a private Spirit For why should I Dispute with any man who uses such Arguments to convince me as he himself does not think a sufficient Reason of Faith Ask then one of these Disputers who alledges Scripture Reason and Antiquity to prove any Doctrines of the Romish Faith Do you Sir believe Transubstantiation the Worship of Images the Invocation of Saints Purgatory Mass for the Dead upon the bare Authority of these Scriptures and Fathers you have produced for them If these Doctrines were not Defined by the Church should you think these Arguments sufficient to prove them or could you suppose the Church had Defined the contrary should you think the Arguments good still In short can any Reason any Authority of Scripture or Fathers be any Foundation for a Divine Faith but onely the Authority of the Church He that says they can is no Papist and he that says they cannot confesses that he uses such Arguments as he himself does not build his Faith upon If you will believe them you may but though you do you are no sound Believer without resolving your Faith solely into the Authority of the Church And I think he must love Disputing well who will Dispute with such men as these and those must have a good degree of assurance who will be troublesome with their Disputes after such a discovery The end of Disputing I suppose is either toconvince or to be convinced but should you Answer and baffle all such a man's Arguments if he be modest it may be he may blush a little but is not to be moved for his Faith after all is not built upon these Arguments but upon Church-Authority and it is to no purpose for you to suffer your self to be convinced by these Arguments for it will not make you a good Catholick without resolving your Faith wholly into the Authority of the Church It is certainly a very surprizing thing for a Protestant to be disputed into Popery for as soon as he is converted he must renounce the very means of his Conversion He must use his own Judgment to turn Papist and as soon as he is turned he must renounce his own Judgment and confess it to be of no Authority Now though it may be such a private Judgment as leads a man to Popery may as well deserve to be renounced as any yet it is an odd kind of contradiction to renounce our own private Reason and Judgment and yet to own our Conversion methinks such men should renounce their Conversion too at the same time they renounce their Reason for if their Conversion be good it is a sign their Judgment was so but if their Judgment be not fit to be trusted methinks this should make them question their Conversion And therefore they should either maintain the Reputation of their Judgment and Conversion together and then they cannot be good Catholicks
where his infallible Interpretation is to be found for if there be such an Interpreter who never Interprets I know not how either they or we shall understand Scripture the better for him Now have either Popes or General Councils given us an authentick and infallible Exposition of Scripture I know of none such all the Expositions of Scripture in the Church of Rome are writ by private Doctors who were far enough from being infallible and the business of General Councils was not to expound Scripture but to define Articles of Faith and therefore we find the sence of very few Texts of Scripture Synodically defined by any General Council I think not above four or five by the Council of Trent So that after all their talk of an infallible Interpreter when they undertake to expound particular Texts and to dispute with us about the sence of them they have no more Infallibility in this than we have for if they have an infallible Interpreter they are never the better for him for he has not given them an infallible Interpretation and therefore they are forced to do as Protestants do interpret Scripture according to their own skill and understanding which I suppose they will not say is infallible But you 'll say though the Church has not given us an infallible Interpretation of Scripture yet she has given us an infallible Exposition of the Faith and that is an infallible Rule for expounding Scripture I answer there is a vast difference between these two for our dispute is not about the sence of their Church but about the sence of the Scripture we know what Doctrines their Church has defined but we desire to see them proved from Scripture And is it not a very modest and pleasant proposal when the dispute is how their Faith agrees with Scripture to make their Faith the Rule of expounding Scripture Though I confess that is the only way I know of to make their Faith and the Scriptures agree but this brings the Scriptures to their Faith does not prove their Faith from Scripture II. As for Expounding Scripture by the unanimous consent of Primitve Fathers This is indeed the Rule which the Council of Trent gives and which their Doctors swear to observe how well they keep this Oath they ought to consider Now as to this you may tell them that you would readily pay a great deference to the unanimous consent of Fathers could you tell how to know it and therefore in the first place you desire to know the agreement of how many Fathers makes an unanimous Consent for you have been told that there have been as great variety in interpreting Scripture among the ancient Fathers as among our modern Interpreters that there are very few if any controverted Texts of Scripture which are interpreted by an unanimous consent of all the Fathers If this unanimous Consent then signifie all the Fathers we shall be troubled to find such a Consent in expounding Scripture must it then be the unanimous Consent of the greatest number of Fathers This will be a very hard thing especially for unlearned men to tell Noses we can know the Opinion onely of those Fathers who were the Writers in every Age and whose Writings have been preserved down to us and who can tell whether the major number of those Fathers who did not write or whose Writings are lost were of the same mind with those whose Writings we have and why must the major part be always the wisest and best men and if they were not the consent of a few wise men is to be preferred before great numbers of other Expositors Again ask them whether these Fathers were Infallible or Traditionary Expositors of Scripture or whether they expounded Scripture according to their own private Reason and Judgment if they were Infallible Expositors and delivered the Traditionary sence and interpretation of Scripture it is a little strange how they should differ in their Expositions of Scripture and as strange how private Doctors and Bishops should in that Age come to be Infallible and how they should lose it in this for now Infallibility is confined to the Bishop of Rome and a General Council If they were not Infallible Expositors how comes their Interpretation of Scripture to be so sacred that it must not be opposed Nay how comes an Infallible Church to prescribe such a fallible Rule of interpreting Scriptures If they expounded Scripture according to their own Reason and Judgment as it is plain they did then their Authority is no more sacred than their Reason is and those are the best Expositors whether Ancient or Modern whose Expositions are backed with the best Reasons We think it a great confirmation of our Faith that the Fathers of the Church in the first and best Ages did believe the same Doctrines and expound Scripture in great and concerning points much to the same sence that we do and therefore we refuse not to appeal to them but yet we do not wholly build our Faith upon the Authority of the Fathers we forsake them where they forsake the Scriptures or put perverse sences on them and so does the Church of Rome too after all their boast of the Fathers when they contradict the present Roman-Catholick as they do very often though I believe without any malicious design because they knew nothing of it However ask them once more whether that sence which they give of those Texts of Scripture which are controverted between us and the Church of Rome be confirmed by the unanimous consent of all the ancient Fathers whether for instance all the ancient Fathers did expound those Texts Thou art Peter and on this Rock will I build my Church and feed my Sheep c. of the personal Supremacy and Infallibility of Peter and his Successors the Bishops of Rome Whether they all expounded those words This is my Body of the Transubstantiation of the Elements of Bread and Wine into the natural Flesh and Bloud of Christ and those words Drink ye all of this to signifie Let none drink of the Cup but the Priest who consecrates and so in other Scriptures If they have the confidence to say that all the Fathers expounded these and such-like Scriptures as the Doctors of the Church of Rome now do tell them you have heard and seen other Expositions of such Scriptures cited from the ancient Fathers by our Divines and that you will refer that cause to them and have it tried whenever they please III. There is no other way then left of understanding Scripture but to expound it as we do other Writings by considering the signification and propriety of words and phrases the scope and context of the place the reasons of things the Analogie between the Old and New Testament and the like When they dispute with Protestants they can reasonably pretend to no other way of expounding Scripture because we admit of no other and yet if they allow of this they open a wide Gap for all Heresies
Protestant Faith When they you hear any of these men declaiming about the uncertainty of the Protestant Faith onely ask them What they mean by the Protestant Faith whether the Articles of your Faith that they are uncertain or the Act of Faith your internal Assent and Perswasion If they say they mean the Act of Faith Tell them that it is a strange presumption in them to pretend to know your Heart that you know that best your self whether you do firmly and stedfastly believe your Religion and to give them satisfaction in that point you assure them that you do As for the Objects of your Faith or what is you believe tell them you are a Member of the Church of England and embrace the Doctrine of it and there they may find your Faith both as a Christian and as a Protestant and may try their skill on it when they please to prove any part of it uncertain and you are ready to defend it This is a plain and fair Answer and I believe you will hear no more of them For as for their common Argument to prove the uncertainty of the Protestant Faith That there is a great variety of Opinions among Protestants and that they condemn one another with equal confidence and assurance Ask them How this proves your Faith to be uncertain either as to its Object or as to its Assent May not what you believe be very certainly true because some men believe the contrary Tell them you do not place the certainty of what you believe upon any man's believing or not believing it but upon the certain reasons you have to prove it and therefore if they would convince you that what you believe is not certain they must disprove your Reasons not meerly tell you that other men think it false or uncertain and believe otherwise Thus does it prove that you give an uncertain and doubtful Assent to what you profess to believe because other men are very fully perswaded of the contrary Pray tell them that you do not build your Assent upon other mens Perswasions but upon the Reasons of your Faith and while they are unshaken you shall believe as you do and with the same assurance whoever believes otherwise There are two things indeed which this Argument proves but they signifie nothing to weaken the Protestant Faith. 1. That all the Doctrines which are professed by some Protestants are not certain for some of them must be false when there are contradictory Doctrines maintained and professed by several Sects of Protestants but then no man that I know of ever said that all Protestant Doctrines were certain which I hope does not hinder but that some Protestant Doctrines may be certain and then the Doctrines of the Church of England may be certain though some other Communions of Protestants have erred 2. This Argument proves also that men who are mistaken may be very confidently perswaded of their mistakes and therefore the confidence of perswasion does not prove the certainty of their Faith and I never heard any man say that it did But I hope this does not prove that a man who is certain upon evident Reasons must be mistaken too because men who are certain without Reason may mistake And yet this very Argument from the different and contrary Opinions among Protestants to prove the uncertainty of the Protestant Faith signifies nothing as to our Disputes with the Church of Rome For ask them what they would think of the Protestant Faith were all Protestants of a mind Would their Consent and Agreement prove the Certainty of the Protestant Faith Then the Protestant Faith in opposition to Popery is very certain for they all agree in condemning the Errors and Corruptions of the Church of Rome and thus I think they get nothing by this Argument for if the Dissentions of Protestants proves the uncertainty of their Faith as to such matters wherein they differ then by the same Rule their Agreement in opposition to Popery shews their great certainty in such matters And this I suppose is no great Inducement to a Protestant to turn Papist SECT II. Concerning Protestant Mis-representations of Popery THis has been another late Artifice of our Roman Adversaries to amuse ignorant People with a great noise of Mis-representing That Protestant Divines have painted Popery in such horrid shapes as to disturb the Imaginations of People and to beget an incurable Aversion in them against Popery without understanding what it is I shall not now dispute this matter over again There has been so much of late said of it and this Pretence so shamefully baffled in answeâ— both to the Representer and to Monsieur Meaux's Exposition that I am apt to think they themselves could be very glad that it had never been mentioned or could now be forgot and therefore referring the inquisitive Readers to those late Books wherein they will find this Controversie fairly stated I have some few things to add which are plain and obvious to every body and that both with reference to the Probability of this Charge and to the Consequences of it First As to the Probability of this Charge Now 1. Ask them Whether the first Reformers charged the Church of Rome with such Doctrines and Practices as they were not guilty of We have not that I know of increased our Charge against the Church of Rome in this Age if there has been any difference we have rather been more favourable and candid in our Censures of some of their Doctrines than the first Reformers were Now is it likely that the first Reformers should charge the Church of Rome wrongfully No man can be a Mis-representer but either out of ignorance or design which of these then can we with any Probability charge the first Reformers with As for Ignorance is it a probable thing that Luther Melancthon Oecolampadius Zuinglius Bucer Calvin or to come to our own English Reformers that Archbishop Cranmer and others who had all been Papists themselves should be ignorant what was taught and practised in the Church of Rome It is now thought in this very Cause a very considerable Proof that Protestants do Mis-represent Papists because some Papists deny such Doctrines and Practices as Protestants charge them with and say they can you think that Papists do not understand their own Religion better than Protestants do Now though this may be made a Question and I am very apt to think that compare the Learned and the Unlearned Protestants and Papists together there are more Protestants than Papists who understand Popery and not only Experience verifies this but there is a plain reason why it should be so because it is the Principle of Protestants that they must neither believe nor disbelieve any thing without understanding it but an implicite Faith in the Church governs the unlearned Papists and many of those who should be learned too But let that be as it will this Argument signifies nothing to our first Reformers for if Papists may be
the Mercy-seat and the Cherubims covering the Mercy-seat and there God promised Moses to meet with him and to commune with him from between the two Cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony Now this was a Symbolical Representation of God's Throne in Heaven where he is surrounded with Angels as we know the Holy of Holies itself was a Figure of Heaven and therefore the Jews when they were absent from the Temple prayed towards it and in the Temple as is thought towards the Mercy-seat as the place of God's peculiar Residence as now when we pray we lift up our eyes and hands to Heaven where God dwells So that under the Law God had a peculiar place for Worship and peculiar Symbols of his Presence but no Images to represent his Person or to be the Objects of Worship I know some Roman Doctors would fain prove the Cherubims to have been the Objects of Worship and which is more wonderful a late Bishop of the Church of England has taken some pains to prove the same and thereby to justifie the Worship of Images in the Church of Rome and before I proceed I shall briefly Examine what he has said in this Cause One would a little wonder who reads the Second Commandment which so severely forbids the Worship of Images that God himself should set up Images in his own Temple as the Objects of Worship and a modest man would have been a little cautious how he had imputed such a thing to God which is so direct a contradiction to his own Laws That the Cherubims were Statues or Images whatever their particular Form was I agree with our Author and that is the only thing I agree with him in For 1. That they were Sacred Images set up by God himself in the place of his own Worship I deny For the Holy of Holies where the Ark was placed and the Mercy-seat over the Ark and the Cherubims at the two ends spreading their Wings and covering the Mercy-seat was not the place of Worship but the place of God's Presence The place of Worship is the place wherein men worship God now it is sufficiently known that none of the Jews were permitted to go into the Holy of Holies nor so much as to look into it and therefore it could not be the place of their Worship the Holy of Holies was the Figure of Heaven and therefore could be no more the place of Worship to the Jews than Heaven now is to us while we dwell on Earth The High Priest indeed entered into the Holy of Holies once a year with the Blood of the Sacrifice which was a Type of Christ's entring into Heaven with his own Blood and yet the Priest went thither not to Worship but to make an Atonement which I take to be two very different things however if you will call this Worship it has no relation to any Worship on Earth but to what is done by Christ in Heaven of whom the High Priest was a Type And this I think is a demonstration that the placing of Cherubims to cover the Mercy-seat in the Holy of Holies does not prove the lawful use of Images in Temples or Churches or in the Worship of God on Earth if it proves any thing it must prove the Worship of God by Images in Heaven of which the Holy of Holies was a Figure and if any man can be so foolish as to imagine that let them make what they please of it so they do but excuse us from worshipping God by Images on Earth 2. That these Cherubims were the most solemn and sacred part of the Jewish Religion that nothing is more remarkable in all the old Testament than the honour done to the Cherubims that an outward worship was given to these Images as Symbols of the Divine presence that the High Priest adored these Cherubims once a year as this Author asserts I utterly deny and he has not given us one word to prove it For the Cherubims were so far from being the most solemn and sacred part of the Jewish Religion that they were no part at all of it if by Religion he means Worship for there was no regard at all had to the Cherubims in the Jewish Worship and it is so far from being remarkable in the Old Testament that there is not the least footstep or intimation of any honour at all done to the Cherubims There is nothing in Scripture concerning them but the command to make them and place them at the two ends of the Mercy-Seat and that God is said to dwell between the Cherubims and to give forth his Oracles and Responses from that place but I desire to learn where the Jews are commanded to direct their Worship to or towards the Cherubims where the High Priest is commanded to adore the Cherubims once a year or what Protestant grants he did so as this Author insinuates He supposes the Cherubims to have been the Symbols of Gods presence and his representations and that the Jews directed their worship to them as such and that is to worship God by Images or to give the same Signs of Reverence to his Representations as to himself but how does it appear that the Cherubims were the Symbols of Gods presence God indeed is said to sit between the Cherubims and he promised Moses to commune with him from between the Cherubims but the Cherubims were no Symbols of Gods presence much less a representation of him if any thing was the Symbolical presence of God it was the Mercy Seat which was a kind of Figurative Throne or Chair of State but the Cherubims were only Symbolical representations of those Angels who attend and encompass Gods Throne in Heaven and were no more representations of God or Symbols of his presence then some great Ministers of State are of the King as this Author himself acknowledges when he makes the four beasts in the Revelations Rev. 4.6 7. which stood round about the Throne to be an allusion to the representation of the immediate Divine Presence in the Ark by the Cherubims if he had said to the Cherubims covering the Mercy Seat which was his Figurative Throne and where he was invisibly present without any visible Figures or Symbols of his presence he had said right for the Cherubims which covered the Mercy Seat were no more Symbols of Gods Presence than the four Beasts which stood before the Throne are the presence of God or then some great Courtiers or Ministers of State who attend the King are the presence of the King They attend the King where ever he is and so may be some sign of his presence but are not a symbolical presence as a Chair of State is But it seems our Author imagined that the Cherubims were such Symbols of Gods presence and such representations of him as Images were of the Pagan Gods and therefore might be worshipped with the same signs of reverence as God himself was according to
the Souls in Purgatory and that is for the temporal punishment of sin for which the Sacrifice of the Cross is no Expiation and the Mass is in no other sence made a Sacrifice for the living than for the dead and therefore is not to expiate the eternal but the temporal punishments of sin as appears from hence that the saying Masses or hearing Masses or purchasing Masses is reckoned among those Penances men must do for the Expiation of their sins and yet they can by all they do only expiate for the temporal punishment of sin and therefore Masses for the living are only for the Expiation of those temporal punishments of sin for which the Sacrifice of the Cross made no Expiation And I shall be so civil at present as not to inquire how the Sacrifice of the Cross and the Sacrifice of the Mass which are the very same Sacrifice of the Natural Body and Bloud of Christ come to serve such very different ends that when Christ was Sacrificed upon the Cross he expiated only for the eternal punishment of sin when Sacrificed in the Mass only for the temporal I need add nothing to prove that Humane Penances Satisfactions Merits Indulgencies are onely to expiate temporal punishment of sin because it is universally acknowledged Now if these temporal punishments be only in lieu of Holiness and Obedience which the Gospel requires to intitle us to the Expiation of Christ's Death upon the Cross as I have already shewn then it is evident to a demonstration that the Church of Rome has overthrown the Death and Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross consider'd as an argument of a holy life by setting up the Sacrifice of the Mass Humane Penances Satisfactions Merits Indulgencies instead of the Gospel-terms of obedience and holiness of life 4. The Intercession of Christ for us at the right hand of God is another powerful motive to Holiness of Life It gives all the encouragement to true penitent Sinners that can be desired For if any man sin we have an advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the righteous who is also a propitiation for our sins But then Christ mediates only in vertue of his Bloud that is only upon the terms and conditions of the Covenant of Grace which was sealed by his Bloud that is he mediates and intercedes only for true penitent sinners which obliges us as we hope to be heard by God when we pray in the Name of Christ truly and heartily to repent of all our sins and to live a new life This the Church of Rome also seems very sensible of that Christ of his own accord will not intercede for impenitent and unreformed sinners that he who is the great Example and the great Preacher of Righteousness will not espouse the Cause of incorrigible sinners who are very desirous of pardon but hate to be reformed and therefore they seem to think it as hopeless a thing to go immediately to a holy Jesus as to appear before the Tribunal of a just and righteous God without a powerful Advocate For this reason they have found out a great many other Advocates and Mediators a great deal more pitiful and compassionate than Christ is who by their interest in him or their great favour with God may obtain that pardon which otherwise they could not hope for such as the Virgin Mary who is the Mother of Christ and therefore as they presume has as great interest in and authority over him as a Mother has over her Son besides those vast numbers of meritorious Saints whose Intercessions cannot but prevail for those sinners whose Cause they undertake And that this is the true reason of their Addresses to Saints and the Virgin Mary though they will not speak out is evident to any considering man For will they say that Christ who became man for us who suffered and died for us who was in all things tempted like as we are yet without sin who did and suffered all this on purpose that he might be a merciful and compassionate High Priest and might give us the highest assurance of his tenderness and compassion for us I say can they suspect that such a High Priest will not undertake to plead our Cause if we be such as according to the terms of the Gospel it is his Office to interceed for No Christian dare say this which is such a reproach to our common Saviour who hath bought us with his own Bloud and therefore no Christian who thinks himself within the reach and compass of Christ's Intercession can need or desire any other Advocate but those who are conscious to themselves of so much wickedness that they cannot hope the holy Jesus will intercede for them for their own sakes have reason to procure some other Favourites to intercede for them with their Intercessor and to countenance the matter they must recommend it to the practice of all Christians and more than so make it Heresie to deny it There is but one Argument I know of against this that any man should be so stupid as to think that the Intercession of the Virgin Mary or the most powerful Saints can prevail with our Saviour to do that which according to the Laws of his own Mediation they know he cannot and will not do and this I confess I cannot answer but yet so it is And thus the Intercession of Christ is made a very ineffectual Argument to make men good for though Christ will intercede for none but true Penitents the Church of Rome has a great many other Advocates that will or at least she perswades people that they will. 5. Another great Gospel-Motive to a holy life is the hope of Heaven and the fear of Hell. As for the hope of Heaven that is no otherwise a Motive to holiness of life but upon a supposition of the necessity of Holiness that without holiness no man shall see God but this you have already heard is overthrown by the Church of Rome and if men may go to Heaven without holiness I know no need of it for that purpose in this World. But Hell is a very terrible thing to be condemned to endless and eternal torments with the Devil and his Angels but then the Doctrine of Purgatory does mightily abate and take off this terror for though Purgatory be a terrible place too not cooler than Hell it self yet it is not eternal and men who are mightily in love with their sins will venture temporal punishments though somewhat of the longest to enjoy their present satisfactions especially considering how many easie ways there are for rich men to get out of Purgatory those who have money enough to buy Indulgences while they live and Masses for their Souls when they die need not lie long there if the Priests are not out in their reckoning and yet it is so easie a thing for a good Catholick to get into Purgatory especially if he take care frequently to confess himself and receive absolution or do