shape to their souls but referr to them by expressing the resemblance of the bodies in which they once dwelt and to which they were and shall be again united though now separated from them And therefore this notion allows the Images of God in like manner as the Church of Rome sets up Images of Angels and Saints deceased not making any considerable difference betwixt these so far as concerns the representing every one of them by their Image and consequently must allow the worshipping every one of these Images with a proportionable honour in relation to the Beings represented by them 4. If this notion were of any weight the Jewish Church might then have been warranted in setting up Images of God and worshipping them also with respect to God provided they were not like him nor esteemed so to be And yet God plainly forbad their making any Image of him in the likeness of male or female or any other thing though he had sufficiently taught them and they well knew that the Deity was not in shape like to any of these And God declares his dislike against any such Images because they could frame nothing which they could liken to him which being a reason of perpetual and abiding truth doth concern the Christian state as well as the Jewish and the laying down this reason doth sufficiently declare against all such Images as are not like to him 13. Secondly Of the Romanists worshipping the Eucharist with Divine Worship I shall shew that the Romanists give proper Divine worship to that which is not God And here I shall particularly instance in the Sacrament of the Eucharist to which they profess to give that Latria or high worship which is due to the true God alone This is the plain Doctrine of the Council of Trent (q) Conc. Trid. Sess 13. c. 5. fideles omnes Latriae cultum qui vero Deo debetur huic Sacramento deferre that all good Christians do give to this Sacrament that properly Divine worship which is due to the true God And in the beginning of that Session they strictly forbid all Christians thenceforward to believe otherwise and their sixth Anathema is against him who shall say that Christ in the Eucharist is not to be adored with that which is the proper Divine worship In like manner it is expressed in the Roman Catechism published by the authority of Pius the Fifth (r) Catech. ad par de Euch. Sacr. in init huic Sacramento divinos honores tribuendos esse that Divine honour is to be given to this Sacrament And the words of Adoration in the Missal and the acts of adoration unto this Sacrament are accordingly to be understood to give Divine honour thereunto And Azorius is for giving this Divine worship even to the (Å¿) Instit Mor. part 2. l. 5. c. 16. species or appearances of Bread and Wine in this Sacrament But the Council of Trent seem not to extend it so far and the Roman Catechism declares that when they affirm this Sacrament is to be worshipped they understand this of the Body and Blood of Christ therein 14. We greatly reverence the holy Sacrament as an excellent institution of our Saviour but reserve the Divine honour to God alone for there is nothing which is not truly God be it otherwise never so sacred to which such worship may be given S. Paul was an eminent Apostle but with detestation disclaimed the receiving it Act. 14.13 14 15. The brazen Serpent under the Law was of Gods institution for the healing those Israelites who looked upon it but yet it was a great sin to worship it with Divine honour If the homage peculiarly due to a Prince be given to any other in his Dominions though it be to one he hath highly advanced he will account this a disparaging his dignity and practising Treason and Rebellion and God who is a jealous God will not give his worship to another But this practice of the Roman Church depends upon their Doctrine of Transubstantiation This is grourded upon transubstantiation for if that substance which is in the Sacrament be no longer Bread and Wine but be changed into the substance of the very Body and Blood of Christ in union with his Divinity then and only then may Divine honour be given unto it And if it be in truth the very same glorified Christ who is at Gods right hand and nothing else then is that worship which is due to Christ the Son of God which is proper Divine Worship as much to be performed to this Sacrament as to him in Heaven since both is substantially one and the same thing wholly and intirely The (t) Sess 13. c. 1 4 5. Anath 1. 2. Council of Trent declares that by the consecration of the Bread and Wine there is a conversion of their whole substance into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ And they say the Body and Blood of Christ with his soul and Divinity and therefore whole Christ are contained in the Eucharist but the substance of the Bread and Wine remains not but only the species or appearance thereof and that this the Church calls Transubstantiation On this Doctrine it founds the Divine worship of the Sacrament and it anathematizeth him whosoever shall speak against this Transubstantiation and forbids all Christians that they shall not dare to believe or teach otherwise concerning the Eucharist than as this Council hath determined Now if this Doctrine of Transubstantiation be true the giving Divine worship to this Sacrament is but just but if this be false as the (u) Article 28. Church of England declares then is the giving Divine honour thereto certainly and greatly sinful and evil 15. It is acknowledged that this holy Sacrament administred according to Christs institution doth truly and really exhibite and communicate Christs Body and Blood with the benefits of his Sacrifice in an Heavenly Mystical and Sacramental way but the manner of this gracious presence it is needless curiously to enquire And though the elements of Bread and Wine remain in their proper substances yet are they greatly changed by their consecration from common Bread and Wine to contain under them such Spiritual and Divine Mysteries which is the effect of Divine power and grace Nor is it possible that these elements should tender to us Christ and the benefits of his Passion if this work had not been ordered by the power and authority of God in his Institutions who hath the disposal of this grace But that the elements of Bread and Wine remain in their substance and that they are not transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ is generally asserted by all Protestants whilst the contrary is universally affirmed by the Romanists and is made one great branch of the true Catholick Faith and the new Roman Creed according to the famous Bull of Pius the Fourth which is so solemnly sworn unto Indeed there are such expressions frequently
being so inhumanly savage that in their private Religious Assemblies they murdered an Infant and sucked and drunk his blood it was among other things answered by (f) Tert. Apol. c. 9. Tertullian (g) In Octav. p. 100. Ed. Oxon. Minucius Felix and (h) Eus Hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 1. others that the Gentiles might be ashamed to charge any such thing on Christians who were so far from taking any human blood that they carefully avoided all blood even of Beasts But this defence could not well have been made on this manner if they had accounted themselves to have taken the Blood of Christ substantially in the Eucharist and not only such a mystical representation thereof as is not void of efficacy and reality And though I think it manifest that blood may lawfully be eaten and that the Apostolical prohibition thereof was but a provisional Decree for those times from the general declaration in the New Testament that nothing is unclean in it self from the liberty which Christians were allowed to eat whatsoever was sold in the shambles or was set before them when they were invited to eat with unbelievers asking no question for conscience sake and also because blood was for this reason forbidden to be eaten under the Law because it was given upon the altar to make an atonement for their souls Lev. 17.10 11 12 13 14. Yet it may not be amiss observed that according to the computation of time fixed by Rhenanus as it is from him mentioned by (i) Pamel in Apolog. Tertul n. 138. Pamelius it is now about five hundred years since eating blood was generally allowed in the Western Church and about that time the Doctrine of Transubstantiation had prevailed which was publickly established under the time of Innocentius the Third above four hundred and fifty years since And that general prohibition of blood so long continued though upon mistake or more than necessary cautiousness might well be accounted not consistent with the Doctrine of Transubstantiation or not fairly reconcileable thereunto 19. Thirdly Transubstantiation doth plainly contradict the evidence of sense Transubstantiation is contrary to the testimony of sense Now the testimony of our senses is so considerable that this is that which assured and manifested the certainty of the mighty Miracles wrought by Christ and his Apostles yea of the birth of Christ of his converse with men in the world and of his being crucified risen again and ascended into Heaven Upon the evidence of sense Thomas was convincingly perswaded of Christs resurrection and the other Apostles had such an esteem for this testimony that they could not but Preach the things which they had seen and heard Act. 4.20 And the certainty of what they taught concerning Christ and Christianity they founded upon the evidence of their senses in that it was what they had seen with their eyes and what they had heard and their hands had handled of the word of life 2 Pet. 1.16 17 18. 1 Joh. 1.1 And therefore the denying the evidence of sense would undermine Christianity and withal take away all possibility of certainty concerning the plain matters of fact in the world And there could be no assurance given that Christ taught any Doctrine nor could what he did teach be otherwise conveyed to us than by our eyes and ears unless men pretend to Enthusiasm And as that pretence is vain so if it were not no other men could be taught by such Enthusiasticks but by the exercise and use of their senses and upon supposition of the certainty thereof 20. But our eyes our taste our feeling and the inward sense of nourishment received from the consecrated elements do all of them testifie that the Bread and Wine remain in their proper substances after their consecration But here the Church of Rome thinks it her interest to (k) Catech. aâ—â— arochos p. 218. Curandum est ut fidelium mentes quam maxime fieri potest à sensuum judicio abstrahantur take care that the minds of Christians should as much as is possible be drawn off from the judgement of their senses And yet they who do lay aside the judgement of their senses must not believe that they do truly either read or see any such instruction as this directed to them And if the evidence of sense in the Sacrament be denied there will then be no certainty to the Communicants whether there be any Priest present to consecrate and consequently whether there be any words of consecration spoken or whether there be any elements to receive consecration And the senses of the Communicants do give a more joint testimony to the elements remaining in their proper substances than to these other instances 21. and is also opposite to reason Fourthly Transubstantiation is opposite to the principles of reason and understanding and includes manifold gross absurdities and contradictions 1. That the whole substance of the Body of Christ should be in many thousand yea many millions of places at the same time is sufficiently inconsistent with the nature of a body And as there are consecrated Hosts in many thousand places at once the Catechism framed according to the Decree of the Council of Trent agreeably to that Council declares that (l) Ibid. p. 223 225. Inquavis urriusque speciei parâ—icula totum Christum contineri under every least part either of the Bread or Wine whole Christ is contained even with his bones sinews and whatsoever belongs to the true state of his body as I above observed from the same Catechism 2. And in purfuance of this Doctrine of Transubstantiation the Romish Doctors do assert if a Mouse or any other brutish Animal or Insect do eat any part of the consecrated Host they do eat what is truly and substantially the Body of Christ This is acknowledged by (m) Part. 3 q. 80. a. 3. Aquinas and though the (n) Sent. l. 4. dist 13. A. Master of the Sentences would not admit this for truth but declared himself of the contrary opinion yet his Authority is here rejected and by the Censure of (o) Lib. 4. Art 9. the Divines of Paris this is reckoned among one of his errors But it is a thing dishonourable to the glorious Body of Christ to be eaten of Brutes and to pass into the draught and to be substantially present there where even the Romanists who assert that presence do not require Divine Worship to be given to it 3. And it is contradictory to assert that the substance of Bread and Wine being gone the accidents thereof do remain without any subject or matter being as the Roman Catechism saith (p) Catech. p. 219. 230. Edi. Lovan 1567. accidentia quae nulli substantiae inhaerent and species sine aliqua re subjecta Thus for instance the extension that was in the Bread is supposed to remain when the substance of the Bread is gone and that extension which can be measured and felt is in its own
nature an extension of matter and of that which hath parts added to one another and yet here is extension and consequently several parts distant from one another but still there is nothing extended nor any matter nor any thing that hath parts And the like may be said of other accidents 4. If it could be imagined that the substance of the Bread and Wine was abolished by consecration though it is not usual for the blessing of God to destroy but preserve the thing he blesseth the accidents or appearances thereof only remaining and that the substance of Christs Body and Blood should be there substituted without any corporeal accidents even this could not be Transubstantiation according to the Romish description thereof For if a corporeal substance should cease to be its accidents or modifications remaining this must be by annihilation and if there be a new substance this must be by a new production not a changing the former substance into a latter since corporeal substances are not capable of being changed but by the difference of their modifications or accidents but the ceasing or abolishing of the substance it self which is the being of a thing the subject matter which must be supposed in the changing things is wholly removed 22. And 5. That there must be new matter continually prepared in the Sacramental elements out of which the true substance of the Body and Blood of Christ is to be produced this also includes manifest contradiction For then the Body and Blood of Christ must be supposed to be produced out of a different matter at a different time and in a different manner from that Body which was born of the Blessed Virgin and in which he assumed our nature and yet this Body which is so many ways differing from that substantial Body which is ascended into Heaven must be acknowledged to be substantially the same When I consider such things as these with which this Romish Doctrine is full fraught I must acknowledge that the belief of Transubstantiation includes so much of self-denial that it is a believing against Reason But there is one thing wanting which hinders it from being an act of Christian self-denial or of true Religion and that is that it is not a believing God or Christ who never declared any such Doctrine but must resolve it self into the believing the declaration of the Roman Church which both Scotus and Cajetan cited by the Reverend (q) Hist Transubst c. 5. n. 3. Bishop Cosins make the necessary ground and support for this Doctrine 23. What account may be given that so many knowing men in the Church of Rome should own such unreasonable and unaccountable Doctrines And I have sometimes set my self to consider hour it should come to pass that so many understanding and learned men as are in the Church of Rome should receive such monstrous Doctrines as this and some others are and I have given my self some satisfaction by observing 1. That education and Principles once imbibed and professed have a mighty force upon many mens minds insomuch that bad notions embraced do almost pervent their very capacities of understanding as appears in the followers of many Sects and in the Pagan Philosophers who set them selves against Christianity and these things especially when linked with interest have such a commanding influence upon many men of understanding that they hinder them from attending to the clearest evidences against their assertions as was manifest from the Scribes and Pharisees in our Saviours time who generally stood up for their Traditions against his Doctrine and Miracles also And they of the Church of Rome are politickly careful in the training up and principling the more knowing part of their youth in their Doctrines 2. That when gross corruptions formerly prevailed in that Church through the blindness and superstition of ignorant and degenerate ages the politick governing part think it not expedient now to acknowledge those things for errors lest they thereby lose that reverence they claim to their Church when they have once acknowledged it to have erred and not to be infallible And therefore all these things must be owned as points of faith and such other things added as are requisite to support them 3. Many more modest and well disposed persons acquiesce in the determination of the Church and its pretence to infallibility and by this they filence all objections and suffer not any doubtful enquiry since whatsoever the Doctrine be no evidence can outweigh that which is infallible And these also are the less inquisitive from the odious reprensentations which are made of them who depart from the Romish Doctrine and from their being prohibited the use of such Books which might help to inform them better 4. Others are deterred from making impartial search into truth by the severity of that Church against them who question its received Doctrines both in the tortures of the Inquisition and in the loud thundrings of its Anathemas 5. The specious and pompous names of the Churches Tradition Antiquity Vniversality and uninterrupted succession have a great influence upon them who have not discovered the great falshood of these pretences And very many knowing men have not made such things the business of their search and others who have made search are willing to take things according to the sense and interpretation the favourers of that Church impose upon them and they are herein influenced by some of the things above mentioned 6. The just judgment of God may blind them who shut their eyes against the light that through strong delusions they should believe a lye 24. Fifthly This Romish Doctrine is contrary to the holy Scriptures The Scripture declareth the Body of Christ to be in the Sacrament and our Church acknowledgeth that (r) Art of Relig. Art 28. this Body is given taken and eaten in the Sacrament but then it tells us that this is only after an heavenly and spiritual manner Transubstantiation is against the Scripture and this is according to the sense of the Scriptures as I noted n. 16. But the Scripture is so far from owning Transubstantiation to be the manner of Christs presence that it plainly declares the elements to remain after the consecration and at the distribution of them S. Paul therefore mentions not only the Bread which we break 1 Cor. 10 16. but speaking also of receiving the Eucharist thrice in three verses together he expresseth it by eating that Bread and drinking that Cup 1 Cor. 11.26 27 28. and this must suppose the element of Bread to be remaining when the Sacrament was administred to the Communicants But (Å¿) Coster Enchir. some object that Bread here is not to be understood of that which is properly and substantially Bread but of Christ who is called the bread of life But 1. The Apostle having spoken before of Bread and the Cup 1 Cor. 11.24 25. where he understood thereby that which was properly and substantially Bread and Wine and
continuing his discourse upon the same subject concerning the Eucharist and in the three verses immediately following using the same expressions of the Bread and the Cup cannot from the order of his discourse be otherwise properly understood than to have respect to the same things though by consecration advanced to a more excellent mystery 2. When the Apostle declares the eating this Bread and drinking this Cup to shew forth the Lords death till he come He both declares this action to be commemorative of Christs death by somewhat which represents the death of him who can die no more and by those words till he come he shews the proper substantial presence of Christs Body not to be in that Bread But the (e) Catech. ad Par. p. 128. Roman Catechism says the Apostle after consecration calls the Eucharist Bread because it had the appearance of bread and a power to nourish the body Now to pass by the strangeness of the body being nourished by that which is no substance it may be considered 1. That if the Romish Doctrine had been true it cannot be conceived that the Apostle purposely discoursing of the Eucharist and laying down the Christian Doctrine concerning it should so often call it what it was not and not what it was 2. Especially when this must have been a truth greatly necessary to be known And 3. Since it still continued in appearance Bread the Apostle would not have complied with those errors which the reason and senses of men were apt to lead them to if these had been truly errors but would have been the more forward to have acquainted them with the truth 25. Sixthly and is not favoured by some Traditions of the Romish Church I shall add though I lay no further stress on this than as it may speak something ad homines that if we may give credit to the approved Ritualists of the Romish Church there are ancient usages in that Church which bear some opposition to Transubstantiation It was a custom received and constantly observed in the Roman Church that the Eucharist must never be consecrated on Good Friday (u) Div. Offic. Explic. c. 97. Johannes Beleth an ancient Ritualist undertaking to give an account of this saith there are four reasons hereof his first is because Christ on this day was in reality and truth sacrificed for us and when the truth cometh the figure ought to cease and give place unto it And his other three reasons have all respect to this first And (w) Rational l. 6. c. 77. n. 34 Durandus in his Rationale undertaking to give an account of the same custom makes the same thing to be his second reason thereof and useth these very words also that the truth coming the figure ought to cease The intent of which is to declare that the Eucharist is a figurative representation of Christs Passion and therefore on Good Friday when the Church had their thoughts of Christ and eye to him as upon that day really suffering they thought fit to forbear the representation of his Passion in the Eucharist But this notion of the Eucharist is not consonant to Transubstantiation 26. What guilt there may be in worshipping what is not God though the belief of the true God be retained Having now discharged Transubstantiation as being neither founded in the Scripture nor consonant thereto as being opposite to the Doctrine and usages of the Primitive Church and as contradictory to sense and the principles of reason I shall upon this foundation proceed to add something concerning the dishonour done to God in giving Divine Worship to that which is not God and the great guilt thereby derived upon man Now it is confessed generally that the giving Divine honour intentionally to a Creature is Idolatry and an heinous transgression But it may be worthy our enquiry to consider how far guilt can be charged upon such persons who profess the only true God to be God and that there is none other but he and design to give the proper and peculiar Divine honour to him a-alone for such we may suppose the case of the Romanists in this Controversie waving here their exorbitant adoration of Saints the relative Divine Worship to Images and somewhat higher yet to the Cross but actually through mistake and delusion do conferr this Divine honour upon that which in truth is not God in confidence and presumption that it is what it is not and that it is an object to which Divine honour is due when in truth it is not so Now in what I shall discourse of this case in general the instances I shall first mention of some bad men are only proposed to give some light to the general resolution of this enquiry and therefore are by no means mentioned to any such purpose as if I intended to write or think any thing dishonourably of the Holy Sacrament which I would not think of but with a pious Christian reverence and due veneration 27. Wherefore I shall here lay down three Assertions Assert 1. The misplacing Divine Worship upon an undue object may be a very gross and heinous sin of Idolatry Assert 1. There may be an Idolatrous misplacing Divine worship consistent with believing one only and the true God though the profession of one only God and of him who is the true God be still retained with an acknowledgement that none other ought to be worshipped This with respect to outward acts of worship was the case of divers lapsed Christians who being prevailed upon by the terrors of persecution did sometimes either offer Sacrifice or incense to Pagan Deities or otherwise communicated in their Worship or did swear by them or the Genius of Caesar or did make profession of such things being God which they were sufficiently convinced were not God And the like miscarriages concerning outward acts of worship may arise from an evil compliance with others or from the great vanity and evil dispositions of mens own minds And concerning inward worship it is easie to apprehend that such acts as proceed from the heart and affections as the highest practical esteem love reverence and fear may be misplaced upon that which men in their judgements do not esteem to be God whilst they either do not consider these things to be acts of worship or else are more governed by their affections than their judgments But concerning such inward acts of worship as proceed from the mind and understanding such as to acknowledge in ones mind such a Being to be God and that Divine honour is due unto it and all Divine excellencies are inherent in it these cannot be performed to any Being but to that only which is thought judged and believed to be God But notwithstanding this even these acts may by delusions be Idolatrously misplaced whilst there is still continued this general acknowledgement and profession of one only God who is the true God 28. Simon Magus as (x) de Praescrip c. 46. Tertullian declares
to be High Priests or Priests of that order which himself is and that it is the person of Christ who offers and not of the Minister then indeed there is a fit Priest for the Sacrifice But then it must be proved which can never be that Christ in his own person undertakes this Office in every Mass and then it must also be granted that no man in the Church of Rome can pretend any more to offer this Sacrifice than he can pretend to be the person of Christ 31. Wherefore (h) de Mis l. 2. c. 4. Bellarmine gives us their sense to this purpose The Sacrifice of the Mass is offered by Christ by the Church and by the Minister but in a different manner Christ offers it by a Priest a man as his proper Minister the Church offer as the people offer by their Priest so Christ offers by an inferior the Church by a superior the Minister offers as a true but ministerial Priest Now this pretends an authority from Christ but the Office of performing this Sacrifice to be in the Priest And to this purpose the Council of Trent (i) Sess 22. both declares Christ to have commanded his Apostles and their successors in the Priesthood that they should offer this Sacrifice and also bestow one of their rash Anathema's on him who shall say that Christ did not make his Apostles Priests or did not ordain that they should offer his Body and Blood when he said Do this in remembrance of me But as there is no expression in these words of Christ or any other to shew that he instituted his Apostles and their Successors to be such Priests as to offer a proper propitiatory Sacrifice so it appears that the state of the Gospel doth not admit of any person but only Christ himself to offer his own Body and Blood as a proper and compleat propitiatory Sacrifice since none else are or can be of that Office of Priesthood to which it belongs to offer this Sacrifice nor is any other capable of performing the necessary Rites thereof 32. Cons 4. The great effects of Christs Sacrifice cannot be attributed to any repeated Sacrifice Cons 4. The great benefits from the merits of Christs Sacrifice are wholly procured by that one offering of himself when he died and gave himself a Sacrifice of a sweet smelling savour and now lives for ever to pursue the ends thereof And therefore there neither can nor need be any other propitiatory Sacrifice of Christs Body and Blood For that Sacrifice of Christ which was offered by himself and made satisfaction for sin did thereby obtain the grace and gave a compleat and abiding sanction to the terms of the Gospel Covenant that through his name all who believe and obey may through his mediation receive remission of sins and all other blessings of the Covenant Now the Eucharist as a Sacrament confirms the benefits of this Covenant and exhibits the blessings thereof But the Eucharist cannot now since the death of Christ give such a Sanction and establishment to the new Covenant that from it that Covenant should receive its sureness and validity as it did from Christ's real Sacrifice nor are any new terms of grace superadded to that But the validity of the new Covenant is supposed in the administration of the Eucharist And Christs own offering obtained to himself that high exaltation whereby he can give repentance and remission of sins and is a continual Intercessor and Advocate and therefore lives to execute his own last Will and Testament and to bestow the benefits of that propitiatory Sacrifice which he hath offered Now these which were the great things procured by his Sacrifice have such a peculiar respect to his own offering himself that it is impossible they should have any dependance upon any after-celebration of the Eucharist especially when this Sacrament must have its vertue from that new Covenant established and from the exaltation of Christ And since by that Sacrifice Christ is a propitiation for the sins of the whole World there is need of no renewed expiatory Sacrifice to extend or apply the benefits thereof to particular persons which is sufficiently done in the Eucharist as a Sacrament and in other Ministerial administrations dispensing in Gods name and by his authority the blessings of the new Covenant to pious penitent and believing persons 33. I might here also observe that (k) Barrad Conc. Evang. Tom. 4. l. 3. c. 16. some of the Romanists themselves declare that Christ doth not merit in the Sacrament of the Eucharist because the state of heavenly Glory in which he is excludes merit but here are presented to God the infinite merits of his death on the Cross Now if this be true and the reason given for it is not inconsiderable it must needs exclude any propitiatory Sacrifice from the Eucharist But I shall further observe that those admirable acts of the obedience of Christ in the wonderful humiliation of his life and death and submitting himself according to his Fathers will to suffer even the death of the Cross were of high value for the making his propitiatory Sacrifice which himself offered available in the sight of God to procure his blessing to man But now since our Lord sits at Gods right hand there is no such further humiliation nor need there be since what he once did was of such unspeakable merit and worth to give any new merits of like nature to renewed proper propitiatory Sacrifices But the merits of his life and death are of infinite and sufficient vertue And whereas Christ neither appointed that there should be nor declared that there is any proper propitiatory Sacrifice in the Eucharist he who can think against plain evidence that in the first celebration of the Eucharist Christ offered himself a proper propitiatory Sacrifice and consequently that he died really the night before he was crucified and was dead when his Disciples heard him speak and conversed with him alive hath a mind and belief of a fit size to receive this and several other strange Doctrines of the Church of Rome But besides what I have here said if Transubstantiation be a Doctrine contrary to truth of which I shall discourse in the (l) Sect. 4. n. 14-25 next Section the foundation of the Proper Propitiatory Sacrifice is thereby removed 34. Of additional Doctrines in the Church of Rome To these Instances I may further add that the Romish Church superadding to the Christian Religion many new Doctrines as necessary points of Faith doth hereby also derogate from the authority of our Saviour For this casts a disparagement upon his revelation Christ and his Apostles made a full declaration of the Christian Doctrine insomuch that whosoever shall teach any other Doctrine is under the Apostolical Anathema Gal. 1.8 9. which (m) Cont. lit Petil. l. 3. c. 6. S. Austin extends so far as to apply that Anathema to him whosoever he be who shall teach any
used in the Church of Rome as these (w) Conc. Trid. ubi sup c. 1. that Christ who is present in Heaven by his natural presence is present in other places in substance by that way which we can more easily believe than express by words and the Roman Catechism saith (x) de Euch. Sacr. post med this change must not be curiously enquired into for it cannot be perceived by us and Baronius declares that (y) Baron An. Eccl. an 44. n. 49. modo ineffabili transubstantiatur it is transubstantiated by an unspeakable manner But it is manifest from their plain decisions that these and such like expressions relate either to the manner of the Divine operation or to the way of explicating how he can be substantially present in every Sacrament while he is ascended into Heaven and sitteth at Gods right hand for the manner of his presence it self they have expressed to be by Transubstantiation as above explained 16. But that the elements of Bread and Wine No Transubstantiation is proved from Scripture have not their substance changed into the proper substance of the Body and Blood of Christ may appear First Because there is nothing in the Institution of this Sacrament from whence the nature of this Sacrament must be discerned or any where else in the holy Scripture which affords any proof for Transubstantlation It is observed by (z) Hist Transubst c. 5. n. 3. Bishop Cosins that Scotus Durandus Biel Occam Cameraoensis Bishop Eisher against Duther and Cardinal Cajetan did all acknowledge that Tiansubstantiation could not be proved sufficiently from Scripture and their words are by him produced and that Bellarmine declared himself doubtful thereof Those words of our Saviour so much urged by the Romanists This is my Body do not determine the manner of his presence or that he is Transubstantially there and so carnally that according to the (a) Catech. ad Par. p. 223. Roman Catechism his bones and nerves and whole Christ is there substantially contained But this may well be so understood that he spiritually and sacramentally under visible elements exhibits the Sacrifice of himself so as to apply it to true Christians and interest them in it and the blessings and benefits thereof Nor do the use of the like phrases in Scripture import any substantial change of the things themselves When S. Paul speaks of the Israelites 1 Cor. 10.4 that they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them and that rock was Christ it cannot be supposed that the substance of the Rock should be changed into the substance of Christ who was not yet Incarnate When S. John declareth Joh. 1.14 The word was made flesh it cannot be thence affirmed without Heresie and Blasphemy that his Divine Nature was changed into his Humane Nature And when our Lord had spoken Joh. 6. of eating his flesh and drinking his blood and added upon his Disciples being offended at those sayings v. 63. It is the spirit that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing the words that I speak unto you are spirit and they are life he hereby and also by what he speaks of believing both in the beginning and ending of that Discourse and towards the middle of it v. 35.47 48 64. sufficiently directs them to a Spiritual sense of those things which he had spoken And a like interpretation of those words Take eat this is my Body is somewhat directed by the same expressions and is also most suitable to the nature of the Sacrament nor can those words mentioned both by S. Luke and S. Paul Luk. 22.20 1 Cor. 11.25 This Cup is the new Testament be otherwise understood than Sacramentally and somewhat figuratively and these also are expressed as part of the institution of the Eucharist 17. It was not owned in the Primitive Church Secondly The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is inconsistent with the sense of the ancient Church This is particularly and purposely manifested in that Book of the late Reverend Bishop of Durham which I referred unto in the foregoing Paragraph and therefore I shall only mention some few Testimonies Tertullian arguing against Marcion who denied the reality of Christ's Body as other ancient Hereticks asserted him to have had only the appearance of a Body saith (b) Tertul. cont Marc. l. 4. c. 40. Christ took Bread and distributing it to his Disciples made it his Body saying this is my Body that is the figure of my Body but there had been no figure unless the Body had been in truth Now the manner of his expression concerning the figure of Christs Body shews him not to have accounted the Body of Christ to be substantially but representatively in the Sacrament And his manner of arguing shews him not to have understood or owned the Romish Transubstantiation For it might be said to one who should thus argue and hold the Romish Principles by one of the Disciples of Marcion that there is in the figure the appearance of such a Body which after consecration is not real viz. Bread and Wine and therefore it is then fit to resemble what is of like nature In the Dialogues of Theoderet it was urged in the defence of the Heresie of Eutyches that as the Symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ after the invocation of the Priest are made other things and changed so the Body of Christ after its assumption is changed into the divine substance and nature But this is answered by the Orthodox person to the Heretick (c) Theod. Dial. 2. that he is here taken in the Nets which himself made for the symbols or mystical signs do not after their Sanctification depart from their own nature but remain in their former substance form and shape And Prosper speaking of the Eucharist saith this (d) De Cons Dist 2. c. Hoc est heavenly bread after its manner is called the Body of Christ when it is indeed the Sacrament of his Body and it is called the Sacrificing his Flesh and the Passion Death and Crucifixion of Christ non rei veritate sed significante mysterio not being so in the truth or substance of the thing but in the Mystery which signifieth it To these particular testimonies I shall add two things The one is that it is attested by (e) Hesych Hesychius to have been an ancient usage in the Christian Church that after the Communion was ended the remaining elements were burnt in the fire But if Transubstantiation had been then believed that what remained in these elements was no other substance but the Body and Blood of Christ which continued to be such so long as the species of the elements remained it must needs have been an horrid and prophane thing for Christians to cast their Saviour into the fire to be consumed there and no such thing could certainly have entred into their hearts 18. The other thing I shall add is that when in the beginning of Christianity the Pagans falsly aspersed the Christians with
corda lift up your hearts unto the Lord. And we glorifie the grace of God who bestows upon them who truly repent and believe such unspeakable benefits in the use of those means or signs which are otherwise mean than as they are sanctified to an holy and excellent use by the Institution of God and the right celebration of his Ordinance SECT V. Integrity too much neglected and Religion so ordered and modelled by many Doctrines and Practices in the Church of Rome as to represent a contrivance of deceit Interest and Policy 1. IN this last Section Of the Politick interests driven on in the Roman Church I shall consider some such things in the Church of Rome which represent Religion as it is by them professed to be a crafty contrivance of human policy or a cunning method to serve the particular interests of some men in the world True Religion which hath respect to the chief good and happiness of men doth indeed bring the greatest satisfaction to men in this world but this is not done by gratifying their inordinate affections but by commanding and subduing them But this being from God and having to do with him is a thing of the greatest simplicity and sincerity in the world and therefore proposeth nothing but what is true and good and suitable to God and his Honour And when things manifestly false or evil which are fitted to advance the outward interest of the proposers are obtruded under the disguise of Religion and required as things sacred to be received with the greatest veneration this gives too much appearance that under the name of Religion politick designs and fraudulent ends and purposes of men are managed And where such things are done Sect. V. it may tempt many of those who discover and understand them to cast off the serious sense of Religion it self Now very many things in the Romish Church appear designed to impose on and delude the people and by false pretences to advance the honour of the Pope especially and of their Clergy also and to gratifie the avarice of the Romish Court and enervate piety 2. Their Doctrine of Attrition and Absolution Divers of their errors carry on some interests seems contrived to make loose men who have little regard to God to have a mighty veneration for their Priest who notwithstanding their wicked life both can and will if they be taught right secure them in the other world upon such terms as Christ and his Gospel will not admit Their Service in a tongue not understood by the people is fitted to uphold the reputation of the Clergy among the Ignorant Vulgar as doth also the prohibiting the Scriptures in the vulgar tongue as is observed by (a) de Scr. q. l. non legendis c. 21. Ledesima Their Doctrine of Transubstantiation propitiatory Sacrifice and the conficient Priest alone receiving the Eucharist in one kind tend much to extol the dignity and greatness of their Clergy but the falseness of all these I have above discovered Their exempting their Clergy that as (b) M. Bec. Part. 2. Tr. 3. c. 6. Q. 11. Becanus saith they are not subject to Secular Princes nor can be punished by them nor are bound to observe their Laws out of obedience doth jointly tend to the advancement both of the Pope and the Clergy but is contrary to the true rules of Christianity as I have in another Discourse shewed And though amongst us the true honour of the Ministry which our Lord conferred upon it be by many too much neglected and disregarded we make not use of false methods for its support Besides these their feigned revelations and visions concerning matters of truth and Doctrine their many counterfeited Relicks as objects of veneration and their falsly pretended Miracles for the confirmation of their Doctrine are manifestly designed delusions to impose upon others that they may be admired by them 3. But because this Chapter hath been already very large I shall wave many things which might have been insisted on and shall only consider a few things which have a chief respect unto the Pope himself That the claim of the Papal Supremacy is in all the branches thereof groundless I have somewhat declared in the first Section of this Chapter and more fully in another Discourse there referred unto And that this is adapted to exalt the Papal dignity grandure and Soveraignty and to bring in vast revenues for its support needs not be suggested to any considering men And the Popes pretence to be S. Peter's Successor seems not to be ordered with plain and honest sincerity in his first entrance thereupon For at the time of his Coronation among other Rites one of the last is that (c) Sacr. Cerem l. 1. Sect. 2. c. 3. fol. 40. the Pope must take his handful of money from his Chamberlain in which he must be sure to have neither silver nor gold and scattering it among the people must use those words of S. Peter Silver and Gold have I none Some things in the form of the Papal Coronation observed but what I have that give I you Now it seems not very fair and upright dealing that the Pope by being advanced to his See should pretend himself to be a Successor of S. Peters poverty especially when in order to his expressing thus much there is care taken before-hand that he must cautiously avoid the having all silver or gold in his hand If S. Peter himself had been known to have done thus when he used those words this would have been looked upon in him as a cheat and imposture which is one of the first things declared by his pretended Successor in such a case where he might uprightly and infallibly have spoken truth And a like abuse of holy Scripture is in that other Rite at his Coronation which goes immediately before this when the Pope is sat down or almost lies along upon a Marble Seat at the Lateran Church at Rome which Seat is called Stercoraria and one of the Cardinals lifts him up (d) ibid. using those words in Psal 113.7 8. Suscitat de pulvere egenum de stercore erigit pauperem ut sedeat cum principibus solium gloriae teneat Where what the Psalmist calleth a dunghill the Roman Church who would be accounted the faithful Interpreter of Scripture interpreteth concerning a stately Marble Seat But waving such things as these I shall enquire into two other things of greater moment and concern the one of Infallibility the second of delivering Souls from Purgatory by Indulgences and applying to them a fit proportion of the Churches Treasury 4. Concerning Infallibility Infallibility calculated for design This is a strange claim in such a Church where there are so many palpable errors contrary to the Doctrine of the Scriptures and the ancient Church But this pretence mightily serves their interest for if this be once believed and received all their other errors must thereupon be received with
incomparably more powerfal causes to carry the will than temporal ones therefore a world of Believers cannot be willing to do that which would lose them and their Posterities infinite goods and bring them infinite harms To this I answer That if this be spoken of the generality of professed Christians these words would still as much plead against Adams fall and the corruptions of Gentiles and Jews as against defection in the Romish Church since all these had the greatest goods and harms proposed to them But I further answer That a considerable number in former Ages would indeavour to know and deliver ttuth aright but they still are liable to mistakes and others that hear them to misunderstandings and also it is possible that the subtilty of some Deceivers may take place and be received sooner than their delivery of truth by which means those truths may many of them be lost or perverted and even in these last Ages I doubt not but even in the Roman Church there are many who would desire good and love truth and therefore as they have discerned it many have forsaken the Romish way but they who most desire to find it can in the way of Tradition see no more than is there to be seen and if others by subtilty corrupt some of that it is not in the power of these honest meaning persons to hinder the prevalency of such corruptions if they be promoted by a more potent party and interest § 8. If any think the proposal of Sensible Objects more considerable than of Spiritual he indeavoureth to shew the excellent proposal of the truths of God and thereby evidenceth they may be applied This doth not much concern Protestants we acknowledge that there is nothing wanting as to the proposal of Gods truth but yet there was in many neglect of receiving what was sufficiently propounded whence followed all the abovementioned miscarriages And even God himself propounded his truths as he thought most meet that is he proposed such as were not so necessary for all to know more mysteriously whence many might be ignorant of them or misapprehend but other necessary truths he propounded with abundant evidence and plainness But in the present way of Tradition what this Authour observes to make the proposal evident is very imperfect for though they have obvious Metaphors daily Practices Language and Actions Sacraments and Ceremonies yet these things may themselves partake of corruptions and then may help to clear what is propounded that somewhat may be understood but not withal to secure that this is certainly from God and therefore is Divine truth Nor do most of these things reach all truth to be delivered nor secure from all misapprehension so far as they are intended to signifie truth in such matters as are more difficult and mysterious An Answer to his seventh Discourse concerning Heresie § 1. HE observes That that which seems only and mainly to prejudice his Argument is that there have been Hereticks or deserters of Tradition but he saith it sufficeth that the Causes to preserve Faith intire are as efficacious as those laid for the Propagation of mankind the only subject of Faith and more particulars fail in propagating their kind than their Faith In answer to this I first observe that though it much destroyes the grounds laid by this Authour to observe that there have been Heresies and those much spread in the Church yet this is not the only prejudice against his Argument for if we had never heard of or could make no proof of any Heresies in the Christian Church yet from considering the very nature of Oral Tradition as hath been shewed in the former Discourse and from observing what great defects were in it both amongst Gentiles and Jews it is sufficiently manifest that it is not indefectible and hath not the certainty requisite to the Rule of Faith by which means if Heresies had not been they might begin But I further undertake to manifest that because it is certain that Heresies have spread in the Church from this consideration it is evidenceable that Oral Tradition is so defectible as that it cannot be a sure Rule of Faith His paralleling Tradition with the propagation of mankind is a meer piece of sophistry For if he indeed assert that the causes to preserve Faith intire in the way of Tradition are as sufficient as those to propagate mankind in the intire nature of man he must then either acknowledge that there have been oft Societies of persons of different natures both in themselves and from mankind who are brought up amongst men and call themselves men and propagate in their kind and cannot by the eye be distinguished from men and are capable of deceiving great multitudes by perswading them that they are the true men and that others are not or else he must deny that ever any such Hereticks have been in the Church who have declared themselves and have been owned by many others to be the true Christians and holders of the truth The case of Tradition and Propagation are wonderfully different also in that he who hath the nature of man in him by Propagation cannot alter this nature and make himself of another nature at his own pleasure whereas it is very possible for such as have imbraced the true Christian Doctrine to forsake it and fall aside into Heresies as hath been oft evidenced in the World and also in that those particular persons in mankind who do not propagate their kind are not capable at their pleasure of propagating any thing different from man but in the way of Christian Faith they who do not propagate the true Faith may and many of them do propagate error and that so subtilly that very many are oft deluded by it Yea this Discourser himself § 2. acknowledgeth that he knows the multitudes of Hereticks which have from time to time risen makes this his Position seem incredible and therefore I infer that unless his Reader can be assured that this Position is more true than it seems to be he must from his own words conclude it really incredible § 2. He comes to consider how an Heresie is bred where he tells us The Church is to be considered as a Common-wealth under Discipline having Officers to take care that all Motives be actually applied and because it is impossible the perfection of Discipline should extend it self to every particular some by pride ambition lust and itching desire of followers may propose new tenets which by their plausibleness and licentiousness if Governours be not watchful may suit with the humour of divers and draw them into the same faction Thus a body is made inconsiderable in respect of the whole The Church stands upon the uninterrupted succession of her Doctrine They cry the Church hath erred in Faith and disgrace Tradition A new Rule is sought for either by private inspiration or waxen natured words They study wordish Learning and Criticisms and whilst the Traditionary Christian hath the
things and it was not lawful for the people to partake of those things of which the Priest did partake But it is not so now The same Body is appointed for all and the same Cup. So far S. Chrysostome 4. Though this interpretation restraining it to the Clergy contrary to Reason History and the Doctrine of that time should be allowed yet would not this be enough to reconcile it with the present Tradition which delivers that the Clergy also if they do not consecrate must not receive in both kinds 5. This first answer is acknowledged frivolous from some of the grounds above-mentioned and rejected by many of the more learned Papists and Baronius ad annum 496. n. 20. calls it frigidam solutionem a cold or dull solution but pretends to give a better which now follows The other Answer necessary to be examined is That this Canon refers to the Manichees and that it was only their receiving in one kind which Gelasius condemns as Sacriledge of whom it is thus written in Leo his fourth Sermon for Lent When they dare to be present at our Mysteries to conceal their Infidelity they so order themselves at the Communion of the Sacraments that sometimes they receive the Body of Christ with their unworthy mouth that they may the more safely be concealed but they altogether decline to drink of the Blood of our Redemption which we therefore certifie your holiness that this sort of men may be known of us by these tokens and that when their Sacrilegious dissembling is discovered they being marked and detected may be driven by the Priestly Authority from the Saints society That to these the words of Gelasius refer is the answer of Baronius ad an 496. n. 21. Binnius in Vit. Gelasii and this also is approved by Bellarmine But 1. If Leo did discern this to be the practice of some Manichees fifty years before Gelasius his time this is no evidence that they were such of whom Gelasius writes had he intended the Manichees there can no reason be imagined why he as well as Leo should not mention them but since he expressed this in a more general way that some were found there is no reason to restrain this to the Manichees 2. That expression that he knew not by what superstition they were bound up cannot fitly be applied to the Manichees For it was a matter not unknown but well known why the Manichees refused the Cup. Saint Austin about an hundred years before Gelasius sets down the reason of that Lib. 16. adversus Faust c. 3. They refused Wine and other things he saith not out of any strictness to subdue the body but as being unclean and called them filth and the gall of the people of darkness And lib. 20. c. 13. he saith the Manichees account it Sacriledge to tast Wine they own their God in the Grape but not in the Cup as if the treading or pressing did offend them So that it was known why the Manichees refused Wine upon all occasions Yea the very word of superstition suits not the Manichees refusal who were acted by gross Heresie and amongst other things they hereby maintained the distinction of things clean and unclean in their own nature whereas superstition rather intimates a design of reverence and veneration of the Sacrament but misplaced and not well guided 3. Nor can those words either let them receive the whole Sacrament or be kept back from the whole be applicable to the Manichees For if we consider the nature of Manicheism how great an Heresie it was that S. Austin in several places observes That they denied worship to the God of the Old Testament they blasphemed the Prophets they denied Christ to be born of the Virgin they did worship the Sun and own him to be God and many other gross things they held as the good and evil first Cause the denial of the Resurrection and the like that concerning such Hereticks Gelasius and the Roman Canons should appoint that they might be admitted to the partaking of the whole Sacrament no man who knows the discipline of those times can admit For no crime was owned greater than Heresie and that the Heresie of Manicheism was in the daies of Gelasius greatly abhorred by the Christians may appear in that after the death of Zeno the Emperour when Ariadne had declared Anastasius the Successor Euphemius the Patriarch of Constantinople refused to consent because he was a Manichee unless he should first under his hand-writing confirm the Faith of Chalcedon as is related by Theodorus Lector Collect. lib. 2. and not long after he shews how the Christians detested this Manichean Emperour because an Heretick which was in the very daies of this Gelasius Further when it is considered that this Gelasius the first Causa 24. Qu. 1. Acacius non est declares that whoever falls into any Heresie once condemned involves himself in that same condemnation It is not imaginable that he would allow the Eucharist to be given to a Manichee whom he must own as a condemned Heretick Nor could a Manichee be otherwise owned by Gelasius when in his time they stood condemned not only by the Civil Laws of Valentinian Gratian Theodosius and Honorius but also by a Roman Council in the daies of Pope Leo the Great in which as appears from Leo Serm. 5. de Jejuniis decim mens they determined that the Christians should wholly expel these accursed and contagious men from their friendship At which time Leo would not receive them who returned from Manicheism until they had first condemned the Manichees by open profession in the Church and by their subscriptions and at length had time injoined them for their penance as is observed by Baronius ad Ann. 444. n. 5. And can it then be imagined that when Gelasius had found such out he would give them liberty to be received to the Eucharist forthwith especially if it be observed that in another Canon of this same Gelasius Causa 24. Qu. 2. c. nec quisque He declares That they might not partake of the purity of the Lords Table with any Heretick which Table saith he our Ancestors did alwaies abundantly keep severed from all Heretical pollution Yea further can it be thought any way probable that when Leo in the above-mentioned words declares the Manichees to be in infidelity to receive the Body of Christ with their unworthy mouth and sacrilegiously to dissemble in taking that and therefore to be rejected as contagious and accursed from all society of Christians yet Gelasius should judge these infidels thus sacrilegiously dissembling and unworthy yea accursed and condemned by former Councils fit for the highest Communion of Christians and allow them to receive the holy Eucharist Strangely wide must they needs be who would expound Gelasius by those words of Leo. 4. If notwithstanding all this those persons of which Gelasius writes had been Manichees this would indeed have shewed the persons in Gelasius his time who received only in one kind
to be in many things blameable more than the Papists at this day as dissimulation infidelity and the like which were the faults by Leo charged on the Manichees but not by Gelasius charged on them he writes of but still in that fault for which Gelasius condemns them he writes against the Papists at this day are altogether guilty of it that is in dividing the Sacrament or not receiving both Bread and Wine which he saith cannot be without great Sacriledge Nor can any here make a third reply upon any rational ground that it then was Sacrilegious to have administred only in one kind because the known practice and Canons of the Roman Church required administration in both kinds But since it hath in after times declared this practice mutable and ordered the Communion to be given only in one kind it is not now sacrilegious For this answer will not agree with the intent of these words and the Doctrine formerly received in the Roman Church The reason why Gelasius declared it great sacriledge to take this Sacrament in one kind alone is intimated sufficiently in this Canon not to refer to the Churches Constitution but the Sacraments Institution in that he calls both species or kinds one and the same Mysterie and sayes this one and the same Mysterie cannot be divided without grand sacriledge which is to referr us to the nature of the thing it self and its Institution as being not mutable Yea further the ancient Tradition of the Roman Church held as a Point of Doctrine that the Elements in the Eucharist ought to be administred according to what Christ instituted that is the Bread and Wine to be given to the Laity distinctly and separately because Christ gave them so then cannot this third Reply reconcile the present Doctrine of the Roman Church with what was formerly delivered To shew this I could produce many testimonies but shall only instance in Julius a Roman Bishop in a Canonical Epistle to the Bishops of Egypt recorded also in Gratian de Consecrat Dist 2. Cum omne Where he declares that he had heard of some who contrary to the Divine Orders and Apostolical Institutions consecrated Milk instead of Wine others who deliver to the people the Eucharist dipped For it is read in the truth of the Gospel Jesus took Bread and the Cup and having blessed it gave it to his Disciples But for that they gave the Eucharist dipped to the people they have received no testimony produced out of the Gospel in which he commends to us his body and his blood for the commendation is rehearsed separately of the Bread and separately of the Cup. In which words he makes Christs Institution a Rule by which he condemns other practices different from it and from this Institution he requires that both the Bread and the Cup be separately given and this even with reference to the Laity or as he speaks to the people to whom it was delivered and by this Rule he condemned the giving the Bread dipped in Wine whereas both should be given asunder so doth Gelasius by the same condemn the receiving only in one kind when it should be received in both All this considered the former Tradition of the Roman Church may from this instance appear to condemn the late Tradition as sacrilegious and therefore I may conclude that the same Tradition hath not been alwayes kept to as may appear by preserved Monuments out of which instances may be easily multiplied An Answer to his ninth Discourse shewing that the way of Oral Tradition in the Church hath not so much strength as other matters of Humane Authority § 1. BVt saith he some may say all this is nature if the Objector means reason wrought upon by Motives laid by Gods special goodness to bring man to bliss I wonder what else is supernaturality But this point is out of my road otherwise than to shew how Christian Tradition is strengthened above the greatest humane testimony whatever by those Motives which we rightly call assistances of the Holy Ghost Not to examine his Notion of supernaturality and the assistances of the Holy Ghost because they concern not the Discourse in hand I shall only tell him what Protestants or any other men who are true to reason would say to this Discourse and that is that what he hath said hitherto is of so low natural evidence and so far from reason that in this way the Christian can have no more evidence of the truth of Christian Religion than an Heathen may have of the truth of Paganism nor is there any such certainty in Tradition concerning the main Body of Christs Doctrine as is comparable to many other matters of humane testimony § 2 3. He observes the Mahometans Tradition for Mahomets existence will convey the truth thereof to the Worlds end if followed and Protestants acknowledge it hath had the force hitherto to be followed And the Tradition in the Church for the main Body of Christs Doctrine far exceeds that of the Turks for Mahomets existence because supposing the quality of the testifiers equal much greater multitudes in divers Countreys were testifiers of Christs Doctrine being converted by powerful Miracles than the few witnesses of Mahomets existence it is easier for those few Syrians or Arabians to conspire to a lye than for these Christians nor can Christians be so easily mistaken concerning Christian Doctrine In answer to this I in the first place grant That there is an Historical Traditionary certainty amongst the Turks concerning the existence of Mahomet and it is very reasonable that rather more should be allowed to the Tradition of Christians than of Mahometans But that it may truly appear how far Tradition may be relyed on for the conveyance of truth we must distinctly consider the matters delivered Of which some things there are which are not probably capable of mistake nor liable to be perverted and to receive a mixture of much falshood and have this advantage that the delivery of them from one to another doth still continue and no interest perswades the generality of men to deny or indeavour the concealing of them Now all these properties agree to the assertion of Mahomets existence amongst the Turks to the delivery of the Being of a God among the Gentiles to Moses being the great Prophet among the Jews and to Jesus being the Christ and I may add S Peter and S. Paul c. being his Apostles among the Christians thus the fame of a good or true Writer may be continued amongst Historians and in these things and many other such like I will grant it is not only possible but probable that Tradition may convey a certainty But there are other things lyable to mistake whence in many matters of common fame sufficiently known to the first Relater by the misapprehension of them who hear the relation the ordinary report is oft-times false or else 2. They are subject to be perverted or are concealed and not delivered which hath been
the case of many great and famous actions in the world which are now buried in oblivion or upon misinformation condemned but would have been honourably esteemed if they had been truly known And here the Tradition of the Turks concerning the precepts of Mahomet which were liable to mistake would probably have been lost if they had not been preserved in a written Alcoran And the Traditional evidence of this very Alcoran containing his Doctrine is much inferior to the Tradition of Christians for the Scriptures containing the Doctrine of Christ for even from the beginning of the reception of the Turkish Alcoran their Tradition hath not procured it so full approbation but that the Persians who profess themselves Mahometans deliver another Alcoran different from that of the Turks which they declare to contain the true precepts of Mahomet whereas Primitive Christians have as with one mouth all acknowledged that the Scriptures of the Prophets Apostles and Evangelists contain the Doctrine of Jesus Christ written by Divine inspiration Now to apply all this to the Doctrine of Christ It is certain 1. that many things delivered by him are capable of misunderstanding and not so easily intelligible as Mahomets existence is which is evidenced by the many mistakes in all Ages and disputes amongst true Catholick Christians as well as Papists about Doctrines of Religion 2. The Doctrine of Christ is likewise lyable to be perverted thus as in the time of the Old Testament the precepts of God were much corrupted by the Scribes and Pharisees who made void the Commandments of God by their Traditions so under the New Testament have many Hereticks grossly perverted this truth and many extravagant Opinionists have strangely blended it with their own misconceptions whence many errors are gone forth into the world 3. Nor can it be proved that in the way of Oral Tradition considered without Scripture all things delivered by Christ are continued in the Church for since in the multitude of Christs words not written by the Apostles or Evangelists the Romish Church cannot say that her Tradition hath preserved any how can the certainty of this Tradition be reasonably imagined so great as to secure a preservation of every Doctrine Now let us again observe that all these Considerations have the greater advantage against the certainty of Tradition by considering with them the many successions of Generations for matters of Faith if but once a little mistaken in one Generation since they must with these mistakes be delivered to the next Generation they may then be more mistaken and so by degrees very considerable mistakes and great corruptions may come in in points of Faith and as to omission of delivery of some truth if it be continued in several Generations yet if it be not impossible that any one Generation as to any truth should neglect the delivery it will in so many successions be very probable that some one hath failed But in the way of Scripture evidence the words are the same which were then delivered and the same words are no more capable of mistakes and corruptions in Doctrine than they were at the first nor are they less delivered to us now than they then were I may now infer from what is abovesaid that the belief of Mahomets existence may be continued by Tradition and yet it may not preserve the whole Body of Christs Doctrine § 4. He observes That humane authority or testimony is such that none are so mad as to doubt them but he that considers Joh. 3.16 1 Cor. 3.9 Mat. 6.26 will be convinced that the wayes of Providence to bring about mans salvation are so much above all others that others in comparison scarce deserve the name of a Providence We own Christianity much more certain than other Histories and things but that the preserving its certainty depends much more on Scripture than on Tradition is evident partly from reason because in a set form of written words a change cannot be so easily made without plain discovery as it may be where there is no such set form of words and partly from considering matters of fact whereby it may appear that Hereticks and opposers of the truth have more corrupted and spread corruptions of Christian Doctrine by their false delivery than ever they could corrupt and spread any corruptions of the Scripture-writing § 5 6. We will touch of the advantages superadded to nature It is natural for every man to speak truth unless some design hinder but true Christian hearts are much more fixt to Veracity § 7. Original corruption leads men to violate Veracity by an undue love of Creatures but Christianity working an overpowering love of Spiritual good leaves mans disposition to truth free § 8. The hopes and fears of Christianity as much exceed others as eternity doth a moment and are so held by all yet other Motives bring down matters of fact truly as the Reigns of Kings Wars Eclipses c. but that Christian Motives are more prevalent than all others appears by considering the Martyrs and Persecutions In answer to this I first observe that what he hath here laid down as a high security to the Churches Tradition makes nothing at all so much as seemingly for the securing all or any of its members from mistakes and misapprehensions nor for the preserving the weak from being deluded by others subtilty All it seems to plead against is intentional deceiving without which there may be much error But yet even this design of deceiving may with many in the Church much prevail notwithstanding all indeavoured to the contrary by this Discourser Where Christianity takes full possession in the power of it it will ingage such men to truth and the love of Heavenly good and the minding of Spiritual hopes and fears but how many are there who profess Christianity who oft speak falshood and are tempted to sin by undue love of Creatures and do not guide their lives according to the hopes and fears Religion sets before them Therefore these things cannot assure us of preserving men from perverting truth or neglect of delivering it much less from ignorance and mistake And as in other matters of History many things are delivered amiss in the common fame but best in the allowed Records so it is also in Christianity § 9. The Ceremonies or Oaths tendered to Officers in a Commonwealth to ingage them to be true to their Trust have no proportion with the Sacraments of the Church applied to Christians that they may not prevaricate from the Faith of Christ These are indeed exceeding high obligations which lie upon Christians But besides that it is no waies credible that all Christians judged themselves hereby obliged to deliver in the way of Oral Tradition all matters of Faith directly as they received them by the same Tradition I say besides this its certain it obliges men as much to the purity of the Christian life as to hold fast the verity of the Christian Doctrine wherefore when it is certain
that with many it doth not work its effect in the former it may be much feared to want its effect in the latter especially since there have been many Hereticks § 10. They who do not to others what they would have done to themselves this is because they are swayed by some temporal good but this cannot be in the Church supposing sanctity in it because in virtue and glory we have not the less when others have the more but rather we have the more also so that here Fathers must do the greatest hurt to their Children without the least good to themselves if they should deceive them But alas Is this Discourser such a stranger to the world that when he hath proved as it is easie to do that it is highly irrational for any man to chuse any sin he would thence conclude for certain that there are no such sinners in the world How evident is it that there hath been so much want of Sanctity that many either to please their own fancies or to promote their own interests have depraved the true Religion or corrupted the Christian Doctrine But in these cases as in all acts of sin men do not aim at the evil and hurt that follows but at the seeming good and delight § 11. Christian Doctrine hath the advantage of the greatest universality wisdom and goodness of the recommenders § 12. Nature will teach all a care of their off spring but Christianity more and chiefly in matters of endless misery and happiness § 13. Consider credit he who will lie perniciously and to friends how ill is this esteemed Chiefly if this be against the highest Motives and with the greatest confidence and Oaths This is of all other cases most disgraceful in matters which concern Christs Doctrine chiefly if in a Pastor against his particular Oath to preach Christs Doctrine truly Nor can the world of Fore-Fathers all conspire to this villany Yet it is certain notwithstanding the recommendations of the Christian Doctrine it may be both mistaken and depraved Nor doth love of off-spring take place actually against all setting examples of sin nor against ignorance and mistakes nor in Jews and Hereticks did it take place against corrupting worship Nor have all men been so tender of their credit Many Hereticks have been self-condemned There were who said of Christ let us kill him and the inheritance shall be ours Simon knew and was Baptized into the Christian Doctrine and yet thoughts of credit did not keep him from perverting it Yea men gain credit at least with a party by their erring explications if they be plausible and take with the multitude and then alone can they become Traditions However some there are who value not esteem either with men or with God who knowing the judgement of God that they which do such things are worthy of death not only do them but take pleasure in them that do them And if by such weak considerations as these above mentioned though the truth of the contrary is generally known in the world this Authour would conclude that Pastors can never deliver amiss and therefore whatever any Histories say to the contrary there never were erroneous Bishops in the Eastern or Western Churches or any places whatever I doubt he would be put to wonderful puzzles to reconcile the present Doctrines in all Churches Yet if Protestants may not as men of reason judge that Pastors have erred because all Histories and the present differences in Religion manifest it they will still as Christians believe that S. Peters Spirit was more infallible than this Discoursers who hath assured us 2 Pet. 2.1 2. That there shall be false Teachers who privily shall bring in damnable Heresies and many shall follow their pernicious wayes § 14. He concludeth with a flourish That every virtue and Science would contribute to Traditions certainty which would require he saith a large Volume to shew But that we may judge what this large Volume would be he gives us a taste wherein is nothing else but empty and frothy words Arithmetick lends her numbring and multiplying faculty to scan the vast number of testifiers Geometry her proportion to shew the infinite strength of certainty in Tradition c. But if such words as these were considerable this Discourser may receive a return more truly Arithmetick cannot number and determine the many possible and probable wayes of erring in Tradition Geometrical proportions cannot discover how manifold and great defects appear in the receiving the Body of Christs Doctrine by Tradition more than in the acknowledgement of Mahomets existence nor how great a proportion of men there are in the Church who have delivered their own opinions and speculations to one who only testifieth what he received Logick will discover the Sophistry in the pretended Arguments for Tradition Nature will evidence the great possibility of mans mistake or neglect in the way of Tradition Morality will shew the great corruption of man whereby he is lyable every where to err and miscarry Historical prudence will shew the failing of Tradition both in Jews and Gentiles and many Christian Nations overspread with known and confessed errors and will thence conclude that it is possible for any Nation or particular Church by Oral Tradition to neglect the faithful preserving truth Political Principles will evidence according to the practice of all Civil Policies that writing is a more exact way to convey down Laws and Rules of Order than Tradition is Metaphysicks with its speculations will evidence the very notion of Oral Tradition of the whole Body of Christs Doctrine to this Age to be an aiery vanity Divinity will discover much of the great wisdom and goodness of God in giving us the Scriptures rather than in leaving us to the uncertain and dangerous way of Tradition Controversie will evidence the uncertainty of almost every thing in Faith if it had no other Basis than mere Oral Tradition without any written support So that after all the survey of his several Discourses where nothing is solidly spoken for Tradition I may well conclude that this way of Tradition is defectible ANSWER TO HIS COROLLARIES AFter these several Discourses he deduceth forty one Corollaries built upon them all which must needs fall with the ruine of their foundation Yet that they may not pass without due Censure I shall briefly deduce other opposite Corollaries and for the most part directly contrary to them from our Discourse Corol. 1. They may of right pretend to Faith who hold not to Tradition since they have a sufficient Rule of Scripture and Motives enough to believe Disc 2.3 4. But they have no sure-footing in the Faith who depend only on this Oral Tradition since it is both a fallible and actually a false guide Disc 5.6 8. Cor. 2. They may pretend to be a Church and a true Church who own not Oral Tradition because they may be a number of Faithful Cor. 1. but whoever followeth any way of such Tradition cannot
manifest themselves to be a Church unless by recourse to some other Rule or way of evidence Disc 5. because they may in this way err from the Faith and so not be faithful Cor. 3. They may be members of a Church who are not followers of Tradition because by ordinary and sure means they may have Faith Cor. 4. They who renounce Tradition for their guide and close with Scripture are not cut off from the Faith thereby because they imbrace hereby the most sure Rule of Faith Cor. 5. The followers of such Ancestors who so renounced Tradition have the same security that they may have Faith by relying on the Scripture as a Rule Cor. 6. The followers of them who renounce Oral Tradition may rightly claim to be a part of Christian Tradition or deliverers of the Faith because they receive the Scripture Doctrine in written Records and so deliver it to others Disc 2. So did the Apostles deliver Doctrines to the Jews from the Old Testament Cor. 7. They who pretend to reform what is delivered as matters of Faith in any Church guided by Oral Tradition may hold the true Christian Faith because such Churches may err in the Faith as did the Jewish But then such Reformers must come to what appears by Records to be the Faith at first delivered Cor. 8. The followers of this way of Tradition cannot evidence who are truly faithful and of the Church because their Tradition is no sure Rule Disc 5.6 8. And if any should hold the Faith intire after successions of Tradition this is by chance and not demonstrative in the way of Tradition Cor. 9. The disowners of Tradition who hold to Scripture can give certain account who are to be held as truly faithful because they have a sure Rule to try this by which is the Scripture Cor. 10. Such who hold not this Tradition can rationally punish them who revolt from their Faith because they can by Scripture Rule sufficiently evidence the certainty of their Faith and the guilt of such revolters Disc 7. Cor. 11. That company of men hang together like the Body of a Christian Church who close with the Scripture and adhere not to Tradition because they hold Christs Doctrine delivered to them by the Apostles and Evangelists Writings whence the Roman Church is highly Schismatical for disowning all others and accounting it self the Vniversal Church Cor. 12. Tradition may be argued against out of the letter of Scripture because while Oral Tradition is uncertain Scripture is preserved certain by the delivery of Records which is a more sure and excellent way of delivery of Christs Doctrine Cor. 13. The Authority of some Churches may in reason be opposed against Tradition viz. The Authority of the Ancient Church against the present Oral Tradition because since Tradition is defectible the Doctrine of the Ancient Church might both differ from the present Church and is most like to be in the truth What he pretends of Tradition being Antecedent to the Church and including the living voice of the whole Church essential concerning present Tradition is a vain surmise for how can the present Tradition of which we dispute be antecedent to the Church sixteen hundred Years since established and since it is defectible Disc 6.8 how can it include the voice of that Church Cor. 14. Fathers or Councils may rationally be alledged against present Tradition for if they be Fathers or Councils now owned as Catholick by the holders of Tradition they will shew the inconsistency of Tradition with it self If they have formerly been owned as Catholick they will shew the change of Doctrine in the way of Tradition Cor. 15. Disowners of Tradition in right of reason must be allowed to argue against Tradition out of Scriptures Fathers and Councils for this is no matter of courtesie nor any argument only ad hominem but ad rem since they have a certainty of these things from Traditional Records Disc 2 3 4. How little the testimony of Tertullian is to his purpose see in the next Discourse in inquiry into Tertullians opinion of the Rule of Faith Cor. 16. The Authority of History or Testimonial Writing may be alledged against Tradition because matters of fact past and the former state of things may run contrary to present Tradition And the credibility of the Historian may be evident by his impartial writings agreement with other Writers by the testimony of other faithful Writers or the present Tradition concerning him or if in Church-History by his having been formerly received as a Catholick Writer Cor. 17. Other Tradition may in right of reason be alledged against Romish Oral Tradition for though the sure Christian Tradition be the most firm of any yet since the Traditional Records of Ancient Churches Disc 5. n. 20. and the delivery of truth in Scripture Disc 5. n. 18. are much surer than Oral Tradition and the different delivery in other Churches may be as sure as in the Roman they may be alledged against it Cor. 18. Arguments from Reason may be urged against Oral Tradition for since this Tradition is weak and fallible it may be disproved by reasons which are strong and solid Cor. 19. Instances may be argued from against Traditions certainty for since Tradition is defectible instances may have that Historical certainty which Tradition hath not and may in the allowance of the Author be delivered by Tradition and so shew its inconsistency Cor. 20. The denying Oral Tradition doth not dispose to Fanatickness because Protestants deny it not by recourse to a Light within but to a Rule without and rational evidence Cor. 21. Fanatick Principles may be confuted without the help of Romish Oral Tradition but not by it in a rational way for such confutation is by evidence of the 〈…〉 the contrary Now we can evidence the 〈…〉 and its being contrary to Fanatick 〈…〉 they cannot evidence the certainty of 〈…〉 Cor. 22. We may argue against Tradition without questioning the constancy of any species in nature or of mans-nature Because it is not founded upon mans nature but upon a supposal of his actions free from possible ignorance mistake corruption forgetfulness speculations and working fancies about notions received For by any of these which ordinarily attend man may Traditions certainty be destroyed Cor. 23. There is great possibility of various rational waies of arguing against Oral Tradition by Scripture Councils Fathers History Reason Instances c. Cor. 24. Oral and practical Tradition is no first Principle by way of Authority for matters of fact but Scripture-Tradition or other sure Traditional Records is such a Principle because Scripture and such Records are certain Disc 4. and Tradition is not Cor. 25. Nor is this Tradition self evident in matter of fact long since past because it is fallible and defectible Cor. 26. The certainty of Tradition being disproved that Church which relies on it cannot thereby be certain that it holds Christs Doctrine because this Tradition may err in this
makes use of to express the Discords and Rents in the Church of Corinth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are all of them enumerated in his Epistle to the Galatians tho there they be rendred by other English Words Gal. 5.20 among those Works of the Flesh concerning which we are told with earnestness of expression that they that do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God And I think it considerable to be further observed that even in such Persons who are of a better Spirit and who in the main close with the other Duties and Rules of Christianity their miscarriage in this particular in not holding the Peace and Unity of the Church will lessen and abate the degrees of that future Glorious Reward which they would otherwise receive And this I think is sufficiently declared by St. Paul in his first Epistle to the Corinthians when he had rebuked the Corinthians for their Divisions one being of Paul and another of Apollo 1 Cor. 3.1 2 3 4. he still keeping his Eye upon and having an aim at these Divisions as appears from that third and the former part of the fourth Chapter tells them concerning them who hold to that only foundation which the Apostles laid If any shall build thereupon that which will not abide the Trial if his work shall be burnt he shall suffer loss but he himself shall be saved yet so as by Fire v. 15. That is if any such person shall be engaged in Divisions in the Church or in any other unwarrantable Action or Doctrine it shall go the worse with him and be hereafter to his loss and though he escape Misery and obtain Life it shall be with the greater hazard danger and difficulty And therefore he who would seek his own greatest Good must carefully avoid this miscarriage Secondly Consider how extreamly opposite and contrary divisions in the Church are to Christ himself He is one Lord and Head he hath by one Spirit and in one Baptism established his Church to be one Body in one and the same Faith and Doctrine and upon the same Hope of their Calling and under the same Only God and Father of all And all these things S. Paul urgeth as containing in them special Obligations for Christian Unity Eph. 4.3 4 5 6. And besides all the Precepts of his Doctrine let us seriously observe how much our dying Saviour did earnestly and again desire and pray that all his Disciples might be one John 17.11 21 23. And this he twice expresseth in his Prayer to be desired to this end that the World might believe that thou hast sent me Now if it would be an unworthy thing for any person against all reason and duty to oppose the Dying Request of the best Friend he ever had in the World it must needs be unaccountable to act against that which was even at the point of Death so affectionately and importunately desired by our Lord and Saviour Was this aimed at by our Lord as an useful means to bring over the World to believe in him and will any who have any Honour for Christ or Love for Men be so uncharitable as to be engaged in any such Works as tend to keep off Men from Christianity and from obtaining Salvation by Jesus Christ But this is sufficiently intimated by our Saviour to be the sad effect of the Divisions in his Church To all this I shall further add that it is related by Crusius Turcograec lib. 3. part 1. p. 234. that it is the daily Prayer of the Turks that Christians may not be at Vnity And they who are of the Church of Rome express their delight and satisfaction in our Disagreements Baronius Annal. Eccles An. 344. n. 9. makes use of this as a considerable Argument against the truth of the Protestant Doctrine and Salmeron Tom. 9. Tr. 16. n. 1. declares that this is that which giveth them expectations of prevailing against us And now shall any who own themselves the true followers of Christ so undertake to contradict the dying Request of their Saviour as in the mean time to chuse that which complieth with and gratifieth the Desires both of the professed Enemies of his Religion and of those also who strangely corrupt and pervert his Doctrine and Gospel But after all this or whatsoever else may be spoken to this purpose there are two sorts of Men who I doubt are not like to be perswaded 1. I fear there are some fierce Men who are so far from having hearts inclined to do this Duty that they have not Patience to hear it but rather to turn angry and to cry out as the Lawyer did to our Saviour Thus saying thou reproachest us also But it will become them and others too to bethink themselves of the sad danger of all those persons who will not hearken but stop their Ears to such plain Duties as those of Peace and Unity are But these Truths must be spoken whether they will hear or whether they will forbear 2. And others there are who will acknowledg in general the Truth of all I have said of the great Sin and Evil of Schisms and Divisions And though they be engaged in the dividing Parties will plead their own Innocence and charge the fault of these Divisions wholly upon the order and constitution of our Church and not upon themselves Now here much might be said to shew that the Worship and Service of God in our Church is agreeable to the true Christian Rule and that on the other hand there are many things unaccountable yea and unlawful which are embraced without scruple by Dissenters and contended for by the dividing Parties But this would be too long for me to insist upon in my present Discourse Wherefore instead thereof I shall mention a sensible and ocular Demonstration that it is not the Constitution of our Church but the ill temper of dividing Spirits that is the true cause of our Divisions And that is this That when this Constitution was thrown aside between thirty and forty years since the Rents and Divisions of the Church were not by this means removed but to the grief of good Men they were greatly encreased thereby and the Spirits of many Men in this particular have been the worse ever since Let all of us therefore take heed to our selves that we keep in the paths of Peace and Vnity and let us mourn and pray for others who neglect them II. A second thing to be done in our turning to God is the forsaking all Viciousness and Debauchery and becoming Serious and Sober Vice defiles and debaseth the nature of Man It is so much against Reason and Conscience and is so far condemned by the common sense of Mankind that it generally passeth for a disparagement in the World And Viciousness is so much against the interest of Men and the good of the World that thereupon it is prohibited and punished by the Laws even of Barbarous Nations This is
of God in it that all his Revelations to the Patriarchs and Prophets and especially that by the Holy Jesus to the Christian Church do greatly insist upon it When the Gentile World went greatly astray by their abominable Idolatries and their gross Impurities even in their pretendedly Religious Rites the Doctrine of the Gospel appears to turn them from the Power of Satan unto God When the Jews had been under a lower Dispensation our Lord gives his Disciples more excellent Rules and enlargeth the Precepts of the Moral Law as was truly asserted by Irenaeus Tertullian Clemens Alexandrinus St. Augustine and other ancient Writers And why should it be thought strange that Lawgiver should add to the Precepts already given and extend them further who established many new Duties such as to believe the peculiar Doctrines of the Christian Faith to perform many religious Services in his Name and with an eye to him to attend on the Gospel-Sacraments to reverence the Christian Ministry and the Power of the Keys and to own and embrace Communion with the diffusive Catholick Church in all Nations He laid new Obligations upon his Disciples concerning Divorce and the changing the Zeal of Elias into Christian Meekness And it is but reasonable to expect that under the Instructions and Motives of Christianity there should be required greater Measures of the Love of God and Goodness But when the Jewish Church had in their Principles and Practices grosly degenerated from the great Design of the Law and many Corruptions were introduced our Lord protests against them and gives his Disciples this Admonition That their Righteousness must exceed the Righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees The Pharisees were the strictest Sect of the Jews at that time the Scribes were their chief Teachers and Guides their Righteousness here intended was what was according to the Rules and Doctrines they delivered and received Against that Leaven of Doctrine our Lord warned his Disciples Mat. 16.12 The out-doing and exceeding this Righteousness is so necessary that it is enjoined under this severe Sanction That otherwise we can in no case enter into the Kingdom of Heaven The Kingdom of Heaven is a Phrase peculiar to St. Matthew among all the Penmen of the Scripture but hath been observed not to be unusual in the Talmud Hor. Hebr. in Mat. 3.3 and other Jewish Writers It sometimes expresseth in this Evangelist the Kingdom of Christ in his Church on Earth but in this place and others the Kingdom of Glory and eternal Happiness But if any should think these Words directly to assert that none whose Righteousness exceeds not that of the Pharisees and their Teachers the Scribes can be true Members of the Christian Church and Christ's Kingdom upon Earth he must consequently acknowledg that they cannot be Heirs of Heaven Yet these Pharisees were not so wholly irreligious but that they attended the Temple and Synagogues made many Prayers seem'd to have a great Veneration for the Law and a Zeal for the Honour of the God of Israel They were not so grosly dissolute and debauched as to give themselves up to Uncleanness Intemperance and all Unmercifulness but they condemned Adultery fasted and gave Alms. Wherefore it may be needful to enquire I. What were the Miscarriages in their Righteousness and wherein must we exceed them if ever we attain to Happiness II. How stands the Case of those Societies who chiefly pretend to Christianity as to their exceeding or not exceeding the Righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees III. What is the Result of these Enquiries I. Touching their Miscarriages and Defects 1. They placed much Righteousness in their being a peculiar Party and maintaining a kind of Separation They were a particular Sect having and needlesly affecting singular Practices and Opinions different from the other Jews and such as were not enjoined in the Law of Moses The Name Pharisee is from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to separate and divide and themselves were distinguished into seven sorts as the Jewish Writers tell us They did not indeed withdraw themselves from the Synagogue or Temple Publick-Worship since as Josephus saith Antiq. Jud. l. 18. c. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whatsoever referred to God both Prayer and other parts of Worship were much ordered by their Model But concerning the Synagogue-Worship there is probable Evidence that the several chief Sects among the Jews and therefore the Pharisees as one of them had their distinct Assemblies And it is certain the Pharisees did reject the best of Men from their Synagogue-Communion meerly for doing their necessary Duty in professing upon the fullest Divine Testimony that Jesus was the Christ and becoming his Followers And in the Temple-Worship the Pharisees were guilty of a kind of Separation under an appearance of Communion For since the daily Sacrifice in the Temple was a Burnt-Offering and therefore appointed for Expiation and Atonement Num. 28.3 the Devotions of them who attended at the Temple at the Hours of Prayer and Sacrifice ought to be conformable thereunto but the Pharisees Prayer there as our Saviour describes it had nothing in it of humble Supplication for God's Mercy and Favour but he thanks God he was not as other Men. And this Spirit of Division was so much the worse in them because it was founded in an high Conceit and great Confidence of their own Righteousness though they had little reason for it and in a contempt of others But now such a proud Temper is inconsistent with Christianity which makes Humility a necessary Qualification for the obtaining everlasting Life And Divisions and Separations are so unaccountable for the Members of the same Body the Church to be engaged in that the Doctrine of Christ gives us frequent Precepts earnest Exhortations and pressing Arguments to Peace and Unity and plainly expresseth the great Danger of Misery in the neglect thereof When 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Contests fierce Heats and Divisions are reckoned among those Works of the Flesh which exclude from the Kingdom of God Gal. 5. can any think the great Discords in the Church unconcerned herein when the Concord of Christians is here chiefly enjoined and the Neglect thereof is every way exceeding hurtful and when all these very Expressions are used by St. Paul to set forth the Divisions of the Church of Corinth 1 Cor. 3.3 And therefore where-ever Rents or Schisms in the Church are Works of the Flesh as they must be when they are the Product of Pride Self-will or voluntary Disobedience to or Neglect of the Precepts of Peace and Unity they are destructive The Ancient Church charged an high Guilt upon these Practices Cypr. ep 76. ◠St. Cyprian accounts Schism greatly to deprive Men of the Hope of Christianity And St. Austin maintains against the Donatists that their Separation was as great a Sin as that of the Traditores who gave up the Scriptures into the hands of their Persecutors with which Crime the