evident then I can no more believe them as to any Revelation than I can as to their natural Reasonings for the same Faculties must judge of both and if the Faculty be false I can trust its judgment in neither 3 ly The Doctrine of Transubstantiation destroys all possible certainty what the true sence and interpretation of Scripture is and thereby overthrows all supernatural Knowledge The Scripture we know is Expounded to very different and contrary Sences and made to countenance the most monstrous and absurd Doctrines Witness all the ancient Heresies which have been Fathered on the Scriptures Now what way have we to confute these Heresies but to shew either that the words of Scripture will not bare such a sence or at least do not necessarily require it that such an Interpretation is contrary to Sense to Reason to the natural Notions we have of God and therefore is in itself absurd and impossible But if Transubstantiation be a Gospel-Doctrine I desire any Papist among all the ancient Heresies to pick out any Doctrine more absurd and impossible more contrary to Sense and Reason than the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is and then it is no Argument against any Doctrine or any Exposition of Scripture that it is absurd and impossible contrary to Sense and Reason for so Transubstantiation is and if we may believe one absurd Doctrine we may believe five hundred how absurd soever they be And then what defence has any man against the most monstrous Corruptions of the Christian Faith Is this the way to improve Knowledge to destroy all the certain marks and characters of Truth and Error and to leave no Rule to judge by If the design of the Gospel was to improve our Minds by a knowing and understanding Faith Transubstantiation which overthrows the certainty both of natural and revealed Knowledge can be no Gospel-Doctrine 3. The Authority of an infallible Judge whom we must believe in every thing without examining the reasons of what he affirms nay though he teaches such Doctrines as appear to us most expresly contrary to Sense and Reason and Scripture is no Gospel-Doctrine because it is not the way to make men wise and understanding Christians which is the great design of the Gospel for to suspend the exercise of Reason and Judgment is not the way to improve mens Knowledge an infallible Teacher and an infallible Rule do indeed mightily contribute to the improvement of Knowledge but such an infallible Judge as the Church of Rome boasts of can only make men ignorant and stupid Believers For there is a vast difference between an infallible Teacher and an infallible Judge which few men observe at least have not well explained for an infallible Teacher is onely an external Proponent and while men only teach and instruct how infallible soever they are every man is at liberty to use his own Reason and Judgment for though the Teacher be infallible he that learns must use his own Reason and Judgment unless a man can learn without it But now an infallible Judge is not contented to teach and instruct which is an appeal to the Reason of Mankind but he usurps the office of every mans private Reason and Judgment and will needs judge for all Mankind as if he were an Vniversal Soul an Vniversal Reason and Judgment that no man had any Soul any Reason or Judgment but himself for if every man has a private Reason and Judgment of his own surely every man must have a right to the private exercise of it that is to judge for himself and then there can be no such universal Judge who must be that to every man which in other cases his own private Reason and Judgment is which is to un-Soul all Mankind in matters of Religion And therefore though there have been a great many infallible Teachers as Moses and the Prophets Christ and his Apostles yet none ever pretended to be infallible Judges but the Church of Rome that is none ever pretended to deny People a liberty of judging for themselves or ever exacted from them an universal submission to their infallible Judgment without exercising any act of Reason and Judgment themselves I am sure Christ and his Apostles left People to the exercise of their own Reason and Judgment and require it of them they were infallible Teachers but they did not judge for all Mankind but left every man to judge for himself as every man must and ought and as every man will do who has any Reason and Judgment of his own but an infallible Judge who pretends to judge for all men treats Mankind like Bruits who have no reasonable Souls of their own But you 'll say this distinction between an infallible Teacher and an infallible Judge is very nice and curious but seems to have nothing in it for does not he who teaches infallibly judge infallibly too And must I not submit my private Judgment which all men allow to be fallible to a publick infallible Judgment which I know to be infallible If I know that I may be deceived and that such a man cannot be deceived is it not reasonable for me to be governed by his Judgment rather than my own I answer All this is certainly true as any demonstration but then it is to be considered that I cannot be so certain of any man's Infallibility as to make him my Infallible Judge in whose Judgment I must acquiesce without exercising any Reason or Judgment of my own and the reason is plain because I cannot know that any man teaches infallibly unless I am sure that he teaches nothing that is contrary to any natural or revealed Law. Whoever does so is so far from being Infallible that he actually errs and whether he does so I cannot know unless I may judge of his Doctrine by the Light of Nature and by Revelation and therefore though there may be an Infallible Teacher there never can be any Infallible Judge to whom I must submit my own Reason and Judgment because I must judge of his Doctrine my self before I can know that he is Infallible As for instance when Moses appeared as a Prophet and a Law-giver to the Children of Israel there was no written Law but only the Law of Nature and therefore those great Miracles he wrought gave authority to his Laws because he contradicted no necessary Law of Nature but had any other person at that time wrought as many Miracles as Moses did and withal taught the Worship of many Gods either such as the AEgyptians or any other Nations worshipped at that time this had been reason enough to have rejected him as a false Prophet because it is contrary to the natural Worship of one Supream God which the Light of Nature teaches When Christ appeared there was a written Law the Writings of Moses and the Prophets and all the Miracles he wrought could not have proved him a true Prophet had he contradicted the Scriptures of the Old Testament and therefore his
in dispute between us and therefore can prove nothing till that be first proved by something else 1. To begin then with Reason Now we do allow of Reason in matters of Religion and our Adversaries pretend to use it when they think it will serve their turn and rail at it and despise it when it is against them Not that we make Natural Reason the Rule or the Measure of our Faith for to believe nothing but what may be proved by Natural Reason is to reject Revelation or to destroy the necessity of it For what use is there of a Revelation or at least what necessity of it if nothing must be revealed but what might have been known by Natural Reason without Revelation or at least what Natural Reason can fully comprehend when it is revealed But though we believe such things when they are revealed by God which Natural Reason could never have taught us and which Natural Reason does not see the depths and mysteries of and therefore do not stint our Faith and confine it within the narrow bounds of Natural Reason yet we use our Reason to distinguish a true from a counterfeit Revelation and we use Reason to understand a Revelation and we Reason and Argue from revealed Principles as we do from the Principles of Natural Knowledge As from that Natural Principle that there is but one God we might conclude without a Revelation that we must Worship but one God so from that revealed Doctrine of one Mediator between God and man we may as safely conclude that we must make our Applications and offer up our Prayers and Petitions to God onely by this one Mediator and so in other cases Now to direct Protestants how to secure themselves from being imposed on by the fallacious Reasoning of Roman Priests I shall take notice of some of the chief faults in their way of Reasoning and when these are once known it will be an easie matter for men of ordinary understandings to detect their Sophistry 1. As first we must allow of no Reason against the Authority of plain and express Scripture This all men must grant who allow the Authority of Scripture to be superiour to Natural Reason for though Scripture cannot contradict plain and necessary and eternal Reasons i. e. what the universal Reason of Mankind teaches for a necessary and eternal truth yet God may command such things as we see no Natural Reason for and forbid such things as we see no Natural Reason against nay it may be when we think there are plausible Reasons against what God commands and for what he forbids But in all such cases a Divine Law must take place against our uncertain Reasonings for we may reasonably conclude that God understands the Reasons and Natures of things better than we do As for instance when there is such an express Law as Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him onely shalt thou serve No reason in the World can justifie the Worship of any other Being good or bad Spirits besides God because there is an express Law against it and no Reason can take place against a Law. The like may be said of the second Commandment Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image nor the likeness of any thing which is in heaven above or in the earth beneath or in the waters under the earth thou shalt not bow down to them nor worship them Which is so express a Law against image-Image-Worship that no Reason must be admitted for it No man need to trouble himself to answer the Reasons urged for such Practices for no Reasons ought to be allowed nor any Dispute admitted against such express Laws This I suppose all men will grant but then the difficulty is What is an express Law For the Sence of the Law is the Law and if there may be such a Sence put on the words as will reconcile these Reasons with the Law we must not say then that such Reasons are against the Law when though they may be against the Law in some sence yet they are consistent with other sences of the Law and it is most likely that is the true sence of the Law which has the best reason on its side It must be confessed there is some truth in this when the words of the Law are capable of different sences and reason is for one sence and the other sence against reason there it is fit that a plain and necessary Reason should expound the Law but when the Law is not capable of such different sences or there is no such reason as makes one sence absurd and the other necessary the Law must be expounded according to the most plain and obvious signification of the Words though it should condemn that which we think there may be some reason for or at least no reason against for otherwise it is an easie matter to expound away all the Laws of God. To be sure all men must grant that such Reasons as destroy the Law or put an absurd or impossible sence on it are against the Law and therefore must be rejected how plausible soever they appear As for instance Some there are who to excuse the Church of Rome from Idolatry in Worshipping Saints and Angels and the Virgin Mary positively affirm that no man can be guilty of Idolatry who Worships one Supreme God as a late Author expresly teaches As for the Invocation of Saints unless they Worship them as the Supreme God the Charge of Idolatry is an idle word and the Adoration it self which is given to them as Saints is a direct Protestation against Idolatry because it supposes a Superiour Deity and that supposition cuts off the very being of Idolatry Now not to examine what force there is in this Reason our present inquiry is onely How this agrees with the first Commandment Thou shalt have none other Gods before me before my Face as it is in the Hebrew Which supposes an acknowledgment of the Supreme God together with other Gods for otherwise though they Worship other Gods they do not do it before the Face of God while they see him as it were present before them to worship other Gods in the presence of the Supreme God or before his Face as that Phrase signifies is to worship them together with him and therefore this is well expressed by the Septuagint by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 besides me which supposes that they Worshipped him too And our Saviour expounds this Law by Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him onely shalt thou serve So that this Reason That there can be no Idolatry where the Lord Jehovah is Worshipped as the Supreme God contradicts the very letter of this Law. How then does this Author get rid of the first Commandment Truly by laying it all aside for he gives this as the whole Sence of the first Commandment That God enjoyns the Worship of himself who by his Almighty Power had delivered them from their AEgyptian
Bondage But is this all that these words Thou shalt have no other Gods before me signifies The Worship of God indeed is supposed in them but the express words of the Law are not for the Worship of the Lord Jehovah but against the Worship of any other Gods before him or besides him But according to our new Expositor this is no part of the Law though according to the express words it is the principal if not the whole meaning of it If this Argument be good viz. That Idolatry is nothing else but the Worship of other Beings besides the Lord Jehovah as Supreme Gods then other Gods in this Commandment must signifie other Supreme Gods and then the Commandment runs thus Thou shalt have no other supreme Gods before me Now this is a very absurd sence because it supposes that men may Believe and Worship more Supreme Gods than one for if there can be but one Supreme God and by Gods in the Commandment be meant Supreme Gods then it is absurd to forbid any man to have other Supreme Gods because no man can acknowledge two Supremes It should have been Thou shalt not have any other God besides me not Gods For though it had been possible for them to have acknowledged some other God to be Supreme and rejected the Lord Jehovah from being Supreme yet they could not have other Supreme Gods. But it is evident that God here forbids the Worship of a Plurality of Gods of other Gods and therefore they could not all be Supreme Gods. But suppose it had been any other God in the single number yet to understand this of a Supream God is very absurd because there is no other supream God but the Lord Jehovah and those who worship but one Supream God worship him and none else For a supream God is not to be pointed at is not to be distinguished by his Person or Features as one man is distinguished from another indeed a Prince may properly say to his Subjects You shall own none but me for your King because they know his Person and can distinguish him from all other men But the Jews never saw God nor any likeness or similitude of him they were not acquainted with his Person nor could they distinguish him from other Gods by any personal Characters they knew him only by his Notion and Character of the Supream Being who made the World and all things in it and brought them by a mighty hand out of the Land of AEgypt Now does it not found very strange that the Supream God who is known only by this Character that he is Supream the great Creator and Soveraign Lord of the World should make a Law that we should worship no other Supream God but himself when it is absolutely impossible that he who worships a Supream and Soveraign God should worship any other God but himself because he alone is the Supream God and therefore those who worship the Supream God under this Notion as Supream worship him and no other Being So that if we will make sense of it the meaning of the first Commandment is plainly this Thou shalt not give Divine Honours to any other Beings as to inferiour Gods as the Idolatrous Practice of the World now is which worships a great many things for Gods but thou shalt worship only one Supream and Soveraign Being the maker and Soveraign Lord of the World which is I my self the Lord Jehovah who brought thee out of the Land of AEgypt out of the House of Bondage When the Supream God commands us to worship himself the meaning must be that we pay our Worship and Adorations to a Supream Being considered as Supream and he who worships such a Supream Being worships the true God whom we can distinguish from false Gods only by this Character that he is Supream And when this Supream Being forbids us to worship any other Gods it must signifie that we must worship nothing which is not Supream not that we must not believe that which is not Supream to be the Supream God which would be ridiculous Nonsence to command them not to own that Being for the Supream God which they know not to be Supream But it may be said that the Heathens did worship some Beings who were not the Supream God as Supream as this Author tells us they did the Sun though no body told him so that I know of for Macrobius whom he cites in this Cause does not say that they worshipped the Sun as Supream God though he says that most of the Gods they worshipped did signifie the Sun But suppose the Sun were the chief Object of their Worship and look'd on as the greatest and most principal God this does not prove that they worshipped it as the Supream God for these are two very different things to be worshipped as the chief God which such a People have and to be worshipped under the Notion of Absolutely Supream Some Pagan Idolaters might worship a Creature as their chief and greatest Deity and might call it their great their greatest God because it is the greatest God they have their King and Prince of Gods as Mr. Selden tells us they called the Sun as being the chief Planet who directed and governed the Influences of the rest not as the Maker of the World as this Author asserts But those who direct their Worship to a Supream and Soveraign Being considered as absolutely Supream infinite in all Perfections the Maker and Governour of the whole World can under this Notion worship no other but the Lord Jehovah because there is no other Supream God but he Which shews that the first Commandment is so far from forbidding the Worship of other Supream Gods besides the Lord Jehovah that to make sense of it these other Gods must be expounded not of Supream but inferiour Deities and it is so far from being the Notion of Idolatry to worship other Supream Beings besides the Lord Jehovah that it is Nonsence to suppose it The true Notion of Idolatry in the first Commandment is to worship some Inferiour Beings together with the Supream God It is a grosser sort of Idolatry when men wholly neglect the Worship of the Supream God and worship some Creature for their greatest and chiefest God and it is worse still when men worship bad Spirits than when they worship good Spirits together with the Supream God but it is evident this Law condemns the Worship of any Inferiour Beings though we do also worship the Supream God. I shall give but one Instance more of this nature and that is the second Commandment which in such express words forbids the Worship of all Images of what kind or nature soever Now whatever Reasons men may imagine there are for the Worship of Images they can be of no force against an express Law And if these words be not express Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven image c. I despair of ever seeing an express Law For had God intended
by this Law to forbid the Worship of any Images under what notion or respects soever I would desire to know what more significant and comprehensive words could have been used to have declared his mind unless he had expresly rejected those false Interpretations which the Patrons of Image-Worship have since invented but were never thought on at that time The same Author whom I have so often mentioned having expounded the first Commandment only to a positive sence not to forbid the Worship of other Gods but only to command the Worship of the Lord Jehovah expresly contrary to the very letter and plain sense of the Law agreeably to this he makes the second Commandment only to forbid the Worship of Idols or false Gods and not that neither unless they take them for the Supreme Deity His words are these In the next place he forbids them the Worship of all Idols i.e. as himself describes them the likeness or similitude of any thing that is in Heaven above or in the Earth beneath or in the Water under the Earth A plain and indeed a logical definition this that Idolatry is giving the Worship of the Supream God to any created corporeal or visible Deity or any thing that can be represented by an Image which nothing but corporeal Beings can and to suppose such a Being the Supream Deity is the only true and proper Idolatry Now let any man judge whether this be not such a gloss as utterly destroys the Text. As for his Worship of Idols there is no such word in the Law but Images Likenesses Similitudes but yet I will not dispute about this for an Idol does not only signifie a false God but the Images either of false Gods or false and corporeal Images of the true God. For the Idols of the Heathens as the Psalmist tells us are silver and gold the work of mens hands which can relate to nothing but Images and Pictures for corporeal Deities which were made by God are not the work of mens hands Now Idolatry he says is giving the Worship of the Supream God to any created corporeal or visible Deity or any thing which can be represented by an Image which nothing but corporeal Beings can Now how plain and logical soever this definition of Idolatry be there is not a word of it in the Text. That forbids not the Worship of any created corporeal or visible Deity which is forbid in the first Commandment but only the Worship of Images the likeness of any thing in Heaven or Earth or in the Water under the Earth Now an Image differs from the thing whose Image it is And it is a very strange Exposition of the second Commandment which forbids nothing else but the Worship of Images to take no notice of the Worship of Images as forbid in it According to this gloss upon the Law a man may worship ten thousand Images and Pictures so he do not worship any visible and corporeal Deity and not break this Commandment which I think is not to give the sense of the Law but to expound it away But how does the Worship of corporeal and visible Deities and nothing else appear to be forbid by this Law which mentions nothing at all but the likeness of things in Heaven and Earth and Water Why our learned Author imagines that no Images can be made but only for corporeal and visible Deities because nothing but corporeal Beings can be represented by an Image which Conceit is worth its weight in Gold for it evidently proves that there are no Pictures of God the Father nor of the Trinity in the Church of Rome because they are not corporeal Deities and therefore cannot be represented by an Image so miserably have all Travellers been mistaken who tell us of a great many such Pictures and not very decent ones neither There can indeed be no Picture or Image to represent the likeness and similitude of an incorporeal God but yet the visible parts of Heaven and Earth and the visible Creatures in them may be represented by Images and the Images of such visible things may be made the symbolical representations of invisible and incorporeal Deities and such invisible and incorporeal Deities may be worshipped in the likeness and similitude of corporeal things and then I am sure to forbid the Worship of Images may signifie something more than meerly to forbid the Worship of some visible and corporeal Deities for it may signifie the Worship of invisible and incorporeal Deities by visible Images But I perceive he imagined that when God forbad them to make and worship the likeness of any thing in Heaven in Earth or in the Waters under the Earth he only forbad the Worship of those Beings whose likeness or Images they made whereas all men know that those very Idolaters who worshipped these glorious parts of the Creation did not represent them in their proper likenesses and figures and that those who worshipped invisible and incorporeal Beings did it by material and visible figures which plainly proves that when God forbad the Worship of Images he had not respect meerly to visible and corporeal Deities but forbad Image-worship whether they were the Images of visible and corporeal or of invisible and incorporeal Deities Our Author durst not say as the Roman Advocates do that God in the second Commandment only forbids the Worship of Images as Gods which is such glorious Nonsence that he could not digest it and therefore he supposes that God does not forbid the Worship of Images at all but only of such corporeal Deities as may be represented by Images which is a more gentile way of discarding the second Commandment than to leave it out of their Books of Devotions But if he will stand to this he condemns the Popish Worship of dead Men and Women for they are corporeal Deities nay of Christ himself considered as a man who might be represented by an Image or Picture And thus I doubt he has done the Church of Rome no kindness at all for this is a Demonstration against the Worship of Saints and the Virgin Mary because they are created corporeal and visible Beings who may be represented by Images and he has thought of an Argument against Images which neither the Scripture nor the Church of Rome know any thing of The Church of Rome thinks it a good Argument for the Images of Christ and the Saints and the Virgin Mary that they are representable by Images and Pictures and therefore there can be no hurt in such Images And the Scripture perpetually urges that Argument against Images that the Deity cannot be represented by an Image but neither of these Arguments are good if our Author's Notion be good For then to worship such corporeal Beings as may be represented by Images is to worship corporeal Gods which is Idolatry And there is no danger in the Images of an incorporeal Deity which cannot represent the God for which they are made for whatever the
Aquinas's Rule that the Image must be worshipped with the same Worship which is due to the Proto-type or that Being whose Image it is which is such old Popery as Monsieur De Meaux and the Representer cry shame of well But how does he prove that any Worship was directed to these Cherubims I can find no proof he offers for it but David's Exhortation as he calls it to the People 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to honour the Ark he should have said worship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bow down to or worship his Footstool for it or he is holy Now suppose this did relate to the Ark What is that to the Cherubims When but four Pages before he tells us that the Ark is called God's Footstool and the Cherubims his Throne How then does David's Exhortation to worship the Ark which is God's Footstool prove that all their Worship must be directed to the Cherubims which are his Throne It is pitty that great Wits have but short Memories And yet I fancy our Author would have been much troubled to prove the Ark to be meant by God's Footstool for the Ark was in the Holy of Holies which was a figure of Heaven and neither the Heaven nor any thing in it but the Earth is in Scripture called God's Foot-stool and the Psalmist expresly applies it to Zion and to the Holy Hill which I will not prove was not the Ark. And this I suppose is a sufficient confutation of his Exposition of the words To bow down to or worship his foot-stool for I believe he did not think that Mount Zion or the Holy Hill was the object of worship or the symbol of God's presence but there God was present and that was reason enough to worship at his foot-stool and at his holy hill as our English Translation reads it But now suppose the Jews were to direct their Worship towards the Mercy-seat which was covered with the Cherubims where God had promised to be present how are the Cherubims concerned in this Worship The worship was paid only to God though directed to God as peculiarly present at that place which is no more than to lift up our Eyes and Hands to Heaven where the Throne of God is when we pray to him I grant that bowing to and bowing towards any thing as the Object of Worship is the very same as this Author observes and therefore had the Jews either bowed to or towards the Cherubims as the Objects of their Worship as the Papists bow to or towards their Images they had been equally guilty of Idolatry and the breach of the second Commandment but when bowing To signifies bowing to an object of Worship and bowing towards signifies bowing to this Object of Worship only towards such a place where he is peculiarly present this makes a great difference and this was all the Jews did at most if they did that they bowed to God towards the Mercy-seat where he dwelt without any regard to the Cherubims or Mercy-seat as the Object of Worship which was as invisible to the Jews then as the Throne of God and the Angels in Heaven are now to us and we may as well say that those who lift up their eyes and their hands to Heaven when they pray to God worship the Angels who incircle his Throne because they know that the Angels are there as say that the Jews worshipped their invisible Cherubims because they knew that the Cherubims were there For is there any necessity that the Jews must worship whatever they knew was in the Holy of Holies because they worshipped God towards that place any more than there is that we must worship whatever we know to be in Heaven when we direct our Worship to God in Heaven Men I grant may worship an unseen Object for so we all worship God whom we do not and cannot see but it is a good argument still that the Cherubims were not intended by God for the Objects of Worship because they were concealed from the Peoples sight for I believe the World never heard before of worshipping invisible Images The original intention of Images is to have a visible Object of Worship for an invisible Image can affect us no more than an invisible God and if our Author had consulted all the Patrons of Image-worship whether Pagan or Popish he would have found most of the reasons they alleadge for this Worship to depend on sight and therefore whatever he thought are all lost when a man shuts his eyes A man who directs his worship to an Image may be an Idolater in the dark and with his eyes shut but as blind as Idolaters are there never had been any Image-worship had their Images been as invisible as their Gods and therefore sight has more to do in this matter than our Author was aware of But it seems the High-Priest once a Year did see these Cherubims and adore and worship them But this is another mistake for the Jews did believe that the High-Priest never saw the Cherubims or Mercy-seat even when he went once a Year into the Holy of Holies and they have great reason for what they say since God expresly commanded That when he went into the Holy of Holies he should take a censer full of burning coals of fire from off the altar before the Lord and his hands full of sweet incense beaten small and bring it within the veil And he shall put the incense upon the fire before the Lord that the cloud of the incense may cover the mercy-seat that is upon the testimony that he die not 16. Levit. 12 13. which shews that the Cherubims and Mercy-seat were to be covered with a Cloud of Incense and to become as invisible to the High-Priest within the Veil as to the People without it But suppose the High-Priest did see the Cherubims when he entred within the Veil I have one plain Argument to prove that he did not worship them not only because no act of Worship was commanded him when he went into the Holy Place but because as the Holy of Holies was the figure of Heaven and the Cherubims the types of Angels who stand about the Throne of God so the High-Priest entring into the Holy of Holies was the type of Christ ascending into Heaven with his own Bloud and therefore the High-Priest must do nothing in the Holy of Holies but what was a proper figure and type of what Christ does in Heaven and then he must no more worship the Cherubims which covered the Mercy-seat or the Typical Throne of God than Christ himself when he ascended to Heaven was to worship the Angels who stand about the Throne So that notwithstanding God's command to make two Cherubims and to place them at the two ends of the Mercy-seat in the Holy of Holies all image-Image-Worship was strictly forbid by the Law of Moses and God has provided the most effectual remedy against it by the Incarnation of his Son Mankind have been always fond
and Infinite Spirit who has now confined his peculiar Presence to no place as he formerly did to the Temple at Jerusalem for this was the present Dispute Whether God would be Worshipped at the Temple at Jerusalem or Samaria as I observed above In opposition to which our Saviour tells the Woman that God is a Spirit and therefore not confined to any place he is every-where and present with us every-where and may be worshipped every-where by devout and pious Souls that though for Typical Reasons he had a Typical and Symbolical Presence under the Jewish Dispensation yet this was not so agreeable to his Nature who is a Spirit and therefore he must not now be sought for in Houses of Wood and Stone And indeed the Reformation of the Divine Worship must begin in rectifying our Notions and Apprehensions of God for such as we apprehend God to be such a kind of Worship we shall pay him as is evident from the Rites and Ceremonies of the Pagan Worship which was fitted to the Nature and History of their Gods for where there are no Instituted Rites of Worship all mankind conclude that the Nature of God is the best Rule of his Worship for all Beings are best pleased with such Honours as are suitable to their Natures and no Being can think himself Honoured by such Actions as are a contradiction to his own Nature and Perfections Now if God will be Worshipped more like a pure and infinite Spirit under the Gospel than he was under the Law if this be the fundamental Principle of gospel-Gospel-Worship that God is a Spirit and must be Worshipped as a Spirit I think it is plain that nothing is more unlike a pure Spirit then a material Image nothing more unlike an infinite Spirit which can have no shape or figure then a finite and figured Image made in the likeness of a man or of any thing in Heaven and Earth nothing more unlike an infinite Spirit which is Life and Mind and Wisdom than a dead and senceless Image and if under the Law where God suited his Worship more to a Typical Dispensation than to his own Nature he would not allow of the Worship of Images much less is this an acceptable Worship to him under the Gospel where he will be Worshipped as a pure Spirit for there is nothing in the World more unlike a Living Infinite Omnipotent Omniscient Spirit than a little piece of dead senceless figured Gold or Silver Wood or Stone whatever shape the Carver or Engraver please to give it since God has none Now would any man who understands this that God is a Spirit and will under the Gospel be Worshipped as a Spirit should he go into many Popish Churches and Chappels and see a vast number of Images and Pictures there and People devoutly kneeling before them suspect that these were Christian Oratories or this Christian Worship unless he knew something of the matter before For there you shall find the Pictures of God the Father and the ever Blessed Trinity in different Forms and Representations the Pictures of the Blessed Virgin and other Saints and Martyrs devoutly Adored and Worshipped and would any man guess that this were to Worship God as a pure and infinite Spirit A Spirit cannot be Painted and then to Worship God as a Spirit cannot signifie to look upon any Representation of God when we pray to him which to be sure cannot give us the Idea of an infinite Spirit He who Worships God as a Spirit can have no regard to Matter and Sense but must apply himself to God as to an infinite Mind which no man can do who gazes upon an Image or contemplates God in the art and skill of a Painter for to pray to God in an Image and in the same thought to consider him as a pure and infinite mind is a contradiction for though a man who believes God to be a Spirit may be so absurd as to worship him in an Image yet an Image cannot represent a Spirit to him and therefore either he must not think at all of the Image and then methinks he should not look on an Image when he worships God for that is apt to make him think of it or if he does think of the Image while his mind is filled with such gross and sensible representations it is impossible in the same act to address to God as to a pure invisible and infinite Spirit Which shews how unfit and improper Images are in the Worship of God for they must either be wholly useless and such as a man must not so much as look or think on which is very irreconcileable with that Worship which is paid to them in the Church of Rome or while he is intent upon a Picture or Image his mind is diverted from the contemplation of a pure and infinite Spirit and therefore cannot and does not Worship God as a Spirit And the same is true of the Images of Saints and the Blessed Virgin for though to makes Pictures of Men or Women is no reproach to the Divine Nature since they are not the Pictures or Images of God who is a Spirit but of those Saints whom they are intended to represent yet if all Christian Worship be the Worship of God it is evident that the Worship of Images though they be not the Images of God but of the Saints can be no part of Christian Worship because God must be Worshipped as a Spirit and therefore not by any Image whatsoever Now the Church of Rome will not pretend that the Worship of Saints and their Images is a distinct and separate Worship from the Worship of God but to justifie themselves they constantly affirm that they Worship God in that Worship which they pay to the Saints and their Images for they know that to do otherwise would be to terminate their Worship upon Creatures which they confess to be Idolatry since all Religious Worship must terminate on God and therefore should they give any Religious Worship to Creatures distinct and separate from that Worship they give to God it were Idolatry upon their own principles Now if they Worship God in the Worship of Saints and their Images then they Worship God in the Images of Saints and that I think is to Worship him by Images the Worship of a pure infinite and invisible Spirit will admit of no Images whether of God or Creatures as the Objects or Mediums of Worship But it may be said that this is to graft our own Fancies and Imaginations upon Scripture for though Christ does say that God is a Spirit and must be Worshipped in Spirit he does not say that to Worship God in Spirit is not to Worship him by an Image but to Worship God in Spirit in our Saviour's Discourse with the Woman of Samaria is not opposed to Image-Worship but to confining the Worship of God to a particular place such as the Temple at Jerusalem and Samaria was as I observed above Now to
this I answer 1. To Worship God as a Spirit does in the nature of the thing signifie this for to Worship God by any material or sensible Representations is not to Worship God as a Spirit for an infinite Spirit cannot be represented by matter nor by any shape and figure because it neither is material nor has any figure 2. If God will not have his peculiar Presence confined to any place under the Gospel much less will he be Worshipped by Images and Pictures for it is not such a contradiction to the nature of an infinite Spirit to shew himself more peculiarly present in one place than in another as it is to be Worshipped by sensible Images and Pictures Though God fills all places there may be wise Reasons why he should confine the Acts of Worship to some peculiar place and such Typical Reasons there were for it under the Law but there never can be any Reason why a Spirit should be Represented and Worshipped by an Image which is such a contradiction and dishonour to the nature of the Spirit and therefore when God confined his Symbolical Presence to the Temple at Jerusalem yet he strictly forbad the Worship of Images and much less then will he allow of Image-Worship when he will not so much as have a Temple 3. For we must observe farther that what our Saviour here says God is a Spirit and will be Worshipped in Spirit is not a particular Direction how to Worship God but a general Rule to which the nature of our Worship must be conformed and therefore it is our Rule as far as the plain Reason of it extends Under the Law they were not left to general Rules but God determined the particular Rites and Ceremonies of his Worship himself for under the Law God had not so plainly discovered his own nature to them as he has done by his Son in the Gospel For no man hath seen God at any time but the only begotten son who is in the bosom of the father he hath declared him And therefore the nature of God was never made the Rule of Worship before Tho God was as much a Spirit under the Law as he is under the Gospel yet this was never assigned as a reason against Image-Worship that God is a Spirit but either that they saw no Likeness or Similitude in the Mountain when God spake to them 4 Deut. 15 16. or that he is so great and glorious a Being that nothing in the World is a fit Representation of him To whom then will ye liken God or what likeness will ye compare unto him It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth and the inhabitants thereof are as grashoppers that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in c. But that God is a Spirit who has no shape and figure is a much better Argument against Image-Worship than all this but this God had not so plainly declared to them and if God forbad the Worship of Images when he thought fit to give no other reason for it but that he had never appeared to them in any Likeness or Similitude or that he was too great to be Represented we our selves may now judge how unfit it is to Worship God by an Image since our Saviour has declared that he is a Spirit who has no Likeness or Figure and that now he expects to be Worshipped by us as a Spirit and therefore without any Image or sensible Representation 4. And yet some Learned men think that our Saviour in these Words had as well respect to the Worship of God by Images as to his Worship in the Temple for that he had respect to the Object as well as Place of Worship is evident from what he adds ye worship ye know not what we know what we worship for salvation is of the Jews wherein he informs the Woman that though she inquired only of the place of Worship the Samaritans were guilty of a greater fault than setting up the Temple at Samaria in opposition to the Temple at Jerusalem viz. in a false Object or an Idolatrous manner of Worship they Worshipping a Dove as the Symbol and Representation of God and thus to Worship God in Spirit is expresly opposed to Worshipping God by Images 5 ly However this comes much to one for if God being a Spirit his Worship must not be confined to any place or Symbolical Presence then he must not be Worshipped by an Image for an Image is a Representative Presence of God or of the Saints for the use of Images is to represent that Being whom we Worship as present to us and therefore if men consider what they do they go to Images as to Divine Presences to Worship Images which are set up in Churches and Chappels for the Worship of God or of the Saints are confined to places and make those places as much appropriate and peculiar places of Worship as the Jewish Temple was excepting that the Temple was but one and they are many Heathen Temples were the Houses of their Gods or of their Images which were the Presence of their Gods and if we must not appropriate the Presence of God to any place then we must not Worship him by Images which are of no use but to represent God as sensibly present with the Image or in the place where the Image is If God be better Worshipped before an Image than without one then the Worship of God is more confined to that place where an Image is than to those places which have no Images I cannot see how to avoid this that if God must be Worshipped by Images than there must be appropriate places of Worship viz. where the Image is if there be no appropriate places of Worship under the Gospel like the Temple at Jerusalem then God must not be Worshipped by Images for an Image must be in some place and if God must be Worshipped at or before his Image then that is the proper and peculiar place of Worship where his Image is nay though the Image be not fixt to any place but be carried about with us yet if we must Worship God by Images the Image is not only the Object but makes the place of Worship for there we must Worship God where his Image is if we must Worship him before his Image It is impossible to separate the Notion of Image-Worship from the Notion of a peculiar and appropriate place of Worship for the Image determines the place as the Presence of the Object does and as under the Gospel we may Worship God any where because he is an infinite Spirit and fills all places and is equally present with all devout Worshippers where-ever they Worship him So where the Image is Consecrated for a Divine Presence it is not only the Object but the peculiar place of Worship because God is peculiarly present there or more acceptably worshipped there than where there is no
Image So that if a peculiar and appropriate place of worship be contrary to the notion of an infinite Spirit the worship of Images is much more so for besides that they are gross and corporeal representations of a Spirit they are Divine Presences too and appropriate places of worship Secondly As God must be worshipped under the notion of a Spirit so under the character of a Father as our Saviour expresly tells us The hour cometh and now is when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in Spirit and truth for the Father seeketh such to worship him and therefore he taught his Disciples to pray Our Father which art in heaven Under the Law God was worshipped as a King and that not so much as the King of the whole world but as in a peculiar manner the King of Israel The Lord reigneth let the people tremble he sitteth between the Cherubims in his Temple at Jerusalem let the earth be moved The Lord is great in Zion and he is high above all people But under the Gospel the peculiar character of God is a Father and that not only as he is the maker of all men and so the Father of all but as he is the Father of Christ and in him the Father of all Christians Now this makes a vast difference in our worship from what is daily practised in the Church of Rome For 1. When we pray to God as our Father we must pray to him as dwelling in Heaven as our Saviour teaches us to say Our Father which art in Heaven For as a Father Heaven is his House and Habitation in my Fathers House are many mansions that is in in Heaven which is his House as a Father as the Temple at Jerusalem was his Palace considered as the King of Israel and this is one reason our Saviour intimates why the presence of God shall no longer be confined to any particular place or Temple because he shall be worshipped as the universal Father not as the King of Jury Now when he is to be worshipped as a Father from all parts of the world he must have such a Throne and presence to which all the World may equally resort and that can be no other then his Throne in Heaven whither we may send up our Prayers from all Corners of the Earth but had he confined his Presence to any place on Earth as he did to the Temple of Jerusalem the rest of the World must have been without God's peculiar Presence could have had no Temple nor place of Worship but at such a distance that they could never have come at it for though God fills all places it is a great absurdity to talk of more Symbolical Presences of God than one for a Symbolical Presence confines the unlimited Presence of God to a certain place in order to certain ends as to receive the Worship that is paid him and to answer the Prayers that are made to him and to have more than One such Presence as this is like having more Gods than One. So that all our Worship under the Gospel must be directed to God in Heaven and that is a plain argument that we must not Worship God in Images on Earth for they neither can represent to us the Majesty of God in Heaven nor is God present with the Image to receive our Worship there if God must now be Worshipped as dwelling in Heaven it is certain there can be no Object of our Worship on Earth for though God fill all places with his Presence yet he will be Worshipped only as sitting on his Throne in Heaven and then I am sure he must not be Worshipped in an Image on Earth for that is not his Throne in Heaven This the Mercy-seat in the Holy of Holies was an Emblem of for the Holy of Holies in the Jewish Temple did signifie Heaven and the Mercy-seat covered with Cherubims signified the Throne of God in Heaven whither we must lift up our Eyes and Hearts when we pray to him for though it is indifferent from what place we put up our Prayers to God while we have regard to the External Decency of Religious Worship yet it is not indifferent whither we direct our Prayers for we must direct our Prayers to the throne of grace if we would obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need Now the Throne of Grace is only in Heaven whither Christ is ascended to make Atonement for us for he is the true Propitiatory or Mercy-seat And therefore if to direct our Prayers to God to his Picture or Image or to the Images of the Virgin Mary or any other Saints did not provoke God to jealousie yet it would do us no good unless such Images are God's Throne of Grace for all other Prayers are lost which are not directed to God on his Throne of Grace where alone he will receive our Petitions If a Prince would receive no Petitions but what were presented to him sitting on such a Throne all men would be sensible how vain a thing it were to offer any Petition to him else-where And yet thus it is here A Sinner dare not must not approach the Presence of God but only on his Mercy-seat and Throne of Grace for any where else our God is a Consuming Fire a Just and a Terrible Judge now God has but one Throne of Grace and that is in Heaven as the Mercy-seat was in the Holy of Holies which was a Type of Heaven thither Christ ascended with his Bloud to sprinkle the Mercy-seat and to cover it with a Cloud of Incense which are the Prayers of the Saints as the High-Priest did once a Year in the Typical Holy Place Which is a plain proof that all our Prayers must be immediately directed to God in Heaven where Christ dwells who is our true Propitiatory and Mercy-seat who has sprinkled the Throne of God with his own Bloud and has made it a Throne of Grace and where he offers up our Prayers as Incense to God. 2. To Worship God as our Father signifies to Worship him only in the Name and Mediation of his Son Jesus Christ for he is our Father only in Jesus Christ and we can call him Father in no other Name By the right of Creation he is our Lord and our Judge but he is the Father of Sinners only by Adoption and Grace and we are Adopted only in Christ so that if Christian Worship be the Worship of God as a Father then we must pray to God in no other Name but of his own Eternal Son The Virgin Mary though she were the Mother of Christ yet does not make God our Father and then no other Saint I presume will pretend to it which shews what a contradiction the Invocation of Saints is to the Nature of Christian Worship and how unavailable to obtain our requests of God. If we must Worship God only as our Father then we must Worship him only in the Name of
Image be this is not to worship a corporeal God since we know him to be incorporeal and therefore it is not Idolatry But he has one Salvo still to excuse those from Idolatry who worship even corporeal Gods for he speaks not a word of worshipping the Images of any Gods that they are not Idolaters unless they worship such corporeal Gods supposing them to be the Supream Deity whereby he explains what he means by giving the Worship of the Supream God to any created corporeal or visible Deity viz. to think such a God to be the Supream God is to worship it as Supream And thus those who worshipped the Sun not thinking him to be the Supream God but the chief Minister of Providence under the Supream God with reference to this Lower World as most of the Sun-Idolaters seemed to do were not Idolaters Nay very few of the Philosophers though they worshipped their Country Gods were Idolaters because they either did not believe them to be any Gods or at least not to be the Supream as it is certain Socrates and Plato and Tully and many others did not But it is plain that to worship the Supream God is not meerly to suppose him to be Supream for St. Paul tells us that there were some who knew God but did not worship him as God and therefore there is an external and visible Worship which is due to the Supream God as well as the belief that he is Supream And if this Worship which is due to the Supream God be given to any Being which we our selves do not believe to be Supream we are Idolaters and then though we do not believe the Gods we worship to be Supream any kind or degree of Religious Worship or which is used as an Act of Religion not as common and civil Respects is Idolatry This Commandment brings it as low as meerly bowing to an Image and then I doubt no other Act of Religious Worship can escape the Charge of Idolatry But though it is not my business to persue this Author I cannot pass over the very next Paragraph where he observes Though there may seem to be two sorts of it this Idolatry in worshipping corporeal Beings first either to worship a material and created Being as the Supream Deity Or secondly to ascribe any corporeal form or shape to the Divine Nature yet in result both are but one for to ascribe unto the Supreme God any corporeal form is the same thing as to worship a created Being for so is every corporeal Substance Which is a very wonderful Paragraph for thus some of the Ancient Christians who believed God to be Corporeal as Tertullian himself did but yet did not believe that he was created but that he created all things were as very Idolaters as those who Worshipped the Sun or Earth And I would gladly know who those men are who ascribe unto the Supreme God a Corporeal form and yet think that he was Created I am apt to think they differ a little in their Philosophy from our Author and did believe that a Corporeal Supreme Deity might be uncreated and then I suppose there may be some difference also between their worshipping a Corporeal Created and a Corporeal Uncreated God at least if mens Belief and Opinions of things makes a difference as this Author must allow for if I understand him to Worship a corporeal Being without believing it to be Supreme does not make them Idolaters but if they believe it Supreme it does and by the same reason thô to Worship a Supreme Corporeal Created Deity if that be not a contradiction be Idolatry yet to Worship a Corporeal which they believe to be an uncreated Deity is no Idolatry For though I believe with our Author that all corporeal Beings are Created yet I suppose those who believed God to be Corporeal did not believe that every thing that is Corporeal was Created So that the first and second Commandments are very plain and express Laws the one forbidding the Religious Worship of all inferiour Beings corporeal or incorporeal with or without the Supreme God or forbidding the Worship of all other Beings but the Supreme God the other forbidding the External and Visible Worship of any material Images and Pictures And though I am certain there can be no good Arguments to justifie such Practices as are forbid by these Laws yet no Christian need trouble himself to answer them for be they what they will it is a sufficient answer to them to say That they are against an express Law. 2. Another Rule is in matters of Faith or in such things as can be known onely by Revelation Not to build our Faith upon any Reasons without the Authority of Scripture That this may be the better understood I shall briefly shew what these things are which can be known onely by Revelation and therefore which every Protestant should demand a plain Scripture Proof for before he believes them whatever Reasons are pretended for them As 1. Whatever depends solely upon the will and appointment of God which God might do or might not do as he pleased In such cases our onely inquiry is What God has done And this can be known onely by Revelation for Reason cannot discover it because it depends not upon any necessary Reason but on the free and arbitrary appointment of God as St. Paul tells us That as no man knows the things of a man but the spirit of man that is in him so no man knoweth the things of God but the spirit of God That is as no man can tell the secret thoughts and purposes of a man nor how he will determine himself in matters of his own free choice and election so what depends purely upon the will of God is known onely to the Spirit of God and therefore can be made known to us onely by Revelation Many such things there are in dispute between us and the Church of Rome which depend so intirely upon the Will of God that they may be or may not be as God pleases As for instance No man nor company of men can be Infallible unless God bestow Infallibility on them for Infallibility is not a natural Endowment but a supernatural Gift and therefore no Reason can prove the Bishop of Rome or a General Council to be Infallible God may make them Infallible if he pleases and if he pleases he may not do it and therefore our onely inquiry here is What God has done And this can be known onely by Revelation Thus that the Church of Rome onely and those Churches that are in Communion with her should be the Catholick Church and the Bishop of Rome the Oecumenical Pastor and the Center of Catholick Unity must depend wholly upon Institution for nothing but the Will and Appointment of God can give this Preheminence and Prerogative to the Church and Bishop of Rome above all other Churches and Bishops No Reason then can prove this without plain and express Scripture to
out Idolatrous Worship but by excusing it by making that to be no Idolatry in a Christian who knows God which was Idolatry in a Heathen who did not know him for if as some say none can be guilty of Idolatry who acknowledge one Supream Being then the Heathens when once they were instructed in the knowledge of the one true God might have Worshipped all their Country Gods which they did before without being guilty of Idolatry which is as if I should say that man is a Rebel who through mistake and ignorance owns any man for his Prince who is not his Prince but he is no Rebel who knows his lawful Prince and pays Homage to another whom he knows not to be his Prince And therefore our Saviour confines all Religious Worship to God alone Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve It is his Answer to the Devil when he tempted him to fall down and worship him but he gives such an answer as excludes all Creatures not only bad but good Spirits from any share in Religious Worship Our Saviour does not deny to worship him meerly because he was the Devil tho' that a man may do without the guilt of Idolatry who knows him to be the Devil if those men are in the right who allow nothing to be Idolatry but to worship some Being for the Supreme God who is not Supreme for then you may worship the Devil without the guilt of Idolatry if you do not believe him to be the Supreme God but our Saviour's reason for not worshipping him was because we must Worship none but God. Which is as good a reason against the worship of the most glorious Angel as of the Devil himself Nay our Saviour denies to worship him though the Devil made no terms with him about the kind or degrees of Worship He does not require him to offer Sacrifice to him which is the only Act of Worship the Church of Rome appropriates to the Supreme God but only to bow down before him as an expression of Religious Devotion he did not demand that degree of Worship which the Church of Rome calls Latria and appropriates to the Supreme God nay he confesses that he was not the Supreme God for he does not pretend to dispose of the Kingdoms of the World in his own right but says they were given to him and he had power to give them to whom he pleased in which he acknowledges that he had a Superiour and therefore could not in the same breath desire to be owned and worshipped as the Supreme But our Saviour denies to give him this inferiour degree of Worship and thereby teaches us that no degree of Religious Worship must be given to any Being but the Supreme God. And because Mankind were very apt to worship inferiour Daemons as believing them to have the care of this lower World and that it was in their power to do great good to them to answer their Prayers and to mediate for them with the Superiour Deities or with the Supreme God if they believed one Supreme which appears to be a received Notion among them to prevent this kind of Idolatry God advances his own Son to be the universal Mediator and the Supreme and Soveraign Lord of the World that all Mankind should make their Addresses and Applications to him and offer up their Prayers only in his Name that in him they should find acceptance and in no other name Which was the most effectual way to put an end to the Worship of all inferiour Deities and Creature-Patrons and Advocates for when we are assured that no other Being can Mediate for us with effect and power but only Christ it is natural to Worship no other Mediator but him who being the eternal Son of God may be worshipped without danger of Idolatry Thus St. Paul tells us That tho' the Heathen world had Gods many and Lords many yet to us there is but one God the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ One Supreme and Soveraign Deity and one Mediator between God and men Now this being so apparently one end of Christ's coming into the World to Suppress the Idolatry of Creature-Worship and to confine all Religious worship to one Supreme Being in opposition to the many Gods of the Heathens and to teach us to make our Applications to this one God by one Mediator in opposition to the worship of inferiour Deities can any man imagine that the worship of Saints and Angels and the Virgin Mary can be any part of the Christian Religion For how dear soever they are to God they are but his Creatures and if Soveraign Princes will not receive their greatest Favourites into their Throne much less will God. If God under the Gospel dispensation has taken care to prevent the Worship of inferiour Beings by appointing his own Son to be our only Mediator and Advocate can we imagine that he ever intended we should offer up our Prayers to other Mediators If he had liked the Mediation of Creatures would he have given his own Son to be our Priest and our Mediator Whatever fair pretences may be made for this it apparently contradicts the Gospel-dispensation for if we must own but one God he alone must be worshipped if we have but one Mediator we must offer up our Prayers only in his Name and Intercession The Religious Worship of Creatures is Idolatry and if God intended to root Idolatry out of the World by the Gospel of Christ he could never intend to set up the Worship of Saints and the Virgin Mary which tho' it have not all the aggravations of Pagan Idolatry yet is Creature-worship Thus we know how fond the Heathens were of material Images and Pictures to represent their Gods as visibly present with them and to receive Religious Worship in their stead not that they did believe their Gods to be Corporeal or that their Corporeal Images were proper Likenesses of their Gods in which a late Author places the whole of Idolatry which I confess was agreeable enough to his design to find out such a Notion of Idolatry as it may be no Persons in the World were ever guilty of and then he might excuse whom he pleased from Idolatry But the Heathens were not such great Sots as this account makes them as the Learned Founder of all Anti-Catholick and Anti-christian Principles as this Author is pleased to stile a very great man whose Name will be Venerable to future Ages has abundantly proved But they wanted some material Representations of their Gods in which they might as it were see them present and offer up their Petitions to them and court them with some visible and sensible Honours Now to cure this Idolatry tho' God would not allow any Images or Pictures for Worship yet by the Law of Moses he appoints them to build an House or Temple for himself where he would dwell among them and place the Symbols of his Presence there was
the Mercy-seat and the Cherubims covering the Mercy-seat and there God promised Moses to meet with him and to commune with him from between the two Cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony Now this was a Symbolical Representation of God's Throne in Heaven where he is surrounded with Angels as we know the Holy of Holies itself was a Figure of Heaven and therefore the Jews when they were absent from the Temple prayed towards it and in the Temple as is thought towards the Mercy-seat as the place of God's peculiar Residence as now when we pray we lift up our eyes and hands to Heaven where God dwells So that under the Law God had a peculiar place for Worship and peculiar Symbols of his Presence but no Images to represent his Person or to be the Objects of Worship I know some Roman Doctors would fain prove the Cherubims to have been the Objects of Worship and which is more wonderful a late Bishop of the Church of England has taken some pains to prove the same and thereby to justifie the Worship of Images in the Church of Rome and before I proceed I shall briefly Examine what he has said in this Cause One would a little wonder who reads the Second Commandment which so severely forbids the Worship of Images that God himself should set up Images in his own Temple as the Objects of Worship and a modest man would have been a little cautious how he had imputed such a thing to God which is so direct a contradiction to his own Laws That the Cherubims were Statues or Images whatever their particular Form was I agree with our Author and that is the only thing I agree with him in For 1. That they were Sacred Images set up by God himself in the place of his own Worship I deny For the Holy of Holies where the Ark was placed and the Mercy-seat over the Ark and the Cherubims at the two ends spreading their Wings and covering the Mercy-seat was not the place of Worship but the place of God's Presence The place of Worship is the place wherein men worship God now it is sufficiently known that none of the Jews were permitted to go into the Holy of Holies nor so much as to look into it and therefore it could not be the place of their Worship the Holy of Holies was the Figure of Heaven and therefore could be no more the place of Worship to the Jews than Heaven now is to us while we dwell on Earth The High Priest indeed entered into the Holy of Holies once a year with the Blood of the Sacrifice which was a Type of Christ's entring into Heaven with his own Blood and yet the Priest went thither not to Worship but to make an Atonement which I take to be two very different things however if you will call this Worship it has no relation to any Worship on Earth but to what is done by Christ in Heaven of whom the High Priest was a Type And this I think is a demonstration that the placing of Cherubims to cover the Mercy-seat in the Holy of Holies does not prove the lawful use of Images in Temples or Churches or in the Worship of God on Earth if it proves any thing it must prove the Worship of God by Images in Heaven of which the Holy of Holies was a Figure and if any man can be so foolish as to imagine that let them make what they please of it so they do but excuse us from worshipping God by Images on Earth 2. That these Cherubims were the most solemn and sacred part of the Jewish Religion that nothing is more remarkable in all the old Testament than the honour done to the Cherubims that an outward worship was given to these Images as Symbols of the Divine presence that the High Priest adored these Cherubims once a year as this Author asserts I utterly deny and he has not given us one word to prove it For the Cherubims were so far from being the most solemn and sacred part of the Jewish Religion that they were no part at all of it if by Religion he means Worship for there was no regard at all had to the Cherubims in the Jewish Worship and it is so far from being remarkable in the Old Testament that there is not the least footstep or intimation of any honour at all done to the Cherubims There is nothing in Scripture concerning them but the command to make them and place them at the two ends of the Mercy-Seat and that God is said to dwell between the Cherubims and to give forth his Oracles and Responses from that place but I desire to learn where the Jews are commanded to direct their Worship to or towards the Cherubims where the High Priest is commanded to adore the Cherubims once a year or what Protestant grants he did so as this Author insinuates He supposes the Cherubims to have been the Symbols of Gods presence and his representations and that the Jews directed their worship to them as such and that is to worship God by Images or to give the same Signs of Reverence to his Representations as to himself but how does it appear that the Cherubims were the Symbols of Gods presence God indeed is said to sit between the Cherubims and he promised Moses to commune with him from between the Cherubims but the Cherubims were no Symbols of Gods presence much less a representation of him if any thing was the Symbolical presence of God it was the Mercy Seat which was a kind of Figurative Throne or Chair of State but the Cherubims were only Symbolical representations of those Angels who attend and encompass Gods Throne in Heaven and were no more representations of God or Symbols of his presence then some great Ministers of State are of the King as this Author himself acknowledges when he makes the four beasts in the Revelations Rev. 4.6 7. which stood round about the Throne to be an allusion to the representation of the immediate Divine Presence in the Ark by the Cherubims if he had said to the Cherubims covering the Mercy Seat which was his Figurative Throne and where he was invisibly present without any visible Figures or Symbols of his presence he had said right for the Cherubims which covered the Mercy Seat were no more Symbols of Gods Presence than the four Beasts which stood before the Throne are the presence of God or then some great Courtiers or Ministers of State who attend the King are the presence of the King They attend the King where ever he is and so may be some sign of his presence but are not a symbolical presence as a Chair of State is But it seems our Author imagined that the Cherubims were such Symbols of Gods presence and such representations of him as Images were of the Pagan Gods and therefore might be worshipped with the same signs of reverence as God himself was according to
of some visible Deity and because God cannot be seen they have gratified their Superstition by making some visible Images and Representations of an invisible God now to take them off from mean corporeal Images and Representations which are both a dishonour to the Divine Nature and debase the minds of men God has given us a visible Image of Himself has cloathed his own eternal Son with Humane Nature who is the brightness of his Father's glory and the express image of his person 1. Hebr. 3. And therefore St. John tells us That the word was made flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory the glory as of the only begotten of the Father full of grace and truth 1 John 14. And for this reason when Philip was desirous to see the Father Shew us the Father and it sufficeth Christ tells him that the Father is to be seen onely in the Son who is his visible Image and Glory Jesus saith unto him Have I been so long time with you and yet hast thou not seen me Philip He that hath seen me hath seen the Father and how sayest thou then Shew us the Father 14 John 8 9. This was one end of Christ's Incarnation that we might have a visible Deity a God Incarnate to represent the Father to us who is the living and visible Image of God and there could not be a more effectual way to make men despise all dead material Representations of God than to have God visibly represented to us in our own Nature It is true Christ is not visible to us now on earth but he is visible in Heaven and we know he is the only visible Image of God and that is enough to teach us that we must make and adore no other He is as visible to us in Heaven as the Mercy Seat in the Holy of Holies was to the Jews and is that true propitiatory of which the mercy seat was a Type and Figure 3 Rom. 25. Him hath God set forth to be a propitiation through Faith in his blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Mercy-seat as that word is used 9 Heb. 5. He is the natural Image of God and his Mercy-seat or Presence and Throne of Grace he is his visible Image tho' he cannot be seen by us for the Typical Mercy Seat in the Holy of Holies did praefigure that his residence should be in Heaven and therefore invisible to us on earth but there we may see him by Faith and there he will receive our Prayers and present them to his Father Now then to sum up this Argument since it was one main design of Christs appearance to root all the remains of Idolatrous Worship out of the world is it credible that the Worship of Saints and Angels and the Virgin Mary the worship of Images and Reliques as it is practised in the Church of Rome should be any part of Christian Worship or allowed by the Gospel of our Saviour If Creature-worship and Image-worship were so offensive to God here is the Worship of Creatures and Images still and therefore all the visible Idolatry that ever was practised in the world before All that they can pretend is that they have better Notions of the Worship of Saints and Angels and Images than the Heathens had but whether they have or no will be hard to prove The Pagan Philosophers made the same Apologies for their Worship of Angels and Daemons and Images which the Learned Papists now make and whether unlearned Papists have not as gross Notions about their Worship of Saints and Images as the unlearned Heathens had is very doubtful and has been very much suspected by learned Romanists themselves But suppose there were some difference upon this account can we think that Christ who came to root out all Idolatrous Worship intended to set up a new kind of creature-Creature-Worship and image-Image-Worship in greater pomp and glory than ever and only to rectifie mens Opinions about it Suppose the Idolatry of creature-Creature-Worship and image-Image-Worship does consist onely in mens gross Notions about it yet we see under the Law to prevent and cure this God did not go about to rectifie their Opinions of these things but absolutely forbids the Worship of all Images and of any other Being but himself which methinks he would not have done had there been such great advantages in the Worship of Saints and Angels and Images as the Romanists pretend and when God in the Law of Moses forbad all Creature and Image Worship can we think that Christ who came to make a more perfect Reformation should only change their Country Gods into Saints and Angels and the Virgin Mary and give new names to their Statues and Images Which whatever he had taught about it instead of curing Idolatry had been to set up that same kind of Worship which the Law of Moses absolutely forbad and condemned as Idolatry When God to cure the Idolatrous Worship of inferiour Daemons as their Mediators and Advocates with the Supreme God sent his own Son into the World to be our Mediator can we think that he intended after this that we should worship Angels and Saints and the Virgin Mary as our Mediators When God has given us a visible Image of himself his Eternal and Incarnate Son whom we may Worship and Adore did he still intend that we should worship material and sensible Images of Wood or Stone By the Incarnation of his own Son God did indeed take care to rectifie mens mistakes about Creature-Worship and to cut off all pretences for it Those who pleaded that vast distance between God and men and how unfit it was that Sinners should make their immediate approaches to the Supreme God and therefore worshipped inferiour Daemons as middle Beings between God and man have now no pretence for this since God has appointed his own Son to be our Mediator Those who worshipped Images as the visible Representations of an invisible God have now a visible Object of Worship a God Incarnate a God in the nature and likeness of a Man and though we do not now see him yet we have the notion of a visible God and Mediator to whom we can direct our Prayers in Heaven which is satisfaction enough even to men of more gross and material Imaginations without any artificial and senseless Representations of the Deity And was all this done that men might worship Creatures and Images without Idolatry or rather was it not done to cure mens inclinations to commit Idolatry with Creatures and Images Whoever believes that the Gospel of our Saviour was intended as a Remedy against Idolatry can never be perswaded that it allows the Worship of Saints and Images which if it be not Idolatry is so exactly like it in all external appearance that the allowance of it does not look like a proper cure for Idolatry SECT II. Concerning the great Love of GOD to Mankind and the Assurances of Pardon and Forgiveness which the Gospel gives to all Penitent
all these Jewish Rites and has Instituted nothing in the room of them excepting the two Sacraments Baptism and the Lord's Supper which are of a very different Nature and Use as we shall see presently He did not indeed while he was on Earth blame the Observation of the Law of Moses which till that time was in full force and which he observed himself but he blamed the External Superstitions of the Pharisees in washing Cups and Platters and making broad their Phylacteries and thinking themselves very righteous persons for their scrupulous observation even of the Law of Moses in paying Tithe of Mint and Cummin c. while they neglected the weightier matters of the Law judgement mercy and faith 23 Mat. 23. But when our Saviour was Risen from the Dead and had accomplished all the Types and Shadows of the Law then the Apostles with greater freedom opposed a Legal and External Righteousness and though they did for a time indulge the Jews in the Observation of the Rites of Moses yet they asserted the Liberty of the Gentile Converts from that Yoke as we may see in the first Council at Antioch and in St. Paul's Disputes with the Jews in his Epistles to the Romans and Galatians and elsewhere And indeed whoever considers the Nature of the Christian Religion will easily see that all those ends which such External Rites served either in the Jewish or Pagan Religion have no place here and therefore nothing that is meerly External can be of any use or value in the Christian Worship As to show this particularly 1. There is no expiation or satisfaction for sin under the Gospel but only the Blood of Christ and therefore all External Rites are useless to this purpose Him and him only God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood Death was the punishment of sin and Death is the only expiation of it and none else has died for our sins but Christ alone and therefore he only is a propitiation for our sins and yet we know how great a part both of the Pagan and Jewish Religion was taken up in the expiation of sin all their Sacrifices to be sure were designed for this purpose and so were their Washings and Purifications in some degree and many other voluntary Severities and Superstitions this being the principal thing they intended in their Religious Rites to appease God and make him propitious to them since then Christ has made a full and compleat satisfaction and atonement for sin and there is no expiation or satisfaction required of us all external Rites for expiation and atonement can have no place in the Christian Worship without denying the atonement of Christ and this necessarily strips Christian Religion of a vast number of external Rites practised both by Jews and Heathens 2 ly Nor does the Gospel admit of any legal Uncleannesses and Pollutions distinction between clean and unclean Meats which occasioned so many Laws and Observances both among Jews and Heathens so many ways of contracting legal Uncleanness and so many ways to expiate it and so many Laws about Eating and Drinking and such Superstition in Washing Hands and Cups and Platters but our Saviour told his Disciples Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth the man but that which cometh out of the mouth this defileth the man. For whatsoever entreth into the mouth goeth into the belly and is cast out into the draught but those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts murders adulteries fornications thefts false witnesses blasphemies these are the things which defile a man but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man. And this also delivers Christian Religion from all those Rites and Observances which concerned legal cleanness which were very numerous 3 ly Nor is there any Symbolical Presence of God under the Gospel which puts an end to the legal Holiness of Places and Things God dwelt among the Jews in the Temple at Jerusalem where were the Symbols and Figures of his Presence it was God's House and therefore a holy place and every thing that belonged to it had a legal Holiness for the Holiness of Things and Places under the Law was derived from their relation to God and his Presence this was the only place for their Typical and Ceremonial Worship whither all the Males of the Children of Israel were to resort three times a year and where alone they were to offer their Sacrifices and Oblations to God the very place gave Virtue to their Worship and Sacrifices which were not so acceptable in other places nay which could not be offered in other places without sin as is evident from Jeroboam's sin in setting up the Calves at Dan and Bethel for places of Worship and the frequent Complaints of the Prophets against those who offered Sacrifices in the High Places and therefore the Dispute between the Jews and Samaritans was which was the place of Worship whether the Temple at Jerusalem or Samaria but Christ tells the Woman of Samaria that there should be no such distinction of places in the Christian Worship Woman believe me the hour cometh when ye shall neither in this mountain nor yet at Jerusalem worship the father But the hour cometh and now is when the true worshippers shall worship the father in spirit and in truth Not as if the Father should not be Worshipped neither at Jerusalem nor Samaria but that neither the Temple at Jerusalem nor Samaria should be the peculiar and appropriate place of Worship that God's Presence and Worship should no longer be confined to any one place that the Holiness of the place should no longer give any value to the Worship but those who worshipped God in spirit and in truth should be accepted by him where-ever they worshipped him Such Spiritual Worship and Worshippers shall be as acceptable to God at Samaria as at Jerusalem and as much in the remotest Corners of the Earth as at either of them for God's Presence should no longer be confined to any one place but he would hear our devout Prayers from all parts of the World where-ever they were put up to him and consequently the Holiness of places is lost which consists only in some peculiar Divine Presence and with the Holiness of places the external and legal Holiness of things ceases also for all other things were Holy only with relation to the Temple and the Temple Worship For indeed God's Typical Presence in the Temple was only a Figure of the Incarnation Christ's Body was the true Temple where God dwelt for which reason he calls his Body the Temple Destroy this Temple and I will raise it up in three days And the Apostle assures us that the fulness of the Godhead dwelt in Christ Bodily 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 really and substantially in opposition to God's Typical Presence in the material Temple and therefore
obscure unintelligible and useless more severe and intollerable then the Jewish Yoke itself which St. Peter tells the Jews neither they nor their Fathers were able to bear it is indeed almost all Outside and Pageantry as unlike the Plainness and Simplicity of the Gospel-Worship as Show and Ceremony can make it It is true external and visible Worship must consist of external Actions and must be performed with such grave and decent circumstances of time and place and posture and habit as become the Solemnity of Religious Worship this Reason and Nature teaches and this the Church of England prudently observes whose Ceremonies are not Religious Rites but decent Circumstances of Worship few in number as the necessary Circumstances of Action are but few and Grave and Solemn in their use but this is not to place Religion in any thing that is external but only to pay an external Homage and Worship to God which differ as Worshipping God in a Decent Habit differs from the Religion of Consecrated Habits and Vestments or as praying to God with an audible Voice differs from placing Religion in Words and Sounds which we do not understand or as Kneeling at receiving the Sacrament differs from a Bodily Worship of the Host in bowing the knee But though the bare number of external Ceremonies which are always the Seat of Superstition be a great corruption of the Christian Worship yet the number of them is the least fault of the Ceremonies of the Church of Rome as will appear if we consider a little their nature For 1. Most of their external Rites are professedly intended as Expiations and Satisfactions for their Sins This is the Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome that notwithstanding the satisfaction made by Christ every Sinner must satisfie for his own Sins or have the satisfaction of other mens applied to him out of the Treasury of the Church by the Pope's Indulgences this is the meaning of all external Penances in Whippings Fastings Pilgrimages and other superstitious Severities their Backs or their Feet or their Bellies must pay for their Sins unless they can redeem them out of their Pockets too now it is plain that these are such external Superstitions as can have no place in the Christian Religion which allows of no other expiation or satisfaction for Sin but the Blood of Christ. 2 ly Those distinctions between Meats which the Church of Rome calls Fasting for a Canonical Fast is not to abstain from Food but only from such Meats as are forbid on Fasting Days can be no part of Christian Worship because the Gospel allows of no distinction between clean and unclean things and therefore of no distinction of Meats neither for meat commendeth us not to God 1 Cor. 8. 8. The Church of Rome indeed does not make such a distinction between clean and unclean Beasts as the Law of Moses did and therefore is the more absurd in forbidding the eating of Flesh or any thing that comes of Flesh as Eggs or Milk or Cheese or Butter on their Fasting Days which is to impose a new kind of Jewish Yoke upon us when the reason of it is ceased For there is no imaginable reason why it should be an Act of Religion meerly to abstain from Flesh if Flesh have no legal uncleanness and if it had we must all turn Carthusians and never eat Flesh for how should it be clean one day and unclean another is not easie to understand I am sure St. Paul makes this part of the Character of the Apostacy of the latter days that they shall Command to abstain from meats which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth For every creature of God is good and nothing to be refused if it be received with thanksgiving For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer And let no man judge you in meat or drink wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world why as though living in the world are ye subject to ordinances touch not tast not handle not which all are to perish with the using after the Commandments and Doctrines of men And yet though they do not own the legal distinctions between clean and unclean things their Consecrations would perswade one that there were something more than a meer legal uncleanness in all Creatures viz. that they are all possessed by the Devil and wicked Spirits for when they Consecrate Salt and Water to make their Holy-water they first exorcise both the Salt and Water to cast the Devil out of them and if such innocent Creatures are possessed I doubt none can escape which has made me sometimes wonder that they durst eat any thing before it was first exorcised for fear the Devil should take possession of them with their meat It is certain if the Christian Religion takes away all such distinctions between Meat and Drinks the meer abstaining from Flesh can be no part of Christian Worship much less so satisfactory and meritorious as the Church of Rome pretends when such Abstinence is appointed as a satisfactory Penance 3 dly As for the Religion of Holy Places Altars Vestments Utensils the Church of Rome has infinitely out-done the Jewish Laws instead of one Temple at Jerusalem they have thousands to the full as Holy and Sacred as that as may appear from their Rites of Consecration Though herein I confess they differ that the Temple of Jerusalem was only God's House and that alone made it a Holy Place because God was there peculiarly present but the Popish Churches derive their Sanctity not so much from the presence of God for then they would be all equally Holy as from some great and eminent Saint who is peculiarly Worshipped there It is a great argument of the opinion men have of the Holiness of any place to go in Pilgrimage to it not meerly in Curiosity but Devotion as if either going so far to see the place were in itself an act of Religion or their Prayers would be better heard there than if they prayed at home Thus they travel to Jerusalem to visit the Holy Land and the Sepulchre and this may be thought in honour of our Saviour who Lived and Died and was Buried there but otherwise I know not any Church or Chappel which the most devout Pilgrims think worth visiting meerly upon the account of God or Christ The several Churches or Chappels of the Virgin especially those which are the most famed for Miracles or the Churches where the Reliques of some great and adored Saints are lodged have their frequent Visits for the sake of the Virgin or of the Saints but without some Saint Churches lose their Sacredness and Veneration which I suppose is the reason why they always take care of some Reliques to give a Sacredness to them without which no Church can be Consecrated that is its Dedication to the Worship of God cannot make it Holy unless some Saint take
Doctrine was to be examined by them and accordingly he appeals to Moses and the Prophets to bear testimony to his Person and Doctrine and exhorts them to search the Scriptures which gave testimony to him and how the Miracles he wrought gave authority to any new Revelations he made of God's Will to the World since he did not contradict the old The Law of Nature and the Laws of Moses were the Laws of God and God cannot contradict himself and therefore the Doctrine of all new Prophets even of Christ himself was to be examined and is to be examined to this day by the Law and the Prophets and therefore though he was certainly an Infallible Teacher yet men were to judge of his Doctrine before they believed him and he did not require them to lay aside their Reason and Judgment and submit to his Infallible Authority without Examination So that all this while there could be no Infallible Judge to whom all men were bound to submit their own private Reason and Judgment and to receive all their Dictates as divine Oracles without Examination because they could not know them to be such Infallible Teachers till they had examined their Doctrine by the Light of Nature and the Law of Moses and we cannot to this day know that Moses and Christ were true Prophets but in the same way Since the writing of the New Testament there is a farther Test of an Infallible Teacher if there be any such in the world that he neither contradicts the Light of Nature nor the true intent of the Law of Moses nor alter or add to the Gospel of Christ and therefore there can be no Infallible Judge because be he never so Infallible we can never know that he is so but by the agreement of his Doctrine with the Principles of Reason with the Law and the Prophets and with the Gospel of Christ and therefore must examine his Doctrine by these Rules and therefore must judge for our selves and not suffer any man to judge for us upon a pretence of his Infallibility Could I know that any man were Infallible without judging of his Doctrine then indeed there were some reason to believe all that he says without any inquiry or examination but this never was never can be and therefore though there may be an Infallible Teacher there can be no Infallible Judge to whom I must submit my own Reason and Judgment without asking any Questions Which by the way shews how ridiculous that Sophism is The Church has not erred because she is Infallible when it is impossible for me to know she is Infallible till by examining her Doctrine by an Infallible Rule I know that she has not erred And the truth is it is well there can be no Infallible Judge for if there were it would suspend and silence the Reason and Judgment of all Mankind and what a knowing Creature would Man be in matters of Religion when he must not reason and must not judge just as knowing as a man can be without exercising any Reason and Judgment And therefore not only the reason and nature of the thing proves that there can be no Infallible Judge but the design of Christ to advance humane Nature to the utmost perfection of Reason and Understanding in this World proves that he never intended there should be any for to take away the exercise of Reason and private Judgment is not the way to make men wise and knowing Christians and if Christ allows us to judge for our selves there can be no Infallible Judge whose Office it shall be to judge for us all 4 ly To pretend the Scripture to be an obscure or imperfect Rule is a direct contradiction to the design of the Gospel to improve and perfect Knowledge for if the Scripture be so obscure in the essential matters of Faith and Christian knowledge that we cannot have any certainty what the true sence and interpretation of it is without an Infallible Judge then the Scriptures cannot improve our knowledge because we cannot know what they are we cannot understand their meaning and therefore can learn nothing from them Yes you 'll say we may know their meaning when they are expounded to us by an Infallible Judge though the Scriptures are so obscure that we cannot understand them without an Infallible Judge yet we may certainly learn what the sence of Scripture is from such a Judge Now in answer to this I observe that though such an Infallible Judge should determine the sense of all obscure Texts of Scripture which neither the Pope nor Church of Rome have ever done yet this would not be to understand the Scriptures or to learn from the Scriptures but only to rely on this Infallible Judge for the sense of Scripture To understand the Scriptures is to be able to give a reason why I expound Scripture to such a sense as that the words signifie so that the circumstances of the place and the context and coherence of the words require it that the analogy of Faith and the reason and nature of things will either justifie such an interpretation or admit no other and an Expositor who can thus open our Understandings and not only tell us what the sense of Scripture is but make us see that this is the true sense and interpretation of it does indeed make us understand the Scripture Thus Christ himself did when he was risen from the dead He opened their understandings that they might understand the Scriptures 24 Luke 45. But to be told that this is the true sence of Scripture and that we must believe this is the sense though we can see no reason why it should be thus expounded nay though all the Reason we have tells us that it ought not to be thus expounded no man will say that this is to understand the Scriptures but to believe the Judge No man can learn any thing from a Book which he does not and cannot understand and if men neither do nor can understand the Scriptures it is certain they can learn nothing from them an Infallible Judge would teach as well without the Scriptures as with them and indeed somewhat better because then no man could have a pretence to contradict him and therefore if this be true the holy Scripture deserves all those contemptible Characters which the Romanists have given it for it is so far from improving and perfecting our knowledge that it self cannot be known and therefore is good for nothing So that the obscurity of the Scripture makes it wholly useless to the great ends and purposes of the Christian Religion viz. to improve and perfect the knowledge of Mankind in the necessary and essential Doctrines of Faith and therefore this can be no Gospel-Doctrine because it makes the Gospel it self considered as written of no use Thus if the Scripture be an imperfect Rule as the Romanists affirm that it does not teach us the whole mind and will of God but that we must learn
it sufficient that a man believes as the Church believes without an explicite knowledge of any thing they believe but the general opinion is that a man must have an explicite belief of the Apostles Creed but as for every thing else it suffices if he believes as the Church believes without knowing what the faith of the Church is that is it is not necessary men should so much as know what the new Articles of the Trent Faith are if they believe the Apostles Creed and resign up their Faith implicitely to the Church Now this is a plain confession that all the Doctrines in dispute between us and the Church of Rome are of no use much less necessary to salvation for if they were they would be as necessary to be known and explicitely believed as the Apostles Creed and I cannot imagine why we Hereticks who believe the Apostles Creed and understand it as orthodoxly as they may not be saved without believing the new Trent Creed for if we need not know what it is there seems to be no need of believing it for I always thought that no man can and therefore to be sure no man need believe what he does not know So that it seems we know and believe all things the explicite knowledge and belief of which by their own confession is necessary to salvation except that one single Point of the Infallibility of the Church of Rome believe but that and ye need believe or know nothing more but the Apostles Creed and yet go to Heaven as a good Catholick which makes an implicite Faith in the Church of Rome as necessary as Faith in Christ is But if the intent of the Gospel was to improve our Knowledge then Christ never taught an implicite Faith for that does not improve Knowledge and if the Faith of the Church of Rome excepting the Apostles Creed which is the common Faith of all Christians need not be known then they are no Gospel-Doctrines much less necessary Articles of Faith for Christ taught nothing but what he would have known and though the knowledge of all things which Christ taught is not equally necessary to salvation yet it tends to the perfecting our knowledge and Christ taught nothing which a man need not know which I think is a reproach to meaner Masters and much more to the eternal and incarnate Wisdom Secondly The improvement and perfection of Humane Nature consists in true Holiness and Virtue in a likeness and conformity to God and a participation of the Divine Nature and this is the great end of the Gospel to advance us to as perfect Holiness as is attainable in this life Christ indeed has made expiation for our sins by his own Bloud but then this very Bloud of Atonement does not only expiate the guilt of sin but purges the Conscience from dead works that we may serve the living God for no Sacrifice not of the Son of God himself can reconcile an impenitent and unreformed Sinner to God that is can move God to love a Sinner who still loves and continues in his sins which an infinitely holy and pure being cannot do Indeed the expiation of sin is but one part of the work of our Redemption for a sinner cannot be saved that is cannot be advanced to immortal life in the Kingdom of Heaven without being born again without being renewed and sanctified by the holy Spirit after the Image and likeness of God. For this new Nature is the only Principle of a new immortal life in us an earthly sensual mind is no more capable of living in Heaven than an earthly mortal body In both senses flesh and bloud cannot inherit the Kingdom of God neither can corruption inherit incorruption The Church of Rome indeed has taken great care about the first of these and has found out more ways of expiating sin and making satisfaction for it than the Gospel ever taught us whether they are so effectual to this purpose let those look to it who trust in them but there is not that care taken to inculcate the necessity of internal holiness and purity of mind and one would easily guess there can be no great need of it in that Church which has so many easie ways of expiating sin The true character of Gospel-Doctrines is a Doctrine according to Godliness the principal design of which is to promote true goodness all the Articles of the Christian Faith tend to this end to lay great and irresistible obligations on us to abstain from every sin and to exercise our selves in every thing that is good as we have ability and opportunity to do it and therefore all Doctrines which secretly undermine a good life and make it unnecessary for men to be truly and sincerely vertuous can be no Gospel-Doctrines That there are such Doctrines in the Church of Rome has been abundantly proved by the late Learned and Reverend Bishop Taylor in his Disswasive from Popery which is so very useful a Book that I had rather direct my Readers to it than transcribe out of it My design leads me to another method for if I can prove that the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome naturally tend to evacuate the force of the Gospel it self to make men good and holy every one will easily see that that can be no Gospel-Faith and Worship which sets aside the Gospel it self The whole Doctrine of the Gospel either consists of the Rules of Holiness or of the Motives and Instruments of it for the Articles of the Christian Faith are all of them so many Motives to a good life let us then consider how the Faith and Worship of the Church of Rome has made void the Gospel of our Saviour as the Pharisees made void the Law of Moses by their Traditions 1. Let us begin then with the Gospel-Rules of Holiness It would be an endless thing here to take notice of the loose Determinations of their famed and approved Casuists of their Doctrine of probable Opinions of the direction of the intention by which means the very Laws and Boundaries of Vertue and Vice are in a great measure quite altered and it may be this would only make work for the Representer and furnish out a fourth part of the Papist Misrepresented if we venture to tell the World what has been the avowed Doctrines of their great Divines and Casuists But whether such Definitions be the Doctrine of their Church or not I am sure they are equally mischievous if they be the Doctrines of their Confessors who have the immediate direction of mens Conscience Those who have a mind to be satisfied in this matter may find enough of it in the Provincial Letters the Jesuits Morals and Bishop Taylor 's Disswasive It sufficiently answers my present design to take notice of some few plain things which will admit of no dispute I have already shewn what a great value the Church of Rome sets upon an external Righteousness which is much more meritorious than a
possession of it by his or her Reliques This I confess is not Judaism for under the Jewish Law all Holiness of things or places was derived from their relation to God now the Names and Reliques and wonder-working Images of Saints and the Blessed Virgin give the most peculiar and celebrated Holiness and whether this be not at least to ascribe such a Divinity to them as the Pagans did to their Deified Men and Women to whom they erected Temples and Altars let any impartial Reader judge Those must have a good share of Divinity who can give Holiness to any thing else But since they must have Holy Places and something to answer the Jewish Superstition who cried The Temple of the LORD the Temple of the LORD I cannot blame them for making choice of Saints to inhabitate their Churches and sanctifie them with their presence since under the Gospel God is no more present in one place than in another He dwelt indeed in the Temple of Jerusalem by Types and Figures but that was but a Type of God's dwelling in Humane Nature the Body of Christ was the true Temple as he told the Jews Destroy this Temple and in three days I will raise it up which he spake of the Temple of his Body And now Christ is ascended into Heaven there is no Temple on Earth and therefore if they will have Temples they must have the Temples of Saints for the Presence of God is now no more confined to a House than his Providence is to the Land of Judaea as it was in a very peculiar manner while the Temple stood there God dwells not on Earth now as he did among the Jews but his Presence viz. our Lord Jesus Christ is removed into Heaven and therefore he has no House on Earth to answer to the Jewish Temple as the Ancient Fathers asserted that the Christians had neither Temples nor Altars The Christian Church indeed is a holy and living Temple wherein the Holy Spirit dwells but that is built not with Stones or Brick but of living Saints and therefore the Holiness of Places and Altars and Garments c. which makes up so great a part of the Roman Religion is a manifest Corruption of the Simplicity of the Christian Worship The Jewish Temple made that Worship most acceptable to God which was offered there because it was a Type of Christ and signified the acceptance of all our Prayers and Religious Services as offered up to God only in the Name of Christ but to think that any place is so Holy now that the bare visiting it or praying in it should bestow a greater holiness upon us and all we do should expiate our Sins or merit a Reward is no better than Jewish or Pagan Superstition 4 hly That the Church of Rome does attribute Divine Virtues and Powers to senseless and inanimate Things is so evident from that great Veneration they pay to the Reliques and those great Vertues they ascribe to them from their Consecrations of their Agnus Dei their Wax-candles Oyl Bells Crosses Images Ashes Holy-water for the Health of Soul and Body to drive away evil Spirits to allay Storms to heal Diseases to pardon Venial and sometimes Mortal Sins meerly by kissing or touching them carrying them in their hands wearing them about their necks c. that no man can doubt of it who can believe his own eyes and read their Offices and see what the daily Practice of their Church is Whoever has a mind to be satisfied about it needs only read Dr. Brevint's Saul and Samuel at Endor Chap. 15. These things look more like Charms than Christian Worship and are a great Profanation of the Divine Grace and Spirit indeed they argue that such men do not understand what Grace and Sanctification means who think that little Images of Wax that Candles that Oyl that Water and Salt that Bells that Crosses can be sanctified by the Spirit of God and convey Grace and Sanctification by the sight or sound or touch or such external applications Christ has given his Holy Spirit to dwell in us which works immediately upon our minds and rational powers and requires our concurrence to make his Grace effectual to cleanse and purifie our Souls and to transform us into the Divine Image the grace of the Spirit is to enlighten our Minds to change our Wills to govern and regulate our Passions to instruct to perswade to admonish to awaken our Consciences to imprint and fix good thoughts in us to inspire us with holy desires with great hopes with divine consolations which may set us above the fears of the World and the allurements of it and give greater fervour to our Devotions greater strength to our Resolutions greater courage and constancy in serving God than the bare powers of Reason tho' enforced with supernatural Motives could do This is all the Sanctification the Gospel knows and he who thinks that inanimate Things are capable of this Sanctification of the Spirit or can convey such Sanctification to us by some Divine and Invisible Effluviums of Grace may as well lodge Reason and Understanding and Will and Passions in senseless matter and receive it from them again by a kiss or touch To be sure men who know what the Sanctification of the Spirit means must despise such Fooleries as these 5 ly That all this encourages men to trust in an External Righteousness is too plain to need a proof and therefore I shall not need to insist long on it For 1. such External Rites are naturally apt to degenerate into Superstition especially when they are very numerous The Jewish Ceremonies themselves their Circumcision Sacrifices Washings Purifications Temple Altars New Moons and Sabbaths and other Festival Solemnities were the Righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees and a cloak for their Hypocrisie and great Immoralities though they were never intended by God for the justification of a Sinner For such External Rites are so much easier to carnal men than to subdue their Lusts and live a holy and vertuous Life that they are willing to abound in such External Observances and hope that these will make Expiation for their other Sins and therefore when the Typical use of these Ceremonies was fulfilled by Christ the External Rites were Abrogated that men might no longer place any hope or confidence in any thing which is meerly External And therefore that Church which fills up Religion with External Rites and Ceremonies were there no other hurt in it laies a Snare for Mens Souls and tempts them to put their trust in an External Righteousness without any regard to the Internal Purity of Heart and Mind Especially 2. when such External Rites are recommended as very acceptable to God as satisfactions for our Sins and meritorious of great rewards and this is the use they serve in the Church of Rome as you have already heard They assert the necessity of Humane Satisfactions And what are these satisfactory Works wherewith men must expiate their