matter of them they are such as God himself hath required to be served by are significant of that disposition of Mind which we know God accepts and have an aptnesâ— to the producing of that temper in us which God intends to work us up to by them We use all the Instances of Devotion which they of the Church of Rome use if they be either necessary or fit though indeed often to other and better purpose We pray constantlie but only for the living for we look on the Dead as past the means of Grace and consequentlie past the benefit of our Prayers We praise God for his Excellencies in himself and thank him for his Goodness to others as well as to our selves We practise Confession of Sins to God in publick and in private and advise it to be made also to the Ministers of Gods Word when it is necessary for Ghostly Council and Advice for the satisfying of their Consciences and the removal of Scruple and Doubtfulness but we cannot say it is necessary to be made to Men in order to the Pardon of God We reckon it rather as a priviledge or advantage then a Duty And if Men will not make use of this priviledge as often as there is Occasion unless we tell a lye to advance the credit of it we cannot help that We enjoyn Fastings and disallow not of Penances but advise People to take an holy revenge on themselves when they have sinned but not as the Papists do to satisfie for their sins or merit at Gods hand but to shew the sincerity of their Repentance and to strengthen their Resolutions of amendement for it is our amendement and not our punishment which God is pleased with And we take care that all these things be performed in a due measure proportionably to the strength of the Person and the Nature and Design of the Duty but are afraid of straining them too high lest men should be altogether deterred from them or acquiesce only in the outward Action or render our selves and our Cause ridiculous by an imprudent management We have the Sacraments duly administred as our Saviour commanded them we reckon our Baptism with Water perfect without Oyl or Spittle We grutch not the cup to the Laity nor celebrate solitary Communions nor admire whispering to God in the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ but as we have received from Christ so we teach and administer without Addition or Diminution of any thing essential or material In short in the holy Offices themselves and the behaviour which our Church requires they be celebrated with there is alwayes a great propriety observable agreeable to the command of God in Scripture and the practice of the Apostles and first Ages of the Church proper to the several parts of divine Worship expressive of our Sense consonant to Reason and the use of the World especial respect being alwayes had to the exciting of Piety and Devotion in the minds and carriage of our fully afforded and pressed on Men. For we not only have all our Service in a Language which the meanest People understand but have it so contrived by frequent Responses that every Person bears a part in that Worship which he is so much concerned in and doth not only hear the Priest speak to God Almighty but prayes for himself and is required to joyn his assent to every short Prayer by a distinct Amen With us the same Service and Rules of Life are enjoyned to all all Men having the same Concern in another Life however different their Circumstances and Concerns are in this Life We have constant Prayers in every Parish weekly at least in many dayly with the blessed Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ frequently administred nay every Sunday not only in Cathedrals but in â—everal Colledges and private Parish Churches And we appeal to all Men whither there be any where more practical Sermons fitted to the Cases of Men without Vanity and Superâ—â—ition then among us Whither good and free Learning be any where more encouraged or where better care is taken foâ— the due instruction of the People The Scriptures being in every oneâ—s hands with us and other excellent Books made according to the Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures instead of Legends and Lives of Saiâ—â—â— St. Bonaventure's Psalter and other such Books which are really Libels against Christianity and yet are the principal books which the Priests of the Church of Rome commend to their People For as for the Bible if any one of them hath happened to read in it who is not licensed to that purpose he must own it as sin to his Priest at his next Confession And as there are such blessed Opportunities afforded so constantly and such Prudent provision made for all Cases Ordinary and Extraordinary so I thank God we can say that our people are generally very diligent in the use of these Means and would be more so were it not for the Division which they of the Church of Rome especially raise among us For they may easily perceive that we urge no more on them then their own good and the commands of God require of them â— though our church knows her Power very well yet she makes use of it only to ensorce the Laws of God to explain illustrate and apply them to particular Cases but never to set up her own commands in Opposition to them as the Church of Rome doth and therefore though we teach our People to dread an Excommunication it being sammum futâ—ri Judicii Praejudicium as Tertullian calls it a foretast or forestalling of the last Judgment and not for a World to lye under it though it were inflicted only for contempt yet we warn them in the first place to avoid the Cause and Occaâ—ion of Excommunication and therefore not to value what Censures of the Church of Rome we are under they being so very unjust and Groundless Fourthly and lastly as only the true Object of Devotion is here worshipped only proper Expressions allowed all usefull Helps afforded so also the greatest stresâ— is laâ—d on the practice of it agreeable to the true Nature End and design of it The principal ends of Devotion are to pay a Homage to God our great Creatâ—â— and Benefactor to get his Blessing and to work our selves up to a better temper of â—â—indâ— And to this end we are in our service importâ—â—ate without Vanity or Impertinency long without Tediousness or Idle Repetitions Only we use the Lord's Prayer often that no part of our service may be without that perfect form and also in Consideration of the great Comprehensiveness of it and of the Distraction of Men's Minds which seldom can attend to the full sense of it all at one time And we teach our People that every Man must work for himself for he that prayes only by a proxy it is very just that he should be rewarded only by a Proxy too we put our People in mind that
same Doctrines which she does and she looks upon it as a just prejudice against any Expositions of Scripture if they contradict the common Faith of the first Christians and therefore when the words of Scripture are fairly capable of different senses she chooses that sense which is most agreeable with the Catholick Faith and practice of the Primitive Church but should any Doctrines be imposed upon her as Articles of Faith which are no where to be found in Scripture or which are plainly contrary to it as the new Trent Creed is whatever pretence there be for the Antiquity of such Doctrines she utterly rejects them she will not put out her Eyes to follow any other Guide and thanks be to God she needs not reject any truly Catholick Doctrine in this way We still retain the Faith of the Primitive Church and are greatly confirmed in it from that admirable consent there is between the Scriptures as Expounded by us and that Faith which was anciently owned and received by all Christians Having thus shewn in what sense the Church is the Interpreter of Scripture I proceed now to the Second thing contained in this Paper That this Church must be known to be the true Church by its continual visible Succession from Christ till our dayes Now these few words contain a great many and very great mistakes The subject of the inquiry is how we may find out such a Church whose word we may safely take for the true sense and meaning of Scripture Now 1. The Author of this Paper whither ignorantly or designedly I know not alters the state of the Question and in stead of a Church which is an unerring and Infallible Interpreter of Scripture which would be very well worth finding he tells us how we may know a true Church now I take a true Church and and an infallible Interpreter of Scripture to be very different things A Church may be guilty of Schism and Heresie and yet may be a true Church though not a sound Orthodox and Catholick Church for a true Church is such a Church as has all things necessary and essential to the Beeing and Constitution of a Church this a Church may have and superadd other things which are destructive of the Christian Faith and very dangerous and fatal mistakes as we believe and are able to prove the Church of Râ—me has done and yet we acknowledge her a true Church because she retains the true Christian Faith though miserably Corrupted by Additions of her own as a man is a true man though he be sick of a mortal Disease Now if a true Church may corrupt the Christian Faith we have no reason to rely on the Authority of every true Church for the true sense and meaning of Scripture 2. Let us suppose that by a true Church he means an Infallible Church whose Authority we may safely rely on in Expounding Scriptures this Church he sayes is to be known by a continual visible Succession from Christ till our dayes Now if this visible uninterrupted Succession be the mark of such a true Church as is an infallible Interpreter of Scripture then 1. The Greek Church is an infallible Interpreter of Scripture for she has as visible uninterrupted a Succession from Christ and his Apostles to this day as the Church of Rome has and so we have two infallible Churches not to instance in any more at present who have as good a Succession as either of them which are directly opposite to each other and what shall we do in this Case Must we believe Contradictions or must we dis-believe infallible Churches 3. If a visible Succession from Christ and his Apostles makes aâ—y church an infallible Interpreter of Scripture then all the churches which were planted by the Apostles were infallible All the churches which were planted by the Apostles have an equally visible Succession from Christ those churches which were planted by the Apostles may be presumed as infallible while the Apostles were present with them as they were afterwards and those churches which succeeded these Apostolical churches at the distance of an Age or two may be supposed as infallible as any church of this Age is for if a visible Succession from Christ makes a church infallible why should not a Succession of a hundred or two hundred years make them as infallible as a Succession of sixteen hundred years unless they think that Infallibility increases with the Age of the Church which I could wish true but we see very little sign of it Now according to these Principles all the churches which were planted by the Apostles and have a continual visible Succession from Apostolical Churches through all Ages since the time of the Apostles must be infallible for if a continual visible Succession confers Infallibility and is the mark whereby we must know it then every Church which ever had or has to this day this visible Succession must have Infallibility also which it seems is entailed on Succession And thus we have found out a World of infallibility and it is wonderful how any Apostolical Church came to be over-run with so many Errors and Heresies and to grow so corrupt and degenerate as to provoke GOD to root them up if every Apostolical Church was infallible I cannot imagine how whole Churches which visibly succeeded the Apostles should be infected with Heresie for if Infallibility it self will not secure a Church from Heresie the LORD have mercy upon us 3. This mark he gives how to find out such a true Church at is an infallible Interpreâ—er of Scripture viz. A continual visible Succession from Christ till this day includes another great mistake for it supposes that there is some church now in being on whose Authority we must rely for the sense of Scripture for otherwise there can be no use of a visible Succession to this day in this Controversie If as I have already Proved at large we must rely only on the Authority of the Primitive Church not of the church of this present Age for the sense of Scripture and that not as an infallible Judge buâ— as the most Authentick Witness of the Apostolical Doctrine and Practice then we cannot find out this church by a visible Succession to this day but by examining the ancient Records of the Primitive Church where we shall find what the Faith and Practice of the Church in those dayes was which is the safest Rule to guide us in the Exposition of Scripture Though there were no Church in the World at this day which could prove a continual visible Succession from Christ and his Apostles yet while we have the Scriptures and the Records of the Primitive church we have very sufficient means for the understanding the true meaning of Scripture So that of whatever use this talk of a continual visible Succession may be in other cases it is wholly impertinent in this A church which cannot prove such a continual visible Succession which was not founded by any Apostle
glorious with arrogant Titles and borrow'd Names Search into the Pedegree of Romes Religion we do not find Christ or St. Peter or any of his Apostles to be the Authors of it but Pride Interest and Design old Vices indeed but new Fathers of a Christian church which brought in a late and new generation of Opinions and additions to Christs Religion clothing them with the venerable Names of Primitive and Apostolical Where was the Romish Religion before the Council of Trent concluded onely about the year 1563. of a latter date then when Luther first began which legitimated all their Innovations the issue of Scholastick Wranglings pretended Dreaâ—â—s and Visions forc'd and unnatural Senses of Scripture Ambition and Profit the Fxchequer of Rome to be made Sons of the Church and Fundamentals of the Christian Faith Many of their own Writers confess that for 1400 or â— 500 years the Pope was not believ'd to be infallible till of late some of their flaming Zealots have vested him with infallibility whereby the Roman Church is sick unto death and no cure is to be applyed because she is so certain and sure that she is well Their lewd Doctrine of Transubstantiation was not made an Article of Faith till the Council of Laâ—eran under Innocent the third above 1200 years after Christ and many of their own Writers are still dissatisfied about it The Title of Vniversal Bishop was obtained by Pope Boniface the Third not till about 600 years after Christ fearing a powerful Rival the Constantinopolitan Bishop who affected the same and therefore by the Popes themselves was declaimed against as proud and Antichristian but now by Hypocrisie and base compliance with the wicked Phocas who was guilty of Treason and Murder against the Emperour Mauritius Rome gained the delicious point and has made it a fundamental Article of her new Religion though the Popes came not up to their swaggering temper and Power of Hectoring Christian Princes some hundred of years afâ—erwards The Doctrine of Purgatory which some derive from the Platonick Fancies of Origen the Montanism of Tertullian pretended Visions and Pagan Stories Rhetorical Flourishes and doubtful Expressions of the later Fathers yet it was not positively affirmed till about the year 1140. and not made an Article of Faith till the Council of Trent then indeed a good Estate became a surer way to Heaven then a good Life and Conversation The use of indulgences was the Moral to the Fable of Purgatory and began to grow much what about the same time though it came not to the height and perfection till Pope Leo the Tenths time when Luther so stoutly opposed them then Heaven was set to sale and the best Chapman was the greatest Saint though they boast of the second Council of Nice for the Antiquitie of their Image Worship And if it will do thern any good so they may of Simon Magus who was of an elder date and a very fit Patron of Acts 11. 13 such an Opinion yet the Council of Frankfurt condemned it and the purest times did not so much as allow the making of Images And it was not the Catholick Doctrine in France for almost 900 years after Christ nor in Germany till after the 12th Câ—â—tury then indeed such a Doctrine might be very proper when true Religion was turned into Pageantry and a form of Godliness The number of the seven Sacraments is now an Article of the Romish Faith yet the Council of Florence ended in the year 1439 was the first Council and Peter Lombard the first man that precisely fixt that number That the Laity ought to receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper onely in one kind was never made an Article of Faith till the Council of Constance concluded in the year 1418 then indeed that Council with the greatest insolence and a direct Invasion of the Authority of CHRIST took the Cup from the Laymens mouths notwithstanding as it was then acknowledged the Institution of CHRIST to the contrary and they may as well Christen the Laicks Children only in the name of the Holy Ghost leaving out the Father and the Son by the way of concomitancy it being as Lawful to Baptize as Communicat by the halfes For what cannot such a pretended Power do The prohibiting of Priests to Marry was not in perfection as 't is now till Pope Gregory the Sevenths time Let them tell us where 't is said by Christ or his Apostles or any of the truly Ancient Writers of the christian Church that Pennance is a Sacrament or that Auricular Confession is necessary to Salvation or that Prayers ought to be made in an unknown Tongue or that good works are strictly meritorious or where can they find the many Impieties and absurdities of their Mass in those early times of Antiquity And since they are fond of asking us this Question we might ask them many more about the many Fopperies and Innovations in their Faith and Devotion and many they are and large is the inventory almost as many as are the Christian Truths in direct opposition to them or prevarication from them But they seem to confess the newness of their Religion when they arrogantly set up a Power in their Church to frame new Articles of Faith and many things only Opinions and Notions at first have grown up by degrees to Fundamental Truths and having once slipt into errour they are bound to maintain it for the Reputation and Autâ—ority of Holy Church And who knows how many of this Nature are upon the Romish forge ready to be put into their Creed and where must we end not till it be believed that consecrated Feathers and Holy Water can convey Divine Grace to us and drive away wicked Spirits and the Weathercocks of our Churches be thought Pâ—illars of it Would the Champions of Rome speak out they would tells us as their Eckius did the Duke of Bavaria That the Doctrine of Luther might be overthrown by the Fathers though not by the Scriptures 't is a plain confession that we have the truest Antiquity on our side and in the beginning it was not so But we add that we have the Fathers also on our side for otherwise what mean their Expurgat orian Indices of the Fathers and other Ancient Writters but that they very well know that these are old Enemies to Pope Pins's new Creed and the Truth in them confounds their errour Such an account as this about the Original and Progress of their new Additions to the old Faith was convenient to be given not because the Nature of the thing did necessarily require it for it had been sufficient only to have prov'd that these Romish Additions to the Christian Faith are contrary to the Word of GOD and no where to be found in any of the Divine Writings the only Infallible Rule of Faith and that they have no power of minting new Articles Fundamental to Salvation but because the Disciples of Rome so frequently ask us the Question and
but they worship only the Friends and Favourites of God blessed Saints and Angels Now I shall not at present examine the truth of this pretence but shal refer my Reader to a more Learned Stillingfleet's Defence of the discourse of Idolatry person for satisfaction in this matter but if it were true yet it is nothing to the purpose if our Saviours answer to the Devil be good For let us suppose that the Pope of Rome who calls himself Christs Vicar had at this time been in Christ's stead to have answered the Devils temptations and let us be so charitable for once as to suppose that saving alwayes his indirect power over the Kingdoms of this world in ordine ad spiritualia he would not worship the Devil to gain all the Kingdoms of the World and the Glory of them Consider then how the Pope of Rome could answer this Temptation All this I will give the if thou wilt fall down and worship me could he answer as our Saviour does It is written thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve How easily might the Devil reply Is this indeed your infallible Opinion and the judgment and practice of your Church to serve God only do you not also serve and worship St. Paul and St. Peter and the Virgin Mary besides a great many other obscure and doubtfull Saints This is down right Heresie to confine all Religious Worship to God Here now is matter of fact against the Pope that he does worship other Beeings beside God and if he will shew any reason for his not worshipping the Devil he must quite alter our Saviours answer and not plead for himself that he is bound to worship God and him only but that he is bound to worship only God and good Spirits and therefore the Devil being a wicked and Apostat Spirit it is not lawful to worship him So that if our Savior gave a sufficient answer to the Devils temptation it must be equally unlawful to worship good and bad spirits there may be some peculiar aggravations in having communion with Devils but the Idolatry of worshipping good and bad spirits is the same 3. Our Saviours answer to the Devil appropriates all kinds and degrees of Religious Worship to God alone The Devil was not then so good a School-man as nicely to distinguish and dispute the degrees of Religious Worship with our Saviour but would have been contented with any degree of Religious Worship He did not pretend to be the Supreme God nor to have the disposal of all the Kingdoms of the World in his own right Luk. 4. 6. but acknowledges that it was delivered to him and now by vertue of that grant he gives it to whom he will Now it is impossible in the nature of the thing to worship any Beeing as Supreme whom at the same time we acknowledge not to be Supreme And therefore the Devil asks no more of our Saviours then that he would fall down and worship him which is such an inferiour degree of Worship as Papists every day pay to Images and Saints and yet this our Saviour refuses to do and that for this reason that we must worship God only which must signifie that we must not give the least degree of divine Worship to any Creatures or else it is not a satisfactory answer to the Devils Temptation who did not require any certain and determinate degree of worship but leâ—t him at liberty to use what distinctions he pleased and to pay what degree of worship he saw fit whither absolute or relative supreme or subordinate terminative or transient so he would but fall down and worship him any way or in any degree he left him to be his own Schoolman and Casuist but of this more presently 11. As the Laws of Moses in general appropriate all Religious Worship to God commands us to worship God and him only so the whole Jewish Religion was fitted only for the worship of the Lord Jehovah I suppose our Adversaries will not deny that the Tabernacle and Temple at Jerusalem was peculiarly consecrated to the honour and worship of the Lord Jehovah this was the house where he dwelt where he plac'd his Name and the Symbols of his presence It was a great profanation of that holy place to have the worship of any strange Gods set up in it and yet this was the only place of Worship appointed by the Law of Moses and they had but one Temple to worship in and this one Temple consecrated to the particular worship of one God which is a plain demonstration that they were not allowed to worship any other God because they had no place to worship him in And this I think is a plain proof that all that worship which was confined to their Temple or related to it was peculiar to the Lord Jehovah because that was his house and then all the Jewish worship was so which was either to be performed at the Temple or had a relation and dependance on the Temple worship Sacrifice was the principle part of the Jewish worship and this we know was confined to the Temple Moses expresly commands Israel take head to thy self that thou offer not thy burnt offerings in every place that thou Deut. 12. 13. 14. seest But in the place which the Lord shall choose in one of thy Tribes there shalt thou offer thy burnt offerings and there shalt thou do all that I command thee The Prophets indeed especially before the building of the Temple did erect Altars at other places for occasional Sacrifices for as God reserved a liberty to himself to dispense with his own Law in extraordinary cases so it was presumed that what was done by Prophets was done by a Divine command but there was to be no ordinary or standing Altar for Sacrifice but at the Tabernacle or Temple this we may see in that dispute which had like to have hapned between the Children of Israel and the Tribes of Reuben and Gad and the half Tribe of Manasseh about the Altar of Testimony which these two Joshua 22. Tribes and a half built on the other side of Jordan It was agreed on all hands that it had been intended for an Altar for Sacrifice it had been Rebellion against the Lord to have built any Altar beside the Altar of the v. 16 19. 22 23. Lord though they had offered no Sacrifice but to the Lord Jehovah The same is evident from Gods dislike of their offering Sacrifices in their high places though they sacrificed only to the God of Israel So that all Sacrifices were to be offered at the Temple on the Altar of God and therefore were offered only to that God whose Altar and Temple it was And indeed this is expresly provided for in the Law He that sacrificeth to any God but to the Lord only shall be utterly destroyed Exod. 22. 20. And as their Sacrifices were appropriated to the Temple so in some sense
were their Prayers which were offered up in vertue of their Sacrifice And therefore Isa 56. 7. Mat. 21. 13. 1 King 8. this is a peculiar name for the Temple that it was the House of Prayer Here GOD was more immediately present to hear those Prayers which were offered to him according to Solomons Prayer at the Dedication of the Temple It is true the devout Jews did pray to God where ever they were though at a great distance from the Temple whither in the land of Canaan or out of it but then there are two things which shew that relation their prayers had to the Temple Worship 1. That their stated hours of prayer were the hours of Sacrifice which plainly signified that they offered up their Prayers in conjunction with those Sacrifices which were at that time offered in the Temple and therefore that they prayed only to that GOD to whom they sacrified for we must consider that the constant morning and evening Sacrifices were not particular sacrifices but were offered for the whole Congregation of Israel and therefore every man had a share in them Hence the time of offering the Sacrifice is called the hour of Prayer Thus Peter and John went up into the temple at the hour of Prayer being the ninth hour that is the time of the Evening Sacrifice Hence are such expressions as that of the Psalmist Acts. 3. 1. Let my Prayer be set before thee as Incense and the lifting up of my hands as the Evening Sacrifice Nay it is most probable that when Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed and the people carried captive into Babylon and the daily Sacrifice ceased yet the devout people observed the hour of Sacrifice for the prayers Thus Daniel prayed three times a day which most likely were Evening and Morning and Noon Where Evening and Morning no doubt signifie the time of the Evening and Morning Dan. 6. 10. Psal 55. 17. Sacrifice and we are told that the Angel Gabriel came to Daniel while he was praying and touched him about the time of the Evening oblation But 2ly besides Dan. 9. 21. this when they offered up their Prayers to GOD in other parts of the Nation or in other Countries they prayed towards Jerusalem and the Temple of God as we now lift up our eyes to Heaven where God dwells Thus Solomon in his Prayer of Dedication does not only beg of God to hear those Prayers which were made towards it as the words must signifie in several places In general he prays Hearken thou to the Prayer of thy servant and of the people Israel when they shall pray 1 King 8. 30. towards this place The word in the Hebrew may signifie both in and towards this place and includes both as appears from the following instances which refer both to Prayers made in the Temple and to those prayers which were made towards the Temple by persons who were at a distance Thus in what ever part of the Nation they wanted rain which might be at a great distance from Jerusalem they were to pray towards this place ver 35. The same was to be done in case of Famine and Pestilence c. or if they were besiged in any of their Cities when they could not go to the Temple to pray Nay What Prayer or supplication soever shall be made by any man or by all thy people Israel which shall know every man the plague of his vers 37. ver 39. own heart and spread forth his hands towards this house then hear thou in Heaven thy dwelling place and forgive Thus when they went out to battle they were to pray towards the City of Jerusalem and towards the Temple vers 44. And when they were carried captive into their enemies land they were to pray to God toward the land which God had given them towards the Holy City and towards the Temple And accordingly it was the constant practice vers 48. of Daniel when he was in Babylon to pray three times a day to God with his windows open in his chamber toward Dan. 6. 10. Jerusalem So that though the Temple were not the only place where they might lawfully pray to God yet all their Prayers were to be directed to the Temple and receive their vertue and acceptation from their relation to the Temple and the Temple-worship This was a standing rule for the whole Jewish Nation that whenever they prayed they offered up their prayers in the Temple or towards it and this is generally observed by them to this day For the reason why they generally now turn themselves toward the East when they pray is not out of any respect to the rising of the Sun but because they live in Western Countries and so by turning to the East they look towards Jerusalem and the place where the Temple stood And this is as plain an evidence that all Buxtorfii Synag Jud. p. 222. their prayers as well as Sacrifices were to be offered onely to that GOD who dwelt in the Temple And therefore as they are commanded to pray to God and this is made the peculiar attribute of God that he heareth Psalm 65. 2. Josh 23. 7. prayers and therefore unto him shall all flesh come so they are expresly commanded not to make mention of the name of the Heathen gods that is not to pray to them the prayers of the Heathens consisting of a frequent repetition of the names of their gods as we see in the priests of Baal who cried from morning till evening saying O Baal hear us 1 Kin. 18. 26 Thus the Jews were commanded to bring all their Vows first Fruits Tythes and offerings to the Temple which is a plain sign to whom they were offered The Seventh-day-Sabbath was a sign that they worship'd that God who created the world in six days and rested on the seventh and delivered them from their Egyptian Bondage and gave them rest in that good Land both which reasons are assigned by Moses and therefore God command them by the prophet Ezekiel Nallow my sabbaths Ezek. 20. 20 and they shall be a sign between me and you that ye may know that I am the Lord your God They had but three solemn Festivals every year and they were all in remembrance of the great Works of God and all the Males were to go up to Jerusalem to keep these Feasts and therefore alâ— these were the Feasts of the Lord Jehovab And as they were to pray only to God so they were onely to swear by his Name which is another part of Religious Worship and therefore to swear by the Lord of Hosts is called Deut. 10. 21 Isa 12. 1â— the Language of Canaan So that all the parts of the Jewish Worship were appropriated to the Lord Jehovah he was the only object of their dread and fear and religious Adorations And when we consider that God had chosen them to be a peculiar people to himself that the
Land was a Holy Land Gods peculiar Inheritance which he gave by promise to their Fathers and the Temple was his House where he dwelt among them it cannot be expected that any other Gods might be worship'd by such a people in such a Land and in such a house as God had appropriated to himself 3. It is very considerable that we have no approved example under the Law of any worship pay'd to Saints or Angels or any other Beeing but God alone We have too many sad examples of the Idolatry of the Jews both in worshipping the Molten Calf which Aaron made and Jeroboams Calves and Baalim's and other Heathen gods but had it been allowed by their Law to have pay'd any inferiour degree of Religious Worship to Saints and Angels which is now asserted by the Church of Rome to be a matter of such great benefit and advantage to mankind it is a very strange that we should not have one example of it throughout the Scripture nor any authentick Records among the Jewish Writers All the Psalms of David are directed to God alone and yet we cannot think but such a devout man would have bestowed some Hymns upon his Patron and tutelar Saints had he worship'd any such as well as the Papâ—sts do now This the Church of Rome sees and acknowledges and thinksshe answers too when she gives us the reason why it could not be so under the Law because those Old Testament-Saints were not then admitted into Heaven to the immediate vision and fruition of God Heaven-gates were not opened till the resurrection and Ascension of our Saviour and therefore those blessed Spirits were not in a condition to be our Intercessors and Mediators till they were received into Heaven but now Saints and Martyrs ascend directly into Heaven and reign with Christ in Glorie and it seems share with him in his peculiar Worship and Glorie too Now 1. Whither this be so or not the Scriptures assign no such reason for it and therfore it is likely there might be other reasons and I think I have made it very plain that there was We are not inquiring for what reasons the Jewish Church did not worship Saints and Angels but whither they did worship them or not and it appears that they never did so that we have neither precept nor example for this during all the time of the Jewish Church which is all we intend to prove by this argument 2. But yet it is evident that this is not a good reason why the Jews did not worship Angels under the Law For certainly Angels were as much in Heaven then as they are now whatever Saints were They are represented in the Old Testament as the constant Attendants and Râ—tinue of God and the great Ministers of his Providence and therefore they were as capable of Divine Worship in the time of the Law as they are now nay I think a little more For the Law it self was given by the Ministry of Angels and their appearances were more frequent and familiar and the world seemed to be more under the Government of Angels then then it is now since Christ is made the Head of the Church and exalted above all principalities and powers And therefore sometimes the Advocates of the Church of Rome make some little offers to prove the worship of Angels in those days to this purpose they alledge that form of benediction which Jacob used in blessing the Sons of Josheph The Gen. 44. 16. Angel which redemed me from all evil bless the Lads But 1. This is not a direct prayer to the Angel but onely his committing of them to the care and patronage of that Angel with a prayer to God for that purpose And if he by experience had found that God had appointed his Angel to defend and protect him it was but reasonable to pray to God that the same Angel might protect his posterity 2. But yet according to the sense of the Antient Fathers this was no created Angel and Spirit but the Son and Word of God the Angel of the presence who is so often in Scripture stiled Jehovah a name which can belong to no created Spirit And it is no hard matter to make it highly probable that this is that Angel who redeemed Jacob out of all his troubles But it is strange if Angels were worshipped under the Old Testament we should have no clearer and plainer evidence of it then such a single Text which was never expounded either by any Jewish or Christian Writers to this sense till of late dayes and here the Priests of the Church of Rome are to be put in mind of their Oath to expound Scripture according to the unanimous consent of the Ancient Fathers SECT III. The Testimonies of the Gospel considered whither Chrâ—â—â— and his Apostles have made any alteration in the object â—f our Worship LEt us now proceed in the second place to consider Sect. 3. the writings of the New Testament and examine what they teach us concerning the object of our Worship And that Christ and his Apostles have made no change in the object of our worship will appear from these considerations 1. That they could not do it Had they ever attempted to set up the worship of any other Beeings besides the One Supreme God the Lord Jehovah the Jews were expresly commanded by their Law not to believe them nor hearken to them whatever signs and wonders and miracles they had wrought If there arise among you a Prophet or a dreamer of dreams and giveth thee a Deut. 13. 1 2 3 4 5. sign or wonder and the sign or wonder come to pass whereof he spake unto thee saying let us go after other Gods which thou hast not known and let us serve them Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of the Prophet or that dreamer of dreams for the Lord your GOD proveth you to know whither you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your Soul Ye shall walk after the Lord your God and fear him and keep his Commandments and obey his voice and you shall serve him and cleave unto him And that Prophet or dreamer of dreams shall be put to death c. in which Law there are some things very matterial to be obsered in this present dispuâ—e 1. When they are forbidden to hearken to any Prophet who seduces them to the worship of any other Gods this must be extended to all those instances of Idolatrous worship which are forbid by the Law of Moses whatever is opposed to the worship of one Supreme and Soveraign Beeing the Lord Jehovah And therefore whither these Prophets seduced them from the worship of the Lord Jehovah to the worship of other Gods or perswaded them to worship other Gods besides the Lord Jehovah whither they were any of those Gods which were at that time worship'd by other Nations or any other Gods whom the ignorance and superstition of the people should create in after
an Image made like to corruptible man and to birds and four footed beasts creeping things And thus changed the the truth of God into a lie But this was not the only fault but they also gave his incommunicable worship to Creatures and worshipped and served the Creature more then the Creator who is blessed for ever Amen Which words do vers 25. plainly suppose that they did worship the Creator of all things but besides the Creator for so para may signifie they worshipped the creature also which proves that the worship of the Supreme God will not excuse those from Idolatry who worship any thing else besides him For the opposition lies between the Creator and the creature be it good or a bad creature it matters not as to Religious Worship which must be given to neither Or if we render the words as our Translators do more then the Creator for para is often used comparatively yet so it supposes that they did worship the Creator when they are said to worship the Creature more that cannot signifie a higher degree of worship but more frequent addresses and thus the Church of Rome worships the Virgin Mary more then the Creator for they say ten prayers if they be prayers to the Virgin Mary for one to God ten Ave Maries for one Pater noster The same Apostle determines this matter in as plain words as can be For though there can be that are called 1 Cor. 8. 5 6 Gods whither in Heaven or Earth as there be Gods many and Lords many but to us there is but one God the Father of whom are all things and we in him and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things and we by him Where in opposition to the Pagan Idolatry who worship'd a great many Gods not as Supreme Independent Deities for they acknowledged but one Supreme God who made all the other Gods but either as sharers in the Government of the World or Mediators and Intercessors for them with the Supreme GOD the Apostle plainly asserts That to us Christians there is but one GOD the maker of all Things and one LORD JESUS CHRIST our great Mediator and Advocate with GOD the Father that is that we must worship none else And that none of the distinctions which are used by the Church of Rome to justifie that Worship which they pay to Saints and Angels can have any place here is evident from this consideration For either these distinctions were known or they were not known when the Apostle wrote this and in both cases silence is an argument against them If they were known he rejects them and determines against them for he affirms absolutely without the salvo of any distinctions that we have but one GOD and one Mediator that is that we must worship no more If they were not known as it is likely they were not because the Apostles takes no notice of them it is a plain argument that these distinctions are of no use unless they will say that St. Paul who was guided by an Infallible Spirit was ignorant of some very useful and material notions about the object of Worship If the Apostle did not know these distinctions it is evident they are of a late date and therefore can have no authority against an Apostolical determination If he did not know them he could have no regard to them and therefore made no allowance for such exceptions Nay the same Apostle does not only give us such general rules as necessarily exclude the worship of Saints and Angels but does expresly condemn it and warns the Christians against it He fortels of the Apostasie of the latter days wherein some shall depart from the Faith 1 Tim. 4. 1. giving heed to seduâ—ing Spirits and the doctrine of Devils didaskaliais daimonion the doctrine of Daemons the doctrine of worshipping Daemons or some new inferiour Deity Saints or Angels or whatever they are as Mediators and Intercessors between GOD and men This is the true notion of the doctrine of Daemons amongst See Mr. Joseph Medes Apostasie of the latter times the Heathens and the Apostle tells us the time shall come when some Christians for it is evident he speaks here of the Apostasie of Christians shall fall into the same Idolatry which is an exact prophecy of what we now see done in the Church of Rome who have the same notion of their Saints and Angels and pay the same worship to them which the Heathens formerly did to their Daemons or inferiour Gods 3. And as a farther confirmation of this I observe that the Gospel of our Savour forbids Idolatry without giving us any new notion of Idolatry and therefore it has made no alteration at all in this Doctrine of the worship of one God which Moses so expresly commanded the Jews to observe For the Gospel was preached to the Jews as well as to the Gentiles nay the Jews had the first most undoubted right to it as being the posterity of Abraham to whom the promise of the Messias was made and therefore as the Law was at first given them by Moses so it did still oblidge them in all such cases wherein the Gospel did not in express terms make a change alteration of the Law and therefore since there was no such alteration made and yet the Law against Idolatry renewed and confirmed by the authority of the Gospel what could the Jews understand else by Idolatry but what was accounted Idolatry by the Law of Moses that is the worship of any other Beeing besides the Supreme GOD the Lord Jehovah And since it is evident that there are not two Gospels one for the Jews and another for the Gentiles all Christians whither Jews or Gentiles must be under the obligation of the same Law to worship only one God The notion of Idolatry must alter as the object of Religious Worship does If we must worship one God and none besides him then it is Idolatry to worship any other Beeing but the Supreme God for Idolatry consists in giving Religious worship to such Beeings as we ought not to worship and by the Law of Moses they were to worship none but God and therefore the worship of any other Beeing was Idolatry But if the object of our worship be enlarged and the Gospel has made it lawful to Worship Saints and Angels then we must seek out some other notion of Idolatry that it consists in worshipping wicked Spirits or in giving Supreme and Soveraign worship to inferiour Deities which the Church of Rome thinks impossible in the nature of the thing for any man to do who knows them to be inferiour Spirits But if Idolatry be the same under the New Testament that it was under the Old the object of our worship must be the same too and we have reason to believe that it is the same when we are commanded to keep our selves from Idols and to flie from Idolatry but are no where in the New
over him as some favourites have over their Princes who can with a words speaking have any thing of them and extort favours from them even against their wills and inclinations No man can think there is any need of such Intercessours and Mediators with God who believes him to be infinitely wise and to be infinitely good to know when it is fit to hear and to answer and to be alwayes ready to do what his own wisdom judges fit to be done There can be no place for such intercessions and intreaties to an infinitely perfect Beeing For they alwayes suppose some great weakness or defect in him who want them for even a wise and a good man wants no Mediators to perswade him to do that good which is fit to be done The Objection against this is very obvious and the Answer I think is as easie The Objection is this If God be so good that he needs not such Prayers and Intercessions to move him to do good Why do we pray for our selves Why do we pray for one another Why do we desire the Prayers of good men here on earth Why is it a greater reproach to the Divine Perfections to beg the Prayers of St. Paul or St. Peter now they are in Heaven then to have begged their Prayers while they had been on Earth To this I answer When we pray for our selves I suppose we do noâ— pray as Mediators but as Supplicants and nothing can be more reasonable then that those who want mercy or any other blessing should ask for it It is certainly no reproach to the Divine goodness that God makes Prayer the condition of our receiving which is a very easie condition and very necessary to maintain a constant sense and reverence of God and a constant dependance on him And when we pray for one another on earth we are as meer supplicants as when we pray for our selves and to pray as supplicants is a very different thing from praying as Advocates as Mediators as Patrons The vertue of the first consists only in the power and efficacy of Prayer the second in the favour and interest of the person This the Church of Rome her self owns when she allows no Mediators and Advocats but Saints in Heaven which is a sign she makes a vast difference between the prayers of Saints on earth and Saints in Heaven There are great and wise reasons why God should command and encourage our mutual prayers for each other while we are on earth for this is the noblest exercise of universal love and charity which is a necessary qualification to render our prayers acceptable to God this preserves the unity of the body of Christ which requires a sympathy and fellow-feeling of each others sufferings this is the foundation of publick worship when we meet together to pray with and for each other to our common Father and it gives a great reputation to vertue and Religion in this world when God hears the prayers of good men for the wicked and removes or diverts those judgments which they were afraid of this becomes the wisdom of God and is no blemishâ—to his goodness to dispence his mercies and favours in such a manner as may best serve the great ends of Religion in this world God does not command us to pray for our selves or others because he wants our importunities and solicitations to do good but because it serves the publick ends of Religion and Government and is that natural homage and worship which Creatures owe to their great Creator and Beneâ—actor and Soveraign Lord. But to imagine that God needs Advocats and Mediators to solicite our cause for us in the Court of Heaven where none of these ends can be served by it this is a plain impeachment of his wisdom and goodness as if he wanted great importunities to do good and were more moved by a partial kindness and respect to some powerful Favourites then by the care of his Creatures or his love to goodness From hence it evidently appears how inconsequent that reasoning is from our begging the prayers of good men on earth to prove the lawfulness of our praying to the Saints in Heaven to pray and interceed for us the first makes them our fellow supplicants the second makes them our Mediators and Intercessors and how little the Church of Rome gains by that distinction between a Mediator of Redemption and Mediators of pure Intercession for though they pray to Saints and Angels only as Mediators of Intercession yet this is a real reproach to the nature and government of God a Mediator of Redemption is very consistent with the Divine glory and perfections a Mediator of pure intercession is not And the sum of all is this That it is so far from advancing the Divine glory to worship Saints and Angels together with God that it is a real reproach and dishonour to him and therefore this can be no Law nor Institution of our Saviour who came not to abrogate the Divine Laws but to fulfil and perfect them Some think there is no danger of dishonouring God by that honour they give to Saints and Angels because they honour them as Gods Friends and Favourites as those whom God has honoured and advanced to great glory and therefore whatever honour they do to them rebounds back again on God and this may be true while we give no honour to Saints and Angels but what is consistent with the Divine glory but when the very nature of that honour and worship we pay to them is a diminution of Gods glory and a reproach to his infinite perfections as I have made it appear the worship of Saints and Angels is surely it cannot be for Gods glory to advance his Creatures by lessening himself SECT VII 2. LEt us now consider whither the worship of Saints and Angels together with God be a more perfect state of Religion then the worship of God alone with respect to our selves whither it puts us into a more perfect and excellent state It does indeed mightily gratifie the superstition of mankind to have a multitude of Advocats and Mediators to address to but there are three considerations which may satisfie any man how far this is from a perfect state of Religion 1. That it argues very mean and low conceits of God for did men believe God to be so wise so good and so powerful as really he is they would be contented with one infinite God instead of ten thousand meaner Advocats The worship of Saints and Angels as I have already proved is a great reproach to the Divine perfections and therefore such worshippers must have very imperfect and childish apprehensions of the Supreme Beeing which is a plain proof what an imperfect state of Religion this is for the perfection of Religion is alwayes proportioned to that knowledge we have of God who is the object of it 2. This worship of Saints and Angels is a very servile state it subjects us to our fellow-creatures who are by
case to God and interceed with him on their behalf but how could Eve alive request this of the Virgin Mary and Eve dâ—ed above three thousand years before Mary was born Or how could Irenoeus think the blessed Virgin in a capacity to do this whose opinion it was with the Iren. l. 5. c. 31. generality of the Fathers in that Age that her Soul as all others of departed Saints were yet in an invisible place and not admitted to the Beatiâ—ick Vision Or how could Eve stand in need of her Advocatship who if it were true as the Romanists hold that our Saviour at his Resurrection Aquin. Durand freed the Saints of the Old Testament from their Limbus and carried them up with him into heaven and the presence of God was a Glorified Saint in Heaven whilst she was living upon the Earth and so was in a better State to be an Advocate for the Virgin Mary then the Virgin Mary for her Thus you see as clear a proof as Bellarmin Bellar. de Sanct. beat l. c. 19. thinks this to be nothing can be more ridiculously and impertinently quoted some other meaning then of the words must be found out and the most obvious and natural is this that the Virgin Mary is here by a figure put for Christ her Son according to the Flesh and said to do that as she was the happy Mother of a Son who did it and thus indeed she is Advocate for Eve and all Eves Posterity instrumentally not by her self personally but by her Son she being that vessel made choice of by the Holy Ghost to bear him in her Womb who by taking Flesh of her became the Saviour of Eve and all Mankind For the Testimony of Eusebius it as Bellarmine Bellar. de Sanct. beat l. 1. c. 19. reports it runs thus We Honour those Heavenly Souldiers â—s God's Friends we approach unto their Moâ—â—ments and Pray unto them as unto Holy Men by whose intercession we profess to receive much help and assistance but it is apparent as many Learned Men have shewn that Bellarmine took this allegation not out of Euseâ—ins's Original but a corrupt translation made by Trapezuntius and afterwards followed by Dadrâ—â—uâ— a Doctor of Paris who set forth Eâ—sebius there being no such words as Praying to them as unto Holy Men to be found in him speaking his own Language his words are these hâ—then kai ept tas thekas aut on ethos Evang praep l 13 c. 7. hemin parienai kai tas euchas para tautais poiesthai c. It is our custom to come to their Tombs and Monuments and to make our Prayers not autois to them those Martyrs as the Translaâ—or and Bellarmine would have it buâ— para tautais i e thekais at or before their â—ombs and Monuments and to Honour those blessed â—ouls I might now pass over St. Ambrose he living beyond the time I undertook to answer for Anno 374. but whatsoever he said of this nature was said when he was but a young Christian and recalled and contradicted by him afterwards Speculatores vitae actuùmque nostrorum in his book of Widows he exhorts them to pray to the Angels and Martyrs whom he calls beholders of our Lives and Actions â—ut Baronius himself Confesses as Bishop Andrews proves â—â—out oâ— the life of St. Ambrose that this Book was written presently after his Conversion when he was but a raw Divine and had not thâ—â—ughly Learned the Christian Doctrine and this appears by some other mistakes he was guilty of besides this that are of as dangerous a Nature when in the same Book he asserts that the Martyrs either had no Sin at all or what they had they did themselves wash away with their own Blood But that St. Ambrose changed his opinion concerning this Proprio Sanguine point of Invocation we are as sure as that once he held it since we find him afterwards plainly asserting the Contrary in such words as these That to procure God's favour we need no Amb. in Rom. c. 1. tom 5. Tu tamen Domine solus es invocandus De â—bitu Theâ—d tom 3. Advocate but a devout Mind and again speaking with relation to the two young Sons of Theodosius Thou only Oh Lord art to be Invocated and Prayed unto namely for a blessing and protection upon them 2. They make the Rhetorical Flourishes and Apostrophes of the Fathers in their Panegyricks of the Martyrs to be folemn forms of Invocation of them The Fathers about the laâ—ter end of the Fourth Century observing Piety and Devotion to decay and wax cold as the Church encreafed in Riches and Prosperity thought themselves obliged by all the Wit and Art and Rhetorick they had to retrieve if it was possible the pristine heat of Devotion that was formerly in it to that purpose they spake hâ—gh and large in commendation of their Martyrs and sometimes in their Oâ—ations directed their words to them as though they had been there present not with an intent to teach the People to Pray unto them or to rely upon their merits but to signify the mighty favour they were in with God and the more effectually to excite them to an imitation of their vertues Many such strains of Rhetorick occur in the Writings of St. Hierom St. Basil St. Gregory Nyssen St. Grâ—gory Nazianzen and others Orat. in Sanâ—â— Theod. So St. Gregory Nyssen speaks to â—heodore the Martyr in his Oration Gather together the Troops of thy Brethren Martyrs and thou with them beseech God to stay the Inâ—â—sâ—on of the Barbarians So St. Gregory Nazianzen in his Oration calls unto Orat. in Athan. St. Cyprian St. Basil St. Athanasius to each after this manner Do thou favourably look upon us from on high After the same manner does St. Hierom conclude his Funeral Oration on Paula Farewel Oh Paul and help the Old Age of thy Honourer with thy Prayers Now what is there in all this but what 's usual in all Authors both Sacred and Profane The design of the Faâ—â—â—â—s was to raise the People to as hâ—gh an opinion as they could boâ—â— of the Persons of the Martyrs and their vertues that made them so illustrious and might they not make useof their best Art and Rhetorick to do it What is more in this then those Apostrophes frequently found in the Sacred Writings even to insensate Creatures Hear ye Oh Mountains the Lord's Controâ—ersy Praise the Lord ye Dragons and all Deepâ— And who will infer from hence that the inâ—ensate Creatures were hereby invock'd and addrest unto 3. A great part of the Testimonies they produce out of the Fathers are to prove the Intercession of Saints in Heaven for us and not our Invocating of them and so they change the Question and are at a great deal of pains to prove that which no body denies such sayings as assert the Saints Praying for us are frequent among the ancient Fathers and that not only for the Church
Angels or Saints departed said God at any time Sit thou on my right hand to make intercession for Men Of which of them has he at any time affirmed as he has done of Christ He is able to save them to the uttermost that come to God by him seeing he ever lives to make Intercession for Men That if any Man Sin he is an Advocate with the Father for him Or whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in his name it shall be given you Certainly they who will have Angels and Saints Mediatours betwixt God and Men ought to produce a Commission signed by God or his Son Jesus to constitute them such but this they are no more able to do then they are to make a grant of such Power and Honour themselves to them It 's true the Blessed Spirits above are said to stand about the Throne of God and the Holy Angels to behold his Face and as the Honour of a Prince is encreased by the number of his Attendants so is our Lords exaltation rendered the more Glorious by those ten thousand times ten thousand that Minister unto him but yet it 's never said They sit at Gods right Hand or live for ever to make Intercession for us and having no such delegation of Power from God for this office the Honour and Worship that belongs to it can't be given to them without manifest Wrong and Sacriledge to Christ who has The Holy Angels are Gods ministring Spirits and the Spirits of Just-Men departed his Glorified Saints but God hath made Jesus the Lord and Christ and put all things in Heaven and Earth in Subjection under his feet of him only hath he said Let all the Angels Honour him and all the Saints fall down before him and all Men Honour the Son even as they Honour the John 5. 23 Father Amen To Conclude WEre we certain that the Saints departed do now reign in Heaven and enjoy the Beatifick Vision and that it was lawful to Invocate such as are undoubtely Saints as the Blessed Virgin and the Holy Apostles Yet methinks a wary Man should be shy and not over-forward to exhibit that honour to all whom the Pope hath Cannoniz'd I cannot for my heart but think that the Prelates and Bishops in King Henry the Eighth's time had as much reason to Unsaint Thomas Becket for being a Rebel against his Prince as Pope Alexander the Third had to Canonize him for being a Biggot for the Church What can a sober Christian think of the Saintship of some who never had any being in the World and of others who never had any goodness many of their Saints are meer Names without Persons and many meer Persons without Holiness nay I am very confident that the greatest Incendiaries and Disturbers of the Peace of the World do as well deserve it as that famous Pope Hildebrand or Gregory the seventh Inumerable might be instanc'd in whose Saintship justly falls under great Suspicion but 't is enough that some Romanists themselves and those of no little Authority in their Church have granted that the Popes canonizations are doubtful and subject to error If then at any Billar de beat sanct l. 1. c. 7. 8. time his Infallibility should chance to mistake as I am pretty sure he has more then once done the Members of that Church are in a sweet case and are not only in danger of Invocating Saints but Devils also which is Idolatry with a witness and by their own Confession FINIS A DISCOURSE AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION EDINBVRGH Re-printed by John Reid Anno DOM 1686. A DISCOURSE AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION COncerning the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper one of the two great positive Institutions of the Christian Religion there are two main Points of difference between Vs and the Church of Rome One about the Doctrine of Transubstantiation in which they think but are not certain that they have the Scripture and the words of our Saviour on their side The other about the administration of this Sacrament to the People in both kinds in which we are sure that we have the Scripture and our Saviour's Institution on our side and that so plainly that our Adversaries themselves do not deny it Of the first of these I shall now treat and endeavour to shew against the Church of Rome That in this Sacrament there is no substantial change made of the Elements of Bread and Wine into the natural Body and Bloud of Christ that Body which was born of the Virgin Mary and suffered upon the Cross for so they explain that hard word Transubstantiation Before I engage in this Argument I cannot but observe what an unreasonable task we are put upon by the bold confidence of our Adversaries to dispute a matter of Sense which is one of those things about which Aristotle hath long since pronounc'd there ought to be no dispute It might well seem strange if any man should write a Book to prove that an Egg is not an Elephant and that a Musket-Bullet is not a Pike It is every whit as hard a case to be put to maintain by a long Discourse that what we see and handle and taste to be Bread is Bread and not the Body of a Man and what we see and taste to be Wine is Wine and not Bloud And if this evidence may not pass for sufficient without any farther proof I do see why any man that hath confidence enough to do so may not deny any thing to be what all the world sees it is or affirm any thing to be what all the world sees it is not and this without all possibility of being farther confuted So that the business of Transubstantiation is not a controversie of scripture against scripture or of Reason against Reason but of downright Impudence against the plain meaning of scripture and all the sense and Reason of Mankind It is a most self-evident Falshood and there is no Doctrine or Proposition in the world that is of it self more evidently true then Transubstantiation is evidently false And yet if it were possible to be true it would be the most ill-natur'd and pernicious truth in the World because it would suffer nothing else to be true it is like the Roman-catholick Church which will needs be the whole Christian Church and will allow no other society of Christians to be any part of it so Transubstantiation if it be true at all it is all truth for it cannot be true unless our senses and the senses of all mankind be deceived about their proper objects and if this be true and certain then nothing else can be so for if we be not certain of what we see we can be certain of nothing And yet notwithstanding all this there is a Company of men in the World so abandon'd and given up by God to the efficacy of delusion as in good earnest to believe this gross and palpable Errour and to impose the belief of it upon the Christian World under no less
for one If says he the speech be a precept forbidding some heinous wickedness or crime or commanding us to do good it is not fiugurate but if it seem to command any heynous wickedness or crime or to forbid that which is profitable and beneficial to others it is figurative For example Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his bloud ye have no life in you This seems to command a heinous wickedness and crime therefore it is a figure commanding us to communicate of the passion of our Lord and with delight and advantage to lay up in our memory that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us So that according to St. Austin's best skill in interpreting Scripture the literal eating of the flesh of Christ and drinking his bloud would have been a great impiety and therefore the expression is to be understood figuratively not as Cardinal Perron would have it onely in opposition to the eating of his flesh and bloud in the gross appearance of flesh and bloud but to the real eating of his natural body and bloud under any appearance whatsoever For St. Austin doth not say this is a Figurative speech wherein we are commanded really to feed upon the natural body and bloud of Christ under the species of bread and wine as the Cardinal would understand him for then the speech would be literal and not figurative But he sayes this is a figurative speech wherein we are commanded Spiritually to feed upon the remembrance of his Passion To these I will add but three or four Testimonies more in the two following Ages The first shall be of Theodoret who speaking of that * Gen. 49. 11. Prophecy of Jacob concerning our Saviour he washed his garments in Wine and his clothes in the bloud of grapes hath these words †Dialog 1. as we call the mysticall fruit of the Vine that is the Wine in the Sacrament after consecration the bloud of the Lord so he viz. Jacob calls the bloud of the Vine viz of Christ the bloud of the grape but the bloud of Christ is not literally and properly but only figuratively the bloud of the grape in the same sense as he is said to be the true Vine and therefore the Wine in the Sacrament after consecration is in like manner not literally and properly but figuratively the bloud of Christ And he explains this afterwards saying that our Saviour chaâ—â—ed the names and gave to his Body the name of the Symbol or sign and to the symbol or sign the name of his Body thus when he had called himself the Viâ—e he called the symbol his bloud so that in the same sense that he called himself the Vine he call'd the Wine which is the symbol of his bloud his bloud For sayes he he would have those who partake of the divine mysteries not to attend to the nature of the things which are seen but by the change of names to believe the change which is made by grace for he who called that which by nature is a body wheat and bread and again likewise call'd himself the Vine he honour'd the symbols with the name of his body and bloud not Changing nature but adding grace to nature Whence you see he sayes expresly that when he called the Symbols or Elements of the Sacrament viz. Bread and Wine his body and bloud he made no change in the nature of the things only added grace to nature that is by the Divine grace and blessing he raised them to a spiritual and supernatural vertue and efficacy The secound is of the same Theodoret in his second Dialogue between a Catholick under the name of Orthodoxus and an Heretick under the name of Eranistes who maintaining that the Humanity of Christ was changed into the substance of the Divinity which was the Heresie of Eutyches he illustrates the matter by this similitude As sayes he the symbols of the Lords body and bloud are one thing before the invocation of the Priest but after the Invocation are changed and become another thing so the body of our Lord after his ascension is changed into the divine substance But what sayes the Catholick Orthodoxus to this why he talks just like one of Cardinal Perron's Hereticks Thou art sayes he caught in thy own net because the mystical symbols after consecration doe not pass out of their own nature For they remain in their former substance figure and appearance and may be seen and handled even as before He does not only deny the outward figure and appearance of the symbols to be chang'd but the nature and substance of them even in the proper and strictest sense of the word substance and it was necessary so to do otherwise he had not given a pertinent answer to the similitude urg'd against him The next is one of their own Popes Gelasius who brings the same Instance against the Eutychans * biblioth Patr. Toâ— 4. surely sayes heâ— the Sacrament which we receive of the body and bloud of our Lord are a divine thing so that by them we are made partakers of a divine nature and yet it ceaseth not to be the substance or nature of bread and Wine and certainly the image and resemblance of Christ's body and bloud are celebrated in the action of the mysteries that is in the Sacrament To make this Instance of any force against the Eutychians who held that the body of Christ upon his ascension ceas'd and was chang'd into the substance of his Divinity it was necessary to deny that there was any substantial change in the Sacrament of the bread and wine into the body and bloud of Christ So that here is an infallible authority one of their own Popes expresly against Transubstantiation The last Testimony I shall produce is of Facundus an African Bishop who lived in the 6th Century Upon occasion of justifying an expression of one who had said that Christ also received the adoption of Sons reasons thus * Facund p. 144 edit Paris 1676. Christ vouchsafed to receive the Sacrament of adoption both when he was circumcised and baptized And the Sacrament of Adoption may be called adoption as the Sacrament of his body and bloud which is in the consecrated bread and cap is by us called his body and bloud not that the bread sayes he is properly his body and the cup his bloud but because they contain in them the mysteries of his body and bloud hence also our Lord himself called the blessed bread and cup which he gave to his Disciples his body and bloud can any man after this believe that it was then and had ever been the universal and received Doctrine of the Christian Church that the bread and wine in the Sacrament are substantially changed into the proper and natural body and bloud of Christ By these plain Testimonies which I have produced and I might have brought a great many more to the same purpose it is I think evident beyond all
denial that Transubstantiation hath not been the perpetual belief of the christian church And thâ—s likewise is acknowledged by many great and learned men of the Roman church a In Sent. l. 4. Dist 11. Q. 3. Scotus acknowledgeth that this Doctrine was not alwayes thought necessary to be believed but that the necessity of believing it was consequent to that Declaration of the Church made in the council of Lateran under Pope Innocent the III. And b In sent l. 4. dist 11. q. 1. n. 15. Durandus freely discovers his inclination to have believed the contrary if the Church had not by that determination oblidged men to believe it c de Euchar. l. 1. p. 146. Tonstal Bishop of Durham also yields that before the Lateran council men were at liberty as to the manner of Christ's presence in the Sacrament And d In 1. Epist ad corinth c. 7. citan te etiam Salmerone Tom. 9. Tract 16. p. 108. Erasmus who lived and died in the communion of the Roman Church and then whom no man was better read in the ancient Fathers doth confess that it was late before the Church defined Transubstantiation unknown to the Ancients both name and thing And e De Haeres l. 8. Alphonsus a castro sayes plainly that concerning the transubstantiation of the bread into the body of Christ there is seldom any mention in the ancient Writers And who can imagine that these learned men would have granted the ancient Church and Fathers to have been so much Strangers to this Doctrine had they thought it to have been the perpetual belief of the Church I shall now in the Second place give an account of the particular time and occasion of the coming in of this Doctrine and by what steps and degrees it grew up and was advanced into an Article of Faith in the Romish Church The Doctrine of the Corporal presence of Christ was first started started upon occasion of the Dispute about the Worship of Images in opposition whereto the Synod of Constantinople about the year DCCL did argue thus That our Lord having left us no other Image of himself but the Sacrament in which the substance of bread is the image of his body we ought to make no other image of our Lord. In answer to this Argument the second Council of Nice in the year DCCLXXXVII did declare that the Sacrament after Consecration is not the image and antitype of Christs body and bloud but is properlie his body and bloud So that the corporal Body of Christ in the sacrament was first brought in to support the stupid worship of Images And indeed it could never have come in upon a more proper occasion nor have been applied to a fitter purpose And here I cannot but take notice how well this agrees with * De Eucharist l. 1. c. 1. Bellarmine's Observation that none of the Ancients who wrote of Heresies hath put this errour viz. of denying Transubstantiation in his catalogue nor did any of the Ancients dispute against this errour for the first 600 years Which is very true because there could be no occasion then to dipute against those who denied Transubstantiation since as I have shewn this Doctrine was not in being unless amongst the Eutychian Heretiques for the first 600 years and more But ‡ Ibid. Bellarmine goes on and tells us that the first who call'd in question the truth of the body of the Lord in the Eucharist were the ICONOMACHI the opposers of Images after the year DCC in the Council of Constantinople for these said there was one image of Christ instituted by himself viz the bread and wine in the Eucharist which represents the body and bloud of Christ Wherefore from that time the Greek Writers often admonish us that the Eucharist is not the figure or image of the body of the Lord but his true body as appears from the VII Synod which agrees most exactly with the account which I have given of the first rise of this Doctrine which began with the corporal presence of Christ in the Sacrament and afterwards proceeded to Transubstantiation And as this was the first occasion of introducing this Doctrine among the Greek so in the Latine or Roman Church Paschasius Radbertus first a Monk and afterwards Abbot of Corbey was the first broacher of it in the year DCCCXVIII And for this besides the Evidence of History we have the acknowledgment of two very Eminent Persons in the Church of Rome Bellarmine and Sirmondus who do in effect confess that this Paschasius was the first who wrote to purpose upon this Argument * Descriptor Eccles Bellarmine in those words this Author was the first who hath seriously and copiously written concerning the truth of Christs body and bloud in the Eucharist And †In vita Paschasii Sirmoâ—dus in these he so first explained the genuine sense of the Catholick church that he opened the way to the rest who afterwards in great numbers wrote upon the same Argument But though Sirmondus is pleased to say that he only first explained the sense of the Catholique Church in this Point yet it is very plain from the Records of that Age which are left to us that this was the first time that this Doctrine was broached in the Latin Church and it met with great opposition in that Age as I shall have occasion hereafter to shew For Rabanus Maurus Arch-biship of Meâ—tz about the year DCCCXLVII reciting the very words of Paschusius wherein he had deliver'd this Doctrine hath this remarkable passage concerning the novelty of it ‡ Epist. ad Heribaldum c. 33. Some sayes he of late not having a right opinion concerning the Sacrament of the body and bloud of our Lord have said that this is the body and bloud of our Lord which was born of the Virgin Mary and in which our Lord suffered upon the cross and rose from the dead which errour sayes he we have opposed with all our might From whence it is plain by the Testimony of one of the greatest and most learned bishops of that Age and of eminent reputation for Piety that what is now the very Doctrine of the Church of Rome concerning the Sacrament was then esteem'd an Errour broach'd by some particular Persons but was far from being the generally received Doctrine of that Age. Can any one think it possible that so eminent a Person in the Church both for piety and learning could have condemned this Doctrine as an Errour and a Novelty had it been the general Doctrine of the Christian Church not only in that but in all former Ages and no censure pass'd upon him for that which is now the great burning Article in the Church of Rome and esteemed by them one of the greatest and most prenicious Heresies Afterwards in the year MLIX when Berengarius in France and Germany had raised a fresh opposition against this Doctrine he was compelled to recant it by pope Nicholas
not tell how and when it came in yet it would be the wildest and most extravagant thing in the world to set up a pretended Demonstration of Reason against plain Experience and matter of Fact This is just Zeno's Demonstration of the impossibility of motion against Diogenes walking before his Eyes For this is to undertake to prove that impossible to have been which most certainly was Just thus the Servants in the Parable might have demonstrated that the Tares were Wheat because they were sure none but good seed was sown at first and no man could give any account of the punctual time when any Tares were sown or by whom and if an Enemy had come to do it he must needs have met with great resistance and opposition but no such resistance was made and therefore there could be no Tares in the field but that which they call'd Tares was certainly good wheat At the same rate a man might demonstrate that our King his Majesty of great Britain is not return'd into England nor restor'd to his Crown because there being so great and powerful an Army possess'd of his Lands and therefore oblidged by interest to keep him out it was impossible He should ever come in without a great deal of fighting and bloud shed but there was no such thing therefore he is not return'd and restor'd to his Crown And by the like kind of Demonstration one might prove that the Turk did not invade Christendom last year and besiege Vienna because if he had the most Christian King who had the greatest Army in Christendom in a readiness would certainly have imployed it against him but Monsieur Arnauld certainly knowes no such thing was done And therefore according to his way of Demonstration the matter of fact so commonly reported and believed concerning the Turks Invasion of Christendom and besieging Vienna last year was a perfect mistake But a man may demonstrate till his head and heart ake before he shall ever be able to prove that which certainly is or was never to have been For of all sorts of impossibles nothing is more evidently so then to make that which hath been not to have been All the reason in the world is too weak to cope with so tough and obstinate a difficulty And I have often wonder'd how a man of Monsieur Arnaulds great wit and sharp Judgement could prevail with himself to engage in so bad and baffled a cause or could think to defend it with so wooden a Dagger as his Demonstration of Reason against certain Experience and matter of Fact A thing if it be possible of equal absurdity with what he pretends to demonstrate Transubstantiation it self I proceed to the Third pretended Ground of this Doctrine of Transubstantiation and that is The Infallible Authority of the present Church to make and declare new Articles of Faith And this in truth is the ground into which the most of the Learned Men in their Church did heretofore and many do still resolve their belief of this Doctrine And as I have already shewn do plainly say that they see no sufficient reason either from Scripture or Tradition for the belief of it And that they should have believed the contrary had not the determination of the Church oblidged them otherwise But if this Doctrine be obtruded upon the world merely by vertue of the Authority of the Roman Church and the Declation of the Council under Pope Gregory the VII or of the Lateran Council under Innocent the III. then it is plain Innovation in the Christian Doctrine and a new Article of Faith impos'd upon the Christian World And if any Church hath this power the Christian Faith may be enlarged and changed as often as men please and that which is no part of our Saviour's Doctrine nay any thing though never so absurd and unreasonable may become an Article of Faith oblidging all Christians to the belief of it when ever the Church of Rome shall think fit to stamp her Authority upon it which would make Christianity a most uncertain and endless thing The Fourth pretended ground of this Doctrine is the necessity of such a change as this in the Sacrament to the comfort and benefit of those who receive it But there is no colour for this if the thing be rightly consider'd Because the comfort and benefit of the Sacrament depends upon the blessing annexed to the Institution And as Water in Baptism without any substantial change made in that Element may by the Divine blessing accompanying the Institution be effectual to the washing away of Sin and Spiritual Regeneration So there can no reason in the world be given why the Elements of Bread and Wine in the Lord's Supper may not by the same Divine blessing accompanying this Institution make the worthy receivers partakers of all the Spiritual comfort and benefit designed to us thereby without any substantial change made in those Elements since our Lord hath told us that verily the flesh profiteth nothing So that if we could do so odd and strange a thing as to eat the very natural flesh and drink the bloud of our Lord I do not see of what greater advantage it would be to us then what we may have by partaking of the Symbols of his body and bloud as he hath appointed in remembrance of him For the spiritual efficacy of the Sacrament doth not depend upon the nature of the thing received supposing we receive what our Lord appointed and receive it with a right preparation and disposition of mind but upon the supernatural blessing that goes along with it and makes it effectual to those Spiritual ends for which it was appointed The Fifth and last pretended ground of this Doctrine is to magnify the power of the Priest in being able to work so great a Miracle And this with great pride and pomp is often urg'd by them as a transcendent instance of the Divine Wisdom to find out so admirable a way to raise the power and reverence of the Priest that he should be able every day and as often as he pleases by repeating a few words to work so miraculous a change and as they love most absurdly and blasphemously to speak to make God himself But this is to pretend to a power above that of God himself for he did not nor cannot make himself nor do any thing that implies a contradiction as Transubstantiation evidently does in their pretending to make God For to make that which already is and to make that now which alwayes was is not only vain and trifling if it could be done but impossible because it implies a contradiction And what if after all Transubstantiation if it were possible and actually wrought by the Priest would yet be no Miracle For there are two things necessary to a Miracle that there be a supernatural effect wrought and that this effect be evident to sense So that though a supernatural effect be wrought yet if it be not evident â—o sense it
the same word We venerate Baptism †Baptismum ubicunque est veneramur Id Epist 146. as we ought to do all the Rites and Ordinances of our Religion this is meant by Origen in that first place of him produced by Boileau * de Euch. Ador p. 10. ex Orlg. Homil. 12. Nostis qui Divinis mysteriis interesse consuestis quomodo cum suscipitis corpus Domini cum omni cautela veneratione servatis ne ex eo parum quid decidat ne consecrati muneris aliquid dilabatur Reos enim vos creditis recte creditis si quid inde per negligentiam decidat Ye that are wont to be present at the Divine Mysteries know how when ye receive the Body of Christ ye keep it with all caution and Veneration that no part of the consecrated gift be let fall for ye think and that rightly that ye should be guilty of a fault if any of it should be let fall through your negligence And Christians have this care and Veneration of those consecrated Symbols of the Body and Blood of their Saviour of these wonderful Pledges of his Love that they would not willingly spill them or let them fall to the ground through their carelesness and neglect they that have that due regard to the Holy Bible which they ought would not trample it under their feet or shew any such disrespect to it it was this which Origen was recommending in that place from that example of their care and respect to the Sacrament Elements that they should give it also to the Word of God * Quod si circa corpus ejus tanta utimini cautela merito utimini quomodo putatis minoris esse praculi Verbum Dei neglexisse quam corpus ejus Ib. But if ye use such care and that very deservedly about keeping his Body how do ye think it to be a less fault to neglect the word of God then to neglect his Body The comparison here made between the Word of God and the Sacrament so plainly shews that he no way meant its Adoration that I wonder this person was not ashamed to pretend just before it that he †Alienum esse ab institutis meis ullum in medium adducere patrem quin conceptis verbis proprium Boil p 10. would bring no Authority but what was expresly for his Opinion and use none but †Animo decreverim argumenta invictissima concludere invincible Arguments but Roman Faith must be defended with Roman courage and confidence which is the only invincible thing they have The words of Theodoret are a great deal more plausible and seem at the first glance to look more fairly then any for their purpose The Elements are understood to be what they are made and they are beleived and reverenced as those things which they are beleived †Noeitai haper egeneto kai pisteuetai kai proskyneitai hos ekeina onta haper pisteuontai Theod Dialogâ— asygchyt apud Boil p 64. Here our Faith makes the Sacrament to be what it signifies to become to us the res Sacramenti as well as a sign and Representation of it and that thing is to be adored by us in the use of the Sacrament which is the true sense of Theodorets words and that he cannot mean in the Roman sense the substance of Christs Body is plain from what immediatly goes before and utterly destroyes what they would catch from half his words for he says That the Elements or the mysticall Signs do not after sanctification recede from their own but remain in their former substance †Oude gar meta tonhagiasmon ta mystica symbola tes â—oikeias existataiphyseos menei gar eiâ—eâ— proteros odfius Ibid. Thus their best Witness that seems to speak the most for them yet speaks that against them which destroys their whole cause as he must own whoever reads the Dialogue and considers the design of it which was to answer the pretence of those who said that the Body of Christ was after his Ascension turned into a Divine substance and lost the true nature of Body * hosper toinyn ta symbâ—la tu despotikon as the Symbols of Christs Body and Blood are changed say those Hereticks into what they were not before Yes sayes he Now ye are taken into your own net for they remain in their former nature and substance afterwards and so does Christs Body If then the change of these sacred Elements be only as to their use and vertue but not as to their substance according to Theodoret then he could not mean that they should be adored but only reverenced by the word proskyneitai just as the Holy Bible * is said to be reverenced and the Priests themselves by the very same word * Prosknesai met ' eulabei as to euaggelion Liturg. chrysost Hiepeis proskynetot proskynetoi Adelpboi proskynete synodos Acta concil Ephes 4. Some of the Fathers words imply that when we come to the Sacrament it should be with the greatest lowliness both of Body and Mind and as the Primitive Church used to do and as the Church of England does in a posture of Worship and Adoration in the form and manner of Worship as St. Cyril of Hieros speaks ‡ Kypton kai tropo proskyâ—eseâ—â— kaâ— sebasmatos Catech. Myst 5. or as St. Chrysottome In the form of supplicants and Worshippers †Schema hiketon kai proskyneton echomen Chrysost Homil 7. in Matth. epi to timesai kai proskynesai ton hyion tu Theu Ibid. prosenegke sy tapein ophrosynen kai tetapeinomenen kapdion Homil. de Phil. Dianastesomen toinyn heautous kai phrixomen kai pollo ton barbaron â—keinon pleiona epideixomethaâ—en eulabeian of Christ as the Magi were when they came to bring their presents to him do thou then present him with humility and a lowly and submissive heart and be not like Herod who pretended he would come to worship him but it was to murder him but rather imitate the Magi and come with greater fear and reverence to thy Saviour then they did This is the whole design and substance of what is produced out of St. Chrysostom †Boil c. 7. l. 1 And this is the plain meaning of Origen * Hom. 5. in N. T. Tunc Dominus sub tectum tuum in greditur tu ergo humilians teipsuâ—â— imitare hâ—nc Centurionem dicito Domine non sum digâ—â—s ut intres sub tecâ—â—◠〈◊〉 that when we come to receive Christ in the Sacrament we should do it with all Humility for consider sayes he That then the Lords enters under thy roof do thou therefore humble thy self and imitate the Centurion and say Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof When the Fathers would give us the Picture of a devout Communicant they draw him in the greatest Posture of Humility and Reverence looking upon and †Phrixomen toinyu proâ—iontes cachariste somen prospesomen
guilt of sin or to judge which be Venial and which Mortal sins or especially what circumstances do alter the species of it and it may be too he may be such an one that makes no conscience himself of the sins I confess to him Now when all is transacted between me and such a Priest in a corner and this under the inviolable seal of confession what great shame can this put me to What remorse is it likely to work in me Whatshall discourage me from going to sin again if no worse thing happen to me 2. And then for the multitude of confessions in the church of Rome that also takes off the shame and weakens the efficacy of it so that if it do no harm it is not likely to do any good for who is concern'd much in the doing that which he sees all the World do as well as himself if only notorious sinners were brought to confession as it was in the primitive church then it might probably and reasonably provoke a blush and cause a remorse in him to whom such a remedy was prescribed but when he sees the whole parish and the Priest too brought to it and Men as generally complying with it as they approach to the Lord's Table What great wonders can this work What shame can it inflict upon any Man What effect can be expected from it but that it ordinarly makes Men secure and careless and grow as familiar with sin as with the remedy or at least think as well of themselves as of other Men since it seems they have as much need of confession and absolution as himself 3. To which the frequency and often repetitions of these kind of Confessions adds very much it is very likely that modesty may work much upon a Man the first or second time he goes to Confession and it may something discompose his Countenance when he lays open all his secret miscarriages to a person especially for whom he hath a Reverence for we see every thing even sin it self is modest in its beginnings and no doubt it is some restraint of sin whilst a Man is sensible that he must undergo a great deal of pain and shame in vomiting up again his sweet Morsels which he eats in secret But by that time he hath been used to this a while it grows easie and habitual to him and custom hath made the very punishment pleasant as well as the sin especially if we add 4. The formal cursory hypocâ—itical and illusive wayes of confession in frequent use amongst them as that a Man may choosâ— his own Priest and then to be sure the greatest sinner will have a confessour right for his turn that shall not be too severe and scrupulous with him that a Man may conâ—ess in transitu in a hurry or huddle and then there can be no remark made upon his person nor his sins that a Man may make one part of his confession to one Priest and reserve the other part for another so that neither of them shall be able to make any thing of it that he may have one confessour for his Mortal sins and another for his Venial so that one shall save him if the other damn him nay for failing the forgetful sinner may have another Man to confess for him or at least he may confess that he hath not confessed these and abundance more such illusive Methods are in daily use amongst them and not only taken up by the licentious and unconscionable people but allowed by some or other of their great Casuists now let any Man judge whither this be a likelier way to restraâ—n sin or to incourage it whither the easiness of the remedy if this be oneÌ„ must not of necessity make the Disease seem not very formidable in a word whither this be not a riduculing their own Religion and which is worse a teaching Men to be so fool hardy as to make a mock of sin 5. This sad reckoning will be inflamed yet higher if we consider the slight Penances usually imposed by these Spiritual Judges upon the greatest Crimes The Council determines that the Confessour must be exactly made acquainted with all the circumstances of the sin that so he may be able to adjust a Penance to it now when some great sin is confessed and that in a very â—oul circumstances if the Penance proportioned to it by the Priest be to say two or three Pater Nosters or Ave Maria's extraordinary to give a little Money in Alms to the Poor or some Pious use to kneel on his bare knees before such a Shrine to kiss such an Image to go on Pilgâ—image a few Miles to such a Saint or at most to wear an Hair Shirt or it may be to fast with Fish and Wine and Sweet-meats c. doth not this make that sin which is thus â—awled and stigmatized look very dreadfully can any Man find in his heart to sin again when it hath cost him so dear already Oh but they will tell us these Penances are not intended to correspond with the guilt of the sin but only to satisfie the debt of Temporal punishment But we had thought that the end of Penance had been to work in the Peâ—â—tent a Dispositiâ—n for Pardon by giving him both opportunities and direction to express the sincerity of his Repentance and this was the use of Penance in the Primitive Church together wiâ—h the â—akâ—ng off the Scandal from the Society and for that other end hâ—w doth the Church of Rome know so certainly that there is a debt of Temporal punishment remaining due after the sin is Pardonâ—d before GOD it is true GOD may pardon so far only as he pleases he may resolve to punish Temporally those whâ—m He hath forgiven Eternally as we see he did in the case oâ— David but that this is not his constant Method appears by this that our Saviour releases the Temporal punishment to many in the Gospel whose diseases he cured saying to them Your sins are forgiven you when as yet it did not appear that all Scores were quitted with God so but that they might have peâ—ished eternally if they did not prevent it by Faith and Repentance 6. But lastly to come to an end of this sad story the easiness and prostitution of their absolutions in the Church of Rome contributes as much to the encouraging of Vice and carelesness in Religion as any of the former for what else can be the natural effect and consequence of that ruled case among the Casuists as I shew'd before that the Priest is bound to absolve him that confesses and saith he is sorry for his sin though he doth in his Heart believe that he is not contrite but that either the Priests Pardon is a very cheat or else that Pardon is due of course to the most impenitent Sinner and there is no more to do but Confess and be Saved or what is the meaning of their common practice to absolve men upon their Death beds