he himself say this but suppose they neither felt nor owned it May it not be as intolerable as the Jewish Law Did the Scribes and Pharisees who were so fond of the Rites of Moses own it to be a heavy Yoke And yet does not St. Peter say it was so Superstition will bear very heavy yokes of external Rites and Ceremonies without complaining to be delivered from what they think a more terrible yoke of mortifying and subduing sin but yet they are very unsupportable Yokes still to ingenuous and vertuous Minds Hence I proceeded to a more particular consideration of their Worship 1. That most of their external Rites are professedly intended as expiations and satisfactions for sin This he durst not deny and therefore all their expiatory Rites are no part of Christian Worship which allows no expiation for sin but the Blood of Christ. Secondly Those distinctions between Meats which the Church of Rome calls fasting for a Canonical Fast is not to abstain from Food but from such Meats as are forbid on fasting days can be no part of Christian Worship because the Gospel allows of no distinction between clean and unclean things and therefore of no distinction of Meats neither For meat commendeth us not to God 1 Cor. 8.8 Here is another Mis-representation That a Canonical Fast is not to abstain from Food Does he deny this Yes he says this is most false but one Meal being allowed of on Fasting days A terrible Penance this which most of our Merchants and Citizens endure all the year round and eat later too generally than they do on fasting days But is there no Repast of Wine and Sweetmeats to be had at night for those who can purchase them I added There is no imaginable reason why it should be an Act of Religion meerly to abstain from Flesh if Flesh have no legal uncleanness and if it had we must all have been Carthusians and never eat Flesh more for how it should be clean one day and unclean anothâ—r is not easie to understand This is another of his Mis-representations for that is the word right or wrong He says I would insinuate that they Iudaize Whereas I expresly said that they did not Judaize but did something more absurd for they do not make such a distinction between clean and unclean Beasts as the Law of Moses did and therefore are the more absurd in forbidding to eat Flesh or any thing that comes of Flesh. But he says when God by Ieremy praises the Rechabites for abstaining from Wine was it because Wine was held by them to have a legal uncleanness No nor is Wine Flesh. But Is taming of the flesh the curbing of sensuality no reason at all for abstinence And does abstinence consist meerly in abstaining from Flesh Will not good Fish and good Wine pamper the Flesh too To place abstinence in delectu ciborum as in abstaining from Flesh is a senseless piece of Superstition if it serve the ends of Mortification it is well if it be made essential to a Religious Fast it 's absurd and no part of Christian Worship Thus I shewed 3ly that the Church of Rome has infinitely out-done the Jewish Law in the Religion of holy Places Altars Vestments Utensils c. which he passes over silently 4ly That they attribute divine Vertues and Powers to senseless and inanimate things as is evident from that great Veneration they pay to Relicks and those great Vertues they ascribe to them from their consecrations of their Agnus Dei's their Wax-Candles Oyl Bells Crosses Images Ashes Holy Water for the health of Soul and Body to drive away evil Spirits to allay Storms to heal Diseases to pardon Venial and sometimes mortal Sins meerly by kissing or touching them carrying them in their hands wearing them about their necks c. These things look more like Charms than Christian Worship Indeed they argue that such men do not understand what Grace and Sanctification means who think that little Images of Wax that Candles that Oyl that Water and Salt that Bells that Crosses can be sanctified by the Spirit of God and convey Grace and Sanctification by the sight or sound or touch or such external applications He who thinks that inanimate things are capable of the Sanctification of the Spirit or can convey this Sanctification to us by some divine and invisible effluviums of Grace may as well lodge Reason and Understanding and Will and Passions in senseless matter and receive it from them again by a kiss or touch Here are three of his thirty Mis-representations all together and yet the Jesuit is more tame than the Devil is usually represented to be when he is frighted with Holy Water But let us hear him All these are Mis-representations of our Faith which teaches us nothing of all this Well however this is pretty moderate here is no Hectoring yet no Minister Oates and Minister Sherlock What we believe is that nothing can free us from the guilt of any sin which is external and doth not affect and change the heart But this is not the Question Sir but whether Agnus Dei's Holy Water c. can deliver from the guilt of sin and drive away the Devil and work a great many Deliverances for us whether with or without the change of heart if they can affect and change the heart that is the better way and then they effectually convey Grace which is the thing I said and which he dares not deny if they cannot forgive sin I desire him to tell his People so who like that better than changing the heart and then they will purchase no more Agnus Dei's nor trade in such Roman Merchandize But they believe That all Creatures of God are good and that they are sanctified by the Word of God and Prayer What! to forgive Sins to give Grace to allay Storms to drive away Devils Was this the Apostle's meaning in those words Is there any word of Promise in the Gospel for this Which is the meaning of being sanctified by the word Neither doth Faith teach us that any material thing hath any other than moral connexion with Grace either obtained for us by the Prayers of the Church offered for us at the blessing of those things or of those blessed Saints whom we honour and call upon by that Veneration or by the Sacraments according to the Institution and Covenant of Christ but we do not believe that God's Grace is inherent but in the Souls of the Faithful or that any sin is remitted without a due disposition in a repentant sinner As for the Sacraments I have already given an account of their Vertue and Efficacy that they are instituted signs and means of our Union to Christ and that intitles us to the influences of the divine Grace Whether it be a natural or moral connexion between Grace and such inanimate things is not the Question but it seems Grace is annexed to them which is all I affirm But however Grace is
be not necessary for all Lay-Christians suppose in their station they are necessary for no body but the Pope and his Clergy and that is the truth of the story for they are the only people that get any thing by them and it concerns them only to know these matters Secondly I proceeded to Holiness and Vertue the promoting of which is another great Gospel-design and shewed how many ways this is hindred in the Church of Rome I observed That great value the Church of Rome sets upon an external Righteousness is very apt to corrupt mens notions of what is good to perswade them that such external Observances are much more pleasing to God and therefore certainly much better in themselves than true Gospel-Obedience than Moral and Evangelical Vertues for that which will merit of God the pardon of the greatest Immoralities and a great Reward that which supplies the want of true Vertue which compensates for sin and makes men great Saints must needs be more pleasing to God than Vertueit self This he cites as a great Mis-representation and so it is as he puts it for he makes me say that they teach all this whereas all that I say is that these are natural inferences which men draw from that great value the Church of Rome puts upon an external Righteousness and that such Conceits as these are very apt to make men careless of a holy life Thus he makes me say The Roman Church teaches that men need take no care of venial sins and that they may keep clear of mortal sins without any great attainment in Vertue But I never said the Roman Church taught this I say The Doctrine of venial sins which cannot deserve eternal punishments how many soever they are is apt to give men very slight thoughts of very great evils that wdile this distinction lasts men have an excuse at hand for a great many sins which they need take no care of What! because the Church teaches that they need not avoid venial sins By no means But because they shall not be damned for them which is encouragement enough to most men to be careless about them If they keep clear of mortal sins they are safe that is as to eternal damnation and that men may do without any great attainments in Vertue which is certainly true whoever teaches it according to the Roman distinction between venial and mortal sins I shewed farther that the Church of Rome makes void most of the Gospel Motives to a holy life The second was the Holiness and Purity and inflexible Justice of the divine Nature which enforces the necessity of Holiness because a holy God cannot be reconciled to wicked men nor forgive our sins unless we repent and reform But the force of this Argument is lost in the Church of Rome by the Iudicial Absolution of the Priest. For they see daily the Priest does absolve them without forsaking their sins and God must confirm the Sentence of his Ministers and therefore they are absolved and need not fear that God will not absolve them Which must either destroy all sense of God's essential Holiness and Purity and perswade them that God can be reconciled to Sinners while they continue in their sins or else they must believe that God hath given power to his Priests to absolve those whom he could not have absolved himself This he thus repeats They teach for this must always come in to make me a Mis-representer that when a Priest absolves men that forsake not their sins God must confirm the Sentence of his Minister and therefore they are absolved and need not fear whence they believe that God can be reconciled to sinners whilst they remain in their sins and therefore they must believe that God hath given power to his Priests to absolve those whom he could not absolve himself How unlike this is to what I said I need not tell any man but he has not only mis-represented my words and sense but has made non-sense of it too which is a little too much at once for if they believe that God can be reconciled to sinners while they continue in their sins they need not believe that God had given power to the Priest to absolve those whom he could not absolve himself that is unreformed sinners for if God can be reconciled to such men who continue in their sins he may absolve them too as well as the Priest. But I must not part with this point thus I said that de facto men saw that they are every day or as oft as they please to go to confession absolved by the Priest without forsaking their sins is not this true That they are taught that God confirms the Sentence of his Ministers and when they are forgiven by the Priest they are forgiven by God That the Priest is a Judge and absolves as a Judge by a true judicial not a meer declarative power Is not this true And is not this reason enough for them to believe that when they are absolved by the Priest without forsaking their sins they are absolved by God And does not this destroy that Argument from the holiness and justice of God that he will not forgive our sins unless we forsake them But he says They teach that to receive absolution without a real forsaking of our sins in lieu of forgiveness of them adds a hainous Sacriledge But how do they teach this by words or actions Their actions teach quite otherwise for they absolve men over and over who do not forsake their sins though they know that they do not and if such Absolutions do not avail to the forgiveness of sins what greater security is there in the Popish judicial than in the Protestant declarative Absolution Nay why do they cheat people out of their Souls and lull them into security by such void Absolutions Nor do their words teach any necessity of mens forsaking sin to make their Absolution valid Contrition is the most that is required to Absolution Now suppose Contrition signifie a sorrow for sin and a resolution to forsake it yet Contrition is not forsaking sin is not holiness of life and if Absolution upon Contrition puts men into a state of salvation then men may be saved by the Sacrament of Penance without an actual forsaking of sin for if they sin again it is only repeating the same Remedy the Sacrament of Penance with the Absolution of the Priest will restore them to the favour of God and a state of salvation again Which shews that the Church of Rome does not teach what he pretends I wish she did or that he would teach it for her that the Absolution of the Priest will avail no man who does not actually forsake his sins and reform his life and then we should see what value men would have for their Judicial Absolution A third Gospel-Motive to Holiness is the Death and Sacrifice of Christ because his Bloud is the Bloud of the Covenant and the efficacy
dispute much about Purgatory let him only ask a Popish Priest How the Doctrine of Purgatory can be reconciled with that stupendious love of God declared to penitent Sinners in his Son Jesus Christ For it is a contradiction to the Notion of Goodness among men to inflict such terrible punishments in meer Grace and Love even when the sin is pardoned and the Sinner reconciled and no longer in a state of discipline and trial This is the force of the Argument and here the Jesuite if he likes it may try his skill Secondly Another Argument I urged against Purgatory was this that it destroys or weakens that security the Gospel hath given Sinners of their Redemption from the Wrath of God and the just punishment of their Sins And that upon two accounts 1. As it destroys mens hopes in the Merits of Christ and the Atonement and Expiation of his Blood. For if the Blood of Christ does not deliver us from the punishment of Sin what security is this to a Sinner Yes you 'll say Christ has redeemed us from eternal though not from temporal punishments and therefore penitent Sinners shall not be eternally damned This he puts down as a Mis-representation p. 67. and says p. 73. That Christ truly obtained remission from all temporal as well as eternal pain and that whoever is regenerated by Baptism he not only is not adjudged to eternal torments but neither doth he suffer after death any Purgatory pains if he die in that state of recovered innocency This I grant they own that unless men sin after Baptism they are neither in danger of Hell nor Purgatory and yet it is evident they deny that Christ has expiated the temporal punishments due to sin either in this World or in Purgatory for if he had there were an end both of the Popish Sacrament of Penance and Purgatory and if Christ by his death had expiated the temporal punishments of sin I would desire to know why the temporal punishment of sin is not as well remitted by the Sacrament of Penance as by Baptism since the expiation of Christ's Blood as they pretend is applied to us in both and therefore this is a meer fallacy for though a Sinner in Baptism is delivered from all punishment due to sin yet he is not in a proper sence delivered from what they call the temporal punishment of sin for there was no such punishment due to sin before Baptism Hell not Purgatory is the punishment of all sin before Baptism and therefore a baptized Person is delivered by Christ from Hell which is the only punishment due to Sins before Baptism and if he die before he commits any actual sin after Baptism he escapes Purgatory and goes immediately to Heaven not because Christ's death has delivered him from the temporal pains of Purgatory but because he had done nothing to deserve it For what they call the temporal punishment of sin is only the pains of Penance and no man is capable of the Sacrament of Penance who is not a baptized Christian and yet Purgatory is of the same nature with the pains of Penance for there men compleat the expiation of their sins by enduring the pains of Purgatory which was wanting to perfect their Penance in this World. And therefore Baptism does not remit the temporal punishment of sin because there is none due till men sin after Baptism it can no more remit the temporal pains of Purgatory than the temporal pains of Penance which none but a baptized Sinner is obnoxious to and therefore it is false according to their Doctrine to say That Christ obtained remission from all temporal as well as eternal pain unless they will say that Christ obtained remission of the pains of Penance and then farewel Penance and Purgatory together And this very bottom our Jesuite sets it on p. 75. where he tells us Those who say that it were a greater mercy in God to remit all the punishment due to sin blame Christ for Preaching Penance and account him on that score less merciful which justifies what I said that the pains of Purgatory answer the pains of Penance and therefore this temporal punishment of sin was not expiated by the Death of Christ no more then Penance is and when he can prove that Christ Preached such Penance as this we will acknowledge Purgatory But to return I desired to know how any man can be satisfied from Scripture that Christ by his death has delivered us from eternal punishments if he have not delivered us from the temporal punishments of sin in the next World. For if those Texts which prove our Redemption by the Death of Christ do not prove that Christ has redeemed us from the whole punishment dâ—e to sin in the next World they prove nothing and then there is not one place of Scripture to prove that Christ has redeemed us from eternal punishments For if Christ's dying for our sins making atonement for sin being a propitiation through faith in his blood if remission and forgiveness of sins being justified having peace with God being reconciled to God and saved from wrath do not signifie taking away the punishment of sin I desire one Text to prove that a Sinner who is pardoned and justified shall not be eternally punished for sin and if they do signifie taking away the punishment of sin how can a Sinner who is pardoned and justified be punished for his sins so that these Scriptures either prove that there is no Purgatory or they cannot prove that we shall be delivered from Hell. This Argument he slightly mentions p. 69 but has so much wit as to say nothing to it I asked farther whether there are two kinds of punishments due to sin temporal and eternal of such a distinct nature that the promise of forgiveness does not include both nay that God cannot forgive both that God can only forgive eternal punishment but the Sinner himself must endure the temporal If this were the case I would grant the promises of forgiveness could extend only to eternal punishments but if the Curse of the Law be eternal death and all other punishments are only parts of the Curse and a partial execution of it then to forgive eternal punishments must include the forgiveness of temporal punishments as parts or branches of it and this I shewed was the case here that there is no other threatning in all the Gospel against sin but eternal death and therefore all other punishments are inflicted by vertue of this Law as included in it and consequently he who is delivered from this Curse of the Law from eternal punishments is delivered from the whole punishment due to sin though not from correction and discipline which is not properly the Curse of the Law nor the Wrath of God. A little piece of this he cites p. 69 but without an answer In his following harangue indeed for Purgatory he endeavours to prove by some examples of God's punishing those whose sins were forgiven and
by some Sayings of the Fathers that after the guilt of sin is forgiven there remains an obligation to undergo punishment but these have been answered often enough and are no Answer to the Argument of the Preservative and therefore I am not concerned about them I asked farther why they call Purgatory which is a place of punishment in the other World a temporal punishment which is an abuse of the Language of Scripture which makes this World temporal and the next World eternal The things which are seen are temporal but the things which are not seen are eternal and therefore temporal punishments signifie the punishments of this World but the unseen punishments as well as the unseen rewards of the next World are eternal which is a demonstration that there is no Purgatory unless it be eternal This he thus repeats p. 69. The things which are seen that is of this World are temporal but the things which are not seen that is of the next World are eternal This is a demonstration that there is no Purgatory which is both to conceal the force of the Argument and to pervert it for he should at least have added there is no Purgatory unless it be eternal But his answer to this is extremely pleasant p. 76. St. Paul never taught that all things that are not seen or of another World are eternal or else God would be eternally judging and so never rewarding his Servants or punishing his Enemies But it is plain the Apostle by things that are seen or not seen signifies things which are to be enjoyed or suffered by us not any transient Acts of God or Creatures and thus if there be any such thing as Purgatory in the other World it must be eternal To this I added The state of the next World is called either life or death eternal life or eternal death Those who believe in Christ shall never die Now I desire to know the difference between living and dying and perishing in the next World. For bad men do not cease to be nor lose all sense in the next World no more than good men and therefore life can only signifie a state of happiness and death a state of misery Now if good men must not perish must not die in the next World they must not go to Purgatory which is as much perishing as much dying as Hell though not so long This he thus recites p. 69. Who believes in Christ shall never die therefore good men must not go to Purgatory which is as much perishing and dying as Hell but not so long Which you see is still to conceal the force of the Argument but the comfort is he says nothing against it unless his repeating it must pass for a confutation But he immediately adds as if it were in the same period otherwise Purgatory may be everlasting life for all I know and so the pains of it eternal But this is several periods off In summing up this Argument I inquired how a Papist who believes a Purgatory-fire wherein he shall be tormented God knows how long for his sins can prove that a penitent sinner shall not be damned for his sins After other proofs which I thought it was reasonable for them to urge and I am sure they can urge no better I alledged this in their behalf that Christ has promised that those who believe in him shall not perish but have everlasting life and that proves that the pains of Purgatory cannot be for ever for then Christ could not perform his promise of bestowing everlasting life on them To this I answer So I confess one would think and so I should have thought also that when Christ promised that such believers should not perish and should never die that he meant that such men should not go to Purgatory but if falling into Purgatory he not perishing and not dying it may 〈◊〉 â—verlasting life too for ought I know and then the pains of Purgatory may be eternal I hope the Reader is by this time sensible how easie it is to render any Discourse ridiculous by taking half Sentences and joyning those passages together which have no connexion and dependance I observed farther That the Doctrine of Purgatory destroys our hope and confidence in the mediation of Christ as it represents him less merciful and compassionate or less powerful than the necessities of sinners require him to be 1. As for his Compassion It is no great sign of tenderness and compassion to leave his Members in Purgatory-fire which burns as hot as Hell. Could I believe this of our Saviour I should have very mean thoughts of his kindness and not much rely on him for any thing it is a wonderful thing to me that when a merciful man cannot see a Beast in torment without relieving it it should be thought consistent with the mercy and compassion of our Saviour to see us burn in Purgatory for Years and Ages Part of this he repeats and I suppose thought all the World would take it for an ill saying and therefore leaves it as he found it but I shall stand to it till he confutes it 2. If it be not want of Compassion it must be want of Power in our Saviour to help us and if he want Power to deliver from Purgatory I should more question his Power to deliver from Hell for that is the harder of the two if his Blood could not expiate for the temporal punishment of sin which the Merits of some supererâ—gating Saints or the Pope's Indulgencies or the Priests Masses can redeâ—m us from how câ—uld it make expiation for eternal punishment iâ— hâ—s intâ—râ—st in the Court of Heaven cannot do the less how can 〈◊〉 do the greater This he calls a Misrepresentation and truly as he has recited it it is a very great one P. 68. That the Blood of Christ could not expiate for the temporal punishment of sin which the Merits of some supererogating Saints or the Priest's Masses or Pope's Indulgencies can redeem us from how then can that Blood make expiation for eternal punishment I say if it cannot do one which is the greater muâ—h less can it do the other which is the less he makes me say that it cannot do one which is the less and therefore cannot do the greater This is Popish Liberty of Conscience with a witness From the Doctrine of Purgatory I proceeded to the Invocation of Saints and Angels 〈◊〉 our Mediators whether this does not also disparage the Graâ—â— of the Gospel the Love of God and of our Mediator and Advocate Jesus Christ to penitent sinners Now I observed 1. with respect to God That no man can believe that God is so very gracious to sinners for the sake of Christ who seeks to so many Advocates and Mediators to intercede for him with God. To imagine that we want any Mediator with God but only our High-Priest who mediates in vertue of his Sacrifice is a reproach to the Divine Goodness This the Jesuite
annexed to them the conveyance of Grace from them to the Soul by meer external applications as by lighting up or carrying a consecrated Taper by sprinkling Ashes on our heads by sprinkling our selves with Holy Water by wearing an Agnus Dei or some Relicks about us c. look as if it was done not by a moral but a natural efficacy for what moral efficacy can such things have upon our minds But let it be done how it will it seems such divine Vertues and Powers are naturally or morally annexed to inanimate and senseless things and naturally or morally conveyed from them to the Soul by external applications and I desire him to shew me the difference between such Observances and Pagan Charms He has confessed enough and as much as we could desire of him when he adds Or any Vertue to be now-a-days communicated otherwise by insensible things than it was to the woman that touched the hem of Christ's Garments for Christ felt Vertue to pass from him and therefore it was a very real Communication or by the handkerchiefs of St. Paul or shadow of St. Peter And here were real and sensible effects without any moral but only natural or rather supernatural efficacy upon the Patient And if Holy Water and Agnus Dei's convey Grace at this rate I assure you they are very notable things His undertaking at last to prove Whenever required that they use no other blessings or Consecrations of such inanimate things to such spiritual purposes but what they find in the Records of the Primitive Church to have been ordered by the Apostles is bold and brave and I here challenge him to make it good but I hope he will produce better Records for it than his Homily of St. Austin of the Assumption of the blessed Virgin. 5 ly I observed farther that all this encouraged men to trust in an external Righteousness For 1. Such external Rites are very apt to degenerate into Superstition Especially 2. When they are recommended as very acceptable to God as satisfactions for our sins and meritorious of great Rewards And this is that use they serve in the Church of Rome They assert the necessity of humane satisfactions and what are these satisfactory works Fastings Whippings Pilgrimages c. all which men may do without the least sorrow for sin without any true Devotion to God without mortifying any one Lust. To make this a Mis-representation he repeats it thus They account satisfactory works Fastings Acts of Penance Prayers Alms though done without the least sorrow for sin c. Whereas I say they account these satisfactory works and they may be done without the least sorrow for sin Now are not these satisfactory works That he dares not deny May not all these be done without sorrow for sin That he dares not deny neither And this is all I said but then he will not allow that they are satisfactory works without sorrow for sin I would to God he could perswade all the Members of his Church of the truth of this But let me ask him one Question Are these Acts of Penance in the Church of Rome intended as expressions of sorrow for sin or as satisfactions for the punishment due to it Are they necessary before Absolution to qualifie men to receive the pardon of their sins as the signs and demonstrations of a sincere repentance or to be performed after the sin is forgiven not to express our sorrow for sin but to undergo the punishment of it Are they always the voluntary choice of the sinner as the expressions of a hearty sorrow are or the sentence of a Judge imposed by the Priest upon Absolution or by the fears of Purgatory Now if such Acts of Penance are only intended to satisfie for the punishment I think to undergo punishment whether with or without sorrow for sin does satisfie for the punishment of sin Sorrow may be necessary to Absolution but when the guilt of sin is pardoned if men can undergo their penance without sorrow the satisfaction is never the less and should he promote this Doctrine that the works of Penance avail nothing unless they be done with a hearty sorrow for sin men would not be so easily perswaded to undergo their Penances especially if the Priest be fevere I observed farther that the true reason why any thinking men are so fond of an external Righteousness is to excuse them from true and real Holiness of Life All men know that in the Offices of Piety and Vertue they can never do more than is their duty and therefore as nothing can be matter of merit which is our duty So the true intention of all merits and works of Supererogation are to supply the place of Duty and to satisfie for their sins or to purchase a Reward which they have no title to by doing their duty that is because they do not their duty But then the Jesuit represents it as if I said They could have no reward for doing their duty and therefore they add works of Supererogation which is Jesuit like they may be rewarded for their duty if they would do it though they cannot merit by doing their duty 3ly I observed that to make these meritorious and satisfactory Superstitions more easie one man may satisfie for another and communicate his Merits to him this the Jesuit confidently says is a sham for each man is bound to satisfie for himself fulfilling the Penances imposed on him Now suppose that men are bound personally to perform those Penances which are imposed on them by their Priests in Confession what I said was not confined to Penances imposed in Confession and I presume he will grant there are other satisfactions and penances necessary besides these Did he never hear of men who have been hired to whip themselves for some rich and great sinners to say such a number of Ave-Maries for them If one man cannot satisfie for another what becomes of their Indulgences which are the application of the Merits of Supererogating Saints to those who need them Another Mis-representation is that I say They pay for Indulgences with Money and buy Satisfactions and Merits But though Indulgences are not to be had without Money it is a sad Mis-representation to call this Buying which should only be called Alms-deeds but the thing is the same let them call it what they will Alms-deeds if they will call them Alms-deeds and that at a set rate and down-right Bargain are the price of Indulgences and Satisfactions and if this were the reason of giving Alms were there such an express Bargain and Sale in the case I am of his mind that every Alms-giver might with as much justice be accused to have bought of God his Grace and Pardon for a sum of money From hence I proceeded to shew what kind of Worship Christ has prescribed to his Disciples and the general account we have of it 4 John 23 24. But the hour cometh and now is when the true worshippers shall
absurdity of Praying to God in an Unknown Tongue when neither our Understandings nor Affections can joyn in our Prayers For I suppose no man will say that to pray to God or praise him in words which we do not understand is to worship God in Spirit unless he thinks that a Parrot may be taught to pray in the Spirit This he calls a Calumny He would insinuate that Catholicks when they assist to present he should have said at Prayers which they do not understand are not commanded to pray in Spirit by devout Thoughts and pious Affections Now I insinuate no such thing when they are present at Prayers which they do not understand they may have other devout thoughts for ought I know but I say they cannot offer those Prayers to God with their understanding which they do not understand and in such Prayers they do not pray with the Mind and Spirit and therefore all such Prayers are absurd and contrary to the nature of Christian Worship which is to worship God in Spirit But my work is not at an end yet there are some other Misrepresentations and Calumnies which he has picked out of the fourth Section of the Preservative which must be considered The fourth Section concerns the reformation and improvement of Humane Nature which I shewed to be the great design of the Gospel and that particularly with respect to Knowledge and Holiness and I examined how far the Principles and Practices of the Church of Rome did comply with this great Gospel Design 1. As for Knowledge I supposed neither the Church of Rome nor any one for her would pretend that she is any great Friend to Knowledge which is so apt to make men Hereticks That knowing Papists are not beholden to their Church for their Knowledge which deprives them of all the means of Knowledge will not allow them to believe their senses but commands them to believe Transubstantiation which is contrary to the evidence of sense forbids men the use of Reason in matters of Religion suffers them not to judge for themselves nor examine the Reasons of their Faith and denies them the use of the Bible which is the only means to know the revealed Will of God and when men must neither believe their Senses nor use their Reason nor read the Scripture it is easie to guess what knowing and understanding Christians they must needs be Against this it may be objected that the Church of Rome does instruct her Children in the true Christian Faith though she will not allow them to read the Scriptures nor judge for themselves which is the safer way to teach them the pure Catholick Faith without danger of Error or Heresie To this I answered This were something did the Church of Rome take care to instruct them in all necessary Doctrines and to teach nothing but what is true and could such men who thus tamely receive the dictates of the Church be said to know and to understand their Religion so that here were two Inquiries 1. Whether the Church of Rome instructs her Children in all necessary truth and nothing but the truth 2. Whether she so instructs them that they may be said to know and understand How far the Church of Rome is from doing the first I said all Christians in the World are sensible but themselves but that is not our present Dispute But our Jesuite it seems will make it the Dispâ—te or it shall pass for a perfect Slander for thus he repeats it they take no care to instruct mâ—n in all necâ—ssary Doctrines Which I did not positively affirm bâ—t since he will have it so I do now affirm That they do not instruct men in all necessary Doctrines and that thâ—y teach them a great many false Doctrines But then he must remember what I mean by instructing it is not meerly to teach them to repeat the Articles of their Creed but to give them the true sense and meaning of them and I do affirm and am ready to prove it and possibly may do so when leisure permits that they do not rightly instruct men in the great and necessary Doctrine of forgiveness of Sins in the Name of Christ nor in the nature of Christ's Mediation and Intercession for us nor in the nature of Justification or of Gospel and Obedience but teach such Errors as overthrow the true Gospel notion of these great and necessary Doctrines Then as for their manner of Teaching to require men to believe what they say meerly upon the Authority of the Church without suffering them to examine whether such Doctrines are taught in Scripture or to exercise their own reason and judgment about it can make no man a knowing and understanding Christian. For no man understands his Religion who does not in some measure know the reasons of his Faith and judge whether they be sufficient or not who knows not how to distinguish between Truth and Error who has no Rule to go by but must take all upon trust and the credit of his Teachers who believes whatever he is told and learns his Creed as School-boys do their Grammar without understanding it this is not an active but a kind of passive knowledge Such men receive the impression that is made on them as Wax does and understand no more of the matter These Sayings that are marked out are more of his Misrepresentations which need no other Vindication but to be shewn in their own light and proper places And yet I did not deny but some men might be so dull and stupid as to be capable of little more than to be taught their Religion as Children but certainly this is not the utmost perfection of knowledge that any Christian must aim at which he thus represents With them this is the utmost perfection of Knowledge that any Christian must aim at This I did not say but this I say that it is the utmost perfection of Knowledge which any man can attain to who will be contented with the Methods of the Church of Rome not to examine his Religion but to take all upon the credit of the Church Well How does our Jesuite confute this heavy Charge and perfect Slander Does he shew that they teach all necessary Truths and nothing but Truth Does he prove that men may be very knowing Christians without understanding the Reasons of their Faith Not one word of this which alone was to his purpose but he says hundreds of thousands of Religious men are employed in instructing the Ignorant and teaching Children and whoever denied this that they do teach Men and Children after their fashion But does this prove that they teach them all necessary Truths and nothing but truth Or that they make them ever the wiser for their teaching As for those ignorant Protestants he has had to deal with if he made Converts of them I believe they were very ignorant otherwise if there were Ignorance between them it was as likely to lie on the Jesuite's side Having laid down
they be contâ—ite and absolved again they are restored to a state of Grace again and so toties quoties Now such Penitents as are sorry for their sins but do not reform them are condemned to Hell 〈◊〉 the Protestant Church and only to Purgatory in the Church of Rome and therefore the First is no Calumny The Second is That Indulgencies may be bought for Money this is no Calumny as I have already shewn or avail a Soul undisposed to receive the benefit of them through want of contrition the guilt of sin not being before remitted This I never said and therefore is no Calumny of mine The third That Masses said for any Soul in Purgatory avail such as during life have not deserved and merited that mercy This I take to be nonsense according to the Doctrines of their own Church For certainly those Souls who have merited to get into Purgatory have merit enough to receive the benefit of Masses Another Gospel-Motive to Holiness are the Examples of Good Men but in the Church of Rome the extraordinary Vertues of great and meritorious Saints are not so much for imitation as for a stock of Merits The more Saints they have the less need is there for other men to be Saints unless they have a mind to it because there is a greater treasure of Merits to relieve those who have none of their own and if one man can merit for twenty there is no need there should be above one in twenty good Here he quibbles upon the different acceptation of Merit as it relates to a reward or as it expiates the punishment of sin In the first sense he says Merit is personal not communicative but if it be communicative in the second sense that one man may be delivered from punishments by the Merits of another and if it be not there is an end of the gainful trade of Indulgencies that is sufficient to my Argument and will satisfie most sinners who are not concerned about degrees of glory if they can escape punishment Lastly I shewed that the Gospel-Means and Instruments of Holiness do not escape much better in the Church of Rome among others I instanced in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper which besides those supernatural conveyances of Grace which are annexed to it by our Saviour's Institution is a great Moral Instrument of Holiness but in the Church of Rome this admirable Sacrament is turned into a dumb shew which no body can be edified with or into a sacrifice for the living and the dead which expiates sin and serves instead of a holy life Here he says there are three crying Calumnies 1. That the Sacrament among them is nothing but a shew or a sacrifice whereas they very often receive it and did I say the Sacrament was never received in the Church of Rome 2. That they require the practice of no Vertue to the receiving the Sacrament whereas they require the Sacrament of Penance to prepare for the Eucharist But I spoke of those Vertues which were to be exercised in receiving which there are not such advantages for in the Church of Rome where the Office is not understood and the mind diverted with a thousand insignificant Ceremonies 3. That our exposing the blessed Sacrament is a dumb shew and so we assist at holy Mass. And whether it be or no let those judge who have seen the Ceremony How much the Sacrifice of the Mass encourages Vertue we have already seen I doubt not but our Jesuite can give as good an Answer to this Vindication as he did to the Preservative and I as little doubt but he will unless Mr. Needham's Name to the License may be my security for he has threatned it shall be to him a sufficient Note and Character of a Book not worth the Reading much less the Censuring where-ever he sees that Reverend Person has opened it the Press and I commend him for it for he has had very ill success with such Books of late but though I never grudge my pains in answering an Adversary who gives occasion for any useful and material Discourse for I desire whatever I say should be sifted to the very bottom and am as ready to own any Error I am convinced of as to vindicate the Truth yet it is very irksom to be forced to write a great Book meerly to rescue my words from the injuries of a perverse Comment which has been my present Task Thus any Book may be answered by a man who has wit or ignorance enough to pervert it and such Answers may be easily answered again by men who have nothing else to do but if this trade grow too common they must be very idle people indeed who will find time to read them And therefore to prevent such an impertinent trouble for the future before I take leave of my Adversary I will venture to give him a little good Advice which may stand him in stead against the next time 1. That he would be more modest and sparing in his Title-page not to paint it so formidable as to make it ridiculous it is a little too much to talk of Principles which destroy all right use of Reason Scripture Fathers Councils undermine Divine Faith and abuse Moral Honesty Or Forty malicious Culumnies and forged untruths besides several Fanatical Principles which destroy all Church Discipline and oppose Christ's Divine Authority If such things be proved against any Book I assure you it is very terrible though there be nothing of it in the Title but the World has been so long deceived with Titles that commonly the more the Title promises the less they expect in the Book Some cry it is a Mountebank's Bill otheâ—s the Man raves and if curiosity tempts any to look any farther the disappointment they meet with provokes their scorn or indignation The bare name of an Answer to a Book which is commonly known and approved is a sufficient invitation to all men to read it but it is a very impolitick thing to prejudice the Readers by a frightful Title 2. That he would not think he has confuted a Book by picking out some sayings which he thinks very inconvenient and obnoxious but in which the main Arguâ—ent of the Book is not concerned this is the case in many passages he has objected against the Preservative for though there is never a one but what is very defensible and what I have defended yet there are many that if they could not be defended the main Argument of the Book is never the worse This is as vain as to think to kill a man by launâ—hing a Sore while all his Vitals are sound and untoucht 3. That he would not boast of confuting a Book without bearing up fairly to any one Argument in it I know in his Postscript he says that he omitted nothing in Answer to the First part of the Preservative that even pretended to the appearance of an Argument that all the rest which he did not answer in his