therefore whilst the people take the Flesh under the species of Bread this may very well serve without taking the Wine too But if this be a good reason Why then need the consecrating Priest take the Wine Or why need our Saviour have appointed both Bread and Wine to be made use of in this his Holy Supper Here then you have a plain instance of their practising contrary to the Scripture in so weighty a matter as the Administring the Holy Communion To this may be joyn'd their custom of private Masses or Communions if that be not a contradiction the Priest himself many times receiving alone and none of the people who are present partaking with him contrary to the first institution of this Holy Sacrament and to the very nature and design of it as it is a Communion and contrary also to the practice of the Primitive Church To these may a great many more easily be added of which we have formerly taken notice Such as having their Prayers in an unknown Tongue contrary to the Apostles direction 1 Cor. 14. Their Worshipping of Saints and Angels which is forbidden in all those places that command us to Worship God alone in the name of Jesus Christ our only Mediator and most expresly Col. 2. 18. Rev. 22. 9. Also their Worship of Images and of the Host contrary to the second Commandment And for an instance of their false Doctrines many of which we have often mentioned we need go no further than that palpable one of Transubstantiation which he mentions as agreeable to Scripture that says This is my body But how little these words make for his purpose we have before shewn and that their plain meaning is This is the Sacrament of my Body or the representation and commemoration of it and the way of conveying the benefits that come by it according to the constant use of the like expressions in the matter of Sacraments even as the Paschal Lamb is called the Passover of which it was only a solemn Memorial But that the natural substance of Bread and consequently of Wine remains after Consecration we have proved from the Apostle who again and again calls it so 1 Cor. 11. How then can he say that without ground we separate from the Romish Church Since if there were nothing else to be blamed this alone were sufficient reason to keep out of their Communion since in order to it they require our belief of a Doctrine most apparently false namely that of Transubstantiation and enjoyn a practice founded upon this Doctrine which is notoriously sinful viz. the Worship of the Consecrated Elements as if they were now turned into the substance of Christ's Body and Blood yea into whole Christ both as to his Divine and Humane Nature Now they themselves as you have heard do grant that if there was no such change made by Consecration this Worship would be idolatrous and therefore we being upon good grounds assured that no such change there is do utterly abhor the very thoughts of such Idolatrous worship and do believe our selves bound in Conscience to Almighty God to undergo a Thousand deaths rather than be guilty of it yea though we lived in Popish Countries But besides this we here in England owe no manner of obedience to the Bishop of Rome nor are under any obligation to forsake the Communion of our own Church for that of the Romish but should be guilty of that hainous sin of Schism by so doing as the Papists amongst us are at this day of which more in another place As to what he talks that they who go from their Church can give no reason why they should rather turn to Luther than to the Calvinists c. it concerns not us in the least who neither turn to the one or the other but continue in Communion with our own Church in which we were Baptized and live in obedience to our own Rulers in Church and State whom God hath set over us Nor do I discern by what reason he makes this silly inference nor yet for what purpose But let me hear his next Argument L. It cannot be proved that ever at any time were admitted any Priests that were not first duly consecrated by Bishops Wherefore we rightly infer that all Lutheran Ministers Calvinists or any other Sects not Consecrated according to the old custom of the Holy Church are for both from the name and reality of the Divine Priesthood and so that in their Cene or Supper as they call it they give but a meer piece of Bread as also that they have no power to Absolve from Sins but send away people as entangled and defiled with Sin as they were when they came to them T. As to this Argument we of the Church of England are nothing concerned in it since our Priests receive Ordination from Bishops and therefore have as full authority for the exercise of their Ministerial function as those of any Christian Church in the World Some other Reformed Churches also do embrace Episcopal Government As for such who want it we shall not enter into a dispute concerning the validity of their Orders But this I think we may safely assert that if the people be duly qualified for the Lord's Supper as St. Paul himself calls it 1 Cor. 11. 20. by a firm belief of the Gospel and sincere love and obedience to our Blessed Saviour they shall not want the benefits that are promised to worthy Communicants through any defect or irregularity in the Ordination of their Ministers And if they do truly repent of their sins and forsake them they shall for Christ's sake obtain forgiveness from God though never any Priest should give them Absolution But on the other hand our Writers have shewn that according to the common principle received in the Romish Church That the truth of Sacraments depends upon the intention of the Priest the people cannot be certain at any time that they have true Sacraments no nor whether he be a true Priest that Administers them But I shall trouble you with nothing more on this Argument L. There is no need since it reaches not our Church in the least I shall therefore proceed to the fifth which is this It cannot be found in the whole Holy Scripture that nothing is to be believed but what clearly and expresly is contained written in the same whence follows the ruine and overthrow of the ground-work on which Lutherans Calvinists and other Sectaries rely when they affirm that nothing is to be believed but what is expresly set down in Holy Writ T. I wonder who says so Every thing is to be believed that has sufficient evidence of its truth whether it be in Scripture or not But this we say and this I suppose he means to argue against that nothing is of necessity to be believed in order to Salvation but what is contain'd in Holy Scripture Which in effect is the same as to say that the Holy Scripture contains all necessary
may the King of France do the same in his as if the Pope should provoke him probably he might and so may all others if they please By which means at length the Bishop of Rome would be confined to his own Diocess and his Spiritual power be shut up in much the same limits with his Temporal But alas what an utter ruin would this be to the Papal dignity and honour How would their treasures be drain'd their glory sullied and their power abated yea even reduced to nothing No wonder therefore if Bellarmine in the Preface to his Books of the Romish Bishop stiles this Doctrine of his Supremacy the very summ or chief point of Christianity Had he said of Popery it had been true enough For 't is plain they look upon this as one of the most weighty articles of their faith Let this be denied our conformity to their Church in all other things will signifie little or nothing As it appears in Henry the Eighths case for though he still retain'd the main Body of Popery yet because he rejected this power of the Pope he was reckoned and treated as an Heretick and Apostate Whereas let this be but own'd and you shall be dispensed with in many other things As our Historians tell us it was offered to Queen Elizabeth that we should have our Service in English Communion in both kinds c. provided she would submit to the Popes authority and own his Supremacy L. This is I perceive so useful an opinion that they have great reason to be zealous in asserting it but it doth so apparently serve their own ends that were it for nothing else I should mightily suspect the truth of it but by the very slender proof they bring either from Scripture or Reason I am sufficiently assured that it is notoriously false T. Good ground you have so to be yet pray consider what mighty stress they lay upon this idle opinion whilst they confine the Catholick Church to those who embrace it and Excommunicate all others as Hereticks and Schismaticks Yea such homage they pay to this their great Master that even in things of an indifferent nature they will rather yield obedience to his commands than to those of their own Prince And that 's plain from this instance amongst others that for a considerable time in Queen Elizabeths days the Papists came to our Churches but after the Pope had sent order to the contrary they generally desisted And I have heard some eminent Papists alledging the Popes Prohibition as the chief reason of their not taking the Oath of Allegiance So certainly true it is that a Papist acting according to the rules of his own Church can be no further a good Subject than the Pope will give him leave Nor has any Doctrine been more destructive of the rights of Princes and the duty of subjects than this of the Popes Supremacy In pursuance of this or for the promoting it has the peace of the world in these latter ages been greatly disturbed Kings and Kingdoms Excommunicated and endeavoured to be destroy'd Yea for the disowning of this according to their mercyless tenents must we poor Protestants be made utterly miserable both in this life and that to come Here we must be condemned to fire and faggot and hereafter to everlasting burnings even because we will not believe the Bishop of Rome to be Christs Vicar on Earth L. For the sake of this I am more apt to suspect the rest of their Popish Doctrines But though the Pope be not Christs Vicar yet is it not too severe to stile him Antichrist for so it seems many of our Writers do at which my Author is very angry and says it is a calumny and a lye and most intollerable stupidity to assert it T. Certainly not greater than to assert his Supremacy But pray what reason does he give for this his anger and his confidence L. He says that Antichrist shall be a Jew a particular man at the end of the world whereas the Popes be successively many of divers Nations and many ages ago T. Whilst he gives you only his bare word for all this there would need no more confutation than a bare denial Nor shall I give you or my self the trouble to search into the Revelation or any other obscure places of Scripture thence to prove the Pope to be Antichrist Only you may call to mind the saying of Pope Gregory even now quoted That he who should take on him the title of Universal Bishop is the forerunner of Antichrist And so far as Pope Gregory's Infallibility may be allow'd they may serve to prove his Successors to be an Antichristian generation of men But without going about positively to define what is meant by Antichrist in the New Testament that which I would chiefly recommend to your serious consideration in this matter is this That though the Bishops of Rome were at first very pious and good men and so generally continued for some ages yet as they grew in wealth they did by degrees strangely degenerate from the virtue and piety of their Predecessors till at length they with the Grandees of the Clergy who are the Governing part of the Popish faction have most apparently set up and pursued a design exactly contrary to that of our blessed Saviour which design of theirs may therefore well enough be stiled Antichristian and so may the abettors of it who have by the most vile and unchristian methods carried on the same To make this manifest in a few words consider that our blessed Saviour hath expresly told us that his Kingdom is not of this world does not consist in riches honours and worldly dignity but his whole business was to promote the glory of God and the salvation of mens souls by bringing us to the love and practice of piety and humility righteousness and mercy purity and sobriety and all true virtue and goodness But now on the contrary he who stiles himself Christs Vicar plainly enough declares that his Kingdom is of this world For what is it they seek after and so earnestly contend for but worldly greatness and power pomp and glory to make all men pay homage and obedience to them And under this pretence of being Vicar of Christ and Successor of St. Peter have the Popes for many ages exalted themselves above all that is called God I mean above all Civil power above Kings and Emperours who are indeed Gods Vicegerents on earth They have set their feet on the necks of Princes and kickt off their Crowns at their pleasure deposed and destroy'd Kings absolved their Subjects from the Allegiance due to them and disposed of their Kingdoms to others so far as they had power For their own secular interests they have often stir'd up Wars amongst Christian Princes yea themselves have maintain'd and prosecuted the same They have excited the people to Civil Wars and Seditions and sometimes even drawn the Son to rebel against his own Father They have set
confirming their belief of his Doctrine The Doctrine was to be believed but the miracle was to be seen which confirm'd that Doctrine To instance in one for all When the water was turn'd into wine Ioh. 2. it was now seen and tasted to be true wine only it was much better than common wine Otherwise do you think if it had still had the colour the smell and the taste of water that the people would have been perswaded it was turned into wine Would they have been satisfied with an odd story that the substance was wine though the accidents of water still remain'd or with any such idle unintelligible talk Would such a sort of miracle as this that could no way be perceived ever have been believed Or would the pretence to such miracles ever have gain'd Disciples to our Saviour And yet such a one is this of Transubstantiation L. So very strange and unaccountable it is that it never ought to be admitted without very good proof T. And is it not then almost as strange that ever any man should believe so absurd a Doctrine not only without good proof but even against the express words of Scripture as well as against his reason and senses L. No matter for sense and reason they cry but how do you prove it to be against Scripture T. It may be proved from those places which tell us of our Saviours being received into Heaven as Act. 3. 21. and he cannot at the same time be corporally present upon earth and in heaven too L. But did he not appear to St. Paul and others after his Ascension T. Yes he did so yet does not this prove him to be then corporally present for he might render himself visible to them without descending as he did to St. Stephen or he might appear to them in a Vision and make himself present to their imagination Or he might be said to appear to them by his Angel whom he sent For thus in Scripture it 's commonly said God appear'd to this or that man when he sent his Angel to him with some message But besides this the plain words of the Evangelists when they relate the institution of this Holy Sacrament do directly contradict this Doctrine of Transubstantiation For they tell us that our Saviour took bread and blessed it and brake it even the very same that he took that he blest and what he blest that he broke and what is this but true bread as to its natural substance Only in a mystical and spiritual sense it was made the Body of Christ by Consecration And thus also St. Paul calls it Bread after Consecration no less than three times in three verses together 1 Cor. 11. 26 c. L. This my Author grants but says it 's called so because the external accidents of bread do still remain T. That is because the colour shape and taste of bread do still remain with all other qualities of common bread Now I beseech you can there be any better or surer way to discover what is the substance or nature of a thing than by such accidents such outward sensible appearances as these How can we distinguish bread from a stone or water from wine but by the colour the smell the taste or the like And thus do we here distinguish bread from flesh and wine from blood and do believe that to be bread which is both call'd so in Scripture and which our own eyes discern to be indeed so L. But he says faith will teach us otherwise from the Word of God T. Nay on the contrary you see Gods word calls it bread after the Consecration and therefore both our faith and our senses assure us that it is bread Nor does this in the least contradict our Saviours words when he says This is my body for so it is in a spiritual sense whilst yet the substance of bread remains unchanged and therefore most properly is it called bread which it could in no wise be if no such substance was there Yet still we say that by partaking of these holy Elements of bread and wine we do really partake of Christs body and blood though in a spiritual manner according to St. Pauls expression 1 Cor. 10. 16. Do you judge then who keeps closest to Scripture in this point they or we L. To me it seems plain that the Doctrine and language of our Church is no less agreeable to Scripture than to reason And I still discover what injury they do us whilst they charge us with holding that the Sacrament is only the figure of Christs body T. It is as I have already said a most false charge for though it be the figure of his body and expresly called so by some ancient Writers yet we own it to be much more than so For in this holy Sacrament are given to us Christs body and blood whilst the blessings and benefits of his Death and Passion are made over to and bestow'd upon the worthy receiver And so our Church expresses it in the Office at the Communion We do spiritually eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood Christ dwelleth in us and we in him we are one with Christ and he with us L. Yet they say we make the Sacraments of the New Testament in effect no better than the old since the Passover and such like were figures of Christ whereas in the New Testament is to be given the real verity T. A most plain difference we make whatever they say to the contrary for besides that our Sacraments are few and easie clear and intelligible it is to be considered that under the Law were used types and shadows which prefigured Christ to come and that somewhat obscurely whereas the Sacraments now used do most plainly shew him to be already come and to have died for our sins and risen again according to the Scriptures Herein moreover is made to us a more plenteous communication of grace and comfort as the fruit of his Death and Resurrection according to that of the Evangelist The Law was given by Moses but grace and truth came by Iesus Christ Joh. 1. 17. Yet after all we assert that the Elements made use of in these Sacraments of the New Testament are no more changed as to their natural substance than those of the Old that is they are still Sacraments outward visible signs and representations of Spiritual things and are not changed into those very things themselves which they are designed to represent and hold forth to us And this is granted by the Papists themselves as to one of the Sacraments viz. that of Baptism For the water herein made use of still remains water It is not turned into the natural blood of Christ and yet by virtue of that blood which this water represents are our sins washt away in this Laver of Regeneration Hence then it is most evident that the efficacy of a Sacrament consists not in having the natural substance of the Elements altered for then
read them so do we as plainly see that after Consecration the Bread and Wine still remain in their natural substances and therefore are made the Body and Blood of Christ in a spiritual and mystical sense according to the most common acceptance of such Phrases that relate to Sacraments as was before shewn L. You need add nothing more to clear this matter nor can I imagine what reply they can make except they shall say that we must not in this case trust our senses but exercise of our Faith T. This indeed they do say but with no manner of reason For though God requires the Exercise of our Faith in Believing what he hath revealed though our senses cannot reach to or discern it yet we never read in the whole Book of Scripture that ever he requires men to believe any thing directly contrary to the evidence of their Senses to believe it was dark as midnight when they saw the Sun shining at Noon-day to believe the same Man to lye dead in his Grave whom they saw alive walking before them For at this rate all our Saviours Miracles had been wrought in vain if men must not believe their own eyes as we use to say For we must consider that Almighty God hath so framed our Nature that we are to be directed and guided by our Senses in those matters that properly belong to them Nor can we I think in this present state have more clear and full assurance of any thing than what our Senses when sound and perfect convey to us And therefore I have said our Saviour took this way to give assurance of the truth of his Gospel and of his Resurrection by that satisfaction he gave to the very Senses of Men. Thus St. Iohn when he would give the clearest and fullest evidence of the truth of Christian Doctrine he tells us That which we have heard which we have seen with our eyes which our hands have handled declare we unto you 1 Joh. 1. 1 2 3. Now all this may assure us that those words This is my body are not to be taken in such a sense as would engage us to the belief of Transubstantiation Nay the Word of God it self assures us that they are not since in this Word as I have shewn from many places the Holy Bread in the Sacrament is called Bread after Consecration and therefore are we so to believe it and are to look upon it as his Body Spiritually and Sacramentally and so neither one Text contradicts another nor will our Faith contradict our Senses L. This is easie and intelligible and neither offers violence to the Word of God nor to the Reason of our own Minds T. Yet further let me add if the Senses of all Men throughout the whole world are thus deceived as they must be if Transubstantiation be true then is all certainty of any thing whatever in a manner utterly destroyed How can I tell that I tread upon the Earth that I see the Heavens over my head or the Sun shining in the Firmament In these and all other things which I think that I see or hear my Senses may be imposed upon as well as in the present Case And how then can I be sure that any Revelation was ever made from God to Man Or how could any Man be sure of it though a Voice came to him from Heaven or a Vision appeared to him All this may be but idle fancy and delusion his Hearing and his Sight are not to be trusted Yea let this opinion be admitted and how can we be certain of the truth of that which God hath in his Word revealed For if he deceive me one way why not another The same Holy and True God who hath revealed his Will in Holy Scriptures hath also made another sort of Revelation in the works of Nature He hath given me Senses of Seeing Hearing c. and hath proposed Objects agreeable thereto Now if I believe him to be so Holy and Good that he will not deceive me in his Word why may I not from the same Goodness argue that he will not deceive me in his Works But if he should do it in the latter why may he not in the former also L. They may say this is a particular Case and therefore though our Senses may herein be mistaken yet we have no reason to suspect them at other times T. A particular Case it is indeed and such as nothing like it can be instanced in nor yet any good reason assigned why our Senses may not at any other time be deceived as well as in this matter But strangest of all it is that we have no warning given us in Scripture not to trust our Senses in this particular Case though in all others we may Nor do we find any thing said to take off the prejudice that might arise in mens minds against so strange a Doctrine We hear of no Objections made of old against it by the Enemies of Christianity nor of any Answers given to silence or prevent such Objections Nay on the contrary as I have said when the Capernaites mistook our Saviour's meaning he let them know that his Discourse was to be understood in a spiritual sense Ioh. 6. 63. Thus certainly the Apostles understood it as also those Words This is my body else surely we should have heard of their doubts and objections at least they would have made some further enquiry about the sense and meaning of them Else how comes it to pass that we never find the least mention of this same Doctrine in any of the Apostles Sermons or in the Epistles written to any of the Churches Nay though there was so fair an occasion offered to St. Paul when he discourses about the Lords-Supper 1 Cor. 11. where he tells them that what he had received of the Lord he delivered to them but he is there so far from explaining or asserting the Doctrine of Transubstantiation that he teaches the direct contrary in calling it Bread over and over after Consecration L. Yet I have heard some arguing for it from those words of his that he who eats and drinks unworthily is guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ Vers. 27. Now say they how could this be so hainous a sin if the natural Body and Blood of Christ were not present in the Sacrament T. For that let the Apostles own words decide it for he there tells us that he who eats this Bread and drinks this Cup unworthily is thus guilty So that it is Bread which is eaten and consequently Wine which is drunk by the Receiver But to do this unworthily and irreverently rushing upon it as a common meal not duly considering the great importance and design of this Holy Sacrament as it is a commemoration of Christ's death and a Spiritual Feast upon his Body and Blood this must needs be an hainous Sin being an affront to Christ himself and a profanation of his Sacred Ordinance This is meant by
upon it and by leaving most if not all of it out of many of their Books of devotion written in any vulgar Tongue I suppose lest the Consciences of the people should take check when they see practices so directly contrary to the Divine Precept For the great business of these their Guides seems to be not so much to lead them into Truth as to make them follow with ease where-ever they lead them L. 'T is a wonder why they should thus hazard themselves and the people whilst there appears no plausible pretence for it either from Reason or Scripture nor can I see any advantage they can hope for equal to the hazard they run T. Some pretences they have though very slender ones viz. That their Images make for the honour of Christ and the Saints for the instruction of common people and the raising of their affections Pictures being stiled Lay-mens Books But on the contrary the great God is hereby dishonoured and his Commands disobey'd and consequently our Blessed Saviour is displeased and the Saints themselves disgraced and affronted by such perverse ways of doing them honour And whilst the people have their senses perhaps gratified and their fancies pleased with the beholding and worshipping of rich and beautiful Images their minds this while are corrupted and debased true spiritual devotion is in a manner extinguished their Consciences are defiled and their Souls endangered by such Idolatrous practices L. How great is their crime then who draw them into these snares T. Great it is indeed beyond expression God grant they themselves may in time consider of it how they shall ever be able to answer it when the Blood of Souls shall be required at their hands by him who died to save them And besides the mischief done to those within the Church how many thousands by this practice of theirs are kept out of it For both Turks and Iews look upon those Christians as Idolaters who are guilty of this Image-worship and on that account are prejudiced against Christianity it self Thus do they harden these men in their infidelity whilst they defile themselves and those in their Communion with Idolatry L. Yet after all the Papists take it very hainously to be accused of Idolatry and some amongst our selves think this to be too heavy a charge T. Let them take it as they will and let others mince the matter as they please most certainly they are guilty of violating the Second Commandment and this violation of it by worshipping of Images hath as I have said been heretofore accounted and called Idolatry both by the Ancient Iews and by the Primitive Christians who utterly detested the same And if now a softer name must be devised for it let any man call it as he pleases still it must be looked upon as a gross impiety and a notorious breach of God's Holy Law which is enough to work an abhorrence of it in the minds of all good Christians But I 'le enlarge no further on this subject rather I shall refer you to the elaborate Discourses of that incomparable person Dr. Stillingfleet Dean of St. Pauls where you will find it handled to your full satisfaction Or in the mean time I would recommend to you the Homilies of our Church concerning the peril of Idolatry where you will find this Churches opinion of Image-worship viz. that it is downright Idolatry and there you may learn how far the Ancient Christians in the first and purest Ages of the Church were from this corrupt practice how it was ordained by an ancient Council that nothing painted on the Walls should be worshipped and how one of the Fathers in great displeasure tore a Veil in a Church in which he found a Picture fearing it might be an occasion of worshipping it and wrote earnestly to the Bishop of the place about it There also you have a large account of the rise of this practice in the more corrupt and declining times about Six or Seven hundred years after our Saviour and what opposition was then made to it by the better sort of Christians by what weak Arguments it was defended by what ill arts in some places established what bad effects it produced and how by degrees the people were sunk into all that gross Superstition and Idolatry which had overspread the Roman Church and particularly this Kingdom at the time of the Reformation This with much more to the same purpose you will there find discovered and will see what great reason there was for reforming the Church from this as well as many other corruptions and abuses wherewith we were over-run L. I shall gladly peruse these Homilies when I have opportunity being already very sensible that the worship of Images is a most dangerous and unlawful Custom a meer innovation in the Church and a plain breach of the Second Commandment and therefore well deserves to be branded with the infamous name of Idolatry from which God preserve me T. So it has been reckoned and commonly stiled by our Church and by those of our Divines who were most instrumental in the Reforming it and have been most eminent for the defence of it Good Reason you have therefore stedfastly to resolve against it But let us now proceed to what remains CHAP. XIII Of Praying by Beads L. THE next thing my Author attempts to vindicate is their praying by Beads which serve to number their Pater Nosters and Ave-Maries of which as I perceive by him Sixty three Ave-Maries and Seven Pater-nosters and one Creed make a Bead-roll T. Very like and this number as I take it they call our Ladies Crown and an Hundred and Fifty Ave Maries and Fifteen Pater-nosters makes a Rosary of which there is a kind of Order in their Church called the Confraternity of the Rosary Into this Society all manner of people may be admitted and these as I find in one of their Authors who gives an account of it are obliged to say over the whole Rosary once in a week at least And these Prayers are to be offered up in a certain manner to Almighty God in honour of the Blessed Virgin Now lest this should be two burdensome there is provision made that if they have any lawful impediment they may get another to say their Prayers for them and it shall be accepted They who enter into this Society must solemnly devote themselves to the Honour Love and Service of the Blessed Virgin Even as solemnly as a Man can consecrate himself to the Service of Almighty God our Heavenly Father do they give up themselves to her as the Mother of all Christians For so they say she is to be esteemed because our Saviour said of her to St. Iohn Behold thy Mother To each of these Votaries is given by the Father who admits him a set of Beads which are Blest and Crost and Sprinkled with Holy-Water And most wonderful Priviledges are bestowed by sundry Popes upon those who devoutly recite this Rosary They may gain a
Plenary Indulgence for themselves and may every day release a Soul out of Purgatory which surely they are very uncharitable if they will not do Nay which seems strangest of all even those in Purgatory may be admitted into this fraternity if any particular Friend of theirs on Earth shall desire it and will perform on their behalf what is required and so may they share in the merits of the whole Society Though by the way I wonder that any body should leave a particular Friend in Purgatory when he may so easily deliver him thence as you heard before But I 'le entertain you no longer with this fulsom ridiculous stuff Let us return to your Author and see what he says for this manner of Praying which a Parrot may go near to learn and use it with as much devotion as multitudes of them L. He says that the Ave-Mary is used Sixty three times because the Blessed Virgin Mary lived just so many years T. A wise Reason truly But I wonder where he had so good intelligence Some of her Worshippers it 's like have heard it from her own mouth For heretofore nothing more common than for her to appear to them and talk familiarly with them if we may believe their own Legends which I confess is somewhat hard to do Yet I grant there is as much certainty in the story of her Age as strength in the Argument taken from it that is just none at all Why do they not by this Reason say the Lords-Prayer Thirty three times because our Saviour lived so many years And it might also be asked why but one Lords-Prayer for nine Ave-Maries But waving these things let us hear his pretence for this odd way of Praying by running over the same words so many times together as if they would make up with the number what they want in weight and devotion and then telling them by their Beads as if they were afraid of being someway cheated if they did not keep so exact a reckoning Certainly we have neither precept nor example in Scripture to recommend such a way of worship L. All that he says is that David said his Prayers Seven times a day and our Saviour in the Garden repeated three times the same Prayer He demands therefore whether it be ill to say ones Prayers by number when he has reason so to do T. No surely But when a Man has no reason so to do it 's very vain and absurd And by all that he alledges it seems they have no reason else sure he would have given some For I beseech you where 's the consequence that because David prayed Seven times in a day that is very often therefore it 's a good thing to repeat one and the same Prayer Seventy times seven in a day or at least as often as we well can Or when our Saviour in his Agony doth with great servour and affection offer up his Petition to his Father thrice in the same words which were suitable to his present state is this any thing like the Papists way of running over an Ave-Mary Ten Twenty Thirty times together with a Pater-noster now and then intermixed for variety sake and this very oft in the midst of company without the least shew of devotion and as I take it in the Latine Tongue which few of them understand And which is prettiest of all when they are busie themselves though it be but at sports and pastimes they may then get some idle body patter over these their Prayers for them And I have heard it often reported by those who have conversed much with them that sometimes two of these devout people will play a game at Cards which shall say Prayers for the other at such a time So that it seems they take them for a kind of penance being glad when they are over as a School-boy when he has done his Task And is this like the Devotion of the Holy Psalmist who prayed to God and praised him with all his Heart and Soul and sang praises with understanding and with great affection and delight Or much less is this like to that of our Blessed Saviour who in the days of his flesh offered up Prayers and Supplications with strong cries and tears as we have it Heb. 5. 7. He continued indeed sometimes whole nights in Prayer and his holy Apostles were very constant and frequent in this duty and have enjoyned us to pray continually and in every thing to give thanks But do you find them any where directing us to say over the same words so often in an hour or a day and to make use of a sett of Beads to keep true reckoning Is this a Worshipping of God in Spirit and in Truth Is this like the fervent Prayer of the Righteous which St. Iames tells us is so effectual Is this like the Intercession of Abraham or Moses the Wrestlings of Iacob the earnest Prayer of Elias and other holy men recorded in Scripture Nay so far is it from being agreeable to such examples that it seems plainly contrary to our Saviours command Not to use vain repetitions in praying as if we thought to be heard for our much speaking Matt. 6. 7. L. So it seems truly and nothing can be more weak and impertinent than what my Author talks of saying Five Pater-nosters in honour of our Saviours Five wounds he means I suppose those in his hands and feet and that on his side But what he means by our saying the Lords-Prayer in honour to those wounds I cannot well tell T. Nor can I resolve you He might as well talk of saying it Twelve times in honour of the Twelve Apostles and then Seventy times for the Seventy Disciples and after that as oft as you please in honour of what you have a mind to For they forsooth have a certain peculiar manner of offering up their Prayers to God in honour to other persons and things which I confess I am utterly ignorant of nor do I think they themselves can give a rational account of it Of such blind devotions as these well may Ignorance be accounted the Mother L. But my Author is by no means pleased that this way of praying by Beads should be thought fit only for ideots that cannot read For he says that Kings and their Courts the Pope and his Cardinals make use of Beads who can read better than Sectaries T. There may be some question of that for all his confidence since it 's commonly said that the present Pope though much commended for some other good qualities can scarce read their Latine Service But let them be able to read never so well that will hardly prove all good which they do And if we speak of examples I must confess I had much rather follow our Saviour and his Apostles than the Pope and his Cardinals L. And so had I too But he says they have Books of Devotion as well as Beads that both are good and variety delighteth T. They had
Apostles assertion Rom. 14. 17. These are such silly trifling injunctions as those of the Pharisees about washing their hands before Dinner and the like and may as justly be rejected without any thing of a wicked will or any contempt of that Authority which God hath set over us L. But does not our own Church lay the same commands upon its members viz. that they abstain from all sorts of Flesh in Lent and at some other times T. No where that I can tell of Our Church indeed appoints times of fasting and abstinence for such good ends as I have before mention'd and these times are to be observed in such manner with respect to our diet as that these ends may best be obtained but neither in any Rubrick Canon or Homily that ever I met with does our Church place any Religion in the bare distinction of Meats as to the kind of them I mean in abstaining from Flesh of Beasts or Birds rather than from the Flesh of Fishes from Butter rather than Oil from Milk and Eggs rather than Wine and Oysters about these things our Church gives no rule that I know of If at such times we use a very strict temperance somewhat more than ordinary and do thereby become more Humble and Charitable more Devout and Religious the Church is satisfied and her design answered and whether we eat a little Flesh or a little Fish she is not at all concerned As to the Laws of the Land about eating Fish rather than Flesh at certain times they were Enacted upon a Civil account not a Religious viz. for the encouragement of Fishing-trade and Navigation for the benefit of Sea-Towns and the like as is exprest in some of the Statutes themselves and most plainly taught in the Homily concerning Fasting But let us hear what yet remains CHAP. XV. Of withholding the Scriptures from the Common-People L. THere is only one thing more which he endeavours to vindicate from the exceptions made against it viz. the forbidding to have the Scriptures in the vulgar language so that the people cannot be admitted to read the same who would be glad as he expresses it to read and understand the last Will and Testament of their Father T. And what can he alledge for this their cruelty to the people so contrary both to Reason and to the very design of Writing the Holy Scriptures as well as to many express commands delivered in those Sacred Writings L. He first says it is not forbidden so the Bible be not corrupted by Sectaries and if the people ask leave of their Superiours to whom it belongs to judge whether they are capable of it T. If by the peoples asking leave he mean their obtaining it he may say very truly though very simply that then they are not forbidden viz. when they have got leave But in the mean time it 's very rare that the people do or dare ask this leave since it 's lookt upon as an ill sign of one inclining to heresie as they call it and to very few by their good will do they grant this liberty not commonly to any but such of whom they have all possible assurance that they are most firmly addicted to their party As to his talk of the Bibles being corrupted by Sectaries so far as it concerns our English Bibles as for others they are able to speak for themselves it is a most false and malicious reproach nor are they able to prove it as hath been sufficiently shewn by the Learned Writers of our Church who have vindicated this our Translation from the frivolous objections which some Romanists have made against it But besides that this is a vile slander it is also a meer pretence as they make use of it to defend their forbidding the people to read our English Bibles For why else do they not more generally permit them to read the Bible of their own Translation their Doway-Bible and Rhemish-Testament They dare not well trust their people even with these notwithstanding all their corrupt glosses in the Margent to make the Text speak in favour of their own opinions at least they give little or no encouragement to the reading of them For you shall seldom find them in the hands or houses of Papists amongst us And though they are forced to give somewhat more liberty to such as live in Protestant-Countries or where there are great numbers of Protestants as in France yet if you go but over into Spain or Italy where the Pope and his Clergy bear more sway there you shall hardly find in a whole Country one Bible in their own language in the hands of any of the people Yea if it should be found it might bring them into danger of the Inquisition and perhaps might cost them their lives Thus severe they were also in England at the beginning of the Reformation and most vehemently opposed the Translation of the Scriptures into English and did all they could to suppress them even sometimes burning the Bibles together with the Martyrs in Queen Maries days being wont to say this was the Book that made all the Hereticks And it was indeed the Book from whence they learned those Truths which Papists as falsely call heresie as the Pharisees did that Christian Doctrine which St. Paul preached L. There is little doubt but that common people of the Romish Church are generally kept from reading the Scripture since I find not that my Author himself does directly deny it nay he rather owns it whilst he goes on to plead that all good things are not good for all some abuse wine though it be good and among Sectaries who will read the Bible some understand it one way some another whence arise daily new heresies For there are many hard passages he adds which are ill understood by people that have little or no learning So St. Peter testifies 2 Pet. 3. and therefore as when there is dispute about any clause in a Will the Will is put into the hands of Proctors Lawyers and Iudges skill'd in the Law so in order to our being sufficiently informed of the Will of our Saviour Christ we must go to Sermons and Catechisms there to be instructed in publick or private as much as we will T. This is their common objection against the peoples reading the Scriptures that they are in danger of mistaking the sense of them and so may fall into errour or heresie But pray consider if this be a sufficient reason for their not reading them might it not have served as well to prevent the first writing of them especially in a language which the common people understood yet thus it was at the first for the Law was given to the Iews in their own language and in the same was the rest of the Old Testament written Thus also the New Testament was written in Greek a language then most generally understood in the world And the Apostles wrote their Epistles to the Churches in this same language which the