0 L/ ^ COLLECTION OF PURITAN AND ENGLISH THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE I LIBRARY OF THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY sec a «r <^0- Popery not founded on Scripture. The 11SiT<^0VUCTl01Sl. TH E Faith of the Reformed ha's, by fbme of their Adverfariesof the Roman Perfwafion, been call'd Biblifm : And they themfelves have had the Name of Biblijls (a) given to ^^'S them. And thefe they look upon as Names of Ho- Aaio'^pro nour, though they were intended as Marks of Infamy ^dc Cathoi. by the Invcnters of them ; for it is both a fafe and &c225'227' worthy pra&ice, to take, for their Rule, the Word of God, rather than the Word of Man, That tvas the Rule which Chrift left to his Church, and the judicious and fincere Chriftians of all Ages have governed themfelves by it : for they have believed, as St. Athanajius did, (b) " That the Holy and Divine (J) Athan. u Scriptures are of themfelves fufficient for {hewing ^"v<§c?c*«°", . t » o rac.vuw. p. i. the Truth. 'W^/* $ Neverthelefs, thofe whole Errors and worldly In- $ uai* *■', *" terefts could not bear a ftritt examination by that wwyest*** Rule, have perpetually endeavour'd either to lay it a- *Wf tW * fide, or to pervert itP or to leffen the Veneration due ^"^JJ1" to it. Among the Hereticks of the firft Ages, (c) fbme ap- CO lKnA- ?• peal'd from the Bible to Tradition ; and then being re- c'2, p,25°' ferr'd to Apoftolical Tradition, they refus'dto ftand to it. Some invented new Gofpels, fome razed feveral places 6 The htrodiftlion. places out of the True Gofpels : Thus the Marcionites '* Tertui. con- dealt with the Gofpel of St. Luke *. But ftill the Rule "^"^f1'1' was preferved fafe,and the true Chriftians framed their 414. 2' C' ' Faith, Worfhip, and Manners by it. Among the Heathens, Dioclefun endeavour'd to de- ftroy all the Copies of the Holy Bible, and by that means to root out the Chriftian Religion. But fiich was the Courage of the Chriftians, who chofe rather to offer themfelves, than their Bibles, Sacrifices to the Flames ; and fb many, and fb widely difperfed were the Copies of that Sacred Book, and fb watchful was the Providence of God, that no one Leaf of the Scrip- ture peri died. Among Men profefling Chriflianity, as the Authority of the Papacy encreafed, theufe of the Scriptures de- . created in that Church ; which being pofTefled of an unhappy Priviledgof a Chair in the Imperial City, be- gan too early to fetup it fclf as a Kjngdom of this World. Now the Holy Bible not ferving all the Political Pur- pofes of fuch a Kingdom, many Methods have been u- (ed towards the giving of Men a diversion from it, as the Chriftian Rule. When the Popes triumphed in Temporal Power,then they were confulted as the Chriftian Oracles. Such a t Dccret.par.2 Pontificate was that of Pope Zachary, who f depofed SfiKlJ^ the King of the Franks ; not (as the Canon Law p. 1083. fpeaks) for his Iniquities, but becaufe he was not ca- pable of managing fo great a Charge. To him Boni- face Arch-Bifhop of Mentz, applied himfelf for an Anfwer to this frivolous Queftion, After what Time was Bacon to be eaten ? A Queftion fitter to have been refbl- ved by the Pope's Cook or Phyfician, than by the Ho- ly Father himfelf. But the Pope was fb condefcending as to give him punctual fatisfaction on this manner : "We The Introduction. 7 " We have * no Orders about this Matter from the Fa- * zach. Pont. " thers, but we advife you, who enquire of us, that it |J^ ,JJ|;a " be not eaten before it be dried over Smoke, or boiPd H upon the Fire. Where the Pope's Canon-Law, and School-Divinity obtained, Gratian and Peter Lombard were more ftudi- ed than St. Peter and St. Paul. But the Diftinftions and Refinings of thefe Lear- ned Men, being neither underftood nor affected by the Common People, a Politick Care has been taken to feed the People, from time to time, with Pious Tales, as they have been ufually called.* Of thefe, fome were mixed with the Holy Hiftory, as Relations contained more antiently in the Scholaftical Story of Comeflor, more lately in the adulterated Gofpels of Hierom Xa- v'ter the Jefuit. Some were made Leffons in Churches y as the Stories of the Nativity and Anumption of the Virgin, in the Roman Breviary. Some were written for the Clofet : as, many Lives of Saints, in which their pretended Miracles, Extafies, and Infpirations, were principally noted, for the amufement of the People. Thefe were very pleafing Entertainments to their Fan- cies, and diverted their Minds from enquiring after the Rule of Faith. That was further undervalued by the bringing in of the Apocryphal Books as part of that Chriftian Rule. But in thefe Methods the Men of Art in the Roman Church, thought not themfelves fecure enough with- out -prohibiting the Peoples ufeof the Bible; which D'Ache. practice (I think) began in France, in a Synod at Tom- 2- Tholoufe, in the i ph Century. By thefe and other evil Crafts it came to pafs, that before the Reformation the Holy Bible was among the. g The IntroduSiion. the thorow Subje&s of the Pope, a Book little read, and lefs confider'd. Of this, twolnftances may be given ; the firft Abroad, the fecond at Home. Abroad, Cretan was chofen out by the Papacy, as one by whom the Caufe of it might be beft defended *sicidan.Com. againft Luther. * And whilft Luther cited the Holy I.1.P.4.A.518. Scriptures,C*/V^# cited the Decree of Pope demented Thomas Aquinas. And this was the happy Occafion of Cajetans ftudying the Scriptures, and writing Com- ments upon them, in which ( fo great is the Power of Truth) many things fell. from him which favour the Proteftant Caufe ; as hisdifallowingthe Apocryphal Canon, their Corporal Prefence in the Eucharift, as fpoken of in the 6th of St. John ; their Service in an Unknown Tongue, as lefs edifying, and lefs agreeable f Cajet.Com. to the Senfe of St. Paul f : Their Sacrament of Ex- imC0r.14.14. treme Undion, concerning which he fays, that itnei- Vmm6fi orm tner appears by the Words, nor by the ErTeQ:, that Lingua : hafte- St. James fpeaks of it, but rather of that Un&ion nus Paulus de- wj1ich our Lord appointed in the Gofbel to be ufed up- claravit, quod u il- ivr- i 11 qui loquitur on Sick Perlons by nis Dilciples IJ. lingua, nonaE.- dificat Ecclefiam nifi interpreters ; Mens ejus, i. e. intelleftus, non meditator fen- fum, &c. & propterea mens, &c. fine fruftu, &c. Htc eft fententk Fault. II Ca). Com. in Ep. S. Jac. c. 5. v. 1 5. p. 570. — Nee ex verbis, nee ex effeftu verba hxc loquuntur de Sacramentali Unftione Extreme Unftionis, fed magis de unftione quam infticuic Dom. Jef. in Evangelio, a difcipulis exercendam in agrotis. And here's an Inftance of their Proofs from the Scrip- tures : They have but one Text for their Extreme Un&ion ; and the very Man, who was chofen to con- fute Luther, after ferious application to the ftudy of the Scriptures, declares, that it makes nothing to the purpofe. At The Introduftion. 9 At Heme for feme Years after the rifing of Luther, a Bible was not to be had by a Lay-Man, but at the peril of the Owner. Hence the following Opinions were formally con- demned as ERRORS and HERESIES in the Book called the SUM OF THE SCRIPTURE * * Srei. Condi. 2 vol. p. 757. 0oD fatberg ano ® 00 motberg be bounce to belp tljem, » 530.' ciwar- [whofe Sure-ties they are] tfjat tfjep be ptittO ^ClOOle, ham' Archiep' tfjat tfjcp map tmuetffattne tlje ®cfpsl& ami t&e eptffies of @t.)^auiie'i5*p. u Mt be all equally bounoe to ftnotoe tlje ®ofpel£ aim Cptftlcg of parole 1 5. p. 1. €be®ofpcll i<3 tnrttte for aH perfons ano Ctfateg, Duke, prince, $ope, emperor; Notwithftandjng this,the Truth of God went forth with Power, and difpell'd the thick Darknefs which was in the Land, and further EngUfh Tranflations were made, and the Bible was read publickly in a known Tongue, and the People ufed it to their great profit : And it appears by the Anfwers which ordinary People made in Queen Marys Time, to thole who ex- amined them about the Sacrament of the Altar, and other Points ; how mightily the Word of God grew a- mong us, and prevailed. The knowledg of the People in Doctrines of Holy Scripture prevailing, and the Papifts perceiving that they would not be contented with any thing fhort of the Word of God, revealed to them in the Scriptures ; began to appeal to the Bible for their New Doclxjnes, and to fight againlt Proteftants with Weapons taken out of their own Magazine. B This to 7he lntrodutlion. This courfe they take, tho, by taking it, they fhew how inconfiftent they are with themfelves, who fpeak fuch great Things of Unity. The Method, how rational foever in it felf, is in them improper, upon feveral Accounts, amongft which I fhall here take no- tice of two. Firft, The eminent Roman Doctors have often de- clar'd, that feveral of the Articles of Popery are not contained in the Scripture, but muft be taken from Church- Authority ; and particularly that of the Invo- cation of Saints y upon which fb very much of the Ro- man Worfhip depends, and to the practice of which they afcribe fb much fuccefs in Battels, in-Storms, in Journeys ; in every thing they undertake or wifh for. Cardinal Perron (in his Anfwer to K. James) -do's ingenuoufly acknowledg, " That for the Invocation of "Saints, there is neither Precept, nor formal Example " in Holy Scripture. * Beii.de Culm Bellarmine himfelf has own'd *, " That when the Sanft.c.9^. 3. << Scriptures were written, the practice of vowing to p. 894. Cum ,, 0 • „f ° fcribcrentur Saints was not begun. ss.sanfta?, Salmerou -\ infinuates plainly enough, that therefore Xvwcncfi tne Invocation of Saints was not enjoined in the New Sinftis. Teftament, becaufe — u. occafion would thereby have t Aiph.Salm. <'been given the Gentiles to have thought that many Difp. a. ' " Gods were put upon them in the place of the multi- " tude of thole Gods whom they had forfaken. So near (even in a Jefuit's Opinion) is their Saint-tvorfoip, to the Daemon Worjhip of the Pagans. ficoton Table Father Cotton being ask'd, by du Moulin the Elder, des Refponfes Whether there was any Example or Command in Moulin"?.^- Scripture to pray to Saints? returns this Anfwer ||, mandc.p. 59. " That they had one Example founded on the Com- " mandment The IntroduFlion. 1 1 * mandment which God gave to the three Friends of " Job j Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zgphar. — Go to my Ser- vant Job and he jhall pray for you, ch.42. 9. But this one Command was, in the fenfe of him that put the Queftion,#(w &c* \6 The Introduction* " Grace of Baptifm, by which they who are flain by " Sin, are reftored to Life. Now for the undeceiving and eftablifhing of the People,there may come forth fnort Traces in order up- on ieveral Points of Popery, in which the Places of Scripture, wrefted and perverted, in thefe and other Popifh Books, will be fully vindicated from their abu- five GlofTes, and reftor'd to their true Senfe and Mean- ing. For the Clergy of the Church of England, in fuch Things as concern the Holy Scriptures, are not apt to imitate thofe of the Church of Komey who, if they have the Key of Knowledge forbear to put it to its proper ufe ; whilft they keep others out, and either go not in themfelves, or, at leaft, to us, do not ap- pear to do lb. THE END. i ( »7 ) The Texts which Papifis cite out of the Bible y for the Proof of Their Do&rine., CONCERNING The Obfcurity of the Holy Scripture?, EXAMINED. IMPRIMATUR. Mart, i. i6S7. JO. B JTTELT. THat the Romanijls are much more concerned for the Inter eft of their Church, than for the Credit of our common Chriftianity, doth too manifeftly appear by not a few of their avowed Doctrines ; but by none more than that of the Obfcurity of the Holy Scrip- tures. In order to their Churches advancement to the higheft pitch of Glory imaginable,'tis the moil: fundamen- tal of all the Articles of their Faith, that fhe is Infallible. And that the Holy Scriptures themfelves may be fiibje- cted to her Authority, they refolve their belief of them into it ultimately ; They found their Judgment of Ca- nonical Books wholly thereon ; and, not content here- with, they make their Church the only Judg of the true Senfe of Scripture, and do their utmoft to peffuade the World of its great Obfcurity, even in the molt rwcef- C fary 1 8 The Toftjh Do&rine of the Obfcurlty of Scripture, fery Points, that they may demonftrate the abfblute ne- ceffity of an Infallible Judg, and confequently of relying on the Judgment of the Church of Rome for the under- ftanding of Scripture ; there being no Church befides, that dares to pretend to the Miraculous Gift of Infalli- bility. And Cardinal Bellarmin, in the Fir [I and Second Chap- ter sot his Third Book of Deputations, lets himfelf to op- pofe the Plainnefsand Perfpicuity o£ the Scriptures, in or- der to this end ; as appears by all the following Chap- ters of that Book. And this he doth, Fir ft, By Scripture. Secondly, By Sayings of fever al Fathers. Thirdly, By anftvering Objections. All which he doth perfectly like himfelf as he appears in his other Con- troverfies, though as much unlike a. Man of fb great a Name. Heoppofeth the Scripture's Perfpicuity by Scripture, two ways. Firfi, By producing feveral Texts, by which he pre- tends to prove the Scriptures to be obfcure. Secondly, By giving us Inftances for a Specimen of the Scriptures Obfcurity. And the chief Bufinefs of this Difc courfe is, To examine how ferviceable the Cardinal's particular Texts of Scripture are, to this his Defign a- gainft the Scriptures in General ; as alfo to take thofe into Confederation, which are urged by others of his Party for the fame purpofe. But 'tis neceffary firft to fhew, what Troteftants be. Ueve touching the Perfpicuity of Scripture. And, i. I fhall not need to fay, that we are far from think- ing the Scripture to be throughout plain and eafy to be underftood ; that there are no Obfcurities, or no very great Obfcurities to be found therein. z. We ( \zr~.j-. not founded in the Scriptures. 19 2. We are as far from thinking, that all Perfbns arc in a Capacity of underftanding all Scripture. But we know that, according to Mens Educations, and Parts, and other Circumftances, they are capable of knowing the true meaning of more or lefs of it. $. We acknowledg, that there are not a few places of Scripture fo obfcure and difficult, as that thofe who are furnifhed with the beft, both natural and acquired Ad- vantages for the underftanding of Scripture, cannot be certain of their having attained to the true ienfe of them. And we know, 4. That a great part of Scripture is now very eafy% that was once as difficult ; and that many things therein contained are now extreamly difficult, which Time will make as eafy. For Inftance ; many of the Types and Prophecies of the Old-Teftament which relate to the Mejjiat, were perhaps //'// his Coming, at leaft as to their chief Intention, unintelligible to all who were not infpi- red for the underftanding of them, that [wee his Coming are to us Christians as plain and perfpicuous. And fe- veral Predictions in the Book of Daniel, and the Apoca- lyps, which we fee accomplifht, are as plain to us as they were before obfcure ; and thole that are to be accom- plished, are now as obfcure, as they fhall be 'plain. And tis evident that the Types and Prophecies were defigned by Providence chiefly for the Benefit of after '-Ages', for their greater Confirmation in the Chriftian Faith, as they came to be fulfilled : And divers of them might probably be defigned wholly for their Benefit. But, 5. We are abundantly allured, that . all Things necef- fary to be rightly under food in order to our Salvation, are in the Holy Scriptures delivered with great Perlpicuity. That the meaning of thofe Words and Phrafes by which the EJfential Points of Chriftianity (whether they be C 2 Mat- io The Popijb VoElrine of the Ok/cunt) of Serif ture, Matters of Practice or of mere Belief) are made known to us, is as plain as we can reafonably defire it fhould bs. This is fhewn in a late excellent Treatife, Intituled, From pag. 74 Search the Scriptures, &c. to which I refer the Reader. And if any or thefe Points are in fome places lefs clearly expreft, they are in others mofl clearly : As the Divinity of our Saviour, &c. This we fhall anon prove by Scripture, and in the mean time we affirm that St. Paufs Words to his Son Timothy, lEpifl. 3. 15. do plainly imply this concerning the Scriptures of the Old Te (lament, which will be ac- knowledged not to be fo perfpicuous as thofe of the New. Herfhere tells him, that from a Child he had known the Holy Scriptures, which were able to make him wife to Sal- vation, &c. Which muft at leaft be underftood of all things neceffary to Salvation contained in them. And in faying that Timothy knew them from a Child, is implyed lure that he under flood them : And not that he had only learnt, like a Parrot, to prate Scripture. And in belie- ving thus concerning the Scriptures,we believe with the Ancient Fathers, particularly we believe with St. Aujlin, De Do8.chrip. who hath this well-known Saying, Ea qua manifest po- 1. 2. c. 9. fl fa funt in facris Scripturist omnia continent qua pertinent ad Fidem, morefque vivendi. We believe with St. Chri- foftom, who Horn. 3. on the 2d of the Theffalonians faith, that All things neceffary are cftKoi. manifeft. Nay, we might ihew that fome of the Popijh Writers themfelves have declared their belief herein to be the fame with ours. S.i.Q.i. A.p. Particularly Thomas Aquinas faith, That the Scriptures were propofed to all, and in fuch a manner that the rudefl People might underftand them. By which he muft mean in things neceffary at leaft. But whereas 'tis objected, That it is not plain in Scripture, what Points are neceffary, and what not. We f . not founded in the Scriptures. Weanfwer, That as to whatfoever is neceflary ratione Medii, as a means in it felf neceflary to qualify us for the Pardon of our Sins, and the Enjoyment of God, our own Rea/on can find it out in Scripture. And whatfoever is only neceflary ratione Pracepti, by pofitive Precepts, the Scripture plainly declares it fo to be. But farther, we are aflured that 'tis neceflary to Salvation to believe the Truth of all things contained in Scripture, in that fenfe which is therein meant ; and if, after a faithful fearch after the true Senfe, where it is difputable, we happen to bemiftaken, this fhall be no Obftruclion to our Salvation. Of this feveral Scriptures which we fhall hereafter have occafion to cite, do give us unque- ftionable AiTu ranee. And therefore we cannot but efteem it as an inftance of moft heinous Ingratitude to Almighty God, and our Blefled Saviour ; as an intolerable Affront to the Grace of the Gofpel, and an infinite Injury to the Souls of Men, to perfwade the World that the Holy Scriptures areobfeure in matters Neceflary ; i.e. (aswefaid) in any of thole Points of Faith or Practice, which are either Means in their own Nature neceflary to qualify us for that Happinefs which is brought to light by the Gofpel, or are made neceflary to the attainment thereof by exprefs Declarations in Scripture. 6. As to thole matters revealed in Scripture,the know- ing of which is only profitable, and of ufe to our greater Growth and Progrefs in Vertue,or to our being the more ferviceable to God in the World, or to the managing of our felves with the belt Chriftian Prudence in particular Cafes and Circumftances, we affirm that mofl of them alfoare very plainly delivered : And if they are not fo in fome places, they are in others, or may by evident Confequence be inferred from what is plainly revealed, fo 21 % 1 Tlx Pofi/7; DoBrim of the Obfcurity of Scripture, fo that it will not coft us much pains to inform our felves truly concerning them. But particular Cafes that may fall out are infinite, and confequently cannot be exprefty determined in any Writing ; and therefore 'tis unreaib- nable to expect to find them fo in the Holy Scriptures. Yet they contain fuch general Rules, as by the ufe of ourReafbn, and Prayers to God for Direction, and good Advice, we may either underftand how to govern our felves in fuch Cafes ; or if, after faithful Endeavours, in the ule of the belt means, to know our Duty, we are miftaken, we are fure, upon a general Repentance of all our Faults known and unknown, of God's Pardon. But yet, 7. We do not aiTert the Scriptures (b plain in the moil necejfary Points, as to be uncapable of being mifunder- ftood and perverted to an ill Senfe : If we did, we fhould think Citations out of the molt primitive Fathers, and thole Councils which belt deferve to be called Gene- ral, wholly needlefs for the clearing of thefe ; both which we have a great efteem of as excellent good Wit- neffesy tho not as Judges. And we need no greater E- videnceforthe Scripture's being capable of being mifim- derftood in fuch Points, than what the Roman Church hath given us. Nothing can be more plainly revealed, than what is in Scripture againft the Worfhip of God by Images, or by any other Mediator befides Chrijl Jefus, a- gainft Prayers in an unknown Tongue, againft ChrifFs be- ing again properly facrificed in his Supper, againft denying the Cup to the Laity, and too many other Particulars to be now mentioned. But we fee, that Church under- itands all thofe Scriptures which moft exprefly contradict the lawfulnefs of thofe Practices, in fuch a manner, as to reconcile them to them. And what think we of that great Bone of Contention^ The Judg in Controverfies ? Hath ( not founded in the Scriptures. ty Hath not St. Paul exprefTed himfelf with fufficient plain- nefs in this Point, i Thejf.$. 21. where he enjoins it as a Duty upon Private Chriftians, To prove all Things ,and hold fafi that which is good? And in 1 Cor. 10. 15. where, after he had required them to Flee from Idolatry > he im- mediately adds, / [peak as unto wife Men, judg ye what I fay? Orelfehc makes the Reafon of their Minds their Judg, as to what he was about to fay about the Lord's Supper. But why fhould hedofb, if the Church alone were to judg for them in all Points of Faith ? Hath not St. John likewife exprefTed himfelf plainly enough, in reference to the fame Matter, 1 John 4.1,2. where he puts private Chriftians upon, Trying the Spirits whether "they are of God ; fince many falfe Prophets were gone out into the World ? Tho we Protejlants do believe upon as great Evidence as we can defire, that the Scriptures de- scend to the low eft Capacities in exprefling all thofe things which are of abfolute neceflity to be rightly ap- prehended, fo that nothing more than Honelty, and a iincere defire to know the Truth in order to obeying it, is neceflary to the Underftanding of it ; yet we no lefs be- lieve, that fuch as are deftrous of nothing lefs than the conforming of their Lives to God's Laws, and are a&ed by Worldly Carnal Interefts, and bafe Defigns, may, through the juft Judgment of God upon them, be fb blinded, as to mifunderftand themoft perfpicuous Texts in the Bible, and wrejl them to their own DeftruElion. And we have too great reafon to fear that there have been innumerable Examples of this Nature. 8. Proteftants in affirming all things neceffaryto Salva- tion to be perfpicuoufly contained in Scripture, do-mean all fuch things, of which the Scripture is defigned to be the Inftrument of Conveyance to our Understandings, 'Tis of abfolute neceflky to our Salvation to believe the Scrip- 14 The Topifl? TtoBrine of the Obfcurity of Scripture, Scripture to be the Word of God '-, that it was written by Divine Infpirrtion : But 'tis unreafonable to expect, that this fhould be fatisfa&orily proved by Scripture ; there being no more reafon to believe this meerly, becaufe the Scripture tells us fb of it felf, than to believe any Perlbn to be infpired barely upon his own Word. Our Saviour himfclf faith, If I bear witnefs of my felf my Witnefs is not true : i. e. If you had no other reafon to believe me to be the Son of God, than that I affirm this of my felf, you ought not to think me fb. Our meaning therefore is, that all Christians (and that Name fuppofeth the be- lieving of the Divine Authority of the Scriptures) may find all things neceffary to Salvation delivered therein with% great Perfpicuity. Thefe things being premifed, 'tis the eafieft thing to Hie w, that the Cardinal and others have been moft fhame- fully impertinent in their Citations of Scripture, for the proof of its Obfcurity, againft the Proteft ant Doctrine touching its Perfpicuity : Or, for the proving it fo ob- fcure, as that we cannot be fecure of rightly underftand- ing it, fb far as is neceffary, ^without the Afliftance of an Infallible Judg. And now we come to fpeak, ■Fir ft, To the feveral Texts which are pretended to give Teftimony to the Obfcurity of Scripture. The Cardinal begins with three Verfes of the 11 gth Pfalm, which contain three Petitions of the Pfalmift ; tho two of them differ only in Words, viz. VerC. 73. Give me understanding, that J may learn thy Commandments. Verfi 18. Open thou mine Eyes, that I may behold won- drous things out of thy Law. Or, the wondrous things of thy Law. Verf. 135. Make thy Face to /bine upon thy Servant, and teach me thy Statutes. But, 1. King not founded in the Scriptures. 1 5 j. King David was a Man after Goods own Heart, and therefore mult have underffood ail things neceffary to his Salvation, before he Indited this Pfalm. And confequently theft Petitions do not prove that the Scrip- tures of the Old Tefiamcnt are obfeure in ftich Matters. 2. As to his praying that he might Learn Go£s Com- mandments, and that Gcd would teach him his Statutes', His meaning muft be, either that he would lb enlighten his Mind, as that he might clearly difcern the full Com- prehenfive Senfe of all his Laws, in order to his doing what was moft agreeable to his Will, in all Cafes and Circumfrances, whether as a Man or Kjng ; and to his fb much the more glorifying God in both thefe Capaci- ties, and in all his Relations : Or, that God would en- able him by his Grace to put in Practice whatfbever he knew to be his Duty. $. As to his praying that he might behold the wondrous things of God's L aw. The plain Senfe of this Petition is, either that he would help him more and more to difcern, and be affected with, the infinite Reafbnablenefs and Righteoufnefs, and the admirable Wifdom and Good- nefs of his Laws : Or, that he would give him a greater infight into thofe Spiritual Myfteries which the Law of Mofes abounded with. But not the leaft Shadow of Proof can be brought from thefe Petitions, for the Ob- fcurity of the Scriptures in general, and much lefs, for their being fo obfeure, as to require any other Infallible Interpreter befides God Himfelf. The Cardinal's fecond Text is, Luke 24. 27. And be- ginning at Mofes and all the Prophets, he expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himfelf. Now, faith he, The Difciples of our Saviour knew the Hebrew Phrafes, being Hebrews, and were neither proud Men, nor Unbelievers \ and yet he interpreted the Scrip- D tares A ."> 1 6 The Topfh DoSlrine of the Obfiurity of Scripture, iures to them, and therefore the Scriptures are ob- fcure. But at mofi, by his Favour, it can only follow from heme, that thofe Scriptures which our Lord expounded to them at this time were/^, w*. the things relating to Himfelf in the Law of Mofes, and in the Prophets. And yet neither doth it follow that thefe were obfcure ; at lea ft now he was come, and had fuffered Death, and was rifen again. Nay our Saviour plainly intimates that they were far from being obfcure now, feeing He up- braided them immediately before with folly and dulnefs ©f Apprehenfion, for not under/landing them ; Viz. ver. 25,26. Then he [aid unto them, 0 Fools, and flow of Heart to believe all that the Prophets have fpoken : Ought not Chrifl to have fuffered thefe things, and to enter into His Glory ? As if he fhould lay, Is not this mo (I manifefl from the Prophecies concerning the Meffias ? and therefore what egregious Stupidity are you guilty of, in not per- ceiving it ? His Third Text is, JffsB. 31. Where the Ethiopian Eunuch, reading in his ChariqLthat place in Ifaiah, He was led as a Sheep to the Slaughter, &c. And Philip ask- ing him whether he underjlood what he read ? Replied, How can I, except fome Man fhould guide me? But, 1. He doth not reply, How can J, except I am guided by fome Infallible Interpreter ? whether a jingle P erf on, or a Church. And his Reply fpake no more, than that he needed fbme Jew that underilood the Prophets better than himfelf was in Circumftances to do, to interpret this place to him. Who, thohewas a Profelyte, lived at too great a diftanee from Judea to be mightily skilled in the moil obfcure part of the Jews Bible. And, 2. Whereas Bellarmin here adds, to make as much as lie could of this Paffage, th&tSt.Jerorn (in his Epiftle to not founded in the Scriptures. %y to Paulinm, concerning the ftudy of the Scriptures ) faith, That this Eunuch did diligently read the Scriptures, and was SanBm, Vim & Humilis, an Holy, Godly and Humble Man; furely he underftood all things that were necefTary to Salvation before Chrift's Coming, while he was igno- rant of the meaning of this place in Ifaiah, if he were fuch an excellent Perfbn before this his meeting with St. Philip, as he would have us believe he was from St. Jerom. His Fourth (and Iaft) Text is, thofe Words of St. Pe- ter concerning St. Paul's Epiftles, viz. In tvhich are fome things hard to be underjlood, which they that Are unlearned and un ft able wreft, as they do alfo the other Scriptures, to their own Deftrutfion. 2 Pet. J. 16. Where Bellarmin faith, it ought to be obferved that St. Peter did not fay that there were fome things hard to be underjlood by the unlearned and unftable, as the Hereticks expound it, but that there were fome things abfolutely difficult. Now it is not worth our while, to enquire whether any of his Hereticks do fo expound it ; but he muft needs have been confeious to himfelf of a great Untruth, in faying this indefinitely of them. We acknowledg therefore that St. Peter doth by fome things hard to be underjlood in St. PauPs Epiftles, mean hard abfolutely, or in themfelves : But what Service will this do our Cardinal ? Since, 1. St. Peter doth not fay that his Brother Paul's Epi- ftles ( and much lefs that the Scriptures in general) arc hard to be underjlood, but only fome things in them. And two or three things are fome things. And in faying only fome things, is implied that all the other things contained in thofe Epiftles are not hard to be underjlood. 2. Had he faid that there were in them many things hard to be underjlood. How doth it follow that any of tho^ Things are Points necefTary to Salvation ? Ano- D 2 ther * •s i % The fofijb Dotlrine of the Obfcurity of Scripture, Mmford in his ther Jefuit tells usr that 'tis evident from this place, that catboiukScnf- ^Amna^ie far or s may be incurred by mi/interpreting places \>. 12. hard to be under flood, andfo this hardnefs is found in Points necejfary to Salvation ', for in fuch only damnable Errors can be incurred. And 'tis granted, that from this place of Scripture it follows, that damnable Errors maybe incur' red by misinterpreting places hard to be underfiood , but we fhall not eafily acknowledg it a good Coniequence from hence, that therefore hardnefs is found in Points necejfary to Salvation. 'Tis granted too, that in fuch only, dam- nable Errors can be incurred, but I deny that it follows from thence, that they cannot be incurred but by mif interpreting fuch hard places as contain Points necejfary to Salvation. For 'tis moft evident that they may be incur- red by mifinterpreting places which do not contain fuch Points ; and that tho there be no hardnefs in them, but much more if thereof. What Hardnefs is there in thole Words in the 2d Book of Samuel, The Lord moved David againfl them to fay, Go number Jfrael and Judah, when compared with the fame Paltage in the firfi of Chroni- cles ? where we read that Satan provoked him hereunto. For it plainly appears by this place, that the meaning of that is, That God, in his wife Providence, permitted Satan to tempt David. And how is it necejfary to Salva- tion to know that David was ever tempted to number his People ? Yet that Text hath been fo mifinterpreted and wrefled, as to fpeak God to be the Author of Sin. But what Error is damnable, if this be not ? Again 'tis no very hard matter to know, that St. Paul in faying, that we are jitjiified by Faith, rvithout the Works of the Law, meant the Works of the Ceremonial Law, and 'tis plain, that he did not account it abfolutely necejfary to Salvation, to believe that Chrrftians might not, together with the Laws of the Gofpel, obferve ftill thofe of Mofes ', for fuch as (, not founded in the Scriptures, 19 .as held the contrary were efteemed by him as no worfe than weak Chriftians,who were unacquainted with their Chriftian Liberty. But there were Libertines (and ftill , are) who To mifinterpreted, or wejled, that and the like Sayings, as from thence to infer, that Chriftians are difobliged from th^ Moral Law. And I hope this Au- thor (tho a Jefuit) would acknowledg this Doclrineto be a damnable Error. And therefore I fay, that places not containing Points neceffary to Salvation, are as ca- pable every whit of being wrefled to the proving of fetch Errors, as thofe that do contain fuch Points. Tho, as hath been faid, we do not deny, that Points neceffary to Salvation may in fbme places be fo expreffed, as to admit of fbme difficulty to know their true meaning; but then we utterly deny that thofe Points are only to be met with in thofe places ; but we affirm, that in other Texts they are moft clearly expreffed. So that 'tis of no concernment to our Salvation whether we underftand thofe or no, provided we do not fb mifunderfland them ( which we cannot do but by notorioufly wrejling them ) as to draw fbme damnable Error from them. And where- as this Author faith immediately before thofe Words that have now entertain'd us, that That cannot be a, fufficient Rule to decide all neceffary Controverfies, which in fuch Controverfies fpeaks not clearly, but is very hard to be un- der fiood, as the Scripture is ; whence we fee all Controver- fies arife about . the true meaning of fuch ani fuch Texts. So 2 Pet. 3.16. in which (Epi files of St- Paul ) are certain things hard to be under flood, &c. In thefe Words he begs the Queftion, fince he affirms fb pofitively, that the Scriptures are very hard to be underjlcod in neceffary Contro- verfies. But if they be (as we are as pofitive that they are not, and fhall fully prove it too before the Conclufion of thisDifcourfe) where fhall we find a fufficient Rule for * •s p !7;e Topijh Dotlrine of the Obfcurhy of Scripture, for the deciding of them ? Or rather fuch a "fudg ( for that he would be at, but blunders in exprefling it) as can make the Scriptures a Kule more fujficient ? If there be fuch a Judg, we fhould be at a comfortable pals, were Jefuits, or Papifts our beft Directors to him. For ex- cept wc could rind in our Hearts to put out our Eyes, we fhould then be fooner reconciled to oerfcdiSce'pticifm, or rather downright Infidelity, than be fatisfied with their Direction. And we too well know that either of thefe would much lels offend this Author and his Bre- thren, than our denying the Authority of their Judg of Controverfies. Mr. Chillingworttis Jefuit faith, That without a living Judg the Scripture will be no jitter to end Controverfies, than the Law alone to end Suits. And his Anfwer hereto deferves our tranfcribing, faith he, If the Law were plain and perfect, and Men hone ft and defirous to under ft and aright, and obey it, he that faith it were not fit to end Controverfies \ muft either want Vnderfianding him- felf, or think the World wants it. Now the scripture, we fretend, in things neceffary, is plain and perfect ; and Men, we fay, are obliged under pain of Damnation, to feek the true fenfe of it, and not to wreft it to their preconceived fancies. Such a Law therefore to fuch Men, cannot but be very ft to end all Controverfies neceffary to be ended. For others that are not fo, they will end when the World ends, and that is time enough. But we have not yet done with that Text of St. Peter. Therefore, 3. Neither doth he here fay, that any things in St. Paul\ Epiftles are too hard to be underftood without an Infallible Interpreter. But he plainly intimates the con- trary, in that he calls thofe unlearned and unflable, who wrefted them to their own Deflruclion. Tho he doth not fay, as Bellarmin falfly affirms we fay he doth, ihztfome things ( . N not founded in the Scriptures. ^ t things are hard to be under flood by unlearned and mflable Men, yet he faith that they are fuch Men who wreji them to their own Deflruflion ; fo that St. Peter doth not deny it to be poflible for Men of Learning and Stability of Judgment^ to underftand thefe hard things. 4. St. Peter feems'to limit thofe hard things to what St. Paul faith concerning the Argument he was now up- on. His Words are Even as our Brother Paul a/Jo, according to the Wifdom given unto him, hath written to you, as alfo in all his Epijlles [peaking in them of thefe things, in which are forne things hard to be under flood. So that without wrefling, or ufing any thing of Art, they may be thus read ; fome things are hard to be understood in what our Brother Paul [peaks in his Epi flies concerning thefe things. Now the things which St. Peter difcourfed of before , related to the coming of Chrifi to "Judgment. But fo long as we are affured that he will come ; and that every one [ball be judged by him, as St. Paul fpeaks plainly enough in one of his EpiMles, according to the things done in the Body, whether they be good or bad, we may without endangering our Souls be ignorant cf feveral Circum- ftances relating to this his coming ; tho wicked Men might pervert fbme Paifages about them to a pernicious and deftru&ive Senfe. But yet after all, 5. It is not certain that thefe Words, in which are fome things hard to be underjlood, do relate at all to St. PauFs manner of difcourfing about the matters St. Peter treats here of, for they may relate only to the things of which he difcourfeth ; as being in themfelves hard to be under- flood, let them be expreffed with never fo great plainnefs. That which makes the doubt is, that 'tis in the Original iv Q[c, which can't relate to the Foeminine W^Kca* Epi- files, but to tstov thefe things ; tho 'tis confeft that vi «:$. is to be found in two or three Manufcripr Copies. Thefe. 3 1 The fopijh DoStrine of the Obfcurky of Scripture, Thefe are all the Texts of Scripture that are produced by the Cardinal ; and if he could have met with fuller Evidence for the Scriptures Obfcurity from any other Texts, no queftion he would not have fatisfied himfelf with thefe : Efpecially fince he doth not here treat of this Argument by the by ; but 'tis the whole bufinefs of this and the next Chapter, todemonftrate the Scrip- tures to be foobfcure, as that all may be convinced of the abfolute neceflity of that Infallible Judg, which is the fubjeft (as I laid) of all the fucceeding Chapters of this Third Book. And his citing fuch Texts as thefe for fuch a purpofe, is as pregnant an Inftance as well can be, to fhew what Little Things Great Men make them- felves, when they zealoufly engage in an indefenfible Caufe. But there are other Texts prefl to ferve this Caufe, by other of the Popifh Authors, which mull next be conli- dered ; and I need look but into one Book for them, viz. The Touch/lone of the Reformed Gofpel, lately Reprinted, arid (as the Title Page tells us) made more correct. And I cannot think but that we have here all thofe Scrip- tures muftered together, which are brought in any other Books to prove the Obfcurity of Scripture ; tho one Jingle one to the purpofe would have fignified much more than all of them. To thofe of Bellarmin here are added no fewer than ten Texts, befides two which I am not unwilling to think mifquctedy as great care as was taken in the Cor- rection of this Edition. Thofe are Jpoc. 2. 5. And from Jefw Chrifiy who is the faithful and true Witnefs, &c. And Luke 2. 50. Glory to God in the HigheJl,on Earth Peace, Good Will towards Men. I lay I fufpedl: a Mifquotation in thefe, except they think that our Saviour could not be a faithful and True, if he were a Clear Witnefs : And that r not founded in the Scripture si 3 3 that he could not bring Peace on Earth, or express Good, Will to Men, unlefs he had brought with hicn an obfcure Gofpel. And as to the other ten, it will be but Good Manners to beg the Reader s Pardon, for troubling him with more than the bare Recitical of them. The Firfi is, Apoc. 5. 4. And I wept much, becaufe no Man was found worthy to open the Book, and to read the- Book, neither to look thereon : viz. in regard of its great Obfcurity. Now our Author tells us, That the Angel, [peaking of the Book fealed with [even Seals, wept much : And adds, A flrange Cafe to read in Scripture it felf, that the Book of Scripture fhould be (but up with fo many Seals. But much more (trange that even in St. John'* time none could be found, neither in Heaven^ nor in Earth, able to 0- pen the fame, nor to look thereon : Which every Appren- tice now a-days, without any Difficulty, will undertake to do. But, 1. Hath their Infallible Interpreter told them, that 'tis the Angel that is here faid to weep much ? And fhall we believe him, when 'tis as clear as the Light that 'tis St. John that faith, I wept much ? 2. Did their Infallible Judg of the Senfe of Scripture tell them, that the Book fettled with f even Seals is the Book of Scripture, viz. the Bible? If fo, How dare their very Bifhops, or Cardinals, or the Pope himfelf to look thereon, and, much more, to open it, and read therein, if he e- ver does ? When even in St. Johns time, none could be found neither in Heaven, nor in Earth, able to open the fame, nor to look upon it. One would conclude from hence, that the Church of Rome hath been abundantly too Liberal in the Liberty fhe hath granted to read the Scrip- tures. But many of our Apprentices can tell them, that thele two are but (lender Inftanccs of their being better enabled to underftand the Scriptures than other folk, in E regard j 4 Ihe Tofifl? Dotlrine of the Obfcurity of Scripture, regard of their Infallible Judg. For their mere Mother- Wit doth infallibly affure them, that, as it was St. "John that faid J weft much, not the Angela fp 'tis only that particular Book of Scripture of which thefe Words are a part, which is here fpoken of, not the Book of Scripture in General. We fee by thefe Inftances, that 'tis not ne- ceffary that things fhould be hard to be underfiood to put them into a poffibility of being mefted, or mifunder- ftood, by fome fort of People. For here is as eafy a Text as any in the Bible, moft fhamefully rvrefted by one at Ieaft, who would take it very ill to be call'd Unlearned. And Co are abundance more, as eafy as this, by him and his Fellow Catholicks. 3. Whereas thefe Words fpeak the Apocalyps to be a . very difficult Book : who ever thought otherrvife of it ? Tho a great part (as hath been already faid) is now much plainer, than it was when 'twas firfl written, viz. Co much of it as is accomplifht ', and the reft will every Age be plainer and plainer, viz. as "'tis accomplifht, And in due time, we doubt not but the Infallible Inter- preter and "fudg of Contr over fie s, will find little Service done to his (or her) Infallibility, by the fulfilling of the Prophecies of this Book. 4. I add, that 'tis far from being neceffary to our Sal- vation, to underftand fo much of this Book as is intelli- gible by us ; the matters therein contained, which are not to be found in other Books of Scripture, being only in the number of things, in higher or lower degrees, profitable, not abfolutely necejfary. As to the following Text, our Author is fo civil to his Readers, as only to cite the Chapters and Verfes, and I would be as civil to mine too, were we not to deal with a fort of Men, whofe Humour 'tis, to cry up the abfurdeft Arguments and Objections, as Vnanfwerabley if they be not Jnfwerd. The. S not founded in the Scriptures, * e The Second Text is, 2 Pet. 1. 20. Kjiomng this firfl, that no Prophecy of Scripture is of any private Interpreta- tion. But, i. 'Tis not faid no Scripture, but no Prophecy of the Scripture ; or of the Old Teftament, of which the Apo- itle is here fpeaking. But Protejlants acknowledg, as well as Papifts, that there is Obfcurity, and great Obfcu- nty too, in the Prophecies. Tho (as we have more than once faid ) there hath been much greater than is now, and they will be as perfpicuons, as ever they were ob- fcure. 2. Whereas 'tis faid, That no Prophecy is of any pri- vate Interpretation, i^ct^ 'Onkvo-iw is rendred by divers of our rnoft Learned Expositors, of the Prophets own fiart- tng, (&3nAuois feeming to be an Agoniftical Word, faith Dr. Hammond, fignifying the fir ft fet ting out of Racers) or Proprii Impetus, or Inftinffus, from the Prophets own Motion or Inftinfl, which come all to the fame Senfe. And this is rnoft probably the true Verfion ', and I doubt the Infallible Interpreter himfelf can't furnifh us with one more agreeable to the Context, both immediately preceeding and following thefe Words. The Words foregoing are, We have alfo a more fure Word of Prophecy , whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, &c. viz. becaufe no Prophecy is of the Prophet's own Motion ; for ( as the next Verfe after this. Text tells us) The Prophecy camt not in old Time by the Will of Man, but holy Men of God fpake as they were moved by the Holy Ghoft. But, 3. Suppoie we keep to this Verfion, private Interpre- tation, it cannot be conceived that the Apoftle defigned to aflert fuch an Obfcurity in the Prophecies of the Old Teftament ( and much lefs in the Doctrines, Precepts and Promifes of Holy Scripture) as makes them not to be interpretable but by the Church- Reprefentativy, fince E 2 pri- ^6 The fopijb Do&rine of the Obfcurlty of Scripture, private Chriftians were then infpired with the Gift of interpreting thofe Prophecies. St. Paul puts the Corin- /£/*4#-Chriftians in general upon defiring Spiritual Gifts > hut rather that they ?night Prophecy. And by prophefytng in this place, Erafmus and Eftius, with too many others to be reckoned up,, underftand the Gift of expounding difficult places of Scripture, but efpecially the Prophecies : The true underftanding of thefe tending greatly to con- firm the Truth of Chrifiianity. And therefore, well might the Apoftle fay, but rather that ye may prophefy. So that I fay, St. Peter could not mean, that no Prophe- * cy is explainable by any particular Perfons, fince at that time even private Perfons had the Gift of explaining them. 4. 'Tis worth our obferving too, that St. Peter here commends the Chriftians in general, for taking heed, and applying their Minds to thefe Prophecies. Which ihews that, either they did underftand them, or that they were not too obfcure to be by care and diligence underftood by them. The Third Text is, Matth. 1 $. 1 1. to which is joined the 36th. 'Tisfaid in the 1 \th Verfey in anfwer to this Queftion of the Difciples, Why fpeakefi thou to them in Parables ? Becaufe it is given unto you to know the My He ries of the Kjngdom of Heaven ,but to them (viz. the reft of thofe that heard him) it is not given. And in the $6th Verfe 'tis faid, Then Jefus fent the Multitude away, and went into the Houfe, and his Difciples came unto him faying,Declare unto us the Parable of the Tares of the Field. Now all that can be gathered from hence is, 1. That Chriftfpake the My (levies of the Kjngdom /a Parables, becaufe the Multitude fhould not underftana them. Which fhews that had he not fpoken to them in Farablet, they might have underftood them. 2. That ,' not founded in the Scriptures. i 7 2. That he explained them to his Difciples that they might understand them. And, he having left his Ex- planations on Record, we are capable of underftanding them as well as they. . And therefore thefe two Verfes are lb far from proving the Obfcurity of the Scriptures, that they prove the directly contrary. The Fourth Text is, Luk. 24-45. Then opened, he their Under/landings, that they might under Jl and the Scriptures. To which I reply, 1 . That the foregoing Verfc fhe lveth,that by the Scrip- tures, for the understanding of which,,tisfaid,theD//c//>/^ Under (landings were opened, were notthe Scriptures in ge- neral, but only the Prophecies concerning Chriji contain- ed in the Law of Mofes, and in the Prophets and Pfalms* of David ; for that Verle runs thus. And he [aid unto them, Thefe are the words which I [pake unto you, while I was yet wich you, that all things mujl be fulfilled, which were written in the Law of Moles, and in the Prophets, and in the Plalms concerning me. 2. That the Difciples, having had their Eyes opened for the underftanding of thefe Prophecies, not only ena- bled others, by word of Mouth, after they were become Apojtles, but^/ZChriftianstotheend of the. World, by their Writings, to underftand them. The Fifth Text is, iCvr. 12. 10. To another (is given by the Spirit), the working of Miracles, to another Propher cy, to another difcerning of Spirits, to another divtrs kinds cf Tongues, to another the interpretation of Tongues. But what fhall we find here ? This place furely is defigned to prove, not directly, the Obfcurity of the Scriptures, but that for the fake of which our Adverfaries are fo zealous to have them obfcure : viz. That Chrift hath indued their Church with the Gift of Prophecy, or of infallibly inter- preting the Scriptures, and of Difcerning of Spirits, or difcern- 3 8 The fofifl? DoHr'me of the Obfcurity of Scripture, difcerning between true and falfe pretences to Infpirati- on. But 'tis no impertinency to ask, What is this to the Church of Rome, (or to any other Church fince the Apo- ftolical Age) any more than the reft of this Verfe is ; viz. To another the working of Miracles, to another divers kinds of Tongues, to another the interpretation of 7 ongues. But that Church makes no pretence to the Gift of divers kinds of Tongues, nor to that of the interpretation of Tongues ; and we are abundantly iatisfied that 'twould be infinite- ly more for her Reputation among wife Men, did fhe make*io pretence neither to the working of Miracles ; and fb are many of her Sons too. The Sixth Text is, Luke 8. i o. And he faidy Vntoyou it is given to know the Myfleries of the Kjngdom : but to others in Parables ; that feeing they might not fee, and hearing they might not under ft and. But thh Text is the lame with theThird as to the former half', and what Ser- vice the other half will do this Caufe, I can't divine. The Senfe of which (at leaft in fart) is this: That our Lord having Enemies among his Hearers, who he knew watched fcr all Advantages from his Difcourfes, to do him a Mifchief, he would not, according to his own Advice, Caft Pearls before Swine ; but kept himfelf out of Harms way, till the time came when he was to be delivered into their Hands ; and therefore chofe to fpeak many things in Parables, that hearing they might hear* and not perceive his meaning. But afterwards thofe things were fpokenfo plainly, that all that would might underftand them. And, I lay, What is this to the pur- pofe of proving the Obfcurity of Scripture ? There is alio joined with this Verfe the 54?^ of the fame Chapter ; but if the Figures be not miftaken, I leave it to the Reader to make out a proof of the Scriptures Obfcurity from this Verfe. The words are thefe, And he put theft* all f not founded in the Scriptures, }p all out, and. took her by the Hand, and called, faying, Maid, arife. The Seventh Text is, 2 Tim. 3.7. Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledg of Truth. Good again ! Becauie Silly Women, laden with Sins, and led a* way with divers Lufts, and thefe filly and fmful Women in the Hands of more fmful Seducers, and taken Captive by them too, cannot come to the knowledg of the Truth by all their Learning, therefore the Scriptures are obf cure. The Eighth is, 1 John 4. 6. We are of God: he that kncweth God, heareth us ; he that h not of God, heareth not us ', hereby know we the Spirit of Truth and the Spirit of Er- rour. Dr. Hammond's Paraphraie upon thefe Words (which I fhan't miftruft till the Roman Doctors, from their Infallible Judg, furnifh me with a better) is this, Our Doctrine is the true pure Doctrine of Chrift, hath no- thing of Worldly Great nefs, or Secular Inter eft in it, but only of Piety aud Purity, Self-denial and Contempt of the World,and every pious Chriflian hearkeneth to us : And this is a way of difarning true from falfe Prophets. One is all for Purity and Confeffion of Chrift even in P erf editions, the other for worldly Advantages, and SelfPrefervation. And what greater Evidence can we defire than here we find, as for the Scriptures being obfcure, fb for the Church of Romeh being Gifted for the preferving of us from Herefy (efpecially from the fixth Century to this prefent time) above all Churches in Chriftendom ? The Ninth is, John 5. 35. He was a burning and a (hining Light, &c. But how is the Church of Rome con- cerned in the Baptifts having been fuch a Light ? But perchance a certain Argument calPd a Minori may be couched under this Citation ; which runs thtu : If Chrift's Fore-runner was a burning and (hining Light, then 4o The fopijh DoRrine of the Obfcurity of Scripture, then his Vicar is much more fo ; for the enlightning of the dark Bible. But however this is, we have heard of fuch Burning and Shining Lights as have Icarce had their Fellows, either Jince or before St. John the Baptifi. The Tenth and (for our Comfort) the lafi Text is, Pfal. 119. 34. Give me under (landing, and IJhall keep thy Law, yea 1 /hail obferve it with my whole Heart. But what is this more than afecond Repetition of Bellarmins Cita- tion, as to its Senfe, out of this Pfalm, tho a different Verfe ? But I have too much exercifed my Reader's Pa- tience to repeat my Anftver. And now, if all thefe 14 Texts can't convince us, that 'tis impoflible for Proteftants tounderftand the Scripture, we are like to preferve in our Heretical Notion of its Perfpicuity7 in all necejfary Points efpecially, for all that Texts of Scripture do fay to the contrary : And ftill to think our felves in no need of being affifted by Rome's Infallibility in our Enquiries after the true Senfe of it. For certainly no mortal Man can imagine any of thofe Scriptures pertinent to the purpofe for which they are produced, but fuch as dare not look upon them with their own Eyes, and believe themfelves void of all Judg- ment of Difcretion in matters of Religion, becaufe they are told Co by the Church of Rome. But as for fuch as thefe, there is not a Text from the Beginning of Genefis to the End of the Revelation, but may as well convince them of the Obfcurity of Scripture, if their Church fhall be pleated to tell them that this her Doctrine is proved by it. And therefore to what end is it to fetch Tcfti- monies from Scripture to prove its Obfcurity, were it nor, in purfuance of their Churches prohibiting them to look into a Bible, to affright them from reading any more of it, than fuch Texts ? Which it feems are per- spicuous enough to be underftood both by Catholicks and A not founded in the Scriptures. 41 and Hereticks, becaufe they aflure them that the Scrip- . tures in general are not to be underftood by them. And as for us Hereticks, who have nofuch Deference for this Church's Authority, it teems the idleft thing in Nature, to go about to perfuade us of the Obfcurity of the Scrip- tures, by Teftimonies taken out of them : For if they be fo obfcure as we are told, and themfelves fay they are, we fhall not fb much believe it becaufe they tell us lb, as becaufe we find, them fo. As, on the other hand, if they fhould tell us that they are Perfpicuous, we could not be- lieve it, if we found them to be Obfcure. But this Doctrine of the Obfcurity of Scripture in Mat- ters neceffary, is as great an Impofition upon our Experi- ence, as is that of Tranfubflantiation upon our Senfes. And therefore we do more than believe, we know, that 'tis an impious Slander upon the Holy Scriptures, and a blafpheming of the Author of them. But fince thofe who fb much defpife the Scriptures, as Papifts are well known to do, can quote Texts out of them, to ferve their own turn (as one whom I will not name long before thera did, who had as little Refpect for them as they can have, and was far more cunning in his Quotations, than we have now feen they are) we can furnifh them with Texts good ftore that infinitely more clearly afTert the Perfpicuity of the Scriptures,than any one of theirs does it Obfcurity. And this we would do were it needful, as we have fhewn it is not : But thefe four are enough for our Adverfaries to compare with their fourteen: Viz. Deut. 30. 11, &e. 2 Cor. 4. 2,3, 4. 1 Tim. 6. 3. John 7. 17. Mofes faith in Deut. 30. 11, &c. This Commandment which I command thee this day, is not hidden from thee, nei- ther is it far off', it is not in Heaven, that you fhouldjl fayy F who ^1 The Tofljh Doftrine of the Ohfcurtty of -Scripture, who /ball go up for its to Heaven, and bring it down to us, that we may hear it and do it ? Neither is it beyond the Sea, that thou fhouldjl fay, Who fhall go over the Sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it and do it ? But the Word is very nigh unto thee, in thy Mouth and in thine Heart, that thou mayjl do it. See, I fet before thee (or plainly before thine Eyes) Life and Good, and Death and Evil. BelUrmin takes notice of this Text among others, as urged by Proteftants for a proof of the Perfpi- cuity of Scripture ; and gives us this Remark of Brentius upon it, viz. Thefe Words fhew, that there is no need of faffing over the Mountains, and going to Rome, for the interpretation of Scripture. And in his Reply to it, of two Anfwers he prefers this : That Motes here fpeaks only of the Precepts of the Decalogue, which are natural, and eafy to be underjlood. Fairly confeft ! and we thank him. But left this Senle fbould feem to thwart his Expofiti- on of thofe Yerfes he quoted out of the 1 1 c)th Pfalm for the Obfcurity of the Scriptures, he faith, That by the Law which David there confeffeth was difficult to be underjlood, (tho, as we {hewed, he confeffeth no iuch thing) he did not mean the ten Precepts only, bat all the Holy Scrip- tares. But if he did not mean thofe ten only, but all the Holy Scriptures, he muft needs furely mean them, tho not them only ; and therefore BelUrmin is more concern- ed to reconcile Mofes and David, though if they had been at odds he is far from doing it,than not to contradict him- felf. But fince he here aeknowkdgeth the ten Command- ments to be fo very plain, and eafy to be underftood, we fhall make fbme earnings of this Acknowledgment. For no lefs than 19 parts in 20 of the Preceptive part of the New Te (lament, are but fo many Branches of the Mo- ral Law, and therefore they muft alfo be as plain and eafy, / not founded in the Scriptures. 4> eafy. And 'tis very pertinent to our purpofe to obferve, that St. Paul doth apply thefe fame Words of Mofes to the- Precepts of the Go/pel, Rom. 10.6, (jrc. Saying, The Right eoufnefs of Faith fpeaketh on this wife, Say not in thine Heart, Who jball afcend tnto Heaven, &c. And Verf. 8. af- ter the repetition of the \th Verfeof that jothof Deu- teronomy, viz. The Word is nigh thee, even in thy Mouth and in thine Heart, he adds, That is the Word of Faith which we peach. And the fame ApoftJe fums up *//,that the Grace of God,which bringeth Salvation to all Men ,t each- eth, in living foberly, righteoujly and godly. Or, in be- having our lelves, as becomes fuch Creatures, towards our own Selves, our Neighbour, and Almighty God : which furely are all Duties enjoyned by the Moral Law. And befides what is exprefly commanded and forbid in the Ten Commandments, or is plainly deducible from them, and our Saviour's more perfect Expofition of feveral of them, which he calls Fulfilling, or Filling up, the Law ; there are but two or three more diftinff Precepts contain- ed in the Gofpel, viz. That of Believing Chrijl to be the Saviour of the World, and Son of God (and confequently believing whatfbever he delivered, and confirmed by innu- merable Miracles, Wonders and Signs, to be true, whether we truly underftand it or no) and Faith in his Under- takings for our Deliverance both from the Punishment and Power of Sin ; together with the Inftitutions of Bap- tifm and the Lor£s Supper ; in none of which we have any reafbn given us to complain of Obfcurity. Tho the Church of Rome hath been pleafed to make the lafi of thefe, not only moft difficult, but impojfible to be under- itood ; and to be alio not disbelieved by thole who cannot digeft the greateft Contradictions in the World, both to their bodily Senfes, and the Reafon of their Minds. In- F 2 deed 44 The fofifh VoBr'me of the Obfcurity of Scripture, deed the Quakers from one of thofe Inftances of our Savi- our's filling up the Law, prove all Swearing to be unlaw- ful; when 'tis evident enough by comparing this place with Hebrews 6. 16. and thofe three places in which St. Paul upon moft weighty occafions fwears, that only Swearing by Creatures, and all cuftomary and vnneceffary Swearing, is forbid. But tho thus to underftand thofe Words, Swear not at all, be necejfary upon fbme other ac- counts, yet I prefume none think it of abfblute neceflity to Salvation : Or, that, tho cuftomary and unnecefTary Swearing be a Mortal Sin, refufing to fwear at all from- a no more Culpable Principle than a mere Perfuafion of our Saviour's having forbidden it, can be worfe than a Venial one. And as to the mighty Motives our Savi- our hath given us to the obfervation of his Precepts : Namely his exceeding great and precious Promifes,znd his fearful Threatnings ; one would in Charity hope that no Papifi can for fhame fay, that thefe are fb expreft, as that 'tis impoffible without an infallible Interpreter to know their true meaning. In our Second Text, viz. 2 Cor. 4. 2, 3, 4. The Apo- ftle faith, We have renounced the hidden things of difho- mfty, or all Myfteries of Iniquity, that make Godlinef* a mere matter of Gain, and Religion a State Trick', not walking in Craftinefs, nor handling the Word of God de- ceitfully, by making Additions of our own thereto (And O that their pretended only Succeffors could fay fb too !) hut by manifeftation of the Truth, commending our felvcstfr every Mans Confcience in the fight of God, (and therefore no doubt fpeaking to all Mens Vnder (landings.) But if our Gofpel be hid, it is hid to them that are loft ; in whom the God of this World hath blinded the Minds of them thaP believe not ; left the light of the glorious Gofpel of Chrifii who not founded in the Scriptures* a* who is the Image of God, Jbould {bine into them. Or, we have preached the Gofpel fb -plainly, that if any do not i underftand it,, they are only fuch as whole Eyes are blinded by the Devil, or the love of the Riches, Honours, and Pleafures of this World. BelUrmine doth likewife take notice of this place, as brought by Protefiauts to prove the Perfpicuity of Scripture ; but his Anfwer /nflunts to no more than this, That the Apoftle doth not jpfr [peak de intelligentia. Scripturarum, fed de cogni- tione, &Fide in Chriftum : Concerning the underftand- ing of the Scriptures, but the knowledg of Chrifi, and $jiitb in him. As if the knowledg of Chrift were not the knowledg. of his Gofpel, and Faith in Chrifi did not imply the belief of his Doctrine ', or filch a belief thereof as produceth Conformity to his Precepts. And. therefore he might for {hame have filently patted over this excellent Teftimony to the Perfpicuity of Scrip- turek In om third Text, viz,, i Tim.6.3,4. 'tisfaid, If any Man teach othertvife, and confent not to wholefome words, even the words of our Lord Jefus Chrifi, and to the DocJrine which is according to Godlinefsi he is proudy knowing nothing, but doting about Quefiions, and firifes of Words., &c. Not he is meerly weak, and therefore cannot underftand the words of our Lord Jefus Chrifi, but he is proud, and puffed up with a mighty Opinion of his own Knowledg, tho he knows nothing ', and he is contentious and wicked (as it follows,) and there- fore will not underftand them. The Cardinal takes no. notice of this Text. Nor of this following neither, which is our fourth and lajl, viz. Johny.ij. where our Lord faith, If any Man.will do his Will, fa $Aw ttoi^v, be willing to do the WtS 4-6 Tk To ftp Do3rine of the Qbfcurity of Scripture, Will of God, he /ball know of the Doctrine whether it be of God, &c. or, he fhall know that it u of God ; and therefore he fhall undoubtedly underftand the true Senfe of as much of it at lea/i as is nece/fary ; for elfe it will fignify nothing to him to know whether it be of God, or no. It is needlefs (as I (aid) to infift upon more Texts to the fame pur pole, 'fince whether any Writing be ob^fc- or plain, is not a Queftion to be decided by TeJlimDfffi but by Experience. And all honeft Souls, who ftudy the Holy Scriptures with no worfe defign than to know the way to Eternal Blifs, that they may walk therein, do find themfelves able to underftand them in innume- rable more particulars, than what are barely necefTary. And whatfoever Scriptures fuch cannot underftand, or may be miftaken in their fenfe of them, they may be affured from thofe now quoted, and many more, that they are not of fuch Neceflity, as that they fhall fall fhort of Salvation, by reafon of this their Ignorance, or Error. Nay, even thofe Scriptures which they cannot under- ftand, are profitable to them, as they are made more humble by a greater fenfe of their own Weaknefs, oc- cafioned by them. This Gregory the Great obferved in vol. i. p. 1 282. his ijth Homily, faith he, Scriptura tot a propter nos fcripta eft, fed non tota intelligitur a nobis, Sec. The whole Scripture is written for our Benefit, but is not wholly under flood by us. Many things indeed are fo plainly de- livered therein, that little Children (in underftanding) are nourifhed by them : Other things are veiled under fuch obfeure Sentences, that flrong Men have their Parts exerci- fedby them ', and they are the more grateful to them for their coming by labour and pains to the knowledg of them. But fome-things therein are fo very obfeure, that while we do not under- / not founded in the Scriptures. 47 underftand them, by Acknowledging our own Blindnefs, tve are advanced in Humility more than in Kjiowledg. I may add, that Ve are allured by the Concern that the infinitely good God declares he hath for the Souls of Men, he muft needs adapt his Word to their Capaci- ties, Co far as the true understanding thereof is ne- ceffary to their everlafting Happinefs. And it is an impeachment of his IVifdom, as well as Goodnefs to * Quid eft au- think that in a * Writing he hath fent to the World, of £™ ^/p^™ fuch infinite importance, he hath not expreffed his ^ EpiSofa Mind fo intelligibly as to anfwer his Defign therein, omnipotemis Or, that all fhould be required by him to ftudy that Z\mC^T Book, which is Co above the reach of their underftand- Greg. Mag, ing, as the Church of Rome would have it ; and there- EP'45>-V°L2.. fore keeps it from being tranflated into the Vulgar p" Language, where fhe is powerful enough to do it ; and under fevere Penalties prohibits the vulgar fb much as to be Owners of a Bible. But that 'tis the duty of all \simh theo ■n r 1 , r . ., J ■, . Scriptures. &&. Perjons to read the scriptures, is as evident as any thing 7^ Peopie.s can be from them. Which is fhewn in £ two late Trea- Right to read tifes, to which I refer the Reader. JSf**" Secondly ', I am now come to the Cardinal's Infiancesy which he gives us for a Specimen of the obfcurity of Scripture. But there needs no mor^to be faid con- cerning thefe, than that him/elf muft needs have feen, how little they fignify to his purpofe. He faith, That in the Scriptures two things are to be considered, Res qua? dicuntur, & Modus quo dicuntur. The Things there delivered, and the Manner how they art delivered. Under the former Head, he inftanceth in the Trinity?, the Incarnation, and other of the great eft My f erics of our 4 8 The (Pbpijk VoFtrim of the Obfcurity of Scripture, our Religion. Upon account of which he faith, the Scripture is obfcuriflima, extremely obfcure.- But how can he make that out? I fhould think that no more therefore of the Scripture is obfcure, than only thofe p Articular Texts wherein thofe Myfteries are contained. But as to the obfcurity of the Myfteries, 'tis fuch we mull acknowledg, as makes them incomprehenftble, and not to be fathomed by our fhallow Capacities, but we fhall never grant them to be unintelligible. Nor do any I hope think them fb, who are fatisfied to have no o- ther Notions of them than they find in Scripture ; and do not trouble themfelves with the Conceits of wanton Wits, and efpecially of the Schools, about them. But what Service can the Infallible Interpreter do us in the underftanding of thefe Myfteries ? Can he do h$ more than what he hath doneliis Admirers ? Who, for any difcoveries of theirs the World hath hitherto met with of more Light, we muft conclude (except they keep their profound Knowledg lock'd up within their own Breafts) do as little underftand them as our f elves. The Book of Nature is fuller of incomprehensible My- fteries, than this of Scripture ; and we have no caufe to think, but that this Interpreter will as fbon make that Book eafier to us, as he will this. But concerning the Myfteries hereof we are fatisfied we ought not to be ambitious of knowing more, than that there are no Contradictions in them to the Reafbn of our Minds, tho they are much above it : As are alfb ten thoufand things in Nature, which yet is no difcouragement to the ftudy of Natural Philofophy. And fb much Know- ledg as this comes to concerning the Myfteries of our Religion, we find by Experince is eafie/l gained, by considering them only as the Holy Scriptures have ex- prefted not founded in the Scriptures. 49 prefled them ; and not endeavouring to be wife above what is there written. And as to the obfcure Manner of exprefflng things in Scripture, he gives fix Inftances hereof, and one or two Examples under every Head but the loft. But what Man of Senfe cannot difcern at firft fight, that all this is mere trifling', and only ferves to fhew that the Car- dinal chufeth rather to play at fmall Game than to lie out? We Proteftants can furnifh him with far more obfcure Scriptures than any of thefe, and yet well know that there is not the leaft appearance of a Contradicti- on in them to our Doftrine concerning the Perfpicuity of Scripture. Nay farther, the Scriptures he cites un- der thefe Heads, have nothing in them, that a Man who is Mafter of but one good Commentator will call Obfcurity. And whereas he concludes his Inftances with that of the Scriptures abounding with Figures', fuch as Tropes, Metaphors, Allegories, Hyperboles, Ironies (and makes ufe of one of thefe Figures in adding, & alia id genus fine uUo numero : And other things of that kind innumerable) one good Syftem of Rhetorick can as effectually clear thefe Obfcurities, as all thofe toge- ther who have had the Honour of fitting in the Infalli- ble Chair: Who (bating their Infallibility) could ve- ry rarely boaft of one jot more Learning than their Neighbours. But 'tis fbmewhat ftrange, that He who could find fb many Figures in the Bible, fhould not be able to efpy one there where every Apprentice among us can : And that He who can find a Figure in thofe words of our Saviour, I am a Door, and I am a Vine, fliould not perceive one in thefe words, This is my Body ; where all the World, be fides Him f elf and his Infallible G Church, 5 o 7he Tofifh Dotlrine of the Obfcurhy of Scripture, Church, will fay, that thofe muft. have put out their Eyes who can't dilcern it. But yet after all that Bellarwin, and other Popifh Au- thors have faid of the Obfcurity of the Scriptures, and their making them a mere Nofe of ^.x,to be turned this way or that way as their Church pleafeth ; and the fcandalous Infinuations againft them, and fbmetimes broad Invectives, which are found in their.Books, we muft frill believe, (if we will take their own Word for it) that they (Good Men) have no lefs a Veneration for them than our felves. And they muft needs be aware how highly neceffary it is, if it be poflible, to make us AucaRSm' tnmk £>• But I wiU anfwer them in the Words of our 2?p. 46. laP' Learned Chillingworth, with w hich I will conclude, viz. This being once fettled in the Minds ofMen> that unwritten Traditions, if prof of ed by the Church of Rome, were to be received with equal Reverence to thofe that were written ; and that the fenfe of Scripture is not that which feems to Mens Reafon and Vnderjlanding to be fo, but that which /he (hould declare to be fo, feemeth it never fo unreafonable and incongruous. The matter being once thus ordered, and the Holy Scriptures being made in effect not your Directors and "Judges (no farther than you pleafe) but your Servants and Inftruments, always pre [I and in readinefs to advance your Defigns ', and difabled wholly with Minds fo qualified to prejudice or impeach them : It is fafe for you to put a Crown upon their Head) and a Reed in their Hands , and to bow before them, and en, Hail King of the Jews ! To pretend a great deal of EJleem and R'efpecl and Reverence to them, as here you do. But to little purpofe is verbal Reverence without entire Submijjion and fincere Obedience. And as our Saviour faid of fome, fo the Scripture, could it fpeak, I believe would fay to you ; Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and / not founded in the Scriptures, 5 1 and do not that which I command you? Cafl away the vain and arrogant pretence of Infallibility, which makes your Errors incurable. Leave picturing of God, and worjhipping him by Pictures. Teach not for Doctrines the Commandments of Men. Debar not the Laity of the Teftament of Chrijfs Bloody &c. And I add, Acknow- ledg what one would think thofe of you that have read the Scriptures muft needs fee, viz,. That they are far from being obfcure in Matters necefTary ; and whatfb- ever the Scriptures command you, do ; And then we /ball willingly give yon fuch a Teflimony as you deferve ; but till you dofof to talk of Eftimation, Refped and Reverence to the Scripture, is nothing elfe but Talk. THE END. LONDON, Printed by J. D. for Richard Chifwel at the Rofe and Crown in St. Paul's Church- Yard, 1688. < n) The Texts examined which Papiftr cite out of the Bible, for the Proof of Their Dodrine, CONCERNING The lnfufficiency of Scripure, and NeceJJity of Tradition. IMPRIMATUR. Mart. 24. 1687. Gttil. Need ham. AMongft all the Controverfies now depending between the Reformed Churches and the Church of Rome, there is none of greater importance than that which concerns the Rule of Faith, where all things neceHary to Salvation are to be found. Both agree that there are things thus neceflary, and that there is a certain Rule by which they are to be determined. Both agree that the written Word of God is a Rule of that kind. So Bellarmine faith, that in the fir ft place is to be determined, that the Prophetical and Apoftolvcal Jf"rv& Books are the true Word of Gad> and a certain and ft able §. On*?. Rule of Vaith. H Both DeVerbo J.*, c 2. 54 Texts of Scripture eked by the Tapifts Both agree that the Evidence for it is unquestiona- ble ; for as a Rule of faith ought to be certain and, known \ fo nothing is more certain , nothing more known than the &2't\c?£nde Scriptures, faith the fame Author. Both agree, that if there were an Unwritten Word, or that if there was as much certainty of an Unwritten W ord, as there is of the Written Word, the Unwritten would be of as good Authority as the Written. But thofe that thus far agree, do afterward divide upon it beyond any poffibility of Accommodation. For the Church of Rome holds, i . That the Written Word of God is not compleat nor fufficient to direct us in all matters neceflary to Salvation, which concern Faith and Manners. 2. That an Unwritten Word, or Tradition is ne- ceffary to make the Scripture, an intire, compleat, and fufficient Rule of Faith. 3. That there is an Unwritten Word, which is as much the Word of God,is of as good Authority, and is equally to be received with the like Faith, Piety and Reverence as the Written Word ; and which withthe Written makes a compleat Rule of Faith, &c Thefe things are all denied by the Proteftants. And becaufe they are denied by them, therefore the Writers of the Church of Rome have endeavoured to prove each of thefe by Scripture, as being the only Authority their Adverfaries allow in this cafe. And thefe Proofs I fhall confider and examine. sect. 1. Their firft AfTertion is, That the Scripture doth not contain all things neceffary to Salvation j or, is not a Rule fufficient to guide us therein. De Verbo i# 4# This Cardinal Bellarmine undertakes to juftify, and e. ?. init. c.4! prove from Scripture ', but, how faintly, we may judg %yrim»' bywhatheelfewhere afferts. As, 1.. That for the Jnfufficiency of Scripture , examined. « y i. That the Apojlles were wont to preach to all, all Had. c. «.' thofe things which are [imply necejfary. And that all thofe %%}* & H* things which they preached openly to all, and are necejfary to ally are written by the Apojlles. 2. That/f'j not [aid in Scripture, that the Scripture is not [ufficient in all things neceiTary, but it may be c- ««■ §• *5 collecJ-edfrom it. *~ And becaufe we are not willing to let any thing that looks like a Proof from Scripture elcape a due Exami- nation, let us fee how they colled it. i . He argues thus ; If Scripture contains all things neceffary, and is fumxient ; then it's either the fingle Books, or the whole Canon : If the whole Canon of Scripture be included ; that cannot be, becaufe many Books truly Sacred and Canonical have per ijhed, as thofe Bellarm. ibid, of Samuel and Nathan concerning the Acts of David, c-4- §-4*»^ i Chron. 29. 29. of Nathan, Ahijah, and Iddo concern- mtm>*Cm ing the Acls of Solomon, 2 Chron. 9. 29. Solomons Natural and Moral Obfervations ; 1 Kjng. 4. 32, &c. Of the New Teftament, he faith, lis certain, that the Epiftle of St. Paul to the Laodiceans, mentioned Colof. 4.16. is wanting; and perhaps, another to the Corin- thians, 1 Cor. 5. 9. Now, faith he, Where are all thefe ? And let the Hereticks fee from whence they may make up this defect. To this I anfwer ; 1 . That every thing wrote by infpired Perfbns was not Canonical, or indeed of Divine Infpi ration : For, as nothing is Canonical but what was infpired, 1 Tim. 4. 1 6. All Scripture is given by Inspiration of God, and was therefore infpired and wrote, that it might be Ca- nonical : So this Infpiration was not a Power at all times refident in all thofe Perfbns, but they [pake, and fo certainly wrote, as they were moved by the Holy Ghofi : H 2 2 Pet. 5 6 Texts of Scripture cited by the faftfls 2 Pet. i. 2i. And therefore it doth not follow, for example, that becaufe Solomon was an infpired Perfbn that his Natural Hiftory was of Divine Infpiration ; or was intended by Almighty God to be as much a part of the Canon, as his Books of Proverbs and Ec clefiaftes. j. I may add,that therefore the Books aforefaid that are not now extant, were not Canonical, becaufe they are loft : For if the Divine Providence will fecure the Books themfelves from a general Corruption, as Bellar- l. 2. c. 2. mine doth argue, for the purity of the Hebrew Text ; §. Ojantum. tjjen jt will no lefs fecure the Books themfelves from perifhing. 4. If we fhould grant that fome part of the Scrip- ture is loft \ yet it follows not, that what was loft did contain things neceflary to Salvation, and that what remains is not now a fumcient Rule. For the Scripture is an abundant as well as a fufficient Rule, and con- tains things profitable, as well as necelTary : And there- fore unlefs fomewhat neceffary to Salvation was loft with thofe Books, it's no more to their purpofe ; than that becaufe there are many other things Jefus did, which are not written, that therefore what is written concerning him is not fufficient. 5. It's ftill lefs to their purpofe, unlefs what was once written, . but is not now extant in any Divine "Writings, is yet intirely and purely preferved by Tra- dition. Now where are all thefe Books of Nathan, Solomon, and Ahijah, &c ? Let thefe Traditionary Men fee from whence they may make ftp this defecJ. Where are the things neceffary to Salvation, that were in thofe Books ? Or, where are the Books themfelves that con- tain thofe things ? But if they cannot do this, of what irfe is their unwritten Word ? And / for the hfufficiettcy of Scripture, examined. *? And whereas he faith of the New Teftament, that it's certain St. Paul wrote an Epiftle ta the Laodiceans. i . It's rather certainly otherwife ; if the words of the Text are confulted, Col. 4. 16. When this Epiftle tt read amongH you, caufe that it be read alfo in the Church of the Laodiceans ; and that ye likervife read the Epi- ftle from Laodicea. By which words it's certain it was an Epiftle wrote from Laodicea, and not to the Laodi- ceans ; where it's not certain that ever the Apoftle was : Col. 2. 12. 2. It's far more probable that it was an Epiftle of the Laodiceans to St.Paul, than an Epiftle of St. Paul to the Laodiceans (as there was one of the Corinthians to him, 1 Cor. 7. 1.) and which this Epiftle of St. Paul to the Colqfjians might ferve as an Anfwer to. As for what he infers from 1 Cor. 5. 9. I wrote unto you in an Epiftle, as if the Apoftle had wrote one be- fore this to them ; the Cardinal ventures only upon a perhaps : As well knowing that it doth not neceffarily infer it, and that it may fignify either no more than I had written in the Epiftle which I now fend, that you fhould not accompany with Fornicators ; but for fear of miftake, and left you fhould carry it too far, I think fit more particularly to explain my lelf : or, I have written, Purge out the old Leaven, but thereby I mean, &c. So Theophilaft, &rc. Thus far they argue in general from Scripture, againft the fufficiency of Scripture, but as for particular places, they produce none ; Bellarmine faith it's to be collected from other places, (uch as 1 Cor. 1 1. The reft will I fet L> 4- c- 1°-. in order when I come : And 2 Thef.i. Kjep the Traditi- A mY ' ons. But thefe belong to the next Head, and there I fhall take them into Confideration. . of 5 8 Texts of Scripture examined, which Of TRADITION. sect. ii. T°~ Radition is here taken in a Theological Senfe, for JL fuch things relating to Faith and Manners as are not written, but proceed from and are of the fame Au- thority, and to be received with the lame Piety and Reverence as what is written. So that the Queftion is, Whether there was fuch a Tradition, or unwritten Word, delivered by Chrift and the Apoftles, and continued from time to time in the Church, which contains fuch things relating to Faith and Manners, as are of the fame Authority, and are to be alike received as neceifary to Salvation as what is written ? As neceifary ; For if the Scripture doth not contain all things neceifary to Salvation, then thole Neceffa- ries not found in Scripture muft be fought for in the Tradition of the Church. l. 4.0.4. And this Bellarmine undertakes to fhew the necejjity of from Scripture. Jyg. i. His Argument is.drawn from the State of the Church before the time of Mofes, when for the fpace of 2000 Years and upwards, there was no Divine Writing, and nothing but Tradition, as Gen. 18. 19. God laid of Abraham, I know him, that he will command his Children and his Hou/hould after him, and they /hall keep the way of the Lord. _ And therefore faith the Cardinal, Scripture is not Jimp ly neceffary ; and if the ancient Religion could he preferred without Scripture for 2000 Tears, fo the Chrifiian Doctrine might be preferved without Scripture for 1 500 Tears. But how doth this prove the Necefjity of Tradition, which was the Point he undertook to fhew? But the Tapifts cite for Tradition. ^ But in farther Reply to this, Ianfwer, •Firft\ That the cafe is not parallel. For there was in thole Times a greater reafbn why Religion might be preferv'd by Tradition, than now. i. From the long Lives of the Patriarchs, when the whole time of 1650 Years, from the Creation to the Flood, was taken up by Adam and Methufelah, and fb the Tradition of the true Religion be the better pre- ferved. 2. As the Religion was natural, and few things of mere Inftitution. $. As within the Church they had often infpired Per- lons, to whom upon particular Emergencies God re- veal'd himfelf. And fo it by no means follows, that if Tradition was then fufficient, and a Written Word unneceflary, that it fhould be fb, when the Circumftances were al- tered. 2. His Argument fuppofes that which is not true, that Tradition is fufficient to preferve the Doclrrine of Religion free from Corruption, without a Written Word. Bellarmine fiippofes it only poflible, and com- mon Experience determines againft him. For how early do we find it obferved, that all F left had corrupted his Way on the Earth, Gen. 6. 12. And as before, fb after the Flood, they had fb manifeftly degenerated, that God called Abraham from his Father's Houfe, which was infected with Idolatry, Gen. 12. 1. 8c 51. $0. 5. The very Place he produces, doth fuppofe this. For when God fpeaks of the grofs Corruption of Sodom, he gives this Character of Abraham, I know him, &c. which implies that the Degeneracy of the World pro- ceeded *$0 Texts of Scripture examined, which ceeded much from the Infufficiency of the Traditions- ry Way. 4. The Way God afterwards took for the fecuringof Religion and a Church, doth further prove the Infirmi- ty and Infufficiency of Tradition for it ; when even the Decalogue, that fhort Sum of moral Precepts was writ and deliver'd to Mofes, that he might teach them, Exod. 24. i2w and the whole Law afterwards was wrote by Mofes, Deut. 51.9. which was when there feem'd to be lefs occafion for it, as that People were fet by themielves, and to have no Communication with other Nations ; and had an Order of Men amongft them whofe whole bufinefs it was to attend it, and to inftru£fc the People ; and. that had withal, in all Ages, Perfbns extraordinarily infpir'd. Arg* 2' 2- His next Argument is, That when the Jews had a Written Word, they ufed Tradition more than Scrip- ture. This he attempts to prove from the following Texts. Exod. 13. 8. Thou [halt Jbew thy Son in that Day, faying, This is done becaufe, &c. Deut. 32. 7. Ask thy father, and he mil Jbew thee, thy Elders, and they • mil tell thee. Judg. 6. 1 3. Where be all his Miracles, which our Fathers told w off Pfal. 44. 1 . We have heard with our Ears, our Fathers have told us. But to this I anfwer. 1. Thefe Scriptures prove no more, than that the Fathers told the Children what they had feen : and that the Inftru&ion of Parents is of good ufe for the Propa- gation and Prefervation of Religion. But how doth this prove that Tradition is neceffary, or that the Jews ufed Tradition more than Scripture, or that they ufed the Tradition of things unwritten more than the Writ- ten Word of God? j. If the fapifts cite for Tradition, 6 1 $. If this will prove they ufed Tradition more than Scripture, by the lame wpy we may prove they ufed Scripture more than Tradition. For they were com- manded to have the Law read, Deut. 31. 11, 12, 1 $. and to ask the Priefts concerning it, Hag. 2. 11. MaL 2. 7. 4. Indeed thefe two, Writing and Teaching what was written, are confiftent ; and are therefore joined together ; Deut. 6. 6, 7, 8. Thefe Words which I command thee this Day, {hall be in thine Heart, and thou {halt teach them diligently unto thy Children, 8cc. And thou /halt write them, &rc Deut. 31.9. 5. If we fhould grant that the Jews ufed Tradition more than Scripture, yet that is not from the Texts Bellarmine produces, but from another fort, which is not much to the Credit of his Doclxine, fuch are Mark 7. 3, 8, 9, 1 t>. when they equalPd their Traditions with the Law of God. 6. It's fbme abatement to this Argument, that when our Saviour twenty times appeals to Scripture, Is it not written in the Law ? that he never fo much as once points them to Tradition. The next thing the Cardinal undertakes to fhew, is, S E c T. ill. that there is fuch an Unwritten Word. All that has been laid before by him, is indeed little to the purpofe. For what if Tradition was once necefTary, and that there was a Tradition without a Written Word ? What if the Word was preached before it was written '(which is another Branch of his Argument) Or what if there were many things fpoken and done by our BleiTed Savi- our and his Apoftles, that are not written ? When all this may be, and yet not in the leaft touch the point in Difpute. For the cafe we are now concerned in, is, I Whether 6 1 Texts of Scripture examined, which Whether there be any neceflity of a Tradition, where there is a written Word ? or, whether there be indeed any fuch Tradition ? If this laft be proved, all is proved, and this he doth at length attempt to do by Scripture. c. $. ss. Ad His Texts are as follows. fdmum. Joh. 21. 25. There are many other things which Jefui did, the which if they fhould be written every one, I fuppofe that even the World it felf could not contain the Books that jhould be written. His Argument from hence is, It appears therefore that the Lord did and (pake many things which are not written, for one Hand can hold the Books which are extant, but St. John faith, the whole World can- not receive the Books, 8rc. Anfw. 1. There is no one queftion but that many things were fpoken and done by Chrift that are not written (for fb much S.John plainly affirms)but what isthis to the thing to be proved, which is, that there are things neceflary to Salvation which are not written ? The fame St. John tells us, chap. 20. 30, . $1. that the fe things are written that ye might believe, and that believing you might have Life : and certainly then if any thing farther had been neceffary to Salvation, it would have been written, and efpecially when it's acknowledged that many things not abfolutely neceflary are written. 2. I anfwer, that, according to St. Juftin, this Place is rather to be otherwife underitood ; not that the material World cannot contain lb many materi- al Books ; but that the "World upon fome Incapaci- ty would not receive them. And indeed fo we find the Word xc^&v fometimes fignifies, as Matth. 19. 11. 3> If the (Pafifts cite for Tradition, <&» $. If the things that were not written were fb many, that the World could not contain the Books if they had been written ; then where has Tradition difpos'd them, when one fo well acquainted with it as Bellarmine was, after all his Search and Confutation with the Traditio- nary Church, can find out no more than the perpetual Virginity of the Virgin Mary, the Dominical Obferva- %?' SS' °**' tion of Eafter, the Baptifm of Infants, the Sacrifice of the Altar, the Form and Matter of their additional Sa- craments, the Ordination of Minifters, and Rites and Ceremonies ? and of the two former of which, he faith, credendum ett, it is to be believd ; and of the five iaft, merito cenfent Catholici, the Catholicks do defervedly think c. §. SS. Alte- fo. If they had this Treafure, or the Key to it, they rm> would certainly produce more of it, and fpeak of it with greater anurance. 4. We may more rightly luppofe, that if the World it felf could not contain the Books that fhould be writ- ten, that it could not preferve the things if they had not been written, but were to be delivered from hand to hand, from Mouth to Mouth. And therefore that the fame reafbn there was why they were not commit- ted to writing, is a reafon why they are not to be found extant without writing. Another Text is, Joh. 16. 12. I have many things to fay to you, but ye cannot bear them now. From hence Bellarmine obferves, 1 . That without doubt the Lord Jpake thofe things after his Refurretfion, which he here promi/ed that he would. 2. That the Evangelijls wrote very little concerning what he did and f pake after his Refurreclion. 3. That it is not in any wife credible that the Apofiles deliver d not to the Churches thofe things which tltey had feen and heard ) for they were ntir I 2 ther 64 Texts of Scripture examined, vthkh ther envious nor forgetful, that they either would not , or could not tellthofe things. I anfwer, 1. The fpecial things which our Saviour here refpe&s feem to be concerning his Death, it was his going away, ver. 7. which they could not bear, and were always averfe to hear of; Mat. 16.22. Be it far from thee ; and did not underftand it ; MarkB. 31.32. &■ 9. 31. & ver. 16. of this Chapter. 2. If they were the things after his Refurre&ion, yet it doth not follow that they were other things than what aTe recorded. For he then fpoke of the things concerning the Kjngdem of God, Aft. 1.3. 3. If the Apoftles did deliver what they were oblig- ed to deliver to the Church ; it was neither a fign of their Envy or Forget fulnefs, if they delivered no more ; no more than it was in St. John that recorded not all he. knew of the Life of our Sauiour. His next Teftimony iv% 1 Cor. 11. 2. Now I praife you that ye remember me in all things, and keep the Precepts ( as he reads it ; ) or Traditions or Ordinances, as I delivered them to you. Which Ordinances, faith he, relating to the manner of Praying, and of Receiving the Eucharift, are no where to be found written. And further, the Apoftle doth give fb much to Tradition, and the Cuftom of the Church, that he faith, ver. 16. If any Man feem to be contentious, we have no fuch Cus~tomy neither the Churches, of God. I anfwer, jbifto. i. There is no neceflity of interpreting this of any other Tradition than of what is contain'din Scripture, viz,, the great Dottrines and Rules of it; which the Apoftle deli- ver'd to them when prefent ; and he now writes to them when abfent. For fowe find he did, ver. 23. J recei- ved the fafi/ls cite for Tradition. 6y ved of the Lord that which alfo I delivered unto you : and which he again writ to them, that the Lord Jefus the fame night, &c And Bellarmine doth acknowledg, that C. ?. §. mm. Tradition is a word of general Signification, and com- prehends in it the Dc&rine as well written as not written ; and inftances in Jets 6. 14. Jefus /ball change the Cuftoms which Mofes deliver d us ; meaning, as he faith, the written Law of Mofes. 2. If it refers to things of Order and Difcipline, then the general Rule, the Cujlom of the Churchy is of good ufe ; and which it's fit in all lawful things fhould be obferved ; and the Realbn is, becaufe in things not necelfary, the Peace of the Church and Communion with it,is much more valuable than a Man's own parti- cular Fancy or Opinion. But then I. add, 3. That there is no neceflity of fo much as knowing, and confequently not of following the Cuftoms of the Church in that Age, no farther than the Cuftom is de- cent and orderly in it felf ; but then it is not fb much becaufe of the Cuftom, as of the nature and reafbn of the thing that it is to be obferved. And fo the Apoftle appeals to this, ver. 13. Judg in your [elves \ is it cornel} that a Woman fray unto God uncovered*! His next Scripture is, 1 Cor. 11. 23. I recdved of the Lord that which 1 delivered unto yon : and the Apoftle concludes, ver. $4. The rejl will I fet in order when I come. But, faith he what he thus fet in order is no where written. But his Catholicks do defervedly think that he fet in order not only what pertained to Rites and Ceremonies, but alfo that he delivered other greater things, as concerni ing the Ordination of Miniflers, and the Sacrifice of the Altar, and the. form and Matter of the other Sacra? mentSy 66 Texts of Scripture examined, which ments, neither can the Hereticks by Any means Jheiv the contrary. I anfwer, His firft place is dire&ly againft this Do&rine of Tradition: for what he delivered unto them, w^s fuch things as are there and elfewhere writ ; and if we may judg of the other things the Apoftleinfiftsupon by thefe, we have reafcn to conclude the things deli- vered then by word were the fame as are now contained in Scripture. As to the fecond place I anfwer. i. That what the Apoftle faid he would fet In or- der,were doubtlefs thofe things which, by their Epiftle fent to him, i Cor. 7. 1. or the Information of others, Ch. 1. 11. w*ere declared to be out of order; fuch as the Reformation of Manners, and the dueexercife of Difcipline, 2 Cor. 12. 20,21. 2. We may more confidently affirm than they deny, • that there is nothing ablblutely neceffary to the ge- neral and good Order of the Church, and the Ad- miniftration of Worfhip, but what is contained in Scripture. 5. It's lomething hard that he requires the Hereticks to prove a Negative. But I think it rather becomes them to prove what they affirm, that the Apoft le when he came to Corinth, did order the Sacrifice of the Altar, in their fenfe, and the Form and, Matter of their five Additional Sacraments. But this they are never able to prove from Scripture, that the Cardinal fpeaks not of; nay nor from Tradition. So that tho he faith, the Catholicks do defervedly fo think, it's a Thought of their own, but without any manner of Proof. But the Tapijls cite for Tradition. &y But their principal Text is, 2 Theff. 2. 1 5. Stand fafly and hold the Traditions that yt have been taught, whether by Word, or our Epiflle. From whence the Touchflone obferves ; Hence it is clear, that fame Traditions were delivered to the TheiTalonians by word of Mouth, and thofe of equal Authority with what was written, if not of more ', for the Holy Ghost doth the*1 Reformed" same them frfl ( as they were indeed the fir ft in being. ) Gofpel, ch. 4. And Bellarmine faith, that the Apoflle commands that they no lefs obferve what they had received without Writingy than what they received by Epiflle. I anfwer, 1. That fome, nay, we will fay more, that All Tradi- tions neceffary to Salvation, were delivered by word of Mouth, is undeniable, fince the things written in Scrip- ture thatare neceffary to Salvation,were firft delivered by word of Mouth before they were written. So Bellarmine faith, that without doubt the Apoflle had fully preached the whole Gofpel to them, as may be collected from the ifl and 2d Chapters of the former Epiflle : And becaufe the things then fpoken, were the fame with what was afterwards wrote-, we grant alfo that they were of equal Autho- rity; and that what the Apoftle faid was of as good Authority as what he wrote. For where the Perfbn fpeaking and writing are the fame, and the things fpo- ken and written are the fame, they are of the fame Authority ; nor can the difference in the manner of de- livery make any difference in the things. So that the Apoftle calls fpeaking and writing by the fame word, Teaching, and the things taught or written by the fame word, Traditions ; hold the Traditions ye have been ■ taught, whether by Word or Epiflle. So that what is abovefaid alledged is not at all to the Point. Fbr the Queftion betwixt us is not, Whethep there- &% Texts of Scripture examined, which there was never any Tradition ? or, whether what is now wrote was not firft taught? or, that what was taught by the Apoftle was not of as good Authority as what he wrote ? But whether there are any fuch things now of Apoftolical Tradition ? or, that there are things neceffary to Salvation that are prcferved by Tradition only and are not written ? And to come to the place, Whether the Apoftle, by bidding them hold fafi the Traditions ,did thereby underftand fuch Traditions as were never to be committed to writing by him or any other infpired Perfon, and which they were yet equally to receive, and were as neceffary to be received as what were written ? Whether for example, what he taught concerning.the coming of Antichrift, ver. 5, 6. which Bellarmine faith is no where verity is now as knowable by us, and is as neceffary to Salvation to be known and believed, as what is reveal'd and written. 2. I fhall add in Confirmation of what I have faid, that the Apoftle gives more than an intimation what Traditions he means, by the word Therefore. There- fore fiandfa.fi, and hold the Traditions, which refers us to the words going immediately before, ver. 13,14. We are bound to give Thanks always for you, becaufe God hath from the beginning chofen you to Salvation, through Sancti- f cation of the Sprit, and belief of the Truth : where- unto he called you by our Gofpel, to the obtaining of the Glory of our Lord Jefus Chrifi. Therefore ; by which we may understand of what nature and confequence the things were,which, when prefent, he deliver'd unto them, and taught them ; and farther wrote to them about. Such as their Salvation, and the Glory they fhould obtain by Jefus Chrift. Such as the Conditions that qualified them for it, viz,. Holinefs and Truth, the Sanfiification of the Sprit, and belief of the Truth \ ifuch the tPapifts cite for Tradition. fa Such as the means by which they, and fb others, were called and converted, and that is, the preaching of the Gofpel. $. The Apoftle had reafbn to refer them to what they had heard from him, or he had wrote to them ; becaufe it was not long before that Church had been planted by him ; and becaufe there was, it's probable, little, if any thing of the New Teftament at that time committed to writing, befides that Epiftle, Atfs 1 5. 2 j. and the firft to the Thejfalonians ; ( which it's probable was the firft he wrote) and that confequently he could refer them to no other way than what he referr'd them to. 4. I may ftill add, Where are thele Traditions ne- cefTary to Salvation, which the Apoftle delivered to the Theffalonian Church, and are not to be found in Scrip- ture ? If fuch there be, let them that plead it produce them, and then we fhall give them another Anfwer. To this I acknowledg, Bellarmine has a ready An- fwer ; for, faith he, the Apoftle tells them in this Chap- ter, that he had preached to them concerning Antichrift, and when he fhould come, but of this laft there is no- thing in Scripture. But I reply, 1 . There are many things fpoken of that point even as to the time of Antichrift's appearance j and which are not the lefs delivered in Scripture, becaufe it's not yet fully evident, which may be for the reafbn given by our Saviour : Joh. 16. 4. 2. But is this necelfary to Salvation ? Or, 3. What help have we from Tradition for it, fetting afide what may be collected from Scripture ? The faying K * Bellar- yo Texts of Scripture examined, which BeUarmine produces from St. Auftin, to fhew (that which no body denies) that all things are not now- written which the Apoftles did and taught, returns up- . . on himfelf, viz. They knew what the Apoftle taught then 1 20. c io. h w°rd °f Mouth ; but we cannot know that, who have not heard the Apoftle. Bellarmine proceeds to prove this Point of Tradition .. the fame way, and from the fame Texts, with fome De Prcfenpt. Hereticks fo the time 0f Tertullian. I Tim. 6. 20. Kjep that which is committed to thy trufi. 2 Tim. i. i^, 14. Hold fajl the form of found Words, which thou haft heard of me. That good Thing which was committed unto thee, keep by the Holy Ghoft which dwelleth in us. Ch. 2.1, 2. Thou therefore, my Son, be ftrong in the Grace that is in Chriftjefus. And the things which thou haft heard of me among many Witnejfes, the fame commit thou to faithful Men, who /ball be able to teach others alfo. n In which places, faith the Cardinal, by the word " Depofttum, or that which was committed to his Truft, (t could not be underftood Scripture, but the Treafuro " of Do&rine, the meaning of Scripture, as well as of " other Principles, which whole Doctrine the Apoftle H would have to be propagated by Tradition. For if * he would have fpoken of a Written Word, he would " not fb fbllicitoufly have recommended the Depofitum ; ** for that might be eafily kept in Boxes or by Notaries. " But the Apoftle would have it be kept by the Holy " Ghoft in Timothys Heart. And further, the Apoftle " then would not have faid commit this to faithful Men, " but to. Notaries, that they may tranfcribe many " Copies the Tdpifts cite for Tradition. 7 1 " Copies of it. Nor would he have faid, Which thot* " haft heard from me before many Witnejfes, but which " I have written unto thee. The Cardinal takes the Pains to prove that which Anfo. 1. no body denies, and to difprove that which no body affirms. For, 1. Who denies but that the Apoftle preached to the Ephefians before he wrote to them, and taught Timothy before he wrote thefe two Eplftles to him? Again, Who is there affirms that St. Paul meant by the good, thing which he committed to Timothy, a certain Writing, when the Apoftle himfelf applies it to the things he heard of him? But now granting that this is meant of Do&rine taught, and not of Doctrine written, what will he be able to infer from hence ? Can he infer, That thefe things that the Apoftle preachM at Ephefus ( where he taught them the whole Counfel of God, A£ts 20.27.) or taught Timothy, were never written ? And - that thole things which were never written, were yet neceflary to Salvation? He may as well undertake to prove from hence, that there was never afterwards a written Rule of Faith, and that Tradition was fufficient in it felf, tho there be ho Written Word ; and that there is no need of the afTiftance of the Holy Ghoft to keep in our Minds and Memories that which is written. And all this would as well follow from what the Apoftle here faith, as that which he fhould have proved from it. All thefe little offers at an Argument do fuppofe the cafe then to be the cafe for ever, and that becaufe when they had not a Written Word, the Apoftle ex- horted them to be careful to remember what he had taught, that therefore there muft be always an un- it 2 written 7i Texts of Scripture examined, which written Gofpel which they could not know without, and muft depend upon their Guides for the know- ledg of. And that they muft for ever give as much heed to Tradition after the Gofpel was committed to writing, and the defect of Tradition thereby fup- plied, as before. Anfio. 2. We may judg of what kind thele things commit- ted to Timothy were, by considering the places them- felves ; as i Tim. 6. 20. Kjep that which is committed to thy truft : How is that ? avoiding profane and vain bablings, [fuchas he calls perverfe Difputings, v. 6.2 what ever might tend to the derogation of that Do- Brine which is according to Godlinefs, v. 3. and which he therefore charges him to keep, v. 14. Kjep this Commandment. So 2 Tim. 1. ij, 14. Hold faft the form of found Words, which thou haft heard of me, in faith and hove, which is in Chrifi Jefus : which is no other than the Dofrrine of Salvation by Chrift, and of adherence to him in all Difficulties, ver. 9, 10. So Chap. 2. 1,2. The things that thou haft heard, &c. is the fame witji what he himfelf was to remember, v. 8. and to put others in remembrance of, ver. 14. viz. the Gofpel which he preached, and fuch Articles as the Refurre&ion of Chrift from the dead 5 and what he learned from the Scriptures, Ch. 3. 14, 15. Now what are thefe things, but the fame we find frequently inculcated in Scripture ? His laft Proofs are from the id Epiftle of John ver. 12. Having many things to write unto you ; J would not write with Paper and Ink ', but I trust to come unto you, and (peak face to face', foEpifi. J. ij, 14. From hence 7 faith the the Taftfts cite for Tradition. y> the Cardinal, we underfiand that many things were fpoken by the Jpoftle, which are not written. What then ? So were many things done by our Savi- * r our, which were never committed to writing ; but it follows not, that they were fuch things as were neceffa- ry to Salvation ; and without the Knowledg of which Salvation is not to be obtained. How will they prove thefe things were never writ- -^n/iv 2* ten by St. John ? when Bellarmin tells us that he wrote his Gofpel late, and feems to confent to that of Chemni- CaP- 4-SS. Jo- tius, that he wrote it after the Apocalypfe. sS&£ Having now confidered all the Texts produced by Sellarmine for the Infiifficiency of Scripture, and the ^Jeceflity and certainty of Tradition, we may reafbna- bly prefume that there are none remaining that can to any purpofe ferve the caufe, after what lb diligent a Writer has collected : and indeed whatever are produ- ced in the Touchftone, or Catholick ScripturiB, either touch not the Caufe at all, or require no other Anfwer than thefe already mentioned. But becaufe I would not be wanting in any thing that may be expected, and that withal it may give fbme little Light to the Argu- ment, I will briefly fhew what it is the remaining Texts are brought to prove, and how little they prove the Matter in queftion. They ire brought to prove, i . That the World was for lometime without a Writ- ten Word, and had nothing but Tradition and verbal Teaching : * And yet many then had that Faith which u is defined, Heb. u. i. By this they learn'd to keep * the Sabbath, to know the diftindion ofBeafts clean cath. Scrips. " and p®^ z'tu a» 74 Texts of Scripture examined, which "and unclean, Gen. 7. 2, &c. And Co it was with the " Chriftian Church. It was a Gofpel they receivd, " Gal. 1.8. which, faith he, intimates they had all by Tra- u dition. u4nfo>. i . But this Argument I have confidered before, and fhall add that this is not the Cafe, for that was before there was a Written Word, and the Defect in which was one reafon for its being" written : but the cafe now is when there is a Written Word. And whereas he faith, Now give me one Text if you can, which bids us not to take Tra- dition for a, Rule of Faith y after the Writing of Scripture. I anfwer, there are as many againft it, as there are for the Sufficiency of Scripture, nich as 2 Tim. 3. 15, 16. Luk> 10. 25. &- 16. 29. &c. 2. The Texts produced ferve to prove that what was fpoken by infpired Perfbns, was of as good Authority, anc^qually to be received, as what was written by fuch. ibid. n. 4. So they apply, Jets. 2. 36. Let all the Houfe of Ifrael know -affuredly, that God hath made the fame Jefus, &c. From the Word affuredly, he infers, " we may then " have an infallible Faith of what is not written, yea " we are forbidden to believe otherwife than was " delivered by Tradition, 2 Thejf. 2. 14. held the Tra- i( ditidns. For what he taught by his Tongue, was " as truly the Word of God, as what he wrote with " his Pen. Yea, this which I call Tradition, is the " Epiftle of Chrift, 2 Cor. 3. 3. You are the Eft file of " Chrift, not written with Ink, but with the Spirit of the "living God. Wherefore moft of the Apoftles did " give their Convertites no other form of Belief, but c< what by their Preaching they had written in their " hearts. Setting the (papifts cite for Tradition, y j Setting afide how the Corinthians and Tradition were Anfw. both the Epiftle of Chrift ; the general Anfwer to this is, That no one denies that the Apoftolical Infallibility and Authority was equally the fame in what wasfpoken or written by them ; but what is this to prove that there is fuch a Tradition derived from the fame hand, and not contained in Scripture, which doth yet contain things as neceffary, as what are in it? For all this while they fuppofe there is the fame reafon for Tra>. dition after a Written Word, as there was before it. They fuppofe there is the fame Proof for their Tra- ditions, as for the Chriftian Doctrine : and they im- pofe their Traditions without e^Cr proving either that there are fuch, or that theirs are of that num- ber. If indeed they could prove that there were fuch Traditions delivered by the Apoftles to be con- tinued in the Chriftian Church, which they them- felves never did write ; and to be alike neceffary to be received as thofe that were written by them. If thefe Men could prove their Principles and Practices which they plead Tradition for, to be of that num- ber, We are ready to receive them ; and fhould then think our felves bound by that of the Apoftle to jland fafi and hold the "Traditions which have been taught whether by word or Epiftle : and with Timothy, to con- tinue in thofe things which we thus learn ; if we • are allured of them, and knew as he did of whom we learned' them, and that they were as much the Do- .ctrines and Precepts of the Apoftles, as thofe con- tained in Scripture are. And whereas they plead that we receive the Scripture by Tradition : if they can prove their Traditions by Tradition, to be as much- the Traditions of infpired Perfbns, as we can prove ths 7 6 Texts of Scripture examined, which the Scriptures to be written by fuch, and to be the Scriptures which they wrote, we are as ready to re- ceive fuch Tradition, as they would be to have us receive it. But when there is no proof of this, and that a merito cenfent, they defervedly think, is the up- Jhot of all that their Learned Champion doth pro- duce ; we may boldly conclude there is no Evidence for it : and that Scripture is no more for their kind of Tradition, than it is againft it felf. %H E END. LONDON, Printed by J. D. for Richard Cbifwtht the Rofe and Crown in StlW's Church- Yard, 1688. • ( 77 ) $ The Texts examined which Papijlr cite out of the Bible, TO PROVE The Supremacy of St. Peter and of the Pope over the whole Church. IMPRIMATUR. Febr. 14. 1687. Gail. Needham. TH E Queftion to be debated in this Paper is, Whether the Jpoftle St. Peter was conft kitted by Chrift him f elf to be, in his ft e ad, the Head and fupreme Goiter nour of the whole Church. This we deny, having undeniable Proofs that all the Apoftles were placed by Chrift* in equal Power and Authority over his Church. But the Doftors of the Roman Church* affirm this with fb much Confidence, as to fay ; that to deny it, is not a ftmple Error, bat a pernicious Herefy. They are the words of Betlarmine * ; who earneftly * l. i. de contends that the Government of the whole Church was Rom- Poncit- committed to Peter, specially about Matters of Faith. Which bold AfTertion he labours to fupport three ways. L Fir ft ; Y% The Texts examined which tie Tapifis Firft, By fbme places of Holy Scriptures. Secondly, By many Privileges and Prerogatives of St. Peter. Thirdly, By Teftimonies of Greek and Latin Fa- thers. I am concerned only in the firft of thefe Ways ; in which if this Caufe find no true fupport, we need not trouble our felves about the other two : which are fb weak, that fome ingenuous Perlbns in their Com- munion have acknowledged, the Prerogatives are either feigned at pleafure, or no more to the purpofe of his Supremacy, than the pretended Teftimonies of Ancient Fathers, which are againft it. Now the Scriptures which they alledg for the proof of it, are two places in the holy Gofpels. The one in St. Matthew xvi. 18, 19. the other in St. John xxi. 17. In the former of thefe this Supreme Authority, they fay, is promifed to St. Peter ', in the latter it is conferred. I begin with the firft, Matth. xvi. 18, 19. And I fay unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church, &c. And I will give unto thee the Kjj's of the Kjngdom of Heaven ; and whatfoever thou /halt bind on Earth, fb all be bound in Heaven : and whatfoever * thou fb alt loofe on Earth, (hall be loo fed in Heaven. The Senfe of which words, fays Bellarmine? is plain and ob- vious : giving us to under ft and, the Soveraignty over the whole Church to be here promifed unto Peter, in two Me- taphors. The one is a Metaphor of a Foundation and a 'Building : the other is a Metaphor of Kjys. " For u what a Foundation is in the Building, that the Head " is in the Body, the Governour in the City, the King " in his Kingdom, and the Father of the Family in the "Houfe: !• cite for St. Peter'* Supremacy. p-p lc Houfe : and to whom the Keys of a City are deli- c< vered, he is appointed the King, or at leaft the Gover- " nour of that City ; to admit and fhut out whom he " pleafeth. Unto which I have this to fay, before I give the true Senfe of thefe words : That to call this a plain and obvious Senfe of the words, which is wrapt up in a couple of Metaphors , is to (tumble at the very Thre- fhold ; and to contradict himfelf in the terms, as they ordinarily fpeak. For what is metaphorical, is not plain and, obvious ', but needs Explanation, by putting it in- to common words : Into which if theie Metaphors be reduced, we fhall find there is no fiich Senfe contained in them, as is pretended. I fhall explain them diftin&Iy, and begin with the former part of this Promife, Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church: which we may call the firft Proof they bring of St. Peter's being the Mo- narch of the Church. I. Which Senfe is fb far from being plain and obvious^ that having confidered both the words, and all the anci- ent Expofitors upon them, I can find nothing plainer than thefe trvo things : Firfty That there is no certain- ty St. Peter is here meant by the Rock, upon which Chrift faith he will build his Church : Nor, Secondly, If he were, that Chrift intended by calling him a Rock, to make him the Lord of his Church. Firft, I fay there is no Evidence that St. Peter is here meant by the Rock •' but quite contrary, we are led by the general ftream of Ancient Interpreters, to un- derstand by the Rock upon which the Church is built, that Faith concerning thrift which Peter had newly L 2 confeffed. 8o The Tests examined which the Papi/ls confeffed. There are more than two that thus expound the words, for one that expounds them otherwife : as may be feen in a Sermon lately printed on this Sub- » Sirmn on jc£t * ', which fhows alfb that the other Expositions do sr.Veter'j not really differ from this; but even they, who apply the Language which Chrift fpoke) Thou art a Rock, and upon this Rock will I build my Church. As if it will be lawful for them to do any thing (even contra*- did that very Council, whole Decrees they are fworn to obferve) that they may make the Scripture feem to be on their fide. For the Council of Trent hath decreed the old Latin Tranflation to be authentical, with a prohibition that no Man dare or prefume under any pre- tence to rejeB it. Notwithftanding which here are Men that prefume to reform it, and to make a new Tranflation of their own Heads, as different from that authentic k vulgar Tranflation as from ours : for in this ours and that are the fame, as every body may know that underftands the Latin Tongue. This is a Prefumpion with a Witnefs, to make their own Tranflation depart fo far from tfre Language which; 8 1 The Texts examined which the Vaptfts which Chrift fpoke, as to put tu es Petrm, inftead of t-u es Petra : For IbChrift's words fhould have been tranfla- ted, if they fignified thou art a Rock, unlcfs they can fhew us that Petrus, in any Author, is latin for a Rock. Till this be done, we mull fay that fiich Men, contrary to their Faith folemnly fworn; depart not only from Antiquity, but from themfelves. And when they have done all they can, it wjll evi- dently appear, that the Church was not built by his Hands alone, (tho he began, as I (aid, and laid thefirft Stone among the Gentiles) but by them all, and more efpecially by St. Paul, who was called late into this i Cor. xv. 10. Office, but laboured more abundantly than they all', and 1H" IC,r *' as a wife Mafter-builder laid the Foundation, upon which others built. Which Foundation, he tells us is Jefus Chrift himfelf: who, he likewife fays, is the only Foundation, and that no Man can lay other Foundation befides him. Which (hews this Promife, I am treating of, had refpecT: to all that had the Office of Apoftles ; and wholly ruines the Authority of St. Peter, upon which they would have the Church to be built. For if Jefus Chrift be the only Foundation that can be laid, then Peter cannot be the Foundation : but only as a Minifter of Jefus Chrift, who help'd to lay the Foun- dation, which is Chrift himfelf and his Faith. In which Miniftry he was no more imployed than other Apoftles ; but St. Paul, who came laft into this Mini- ftry, was as wife a Mafter-builder as himfelf, and took more Pains than he or any of the reft : laying the Foundation where neither St. Peter, nor any Body elfe had ever been, left hejhould build upon another Man's Foundation, as he tells the Roman Church, Rom. xv. 20. Which words uttterly overthrow their vain diftin&i- on of a ftrfty and a fccondary Foundation, whereby they endea- ate for St. Peter'* Supremacy. 8 J endeavour to elude thofe words of St. Patfl in the place before-named, i Cor. iii. n. For it appears by this other place that St. Paul was a fecondary or mimfierial Foundation, if we may fb fpeak ; that is, fpeak im- properly, meaning thereby one that laid the Founda- tion. Which he did ?fc much as St. Peter, or any other Apoftle ; nay, a great deal more, as he himfelf tells us, when he faith he laboured more abundantly than they all. In exact (peaking, there is no Foundation on which the Church is built but Chrift alone (as St. PWalfures us ) in whom all the Building fitly framed together, grow- eth unto an holy Temple in the Lord', EpheCii. 21. But Faith in Chrift, being that whereby we are joyned to him, it may be called by the lame Name : and accordingly the Colofjians are (aid to be grounded * * w ™™ rt- in the faith, as upon a foundation ( the Greek word ^*. feflion of Faith enjoined by Pius IV. when he drew this - Conclufion of the Popes Infallibility, from thefe Words, Thou art Peter, &c. but was guilty of down-right Flat- tery of the Court of Rome '■> for whofe fake he, in like manner, falfied in the Citations he brings out of the Fathers, to maintain the fame Untruth. But cite for St. Peter's Supremacy. $$ But further than this, the lame Writer prefTes thefb words, to prove, that General Councils cannot err, neither t L-3.de Cone. in believing, nor teaching -\\ Which is as much as to Autor* cap'1, confels that what Chrift laid to Peter, was intended to all BiHiops: of whom a General Council confifts. But here he endeavours to bring ofl himfelf, by this Salvo? if the Council be confirmed by the Pope : as if they re- ceived their Infallibility from him ; who turns their doubtful Opinions into Oracles. Whence it is, that from the very fame words,[T^ Whofoever Sins ye remit they are remitted. For poceftatis, &c. the word, I WILL GIVE, denotes the future time, Ecdefi;T&ate that '**> dfter the ^e[urre^ion- Epift. xxiii. Then he {aid to them all, As my Father hath fent me, ad jubianum.y^ I fend you. Which are words fo large that they con- tain in them a plenitude of Power ; and confute the con- ceit of thofe who fay that Chrift indeed gave the Power of remitting and retaining Sins to all the Apoftles, but the Power of the Kjys to Peter alone. Whereby if they meant that to Peter it was given to open the Gate firft to the Gentiles, it ought to be allowed to be a true fenfe ; tho we are not certain it was the thing peculi- arly intended by our Saviour in thefe words. But un- derftanding thereby a diftincl: Power from that of binding and loofmg, retaining and remitting, (which St. Peter exercifed when he let the Gentiles into the Church) it is certainly falle that he gave him fuch a Power, which he did not confer upon the reft. For fhould we fuppofe binding and loofmg to be diftincl: from the Power of the Kjys, yet this Power of the Kjys (be it what it will) we may be fure is included in thefe comprehenfive words, As my Father hath fent mey fo I fend you ; which were fpoken unto them all. And therefore as the Kjys were not promifed to him alone', fb not to him more than any other Apoftle ; but only the ufe of them firft, before any other Apoftle. That's the moft ( as I have often faid ) which can reafonably cite for St. Peter'* Supremacy. y? reafonably be conceived to be peculiarly promifed to Peter in thefe words, that he fhould firlt open the Door of Faith to the Gentiles, as we read he did, Acts x. and as fome think to the Jews alfb, Acts ii. Ter- tullian * feems to be of this mind (and I fhall not here *I- P* 77# to Truth and Equity. The Reader therefore may be pleated briefly to confider, what our Lord himfelf faith to all his Apoftles, Matth. xxiii. 8, 9, 10. which utter- ly overturns thele proud Pretentions. But be not ye called Rabbi, for one is your Mafier, even Chrifi ; and ALL TE ARE BRETHREN. AndcallnoMan your father upon the Earth ', for one is your father whkh is in Heaven. Neither be ye called Mafier s, for one is your Mafier, even Chrifi. The repetition of one and the fame thing fo often, in words of the lame import, argues it to be a matter of great moment, which ought to be duly weighed. And it is this, that no Man, no not any of his Apoftles, fhould take upon him to prefcribe that as a part of Religion, which God our Saviour hath not prelcribed by his Laws : and that we ought not ablb- lutely to fubmit to any Man's Dictates, as Children do to the Will of their Fathers ; nor pin our Faith, as we fpeak, upon any Man's fleeve ', i. e. let it depend intire- ly upon his Authority : For this is a fubmiflion which is due only to God our Saviour, ( who in this Senfe of the words) is our only Father, and Mafier, and Leader ', and therefore we cannot, without the higheft injurv to him, 1 00 The Texts examined, which the Tapifts him, own any one elfe to be fuch, nor give them thefe Names ', but as they teach, not their own, but Chrift's Dc&rine unto Men. And in this Office all the Apoftles were equal, and no one of them could claim an Authority over the reft of his.Brethren. There are many other places wherein we read of one Shepherd, one Lord, one Lawgiver, who u able tofave and to deftroy •* from whence we may conclude that Peter himfelf had no Power to make, but only to de- clare the Laws of his and our Lord and Lawgiver, Jefus Chrift. So the words of Chrift's Commiflion run, when he faith, not to him alone, but to them all, Go ye, and difciple all Nations, Sec. teaching them to ob- ferve all things whatfoever I have commanded you, Matth. xxviii. 20. Here is their Authority, to publifh the Commands of their Mafter, not what they pleafed to command themfelves. Which Peter was lb far from doing, that he went not about the abrogation of the Ceremonial Law, and the calling of the Gentiles, till he was authorized by an heavenly Vifion ; which difcovered this Myftery to him, as a part of the Coun- lel of God, but no Law, nor fo much as a Thought of his own. For being charged afterwards by the Jews for eating with Men uncircumcifed, he excufes him- felf by a long Apology, wherein he relates how he was commanded to do it by God himfelf, whom he could not withftand (Jc~tsxi. $,4, &rc.) which was not done like a Lawgiver. Nay, after this Revela- tion made to him, he was fb weak as to obferve this Law, to the great Offence of the Gentiles ;. for which he was reprehended by St. Pad, who had the honour to abrogate the Law of Mofes among the Gentiles while St. Peter ( who began that work ) was the Minifter of the Circumcifion : Gal. ii. 7, 10, 1 1, &c. Nor cite for St. Peter'* Supremacy. 101 Nor doth the word [Bind'] import a Power to impofe Laws, but only to tie Men to thofe Laws which are already made. Thus it flgnifies in that .very place, which Bellarmme alledges to maintain his Senie of the word, viz,, to make Laws : Matth. xxiii. 4. for they bind, heavy Burdens, and grievous to be born, and lay them on Mens Shoulders, &-<:. that is, they were rigorous In- terpreters of the Laws of God, which it was their Office to expound, according to the plain fenfe and meaning of them, and not according to the Traditions of the Elders, which had made them intolerable Burdens. But fuppofe the word to fignify what they pleafe, it will do them no fervice ; becaufe this Power of Binding was not promiied to Peter alone, but to them all, as hath been before proved. And conlequently he could do nothing, which they could not do as much as he ; that is, they were all Minifiers of Chrift, and Stewards of -the x cor.iv. r. Myflcries of God : All of them like to Eliakim, to whom the Kjy of the Houfe of David is promiied, as the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to Peter. For by that ve- ' ry word which we tranflate Stewards, or Dijfrenfers, is that Office * to which Eliakim was advanced in the * lmnid*»- room of Shebna, expreiTed by the LXX. in Ifa. xxii. 19, 21. which was not a Supreme Power in the Court, where all the reft of the Courtiers did not depend on him as their Lord and Prince ; but the Power of a prime Miniffier in the Royal Family, which he go- verned not after his own Will, but the King's. In like manner all the Apoftles were Minifiers, by whom Men believed (1 Cor. iii. 5.) Stewards of the heavenly My- fteries, which they faithfully difpenied ( 1 Cor.iv. 1,2.) according to the Will of Chrift, who hath the Kjy of David ; that is, is the fble Supreme Governour of the O Church, \ oi The Texts examined which the Tapifts Church, and gives Rules to it ; which the Apoftles de- livered, but did not ordain themielves, nor bind upon Men by their own Authority, but by his. For they were not Authors of the Divine Laws, which they taught, but the Publi/hers of them, and equal Publifli- ers of one and the lame common Doctrine : Which every Bijhop in the Church hath as much Authority to bind upon Men as the Pope : They being all of the fame * Epift. adE- Merit and Prieflhood (zsSt.Hierom* fpeaks) all Succejfors vagriura. of the Apoflles. There are fbme other words of St. Hierom ( it may not be unfit here to note ) which are ufually alledged to prove the contrary, viz,. That he thought St. Peter had fome Supremacy of Power over the reft of the Apoftoli- cal Colledg ; from whence they hope to derive the like Power unto the Pope over all Bifliops : They are in his firft Book againft Jovinian, where he faith, One among the twelve was therefore chofeny that an HE A D being con- flit at ed, the occafwn of Schijm might be removed. But they are unconfeionably difingenuous who alledg this PatTage, and do not give us" the entire Sentence, but only this Conclufion of it ; which can have no fuch meaning as they pretend, without making meer Non- lenfe of the words foregoing, which are thefe. But thou fay ft, the Church was founded upon Peter ; tho the very fame in another place is done upon all the Apoflles, and they re- ceived the Kjys of the Kjngdom of Heaven,and the fire not h of the Church is folidly bottom d upon them E jQVALL T. And then follows the words now named, TetJ)NE was therefore chofen among the XII, &c. which makes it as clear as the Sun, that he dreamt of no fuch HEAD- SHIP of ON E over all the reft, as fignifies a Supre- macy of Power : for what one Text, he faith, affirms ©f Peter, another affirms of them all; they all receiving the eke for St. Peter'* Supremacy. i o i the Kjys ( which is the higheft Power) and the {labili- ty of the Church relying upon them equally. I conclude this part of my Difcourfe with the Obfer- vation of a late Learned Writer of our Church *. If * Dr- ,Ham: any Power or degree of Power was here promifed to ™i]J j!' Peter, more than to the reft of the Apoftles, it mull be fp*tcb% p. in. gathered either from the force of the Sub/lance of the c- 7* £ea- •' Promife, or from the Circumfiances wherewith it was delivered. The Subftantial part is nothing el(h but that of a Steward in the Church, fet forth by the Emblem of Kjys, and more explicitly declared by the Power of binding and loofing ', which carries in it no intimation of fuch a thing as a Supremacy over the whole Church, but only of a ruling Power in fbme Family ; that is, iq that part of the Univerfal Church where his lot fhould fall. For this very thing being prefently after promi- fed to all the Apoftles, it makes it evident, there was no Supremacy here promifed ; for then there muft be not one% but twelve Supremes. As for the Circumjlances, wherein this part and the former of our Saviour's Promife was delivered (which fbme are pleafed to urge as very coniiderable) they are of no ftrength to fupport fo great a weight as they lay upon them. For firjl, It is very unreafbnable that Cir- cumfiances fhould be thought of greater force to declare the meaning of this Promife, than the very Sub/lance it felf is. And fecondly, All thefe Circumfiances ( lave only that of his own Name and his Fathers joyned to- gether) are not peculiar to him, but common to others, who confeffed ChrifPs Divinity, and had it revealed' from God, and were blejfed, and defigned for Stones in the Fabrick of the Church, as well as Peter. And fur- ther, even that Circumfiance of calling him Simon Bar- jon.i 104 ^e Texts examined which the Papi/is jona had a vifible reafbn for it, to diftinguifli this Si- mon from Simon Zelotes. So that there is nothing left but the [mall Circumflancc of calling him by his Name, to be the grand Foundation of St. Peters Supremacy. Can any one be fatisfied with fuch poor Proofs ? Which are no better than if we lhould argue in this manner, our Lord faid to Peter, Follow me, and fb he did to the other eleven, and by this made them his Difci- ples in common. But had he faid, Simon Barjona, Follow thou me, (as he might very well, if any other Simon were then prefent ) he alone (according to this way of difcourfing) had been taken into Difciplefhip, and none after him enjoyed this Honour. But I have faid enough, if not too much, upon thefe 'Texts ; and muft here end this Paper, for fear of (wel- ling it beyond the intended bulk. The reft fhall loon follow. ERRATA. P Age 8 1. line 21. for will be, read were. P. 83. 1. 31. r. tmderflood. P. 85. 1. 10. del. 0/, I. nit. r. walk-on. P. 88. penult, r. falfified. P. 93. 1. 29. del. of before Peters. LONDON, Printed by J. D. for Richard Chifwehtthe Rofe and Crown in St./Ws Church-Yard, 1688. ( i°5 ) The Second Part. The Texts examined which Tapfls cite out of the Bible. T O P R O V E The Supremacy of St. P e t e r and of the Pope over the whole Church. IMPRIMATUR. Febr. 14. 1687. Quit. Needham. III. NO w we are come to the Iaft referve of the Roman Church, for the fuppprt of this Caufe ; which lies in thofe Words of Chrift to Peter, John xxi. 15,16, 17. Feed my Lambs > and feed my Sheep. They are fenfible of the truth of that, which hath been oft repeated, that in neither of the former places Chrift gave any thing to Peter ; but only promifed he would give him fuch things as P * are to 6 The Texts examined, which the Papifts are there mentioned. Now they are hard put to it, to find when he did perform this Promife j and not find with all, that he performed it to all the Apoftles : and therefore, as I have laid, made it to them all. Here is the only Place they rely upon ; here they would fain find, what is no where elfe to be found, femething peculi- arly granted to Peter, which was conferred upon none of the reft. Read the words, lay they, and obferve how they are peculiarly fpoken to Peter : So when they- had dined, Jefm /aid to Simon Peter, Simon Son of Jonas, lovefi thou thefe me more than thefe ? He faith unto him, Tea, Lord, thou knorvejl I love thee. He faith unto him, FEED MT LAMBS. He faith to him again the fecond time, Simon Son of Jonas, lovefi thou me ? He faith unto him, Yea, Lord, thou knorvejl that I love thee. He faith unto him, FEED MT S HE E P. He faith unto him the third time, Simon Son of ^onas, lovefi thou me ? Peter was grieved hecaufe he J aid unto him the third time, Lovefi thou me ? And he faid unto him, Lord, thou knorvejl all things ', thou knorvejl that I love thee. Jefus faith unto him, FEED MT SHEEP. See, fay they, with what Solemnity our Lord here fpeaks to Peter, and to him alone, calling him three times particularly by his Name and Relation, and bid- ding him as oft, feed his Lambs or Sheep ; whereby he inflated him in the Office he had promifed him, arid made him, in a particular manner, to be a Pajlor, even the Paftorof the whole Church, with a Supreme Power over it. Firfi ; To which we reply, That having leen and confidered all this, we can fee nothing here that looks like a Grant 05 Qommiffion \ nothing given to St Peter by / cite for St. Peter'* Supremacy. 1 07 by thefe words ; which are- a plain Charge or Com- mand, requiring him to do his Office, which w asthere- fore conferred upon him before, together with the reft of the Apoftles, when our Lord (aid, As my Father hath fent me, fo I fend you, &c. Receive ye the Holy Ghoft, &c. Secondly ; And as here is no Commifjlon, no Convey- ance of any thing made to him, but a bare Precept to do his Duty ; So the Duty doth not concern him a- lone, but belongs to them all as much as him. It is at this time required in a Precept directed to him a- lone, that's true : and Bellarmine might have fpared all his Labour to prove, that thefe words were fpoken to Peter alone. They were fo, if we underftand there- by that he only by Name, is now admonifhed of his Duty; (the reafbn of which we fhall fee prefent ly ) but the Duty of which he was admonifhed was not pe- culiar to him ; and fo the words do not belong to him alone, as appears by many Arguments. 1. From St. Pehr himfelf, who feems to have in- terpreted the Mind of Chrift in this Speech to him, in his words to the Elders of the Church to whom he wrote ; 1 Pet. v. 1 . The Elders , which are among you, I exhort , who am, What ? the Monarch of the Church ? the Vicar of Chrift ? Or Paftor of Paftors ? The Chief Apoftle ? Or Supreme Bifhop ? No fuch thing, but ffitftfrgOT/bvfnpO-', your fellow Elder, &c. Feed the Flock of God which is among you, &c. And from whom did thefe Elders receive their Power and Authority ? From St. Peter ? No fuch matter, but from the chief Shepherd or Paftor, from whom he bids them expefl: their Reward, ver. 4. P 2 2. In 108 Ti?e Texts examined, which tie Tapifts 2. In like manner St. Paul gives the very fame Charge to the Elders of Ephefus, to take heed, to them^ [elves ', and to all the Flock, over which the Holy Ghoft had made them Overfeers, to FEED the Chufah of God, which he hath purchafed with his own Blood. A£b XX. 28, 3. Tor Chrift, as I (aid, had given this Power unto all his Apofrles, when he faid, As my Father hath fent ■ me, fo I fend you, &c. Joh. xx. 21. What did he lend them to do ? but to gather together in one, the Children of God that were feat tered abroad, and to feed his Flock, as He the good Shepherd had dpne, Joh. X. 1 1. & xi. 52; And therefore we may fay here of thefe words, as Rigaltius doth of the former ; He faid to Peter, Feed my Sheep; but he doth not fay, do thou alone feed them. No ; it may be further obferved, that our Lord in his Life-time, lent them all to the lofi Sheep of the Honfe of Ifrael ; Matth. x. 6, 7. And, a little before this, feeing the People fcattered abroad as Sheep having no Shepherd, he bad his Difciples pray that the Lord would fend Labourers among th£m : not one (who ihould depute others) but as many as we*e needful to gather in his Harveft : Matth. ix. 36, &c. 4. And therefore thus the ancient Fathers have expounded thefe words *, particularly the Roman Cler* gy themfelves in their Letter to the Clergy of Car* ihage, where admonifhing them of their Duty, ( in the abfence of St. Cyprian by reafbn of the then Perfecu- tion) they prefs them with thefe words to Peter; Feed my Sheep ; which, they tell them, the reft of the Difciples in like manner did, and accordingly it was * vke Pafto- now incumbent upon them alio *, in the room of the giget!^ ?4or to keep the Flock. This cite for St. Pact's Supremacy. 109 This Launoy * proves is the Exposition of the * Epift. Par.ii, Church, and moft juftly condemns Bellarmwe (and tml'oZ'en- fuch like Flatterers) as failing in his Duty : Which re- tinum,/>. 27, quired him to expound thefe words according to the &c- Senfe of the whole Church, which is directly againft this Expofition, that Chrift here gave this Power to Peter alone. A great many of the ancient Popes of Rome, he there fltews, fpeak otherwife ; and one of their Neighbours, St. Ambrofe, exprefly declares, that thofe Sheep, and that Flock which Chrift bad Peter feed, he did not alone receive , but he both received them with us, and with him we all received them r\. As much as to fL.de Sacerd. lay, what Chrift faid to Peter, he fpake in him to all di£nit- c- 2- Bifhops. Which is the Senfe of St. Auftin in a great many places' (the fame Author fhows ||) making Pe~ li Launoy e- ter here alfo to have reprefented the whole Church : Plft- ?*™ v- ib that when it was faid to him , it was [aid to all \ Love ft gjftro. thou me ? Peed my Sheep * * Ce Agone 5. But what need any further Teftimonies ? when ^p"™"0 this Preface is fung not only in the Feaft of St. Peter, but of all the reft of the Apoftles and Evangelifts ( except St. John ) and on their Octaves m the Roman Church at this very day ; We humbly befeech thee, 0 Lord, the Eternal P aft or, not to for fake thy Flock, but freferve it with continued Protection, by thy bleffed Apo- ftles : That it may be governed by the fame Rulers, which as VICARS of thy Work, thou didft beftow upon it, to be fet PASTORS over- it. This is fufflcient to fhesv that the Roman Church it (elf hath anciently be- lieved, this Charge was given to all the Apoftles to feed his Flock, and be the chief Paftors of it f. . t Prseffe What? will fome fay, was there nothing here pe- Paftor€*»-- culiarty fpoken to Peter ? No Myftery. in, thofe words thrice I io The Texts examined, which the Papifls thrice repeated, and fpecially directed to him by name, as yDu cannot but acknbwledg ? Yes, no doubt ; but it is no more than this, that Peter of all the reft, had lately thrice denied his Mafter. This might well have made Peter himfelf queftion his Love to Chrift ; and move our Lord to ask him whether he ftill remained as confident as he was before, that he had a greater Affecti- on to him than any of his Difciples. For fb he begins this Speech, Lovefi thou me more than thefe ? As he had fancied he did, when he faid, tho all Men {ball be offen- ded, becauje of thee, yet will I never be offended \ Matth. xxvi. 3$. The vanity of which thoughts he had found by fad Experience, he alone denying, nay abjuring his Mafter. In this Peter was fingular, and did more than any of the reft. For which caufe more was to be faid to him, and more was to be done by him, than any of them. He was to anfwer thrite to three Queftions, which were folemnly put to him, that by a threefold Confeflion, he might obliterate his threefold denial. This is all the Myftery which the ancient Chriftians could find in this fblemn Speech, made with particular Application to Peter, as may be feen in St. Cyril of * in John xxi. Alexandria *, St. Auftin\, Greg. Naz.ianz.en j|, and a ^Vtu" XlV" onS tra^n» which I could fet down, of other Fathers ; ttTraaT'xxix. which afTures us that this was the common and literal Expofition of thefe words, and that they underftood no other reafbn why our Lord addrefTed himfelf only to Peter, tho other Apoftles were prefent, but only this ; that he might declare he would have Peter not- withstanding his denying him thrice, be confident, upon this profeflion of Love to him, he was reftored to his Favour, and that he would have him no left than the reft, look upon the care of his Flock as be- longing cite for St. Peter's Supremacy, 1 1 1 longing to him, who had deferred by his fhamefully repeated denial of him, to fall from that Office, more than any other of his Apoftles. For tho they all fled, yet none denied him but Peter alone; and therefore thefe words were as if our Lord had faid, Tho there be caufe enough for me to reject thee , yet becaufe thou did/t re- pent thee of thy Sin, and doft now profefs thy Love to me. Feed my Sheep, no lefs than the reft of my Apoftles to whom I have committed the care of them ; which will fufficiently expofe the vanity of the Catholick Scriptu- rift *, who bids us (againlt the fenfe of all Antiqui- * Seventh v ty ) to note that our Lord would not have required greater ' * 7* Love in Peter rather than in any of the reft, nor have faid, Loveft thou me more than thefe ? // he had not here intended to give him higher dignity in Paftorfhip than the reft. Note rather, good Reader, what hath been faid, and thefe words of St. Cyril, who was a better Scripturift, and more Catholick than this Jefuit. I will not fet them down at large, but only the Conclufion of them, which are very remarkable, and exprefly expound this PalTage as I have done. In that Speech of our Lord, FEED Mr SHEEP, there was a kind of renewal f of the Jtpofllefhip formerly bejtowed upon \ aWkwUfe him ', doing away the Infamy his of Falls, and blotting out Jf5t jn Jol? the cowardife of human Infirmity. Where a great Perfbn p. 1120. of our own hath juftly remarked that word renewal || : Pp Andrew He doth not fay that our Lord augmented his Dignity p. \u ( which is the new Do&rine ) but that he renewed it, or reftored him to it. Which Dignity he had faid (in the beginning of this Difcourie) Peter was advanced unto, when our Lord named him, not pr* alik, above others, but cum aim * , with other Difciples, to be an * SpS %*» l- Apoftle; and therefore now did not give him more ™&lf> *&* than in The Texts examined, which the T dpi ft s than the reft, but only declared he did not take the forfeiture he had made of that Dignity, but re-inftated him in it, together with the reft. This is undoubtedly the ancient Senfe of ChrifPs Church ; to which I know not what to add for the Expli- cation of thefe words, unlefs it be this, that Peter had, juft before this Difcourfe of our Lord's., begun to exprefs • his earner!: dcfire to recover 1 is Favour ; calling himlelf into the Sea (when the other Difciples came by the Ship) to get to our Saviour ; which may be look'd up- on as a token of exceflive Love to him, and of a more than ordinary delire to enjoy his Company. From * Dr. jackfon hence a very learned Writer * of this Church, thinks fbtcreiH (T* 0llr ^01^ ta^es occafi°n t0 make this Speech to him ' (but whether to check or to cberifh that defire he dares not determine ) the import of which he gives in this Paraphrafe. Thou- haft made profefjion of more than or- dinary Love to me, of readinefs to lay down thy Life for my fake, tho all others, even thefe thy Fellows, fljould for- fake me ', and art willing, I fee, by thy prefent hazard of it, to make good thy former words. But wouldft thou have 7ne yet to jhew thee a more excellent way ? I have told it thee long fwce ; Thou art converted, Jirengthen thy Bre- tren. S I M O N the Son of JON A, if thou defireji to prove thy felf a, CEPHAS, or tefiify the fmcerity of. thy Faith and Love ( which by the Powers of darknefs were of late fo grie,vou(ly jhaken) FEED MY LAMBS, FEED MF SHEEP. Tea, feeing thou thrice deni- ed]} the Shepherd of thy Soul, I fay unto thee the third time, FEED MT .SHEEP. Let the Memory of thy fore-pajfed threefold Sin; alfo let this my prefent three- fold admonition, excite thee unto triple diligence in thy Charge to jhew fueh pity and compaffwny as 1 have /hewed to cue for St. Peter 'j Supremacy. u j to thee, unto that loft and fcattered flock, which have denied me, cr confentedto my crucifying. Let thy faith- ful performance of what I rcqueft at my farcwel, be the firft tcftimony of thy Love to me, to be laftly teft/fied by the lofs of thy Life ; which thou didft prcmife me, when I gave mine for my Sheep, ( John xiii. 37.) but fljalt not pay till thou haft fulfilled this my Re que ft. Verily, verily, I fay unto thee, when thou w a [I young thou girdeft thy J elf , and walke(l whither thou wouldftt but when thou art old, thou ftjall ftretch forth thy Hands, and another Jhallgird thee, and lead thee whither thou would/l not, 8cc. Thefe things being well confidered, there is no ne- ceffity, I think, to difpute about the meaning of the word FEED (which is ftill a Metaphor, it is fit to ob- ferve, as well as the two former, ROCK, and KEYS) for whatfbever can be thought to be meant thereby, all the Apoftles were required to do it as well as Peter, and had the Lambs and the Sheep committed to their care, as much as he. But becaufe there are very great things which many of the Roman Doctors draw from this Tingle word FEED, and there are alio very curi- ous Obfervations made about the fmall word MY, and about LAMBS and SHEEP (that is, about every word of this fhort Sentence) it will not be un- profitable briefly to examine upon what Foundation they itand. I. Now by the word FEED, they underftand the higheft Power * to have been committed to him ; which * Summam if it were true, then all to whom it is faid Feed the Poteftatcm. Flock, had the higheft Power ; and fo there were many d* pj™'Ci ^'' Supremes, all the Elders of Ephcfm (it hath been fhown before) being required to feed the Church of CL God' 1 1 4 The Texts examined, which tie Papifts Gody Aft. xx. 28. which includes in it, no body doubts, Authority and Rule ; but is not the thing principally, much lefs only intended ; and is far from fignifying the * Bfox* highefi Power. For the Greek word for feed * in the ■fir ft mention of this Charge, Feed my Lambs y ver. 1 5. and in the loft, Feed my Sheep y ver. 17. imports nothing of ruling or governing, nor was ever applied to fignify the Power of Princes ; but denotes meerly the fimple Office of leading the Flock to their Pafture. And ac- cordingly the ancient Fathers commonly refer thefe words to the feeding by Word and Dotfrine, to which they had more regard, than to meer Rule and Power, which now is the only thing that is contended for from this poor word FEED. And that becaufe once v. 16. our Lord ufes a word n'otuAivi. which is tranjlated to this Senfe. Tranjlated I lay, for it originally fignifies no more than the other before-named, denoting nothing of Dominion or Empire. For a Man may be Shepherd of the Sheep, who is not their Lord. But it is applied to Kjngs, and to God himfelf, not be- caufe it is apt to denote the abfolute Dominion of God over all Creatures, or the higheft Power of Kings over their Subjects, but to give us to underftand how God is affected towards us, and to admonifh Kings of their Duty ; which is to govern their People commit- ted to their Charge, gently and diligently, as a Shep- herd doth his Flock. There are many places of Scrip- ture that juftify this, which I fhall not fb much as mention, becaufe there is no reafbn why this word only fhould be regarded and the other neglected ; nor why fBW the other f fhould not rather interpret this \\ ( being 11 no/^/e*. tw ice repeate(i and this ufed but once) than this in- terpret the other y nor why either fhould fignify ruling after cite for St. Peter** Supremacy. i j ^ after the manner of a Prince, and not of a P aft or ; nor (if we allow the utmoft that can be made of it) why they fhould fuppofe Peter to have had any Pre- heminence in this Authority over the Flock of Chrift, which was not grounded upon his eminent affectionate Care, and more than ordinary Fidelity in feeding it. And yet, fuch is the defire of Dominion in fome People, they have not only made Peter univerfal Paftor, with an ordinary Power, as they call it, which no o- ther Apoftle had, but found him a Sacceffcr alfb in this Power, and without any Deed of Conveyance, but this one word FEED, made the Pope of Rome hisfo'e Heir ; unto whom they afcribe the molt exorbitant Power, derived to him from St. Peter, lole Heir to the great Shepherd of the Sheep, Chrift Jefus. If you would know what this Power is, Bellarmine will inform you ; who, here and there in his Works, afferts the Power of the Bifhop of Rome to extend unto five great things ; for the fupport of which he alledges thefe words, Feed my Sheep. Fir ft, He faith that he is made hereby the fttpreme Judg in Controverftes of Faith *. " Nothing can be * l. iv.de " more clearly fpoken in the Gofpel, than that which Pont. Rom. ** our Lord laid to Peter in the prefence of the reft of c* l' " the Apoftles, Feed my Sheep : For he fpake to Peter " only, and he gave him all his Sheep to feed, fb that " he did not exclude the Apoftles themfelves. Now it " is indubitable, that it is one of the Offices of a Pa- <( ftor to difcern good Pafture from bad. Secondly, He proceeds from hence alfb to make die Pope an infallible Jndg f. " For in thefe words, faith f lb, cap. sl Qj2 he, Kr"9- I \ 6 The Texts examined which the Tapifts "he, Feed my Sheep, the Pope was made the Paftor and " Do£tor of the whole Church: and if fo, then the " whole Church is bound to hear and to follow him ; " fo that if he err, the whole Church will err. Thirdly, Hence alfo he derives his Power to make * lb. cap. xvi. Lam for flje wh0le Church*. " For Chrift, fays he, " giving Peter what he promifed, ufes a Kjngly word, " viz,, mifyutivi. And therefore, Fourthly, He proves by this, that the Pope is ab- fblutely above the whole Church, even above a Ge- + L.a.deCon- nerAi Council']'. "For fince Chrift the good Shep- ciins c xvn. (t ^£r^ jiat]1 communicated to Peter his own Name, tl in thefe words, Feed my Sheep, it is plain the Paftor " is fo above the Sheep, that he can in no wife be " judged by them. Fifthly, In fine, he proceeds fb far, as from thefe V L. $. de words to prove the Popes Temporal Power over Princes ||, Rom- Pontif. wnorri) if they be Hereticks ( for inftance ) he may " not only excommunicate, but command the People "alfo not to obey them, and therefore to deprive " them of their Dominion over their Subjects. Where- in he doth but follow fome of their Popes, viz,. Gre- gory VII. Boniface VIII. and Nicolas IV. who in their Decretals alledg this place, to maintain the Power which they challenged to themfelves in Temporal Things. Butthefe are fuch far-fetcht and abfiird Inferences from thefe Words, that to name them, as was faid before, is to confute them : this being not to interpret the Scri- pture, cap. vii. cite for St. Peter'j Supremacy. i 17 pture, but to torture it, and force it to fay what they pleaie, tho never fo much againft its meaning : which fbme in their own Communion are fo fenfible of, that they abhor fuch violent Abufes of God's holy Word ; and openly declare there are no fuch things asthefe to be found therein. One || more particularly hath de- |jLaunoyEpirt. monftrated BeHarmines Arguments to be fophiftical, parsii. &pars and againft the Rules of the Council of Trent, when v* he proves from thefe Words [Feed my Sheep] the Pope's Superiority over General Councils, and his unerring Judgment in Matters of Faith ; and fhews that XL Popes of Rome, by calling every Bifhop of the Church their Fellow -Bifhop s7 have openly declared thefe Words, Feed my Sheep, are not proper to them alone: and that this is a moll certain Tradition of the Roman Church it felf, by its Bifhops j which he proves from Stephen I. to Innocent III. by near two hundred and twenty Tefti- monies : which if they be not fufEcient to make a Tradition, there can never be any fufEcient Tradition as he fpeaks, it being fcarce pofEble there fhould be any thing better teftified. And another * alfb more lately hath overthrown pin,ud'EI,dB thefe prefumptuous Aflertions ; fhewing that all the Apoftles and their SuccefTors, were Pafiors of the Flock of Christ ; who fpake to them in the Perfbn of Peter , when he faid, Feed my Sheep. And that if thefe Words had been fpoken to Peter alone and his SuccefTors, they jJ^^jW would not have proved them to be Infallible \y or their pi.di(Tert.v.C1" Authority to be above that of a General Council || : ., .ff . much lefs their Authority over Kings or their Domini- ons, either direttly or indirectly ; the Church univerfal having always underftood thefe Words to fpeak of a Spiritual Power only. And therefore they that are not ajha- 1 1 8 The Texts* examined, which the Papifts afhamed to interpret them otherwife, depart from the fenfe of the Qatholick Church ; that they may, by any means, de- * Diffcrt. vii. fen& tneir unlawful Attempts *. p. 4S5. IT. But if the Word FEED alone will not do this great bufinefs, Bellarmine hopes the next little Word, MT will afliit mightily to the eftablifhing St. Peter's univerlal Paftorfhip. For he faith it furnifhes them with a notable Reafon, why all the Flock that called Ponufxa Rxvi! Chl'ift their 0wner> ihould be look'd UP0n as ^ t- For ' fince Chrift adds, without any reftriciion, the Pronoun MY to the Noun SHEEP, it manifeflly ftgnifies, that all thofe Sheep were commended to Peter, which can be called Chriffs Sheep j and it is certain All are Qhrifts Sheep \none excepted. Unto which, if any one fhould think fit to reply (as no mean Perfbns have done ) that our Lord in the Word MT, if any Emphafis muft be laid upon it, pointed to thofe who had been his own peculiar Charge in his Life-time, when he was not fent but to the loU Sheep of the Houfe of Ifrael ; I appeal to all Men of fenfe, whether it would not be a more reafonable Ex- pofition than his. Efpecially when they fhall confider that thefe loft Sheep, the Jews, were afterward the pe- culiar care of St. Peter, unto whom the Go/pel of the Circumcifwn was committed, as the Gofpel of the Vncir- cumfwn to St. Paul : for he that wrought effectually in Pe- ter to the Apoftlefhip of the Qircumcifion ( /. e . of the x Jews) the fame was mighty in- me (fays St. Paul) to- wards the Gentiles, &c. Gal. ii. 7, 8. But there is no need of this Interpretation, nor do I rely upon it ; fince our Lord exprefly declared in his Lire-time, Other Sheep J have, which are not of this Fold: them-alfa J muft bring, and they ffc all bear my Voitt', and there cite for St. Peter's Supremacy. 1 1 9 there /hall be one Fold, and one Shepherd, Joh. X. 1 6. all which Sheep were committed to the care not of Peter alone, but of all the Apoftles : every one of which had an equal fhare in his Charge : though Peter (as I have fhewn) had need to be particularly excited to do his part of this Office, and to feed as many as he could po£ fibly ; feeing the proof of his Love to Chrift, and of his Fidelity, in which he had lamentably failed, did therein confifl. III. After all this they make pleafant work with the words, Lambs and Sheep; which they lay include the whole Church, Apoftles and all : So that they who were Pafiors no lefs than Peter, are turned into fimple Sheep, who were to be led by him. Which is confuted by the whole Hiftory of the Gofpel, and by all Antiquity : Nothing being plainer than that Peter did not lb much as nominate a SucceiTor to 'Judas, much lefs take upon him by his fole Authority to appoint one ; but the whole Colledg of the Apoftles appointed two Perfons to be prefented to God, defiring him to fhew which he had chofen, Act. i. 23, 24. Nor did he ordain St. Steven and the other fix Deacons, but the Twelve called the Multitude of the Difciples unto them, and bad them look out Seven Men, &c. whom WE (not Peter alone) may appoint over this bufinefs, Ac!:, vi. 5. Nay, more than all this, P^^rwasfo far from exercifing Supreme Authority over them, that the Apoftles lent him, as tlsiere was occafion, not he them, to do an Apoftolical Office ; and alfo fent St. John in joint Commiflion with him, Act. viii. 14. And I have obferved already, how St. Paul withftood him to his Face, and that publickly, when he was in an Error ; which can no way. confift with no Tlit Tests examined which the Tapifts with the Supposition of his being inferiour to Peter in Order or Power. For though an inferiour may private- ly give his Advice to his Superior ; yet to call the Su- preme Governour in queftion, and to reprove him be- fore all, is intolerable Prefumption and contempt of Authority. But this Conceit is fb very dear to them, that the late Catholick Scripturijl could not forgo it, but is pleafed to tell us, that if every one, of the other Apoffles be Sheep of Chrift, St. Peter is here made Paft or to every one of them, for he is commanded to feed them. And others are fo fond of it, as to find a My fiery in thefe words ; which, the better to accommodate to their fancies, they turn into three, inftead of two only which are in JL^andthe Greek |(. And by Lambs, ver. 15. and by Little Sheep (as they will needs have it read, ver. 16.) un- derstand the Jews and the Gentiles ', and by Sheep, v. 1 7: the Bifljops of the Church ; who are (&ys Bellarmine*) p.antVf.cap.xvi! as it were tne S«m or Mothers of the Lambs : and therefore the Lord committed to Peter the Care of the LAMBS, i e. of the People of the Jews ; and of the LITTLE SHEEP, i.e. the People of the Gentiles; and of the SHEEP, that is, they that brought forth thefe Lambs in Chrift, which are A POST LES and B I- SHOPS. Or, by Lambs, he faith, we may under- ftand mere Laieks, the People who have no Paftoral care, being only Children, not Fathers in Chrift ; and by the Little Sheep, inferiour Priefts, who are fb the Fa- thers of the People, that they are Bifhops Sons ; and by Sheep, the great Priefts, that is, Bifhops, who are fb fet over both Lambs and Lambkins, that they are notwithstanding fubjecl themfelves to Peter. That is, you may underftand this My fiery how you pleafe, if cite for St, Peter'* Supremacy. 1 1 \ if you do but fo contrive it that Peter have all under his Care, and the Apoftles themfelves be his Curates. But they who can be pleafed with fuch Conceits as thefe, have little Reverence for the Holy Scriptures ; and it is a great Affront unto our Underftandings to of- fer us meer Imaginations for Reafbns ; their own Dreams inftead of the Divine Oracles. If it may con- fift with Chriftian Sobriety, to make fuch a nice di- ftin&ion between Lambs and Sheep, as to make them imply different things (any more than the two feveral words for feed f, and for loveji thou me, are thought to f bom & rii- do) it is far more likely that our Lord intended to fig- ^""- *i*™* nify the Care that ought to be taken of all ChrifHans ?/A"f* fuitable to the diverfity of their States. Some of which (as a great Man || of our own Church fpeaks) are to iiDr.*^ B. be handled tenderly ', and cherijhed like Lambs ; others to 3. cvii.Seft.x. be looked unto like elder Sheep, and to be fed with Jlronger Meat, but with lefs perfonal or affiduous Attendance. This hath fbme feale in it, which is very ufeful, and agreeable to all Mens Thoughts : but if we let our fan- cies on work, they abound with vain Conceits of which we can find no end. For if Lambs ; and Lambkins, and Sheep only be St. Peter's Walk, and he the Shep- herd, where are the Rams $ (as a no lefs learned * * Dr. corn's than ingenious Man asks) they are excepted it feems, EjPpHATA.p. and Ramses Turriantts fancies, are the Jpojlles, or their Succeffors, that is, Bijhops : or, as Cardinal Tolet f xInxv t. ( Bellarmins Equal ) will have it, they are Kjngs Annot. $'. ° ' and Princes : and fb thefe two, Jpojlles and Kjngs are by this Interpretation both fluit out ; whom Bel- Urmine intended by his Device to have fhut into Peters Fold. R But i 2 1 The Texts examined, which the Papifts But the graver fort of Writers even in the Roman Church, are afhamed of fuch Myfteries as thefe ; which they fee may be invented at pleafure. Maldo- If in joh.xxi. nate || himlelf (to fay nothing of Janfenim) bids thofe, J5>^' who fubtilly enquire, why Chrift calls his Difciples Lambs, rather than Sheep, think again and again what they do, and take heed left they expoie themfelves to the laughter of the Learned : for the difference is ire word, not in fenfe ; fave only that the word Lamb hath fbmething in it more fbft and tender, and might be ufed to commend them the more to Peters Affection. For this diminutive form of fpeech is a fign of very tender and ardent Love, and more moving than any • other ; as appears by the common inftance of a dying Father, who expreffes more of his own Affection, and works more upon his Friends, if he fays, I commend to you the Care of my little Babes, than if he.fimply fays, I commend the Care of my Children to you : Whence it is our Saviour fometimes ufed this form, juft before he parted with his Difciples, John xiii. 33. Little Children, yet a little while I am with you, 8cc. and his Apoftles alfo, particularly St. John, who ufes it /even times, in his firft Epiftle, to declare the Greatnefs and Tendernefs of his Love, and to excite the like in others. • Maidoutt. That Writer * indeed purfues no lefs than the 0- ther , the pretenfions of the Church of Rome from thefe words ; though he like not this Curiofity : infift- ing upon Chrift's committing all the Sheep, ( i. e. all Chriftians) to Peter. Which will not do their bufinefs, fince they were no otherwife committed to him than they were to the reft of ChrifVs Apoftles : who had the fame Power given them, and were to take the fame cite for St. Peter'* Supremacy. 1 1 $ fame Care of all Chrift's Flock that he did. Not that every one of them was to feed or teach aH Chri- ftians, limply and univerlally underftood ; for that was impoflible, and would have made the Labours of the reft ufelefs, if one wyere fufficient : but all indefi- nitelv, ib that among them none fhould be negle&ed, but inftructed by Tome or other of them. This muft neceifarily be the meaning : for otherwife, our Lord bad Peter do that which could not be done by one Man; or, if it could have been done, would have made all the other Apoftles idle, and left them nothing to do. No, fay they, we do not mean that Peter alone was to preach the Gofpel to all Nations ; fb he could not feed all ; but this fort of feeding muft be allowed to others : but he alone was to rule and govern in chief, to feed by Authority and Power over all, whereby he was to prefcribe what was to be taught and believed. But this is to return where we were before, to the flgnification of the Word Peed ; which cannot mean one thing with refpe£t to Peter, and another with refpecl: to the reft : but fignifies the fame Power, be it what it will , common to them all. If this need any further Explication , thofe Words of our Lord, Go, and teach all Nations, Matth. xxviii. 19. Go ye into all the World, and preach the Gofpel unto eve- ry Creature, Mark xvi. 1 5. will fatisfy us that Peter - had no peculiar Authority conferred on him, above the other Apoftles. For he gave this Charge to them all, and it was ufhered in with a far more magnifi- cent Preface to it, than when hefpake here particularly to Peter', for he firft acquaints them with his own R 2 Su- iz4 The Text s examined, which the Tapifts y Supreme Authority, faying, Ml Power is given unto me in Heaven and in Earth, and then adds, Go ye therefore, and teach all Nations, &c. which is a Com- mijjion as large as could be given to Men ; including in it all the Power that was necefTary for the eftabli- fhing and governing thofe Churches which they fhould gather unto Chrift. Who can think that they who had this Authority given them, were themfelves to be taught and gover- ned by Peter alone ? Nothing could put fuch a Con- ceit into Mens Minds, but an ambitious defire to ad- vance themfelves to the higheft Dominion, by raif- ing Peter above all others : Who, it is evident, did not take themfelves to ?be all inferiour to him ; nor to be lefs able to feed him, than he was to feed them. For St. Paul (who was herein inferiour that he was called late to be an Apoftle, as one born out of due time) did take upon him to feed Peter, and that with his Staff too (if I may fb (peak) that is, with his Reproof; and this at Antioch, St. Peters own Seat : Where it had been very proper for him one would think, to have flood upon his peculiar Prerogative, if he had known of any belonging to him. Which if he could have challenged, we fhould ftill be to feek by what right the Bifhop of Rome claims the fame Authority that St. Peter had. Ofays LEiX?it.Tde Boniface the YUUh * Chrift fpake to Peter and to Major.& 6be- his Succe/fors, when he fa id, FEED MT SHEEP. dicntia. jgut: j10w doth he prove that? Why, we muft take. his bare word for it, both that he fpake thele words to Peters SuccefTors, and to them alone, and that the Bifhops of Rome are his fble SuccefTors : All this he delivers as an infallible Dictator, and it is not good man- cite for St. Peter s Supremacy. 1 2 r manners to queftion that the Univerfal Flock of Chrift is fo commuted to them, that whether Greeks or 0- thers (hull fay , they are not committed to Peter and his Succejfors, they muli neceffarily confefs they are none of the SHEEP of Chrijl. But it is worth any bodies while to read on to the end of that Extra- vagant where he afterts this : whereby they will be m infallibly fatisfied he was no infallible Interpreter, but a grofs Perverter of the Holy Scriptures. For " here it is that he proves in the Church there is " both the Spiritual and the Temporal Power, from tl thofe Words, Behold here are two Swords, Luk* " xxii. $8. and that the Temporal Power is fiibjett " to the Spiritual, becaufe the Powers that are, are *\ ordained of God (Rom. xiii. 1.) for they would " not be in order, unlefs Sword were under Sword, " and Spiritual things are fuperiour to Temporal. " For the Prophecy of Jeremy is verified of the " Church and the Ecclefiaftical Power, ch. i. 10. Behold,, " J have fet thee this day over the Nations, and over " the Kjngdoms, to root up, and pull down, &rc. There- " fore the Temporal Power, if it go out of the way, 11 muft be judged by the Spiritual ; but the Supreme 11 Spiritual Power, by God alone, not by Man ; as the " Apoftle bears witnefs, 1 Cor. ii. 1 5. He that is Spirit u- " al judgeth all things , but he himfelf is judged of no Man, After all which goodly Interpretation of Holy Scriptures ( more like Pafquill than the Pope ) he concludes molt pontifical ly, We declare, affirm , define and pronounce, that it is altogether neceffary to Salvation , for every humane Creature to be fubjecl to the Pope of Rome. This is his Conclufion from FEED MY SHEEP, and from other Places of Scripture, expounded after the. \i6 The Texts" examined, which the Papifts the very fame fafhion as he abnfes this : Which tho it be very prefumptuous, yet is not too arrogant for him who could entertain fiich a monftrous Con- * Sexti De- ceit, as this which we read in one of his Decrees *. crec.L. i.Tk. Where hefays, Chrifi made Peter the Chief, that from ^FiSmntl' l}imi as from a certam Head, he might diffufe, as it + were, his Gifts into the whole Body ; for that having taken him IN CONSORTlVM INDIV1DVM TRINIT ATIS, into the Partnerjhip of the undi- vided Trinity : He would have him called that which the Lord himfelf was, faying, THOV ART PETER, and upon THIS R 0 C K^ I will build my Church. Now if Peter be thus exalted into the Confortfhip of the Bleffed Trinity, and the Pope have a juft claim un- to all that belongs to Peter ; then is the Pope no lefs than OUR LORD GOD, as fome of the Ca- nonifts have called him ; unto whom Boniface might well conclude all mull be fiibje£t upon pain of Dam- nation. I conclude this whole Difcourfe with thefe three Obfervations ; which are better grounded than theif proud Decrees. Firfi, It is worth confidering , that this lofty ' Structure which they have erected in the Church of Rome, of the Supremacy of their Bifhop, is built barely upon three Metaphorical Speeches of our Sa- viour unto St. Peter, without one word or fyllable concerning the Bifhop of Rome, or any other Succeffor. One would have expected that a thing of this mighty moment fhould have had a ftronger Foundation, and been delivered in plainer words, than upon this Rock, I i cite for St. Peter's Supremacy. \ i? I will give thee the Kjys, and, Feed my Sheep : and that we fhould have been told alfo in down-right terms, who fhould inherit the fupreme Power, fuppofed to be conferred by thefe Metaphorical Speeches when he was dead and gone ; efpecially, if all Chriftians in the World muft neceffarily, upon pain of Damnation, be fubjecl: to Peters Succeitor. And yet fb it is, this is all, that a Wit of fuch height as Bellarmines (who is wont tofcrapeup all that any- way feems to make for his purpofe ) durft venture to alledg out of the Holy Scriptures for the proof of fo weighty a Point. The Rhemifts indeed in their Annotations upon the New Tefiament, make bold with two places more, which they apply to this bufinefs ; but with fb little Reafbn (not to fay fo ridiculoufly ) that he had the difcretion to let them alone. One is in St. Matthew xiv.29. where, upon the word walked, they have this wife Note. Peter ( faith St. Ber- nard) walking upon the Waters as Chrijl did, DECLA- RED himfelf the ONLT VICAR of Chrifi : which fhould be Ruler not over one People, but over ALL-' For many Waters are many People. And from hence he dcdaceth the like Authority and Jur if diet ion, to his Succeffors the Bifhops of Rome. And a goodly Deduction it is, for which they are mightily beholden to St. Bernard, who could fpy fuch a notable Declaration of Sc. Peters fole Vicarfhip, and draw from thence fuch a fine Argument for the Pope's Authority, as no ancient Doclor befides himfelf was able to find in this place. But muft his Fancies pafs for fubftantial Proofs of the Bifhop of Rome's Supre- macy, which was railed to a great height in his days ? At ii 8 The Texts examined, which the Tapifts At this rate no body need want Proofs for the moft deteftable Herefies, which he fhall pleafe to dcvife, if fuch Conceits as thele be allowed for Argument's. And their fecond Annotation is like to this, of which, for ought I know, they may have the honour to be the Inventors, without the help of St. Bernard. For becaufe our Saviour, when there were two Ships, v e nt in that which was Simons (Luke v. $.) and thence taught the People, they gravely conclude, that un- doubtedly he taught out of that Ship and not the other, on purpofe to fignify the Church refembled by Peter's Ship, and that in it is the Chair of Chrift, and only true -preaching. By which, it is evident, they intend- ed the Reader fhould underfbnd, that as Peter was Owner of that Ship, fb he and his SuccefTors are Rulers of the whole Church. For upon the following Verfes (ver. 7, 10.) they obferve how Peter had 16 much work, that he was fain to call for help, and joyned thofe who were in the other Ship as Co-partners in the Preaching of the Gofpel. As much as to lay, the Work was committed to him alone, who took in fuch help as he needed.- He was the only Paflor, and all the reft (as was faid before) his Curates. For, they tell us, all this afore faid did prope 'y mean, his Travels in the Converfion of the World, and his Prerogative therein before all Men ', as is evi ent by ChrijFs fpecial Promife made to him SEVER ALLT and AP ART in this place, that he fhould bf made the T AK^ER OF MEN. What then became of all the reft? Were they to fit ftill in their Ship and do nothing ? O no, by no means ; He giveth to ether (lav thele Annota- tors) the like Office as to PeterV Co-operators and Co- adjutors. Before cite for St. Peter'j Supremacy. 120, Before they faid that Peter called them and joyned them to himlelf, as Co-partners in the preaching of the Gofiel; but now having better, it feems, bethought themfelves, they lay Chrift appointed them to this Office; yet Hill they are but as Peter\ Co-ope- rators, and Afliftants. He was the Taker of Men, and converted the World ; they only came in to his help, and brought all the Fifh into his Net. Their Ship fignified nothing, it was Peter alone that iignified all. Their Ship ftands for a meer Cypher ; his Ship is the Figure o{ the whole Church, where he governs, and they are but helps in Government, meer Co-ad- jutors unto him, the great, and indeed, only Bifliop over all. Who can endure fuch Annotations as thefe, in which Men play with the Holy Scriptures as they pleafe, and play with them in fo faucy a manner, as to inter- pret them directly againft the Scriptures. In which the Apoftles call themfelves Workers together with Chrift (2 Cor. vi. 1.) imployed by him to be his Co- operators, not St. Peter's ; who was fo far from being the Converter of the World, that his Travels and Pains were moft heftowed in the leaft part of it. Which Bellarmine, I fuppofe, faw well enough, and therefore was fb wife, as not to menrion fiich Allegories. Which may ferve to entertain the Fancies of filly People, but are the juft fcorn of thofe that have any meafure of Spiritual Underftanding : Who have heard perhaps, that the Fathers fbmetimes refembled the Church of Chrift to Peters Ship ; but not that they ever dream'd of making him, and the Bifhop of Rome after him, the Governour of the whole Church, becaufe he was Mafter of that Ship. S There no The T(Xti examined, which the Papifts There is nothing^more unaccountable than fuch a Conclufion, unlefs it he their pretence to Infallibility, who are meer Triflers when they meddle with the Holy Scriptures ; which is the next thing I would have obferved. Secondly ; If the danger of wrefting the Scriptures be a good reafbn why the common People fhould not read them, then no body at all fhould look into them ; for their moft learned Priefts have wrefted them more than the common People. And that a- gainft their Oath, whereby they are bound to inter- pret Scripture according to the unanimous confent of the fathers, who all agree that what was laid to Peter in thefe three places belonged to all the Apoftles ; whole Writings, as the reft of the Scriptures, have by none been more foully abufed than by the Popes of Rome, whole Interpretations and Applications of them, fhould they be collected in a Book, would make one of the moft fhameful pieces that hath been yet extant in the World. Thirdly', And let the Reader obferve once more how ill they of that Church are agreed about the Inter- pretation of thefe three places of Scripture, which are the Subject of this Difcourfe. There are four Interpretations of the firft place, Thou art Peter, &c. (as hath been elfe- where obferved ) which have had great Authors in the Roman Church, as well as others. Some by Rock underftand Peters FAITH in the ConfefTion he had newly made Luther deP™'( which by the way, Joh. Ekius * fays in the Age be- tnPrimatu, fore us, no body denied to be the (enfe, and bids ■-1* Luther in cite for St. Peter'j Supremacy. l j i Luther name the Man that faid otherways) Others CHRIST himfelf, whom Peter had confefTed to be the Son of God ; others PETER, and others ALL the APOSTLES; which laft is the Ex- pofition of Pafchafius Rad.bertus, the famous Broacher of Tranfubfiantiation, whole words are thefe : * The * l. w, Church of God is built not only upon Peter, but upon Matchxum. all the J fifties. Now they who follow the fir ft and fecond ienfe, can find no Prerogative here for St. Peter above the reft of the Apoftles ; and they that adhere only to the third (in oppofition to the other, as they now commonly do) are confuted by thofe who affert the fourth, that thefe words were fpoken to all the Apoitles. And indeed they are all forced to confefs that no- thing is here promifed, which is not contained in the next words, And I will give thee the Kjys, &c. But what this is, none of them can certainly tell. For one fort ( fuch as Cajetan ) hold the Kjys contain more than binding and loofing ; which Bellarmine fays is falfe ; nay a thing never heard of in the Church. And con- fequently this Power of binding and loofing being pro- mifed to them all (Matth. xviii. 18. ) the Power of the Kjys was promifed to them all ; and Chrift pro- • mifing nothing but what he performed, he gave there- fore the higheft Power to them all, which is con- tained in the Kjys. Here they are at a great lofs, and cannot agree how to bring themfelves off from this difficulty, which {trips Peter of his Supremacy. Therefore fomehave deviled the above-named Conceit, that Peter alone had the Keys given him as their Ordinary, and they as his Legats. But this feems too grofs unto others, S 2 who v I yi The Texts examined which the Tatfifts who acknowledg they all had the Kjys immediately from God, as much as Peter, if they be considered as Apoftles, but not if they be considered as Bifhops and Pa/tors', for thefe two Offices they fancy they had, the Jpoftolical and the Paftoral Dignity; the firft immediately from Chrift, the other by and under Pe- ter. But this is in a manner, the fame thing in a little finer drefs, which was faid before, therefore others unfatisfied with this, that the Apoftles IhoulcT receive their Jurifdiclion from Peter, have ordered the matter on this fafhicn, that Peter might ufe the Kjys alone, but they- not without him. But Sixtus Senenfis cannot digeft this ; and there- fore hath devifed a threefold, Power in Peter, of Jpoftle- *-Bibiioth. fbip, of Order, and of the Kjngdom*. "With refpect San&.i. v. t0 tjie firjt jie giants Paul was equal to Peter, becaufe AHoccbux. ^ had the office of Preaching the Gofpel not from Peter but from God, as much as Peter himfelf had. With refpeft to the fecond alfb he, acknowledges the truth of what St. Jerome writes againft Jovinian, that all the Apoftles equally received the Kjys ( let the Catho- lick Scripturift mind that) and firmly laid the Poun? datwn of the Church : and of what he fays to Evagrius ; All Bifhops are equal, becaufe all the Apoftles were fb. But then with refpe£t to the /aft, viz,, the Power of the Kingdom, and Authority over all Bifhops and Churches, Peter was Head of all. That is, Peter muft fbme way or other be above all the reft, but how they do not know. f Ad An. 34. For Cardinal Baronius 'f will have it that all the *CCY» Apoftles had the ufe of the Keys equally with Peter y by the ORDINJRT Power of remitting Sins ; and by this diftiu&ion expounds the fore-named words of St. cite for St. Peters Supremacy. i j 3 St. Jerome. But his Brother, Cardinal Bellarmine , (being aware that if Pa, in. &7nv &tH -rzf idr (,(*>, upon this Rock, fays St. Chryfoflom, He faid not upon Peter, (much lefs upon any of his Suc- ceflbrs, and lefs than that, upon any particular Body of the Clergy, as is the Clergy of the Church of Rome) the change of the word, as the fame Father proceeds to remark, being a fenfible indication that the PaiTage is to be under/rood of a Thing the truth he confefs'd, and not of a Perfon, or Perfbns ; for what can be more abfurdly prepofterous than to lay, that the — Church in every "Age is to be built upon the Clergy, and thofe many times very unskilful in their Profe(fion3 (which is no better than to make the Workmen the Foundation of the Building) and not rather upon the Truths of the Gofpel deliver'd once for all unto the . Saints, which Truths were antecedent to the Confti- tution of the Chriftian Church, and all its Clergy, ex- cepting only its great High-Prieff, and prime Founda- tion y , 148 The Texts examined which the Tapifts tion *, and by the Profeflion whereof every Church, and its Clergy, are to be tried and known, whether they are of God or no ; h 78 he is fuppos'd to have made this Promife perfbnal to 22' 22, him) ; and, fecondly, afterwards in the denial of his Mafter. But farther, fixthly. This Expreflion of the Gates of Hell, importing not Herefy or corrupt Opinions only, but all the Stratagems and Attempts of Men and De- vils for the fubverfion of the Gofpel, whether by clandeftine Frauds, or open Perfections as, Theophilaff ; and to which others very properly add the Powers of J^e Grot# in the Grave and Death ; They may as rationally from this place infer an Earthly Omnipotent Judg to fecure the Church from the frequently too powerful AfTauIts of her Adversaries ; or a vifible immortal Judg to defend her againft the Powers of the Grave, as a vifible Infal- lible Judg to guard her againft Error in Opinion 5 which can never be prov'd neceiTary inoppofition to the Gates of Hell, fo far as they relate to corrupt Opinions only, unlefs it be flrft made appear that the Divine Wiidom can by no other ordinary means preferve his Church univerfal, (that is, lome part or other of it) from dangerous and deftru£t.ive Error ; which yet he did in the flrft Ages of the Church, enabling her Champi- ons by the ftrength of a plain ftanding Rule, ( for that was their Weapon all along ) without the leaft dream of an Infallible Interpreter of it, to fubdue thofe He- refies that oppofed her, and to preferve her Faith pure and uncorrupt. Sum we now up the Premifes, and add the Conclu- fion. Our Saviour here upon St. Peter's ready Con- X fetfion i e o The Texts examined which the Tapifls feflion of one prime Article of our Chriftian Faith, viz. [ That he was Chrift the Son of the living God ] tells him that this (and others of the like momentous importance included in it) fhall be the Balis upon which, by the ufe of the Miniftery, he will build up the Edifice of his Church ; adding moreover, that tho the Wit, Malice, and Power of Men and Devils fhall be engaged in the utter extirpation of this Faith out of the World, yet there fhall never be wanting to the World's end thofe who fhall heartily and fincerely profefs it ; after which comes their Inference lagging fb far behind, a Man can fcarce fee from the one to the other; Therefore the Church of Rome in PARTICU- LAR is Infallible, in all the Definitions concerning Faith or Manners, that fhe {hall ever make. jQuidlibet ex quo- libetl But of this Text fee before, pag. 7 9, See. A fecond place from which they infer the Infalli- bility of the Church, i. e. in their affirming Language, their own Church, is that in St. Matth. 18. 17. But if he negleff to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an Heathen Man, and a Publican. Therefore, fay they, the Decrees of the Church, which are to be obeyed upon fo fevere a Penalty, mull needs be infallible. But I anfwer, ifiy That 'tis plain beyond Contradiction to any one who has not renoune'd his Eyes and his Reafbn, that our Saviour here fpeaks of the Difcipline not Do- Brine to be obferv'd in particular Churches, and that particularly in relation to the private Injuries and Offen- ces which one Chriftian might be guilty of towards another, and not with regard to any Error or Herefy, as is abundantly evident from the whole tenor of the Context : For our Lord here tells his Followers, that if after a private Admonition (wr. 15.) and if that would cite for Infallibility.. \ 5 1 would not do, before two or three WitnefTes, (ver.26.) one who is a Brother (that is, a Chriftian) fhould not repent of an Injury or Trefpafs againft his Brother, they (hould, then publiiL his Fault to the Church, or Congregation of Believers : of which he was a Member ; or, as Cbryfofiom and Iheophihct expound it, to the Go- vernours of the Church ; conformable to the Difcipline of the Jews, anioflgft whom the Elders and Rulers of the Synagogue were fblely inverted with the Power of Excommunication ; whole Cenfuresand Reprehenfions if he fhould proceed to defpife likewife, they fhould then look no more upon him as a Member of their Communion, but as one quite cut off from it, and whofe Converfation was to be avoided, as Heathens and Publicans were by the Jews. And if this makes a Church infallible, it does, in the fecond place, make any particular Church fo ; and that, thirdly, not in Do&rine, but Difcipline, that part of it efpecially, which is exercifed in cenfiiring obftinate Offenders, to which this place more immediately relates. But none, I prefume, will fay, that a Church may not err in her Sentences of this kind. A third Text they produce in favour of Infallibility, is our Saviour's Promife in the 20th Verfe of the fame Chapter, that where two or three are gathered together in his Name, there he is in the midfl of them. From whence they thus argue, aminori ad m.jus ; That if, when a Maldonac. in few Ecclefiaftical Judges arc met together in the Name loc* of Chrift, for the eftdi ig of private Differences be- twixt one Chriftian and another, he has promis'd to be in the midft of them, ( referring, as the Guide doth, this Verfe to the 17th and i%th preceding) How much more may we prefume of his Prefence in a Ge- X 2 neral i $i The Texts examined which the Vapifts neral AfTembly of Ecclefiaftical Judges, or Bifhops, convened about matters of a higher Importance, Arti- cles of Faith,- and the way to Salvation ? To which I anfwer, 1. That thefe Words do not relate to the ijth and i%th Verfes of this Chapter; sttox'x en wnere vet tne Power of binding and loofing in the cafe Aug. de ver'bo of private Offences, is not tied up to the Church, or Dom. homii. its Governours, but given to the in jur'd Party likewife, rj. Theophil. and that for thefe ^eafons . ift. Becaufethis Expofition is extremely forc'd and unnatural, as will appear to any one who fhall examine the feveral Glories of thofe Expofitors who abet it ; and the Jefuit Maldonate himfelf confefles that at firft- fight there appears no connexion betwixt them ; and I am fure he has not mended the matter upon his fecond Thoughts. idly. Becaufe the Fathers, Hilary (Canon 18.) Chry- foftom, Jerome and TkeofkiUB interpret, them of that concord and mutual agreement we ought always to re- tain, in oppofition to thofe Injuries and Animofities oc- cafion'dby them, fpokeof from the lyh to the 19th Verfe, which were a good Argument to thofe. I have to deal with, unlefs they could out-poll me in Teftimonies of this kind, though they had not reafbn on their fide, which yet I think they have. For, ^dly. Here is nothing laid in the whole Chapter be- fore concerning agreement in Supplications and Pray- ers., to which thefe Words in the 1 gth and 20th Verfe, which fpeak exprefly of it, can be referred ', and it feems natural enough, that our blefled Lord, having fpoken againft giving of Offences from the 6th to the 1.5M Verfe, and from thence to the 1 gtb of the Beha- viour of thofe who received them ; fhould, in the next place, as TheophiUff fpeaks, crvvoty&v m/x<% fa Tmv KycLvniv, lead cite for Infallibility. \ j j lead us on to Charity and mutual Concord, especially in our Prayers, and then our Adverfaries may, with equal reafbn, infer the Infallibility of their Church in all her Decrees from that place in St. Johns Gofpel, where our Saviour tells his Dilciples, that whatfbever they fhall ask in his Name, that he will do [John 14. 15, 14.] or from that of St. James, where he affaires us, that the effectual fervent Prayer of a righteous Man availethmuch {chap. v. 16.) which yet would be pret- ty wild Inferences. But I anfwer, 2. That, fuppoflng for once, not granting, thefe Words in the 1 gth and 20th Verfes to refer to the pre- ceding in the 17th and iSth ; as the any thing his D\C- ciplesfhould ask and it be granted them, in the 19th verfe, muft, of necefllty, be confined to things good and lawful, and for good and lawful Ends : for, as it follows, in the 2,0th verfe, he has promifed to be in the midft of fuch Ecclefiafiical Judges, fince they will have it fo, only when two or three of them are gathered to- gether in his Name ; fb, by parity of reafbn, the Deter- minations in matter of Faith and Manners, whole Au- thority they would hence eftablifh, muft be. only fuch as are made in his Name too, which they can never be, that are contradictory to his Word ; fb that if they would prove any thing from hence, they muft frill, in the firft place, be put upon that Trial by Scripture, . which they care not to engage in : And, laftly, if their Inference from this place, underftood in their own fenfe, hold good for general Councils, it will alfb prove the Infallibility of national or provincial Synods, and thofe of any other Church, as well as of the Roman, when convened upon the fame occafions ; which will not fquare with their Hypothefis. For 'tis pitiful Cant, and begging, of the Queftion to tell us, as yet they are.. not » t 1 54 T/;e Texts examined which the Tapifls not afhamed to do, that no Synod can meet in the Name of Chrift7 which is not convened by the Pope's Autho- rity. And therefore, whereas Maldonate informs us, that there are feveral (Roman) Catholicks, who think this Text makes nothing for them, and yet are ingeni- ous Men ; I am perfectly of his Mind ; and that they are much more fb too, than thofe who think it does. Lafily, If from our Saviour's faying, He will be in the midft of two or three Chriftians met for the decifion of private Differences amongft their Brethren, they can juftly infer the Infallibility of their Councils ; then like- wife did our Saviour by thole words make fuch two or three infallible in their Determinations likewife, which is abfurd. A fourth Argument for the Infallibility of their Church is fetch'd from thofe Words of our Saviour in the 23d of St. Matthew ', the ift and 2d Veriest The Scribes and the Pharifees fit in Motes'/ Seat. AH there- fore whatfoever they bid you obferve, that obferve and do. This the Mifreprefenter thought fit, after his way, to harangue upon, in his Character of Infallibility in the Church, though the Guide has more judicioufly pafs'd it by. The force of the Argument, fuch as it is, lies in this, That our Saviour, notwithstanding the great Corruptions in the Jewi[h Church, here commands an unlimited implicit Obedience to the Dictates of thole whole Office it was to interpret the Law, which Obe- dience muft fuppole them infallible in their Expofiti- ons ; and therefore much more does he require fuch a Submiffion to be yielded to the Doftors of the Chriffi- an Church (their own exclufively of all others) to See Mifrepre- which the Promifes of a continual and uninterrupted Affifi- fent. p. 39. Ance are ma(fe fum tfjan €ver tJyey mre f0 tfoe Jetvjfh Church. cite for Infallibility. l55 Church. Not here to dwell upon this Author's con- founding the whole Chriftian Church with that of Rome, and his jumbling Affiftance, Authority and Infal- libility together, things diftant enough in their own Na- tures, and die two former whereof do by no means in- fer the latter. I anfwer, F/rM, That the Principles of common Reafbn teach us, that Words of an univerfal extent are of neceflity to be limited and bound up according to the nature of the fubjecl: matter to which they relate : And that, Secondly, Their own, and other Authors, whofeEx- pofitions they are obliged to receive, have accordingly interpreted them. St. Chryfoftom expounds them of Homil. 73.it! Things commanded by the Law of Mofes ; and thofe only Mac vid. Ca- of a moral Nature too. They fate well in Mofes his ten- §l- in- loc- Chair, fays Origen, who did rightly and rationally inter- orig. in loc, pet the Law of Moles ; which fiippofes, that others did, in his Opinion, mifinterpret it. St. Auflin, fpeaking of this place, fays, God there- TraSet Mifrepre- for this Haranguer in Controverfie to come and tell us, rem. p. 3?. that our Saviour in this place commands a blind obe- dience to thojc who had, the Superiority, as he terms it, without doubting of the reafonablenefs of their Commands, when every one acknowledges there was a ftanding Law or Rule, according to which they were to fpeak, and from which they might and frequently did fwerve ? For, Thirdly , How elfe will he juftify our Saviour's Accu- fation of them in the i yh of St. Matthew, that they tranfgrefs d, and made of no effect the Commandment of God by their Tradition, blending and confounding it with the Commandments of Men, by which they wor~ (hiffd Him in vain ? [ver. }, 6, 9.] or why did he bid his Difciples, in the 16th Chapter of that Evangelift, beware of their Doctrine, if they were fuch excellent in- fallible Guides ? So that if our Saviour's realbnings a- gainft thefe Jewifh Doctors hold good, thofe of the Ro- mifh Doctors in their behalf cannot. And I muff con- fefs my felf fomething at a lofs how to reconcile the Reprefenter to himfelf, when he tells us, that, tho all things touching Religion and Vertue were in a. manner ran to decay in our Saviour's time, both in Priejls and People, yet the Jewifh Church flood firm in the delivery of Truth ', unlefs Truth of Doctrine have no relation to Religion ; unlefs the Church confifts of otl^j; Members befides Prieffs and People ; and, thirdly, unlefs a thing may be laid to be almoft totally decay d, and yet frand very firm .and entire. But perhaps fome Traditionary Do- ctors think themfelves obliged to defend their Predecet ibrs in this way at all adventures. The cite for Infallibility. \^ The laft place I meet with alledg'd out of St. Mat- thews Goipel, upon this behalf, are our Saviour's conclu- ding words to his Difciples, juft upon his Afcenfion ; — -And. lo, I am with you alwtiy, even unto the end of the World, [Mat. xxviii. 20.] This the Infallible Guide pa&4. only points to, as to feveral others, but thought not fit to exercife his arguing Talent upon it, perhaps becaufe he thought it would not bear it. And indeed I fhall need do little more, than briefly paraphrafe the Text, to mew how impertinently 'tis produc'd for Infallibility in their Church. Our bleffed Saviour then having, after his Refurre- ftiofl, appear'd unto his eleven Difciples in the Moun- tain in Galilee [Mat. xxviii. 16.] where he had by Ma- ry Magdalene, and the other Mary, appointed them to . meet him, [ver. 10.] confidering the arduous and im- rheophii.m portant employment thefe poor honeft Men were to un- loc. chryf.ho- dertake, to which no Abilities, purely humane, could ""*• 9' ever be commenfurate, tells them for their Comfort and chry(. ibid. Support, that he, under whofe Banner they were to Theophii.ibidL fight the good Fight, had now all Power given him in Heaven and in Earth [ver. 18.] upon the ftrength i(^aIdonat" m whereof, (Go ye therefore, ver. 19.) he now gives them their final Commiffion to acl: in his Name, alluring them, for their farther encouragement, that He ( He who had already overcome the World, the Grave, and Death it felf) would be with them (and all other his oPBid.The* faithful Difciples hereafter) even unto the end of the World. Be with them, endowing them with a noble and heroick wa jgnoxa, or Boldnefs of Mind, neceffary to their prefent undertaking; as he did the Prophets of chryfoft.hom. old, (fays St. Chryfojlome) Jeremy for inftance, who&V %»#e. thinking himfelf inadequate to the Office, God bad zekiel 3.8,9. Y him \ 5 8- Tfce Text* examined which the Papifls him not be afraid of their Faces, for he would be with him to deliver him [ Jerem. i. 6, 8 ] infpiring them with m« io i 20 extemporary Apologies to the Magiftrates and Rulers sn'tbTir^l°j' of the Earth ; ftrengthning and fupporting them under «f the Aas. their feveral Trials ; for, as the Sufferings of Qhrijl a- z Cor. i. 5. bounded in them, fo (faith St. Paul) their Conflation alfo abounded by him. Or, laftly, as in the parallel place of St. Mark's Gofpel, Working with them, and confirming the Word with Signs following. So that the words are pro- perly, and in their primary intention, only a Promife of general affiftance to the Apoftles, (and in them to all o- ther faithful Paftors of his Church upon the like occa- sions ) under the Difficulties and Dangers they were to Struggle with in the difcharge of their Ministerial Of- fice ; and they who extend them farther, do violence to the words. But fuppofe for once they were meant of a peculiar Direction and Affiftance in relation to the finding out and teaching of Truth : How come they, firft, to relate to the Church of Rome only ? Was our Lord with no other Apoftle and their SuccefTors, but only with St. Peter and his ? i. Why may not a Man as well reject and refift this fort of Affiftance, as well as any other Influences of his Grace ? and iffo, then no Argument from this Text, nor the preceding, wherein Chrift is (aid to be in the midjl of two or three gathered in his Name, will be conclufive. 3. Let them fhew that Chrift by thefe words has promis'd to fecure the future Ages of the Church from any other than damnable and destructive Errors. And 4. why the words do not prove any particular Bifhop or Prieft, duly fent to teach and baptize, as infallible as a Pope, or a Council ? For thefe words, I am with you, &c. were fpoke to them in that rapacity, and not confider'd as a Council. I fhall only add this farther Remark upon the place ; That cite for Infallibility] j r« That they to whomthefe great Supports were promi- fed, were at the fame time enjoyned to teach the Peo- pie to obferve thofe things only which he, their Lord and Mafter,had commanded them ; which they would do well to reconcile with the Practice of their own Church, who coin at their pleafure new Articles of Faith; and fbme of thole directly contrary to what he has exprefly both by Himfelf and Apoftles commanded. After having thus rallied up and repell'd all the fcat- ter'd Forces they pretend to out of St. Matthew's Gofpel, let us fee in the next place what afliftance that of St. Luke affords them ; which alas is very fmall,being con- fined to two Texts only, and thofe very remote to their purpofe, as will prefently appear. The firftof them is in Luk. 10. 16. where our Sa- viour tells the feventy Difciples, whom htfent before his Face into every City and Place where he himfelf fhould come, (v. i.) that he who heard them, heard hint likewife '7 who being infallible, they muft confequently be fb too : and therefore the Clergy of the Romi(h Communion iner- rable in all their Conciliary Decrees. What a Gulph is here betwixt the Premifes and the Conclufion ! and what medium can even Infallibility it felf devife,to make good the Inference ? For, firft, what St. Luke here ex- preffes by hearing of the 70 Difciples, St. Matthew and ^ac- »• 4^ St. John exprefsby a civil and hofpitable Reception of v£! 4*1,42. them. And fb likewife does St. Luke explain himfelf John 13. 20. in the very fame Chapter ; Into whatfbever City ye en- ter, and they receive you, eat fuch things as are Jet be- fore you, ver. 8. but into whatfbever City ye enter, and they receive you not, go your ways out into the Streets of the fame, &c. v. 10. But, Y 2 Secondly, 1 60 The 1 exts examined wbtcb we Tapijis Secondly, Confine this Reception to the hearing or entertainment of their Doctrine only ; as our Saviour . often tells us, that they who heard him, heard likewile a//i *14'10' him that lent him, becaufe he laid no more than what joh. 8. 2^&e. h^ Father gave him in Commiflion : fb likewile, by parity of rea(bn, do they only hear Chrift, who hear the Paftors of his Church, when they teach only what Mat. 28. 20. he has commanded them, which though it render not a Guide infallible, which excludes all poffibility of mis- take, yet lecu res every individual Clergy-Man, lb far forth as he fticks to that Rule, as much from Error, as it does the Pope himlelf at the Head of a General Coun- cil. And truly if an unlimited Infallibility were any way deducible from this Text ; individual Guides, and thole of any other Communion as well as of the Ro- man, or two in conjunction at the moft, have the moft eafy and natural Pretence to it ; for the 70 Dilciples, from whole priviledg they would prove it, were lb, not jointly confider'd in a Body, but as they were diftin&Iy Luke 10. 1. and leparately lent out, by two and two, into different Quarters of Judea. And, Thirdly, That thele feventy were accordingly bound up to the delivery of the «€>o£trine, and that the main fundamental Doctrine of their Lord and Mafter, is plain from the Context ; for the Truth they were to teach was this ; That the Kjngdom of God (or the Mef- fiah) were come nigh unto the Jews [ver. 9, u/J (which they were impower'd likewife to efiablifh with Signs following) [ver. 9, 17.] and therefore the inference can reach only lb far, and no farther. Fourthly, What parity is there betwixt the necelfity of infallibly Infpired Guides, as is the cale of the twelve Apoftles, and the leventy Difciples, in the Infancy of revealed Doc~trine, before the Canon or Rule of it is e- flablifh'd cite for Infallibility. 1 6 1 ftablifh'd and compleated, and afterwards in fucceeding Ages ? which is as grofs Enthufiafm as a Man would defire an Adverfary to be guilty of. The fecond, and laft Text that I find produc'd out of St. Luke, is intthe 22^ Chapter and the 32^ Verfe, where our Saviour lays to St. Peter , But I have prayed for thee , that thy Faith fail not ', and when thou art con- verted, Jlrengthen thy Brethren. This place Bellarmine De Rom. Pont. is very bufy with to make it fpeak for the perfbnai In- 1.4. c 3. fallibility of the Pope ; and what is more abfurd, the Guide, the unanfwerable Guide, refers to it for his contra- ap' ** ry Hypothefis of the Inerrability of Councils. So that if a Man be but once on the Infallible Side, any Text will prove juft what he pleafes ; and the truth is, this proves the two different Opinions much alike ; that is, juft no- thing at all. For the former claule of the Text upon which the greater!: ftrefs is laid, is fb far from prefent- ing us with any Grace or Favour peculiar to St. Peter, as Bellarmine would have it, that it is an Argument of his greater Weaknefs and Imperfection rather than of any peculiar Priviledg, or Prerogative, conferred upon him. For, jirli, 'tis evident from the 3 ift verfe of this Chapter, Satan's defire of fifing, i. e. tempting them all, and from the parallel places of St. Matthew's and St. Match. 25. jr. AWsGofpel, where 'tis faid they fhould be all offended M*rk or Advocate for, them, and who mould rarry with foft.Tnioc.ry" them, not for the fpace of a few Years only, * as he * so Theo- had done upon Earth,but continue with them as long as Sa MaWoMte. ^Y ^v'c'* ^n Exposition fo eafie and natural,and with- Ss Ferus. * all fb well attefted, that tho it fufficiently overthrows the Argument of the Guide, and indeed any other in- fallible Cavil that can with tolerable colour be made from this place ; yet I think my felf obliged to fpeak a little more particularly to it. Hebms eft Firft then, I obferve, that in this place here is no g d'^atc Promi& made that any way relates to Truth of Do- tfrine, cite for Infallibility. i6j Urine, but of the Holy Spirit only under the peculiar w *VW Confideration of a ttzi^kAwT^, a Comforter, or Ad- ch?yfofom. vocate (zslfidore *with feveral others, not Affifiant^iMot.m^i. as the Guide loofely renders it, to countenance his Hy-1-?- 0ri8in- pothefis) one who lhould ftrengthen and fupport ^m2jfu l ^oh* them under the preflure of their Afflictions, plead their Cauie with the World [Mat. 10.2c.'] as he would do with his Father, help their Infirmities in their Prayers and Supplications, I Rom. 8. 26.] reprove and con- vince their Adverfaries, [John 16. 8, 8tc. ] and the like ; all which Comforts and Affiftances the Circum- ftances of the Apoftles did in a peculiar and extraor- dinary manner require, and which we doubt not but will, in what meafure the Divine Goodnefs fhall think fit, be ftill continued down, not only to their Succejfors, if this were all the Guide meant by his Inference, but to any one elfe who fhall, as they did, confciencioufly afTert the Caufe, and fiifTer f«M the Teftimony of Jefiis. And what now, in thefeco^d place, is this to In- fallibility? Is every one with whom the Comforter abides, or, what is the fame thing, who enjoys the comfortable Influences of the holy Spirit, infallible ? No, unlefs we will admit of as many inerrable Guides as there are pious and good Chriftians in the World. But, thirdly, fuppofing, not granting, that the words contain'd any promife of Infallibility ; How come St. Peter\ SuccefTors, to call them fb for once, to be interefted in it exclufively to the SuccefTors of any of the other Apoftles, to whom it was jointly and equally made with St. Peter ? And, laftly, let them take this along with 'them, that the Promife concerns them only, who love God and keep his Commandment s, as 'tis conditionally exprefs'd in the 1 yb Verfe, which looks like a Provifo againft Z thofe 1 66 The Texts examined which the Tapifls thofe numerous wicked Popes, acknowledg'd fuch by their own Writers, and againft feveral Councils too which we know of, who have been acted purely by Pride, Intereft and Ambition, the Fruits of the Spirit of this World, with which the Spirit of God can no more abide than Light can with Darknefs, or Contra- ries with one another. Another Text by which they would farther prove Infallibility lodg'd in the Church, that is, their own forfooth, exclufive of all others, is the 26th Verfe of the fame Chapter, where our Saviour tells his Difci- ples, that this fame Comforter, which is the Holy Ghoft, whom the Father will fend in his Name, jh all teach them all things. But that this place refpe£fe thole only to whom it was immediately addrefs'd, will appear, 1, From a true and genuine Expofition of it; as indeed all the ftrength of their Arguments from Scripture, lies only in forc'd and disjointed Misinterpretations of it. And, 2. From the reafon of the thing.. 1. The occafion and meaning of the words is pure- ly this. The Difciples of our bleffed Lord, notwith- ftanding the long and familiar Converfation they had with him, were yet fo flow of Heart, as he expreiTes Lu e 24'25' himfelf upon this very occafion after his Refur reel; ion, sm chryfoft. to believe and underftand the Doctrines he had incul- Homii. 75. cated to them,, that they doubted of many things he id jo an. qq anj QQuid not comprehend a great many more, as is moft ftrongly evident from the laft Chapter of St. Luke's Gofpel, in the 25^, &c. 32^, & 45^ Verfes, . chryf. ibid, as likewife from the $tby 7th, nth, and 22^ Verfes of this very Chapter we are now upon, tofpare farther In- ftances. To remove which melancholy Con/ideration, that might otherwife have had an ill effect upon them, he cite for Infallibility. 1 67 he tells them to this purpofe, that tho they did not as yet clearly comprehend thofe things which he had jpoken unto them tvhilft he was prefent among B them, \_ver. 25.] yet that the Holy Ghott, whom the Father, jhould fend, them, would teach them, i. e. farther reveal cyT1f aIIx.' and explain, and confirm them in the true meaning explain i? by. and certainty of all thole things wherein he had before inftru&ed them; or, as the Evangelift in the fubfe- quent words, comments upon himfelf, bring all things to their remembrance, whatfoever he had [aid unto them.: and that therefore, as 'tis exprefs'd in the next Verfe, they Jhould not trouble their Hearts, nor be afraid, becaufe chryfoft. Ho- of his departure, for that the Holy Ghoft whom ( fay mil. 77. The- Chryfofi. and Theophyl. ) he fo often calls Comforter, by «*M. in loc- reafon of the great Anxieties they were in, fhould en- lighten their Underftandings, and eftablifh them in the Truth. So that in the fecond place, from the words thus explain'd, common Reafon will inform us, that they refpect only thofe to whom they were im- mediately fpoken, who being to convey the Truths of the Gofpei down to future Generations, which they did not as yet fully underftand, ftood in need of an extra- ordinary Illumination and AfTirt ance from the Spirit to bring things to their remembrance, ( theirs, and not their Succeffors, who having yet IearnVl nothing, could for- get nothing) and which muft confequently ceafe, after having enabled them to deliver the Canon of our Faith, whether by Scripture feparately, or in conjunction with original Oral Tradition, (to take in their own Hypothecs) unlefs indeed the Spirit did not in their days perfect his Revelations, but left fbme farther Dif- coveries of his Mind to be made to the after-Ages of the Church ; which is rank and endlefs Fana- ticifm. Z 2 And 1 68 The Texts examined which the Vap'tfts And thus likewife are we to understand thofe words in John 16. i$. where our Saviour tells his Difciples, that when the Spirit of Truth is come, he will guide them into all Truth ; another pretended Proof ef their Infal- libility. For our Lord having in this C hapter acquaint- ed them with the Tribulations they muft fuffer for his Sake, 0^.2.) as likewife with his Departure, {v. 5.) adds (ver. 6.) that becaufe of thefe things Sorrow had filled their Hearts; whereupon he proceeds (ver.j.) to cherifh and fupport them, as before with the con- fiderations of the Advantages they would reap from the Prefence of the Comforter he would fend, of whom having fpoke more particularly as far as ver. 12. He there tells them plainly, That he had many things to fay unto them, more ample Difcoveries of the Na- ture of his Kingdom to make, but that at prefent, by reafbn of the Veil that was yet in fbme meafure over their Understandings, they could not hear them ; but that when the Spirit of Truth fhould come, (the Spirit not chryf.& The- of the Old, but of the New Teftament, as Chryfoftome oph. in Johan. anci TheophylacJ ingenuoufly expound it, whofe Spiritual ,4' I?* Nature they were farther to be inform'd in) he fhould origeni.2.ad- Ku^e them into all Truth; difcover to them the prefent verf. Celfum. Infignificancy of the Judaick Rites and Sacrifices, the Cyril. Alex, in neceffity 0f the Abolition of the whole Mofaick Oeco- il'.it! ,' nomy, and the flate of that Spiritual Kingdom he de- signed to eftablifh in the World. All which things the Spirit fhould guide them into the knowledg of, be- caufe,as it follows in the next words, he fhould not fpeak of chryf- homil. him f elf ^ hut whatfoever he heard, that only he fhould fpeak, 7'A"m,%°* *,& notmng befides, nothing contrary to what our Sa- isil Uov w- viour had taught before him : for as the excellent Chry- &-™*"*-fcfoftom defcants upon the words; as our Saviour fpoke Theoph-mioc not of himfelf, but what he receiv'd from his Father ; fo ' cite for Infallibility. \6y fo neither was the Holy Ghofr to add any thing new of his own, but to teach only what was conformable to the precedent Do&rine of our Saviour. So that that ftill, as now delivered down to us, by the Infpiration of the Spirit, muft be the Rule by which, above all things, we are to meafure whatlbever Claims Men lay to his infallible Guidance and Conduct, (from which Rule notwithstanding they moft notoriously deviate, who are the bolder! Pretenders to his Oracular Infpira- tions, all utterly unnecerTary ) at leaft in the way of an ordinary and ftanding Director, to the fucceeding Cen- turies of the Church, after the Canon of our Faith completed, feal'd up, and once deliver'd to the Saints, by the Apoftles and Evangelifts, the once for all infpired Pen-men of the New Teftament, to whom alone thefe Promifes, and confequent Afliftances were neceffary, and to whom alone therefore they extend. Hold there, fays the Guide, in his Argument from theie three Texts of St. "Johns Gofpel, for then what would become of the Nations, that after their Times, were ftill to be infract- ed ? What would become of them ? Why, they were to be inftru&ed out of the infpired Writings thofe left be- hind them. Ay, but what would become of them, es- pecially when any Controverjies fhould arife (and upon this hinge turns the whole Argument of that tedious Book) concerning the under ft anding of the Apoftles Writings $ which Writings are mifunderftandable it feems in things ne- ceffary ; for St. Peter faith, in his time, the Unlearned wrefted them to their own Deft ruction [_2 Pet. 7). 16. ~] that Effect not following upon wrefting things unneceffary : therefore that Ajfiftant (meaning the Holy Ghoft) need- ful not only to the Apoftles in their Writings^ what he taught them \ but to their Succeffors alfo, in interpreting pag.'j/ ' what they wrote. The Sum of all which is this, that the Scrip- l^o The Texts examined which the Tapifts Scriptures are not plain in things neceflary to the Salva- tion of thofe for whofe Salvation they were writ, and that therefore there is ftill the fame need of the Directi- on of die Holy Ghofr to interpret them aright, as there was at firit to pen and indite them. In anfwer to this, lb far only as fhall not carry me beyond my firft defign. Firfiy then j(to pafs by thofe difhonourable Reflections hereby caiir upon the Scriptures, and confequently upon God himfelf, the Author of them ) what Service could the continuance of the Infpirations of the Holy Ghoft do the Apoftles Succelfors in the Interpretation of Scrip- ture, when it did themfelves fo very little as not to ena- ble them to write plainly and intelligibly, even in mat- ters neceffary to the Salvation of thofe for whole fakes they wrote, and whole Salvation they thereby deiign'd to advance ? For doubtlefs that Holy Spirit was as clear . and . diftinft then in his Revelations of neceifaries as fince. If not, it muft be laid that he improv'd, upon iecond Thoughts, either in his Will, or his Power, to reveal and indite them more plainly than he did at firlr. The latter, I prefume, they dare not affirm, and what reafon can the Wit of Man affign of the former ? But, <2dly> How does it appear from that Text of St. Peter f2 Pet. 5.16.] that the Scriptures are not plain in things necelTary ? For, frfty is it not evidently there faid that the Mis- interpretations made of them were forcM and unnatu- ral, fuch as Men wrefied and extorted by perverfe Expo- fitions of them ? Avar?o- farther defcribes them, wicked and ungodly Chriftians q>»;'j% the Guide acknowledges, idle extravagant Men perverted the Scri- ptures, could not yet by his Pretence, Difcourfes and Authority, end the Controversies they had rais'd ; how fhall one of his Succeffors, or a. Council of Bifhops, &c. under him, fairly pretending to the guidance of the Spi- rit, do it by their arbitrary and unfcriptural Decisions ? Fifthly, This reafbning is altogether deiufory and in- conclusive, that whatlbver place of Scripture may be wrefted to a Man's Destruction, muft contain an Arti- cle of Faith or Practice, abfolutely neceSTary to Salvati- on ; I need but inftance any where almoft to refute it. What Doctrine of neceifary Faith or Practice does that Saying of our Saviour in Matth. 10. 34. exhibit to us ; That he came not to fend Peace on the Earth, but a Sword ? and yet Should any Man wrefling thele words from the Context and Scope of the Difcourfe, which is but too ufaal neither imExpofitions of Scriptures, conceive of our " \jl The Texts examined which the Papifts our Saviour as of a publick Difturber of the Peace of humane Societies-, and die in that Opinion ; or other- wife think himfelf obliged to practife accordingly, and become thereupon a publick Incendiary ; I am apt to believe that either of thefe Wrefiings would coft him his Salvation. Again, what Article is there of either neceiTary Faith or Practice exprefs'd in thefe words of St. Paul, Rom. 5. 20. Where Sin abounded (viz,, by the Law) Grace did much more abound (viz.. by Chrift) and yet it feems there wanted not thofe who wefted it to this defiruclive Senle, that we fhould continue in Sin, that Grace might abound {Rom. 6. 1.) and which is in- deed the inftance, by which Qecumeniu* illuftrates and explains this PaiTage of St. Peter concerning thofe who wrefted fbme things in St. Parti's Epiftles to their own Deftru&ion ? And, but to inftance once more ; they who can infer a blind and implicite Obedience to all the Doctrines of their Teachers from this place in one of St. Paul's Epi- ftles, that the Spirits of the Prophets are fubjeft to the Prophets ( 1 Cor. 14. 32.) as this unanfwerable Guide, Cap. 1. p. 7. out of either his great Ignorance or wilful Miftake, do's, may very well wreft fbme things in his Epiftles to their own Deftruction, if fuch Teachers fhould not prove infallible ; and yet this Text contains nothing of neceffary Faith or Manners in it ; the plain mean- ing of it being only this, that the Spirit by which the divinely infpired Preachers were acted in their extem- porary Difcourfes, as was frequent in the Infancy of Chriftianity, did not operate upon them by any violent and irrefiftible Impulfe, as the Diabolical Spirit did up- on his Enthufiafts, but that they could fpeak or hold their tongues at their pleafiire. Of this Text fee be- fore, page 27, &c. But cite for Infallibility, \?j Bu t perhaps I have dwelt longer already upon the Guide than his fallacious reafoning deferves. I pais on therefore to the next Boo!, in order, the Acts of the holy Apoftles ; where we find that from that Expreflion in the Letter of the Apoftoltck Synod to the Gentile Converts, about retaining and rejecting the Mofaick Obfervances, it fee- med good to the HolyGhofi, and to us, (Aft. 15. 28.) they inter the like Presidency of the fame holy Spirit in all their General Councils. But for what reafbn? I can find n©ne aflign'd. The Reprefenter indeed fays he doubts not of it ; but his Prefumption is no Argument with us : and what has been already faid upon the fore- going Texts of St. Johns Gofpel, the Spirit's guiding them into all Truth, &c. to which without doubt the Apoftles had an Eye in this particular Expreflion, is fuf- ficient to limit this, as well as the Promifes upon which it is built, to their Determinations only; not that we queftion the Jjfiftance of the Holy Spirit, which yet is far enough from Infallibility to any of thofe Councils who, in godly fmcerity, fhall in after-Ages determine according to the Rule they have left us ; and therefore ftill the Conformity of their Definitions with that mufl evidence his Influence and Afliftance, (which does not make them inerrable neither) and not a pretended Af- fiftance at all adventures the Divinity of their Do- ctrines ; which is to begin at the wrong end, and beg thequeltion. And I cannot difmifs this Text without this particular Remark ; that the fulminating anathe- matizing Humour which has fb much reign'd in their Councils, is Argument enough to me, that they have been acted by a quite contrary Spirit to that which in- fpired the Apoftolick Synod with fuch admirable Mo- rion and Temper, in their compofing the celebra- ted Controverfy touching the neceflity of Mofmk Ob- A a fervances i?4 The Texts examined which the Tapifis fervances after Converfion ; for they would not pro- ceed to an abfolute prohibition of them, which might probably have exafperated the Judaizing Zealcts into an abfolute Apoifafy, and yet fhow'd that tender regard to the Gentile Convert's Liberty, as to impofe upon them no other Obfervances than what were requifite in that Exigency of Affairs in order to a perfect Union betwixt them for the more fuccefsful Advancement of the common Inrereft of Chriftianity. Another Text we are affaulted with, is, I think, pe- culiar to the Guide, in the fourth Chapter of the Epi- flle to the Ephefians, ver. 14. where the Apoftle fpeaks of the perpetual ufe of the Miniftry for the full and compleat building up of the Church, [_v. 11, 12, 13.] That we henceforth, fays he, [y 14.] be no more Children, toffed to and fro, and carried about with every Wind of Doctrine. Which Winds of Doctrine, fubjoins the Guide, ftnee the Writings of the Apojlles, and concerning thefenfe of their Writings, blowing in the Church, and carrying the unftable to and fro, argue the fame neceffity of fuck Doctors fiill, i. e. fuch as were the Apoftles themfelves. But firft, as has been already obferv'd, thofe Doctors could not fupprefs the Winds of falfe Doctrines from blowing in the Church even in their own days, whilft they were yet alive to explicate and interpret the fenfe of the Doctrines they taught, it never being the defign of infinite Wifdom irrefiftably to force Truth upon any Man's Underftanding ; but to leave us to the free- dom of our choice in our Opinions, which, by reafbn of the Prevalencies of Mens debauched Inclinations, Paflions, Interefts, &c. muff, as the Apoftle fpeaks, cccafion Herefies in the Church, that they who are approv'd may be made manifeft : And if fo, much lefs csn the moft prefumptuous pretence to Infallibility hi explain- cite for Infallibility. (ye explaining the Scriptures now, be fuppos'd commenfu- rate to that undefign'd, unneceffary end of preventing or removing all difference of Opinion in Religious; Matters. For, fecondly, Unity of Opinion in Matters not neceffarv is it felf not neceffary, whatever Con- veniences we may fancy would accrue to us from it, and is indeed in this laps'd ftate of Humanity utterly impoffible ; and as for things neceffary, either of Be- lief or Practice, they are fo plainly contained in thofe Writings thefe infpired Teachers have left us, that they who will not hear them, neither will they be perfwa- ded of them, tho a vifible Judg fhould arifeeven from the Dead. And indeed, thirdly, That the Religious Unity here faid to be procured in the Church by the Doctors and Teachers (poke of in this Chapter, relpe&s only the great and neceffary Articles of our Chrifti- an Faith, own'd, God be thank'd, by all Chriftian Churches, but concerning which, the Epbejians, in the infancy of the Gofpel, were tofs'd to and fro by the Jews and Philolbphers that abounded amongft them, Ambrof. in the Men who laid in wait to deceive, is evidently the?/. 13, 14. fenfe of St. Ambrofe and Theophylacf upon this place. And The0Ph- " fourthly, After all, the World wants frill to be informed "l *4' why the Doctors and Teachers who are to keep us fledfaft in the Profeffion of a right faith, fhould be only thofe who live in Communion with the Bifhop of Rome, the Queftion which they are pleas'd to beg all along. Another Text they urge is that Character which St. Paul gives of the Chriftian Church, that it is the Pillar and Ground of Truth ; and that furely, fays the l Tim"5' I5 Guide, from its Teachers being fo. To which 'tis an- fwered ; Firft, That by Truth here are meant thofe truly Catholick and Fundamental Doctrines of Chri- ftianity, own'd and confefs'd ( ojuuoKoyv/jtAvtoz, as the A a 2 Apoftle j-6 The Texts txarnined which the Taplfls Apoftle fpeaks in the next Verle) by all or moid, Chriftian People, God be prais'd, at this day, viz. as it follows in the Context, that Gpd was manifeft in the, Flejh, jttftified in the Spirit, feen of Angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the World, received ## , into Glory, which is far from an abfblute exemption from all manner of Error of whomfoever the words are underftocd. idly, That by Church here is meant the Church univerfal, not any particular Societies or Communions of it, (and therefore not the Church of Rome exclufively of all others) unlefs we underftand it of what in Duty they ought to be, not what "hey al- ways actually and of neceility are ; for, to go no far- ther, the Aftatick Churches are a fad and deplorable inftance that particular Communions are not always Pillars and Supporters of the Chriftian Truths, of which the Church of Ephe[m, to which thefe words have a more peculiar and immediate relation, was one, and is long fince, amongft the reft utterly fub- verted and brought to defblation; an unanfwer.able Argument that the Apoftle by thefe words could never mean that any particular Church fhould neceflarily be preferv'd from, even damnable and deftru&ive .0 Error. %dly, That as the words relate not to any one particular Communion, now extant, more than to another, fo neither to their Teachers, who as they all of them ought in a more fpecial manner to. be Pillars, i.e. ftrenuous Afferters and Defenders of the Chriftian Truths profefs'd in the refpe&ive Comrrfu- nions of which God has made them the Overfeers, and are frequently with regard to their Office and Duty fb ftiled ; fb like wife, amongft Ecclefiaftical Writers, are, and may ftill any eminent Perfons in the Church, whether for Learning, Piety, Conftancy in Tribulati- ons cue for Infallibility. \jj oias Rev. 3. 12.] or the like ; any one, I lay, pro- port, jnably to his fteadinefs in the Faith, and the Service he does the Church, be juftly dignified with the Character of a Pillar in it; that is, of one who in his way upholds and fupports it. There is there? fore no neceftity of applying this Title to the Clergy only, fince the Laity as well, as they, according to the meafure of their Abilities and Piety, or their contra- ries, may, or may not, be Pillars in the Temple of their God. ^thly, And what Coherence now betwixt this and Infallibility? Can no Man well grounded in the Faith, defend it by his Writings, or adorn it by his Converfation, unlefs he be infallible ? at this rate of arguing moft private Dottors a mongft them, nay, the Guide himfelf may, in time, lay claim to his great pretended Prerogative of General Councils. But this Text being fo fully illuftrated and explainM in a late pious and learned Treatife, intituled, The Pillar, and Ground of Truth, I fhall remit the Reader thither for his farther fatisfacl:ion, contenting my felf here with the addition of this fingle Reflection ; that Men are certainly hard put to it for Proofs, when they fhall build the prime Article of their Faith ( for fuch is the Doctrine of Infallibility to them ) upon Metaphorical Expreflions, fuch as are the words Pillar and Ground in this place, and "the word Rock before, in the 16th of St. Matthew. Another place peculiar to the Guide, is in the fecond Chapter of the (econd Epiftle of the fame. Apoftie to Timothy, at the 12th Verfe, where he tells us, that tho Hymenxus and others had err'd con- cerning the Truth, particularly in the Dodrine of the . Refurreftion, [expounding it metaphorically, of a • Refurre&ion by our Children, lays §t.Ambrofe~\ yet never thelefs the foundation of God (the Church, its. Docfrinf, iy % 7k 'texts examined which the Vapifls Dctfrine, and its Children, fays the Guide) ftandeth fare. But firft, it can never be prov'd that this Stabi- lity here mentioned is peculiar and appropriate to the Church of Rome and her Doctrine, which is all along taken for granted. For, fecondly, The place man? feftly fpeaks of the Foundations, or prime Fundamental . Articles of the Chriftian Faith, fuch as the Dj&rine of the Refurrection, here contefted, is own'd and a£ ferted by all Chriftian Churches as well as the Roman; which, tho, fays the Apoftle, they may be perverted by evil and defigning Men, to the feducl:ion of fome wavering and unliable Chriftians, vet neverthelefs fuch Herefies fhall never fb far prevail, but that thefe Fo:w~. Thcoph. in dations fhall remain firm and unalterable to the World's end : and let the Guide make the bell of this he can. But yet farther, recommend me to him for his In- duftry in endeavouring to prove this grand Article of his Faith out of the prophetical and mylterious Re- velations of St. John ; from that place particularly, where our Saviour is defer ibed walking in the midjl of the Rev. 1.13,16. feven Mother-Churches of Alia, and holding their Bi/hops in his hand : For what more unlucky inltance could he have chofen to fhow the Indefettibility, as he loves to call it, of any Church, than this of the Afiatick Chur- ches, who began fb early a defection from the Faith, and are long fince brought to utter Defblation. If he fay, he means it of the Church univerfal, then we are agreed; provided only that he do'nt tacitly put that fenflefs Illufion upon us, of the Church of Rome's be- ing the Church univerfal. But laftly, above all, we can certainly never fuffici- ently admire the Sagacity of this incomparable Guide, who has found out a vifible Infallible Judg of Contro- verfies, authoriz'd by the great Apoftle himfelf, in every Exhor- cite for Infallibility. \jp •■ Exhortation of his to Charity, Peace, and Unity, whe- ther in Aflfe&ions or Judgment. St. Paul exhorts the Citp. r. p.t,?. Pbilippians to fiand fafi in one Spirit, to be of one Mrad, Phil. j. 27. firiving together for the Faith of the Gojfel, to have the & 2' ?> 3* fame Love or Charity (for each- other) to do nothing through Strife or vain Glory, but in lowlinefs of Mind, to efieem each other better than themfelves ', and therefore there is an abfolute nectflity of a viflble Infallible Judg in Controverfies, and he in the Church of Rome too, not in that of Philippic to which this Epiftle was wrote. Where's the Connexion ? the lame Apoftle writing to the Church at Rome, exhorts them to be of the fame Mind one towards another, not to mind high things, ( Ec- clefiaftick Monarchy, Temporal Grandeur, Soveraign- Rom. 12. 16. ty over Mens Faith by pretending to an Infallible see the GuUt, Spirit, than which things nothing can be higher ) and «• «. p- 6, ?• therefore, for this very reafon, there is a neceflity of thofe things from which, in the general, the Apoftle dehorts them. 'Tis a great Happinefs, I find, for a Man to have once got a Name in the World, for generally 'tis fufh> cient to dub the moft elaborate trifling with the title of the profoundeft reafbning amongft the crowd of his profeft and unthinking Admirers. Had any of their late Writers (if they deferve the name ) of the Sheet of Paper fize, wafted a little good Ink upon fiich fluff as this, few I believe or none would have thought it worth their notice ; but it being the Guide, the pro- found and knotty Guide, who has difcover'd an Infalli- ble Judg (peaking in fuch Texts as thefe, we muft out of Civility makefbme return to his Remark,and that fhall be as fhort as poffible, in one word ; if the Apoftle had known that any fuch thing was to have been eftablifhed in the Church, all his Exhortations to agreement in J^g- i g o Tf?e Texts examined which the

what purpofe again, to dehort Men from that (T' "i> Fa- ction and Divifion) which, upon the lap fuppoikidb, could never have infefted the Chriftia ch ? There remains but one Text more urged by the Guide for a blind and unlimited conformity to the Doctrines of the Roman Church ; and that is in Heb. 15. 7 Remem- ■ ber them which have the Rule over you, who ha >ken unto you the Word, of God : whofe Faith follow, con dering the end of their Convey fat ion. But were they the . phorie, or full Aflurance which reiat ;s to the Promifes i, not fpeculativeov dogmatical, fuch asjiie intellectual Pride and Curiofity of after-Ages brought chiefly upon the Stage of the Church ; when Creeds began to fwell in proportion to Mens fruit left Debates, beyond their own Divkie and Original Dimenfions. And cite for Infallibility^ 181 And now I think I may fafely difmifs the Guide, and this Subjed together ; being willing to pay that Defe- rence to the common Vogue even of Adverfaries, as to think, that if they pretend to any more Artillery of this Scripture-kind in defence of their Caufe, he has cer- tainly made ufe of thofe Pieces of Ordnance that would carry the trueft and the fartheft againft us ; which yet we have (een, have either miferably overfliot, or falfn fhort of their Mark ; and are indeed only fiich, both for their number, and the violence he has offer'd them, as feem to confirm us that one defign he had in alledging them, was in confequence of the general Argument of his Book, the deciding of Controverfies by a Majority of Voices, howlbever corrupted and debauched to fpeak the Sentiments of the prefent Church of Rome. My defign was principally to take into confideration the Texts of Scripture made ufe of by the Guide in Controverfies for the proof of his Churches Infallibility : prefiiming that all other Scriptures produced by others would ftand or fall with thefe, which one of his Chara- cter had chofen out to fettle his Caufe upon. And if I have fhewed thofe which he has urged to be imperti- nent to the Caufe in hand, I may well fuppofe the reft which I find in the Catholick Scriptvrift, and the Touch- fione &e, will not be able to keep the Field, after the former are difcomfited. The Catholick Scripturift hath two Chapters upon this Argument, the firft is of the In- fallibility of the Church : the fecond, That the Roman Church is this infallible Church. For proof of the firft he hath collected thirty feveral Point 5, Texts, which he has reduced under three general Heads. Bb I v 3 x The Texts examined whic h the Tapifts I fhall give the Reader a brief account of the chief of them, and by which he will be able to judg of the force of the reft. Jtfg. i. ». i. The fir ft fort of Texts, faith he, are thefc, by whkh *h+ ther God commands us univerfally to fallow hk Church $ or ffeaks that of his Church, which could not be delivered as it is , if this Chuch could err. So If at. 2. 3. Let us. go up to the Mountain of the Lordy and he will teach us ix his Ways, and we fhall walk in his Paths. Verfe 4, And he fhall judg among the Nations. Whence, he in- fers ; Behold Chrifb erecting a Tribunal in his Church to judg among Nations, and decide all their Controverfies, which mufi needs fuppofe Obedience to be yielded to. this 'Judgment* Anfwtr. Without doubt God will have a Church in the World, and that the Church is to teach the Truth, and to. be obeyed in the Doctrine it teaches, But as there is a Rule by which the Church is a Church, and a Rule according to which it is to teach : fo we are to find out the Church, and to try %\it Dextrine it tea- ches, by that Rule. And as it is not the Church, with^ out it be the Church defcrib'd in that Rule ; fo its Do- ctrine is not to be received, nor is the Church to be obeyed, unlefs its Doctrine be- confonan* with and agree^ able to that Rule. So we are required to try t^# Spi- rits by the Doctrine, 1 John 4. 1,2, 3. and if the f^o-- ctrine differ from the Doctrine before'taught, who4veF it be that teaches, whether an Angel, or an Apoftle, or a Church, it's to be difclaimed, and is unpV an 4- nathema, Gal. 1.8,9. And therefore our Saviour that taught them to obferve what the Scribes and Fharjfees, that eke for Infallibility. \ 8 j that fat in MofesV Seat, bid, Mat. 23. 2, }. yet elfe- "where cautions them to beware of "their Dothine, Mat. 16. 6, 11. Bat of this fee before, fag. So far is it from Truth, as well as from the Scripture he alledges, that Chrifi has ereffed a Tribunal in his Church to decide all Controverftes, and which he com- mands us univerfally to follow. The fecond fort of Texts, proving the Infallibility xf Jtg. 2, n. u,; the Church, contain fuch glorious Titles given her, or fuch admirable things fpoken of her, as muft needs be vain *nd truthlefs words, if ever the Church prove a Miftrefs of Errors ; obtruding them to her Children for Divine Veri- fies. Firft, Pfal. 1 $2. 1 $, 14. The Lord hath chofen Sion, & c. This ismy Reft for ever, here will I dwell. Now ChrifPs dwelling- f lace is his vtfible Church, 1 Tim. $. 15. But how could it be his Habitation and Reft for ever, if * Storehoufe of Errors ? 1. By this Argument the Jewifh Church ( of Anfo. u which the Pfalm (peaks) was as infallible as the Chri* ftian, and the "Church of Ephefus as the Church of Rome; fince whereverthereisa Church, there is the ■Houfeof God. 1 2. The being God's Hbufe, fecuresitno more from Error than from Sin.: And his Argument will equally prove the Church impeccable as infallible. Thus in his way, }iow could it be his Habitation and Rajl for c~ w, // 4 Storehoufe of Impiety f B b 2 3. The i .84 The Texts examined which the fafifts $. The Being of «a Church is one thing, and the In* fallibility of it another. The Promife of a Reft far ever ( if taken in it's full extent ) may infer that there ftmll be a Church, but not that there fhall be an- In- fallible Church,. Art. 3. *. 18. The third fort of Texts to prove this Infallibility con- tain fuch as plainly fay, that God will (tilldirett his Church to follow Truth, or that it fly all not revolt from the Truth, &c. Behold how plain and direct a way to Truth is promifed the Church of Chrift, Ifa. 35. $. Then fhall the Eyes of the Blind be opened, &"C. J{nd a High-way (hall be there, and it fball be called the way of Holinefa [ the Holy Catholick Church ] the. wayfaring-Men, though Fools, fhall not err therein. It is therefore a way. infalli- bly leading to Truth. So Chap. 59. 21. This is my Cove- nant with them, my Spirit that is upon thee, and my words which (hall be put in thy Mouth, fhall not. depart out of thy Mouth, nor out of the Mouth of thy Seed, Sec. for ever. MW. 1. Thefe Texts, and the like, do declare what Priviw ledges God will grant to his Church : but among aTl of thefe I can find no promife of Infallibility ; or ^if fb, what is not made to every one, or any one in the Church as, wel} as the. other '< For all are concerned in it that have weak Hands and feeble K/ttts, ver. 3. that are of a fearful Heart, ver. 4. that are blind and deaf, ver. 5. lame and durnb, ver. 6. and all the ranfomed of the Lord, ver. 10. And fo it is fpoken to all xhzSecd CJ1ap.59.11. 2. There cue for Infauibthtj. 1 8 5 2. There is as much feid of fecuring the Church from Defilement and Violence as frcm Error. For is it laid that an High-rvay (hall be there, and the wayfaring- men, tho Fools, (ball not or therein ? So that High-w^ay is prefently call'd the Way of Holinejs, and it's laid, the unclean (hall not fafs over it : and ver. 9. No Lion JJjall be there, nor any ravenou* Beaft fball go up they eon, but the redeemed (hall walk there, &c. and ver.. 10. they (hall obtain Joy and Gladnefp, and Sorrow and fighing (hall fly away. But now, if notwithstanding thefe promifes of Purity and Peace, there may be Uncleannefs in the Way of Holinefs ; and Divilion, and Perfecution, and Vio- lence, where there is to be everlafting Joy • then there may be Error where the wayfaring-men (half not err. And id the promife of not erring doth no more, imply Infallibility, .or an Impoffibility of erring, than the promife of Holineis and Peace implies an Impoffibility of Impurity and Violence. But however, fuppofe this belongs, as he would have _ it, to the Catholick Church ; yet what is this to any particular Church ? what is this to the Church of Rome more than to any other Church? That we are to look for in* the next Chapter, the pm. *. Subject of which is, That the, Roman Church is this Infallible Churchy and, our Judg in all Points of Contra? ver(y. This Qgejtio*. (as he truly faith) feems to im- port as much as the certain* decifion of all our Contror verfas. And fuppofing he .has prov'd the true Church tQ be infallible, he grants there feems to be a vaji labour to remain to prove t hi Roman Church, to be this Cfmreb. And 1 8 6 The Tests examined tvhich the Tapifls And here he tells us, if we may believe him, that they are all to give full Satisfaction in this. As how ? the Book is call'd the Catholick Scripturift ; but now he that had jo Texts at his Service in the former Point, when he comes to -his vaft labour, and the Point that imports the decifion of all our Controverftes, finds not one ; bat inftead of that thus brings himfelf off. I moft earneftly begdf my Reader to note well this one fhor* Demonftration, and he will fee how evidently convincing 'it is to "prove home our full Intent, tho without any Scripture. This is not direftly to our purpofe, but becaufe he fo earneftly begs it, and becaufe it's Jhort and demonftration too, we'll give it the reading. It's this. No ChnVch can i>e the true Infallible Ohtfrch, -and Decider of all Controverftes, which teacheth her felf to be fallible But every Church in the World but the Roman, -teacheth her felf to be fallible : wherefore (by evident Demonftration ) no other Church upon Earth can be infallible. So that the Demonftration depends upon ller own Declaration, and for the which there needs no other proof. But if this be Demonftration ; then fo is Fallacy and Self-conceit : and if this be evident De- monftration, then Folly, and Fancy, and Prefumption are Reafon in Perfection, As I fhall make good by a parallel Inftance. It's held by many that there is a Philofopher's Stone, which will by its fecret Power turn all Metals into Gold ; but may the Importer fay, there is no one befides my felf that faith they have this "Stone, therefore I that fay I have it, have it ; and all that own there is fitch a Stone, tho they have it not, are bound to believe that I have it. If this be an evident Demonftration for him, then all the Adefti, and that cite for Infallibility. ig^ that employ their Time, Labour, and Diligence in the queft of it, are to reft perfectly fatisfied in his In- tegrity, Sufficiency, and Skill, and to betake them- felves to him for Dire&ion. But we do not find that this will pafs for Demon (Ir at ion in this or any other cafe •■> and therefore he muft either find out fbme other Characters of Demonftration than what is yet underftood, or muft quit all pretence to Demonftra- tion. And if this be all the Proof the Church of Rome hath for its Infallibility, we have no more reafbn to believe it, than the Chymifts have to give Credit to every Enthufiaft or Impoftor. THE END. LONDON, Printed by J. D. for Rkhard Chifrvel at the Rofe and Crown in St. /W's Church-Yard, 1 688. ( is? ; The Texts examined which Papifis cite out of the Bible for the Proof of Their Doftrine CONCERNING The Worfhip of Angeh, and Saints departed. PART I. IMPRIMATUR. Apr. 16. 1688. Guil. Needham. CArdinal Bellarminey and other Romifh Authors, DeSana.Beat, in their Writings concerning the Worfhip of 1. i.e. 12. Angels and Saints, tell us, That as there are three forts of Excellencies, fb there are three forts of Worfhip due to them. The firft Excellency is that which is in God only, infinite and fupereminent above all ; to which is to be paid a Religious Worfhip, called Latria. The fecond is Humane or Natural, to be found in Men, and is fubdivided into feveral forts and degrees, according to the diverfity of its Objects, and degrees of their Worth, whether it be Prince, or Parent, or Ma- C c fter, I yo The Texts examined which Tapifts cite fter, or Prophet, or Philcfbpher, to which is to be paid a Civil Worfhip, called Cult us Civilis. The third is a middle fort of Excellency, betwixt Divine and Humane, to be found in Angels and glorifi- ed Saints, to which is to be paid an inferiour degree of Religious Worfhip, called Dulia: and becaufe the Virgin Mary was the Mother of our Lord, and far ex- cell'd all other Saints, as well in favour with God as in perfonal Vertues and Accompli fhments ; therefore to her is to be paid proportionably a higher degree of this fort of Worfhip, called Hyperdulia. The two firft of thefe the Reform d own and content to, but deny the laft, as having no Foundation in Scrip- ture, or Reafon, or true Antiquity. We worfhip God with all cur Hearts and Souls, with the profoundeit Veneration, with the mofr rais'd Af- fections, with the higheit degrees of Love and Fear, and Faith and Confidence, and that not only as he is a God of Infinite Perfections, but as he is our abfblute Lord and Soveraign, the Almighty Creator and all- wife Governour of all things. We give to Man too that Worfhip that is fuitable to his finite and created Worth and Excellency ; God having, for the Peace and order, and well-being of the World, conftituted Government in it, and made fbme the Minifters of his Providence in conferring his Bleffings on Mankind ; he hath alfb requir'd an Ho- mage or Worfhip to be done to them conformable to the Rank and Order they ffand in, and to that Charge and Power they are entrufted with. But we do not think our felves obiig'd to pay any Worfhip at all to Angels and Saints, as that Worfhip is difringuifhM from Honour and Efteem, and implies in it any Power and Dominion in them over us, or any Depen- for the Worflnp of Jngels, and Saints departed, \ holy Men, Mofes and Samuel, when they were on Earth 14- in the behalf of this People, to turn away his fierce Anger from them-, yet now the provocation was fb great, that if they were alive again, and did intercede for them, it fhould not avail, and he would not be in- treated for tU Worfhlf of Jngeh, and Saints departed. 197 treated for them. So St. Jerome and Theodora ex- pound them ; God [pake of Mofes and Samuel as tbo in locum, they were living in the World, and were in their former Sta- tion and Condition ; and fo they are explain d by that parallel place, Tho thefe three Men, Noah, Daniel *W Ezek. ,4< Job were in the Land, they jjjould deliver but their own Souls by their Right coufnefs , faith the Lord. The next Proof of theirs I fhall take notice of, is by way of Inference, and not exprefs in the Text : 'tis in Rev. 6.10. How long, 0 Lord, holy and true, dofi thou not judg and avenge our Blood on them that dwell on the Earth ? Now, fay they, if the Souls of Martyrs pray for Vengeance on their Perfecutors and Murde- rers, much more may we fuppoie them to pray for Mercy and Deliverance for their fellow-Members and Sufferers. But they certainly frame a very odd Notion in their Minds of the bleffed Saints above, who think them fb addicted to Revenge and Retaliation : Can they, who after the Example of their Lord, pray'd for their Enemies when they were on the Earth, and forgave their Murderers, be fuppos'd now they are in Heaven in a more perfect ftate, to pray for Judgment and Wrath upon them ? The words therefore are figura- tive, and by this Scheme of Speech is fignified unto us, not the Defires, and Wijhes, and Prayers, of the Saints for Vengeance on their Enemies, but only the certainty of the Divine Vengeance that would overtake them. By the Souls of the Slain crying under the Altar, is meant their Blood, and the Sin of furthering them \ and as it is faid that Abel's Blood cried for Vengeanee, fb the Sin of Gen. 4. io, fhedding their Blood cried, would certainly awake and provoke the JuhHce of God to take Vengeance on them for it. The Fathers Ribera and Viegas fo ex- D d plain t r> & The Texts examined which faftjls ate plain the Text ; and a PafTage in the Book of Efdras Chap. 2. i$. 8^ves farther lignt t0 lt 9 Behold the innocent and righte- ous Blood cryeth unto me, and the Souls of the jufi complain continually, and therefore faith the Lord, I will furely a- venge them. Another proof of theirs is from the corrupt read- ing of a Text, and not the true fenfe of it. 2 Pet. 1. 1 5. The words are, / am Jhortfy to go out of this Taber- nacle, as our Lord himfelf hath declared unto me, but I will endeavour that yon may be able after my Deceafe to. have thefe things always in remembrance. They read them, / will end favour after my Deceafe ', that is, lay they, by his Interceffion in Heaven for them. We read them, / will endeavour that ye may be able after my Deceafe ; that is, fay we, by his diligence in initruc~ting them while he was with them on Earth. This is the true reading and natural fenfe of the words ; St. Peter did not tell them what he would do for them when he was gone, but what fhould be his Endeavour for them whilft he was here, cwxfoc- mo ck iij irux&Ti '{\&v \>fjuxc, fj^k thv k/uulv tfo<$bv, not carx- &£ ht4t mre. Ey^^nejfes of h% Dumvitafup- Miracles. Was there any need this Expofition might petit, cajet. |^e confirm'd by their own Glofs, and many of their gument«mar* own Authors on the place : But Bellarmine himfelf be- cYkkns. Bell, ing not over-confident that this Text is for their turn, c* **■ I may venture to difmifs it without any farther Re- flections on it. From ' for the Worftip of Jngeh^ and Saints departed. \ Q 9 From a corrupted Text they proceed toAp>cryphal ones: 2 Maccab.15. '2, i$, 14. Th s was his Vifion, Onias who had been High-Pr/eft &C. prayd for the whole Body of the 'Jews : This done, there appeared a Man, &:c. Onia faid This is a Lover of the Brethren, who pr ay cth much for the People, and for the holy City, to wit, Jeremias the Prophet of God. Now that which I would obferve from this place ( befides that it was but a Dream of Judas Maccabeus, and the Book of no good Authority ) is, that we do not fiiid that Judas thereupon did either pray himfelf to them, or exhort the People to doit: but ver. 22. 6l ecled his Prayer to God alone ; Therefore in his Prayer he faid after this manner, 0 Lord thou didji fend thine Angel in the time of Hez.kiah ; and ver. 23. Wherefore now alfo ' ) Lord, of Heaven, fend a good Angel before m, for a Pear and Dread unto them. Aga;.fjt they cite out of the Apocrypha ', Baruch $ 4. Oh Lord Almighty, thou God of iirael, hear now the Prayers of the dead Ifraelites. From whence they ga- ther :aat the dead Ifraelites pray'd for the Living. Bu' thefe words may have another fenfe fairly put upon them. And, 1. By the dead Ifraelites may not be meant tho/e dead indeed, but whofe Condition was Cq dijlrejfed and defperate as every moment to threaten Death ; and then the Prayers of the dead Ifraelites, were only the Prayers of the Ifraelites that were ready to perifh. And for this the Verfe before gives it, We perifh utterly. Or, 2. By the Prayers of the dead Ifraelites may be meant the Prayers of their Ancient Worthies, which they, tho now dead, put up to God when they were alive; 10 wit, the Prayers of the Patriarchs and Pro- pria , when they were in the Body for the good Eftate of their Pofterity. Dd 2 But ioo 7he Texts examined which Tapifts cite But what thefe Texts fall fhort of, others may make up; In the 17? of T^cch. 12. an Angel is reprefented as interceding for the People of Ifrael. And the Angel of the Lord anftverd and [aid, 0 Lord of Holts, how long wilt thou not have Mercy on Jerufalem, and on the Cities of Judah, againft which thou haft had Indignation thefe three [core and ten Tears ? And yet by the Angel here Comment, in tne je£uit Ribera ccnfeiTes is meant Chrift, the only e ,c'7'v'1 * Advocate and IntercefTor in Heaven for his Church and People, and backs his Opinion with the Suffrage of feveral of the Fathers, St. Jerome, St. Ambrofe, Q- rigen and others. To which purpofe we may obferve Ch. $. vcr. 2. that this Angel is called the Lord. And he jherved me Jofhuah the High-Prie(l (landing before the Angel of the Lord, and Satan (landing at his Right-hand to refift him', and the Lord f aid unto Satan, The Lord rebuke thee, 0 Satan, even the Lord that hath chofen Jerufalem. We believe alio the Communion of Saint s, and there- C. 18. fore 'tis a Calumny that Bellarmine puts upon us, where he fays we deny it ; but we believe withal that that may be preferved betwixt the Church Trium- phant and Church Militant, without our praying to them, or their meriting for us. The Saints above and thofe here below make up but one Body, they differ only in Condition and Degree, they in Heaven, we upon Earth ; they in reft and Peace from all their Labours, we ftill beating it on the Waves ; they fet fafe out of the reach -of Sin and Folly, we frill ftrugling in the midft of Temptations ; but yet we are all of the fame Body : So fays the Apoftle, Heb. 12. 22; Te are come to Mount Sion, to the City of the Living ' God, the Heavenly Jerufalem, to an innumerable Com- pany of Angels, to the general Ajfembly and Church of the Firji- / for the Worflrip of Angels ^ and Saints departed. 201 Firfl-born which are written in Heaven, and to God the Judgof all, and to the Spirits of jnft Men made perfect, and to Jeftts the Mediator of the New Covenant. Now being of the fame Society with them, as we ought to honour their Memories, to imitate their Vertues, to c0°2^un'm blefs God for their Examples, to be encouraged by the hopes of that Salvation they now enjoy, and to pray for their perfect Confummation and Blifs both in Bmi1 cffict* Body and Soul in God's everlafling Glory \ fb no doubt do they bear a molt tender Affeftion to us, and have a hearty Concern for our good, and do what by the Laws of that invifible World they are permitted to do, efpecially by their earneft Prayers, mightily prevalent with God, to procure our Well-fare. Communion with the Saints in Heaven thus far we own, and it may be prov'd ; but that on this or any other account we are to worfhip them, we deny, and it can never be prov'd. However the feveral Texts cited by them to this pur- pofe I fhall examine in the following Heads. .II. Head. No proof from Scripture that Angels, and Saints above y have an umverfal knowledg of Men and their Conditions. Here the Champions for the Papacy are at a great lofs, and their Doctors difagree ; they can neither prove that the Saints have this Knowledg, nor fhew the way how they came by it ; they would feign put us off with May-be's and Poffibilities, they tell us this may be done, and that it may be done this way or that way^ but can prove nothing, as any unprejudie'd Perfon will perceive that con fiders the Texts they produce for it. - The firft and chiefeft is St. Luke 1 5. 7, 10. There is Joy .101 The Texts examined which Tapifts cite Joy m the Pre 'feme of the Angels over one Sinner that refenteth : From whence they argue that Aagels muft know when a Sinner repents, before they can rejayce at it ; and if they know that, why may they not know all other things concerning Men ? I anfwer ; It does not follow, that becaufe they know this one thing, they know any other, or all other things relating to Men : This we believe they know, becaufe our Saviour hath told us fb, but we have not the fame reafon to believe they have a general and univerfal Knowledg of Men, the Scripture being fir lent therein. Poflibly Angels may know when a Sinner repents thefe two ways. r. By Revelation from God ; knowing how much it would add to their Happinefs, and encreafe their Joy to fee their fellow- Creatures happy as well as them- felves ; God may be fuppos'd as ready by fuch an Infor- mation from time to time to augment their Felicity, as they are to contribute to and rejo; ce in the Felicity of Others ; and thisfeems well enough :o ag e with the Joy that the Woman in the Parable exprefi at the find- ing of her loft piece of Mony, fhe nocooly rejoyced her iklfy but call'd her Friends and Neigh L; irs toge- ther to rejoyce with her, Luk. 1 5.9. Rejoyee m e, faith fhe, for I have found the piece of Mony whio td loft : So may it be the good will of our Heavei ^ather, not only to take pleafure himfelf in the recov . y 0f a loft Sinner, but to communicate it to Angels :-.. I blefTed Spirits, that they alfb might enjoy the Sat. ,-£tion of fb agreeable and welcome Tidings. 2. By virtue of their Miniftry here be w for the good of thok that are Heirs of SalvaL' ,n. By ob- serving in Men the Signs and Fruits of true Repen- tance, ♦ ' for the Worfb'tf of Mgeh^ and Saints departed. 103 tance, they mav come to know when a Sinner is con- verted, and paffing always betwixt Heaven and Earth upon God's Errands and Embaflies (as 'twas represented to Jacob in his Divine Villon) thofe that afcend from - Earth may tell the joyful News of it to them in Heaven. Pofiibly, I fay, by thefe two ways, Angels may come to know when a Sinner repenteth : But then why may they not by the fame ways know all other things con- cerning Men ? Why, fuppofing that poffible too, yet there is this great difference betwixt them, viz. We are told by our Saviour that they do know the one, but we are not told that they know all the reft : And //Rom. 14. 29. what foe ver is not of Faith is Sin, we having no Foun- dation in Scripture to build our Faith on, that they have an univerfal Knowledg of Men and their Affairs, we muft of neceflity fin in believing it, or praying to them on that Suppofition ; and as there is no Revelation in Scripture that they have a general Knowledg of Men and their Affairs, as well as of their Repentance ; fb nei- ther is there the fame reafbn that they fhould ; God may reveal the one to them as a thing he knew would ad- minister to their farther Pleafure and Delight ; but for the fame reafbn they may be kept ignorant of other things, and God with-hold the knowledg of them from them, being fuch it may be (and be fure our Sins and Vanities are fuch ) as would redound more to their Trouble and Difcontent than Satisfaction. But did this Text prove, as you fee it does not, that thebleffed Angels have an univerfal Knowledg of Men and their Affairs, what's this to the Saints departed ? Thefe may be altogether ignorant of Men, whilft the other by virtue of their Miniftry on Earth may know many things concerning them. For this therefore they urge 204 71: e Texts examined which Papi/ls cite •urge Mat. 21. 20. That the Jujl at the ilefurretfionfljalt be as the Angels of God. Now this Argument labours under the lame weaknefs as the former \ as they prov'd Before, that the Angels know all things relating to Men, becaufe they know one thing, when a Sinner re- gents ; fo now they prove that the Saints in Heaven are like to the Angels in all things, becaufe they are like to them in one. It is apparent that our Saviour fpake of an equality in State and Priviledg, and not in Knowledg and Perfection of Nature. The Sadducees that denied the Refurreftion of the Dead, came to our Saviour and thought to juftify their Atheifm and Infi- delity, by putting a cafe to him, which they imagin'd would infer an unanfwerable Abfurdity, were it granted that there was a Refurre&ion. The cafe was this ; A Woman there was that had had feven Husbands in her life-time \ at the Refurre&ion, whole Wife fhall fhe be of them all, for all had her to wife ? To which our Saviour anfwer'd, fhe fhall be Wife to none of them ; for in that other World, there is no more Husband and Wife, marrying or giving in Marriage ; but Men are like Angels, that is, immortal as they, and fhali not need Matrimony to propagate their kind and to fupply their Mortality, for they fhall live for ever. They (ball be as the Angels of God ; not in every refpe£r, for as they differ in nature and kind, fo they fhall have diffincl: Natural Qualities and Operations ; but in -re- Ipec~t only of Blifs and Immortality. Befides, fuppofingthis Equality wasuniverfal in every iPoint, in Nature and Knowledg as well as Blifs and Hap- pinefs, the Saints were not to have it till the Refurre&i- on. So it's faid, At the Refurretlion the Juft, &c. And does it follow from hence that the Saints are now what they fhall be then ; that becaufe at the Pvefurre£tion they fhall for the Worfhip of Angels y and Saints departed. 205 fhall be as the Angels, they are before the Refurre&i- on as the Angels. This Equality with the Angels then will not do ; Have they any more direQ: Proof ? They think they have from our Saviour's words, John 5.45. Do not think that I will dccttfe yon to the Father, there is one, that accafeth you, even Moles, in whom ye truft. But how, fay they, can Mofes, dead 2000 Years ago, accufe thofe that were then living, if Mofes did not know what paft here on Earth ? I reply, very well, if by Mofes be meant ( as it is in many other Scriptures) the Writings or Books of Mofes. So Mofes and the Prophets fignify, where Abram thus fpeaks to Dives in Hell, They have Mofes and the Luke 16. ??. Prophet ; Not Mofes and the Prophets in the Flefli, they being dead fb long before, but Mofes and the Pro- phets in their Do&rine. For the Confirmation of this . Expofition I might give you the Judgment of the Fa- adn|0JJJ ^lf* thers, but 'twill be more than enough to fet down c 4. Cardinal Cajetans words on the place : The Jews are ^ J sPir- accused by Mofes, for that Mofes'^ Writings condemn cyril'in Jo'h. them for not believing in Jefus ', The Jews alfo are faid '■ 3« c- &• to truft in Mofes, becaufe they trufled in the Promifes contain d in Mofes' s Writings, tho they . would not ac- knowledg the Accomplifhment of them in Chrijl. The Scribes and Pharifees in the beginning of the Chapter take occafion from our Saviour's curing a lame Man on the Sabbath Day, to rail at him as a Sabbath- breaker and Impoftor. To which he anfwer'd, pro- ving by many Arguments that he was the Son of God, and commiflion'd by him to reform and to fave the Worlds t0 this purpofe he appeals to the Teftimony of John, ch. 5.32, 3 3. to the Miracies he wrought, ver. 36, 37. andlaft of all, to their own Law, the Writings of Mofes and the Prophets, which they feem'd fo highly E e to io 6 Tb* Tex*5 examined which Papifts cite to prize and fb much to depend upon, ver. 59. Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal Life, and they are they which tejitfy of me : And then tells them, that if after all this they did not own and believeon him, there was no need that he jhould accufe them to the Fa- ther, Mofes, that is, the Writings of Mofes and the . Prophets would rife up in Judgment againft them and condemn them ; for in not believing on him they de- clared they did as little believe what Mofes had wrote, fince he wrote of him, and therefore notwithstanding their high pretences of Faith and Zeal for Mofes and the Prophets, they were Infidels as well to the Law as to the Gofpel, and threw as much Dirt and Contempt on their Writings as on his Words, ver. 45, 46, 47. Do not think that I will accufe you to the father : there is one that accufeth you, even Mofes, in whom ye trufi. For had ye be- lieved Mofes, ye would have believed me : for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his Writings, how fhallye believe my words ? Another Text they alledg in defence of this DccTrine, is Rev.12.10, And 1 heard a loud Voice faying in Heaven, The Accufer of our Brethren is cafi down, who accufeth them before God day and night. Now, fay they, the Devils can't accufe Men, but they muff firfi: know for what ; and if the Devils know the Actions of Men, can we for fliame deny it to Saints and Angels ? To this two things may be return'd. 1. That by the War in Heaven and the fuccefs of it, mention'd in thefe Verfes form the jth to the nth, betwixt Michael and his Angels on the one fide, and the Dragon and his Angels on the other, may be reprefented the Conflict betwixt the Primitive Church and the Pagan Empe- rors 1 the good and bad Angels after an invifible man- ner, taking their refpe&ive fides, and oppofing each other ; ' ' for the Worfhip of Jngels, and Saints departed, 10 J other ; and then by the Accufation the Devil is conti- nually prei- 1 • ig of the Brethren before God, may be Ggnihed the wicked Calumnies and abominable Slanders of Incefts, Adukeries, promilcuous Lufts, Murders,, Confpiracies againft Princes, and the like, that the In- fidels, by the Devil's Inftigation and Malice, rais'd a- gainlf the Christians before the Emperor, and others the fubordinate Governours of Provinces. 2. Tho it be granted that the Devil knows the Actions of Men, it does not follow that the Saints and Angels muft do fb too ; he being a little nearer to Men on Earth than Angels and Saints in Heaven are ; He is called the Prince of the Power of the Jir7 and is confm'd to this lower p * *' 2' Region, and therefore is often fb near as to lee and hear Men,tho he is invifible himfelf ; hence he is f aid to go up and, down like a roaring hi on, feeking whom he mj,y devour. 1 Pet. 4. 3. And when in the Book of Job lie is reprelented as com- ing before God to accufe and be-lie Job, and is asked by God, Whence comefi thou ? he thus anfwered, from going to and fro in the Earthy and from talking up and down in it. Now one would think that their Proofs run low, and their Caufe is gafping, >vhen they fly to a Parable to fupport it, and yet this they do and lay great ftrefs upon it. It is that of Dives and Lazarus, Luke 16. from the 1 yth to the 3 ij{ Verfe. They tell us that Abrxham heard Dives calling to him out of Hell, that he knew very well what a :en(ual Luxurious Life he had Jiv'd on Earth, ver. 24, Zff. Dives cried, and faid, Father Abraham have Mercy on me, &c. - — And Abra- ham faid, Son, remember that thou in thy life-time re- ceivedft thy good things. Nay, ihat Dives m Hell knew what wa^ the Condition of his Brethren on Earth, and the great danger they were in, and was fo much con- E e 2 cern'd 2o8 The Texts examined which Papifls cite cern'd for their Welfare as to befeech Abraham to fend or procure them a MefTenger from the dead to per- fwadethemto repent, vcr. 28. J pray thee therefore, Fa- t her ', that thou wouldfl fend him to my Father's Houfe,for I have five Brethren, that he may tejlify unto them, lefl they aljo come into thu place of torment : Is there not now as much Charity in Heaven as in Hell ? And may not the blefTed Spirits above be fuppofed to be as much concerned, and as ready to forward the Repentance and Salvation of their Brethren as the Damned beneath ? Here two things are to be confider'd : 1. That this in all probability is a Parable, and fb t, is not to be ftretch'd too far, nor an Argument to be drawn from every Particular and Circumftance in it : The proper ufe of Parables is rather to illuftrate than prove ; and if they conclude as to any thing, 'tis that only which is the main (cope and defign of them : Now what our Saviour principally defign'd in this, is very obvious to any one that reads it; it could be no other than to fhew that there remains no Mercy, no hopes of Salvation in the other World, no, not fb much as a mitigation of Torments, and that no new Revela- tion or Miracle is to be expected thence for the Convi- ction of thofe obftinate Wretches, who would not be wrought upon by the means of Grace they have al- ready ; and therefore is not to be driven any farther. 2. But if they will argue from it as a real Hiftory, (which muft be confeft was the Opinion of fbme of the Fathers ) it proves too much, and more than they would have it, and fb nothing at all. As, (1.) That a Spirit may have Parts and Mem- bers, fince Tongues y and Eyes, and Fingers 'are alcrib'd to Dives and Lazarus in the other World before the Refurre&ion. (2.) That for the Wor/hip of Jngels, and Saints departed. 1 oo, (2.) That the Saints in Heaven have not only a knowledg of our State and Condition, but that they have this knowledg by their own natural Power, that they fee and hear us as Abraham did Dives ; for fince Dives faw and heard Abraham as well as Abraham Dives, it could not be by a fupernatural Gift, unlets we can think the Damn'd in Hell alio capable of it. ($.) Whereas it's faid,Why may not the Saints know what's done here on Earth as well as Abraham knew what manner of Life Dives led when he was there ? I anfwer, Abraham might be inform'd of this by La- zarus that lay in his Bofbm, who had been contempo- rary with Dives on Earth, and an Eye-witnels of it ; , now becaufe Abraham knew what was the Converfati- * on of one Man on Earth, muft the Saints in Heaven have a general and univerlal knowledg of all Men up- on it ? And becaufe Abraham hilgrit have this by parti- cular Information from" Lazarus, may the Saints come by it without any Information that we know of? (4.) Whereas it's faid alio that Dives knew the num- ber and condition of his Brethren, and fhall we deny that priviledg to the Saints, that is in fbme manner granted to damned Spirits ? I anfwer, it might not be long fince Dives had left this World and the Society of his Brethren, and fo might well remember them and what their condition was ; and if from hence they ar- gue that the Saints in Heaven retain the knowledg of their particular Friends and Brethren they left behind in this Valley of Tears, and remembring their Wants and Dangers intercede for them at the Throne of Grace, I fhall not need to oppofe it, it being not to the purpofe ; but that the Saints in Heaven fhould have an univerfal knowledg of Men, whom and whole condition they never knew, havin? left this World many hundreds o£ Years 1 1 o The Texts examined which Tapifls cite Years before they came into it, becaufe Dives in Hell knew the State of his Brethren, with whom he had liv'd on Earth and was not for any long time parted from them, is very ftrange reafoning, and what cannot be granted. (5.) Again, whereas they fay, that Dives in Hell had fo much Companion for his Brethren, as to endea- vour and leek means to prevent their Damnation, and fhall we think the Saints in Heaven have lefs charity for their Brethren, and are lefs concerned for their Salvati- on ? I anfwer, No. We believe the Saints have a moft tender Love and Concern for us ; but we do not be- lieve this for the fake of any Argument drawn from the Example of damn'd Spirits ; ior we think they have no Charity at all, but being in Hell, are wholly of a hellifh Temper, made up purely of Malice, and Envy, and Spite, without the leaft fpark of Love or Pity, doing what Mifchief they can, and defirous to do more than they can, but having a fenecT: hatred to every thing that's good, or that has the leaft tendency towards it. And therefore Malionate thinks that the reafbn why Dives was fo earneft to have a Preacher of Repentance fent to his Brethren, ivas not fo much out of Charity to them as Love to himfeif ; not fo much to prevent their Mifory, as for fear of increafing his own, if by the wicked Example he had given them, they alfo fhould come to that place of Torment. Cardinal Cajetan gives another reafon for it, but lefs probable ; that Dives defir'd it out of Pride and Ambition, for the Glory and Exaltation of his Family; having difoover'd fuch glorious things in Heaven that Abraham and La- zarus enjoy'd above what this lower World could boaft of, he defrVd his Brethren might rife to the PofTeffion of them, more to fatisfy his proud and ambitious Hu- mour ' for the Worfk'ty of Angels , and Saints departed. i \ i mour than prompted to it by any compaflionate and charitable Difpofition. The laft thing to be confider'd is a PafTage in the Old Teftament, which the Catholick Scripturifi calls p a Referve, as what he moll depended upon ; he thus age 33 '* delivers himfelf, Eli as departed out of this Life the 18th Tear of Kjng Jehofaphat, 2 Kjngs 2. 11. Now Jeho- phat reign d 2 5 Tears, 2 Chron. 20. 3 1 . So that feven Tears of JeholophatV Reign pafsd after the departure of Elias. Then Joram his Son reign d for him, 2 Chron. 21.12. After fome time of this JoramV Reign, there came a Writing to him from Elias the Prophet, faying, Thus faith the Lord, becaufe thou haft not walked in the ways of Jehofaphat thy father, &-c. and then he tells him many particular Acts of his, all done after Elias was dead. Elias therefore being departed^knew what pafs'dy andfbew'd great Care to help God's People, his Brethren^ in writing after his departure this Letter. This is his Argument from thefe Texts, and 'twas Bellarmine\ and others of their Doctors before him. Againlt it I might, 1. Set the Opinions of other of their Learned Men, that are contrary to this ; As, that 'twas not Elijah the Tifhbite, but fome other of that name that lent this Writing, fo Cajetan. That 'twas Eli/ha the Prophet under the name of Elijah, who fucceeding him in his Office, and being poifeit with his Spirit, might, as John the Baptift afterwards, be call'd by his Name, 16 Vatablus : That Elijah by way of Prophecy wrote this Letter before he was tranflated, and left it with Elijha, or fome other good Man to have it conveyed to Joram. So a Man of God prophefied of Jofiah by Name long before he was born ; 1 Kjngs 13. 2. So did Jfaiah of Cyrus, If a. 45. 1. and fb might Elijah of Joram ; forefeeing by the Spirit of Prophecy the 211 The Texts examined which Papifts cite the abominable WickednefTes that he would commit, and withal that the fierce and wicked Temper of his Mind would not admit any living Prophet to come before him, wrote this Letter before he left the World, to reprove him for his Crimes, and fore-tell his Doom. But waving thefe, I doubt not, 2. but to make it appear, that Elijah was alive here on Earth when Jo- ram was guilty of thefe Murders and Outrages. For it's very plain that Joram was made Viceroy twice in his Father's life-time, after the laft of which he never refign'd the Crown back to his Father : The firft was about the 17th Year of Jehofaphat his Father, on the occafion of his going with Jhab King of Jfrael to a/lift him in his War againft Ramoth Gilead, this is men- tion'd 2 Kjngs 1. 17. The fecond about the 22^ Year of Jehofaphat on a like occafion, when at the Sollicitati- on of Jehoram King of Ifrael he went with him to fight againft Moab : Then again he fets his Son Joram in the Throne, 2 Kjngs 8. 16. In the fifth Tear of Jehoram the Son of Ahab King of Ifrael, Jehofaphat being then Kjng of Judah, Jehoram the Son of Jehofaphat began to reign. Now here it was that Joram in his Father's abfence, thinking thereby to eitablifh himfelf in the Throne, began his Reign with the barbarous {laughter of his Brethren and Princes of Judah ; for it is apparent that Joram 's eight Years Reign, 2 Qhron. 21.5. began here, rorafmuch as they are faid to end with Jehoram King of Ifraefs twelth Year, 2 Kjngs 8. 25. It being the yh of Jehoram that he was made King by his Father, and the 11th of Jehoram when he died, his Reign mull be reckon'd to begin at that time. Now that this was done before Elijah the. Prophet was tranflated, appears, in that Elifhah was but newly come from being an Eye- witnefs of his Matter's Tranflation, when by a Miracle he ' fortleWorjliipof Angels, and Saints departed. 21 j he reliev'd the Army of the three Kings in Moth, who were ready to perifh for want of Water, 2 Kjng. \.\\, and that that could i;ot be till feme con fiderable time af- ter Joram was appointed Vice-R( y by his Father. So that it fhould feem when Jehofapbat firft fee out for the War with the other two Kings, Elijah was on the Earth, and hearing of Kingjoram's Cruelties, writes this Let- ter to him, and immediately after was taken up in a Whirlwind. Thus the Cruelties Joram a&ed, and the Letter Elijah wrote to him on that occafion, were done in the Interval betwixt Jebofaphafs making him Vice- Roy, and the Armies wanting Water. But Jehofapbat made his Son Joram King in the 5//? of Jehoram King of Jfrael, 2 Kjngs 8. 16. And Jehoram King of Jfrael be- gan his Reign in the i$tb Year of Jehofapbat, 2 Kings 3. 1. So that Jor am was made King by Jehofapbat his Father about the iidot his Reign, and if Elijah remai- ned on Earth to fee or hear of the Wickednefs oi Joram, he could not be tranflated, till alfo about the 2 2d of Je- hofapbat ', but the Author of the Catholick Scripturifi lays, it was in the i8f/>Year of Jehofapbat, and cites for it 2 Kjngs 2. 11. I anfvver, the Catholick Scripturifi fays fb, but impofes on the Reader, the Text faying no fuch thing ; it names no time, but only relates matter of^ Fa£r. : And it came to pafs as they fill went on and talked, that behold there appear d a Chariot of Fire, and the Horfe- mtn thereof ', and he faw him no more, and he took hold of his own C loathes , and rent them in two pieces. But as little proof as they have that the Saints above have an univerfal knowledg of us and our Condition, they will yet be naming the way and means whereby they come to have it. The beft of it is, they are all but Porfibilities grounded on the Power of God, which we F f are 1 1 4 *^e ^**t5 MAmhied which Tapifts cite are far from denying, but fay in Anfwer to them, that it does not follow, that God does do it becaufe he can do it ; efpecially when they cannot prove that God does do it, and we can that he does it not. Four ways they lay down whereby the Saints may come to the knowledg of Men and their Conditions. b i. By Information from the Angels ; and for this they Angelis, qui— make ufe of St. Aiijlins Authority ; but what does St. & audire ali- JHflin fay ? Why, only that it is poffible they may hear DeC^Fo* [°m^hing from Angelical Revelation. But, i. it is yet more. c. 15. to be prov'd that the Angels themfelves have by virtue of their Miniftry here on Earth, or any other way, fiich an univerfal knowledg of us, as to be able to inform the Saints as to every particular and circumftance of our State. 2. This fpoils their Argument taken from the equality of the Saints with the Angels ; for if they have it undefciunt at fecond-hand from the Angels, they are in this parti- Angdiconver- cular inferior to them from whence they had it. 3 . This fionempecca- overthrows alfo their other Argument that the Saints un^Satla^no" hear our Prayers after the fame manner, that the Angels ftras praeres. know the Repentance of a Sinner •, for it feems the Saints Beli. c. 20. know our Prayers from the report of the Angels, but Angels the Converfion of a Sinner, by being converfant #amongft Men, and obferving the Change. 4. The An- gels by. virtue of their Miniftry here on Earth cannot DeSan&.Beat. know t^le Hearts °f Men and their moftfecret Defires, 1. 20. ' and therefore Bellarmine rejects this way as infufKcient. The Angels cannot acquaint the Saints with what they know not themfelves, and yet every Prayer that is put up to them, fuppofes they do know them, uhlefs we can think they efpoufe the Caufe and Requeft of their Vota- ries at random, whether they are fincere or no. Nay, we are taught by the Council of Trent to put up not on- ly • for the Worjhlp of Jngels, and Saints departed. 2 1 5 ly vocal but mental Prayers to them, that is, Prayers without Words or fpeech, only in the lecret Thoughts of our Souls ; and this neceffarily fuppofes they know our Thoughts and our Hearts, contrary to the exprefs words of Scripture ; He, even be knows all the Hearts of the Children of Men, 1 Kings 8.39. 'TW he that feeth in fecret, Mat. 6. 4. God challengeth it as peculiar to him- fdf, Jer. 17.9, 10. I the Lord fearch the Heart, and try the Retns. No Man can know the thoughts of a Man's Heart, but the Man whole Thoughts they are,unlefs God himfelfjwho made and fafhion'd the Heart of Man, and is intimior, as the Schools fpeak, nearer to Man than Man can be tohimfelf. 1 Cor. 2. 11. For what Man knoweth the things of Man, fave the Spirit of Man which is in him ? 2. By a certain kind of unconceivable Swiftnefs of motion, wherewith the Angelical Order may be endow- ed, and glorified Saints alfb being made equal unto them. But, 1. This Equality betwixt the Saints and Angels in all particulars was difproy'd before. 2. Bel- larmine himfelf confefTes that this celerity of motion is not fufficient, but that to the hearing of Prayers put up at the fame time in far diftant Places, 'tis requifite that jj^* fj"A" the Angels and Saints fhould be prefent at the fame time in every place. The Angels" and Saints have a certain Ubiquity and Omniprefence belonging. to them, or they have not ; If they have not, 'tis confels'd they cannot hear the Prayers of Men ; if they fay they have, they attribute that Perfection to them, which their own Au- thors own to be above the condition of a Creature, and Bel1' eod* Ioc* the Scripture plainly tells us is God's peculiar, Pfal. 1^9. 7, 8, 9, 1 o. Whither {hall I go from thy Spirit, or whither JhaH I fee from thy Prefence ? If Iafcend up into Heaven, thou art there J- if Imake my Bed in Hell, behold thou art F f 2 there ; 2 1 6 Tlie Texts examined which Tapijts cite there ; // I take the Wings of the Morning and dwell in the uttermoH parts of the Sea, even there {ball thy Hand lead me, and thy right Hand jhall hold me. 3. By the Glaft of the Deity, wherein all things are reprefented to their view that are in God. They fee all things, by beholding him who fees all things. But how then came the blefled Angels, who always behold the Face of God in Glory, to be ignorant of the great Work of Man's Redemption, till it was made known to them by the Church? i Pet. 1. 12. How came they alio to be ignorant of the Bay of Judgment ? Is not the Day yet pitched upon by God ? Does not God himfelf know it ? Or do not they always live in the Pretence of God, and ftand about his Throne ? Tet, fays our Saviour, Of that Day and Hour knoweth no Man, no not the Angels in Heaven , but the Father only, Mat. 24.36. Nay, does not our Saviour let us know, that he himfelf as Man, tho his Humanity was hypoftatically united to the Divinity, did not know it ? Neither the Son, but the Father, Luk. Eftenimfpe- 1^ ^2. Accordingly their own Authors tell us, That Sriam^ Bid! this Gtafs ** not A neceffary or natural Glafs, but voluntary, non poteft in not naturally and neceffarily exhibiting to their fight all iP"f°ftdvel X- things that are in God, for then the Creature would compre- ravclpauciora hen d God, and his Kjiowledg be infnite like hu, but only Thom. Aq. pa. in t}jat degree, and as to fuch things as God pleafes. . But i^q.12. Artie. kQw t|ien are we tQ know wjiat t{iey Jq j£e -n -^ anj what they do not? To what particulars their Knowledg extends, and of what they are ignorant? And. unlefs we did know this, with what doubts and uncertainties muft we put up our Prayers to them ? 4. By Revelation from God. And by this means in- deed the Saints in Heaven may come to know our Pray- ers and our Hearts too: God can if he pleales reveai hoth ■ for the Worjhip of Angels y and Saints departed, 2 1 j both to them. But how do they know God does or will at all times doit, when Prayers vocal or mental are put up to them ? It is not enough that God can do it, unlefs a Promife can be produc'd that he will. He can tell my Friend at Rome what I fay in London : but I do not therefore believe he does do it. This Belkrmine tells us is the manifeft Opinion of S. Auflin, whereas S. Auftin mentions it only as a probable way amongft others, and Au^Xnf Sen- as to fame things only : But if this was S. Auftin s Opini- tcntia. on, it feems it was not his ; he confefTes it is the fitteft l'oflJ!nt sPir> a tt • 1 • 1 1 j tus, aliqua fpi- Argument to convince Hereticks with, but dares not un- rim Dei reve- dertake for the Reafbnablenefs of it, unlefs the Church lante> «>gnof~ ordered, or at leaft gave leave, that before Prayers are at pr^Mortf Ur° any time put up to the Saints, God be invok'd to reveal and make known thofe Prayers to them ; his words are . thefe, If the Saints need a new Revelation every time they fe nova revela- are prayd to, the Church were too bold to addrefs to the "one &c de Saints to pray for thety, before they had addrefs U to God to S™^\*™' **" reveal their Prayers to the Saints. But has not God many times reveafd fecret things to his Servants the Prophets ? enabl'd them to know the Hearts of Men, and foretel future Events ? How came Samuel to know who Saul was,that he had never feen be- fore ? How came St. Peter to know how much Ananias and Sapphira fold the Land for, when they had conceafd the true price ? Haw came Elijha the Prophet to know what paft between his Servant Gehazi and Naaman at a great diftance from him ? How came the fame Prophet to tell the Kjng of Ifrael all that the Kjng of Sy ria did m his Bed chamber , had not God reveafd thefe things to them ? And why may he not as well reveal to holy Spl* rits in Heaven things that are done on Earth ? Ay, but it is ftill why may he not ? We want proof that he does. Be* ll 8 The Texts examined which Vapifts cite Befides, does it follow, that becaufe he reveaPd fbme things to his Prophets on Earth, he nowrevealsall things to his Saints in Heaven ? That becaufe he reveal'd fbme things to his Prophets on Earth for the greater Confir- mation of their Authority, and promoting the Service of God they were fent about, he muft now make fuch Revelations to them in Heaven, now the bufinefs of their Vocation is over, and they have no need of fiich Confir- mation ? Again, this is fo far from being an Argument that God reveals to Saints in Heaven all things relating to us and our State, that it is an Argument that he does not do it. For whilft he reveal'd fome things to Elifha, he kept others hid from him, and tho he acquainted him with the Wickednefs ofGebazi, he did not acquaint him with the Death of the Shunamite\ Son ; 2 Kjngs 2. 4, 27. Her Soul is vexed within hery and the Lord hath hid it from me j and hath not told me. To all this we may add, That as God has no where told us, that he does make known to blefTed Spirits the Learts and Requeftsof Men, fb he has in erfecl: told us that he does not ; elfe how could it be laid of the good King Jojiah, Thou {halt be gathered to thy Grave in Peace, neither Jhall thy Eyes fee the Evil I will bring upon this Place? 2 Kings 22.20. The dead know not any thing, thai is, of the Affairs of this World, fays the Preacher, Eccl. 9.5. Hti Sons come to Honour, and he knoweth it not, and they are brought low, and he perceiveth it not of them, fays Job of Man in the other State, ch. 14. 21. When Eli- jah was to be taken up into Heaven, he thus fpake to Elijha, Ask what thou wilt, before I am taken from thee, 2 Kings 2.9. ftrongly implying that when he was once gone, it was in vain to ask any thing of him, for could he have heard his Requefts in the other State, his capa- city ' for the IVorJhip of Angels , and Saints departed. i i 9 city to gratify him muft needs have been as great as it was here, being no lefs dear to God, and in his favour. St. Aufitn makes life of two Texts more to this pur- pofe ; When my Father and Mother for fake me, the Lord m^tC".r',P^° taketh me up, Pfal. 27. 10. From whence he argues, that if our Parents forlake us in Death, how can they know or be interefted in our affairs after Death ? And if our Parents then have no knowledg of us, who amongft the Dead befides, can we imagine fhould ? But if this Text fhould be thought not fo pertinently applied ; the other is more without exception, If a. 63. 16. Thou art our Father, tho Abraham be ignorant of w, and Ifrael ac- knowledg m not. From whence he concludes that if lb great and famous Patriarchs as Abraham and Ifaac did not underftand how the World went with their Pofteri- ty after they were dead, why fhould we think that the Dead are in any Condition to adminifter Relief and Help to their furviving Friends ? III. Head. No proof from Scripture that Angels and Saints departed are entrujled with the Care and Government of the World under God. Bellarmine tells us, That the Saints above are fet over the Church, that they are Gods by Participation, that they Prxpofiti Eo are commijjion d by God to take care of this lower World. cIef\I?li Per And thefe he endeavours to prove, 1. from Texts that rST'curam denote the Miniftry of Angels in general. 2. From §ei*re rerum Texts that denote the particular Miniftry of Angels 0- BeaJ.'sa^f. ver particular Perfons. 3. From Texts that denote the 1. c20.de cult' Miniftry of Angels over particular Provinces and King- L 3' c'9' doms. . no T1>e Texts examined which Tapiftf cite doms. 4. From Texts that relate to us the appearance of fbme Saints after they were dead. 5. From fbme metaphorical Expreflions the Scripture makes ufe of to difplay the Glory and Happinefs the Saints fhall have in Heaven. 1. From Texts that denote the Minifrry of Angels in general. The Apoftle tells us, Heb. 1. 14. Are they not all ntiniftring Spirits, fent forth to minifter unto them that (hall be Heirs of Salvation ? And, (ays the Pfalmift^ Pf. 9 1 . 1 1 . He fljall give his Angels charge over thee to keep thee in all thy Ways. But thefe Texts only fhew that the Angels in general do by the Command and Direction of God minifter to good Men, efpecially in times of Danger and Diftrefs ; but that this their Miniftry is a furlicient Foundation to worfhip them, does not at all appear from the Texts, but rather the contrary ; for in Pf. 91 . 1 5. the Prophet, immediately after he had mention'd the Protection and Safeguard God affords his Servants by the Miniftry of Angels, fubjoins a Direction to whom we fhould apply for that Protection, and he does not fend us to the An- gels, who are but God's Minifters?^ do his pleafure, but to God himfelf, their Lord and ours, and of the whole Creation, who gives it them in charge, not fay- ing, if he calls upon them, they will fuccour him, Bra he {ball call upon me, and I will anfwer him, I will be with him in trouble, I will deliver him, and bring him to Ho- nour. 2. From Texts that feem to intimate fbmething con- cerning Guardian Angels over particular Perfons. The chiefeftare, Dan. 10. 13. Michael one of the chief Prin- ces came to help me : and ver. 21. And there is none, that holdeth with me in thefe things but Michael your Prime. . Mat. for the Worfhip of Jngeh, and Saints departed. Mat. 1 8. i o. Take heed that ye offend not one ofohefe little ones ; [or I fay unto yon, that their Angels do always behold the Face of my Father which is in Heaven. A£b 12. 1 ?. St. Peter knocking at the door, they faid, it is his Angel. And before, from ver. 7 to 12. Now I know of a furety, fays the A pottle, that the Lord hath fent his Angel, and hath deliver d me. Now, (1.) fromhence it does not follow that all Men in the World, whether Jews or Turks or wicked Chrijli- ans, have a particular Angel appointed by God to attend on them from the firft to the laft Day of their Lives, as is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, but only the number ; of good Men. Nor, (2.) That good Men have always one and the fame An^elto be their Guardian, but that God may appoint now one or more, and at another time others. Nor, (3.) That this Attendance and Miniftry of theirs is conlfant and uninterrupted, but only on fbme fpecial occafions, in times of Danger, whether Spiritual or Temporal, of Sin or Suffering. Nor, (4.) Taking it for granted, that every good Man has a particular Angel appointed by God as his Guardi- an, does it follow that he does any thing of himfelf, but all things by his Direction and over-ruling Hand, who order'd him to that particular .Service ? 3. From Texts that feem to intimate that God has {et particular Angels over particular Countries and Pro- vinces to govern and defend them. Thefe are chiefly two •, Dan. 10. 20, 21. where mention is made of the Prince of Perfia, and the Prince of Grsecia, and Mi- chael the Prince of God's People. The other is Dent. ' 32. 8. which fome of the Church of Rome would have to be read thus, When the Mojl High divided the Nations, G g when 111 11i The Texts examined which Tajfijls cite - when he feparated the Sons of Adam, he fet the Bounds of the People according to thejiiimber of the Angels of God : HJX &£/0/xov vfi 'Ayyihov otS. To the firft of thefe it will be enough to fay, that this was a Vifion of the Prophets, and that there is no more reafbn to build an Article of Faith on every Cir- cumfbnce in it, than on thofe in a Parable ; we may as well conclude that the touch of an Angel is necefc fary to the infpiring of a Prophet, be caufe it was fb done to Daniel, ver. 10. or that it is in the Power of an evil Angel to hinder a good Angel in the executing his Of- fice God had appointed him to, becaufe, (ver. i $.) it's laid, that a good Angel, fent by God to comfort Daniel, was withftood by an evil one, one and twenty Days ; as that all the Kingdoms of the World have a particular Guardian Angel to prefide over them, becaufe here is mention made of the Princes of Perfia, and Graecia, and of God's People. Not here to difpute, whether by the Princes of Gr&cia and Perfia are meant Angels, or the Kjngs of thofe Countries, or if Angels be meant, whether they were good or bad ; or whether by Michael be meant a meer Angel, or Chrift. The moft that can be gathered from them is, not that thofe Angels were commiflion'd by God to have under them the fettled Government of thofe Countries, but that God thought fit to fend them at that time on that particular Em- ployment. To the other Text in Deuteronomy, I fhall only ob- ferve, that it is a corrupt reading of the Text according to the LXX. who, as it fhould feem, were infe&ed with the Heathen Doctrine of Damons governing the World under the fupreme Gotf, and that the. Hebrew Text . for the Worfbtf of Angels y and Saints departed, 123 Text has them as we tranflate, He fet the bounds of the People according to the number of the Children of Ifrael. 4. From Texts that fhew, that Saints departed have afterwards appear'd on the Earth. So they tell us, Mofes and Elias were lent to attend on Chrift at his Transfiguration on Mount Tabor, and many others ap- pear'd at his Refure&ion ; and why may not they and other Saints be employed by God in other Ser- vices and Miniftries on Earth for the good of his Church? Mat. 17. 3. There appeared unto them Mofes and Elias talking with him. Mat. 27. 52. And the Graves were opened, and many Bodies of the Saints which flept, arofe, and came out of the Graves after his Re- fttrreclion, and went into the Holy City, and appear'd unto many. Yes, God may do this if he pleafes, but they are to prove that he ordinarily does do it. Thefe were lin- gular and extraordinary Difpenfations, and no general Conclufion can be drawn from one or two particular Inftances, that becaufe God once or twice employed Saints departed on a fpecial occafion, he frequently and ordinarily employ's them on all Occafions. God may, if he thinks fit, difpenfe with or empower one or more of that heavenly Body in fbme certain Cafes and Times, to minifter to fbme Affairs and fbme Men ; but on this cannot be rais'd an Article of Faith, that the Souls of the Righteous are ufually converfant a- mongft Men, and have die Cuftody of them committed to their Care. 5. From Texts wherein the excelling Glory and Hap- G g 2 pinels 2i4 1^e Texts examined which Tapifts cite pinefs of the Apoftles and other eminent Saints at the day of Judgment, is lively fet forth by high and fiiita- ble Metaphors : Such are Rev. 2. 26. He 'that jhall over- come} and keep my Works unto the end, to him will I give Power over the Nations, and he jhall rule them with a Rod of Iron, and as a Veffel of the Potter they jjjall be broken. I do not think thefe words are to be meant of that miraculous Power and Spirit God gave the Apoftles and firft Bifhops of the Church, wherewith they were en- abled to convert the Heathen World, and bring them over to Chriftianity, as fome Learned Men have ex- pounded them : But as thofe words,- He that jhall keep my Works to the end, limit the fenfe as to place, to the 0- ther World, and the Glory and Happinefs thole faith- ful Servants of Chrift fhall partake of in Heaven ; fb thofe other that follow, and he jfjall rule them with a Rod of Irony and as Vejfels of the Potter they Jhall be broken tofhivcrs, limit it as to Time, and fhew that they are not to enter upon this part of their Glory till the Re- furre£t-ion, when they fhall come with Chrift to judg the World,and condemn the wicked. And becaufe the Saints, as Members of Chrift their Head, and Atten-" dants on his Throne, fhall partake of his Splendor and Majefty, when he appears with them to judg the World ; therefore is that Judgment he fhall then exer- cife over all Mankind, and the dreadful Sentence he fhall then denounce againft the Ungodly, in fome fenfe attributed to them ; They fhall judg the Nations, and have Dominion over the People, and their Lord [hall reign for ever : Wifci.5.8. TV that have followed me in the Re- generation^ when the Son of Man jhall fit on the Throne of for the Worjh'i]) of Angels, and Saints departed. 115 of his Glory, ye alfo jhall Jit upon twelve Thrones, judg- ing the trvehe Tribes of Ifrael: Mat. 19. 28. Kjaow ye not that the Saints [hall judg the World.? 1 Cor. 6. 2. He cometh with ten thoufand of his Saints to execute Judgment on all, and to convince all of their ungodly Deeds. Jude, ver. 14, 15. But Bellarmine tells us that the Iron Rod does not here fignify a Judicial, but only a Paftoral Rod ; and ib the Power and Authority here conferr'd on the Saints is to rule and govern, and not to judg and punifh the Nations, and conlequently muft be meant of a Power the Saints fhall exercife before the RefurreeT:ion, and not after when the World fhall be at an end, and there be no Nations for them to exercife Dominion over : And this he endeavours to ftrengthen by adding that the word in Pfal.n.g. from whence this Text is taken, fignifies in the Original to feed or govern, and is by the Septnagint tranflated 'itoi/uocv&s pafces ; and that the Pfalmift fpeaks there- of Chrift's whole Inhe- ritance, which-- he cannot be laid to puniih. and de- ftroy ; he rules all, but condemns only the obftinate and rebellious; as alfb in Rev. 12. 5. The Woman in the Wilder nefs is f aid to bring forth a Son, phat' (hall rule- all Nations with a Rod of Iron. But, fays lie, Chrift does not.punifli and condemn all Nations, though he rule them all. J To this it is anfwer'd, 1. TKalt th© Rod, put by it felf, is in Scripture applied to a Paftoral Government, as Micahy.14. Feed thy People- with thy Rod; yet to rule- with a Rod of Iron is- always in the Scripture taken in the werft fenfe, not- to rule 01' govern, hut to. inflict Punifh- 116 Tlx Texts examined which Tapifts cite Punifhment, and that with great Severity; fuch are the the ftrokes of an Iron Rod, that give the fmarteft Pain, and caufe the deepeft Wound. So in Pfal. 149.8. Let a two-edged Sword be in their Hands, to bind their Kjngs with Chains, and their Nobles with Betters of Iron. Deut. 28.48. Thou jbalt ferve thine Enemy, &X. and he Jhall put a Toke of Iron upon thy Neck until he have de- ftroy d thee. Deut. 4. 2c. The Affliction and Bondage of the Jews in &gypt, is, for the heavinefs of it, call'd an Iron Furnace ; The Lord brought you out of the Iron Furnace. And therefore the Septuagint, and Bellarmine from them, were miftaken in translating the word in the id Pfalm, to rule or feed, ( when it is not tirem, pafces, but teroem, (ranges, or conteres ) not thou fhalt rule, but as we rightly render it, thou fhalt break them with a Rod of Iron. Accordingly the words in Rev. 12. 5. He (hall rule afi Nations with a Rod of Iron, are explain'd by thofe in T(cv. 19. 15. Out of his Mouth goeth a Jharp Sword, that with it he jhottld fmite the Na- tions, and he /hall rule them with a Rod of Iron, and he treadeth the Wine-frefs of the fercenefs and wrath of Almighty God% 2. The Prophet does not (peak in the id Pfalm of breaking his Inheritance with a Rod of Iron, but the Heathen ; ht jhall bruife them, not it, viz. thofe of the Heathen who would not become Chrift's In- heritance, and therefore it follows, and dafh them in pieces like a Potter s Veffel ', both PafTages are fpoken of the fame Subje&, and if his Inheritance cannot be meant in the latter, neither in the former: The true fenfe of the words is, That ChrifFs Dominion fhould become fb large and univerfal as to reach to all for the Worjhip of Angels, and Saints departed, 1 17 all the Nations of the World, and withal fb power- ful and irrefiftible, that thofe amongft them that would not bow and fubrrjit to his Golden Scepter, his righte- ous and merciful Government, fhould be broken and dafh'd in pieces by his Iron Rod, by his terrible and infupportable Judgments ; futably hereunto the all Na- tions, mentioned in Rev. 12. is to be underftood of Heathens and Infidels ; for (b the Jews were wont to call all that were not of their own Country, Gentiles, or Nations, Having been (b long in letting this Text in its true light, I fliall not need to fay much in the Expli- cation of the reft cited by them to this purpofe : Thus when it is laid, Rev. 3. 12. Him that overcometh will I make a Pillar in the Temple of my God, the meaning is, He fhall in a high degree be bleffed and glorious in the Kingdom of Heaven anfwerable to the eminent de- gree of Service he has done for Chrift and his Churc^, and the Victories he has wrought over the Heathen, and Idolatrous World, vanquifhing the Prejudices and triumphing over the Lufts of Men, converting them to Chriftianity : He fhall be as a Pillar in the Temple of my God; he fhall fhine as bright in Heaven, and be as immovably flxt in Glory, as the two Pillars in Solomons « Kin8s P 2: Temple, Boaz, and Jachin, that were the illuftrious Grace and Ornament of it. As he was a Pillar in the Church on Earth, remaining himfelf unfhaken againft all the Winds of Herefy and Storms of Perfecution, and fuftaining and confirming others by his Doctrine and Example, fb in Heaven fhall his Reward and Glory be anfwerable, having turned many to Righte- oufnefsy he /ball fhine as the Bright nefs of the Firmament, DaQ* ,2*5* and 2 1 8 The Texts examined which Papifts cite and as the Stars for ever and, ever. Famous in Story are Trajan s and AntoninuSs Pillars, on which were engraven the account of their feveral Victories - and Triumphs ; and fome tell us that on thofe Pillars hi the Temple did Solomon caufe all the magnanimous Acts of his Father David to be recorded ; fo that tv be a Pillar in the Temple of God, is to receive the Honour, and Renown, and Immortality that's due to a mighty Conqueror. And this alfb is. the meaning of the 2] ft Verfe of the jd of the Revelation. To him that overcometh will 1 grant to Jit with me on my Throne ; that is, he fhall be admitted into Heaven, which is called the Throne of God, Jfa.66. i, and partake of my Glory and Ex- altation as he did of my Crofs and Sufferings. As I over- came and am fet down with my Father in his Throne, that is, As my Father was pleasM to exalt me, as the Re- gard of my perfect Obedience and Sufferings, to his Right-hand in Glory and Majefty ; lb they, who, through the Power of my Grace and Spirit, fhall be Conquerors over Sin, the World, and the Devil, fhall, as the Reward of their Labours and Victories, be ex- alted to the fame place, and according to their Capa- cities partake of the -fame Glories and Triumphs. Hence, faith the Apoftle, If we fuffer with Chrift, we (hall alfo reign with him, 2 Tim. 2. 12. and he* hath made us fit together in heavenly F * laces in Chrijl Jefus '■, Ephef. 2.6. ■ Of the like nature and meaning is that in St. Mat. 24.45, 46,47. Who then is a faithful and wife Ser- vant, whom his Lord hath made' Ruler over his Houjhold, to • for thWorfliip of 'Angels , and Saints departed. iiy to give them Meat in dtte feafon ? Bleffed ts that Servant, whom hu Lord, when he cometh /hall find fo doing. Ve- rily I fay unto you, he (hall make him R tier over all hi* Goods. Our Saviour here alludes to a Ssrvant or Ste- ward, who having by his Care and Faithfulncfs, de- fervM well of his Mafter in the difcharge of that Truft already committed to him, had for his Re- ward a larger CommifTion, and an higher Place be- ftow'd upon him ; fuitable to thofe other words of our Saviour in the Parable of the Talents, Mat. 25. 14. For as much as thou haft been faithful over a few things, 1 will make thee Ruler over many things ; enter thou into the Joy of thy Lord. So Luke 19. 12. He that im- proved his Pound to five, had Authority given him over ■five Cities, and be that improved his to ten, had Autho- rity given him over ten Cities : He alludes, faith Mal- donate, to the Manner and Cuftom of Kjngs, who were In locum, wont to reward the V ait hf nine fs of their Subjects in fmdler Offices, by giving them Commands over Cities and Provinces. But here it is to be obfervM that this Re- compence and Retribution for their good Services, was not made till the Lord in the Parable return'd from his long Journey, and calPd together his Servants to give an account of their Stewardfhip : By which is fignified unto us, that whatever height of Glory and Dignity is reprefented to us by thofe Metaphors and Phrafes, it fhall not be conferr'd on the Saints till after the Refurre£rion, when our Lord fhall return to judg the World, and reward every Man according to the kind, and according to the degree of his Works. From all thefe Texts it is very evident, That as God makes ufe of Angels not as governing Spirits, but as" H h Mini- Mat. 2.26. 1 j o The Texts examined which fapifts cite Minifters of his Will, and Inftruments of his Provi- dence, Co he makes not ufe of Saints departed at all. The Scripture aflures us, that the leaft things in the World, the Birds of the Air, and the Hairs of our Head, fall under God's Care and Infpe&ion ; and in oppofi- tion to the Heathen Idolatry, who afcrib'd the Go- vernment of the World to the Lieutenancy of Dx* mons under the fupream God, that there is but one Gody_ and one Lord, 1 Cor. 8.5. Again, to draw Men off from this Belief, and from worfhipping of them, St. Paul, A£ts 14. 15. puts them in mind of the Te- ftimony God had given them of his Providence in fending them fruitful Seafons : And if the Supplies of outward Bleflings are owing to God's immediate Care over Men, then are they not oblig'd for them to any commiflion'd Demons or Angels that govern un- der him. The Prophet Tfaiah in many places of his Prophecy, Chap. 41.22. & Chap. 45.11. 12, 13.& Chap. 45.5,6,7. afTures us that God is the great Difpofer of Good and Evil in all Cities and Places. So that nothing is more apparent than that God has the Concernments of the whole Creation under his Eye, and keeps the difpofal of all things in his own Hands, and that all things are done with his Permiflion, if not by his Order and Appointment ; he then muft be the only Object of our Hope and Truft, our Praifes and Thankfgivings, who is the Author and Donor of all our Bleflings ; and if Angels are not to partake with God in our Prayers and Praifes, whofe Miniftry God fbmetimes makes ufe of in the Difpenfations of his Providence towards the Sons of Men, much lefs the Saints departed, con- cerning , fortkeWorptpof Angels, and bamts departed. 231 cerning whole Miniftry on Earth for their good, the Scripture fays not Co much, fays nothing at all, nay, fpeaks againft it. Revel. 14. 1?. Blejfed are the dead that die in the Lord, they reft from their Labours. And St. Paul, fpeakingof the Prophet David, A&s 13. $6\ fays, after he had ferved his own Generation by the Will of God, fell on Jleep ; which implies that after he had ferv'd God in his Generation, and was gone to Hea- ven, that Service was over, and he was no longer to be em ploy 'd in fuch Miniftries. The Second Part will quickly follow. LONDON, Printed by J. D. for Richard Chifwel at the Rofe and Grown in St. JWs Church-Yard, 1 688. The Texts examined which Papifts cite out of the Bible for the Proof of Their Do&rine CONCERNING The Worjhif) of Angek, and Saint* • departed. PART II. I MP RIMATUR. Apr. 26. 1688. Guil. Needham. IV. Head. No Proof from Scripture for the Religious Adoration of , Angels, and Saints departed. BY Religions Adoration I do not mean the bare AGt of Adoration, which without blame, may, and has been given in common to God, Angels and Men ; but Atioration with fuch Circumftances of Religi- on, whether as to Time, or Place, or Occaiion, or the Ablence and Invifibility of the Object, wherewith Di- vine Inftitution, or the Cuftom of the World has di- I i reded rj The Texts examined which Tapijls cite rcfted and prefcribcbGod to be worfhip'd : For this the Romanijh have no proof in Scripture, as will appear by examining the Texts they produce for it. Thefirft isGmm8. 2. where it is written, that A- braham feeing three Men fland before him, ran to meet them j and bowed himfelf towards the ground. To this the Anfwer is obvious, That this was only a civil RefpecT: or Reverence that was cuftomarily pay'd in that Country from Man to Man ; Abraham taking them to be no more than Men, and making Provifion for them accordingly, ver. 5. I will femh a morfel of Bread, and comfort ye your Hearts ', and this the Apoflle favours in the Epiftle to the Hebrews, eh, 13. 2. where exhorting to Hofpitality, he ufes thi*as an Argument, that fbme thereby have entertain d Angels unawares, that is,, have entertain'd Angels whiifl they thought them to be but Men. I may here add that fbme have thought it moft likely, that one of thole three Angels was the Son of God, the Angel of the Covenant, as he is call'd Mna>M«*S« Mai. J. I, and the Angel of the great Council, as the Sep- etjij/sA©-. tuagint have it in If a. 9.6. And fb the Fathers expound Conftam.Mag. tne Text, obferving that in many Veries of this Chap- ad Macar.Epif. ter the Angel, that for fome time after held difcourfe vifTuVapud6 Wltn -Abraham concerning the Deftruclion of Sodom, is Eu'feb.c.So. called by that incommun'cable Name of God, Jehovah, S. Hit 1. 4.de jftil'd by Abraham, the Judg of all the Earth, ver. 17,20, 22, 26. But this hinders not but that Abraham at firfl thought them all three to be Men, nor is there any cir- cumftance in the Text that fpeaks the refpecl: he fhew'd them to be any more than civil. Bellarmine's next proof is from Gen. 1 9. which he does not much infift on, but others thus improve, tel- ling us that Lot is not only faid to worfhip the two An- els that came to him, bowing himfelf with his Face toward the & • for the JVorfiip of Jngehj and Saints departed. 235 the ground, ver. 1. but zw. 19,20. to make Supplicati- on to them in the behalf of Zjxr, that that might be i'parM as a Refuge to him and his Family from the Storm of Fire that was coming on thole Cities. To this the fame Anfwer in effect is to be given, That Lot at fir ft apprehended than to be no other than Men, and that the Profiration he paid them was only- an e&- preflion of Civil Refpecl and Honour to them : Tho af- terwards, as in the former inffance, he might come to underftand that one of thefe two Angels was alio the Eternal Logos, the Son of God ; to which pur pole it is to be obferved, that Lot, ver. 19. makes his Applicati- on only to one of them, and owns him to be the Author of his Safety and Deliverance ; and the very form and if rein of the Thankfgiving declares the Perlbn it was of- fered to, more than a Creature ; Behold now thy Servant hath found Grace in thy fight, and thou hajl magnified thy Mercy that thou ha(l fbetved me ; or as the vulgar Latin Magnifbafti has it, thou haji magnified thy Glory and thy Mercy , &C. Gloriam&Mi- Again it is faid, that the Angel heard his Petition, and fencordiafn* accepted him concerning Xpar, ver. 2 1 . which he could not have done, nor had it been any more in his Power to have fpar'd %oar than the reft of the Cities, had he I been no more than an Angel. And it fbould feem that it was the lame Angel that fpar'd %oar, that is faid, ver. 24. to rain Fire and Brimfione upon the reft, anci is there call'd the Lord Jehovah in the Original ; for it immediately follows, after Lot's Petition ibr Zjar was granted, Then the Lord raind uponSGdom and Gomorrah Brimfione and hire from the Lord out of Heaven. But Bellarmine lays not fo great a ftrefs on. thefe two as on that that follows ; for, fays he, if it fhould be faid, that Abraham and Lot thought at firft that thefe Angels were no more than Men," and fo the Worfhip I i 2 was i j 6 The Texts examined which Papifts cite was no more than civil that was exhibited to them ; the like cannot be faid of Balaam's worfhipping the Angel, who knew him to be an Angel when he worfhipp'd Angelisrjdicu- hjm . ancj n0Wj favs he, it is ridiculous to fay that it is debcri civTlem a Civil Honour that is paid to Angels : Numb. 22. 3L. honorem. Then the Lord opend the Eyes of Balaam, and he faw the Angel of the Lord fianding in the way and his Sword drawn in his Hand, and he bowed down his Head and fell flat on his face. I fhall not ftay here to determine, whether Balaam was a Prophet of God, or only a Heathen Soothfayer ', each Opinion has its learn'd Patrons ; it is evident he was an ill Man, and had a covetous Mind, that if lie had not been powerfully over-rul'd by the Spiritof God, he had been corrupted by the glorious Promifes of Re- ward that Balaak made him, and that when God would not fuffer him to curie his People If r act, he taught Ba- laak a way how to bring a Curfe upon them, by temp- ting them to Sin and Folly, to eat things facrifced to Numb. 2$. 1. Idols, and to commit Fornication with the Daughters of Revel 2. 14. Moab. Now, 1. The meer Example of fuch a Man cannot be thought fufficient to juftify and lecure the Goodnels of any Action. 2. The bowing and Proftration was a token only of Honour and Refpeft, as is due to all Creatures propor- tionable to the Worth and Excellencies they have re- ceiv'd from God ; and if it be ridiculous to call this, as Bellarmine tells us, Civil Worship, I'll not quarrel with him for a word, provided it be own'd to be a \Yorjhip different from Religious, and is not call'd by that Name : And yet after all, I know no reafon why I may not fliew an honourable Refpeft and Efteem to an Angel that appears to me on the Earth, as well as to a Pro- phet, for the Worflnp ofjngels, and Saints departed. I J j? phet, or an eminent Philofbpher : Nay, why I may not pay fuch a kind of Worfhip to him, if lent to withftand me in an evil way, as I may and ought to a Magiftrate, who is ordain d by God to be a Terror to Rcm§ j . evil Works, a Revenger to execute Wrath upon them that do Evil. 3. There arethoiewho will have this Angel to be the fame mentioned in Bellar mine's next Inftance, that appear'd to Jofoxa, viz. the Captain of the Lord's HoH, who alfo appear'd with his Srvord drawn in his Hand, as this to Balaam. I pais therefore to confider that Text ; Jofh. 5. 1 j, 14. where Jofhua is faid to fall on his Face to the Earth and worfh p the Angel that appear'd to him. This muff be confeft to be Religious Worfhip from the words that follow, ver. 15. where the Angel bids him, Loofe thy fboe from off thy foot, for the place whereon thou ftand- efi is holy Ground :' and Jofhua did fo. But then we are to obferve, that Jofhua did not fall down and pay this Homage and Worfhip to him at riril, till he had told him he was the Captain of the Lord's Hojt. As Captain of the HoH of the Lord am I come, ver. 14. And to whom can that Title with any frxew of reafbn be attributed but to the Son of God, who before appear'd toMofes in a flaming Bufh, Exod.3.1,2. requir'd the fame expreflion of Worfhip to be paid him, ver, 5. Put off thy \ Shoes from off thy Feet, and is call'd the Lord Jehovah, c\z SEis,1* in many places both in the jd and 4th Chapters ; who (ne centenws alfb was the Angel that went before the Children of Jf- a^^e^ raely and led them through the Wildernefs ; and there- chrim infirm- fore fays the Apoftle, 1 Cor. 10, 9. Neither let us tempt ans>necjmme- Chrift, as fome of them alfo tempted, and were deftroytd of{\m Deus en£ Serpents. In which words, fays the Jefiiit Salmeron f, pecuiiaris Du- the Apoftle intimates to h-s Chips Divinity, for ^much^l^^ as 2 .j -8 The Texts examined which Tapifls cite as he was the -peculiar Leader and Conduct er of the lira- elites : To all which we may farther obferve, that he who in chap. 5. 14. calls himfelf the Captain of the Lord' 's Hofty is, in chap. 6. 2. calFd Jehovah. And the Lord faid unto Jofhua, See, I have given into thy Hand Je- richo. From attempting to juftify their Adoration of Angels, Bellarmine proceeds to cite places for the Religious Ado- ration of holy Men and Prophets. And his firft is, 1 6^.28. 14. where Saul is faid to worfhip Samuel vzWd up by the Witch of Endor. And Saul perceiv'd that it was Samuel, and hejloop'd with his Face towards the ground and bowed himfelf. That this Ghoft was the Devil in Samuel\ Shape and not Samuel himfelf, many of the Father, have plainly sgflfde 'Si- aflerted ; As the Devil, fays Tertullian, fome times tranf ma. c. 33. forms himfelf into an Angel of Light, here by God's Per- st. Auft. torn. m'lfion he put on the Shape of a Man of Light. The Au- 4. qua*. 27. thor of the Book of Ecclefiaflicus is indeed of the other Greg. Nyfs. Opinion, chap. 46. 20. After his Death he prophefied, and /hewed the Kjng his End} and lift up his Voice from the Earth in Prophecy; And the Church of *£(ome having receiv'd that Apocrypha-Hook with the reft into the Ca- non of Scripture, the Romifh Doctors do alfo eagerly contend for it 1 But it is not likely that the Souls of the Saints, who, as we read, are in God's Hands, fhould be fo much under the Devil's Power, as to be rais'd and di- fturb'd by him at pleafure ; or that God who had refus'd 1 Sam. 28. 6. t0 anfwer Saul by Dreams,or by Vrim,ov by his Prophets, the Ways he himfelf had appointed, fhould now gratify Deur. 18. ii. hi™* when by unlawful and forbidden Ways he came to enquire of him. But be it fo, that Saul took him to be Samuel himfelf. I anfwer, that either there was no more in Saul's gefhirc of » for the Worfhip of Angels •, and Saints departed. 2 rp of {looping and bowing before him,then only a tefrimony of Refpeft and Honour, fuch as was due to him on the account of his being a Prophet, and a holy Man, and which Saul had or might have paid to him when alive ; or, if there was any thing of Religion in it , it was more then ought to be, and what no Example, much Jefs the Example of an ill Prince, and one forfaken by God can juftine. The like may be {aid of Obadiah's falling on his Face and worshipping Elijah, i Kings 18. 7. And as Oba- diah was in the way, behold Elijah met him, and he knew him, and fell on his lace and faid, Art thou that my Lord Elijah? It cannot indeed be called properly a Civil Worfhip, Obadiah being a great Man, and fuperiour to Elijah in Power and Authority ; but then neither was it ftriftly '{peaking any Worfhip at all, but a token of Honour and Efteem fhewn him on the account of his Office and Holinefs, and not of Superiority or Domi- nion. The lafl Inflance mentioned by Bellarmin is fbme- what more difficult, viz,. Dan. 2.46. where we read that Nebuchadnezzar wor/hipped Daniel, and commanded that Oblations and f wee t Odours jhoidd be offered unto him. Where the offering Oblations and Odours being joyned with Adoration, they would needs have to be Religious Worfhip. But, 1. Thefe Oblations and Odours might not be Sacri- fices, but only Prefents made to Daniel : The words in the Original QpittCija, and !2tCf)0C&m, fignifying at large not only Sacrifices and Incenfe, but Gifts and fweet Odours ; and then the whole Action was no more than Honorary, and what Daniefs extraordinary Spirit and Gift of Prophecy , might juflly challenge from the greateil of Men. 2. If 14° -The Texts examined which Pa ft/Is cite 2. If thofe Oblations and Odours were proper Sacri- fices, ( as fbme think they were, becaufe the word in the Original Lcitnfaca, is more properly rendred, to befacrifiVd than offer d to him ; and ib the vulgar: Latin ut Sacrifca- has it, that they ihould facrifice an Oblation and fweet Odours unto him, to which the Romanifis are bound to fraud ) either Daniel accepted of them, or he did not ; if he did, then lie took more than was due to him, Sa- crijice. according to them being peculiar to God, ( therefore Bellarmin aware of this,will have them not to be Sacri- fices, but only Gifts or Ptefents ) and then his Example does not warrant the Action. Or he did not, and then the offering it by a Heathen Prince, who after the man- ner of his own Religion, (and as the Men of Lycaonia AAsi4. 13. wouicj jiave done to PW and Barnabas} would have worfhippM him as a God, cannot make it . Lawful, while it was refus'd by the Prophet. And tho it is not (aid exprefly, he refus'd it, yet may it be gather'd from the coherence of the Chapter, and is favour'd by great Men of the Church of Rome ; for it feems probably enough, that after the King, ver. 46. had fallen down to worfbip Daniel, and commanded an Oblation and fweet Odours to be orTer'd to him, that Daniel forbad it, and advis'd that they fhould be offer'd to God, as a prin- cipal part of that Worfhip that was peculiar to him, repeating to him the words of the 28th Verfe, There is a God in Heaven that revealeth Secret s> and maketh known to the Kjng what [hall be hereafter ; and this may be very well conje&ur'd, in that the next Verfe, the 47 th begins thus, The Kjng anfvered unto Daniel, which intimates that Daniel hud laid fomething fince the King fpaketohim, in the 46th Verfe, and commanded him to be worfhipped. Alio in that the King's Anfwer feems.to be a repeating of what Daniel had laid in reply to \ » for the WorJJnp of Angels, and Saints departed 241 to the Kins;, when he commanded his Servants to fa- crifice to him, which is in effecl: the fame with the i%th Verfe, Of a truth it is, anfwers he, confenting and repeating as it were what Daniel had fpoke la ft, That your God is a God of Gods, and a Lord of Kjmgs, And a Revexler of Secrets, feeing thou couldfl reveal this Secret. For this opinion I could produce the Teftimony of no lefs than three Jefuits, Sanctius, Pererms, and JSI.tldonate, the laft of which is ve- ry pofitive, That the Prophet refits d KIES° fcverantcr ^/mo, Propter j r re 1 , , . ' 1 / • oblatum nonorem rccufalle, neque emm the honour offer d.to him ', the dcrip- Scriptura dicit, quod Hfeacceperit, fed, ture not faying that he accepted it, but Rex obculerk. only that the Kjng offer d it. Having thus ihewn the infufficiency of their proofs for the Religious Adoration of Saints and Angels, it will not be amifs to fee down thole that plainly and ex- prefly forbid and condemn it ; amongft many thete five are not the leaft confiderable. It is the firlf Command- ment God gave on Mount Sinai, Exod. 20. Thou fhalt have no other Gods before me. This God oft-times rein- fore'd by his Servant Mofes, Dent. 6. 13. and Chap. jo. 20. Thou fhalt fear the Lord thy God, and feirve him. And if our BlefTed Saviour may be allow'd to be a good Interpreter of God's Law, thofe words confine all Re- ligious Worfhip to God alone. For fo he replies to the Devil, and at once quotes and explains that Text, in Mat. 4. 10. It is written, thou (hAlt worfhip the Lord thy God, and him only Jhalt thou fcrve. It is not enough here to fay, that the word only is to be reftrain'd to the latter word ferve, and does not at all belong to the for- mer word worfhip : When it was to worfhip him, that that the Devil demanded of our Saviour, Verfe 9. All thefe things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worfhip me. And if thofe words, Thou foalt worfhip the K k Lord \ 1 4 1 *T7;e Texts examined which Tapifts cite * Lord thy God, are not to be underftood exclufive of all other beings, they had not been an anfwer fufficient to the Devil's demand, who might have return'd, thou mayft worfhip God and me too. Nor is it at all to the purpofe to fay, that by thole words is only forbid the higheft degree of Religious Worfhip, Latria, to be given toother beings, when it was not that, but a lower degree that the Devil re- quir'd. The higheft degree of Religious Worfhip, * Latriam effe which they call Latria, is, fays Bellarmin, * Always ac- quandam fum- comyAnle^, w'tth the apprehenfion and acknowledgment of tis proflratio- God, as thefrjl Principal and Ultimate End of all things^ nem & inclina- and fo confcquently as the chief e(l Good. But it's appa- apprctenfiow rent> the Devil did n°t. claim this, he acknowledge Deiut primi the Sovereign and Almighty Power of God, That it P"nc?Pj1.& was He alone that could make Stones to become Bread, qucadeoVum- ver- 3- He acknowledg'd the Power he had of difpo- mi boni.de ss. fing of all the Kingdoms of the World, was not by any beat. Li. c.12. Natural Right, but Derivative, and by way of Grant ; They were delivered to me, fays he, Luke 4. 6. And thus owning himfelf not to be the Supreme Being, he cannot be luppos'd to claim the fupreme or higheft de- gree of Worfhip. The Devil then challenging but an inferiour Worfhip, our Saviour's Anfwer muft be fup- pos'd to forbid that too as well as the higheft, or elfe it can by no means pafc for an Anfwer. So much alfb the very words and phrafe intimate, If tho-u wilt fall down and worfhp me, or by falling down worfhip me; the Devil would have been content with tie external aft only, wii h any degree : He might have kept his Heart for God, fo long?s he had bouM his B dy in token of fubjefticn to him. This therefore muft be forbid in our Saviour's A nfwer, or elfe it does net reach the cafe and the thing demanded. But % • for the Worflnj) of Jngels, and Saints departed. 7 4 j But the words being an anfwer to the Devil's de- mand, may they not be reftrain'd to a prohibition only of worfhipping Devils and evil Spirits ? I anfwer, The words run in the larger! and moft general Expreflion, and the Reafbn given why God is to be worfhipped, holds as ftrong againft the worfhip of good Spirits as evil; Thou JJjalt xvorjhip the Lord thy God, for this Rea- fon, becaufe he is'the Lord thy God ; now good Spirits are no more the Lord our God, than bad ones are. Sr. Pants Caution and Prohibition is no lefs to be heeded, Col. 2. 18. Let no Man beguile you of your Re- ward in a 'voluntary humility and worjljipping of Angels , intruding into thofe things that he hath not feen, vainly puft up by his flejhly Mind, and not holding the Head. In a voluntary humility and worshipping of Angels : It fhould feem there were then a fort of Judaizing Chriftians, who fuppofing the Law to be given by An- gels, would have introduced the Worfhip of them into the Church, and their pretence was plaufible, Humi- lity and Modejly. They taught that the great Lord of the Vniverfe was as little to be Jeen and approach d unto as to be comprehended, and therefore that nJ Man ought to dare to addrefs to him immediately, but by the Interpofition of Angels, bringing frfi their Prayers to them, in order to their being offer d up to God. This the Synod of Laodi- tea plainly forbids, calling it an hid- to«w^wi u^^x^dtt' \y&ib& den Idolatry , and a for/aking the ^TJWtv^^ri Canon.3^ Lord Jefus Chrifi, and approaching to Idolatry. Theodoret upon the Text, calls it a Vice, that ™ TO'9°^ had continued a long time in Phrygia and Pifidia ; and That even in his time, there were Oratories to be feen a- mong them, to St. Michael the Archangel. It follows, Intruding into thofe things that he hath Kk 2 not 244 fix Texts examined which Tapifts cite not feen ; that is, taking the liberty to talk of things that God had not reveal'd , and therefore fpeaking at random and [by guefs of thofe matters ; as indeed the Schoolmen do, as will appear to any Perfbn that looks into their Divinity about the Number, Orders, Names,, and Miniftry of holy Angels. Not holding the Head, that is, They who make ufe of the Mediation of Angels, forfake our Lord Jefus Chrift, whom God hath Conftituted the Head of his Church, j Tim. 2. 5. and made the only Mediator between God and Man. To put by the force of this Text, no fewer than three Cardinals have fpent their Wit and Ammunition upon it. Cardinal Perron would have this Worfhip of Angels, not to be understood of the Worfhip paid to Angels, but the Worfhip deliver'd by them, and confequently that the Jewifh Religion or way of Worfhip, was the only thing forbidden in this Text ; concerning which we read, Heb. 2. 2. That it was fpoken by Angels. And Gal. 3.19. Was ordained by Angels , in the hand of a, Mediator. But this witty Device has been fufficiently Deobjeft.cult. expos'd by Monfieur Dallee, fhewing in many In- Rci.Lac. 1. 3. ftances that the Genitive that follows ©pn and Saints departed. 245 Worfhip but the Law of Angels, the Law deliver'd by Note^e/^ , J , * v . ' ' Eut Nouov. Angels. ' Bellarmin will have the place to be level I'd only againft j£s siSE" certain Hereticks, , the Simonians and others, who held, no4 qui quof- that the Angels were a fort of Inferiour Gods, and that dam Angelos the World was made by them ; and coniequently that it Sros& qu^ does not forbid all Worfhip of Angels. But can any mundum fa- thing be expreft in more general terms than this Cau- kncaffcnt> *; tion of the Apoltles r And tno it may be there were sMa. beat. u. . fome Hereticks in thofe days, that held Opinions con-;f'2°« cerningthe Nature, and Office, and Worfhip of An- gels, that the Church of Rome does not, and alio far worfethan any hold and praftife in that Church, yet it does not follow, that becaufe they were moft guilty, fhe is not guilty at all : That becaufe the Apoftle for- bids the worfhip of Angels as Gods, and Makers of the World, he does not forbid it to them as Creatures of the higheft Rank and Order. But Baronius being fenfible how home St. Paul and ^SaSST the Canon fpeak to this Point,, begs Theodorefs pardon, verborum and tells him that he underftood neither the one, nor the V3uYl fenl"m> other : And that St. Paul here forbad only the Worfhip ^/niniis/qS falfe and Heatheni/h Gods ', and that thofe Oratories ^^'-■Catholicisef-- catedto St. Michael, were fetupbyCatholicks, and not fent a"te ln^° tuts Hifxcti-* Hereticks, it being then the practice of the Church -to In- ds quorum VOCate Angels. nulla effet me- Here, (1.) We may obferve how thefe two ' great ™^mIb>u" Cardinals contradict one another, a fign they were at a m. 6o.s'tftl. loft what to fay. Baromm afferting that there's noV\. Footfteps left of fuch Hereticks in that Age, and that thofe Oratories were eretted by Catholicks. Bellarmin, That there were fuch , Simon and his Difciples, mentioned bj fever al of the Fathers, Irenseus, Tertullian, and others, Eo ' oc' and that thofe Oratories were built by Hereticks. (2.) Tho 14 6 Tl)e Texts examined which Tapifts cite (2.) Tho we might venture to ftake Theodorefs judg- ment and credit againft Baroniws, who hv'd nearer the Apoftolical Age , and confequently underffood the truth in this particular more perfectly, yet we need not his Authority to explain the Text. The very Argu- ment the Apoftle ufes to diffuade them from the wor- fliip of Angels, fhewing that thofe then guilty of it were not Heathens, nor the Angels they worfhip'd Heathen Demons, or Inferiour Deities ; but Chrifti- ans, tho perhaps fuch as were too much addicted to the Law of Mofesy and good Angels, fuch as were own'd both by 'Jews and Chriftians. For had the Text been defign'd againft the former, viz. Heathen Worfhip- pers of Heathen Gods, it had been very impertinent for the Apoftle to have urg'd, that by that practice they forfook the Lord. Chrijl, and held not the Head ; when as they never had believed on him. Acfs 10.25, 26. Cornelius falling down at St. Peter's Feet and worshipping , is thus reprov'd for it by the Apoltle, Stand upf I my [elf alfo am a Man : As if he had faid, God only, and none but he, is religioufly to be worfhipped. We read, Acts 14. from ver, 11 to 16. with what Indignation and Abhorrence St. Paul and Barnabas for- bad the Ly-caonians to offer Sacrifices to them, tho they had given clear Demonftrations of a Divine Spirit with- in them by the miraculous Cure of a Cripple that had never walked, affigning the fame reafbn in effect for it as St. Peter did to Cornelius \ We alfo are Men of like PaJJions with you, and f reach unto you that you (hould turn from thefe Vanities unto the hiving God, : that is, that you fhould abftain from worfhipping after a religious manner any created Beings, tho never lb excellent, whe- ther in Heaven or Earth, but the Living God only, the Creator • for the Worflnp of Angels, and Saints departed. 247 Creator of all things, who made Heaven and Earth and the Ssa, and all things therein. Lajlly ; What God and our Saviour forbad, St. Paul cautioned againft, and holy Men refus'd, we find an Angel himfelf rejecting, Rev. 19. 10. And I, fays St. John, fell at his Feet to worship : and he [aid unto me, fee thou do it not : I am t-hy fellow-Servant, and of thy Bre- thren that have the Tefiimony ofjefm : worjhip God. Re- peated again, Rev. 22. 8,9. See thou do it not j I am thy fellow-Servant, and of thy Brethren the Prophets, and of them which keep the flyings of this Book ; worjhip God. Here feveral things are worthy our obfervation. (1.) That the thing is twice forbid, and St. John twice re- prov'd for it. (2.) That the Angel forbad it wittribme Vehemency and earneftnels of Spirit, which fhews the thing to be very evil and highly difpleafing to God ; he feems as it were fomewhat difturbed at the fight of it,, and that he might do what he could to prevent the Acti- on, he fpake with hafte and abruptly, fya. //i, fee thou do it not. (3.) He adds two Reafbns againft it, thtfrfi taken from the Equality of our State and Condition, being all Creatures and fellow-Servants, 1 am thy fellow- Servant. The other from the Difhonour and Affront it does to God, invading his Property, and robbing him of that Honour that is his peculiar ; fb much thole words imply, worjhip God : for was not Religious Adoration a part of the incommunicable Worfhip of God, t hole words, could have been no Argument againft St. Johns adoring the Angel, but he might have ador'ti the Angel and God too. But here they reply many things ; 1. They tell us S. John took this Angel to be the Son of God, the fame tiiat appear'd to him at tie Be- ginning, chap. 1. laying, I am Alpha and Omega, thefirfi andl 248 The Texts exam 'me d which tfapifts cite and the lajl : I am he that was dead and am alive, and behold Hive for evermore, and have the Kjys of Hell and Death. I anfwer ; it is poffible S. John might think fb at the firft time of the Angel's appearing to him, but it is not to be imagined that at his iecond appearance, after that lie had been told that \>z was his fellow-Servant and chid for worfhipping him, he fbould fall into the lame miftake again. Is it not much more probable that he did it in a kind of Extafy, being aftoniihedat the dazling Luftre and Brighlnefs of his Appearance? But be it fb, that St. John took the Angel to be the Son of God : this is fb far from ferving their Caufe, that it turns with great force againlr them ; for if St. John was reprov a for worfhipping an° Angel when he thought it was .God in -the Shape of an Angel,are not Papifls much more blame- able for -worfhipping Angels asfuch, when they think them to be but Angels ? 2. They fay, that the Angel modeftly refus'd to be worfhipped in Honour to Chritt, who had affumed hu- mane Nature ; not bift that it was the Angels due, and might ft ill be paid them as it was before Chrift's Incar- nation, but in complaifance to it, they are willing to indulge the Race of Mankind that omifTion, and to de- ny themfelves, to do Honour to Chrift ; & that both the Angels do well to refufe it, and Mankind do well to pay it. But what is this but to fay that the Angels pafs a com- plement on the Son of God, as if he was beholden to them that they do not fhare with him in the Worfhip of Men ? What is this but to conceive moft unworthily of* thole blefTed Spirits, as if they could be guilty of that Hypocrify and Diffimulation too often praclifed in hu- mane Converfation ? As if they could condefcend to the Foppifhnefs and Courtfhip of this lower World, where- in Men oft-times flrive to excel each other in their Ci- vilities f I for the Wor flip of Jngels, and Saints departed. 249 vilities, and fometimes outwardly refufe thofe Refpe&s which in their Hearts they moft defire, and are ambiti- ous after. ?. They fay, that tho the Angel refus'd to be wor- fhipped by St. Job??, as he would have done alfo by the other Apojtles, who were engaged in the fame Work with him in bearing tejlimonyto Jefas \ yet was it due to them from other ChrifHansof a lower rank and order. But this is anfwered in the reafon the Angel gave for his refilling to be worfhipped, which reaches to all forts of Chriftians, to one as well as to another, he being a fellow-Servant with the meaneft that believe in Chrift, as well as with an Apoftle or Prophet ; and fb it follows, 1 am thy fellow-Servant, and of them that keep the Sayings of this Book. - 4. That which follows is very furprifing ; but what tavkSTogc- will not great Wits venture at ? Cardinal BelJarmin will fan, & tamen nor. only have thefe Words no Argument againft the !^orav,r'.sur •.xr n ■ r a 11 a b c ■ rr n, n<>s reprehen- Worihip of Angels, but an Argument tor it ; If St. dimurqui 6ri- John, fays he, thought him to be an Angela and. yet wor- ™us 1uod J°- jhipped him, why are we reprovd for doing what St. John Nu^melkTs" * did ? Do the Calvinifts know better than St. John whether Jehannenorunc Angels are to be worshipped ? Calvinifts I aniwer, 11 St. John thought him to be an Angel, adorandi f De and yet worfhip'd him, why fhould we not be reprov'd Sanft- b^c. U for doing what St. John did, if St. John did what he 1,c* I4' fhould not have done ? Do the Calvinifts know better than St. John whether Angels are to be worfhipped ? I an- fwer, Do the Papifts know better than the Angel, whe- ther Angels are to be worfhipped, who exprefly forbad it, See thou do it not, norjhip God ? L 1 V.Head. 1 5 & The Texts examined which Tafifls cite V. Head. No proof from Scripture {or the folemn Invocation of Angels, and Saints departed. Of tins there are three Branches : i . Praying to them to bellow or to pray for Bleflings for us. 2. Praying to be heard for their Sakes, in favour of them and their Merits. 3. Praying to them as IntercefTors and Medi- ators for us in the Prefence of God. For none of which is there any proof in Scripture. The fir ft Branch is : There 's no proof in Scripture for praying to them to beftow or to pray to God for Blef- fings for as. Bel.deSS.Ee- Many of their Learned Men freely grant that there Jim 'ml Tim *s no exPre^s Command either in the Old or New Te- 2. difp.y.Eck.' /lament for the Invocation of Saints departed. En_chlr:„le- Not in the Old Teftament, becaufe the Souls of the Patriarchs and other holy Men were detained in Limbo, and were nof admitted into Heaven, and the Beatifick Vifion, till our Saviour, after his Refurrection, carried them up thither. But was it fo ? If the Saints come to know the Prayers of their Supplicants by Revelation from Gcd, as fome of them affirm, why might they not have come to the knowledgof them in Limbo as well as in Heaven, fince God could have made them known to them in one place as well as another ? Bcfides, was not Enoch and Elias carried up immediately into Heaven ? and the latter in the very fight of Eltfha } Were not AWrand his Sons the direct Pofterky of E- mch ? Were they not in great Diftrefs in the time of the ven. Sand. c. / for the Worfhip of Angels, And Saints lifyarteB. 1 5 1 the Flood ? Was there not a great .zeal of Affection bz- ivrixt Elias2LodElj(b*? And yet notwithstanding all thefe cat Inducements and Encouragements to it taken from the ng Relation of a Father to his Sons and them in diftrcfs, and of a Matter to his Difciples, yet we no more read of, Holy Enoch, or Holy Elms pray for m7 than of, Holy Abraham or Holy IfsLZCpray for us. Not in the New Teltament, kit it fhould bean occa- fion of Offence and S:andal to the new-converted Gen- tiles, and make them think that they had only changed their Gods but not their l^eligion ; that the Christian Doctrine was only a Device of the A pottles to thrufl out their Old Demons and Heroes, and to put in tbem- felves. And is not -this a good Argument frill ? Is it not of as much force now to cad this Practice out of the Church, as it was then to keep it out ? Does it not give infinite offence to a great part of the Chriitian World ? And is it not efreem'd,and that juftly by them,to be the Old Pa- gan Worfhip reviv'd, or fbmething very near it ? For it is not the change of the Object that makes any material Difference, or that can excufe it, whilit the act or. kind of Worfhip is the fame: Religious Worfhip is God's peculiar, and to give it to a Creature, was the Pagan Worfhip and Supcrftition. Now is it not a very unaccountable thing that the Church of lI\ome fhould make that an Article of Faith, for which there is confeffedly no Foundation in Scrip- ture ? And is it not as much to be wondered at, that if this Practice was to obtain m :i:e Church, the Scriptures that give fb many plain Directions concerning Prayer, the Objecl:, the maimer of its performance, the Qiialiri- catiohs of the Supplicant, fhould be wholly fi lent about this ? That the Apoftles who were guided by. the Spirit L 1 a of M* The Tests examined which Papifts cite of God into all Truth, and therefore cannot be fuppo- fed to omit any part of the Chriftian Do&rine that was neceffary, nay profitable for the Salvation of Souls,fhould quite forget it, and neither pra£tife it themfelves to the Bleffed Virgin who died before fbme of them, nor in any of their Writings inftrud the People in the Piety and Ufefulnefs of it ? But tho there are no plain Texts in the Old Teftament for Invocation of Saints, there are for Invocation of An- gels, and they infift chiefly on thele. In Gen. 48. 16. it is faid that Jacob prayed to an An- gel to blefs the two Sons of Jofeph, Manajfeh and Ephra- im ; And the Angel which redeemed, me from all evil ', blefs the Lads. To this I anfwer, ifi, That this might be only a Wifh and not a folemn Prayer ; and if a Prayer, not put up tothe'Angel but to God, that he would appoint the fame Angel that had preferved him, to blefs them ; a form of Prayer, like that of David's, Pfal.35.6. Let the Angel of the Lord perfecute them ; he pray'd to God that it might be, not to the Angel to do it. The like is to be faid to Tobit, chap. 5. 15. God who dwelleth in Heaven, proffer your Journey, and the Angel of God keep you company. Which words are not fpoken to the Angel, but concern- ing him, meerly by way of wifh and defire, and not by way of fupplication. But if they are a Prayer, then again it muft be to God, as before, to fend and appoint his Angel. Secondly ; This Angel is generally thought by the Fa- s' ©- v,Apve- t*iers ( whom the Romanics in interpreting Scripture A©^eeM arefworn to follow) to be the Son of God ; fo Jufti» tJvKtwW- Martyr difputing with Tripho the Jew ; He, an Angel 2^™. God m^ Lord> geared unto Abraham in humane fhape, p. 7 1. and was feen of Jacob in the form *nd fgure of a Man. So I for the Worfhip of Jngels, and Saints departed. 255 So Athanafuis and St. Cyril of Alexandria expound them, Serm- 4:-«>n- and thus they argue ; How indecent was it for Jacob to ThefaSib. 3. join God and a Creature together, as he mult do, if the cap. 6. Angel was no more than an Angel, The Lord that fed me all my days, the Angel which redeemed me ? This can feem LausDeo, vir- reafonable to none but the Romanics who commonly l™9"^3-™' praftife it, joining in their Doxology the bleffed Vir- chr°ifto.Bci!in gin with God the father and our bleffed Saviour. Again, fin- com. 1. How more unworthy of fo holy a Man as Jacob to pap by libJcmotusfe God, as it were, and to make his Inter cefflon to an Angel, as mundi a?tern. if he had more confidence in the Angel than in God? *?reg. VaI* in Laftly, Who was the Angel that had redeemed Jacob from all Evil ? Was it not he that had wrejlled with him .? Gen. 32. 28. That had delivered him from his Brother YL- fau ? Whom he would not let go till he had bleffed him ? And does not Jacob fay of him, ver. 30. I have feen God face to face, and my Life is preferved ? For the Confir- mation of this Expofition, it will not be amifs to con- fult Hof 12. 3,4, 5. He took his Brother by the heel in the Womb, and by his Strength he had Power with God; yea he had Power over the Angel and prevailed : he wept and made fupplication unto him : he found him in Bethel, and there he fpake with us ; even the Lord God of Hofis, the Lord is his Memorial. Where the Perfbn that is called an Angel, ver. 4. is in v. 3. called God, notbecaulehe reprefen- ted God, but was God himfelf ; the word ClGinm in the plural number being never us'd ( as fome Learned Men have obferved) to denote one Angel but many, but of- ten ufed to fignify God. And ver. 5. he is called Jeho- vah,God of Ho ft s ; Appellations proper to God alone,and not communicable to any created Angel : for thus faith God of that Name Jehovah, or I am that lam, Exod. 3.15. This is my Name for ever} and this is my Memorial unto all Generations. To 2 ^ 4 *H* -Texf ; examined wlic b Tapifts cite \ To this fome of them add thofe other Words of Ja* Beat, i.i.c.20'. ^ in the latter part of the 16 th Verfe, ^^ /;; j»;r Afo*« be named on th. I the Name of my Fathers, Abrah Ifaac, c^jacob 5 I t ignorantly and impertinently : for who dees not fee tie difference betwixt calling on the Name of Jacob, and the Name of Jacob being cali'd - upon them ? Nothing can be more evident than that Jacob did not ipeak of a Religions Invocation o?*himfelf after he was dead, and of his Anceftors Abraham and I- faac, but of the adopting of the Sons of Jofeph into his Family, and dividing to them a Portion with the reft of his' Children in the Land of Canaan \ and thattho they were born in M$yf#\ out of his Family, they fliould no lefs be efteemM nis Sons. It is a known Phrafe amongft the Jews, whereby is expreft the ingrafting of any Perfon, Man or Woman, into a Family, explained beyond all contradiction,, in Gen. 48. 5. And now thy two Sons, Ephraim and Manaffeb, which were born unto thee in the Land of yEgypt, before I came unto thee in -'Egypt, are mine ', as Reiiben and Simeon they jhall be mine. As alfo in lfa.j\. 1. In that-day feven Women [ball take hold of one Man, faying, &C. Only let thy Name be caWd upon us, ib the Margent reads it verbatim from the Hebrew, that is, as it is in the Text, Only let us be called by thy Name, or accounted thine. The lame Phrafe we find Dan. 9. 18. 0 my God, behold the City, whereupon thy Name>is called; ib in the Hebrew, but rendered in the Text, which is called bythy.Name. Was it needful in fb. RiberainCom- plain a cafe ; I might produce their own Interpreters a- menc. Am.c.9. gamft themfelves, but I fhall let down only the words Niccl.Lyran. of one of them, The Name of one Man according to the in locum. ttfual Speech of the Jews, is ■ faid to be calfd upon another^ Fcnftca ioCi- ^^ ^ ^^ ^ , ^ ^^ With / forthelVorfJripofJtigds, and Saints departed. fff With the like Confidence and Impertinence doBellar- ■ and others cite Job 5. 1. Call now, if there be any re, and to which of the Saints wilt thou tells us, that by Saints, accord- St. Aiflin, are meant Angels, and cites many 0- ther places of Job, where Angels are called Saints. B_ this granted ; Is theie here any Precept to pray to them? No, he confefles, the words are no further an Argument for it, than as- they fhew it was the aijlom of c that Age to implore the aid, and protection of Angels. But how do they fhew this? If the words have a quite different fenie and defign ; as appears they have from the Context. We find that Eliphaz in the former Chapter, inftead of pitying Job, arid adminiftring com- fort to him in his Agony, accus'd him of Impiety to- wards God, and Unrighteoufnefs towards Men ; al- Job^- ledging for it, that God never afflicts Men imfo grie- vous a manner but for feme great and notable Wicked-- nefs, and for the proof of this he appeals to Job's and Vcr. 8, his own Experience, to the Admonitions he had fre- quently given others of it, to the many Inftances of 'y«r. 9, 10. i: in the Deftruftion of great OpprefTors, and tells him at laft that lie was confirmed in this Truth by an Angel Ver. 1 1 tothe- who in the night had appeared to him : And left all this Qn'J- was not enough, lie reaffumes the Argument in t Verfe, and bids him ask the Opinion and confult the Experience of other holy Men or Saints, and lie would' find chat all of them would feal to.this Truth ; nay, but that he was To unwet-thy and coaDd net expect it, if : Angel flhould appear to linn, as one had done to him, he. alfo would bear v. itnefs to it. A like Text to this, and as little to their purpofe is- that in Job 17. 21. Have pity upon me, have pity upto me, 0 ye my lr tends, for the Hand of the L or d hath li- ked me, 1 5 6 77;e 7V*fr examined which Papifts cite By Friends cannot without manifeft violence to the Context be meant Angels ; but Job's three Friends that came to vifit him, and inftead of applying fit Lenitives to his Anguifh, did by their fharp and cutting Reproa- ches wound him deeper and enrage his Sores. Thus he begins the Chapter, and complains of their Cruelty, ver. i> 2. How long n ill ye vex my Soul, and break me in pieces with words ? Ihefe ten times have ye reproached me, &"C. And having in the following Veifes very lively expreft his bitter and pungent AfBi&ions, in ver. 21. he takes Up the Complaint again, Have pity upon me, have pity uponmey 0 ye my friends : TV, the lame Perfbns Ik: com- plained of before ; as it he had laid, O ye my Friends, who profeft to come to com ion- m , do nor ye make my condition more deplorable ; let it fufFxe that the Hand of the Lord lies heavy upon me, do not you by your cruel Taunts, unreafonable and inhumane Cenfures, add to my. Load and Pre mires, but afcer others ha\ • forfa- ken me in my Miferies, fhew your felves to be Friends indeed by the Comforts and Aflifrances yGU adminifter tome. Their chief Proof for Invocation of Saints and what they moll infill on is yet behind ; it is from fiich Texts of Scripture wherein good Men on Earth are command- ed to pray for one another, and from Examples of that kind. A number of thele are to be found both in the Old and New Teftament; 1 Sam.j.8. And the Children of Ifrael [aid to Samuel, Ceafe not to cry unto the Lord our God for ut, that he will fave m jut of the Hand of the Philiftins. Job 42. 8. And my Servant Job he (hall pray for you, for him will 1 accept. Rom. 15. 50. I he- feech you, Brethren, that you ftrive together in your Pray- ers to God for me. To the lame purpofe are cited, Eph. 6. 18, 19. Pray always with all Prayer a.-;d Supplication for all t for the Worfh'ip of Jngels, and Saints departed. i<* all Saints and for me. i ThefT. 5. 25. Brethren, fray for us. 2 ThefT. 3. 1. Finally, Brethren, pray for us. Col, 4. 5. Heb. 13. 8. Praying 'ffo for us. Eph. 3. 16. For this caufe I borv my Kjiees unto the father of our Lord, Je- fus Chrift, that he would grant you to be ftrengthened with Might by his Spirit in the inner Man. It is confefs'd on all hands, and thefe Texts abundant- ly prove it, that it is the indifpenfible Duty of the Mem- bers of Chrift's Church to pray for one another, and that they may and ought to defire one anothers Prayers. God has for great and wife reafbns commanded and encoura- ged this, hereby we teftify our mutual Love to one ano- ther, exprefs our Sympathy and fellow-feeling with one anothers Miferies, moft effectually preferve the Unity of the Body of Chrift, and uphold the fblemn publick Worfhip.of God in the World, which confifts in meet- ing together, and putting up to one common Father mu- tual Prayers for one anothers Profperity ; this alio gives great credit 8c Reputation to Religion & Vertue, when God hears the Prayers of good Men,8cupon their Suppli- cations, diverts a Judgment,or removes a Calamity from themfelves and others. But from hence can be drawn no Argument for the Invocation of Saints and Angels : For, 1. Chriftians on Earth are by thefe Texts em- powred only to defire others to pray for them. But the Church of Rome prays to Saints and Angels, not only to pray for them, but to beftow Bleffings upon them, to blefs them, to give this or that temporal or fpiritual Good to them, and to help them in this or that particular Difficul- ty or Diftemper ; which is to fuppofe them to have a moft certain Power to help them, and to terminate the Wor- ship on them. Innumerable Inftances of this kind may be producM ; and the matter of facl: is too notorious to be denied. Bonaventure, a Cardinal and a Saint, has M m bur- 1 5 8 The Texts examined which Papijls cite Tom.5. p.478. burlefqu'd the Book of Pfalms, applying whatever is ' faid in them of God the Father and his Son Chrift Jefus, unto the Virgin Mother. And was it true, as they of late to palliate the bufinefs, that in whatever words or Phrafes their Prayers to Saints are exprefs'd, the mean- ing of the Church in them all, is, but an Or a pro nobis 5 yet this would not fetch it off, fince it is not fo much the matter of the Prayer, as the nature of the Prayer that makes it unlawful to be pay'd to them. For, 2. When we are in thole Texts obliged to defire our fellow-Chriftians to pray for us, that defire is not a Pray- ing to them, but a friendly Requeft ; but the Church of Rome in joins to call upon the Saints departed, in a mod &ipplicieerin-c[evout manner, after the manner of Supplicants ; and we know that it is their conftant practice to do it, with all the Circumftances of Religious Worfhip, in confecra- ted Places, at holy Altars, at the fame time they wor- fhip God, with bended Knees, with Eyes and Hands lift up ', witnefs the Rofaries, the P falters, the Hours, and all other Offices of Devotion, wherewith they wor- fhip the BlefTed Virgin ; witnefs the Oratories and Chap- pels they have erected for her Honour and Service. Now does it follow, that becaufe I am commanded to defire the Prayers of my Brethren on Earth, I am alfb com- manded after a moft religious manner to invoke the Saints in Heaven to pray fcr me ? 3. Thefe Texts require us to defire our fellow-Chri- ftians to be only meer Supplicants and Petitioners for us, to pray for us, as they do for themfelves. But the Church of Rome teaches and pra&ifes more in their Invocation of Saints, viz. to pray to them to become their Advo- cates and Mediators in Heaven with God. Now thefe are two different things, and the one not to be inferred from the other : For in the firft, in defiring the Prayers of , for tie Worty'ip of Angels, and Saints departed. 1 5 9 of good Men on Earth, we rely on the Goodnefs of God, and the Truth of his Promife to hear and anfwer them ; In the latter, praying to Saints in Heaven as Advocates and Mediators, we rely on their Merits, the Favour and Intereft they have in God ; as if they were more ea- fily prevail'd with by our Prayers, than our God and Saviour, as if they had greater Power in the Court of Heaven than the Son of God, or that God would do more for Men at their Importunity, than from his own infinite Love and Propenfity to do Good. 4. Thefe Texts require us to defire the Prayers of good Men on Earth, who hear us and know our Condi- tion ; but the Church of Rome requires Men to pray to Saints in Heaven, who cannot hear us, and for ought we know, are ignorant of our State. Now does it fol- low that becaufe I may defire the Prayers of one that's prefent, I may invoke the Prayers of one that's abfent. Nothing can be laid againft the former, but to do the latter, is either an abfurd and foolifh, or a finful and idolatrous A&ion ; foolifh, if they believe the Saints in Heaven do not hear them ; Idolatrous, if they do ; for that is to fuppofe them to be omniprefent, and to afcribe to them one of thofe Perfections that is incommunicably inherent in the Nature of God : The truth of which I thus prove ; he that prays to a Saint departed, prays to him in Faith, in a Belief that he hears and can help him ; this Faith is founded on fomething, either that the Saint can hear and help him by his own natural Pow- er, or by fome other means ; If by the former, then the Point is granted, and that afcribes to him an Omnipre- fence, that's above the condition of a Creature ; if by the latter, fome Revelation muft be produced from God to that purpofe : for it is not enough that God can make known our Prayers to the Saints one way or other, but M m 2 if 160 The Texts examined which Papifts cite V if they pray in Faith to them, fbme proof mutt be pro- duced that God does do it ; for guefs and conjecture is not a fuificient Foundation for Faith, it muft have for its Bottom, either a natural Power in the Saint, or a Re- velation from God of fome other way ; but there is no fuch Revelation as to the latter, and therefore the pray- ing in Faith to them neceffarily implies the former, and confequently aicribes to them that Omniprefence that is infeparable from the Deity. The Church of Rome tells us of many ways (all which I confidered before under p. io i, 102. tjie 2^ jjead) but they are not agreed wnich to fix upon, a true fign they are uncertain of all ; and tho God may and can do it any of thole ways, that is no proof that he does it by any of them, unlefs he had told us fb. 5. When we defire our fellow-Chriftians to pray for us, that is a 'vocal defire : but the Church of Rome al- lows of mental as well as vocal Prayers to be made to the • Saints departed,, which makes them omnifcient, and afc K^ppacS?" cribes to them the knowledg of the Heart and all its Condi. Trid. moft fecret motions. dSana. S. * fhould now produce the feveral Texts of Scripture !. 1. c 20. ' that make God the only Object of Prayer as well as of the other parts of Religious Worfhip ; but to name, them all, would be to tranfcribe a confiderable part both of the Old and New Teftament : This every Proteftant. knows that has been converlant in the Bible, and every Papift would be convinc'd of,that had a Licenfe and will to read it : It fhall fuffice therefore to fet down a few. No Man will deny but that the Tabernacle and Tem- ple at Jerufalem were peculiarly confecrated to the Ho- nour and Worfhip of the one God Jehovah, Maker of Heaven and Earth ', now here were the Jews appointed to bring and perform all their Worfhip ; here they per- formed their Vows, . kept their folemn Feftivals ; hither they f for the Worfhlf of Angels, and Saints departed. I &\ they brought their Tithes and Offerings,and firft-fruits ; here their Sacrifices were to be offered, Dent. 12. i $,14. here alfo their Prayers were to be put up ; And when it fo hapned that they could not repair to the Temple, being in Exile, or in War, they were to pray towards the Temple. Thus Solomon prayed to hear the Petiti- ons that were put up towards the Temple, 1 Kjngs 8. 30. And Daniel in Babylon, Dan. 6. 10. prayed with his Windows open towards Jerufalem. Thus was God the only Objeft of Prayer in the Jewijb Religion. He is fb alfo in the Chrifiian, Phil. 4.6. In every thing by Prayer and Supplication, with Thank/giving, let your Requejls be made known unto God. And in James 1. 5. If any of you lack Wifdom, let him ask it of God, who gives to all Men liberally. How fb all they call upon him in whom they have not heard? fays St. Paul, Rotn. 10. 14. Which words dire&ly exclude all from being the Objecl: of Prayer, that are not the Obje&s of our Faith, and con- fequently if we believe only in God, we muft call up- on him only. • Our bleffed Saviour hath thus taught us to pray, Luk. 1 1. 2. When ye pray j fay, Our Father which art in Heaven &c. For thine is the Kjngdom, the Power and the Glory ', or Mat. 6. 9. After this manner fray ye, Our Father, &c. For thine is the Kjngdom, &c. Whether^this Prayer was prefcribed by our Saviour as a Form to be ufed, or a Pattern to be imitated by us, it's all one ; it frill dire£ts and obliges us to put up our Prayers to our Heavenly Father, whofe is the Kjngdom^ the Power yand the Glory. We may obferve alio that eve- ry Petition in this Prayer is dire&ed to God ; (Our Fa- ther which art in Heaven, being underftood, tho not re- peated in every one of them ;■) and if, as fbme tell us, this Prayer contains a Summary of whatever ought to be 2 6 1 The Texts examined which Tapifts cite . be the Subject-matter of a Chriftian's Prayer, then whatever I ought to pray for, I ought to pray to God for it ; • Bellarmine tells us that this Argument will not hold, becaufe it excludes the fecond and third Perfons in the bleffed Trinity from being the Object of Prayer, as much as it does Saints and Angels. ' stevifc.oj m- I anfwer; the word Father in this Prayer is to be ta- xation of ken efTentially and not perfbnally, and lb excludes not the other two Perfons of the molt holy and undivided Trinity, but only thofe that are of a different nature from them ; now if the whole three Perfons are one in Effence,then whenever we pray to,& do honour to God the Father, we mult at the fame time worfbip the other two, tho not lb direftly, who are one with him. I fhall fet down but one place more, Mat. 21.13. It is written, fays our Lord, My Houfe /ball be called the Houfe of Prayer ; fo effential a part, you fee, of God's Worfhip is Prayer, that God thought fit to defcribe his own Houfe by that Name ; but if Prayer did appertain to any other befides God, the Houfe of Prayer would not have been a fure diftinguifhing fign of God's Houfe. The fecond Branch is : That there is no -proof from Scripture that rve may fray to God to be heard for the fake of the Saints, in favour of them and their Merits. The Texts they make ufe of to defend this, are many, but not different in their fenfe and meaning, and there- fore one Anfwcr will ferve them all ; They are fuch as thefe ; Exod. 32. 13. Mofes thus pray'd in the behalf of the Jjraelites, when they had highly provoked God by wor- ihipping the Golden Calf, Remember, Abraham, Ifaac, .* 'And Ifrael thy Servants. Sof \ f for the Worjhip of Angels, and Saints departed. 262 So Solomon pray'd in the behalf of himfelf, 2 Chron.6. j6. Now therefore, 0 Lord God of Jfrael, keep with thy Servant David my father, that which thou haft promt fed. In 1 King. 15.4. it is faid, for David? s fake did the Lord hts God give him a Lamp in Jerufalem, when he fuffered wicked Jbijam to fucceed in the Throne of Judah. In 2 Kjn£. 19. 24. God promifes for his Servant Da- vid's fake to defend the City of Jerufalem againft Sen- nacherib's mighty Heft, in the Reign of Hezekiah. Again,' PfaL 132. 1, 10. Lord, remember David, and all his Afflictions \ for thy Servant David'* fake, turn not away the face of thine Anointed. And in theSong of the three Children that is added in the Apocrypha, ver. 1 2. they are faid thus to pray, Caufe not thy Mercy to depart from us, for thy Beloved Abraham'/ fake, for thy Servant Vf^^s fake, and for thy holy Ifrael'* fake. Now for the right underftanding of all thefe Texts, we are to confider, that with thefe holy Men, Abraham, Jfaac, Jacob, and David, God was pleafed as a reward to their Faithfulnefs and Uprightnefs, and for the en- couragement of Religion and Vertue in the World, of his meer Grace and Goodnefs to enter into a Covenant with them, and many times to repeat and ratify it, thai- he would be their God, and the God of their Seed ; that he would take them under his efpecial Care and Patronage, and beffow many Bleflings and Deliverances upon them. Hereupon in after- Ages their Potter ity were wont in their Prayers to mention their great and worthy Ance- ftors, not that they begg'd to be heard and anfwered/or their fakes and merits, but that they might (as, it were) remember God of his Covenant and Promife made to their Fore-fathers, andfobeg'd to be heard for his own fake, his Name fake, and his Mercy fake. So indeed thole places expound themfelvesjthofe holy Men being feldom or 2 64 The Texts examined which Papifts ate Or never mention'd in Prayer, but God's Promife and Covenant is alio added. In the fore-quoted place, Exod. 32. 14. It follows, To whom thou hatt [worn by thy Self, and faidfi, I will mul- tiply your Seed as the Stars in Heaven. In the Song of the three Children, ver. 1 ?. it is ad- ded, To whom thou halt fpoken and promt fed, that thou wilt multiply their Seed as the Stars. And where God promifed for David's Sake to defend Jerufalem, to turn away his Anger ; the meaning is, for his Covenant fake, and for his Promife fake, which he made with and to David. So God himfelf teaches us to expound thefe Texts. Exod. 6. 3, 4, 5. And 1 appeared unto Abraham, &c. And J have alfo e[iablifhed my Covenant with them, &"C. And I have alfo heard the groaning of the Children of Ifrael, and I have rememhred my Covenant. Lev. 26. 41 , 42. If then their uncircumcifed Hearts be humbled, &x. then will I re- member my Covenant with Jacob, and alfo my Covenant with Ifaac, and alfo my Covenant with Abraham will I remember. And as good Men were wont to adjure God by his Truth and Faithfulnefs engag'd in Covenant with their Forefathers to fpare them and to fave them ; fb alio was God pleated, the ftronger to confirm their Faith in his Covenant and Promiles, fometimes to repeat and con- firm it afrefh to them : Pfal. 89. 28. My Covenant (ball fiand fafl with him. Ver. 33. My Loving Kjndnefs will I not utterly take from him, nor fuffer my Faithfulnefs to fail. Ver. 34. My Covenant will I not break, nor alter the Thing that's gone out of my hips ', onee have I f worn by my Holinefs, that I will not lie unto David. The Do&rine of Merit is a ftranger to the Scriptures, and what no Creature, tho innocent, is capable of ; the t for the Worjhif of Angels, and Saints departed. 265 the higheft degree of Vertue and Goodnefs being our Duty, no Man can merit at God's Hand, for that is to do more than his Duty ; and if the Innocent cannot me- rit, much lets the \V icked and Unclean ; and who can lay, I have no Sin ? All the Promifes therefore made by God to good Men and their Pofterity are not to be rec- koned as a debt to their Deferts, but as the effect, of his Grace and Mercy in Chrift Jefus ; having deferved no good thing from God, nay having demerited highly a- gainft him, we can expeel: nothing from God but by way of Grace and Covenant ; and the Juftice and Wifdom of God requiring that this Covenant fhould be founded in our Saviour's Blood, and feal'd and ratify'd in it, we have nothing elfe but Chrift and his Merits to rely up- on, nothing elfe to plead in the behalf of our (elves and Others at the Throne of God ; but this we have, and this is fufficient. This was long ago prefigur'd by the Jews being obli- ged to offer up all their Prayers to God at the Temple, the Temple being a Type of Chrift's Incarnation. As God dwelt in the Temple then, ib he does now in our Nature ; and what the Temple was to the Jews, that is Chrift Jefus to us, the way and means that procures the Acceptance of our Prayers with God. To this may be added many places in the New Te- ftament ; He u able to fave to the uttermojl all thofe thai come unto God by him, for be ever-lives to make Interceffi* on for us, Heb. 7. 25. To this our Saviour hath appro- priated his own granting what his Dilciples fhould ask of God ; John 14. 1 3,^4. Whatfoever ye {hall ask in my Name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. To this he elfewhere appropriates God's grants ing what they fhould ask of him : John 15. 16. What- foever ye Jhall ask the Father in my Name> he will give it N n you, 166 The Texts examined which Tapifts cite \ you. To this he exprefly obliges his Difciples, Job. \6. 24. Hitherto ye have asked nothing in my Name : ask, and ye {ball receive? that your Joy may be full. Now to pray in the Name of Chrift, is to pray through his Media- tion, upon the encouragement of his Merits, and his be- ing our IntercefTor and Advocate at God's Right-hand in our Nature, who having perfectly fulfiil'd his Father's Will, and by his Death made an Atonement for our Sins, and purchased Grace and Glory, and all good things for us, hath given thereby the greateft aflurance, that when- ever we go duly qualified in his Name, we fhall get ac- eefs, and both our Perfons and Services be accepted. And that this is to ask in Chrift's Name, appears from John 1. 12. To as many as received him, to them gave he Power to become the Sons of God, even to them that believe on his Name ; that is, on the account of his Merits and Undertaking. Sojoh.20. 51. Thefe things are written that ye might believe, and that believing, ye might have Life thro* his Name ; that is, thro' his Merits and Mediation. The third Branch is : There is no proof from Scripture for praying to Saints and Angels, as Interceffors and Mediators in the Prefence of God. The Romanifis pofitively afTert that the Saints are our Advocates and Mediators in Heaven, and pray to them as fuch ; and tho they diftinguifh betwixt a Mediator of Redemption, and a Mediator of Inter cejjion, afcribing the first folely to Chrift, and making the latter common be- twixt him and Saints in Heaven ; yet whoever confiders their Doctrine of Merit and Super err ogat ion, and that of Indulgences founded upon it, whoever obferves how of- ten they defire in their Devotions to be hea J and affiled for the Merits as well as Prayers of thi& or that other otner *\ Saint, rs , for the Worfhty of Angels, and Saints departed. 1 67 S.iint,and that Bellarmine himrelf confeffes that they may Prcdbus & after a fort be called our Redeemers, will be apt to con- No" "bfurdum j that they attribute both to the Saints afwell as to eftfifanaivid (.j^ Redemptores Bat admitting the Diftin&ion ; there is as little proof mododicSur. i lie one as for the other in Scripture ; the Texts de mdul.'i. u t ppeal to for the justification of it, being very much c' 4* n .11 by them. rft is Gal. 3. 9. where the Apoftle, fpeaking of the Law, lays, it was ordained, by Angels in the hand of a Mediator, From whence they argue, that the Saints in Heaven may in the fame fenle be called Mediators, wherein St. Paul calls Mofes a Mediator. I fhall not anfwer with fbme Learned Men, that by Mediator here may not be meant Mofes, but Chrifi the promifed Median, who fpake with Mofes on the Mount, J^c" 3|* ?' and delivered the Law to him, being attended on by an Angelis di^p- innumerable company of Angels, for the greater Glory fltis' and Majefty of their Lord. But granting it to be Mofes ; he is calPd a Mediator, in a far different fenfe from that wherein that Appellati- on is given to the Saints above, viz* as he was an Inter- nuncio, a Perfon that went betwixt God and the People, relating the Covenants and Agreements made betwixt them. / flood betrvixt the Lord and you at that timey fays Mofes of himfelf, Deut. 5. 5. For what ? It follows, to {hew you the Word of the Lord. And as Mofes brought the Word and Law of God to the People, Exod. 1 9. 7. fo he return'd the Words of the People to the Lord, ver. 8. And Mofes came andca/Pd for the Elders of the Peo- ple, and laid before their Faces all thefe Words which the Lord commanded him : And all the People anfwer d toge- ther', and faid, All that the Lord hath fpoken, we will do: and Mofes return d the Words of the People nnto the Lord,. v N n 2 To i68 Tl>e Texts examined which Tapifts cite Qpteinu nun- To this Bellarmine agrees, where he fays, allfuch Mef- "e^^nSi- ffH&ers may in a fenfe be calfd Mediators. But does it dcra utriufque follow, becaufe Mofes was employed as a MefTenger be- partn refcrunt, twixt God and the Jews at the Delivery of the Law that nes inccmuncii the Saints above are our Advocates and Mediators with dici poffunt God in the Court of Heaven. chrSoTs.c.i! They cite alio Rev. 8. j. where an Angel is faid to of- fer the Prayers of the Saints to God. The words are thefe ; And another Angel came and flood at the Altar, ha- ving a golden Cenfer ', and there was given unto him much Incenfe that he fhould offer it with the Prayers of all Saints upon the golden Altar, which was before the Throne. To this I need fay no more, but that the generality of learned Men, as well of the Church of Ron.e as the Re- formed, underftand by the Angel here, our bleffed Savi- our, whole Office alone it is to offer up the Prayers of eius fciii- t^le Saints, and for whofe fake alone they are accepted, cet Chrifbs, So Thomas Aquinas ; The Angel, to wit, Chrijl, who is quidickur An- £4//y m Angel, becaufe fent by the father into the World. %&z I'atre ifl So the Jefuit Viegas, All Interpreters do confefs that by mundum, &c. Angel if here meant our Lord Chrifi, becaufe of no other- can incap.8.Apoc. ^ yg y^ ^^ yg 0gefs ^ fQ tjJg fat^er after fQ glortous interpretes ef- / . . nuiii alii quam the Text, another Angel, intimating that he was one chrirt°> ^- in both in Nature and Office, different from the others $S. 2. P°C" mention'd in the verfe before, ver. 2. I faw the feven Angels which flood before God ; and then, ver. 3. A- nother Angel came and flood at the Altar. The next is Rev. 5. 8. where it is faid, That the four Beajls, and four and twenty Elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them Harps and golden Vials full of Odour sy which are the Prayers of the Saints. By the Pray- / for thelVorfl)ip of AtigeUf and Saints departed. 169 Prayers of the Saints they mean of thole Saints that are living upon the Earth, and by the four Beafts and four and twenty Elders, the Saints that are in Heaven ; and from thence conclude that the Saints in Heaven do of- fer up the Prayers of the Saints on Earth. But if by the four Beafts and four and twenty Elders are not meant the Members of the Church Triumphant:, but the Bifhops and Pallors of the Church Militant, whole office it is to prefent the Prayers and Praifes of the Church to God, then is this Text cited by them to no purpofe. And that they are thus to be understood, may not only be collected from the very Teftimonies Bellarmine cites againft it ; but fome of the Fathers are Ambr.in loc;. very plain and pofitive in it ; but inflead of letting down l«»»j4'*'33« their words, I (hall defire the Reader to perule the Text with the following Verfes to the end of the Chapter, and he'll ealily perceive that they are a Reprefentation of the whole Church of Chrift both in Heaven and Earth, joining together in their Doxologies and Praifes to God for the Vi&ories of the Lamb, and the Redemption of the World by his Blood, ver. 8 to 14. And when he had taken the Book, tht four Beafts, &rc. And they fung a. new Song, faying, Thou art worthy to take the Book, &rc. And I beheld and heard the Voice of many Angels round a- bout the Throne, and the Beafts and the Elders, and the number of them were ten thoufand times ten thoufand, and thoufands of thoufands, faying with a loud Voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was flam to receive Power, and Riches, and Wifdom, and Strength, and Honour, and Glory, and Bleffwg : And every Creature which is in Heaven, and on the Earth, and under the Earth, andfuch as are in the Sea, and all that are. in them, heard I, faying, Bleffing, Ho- nour, Glory and Tower be unto him that fits on the Throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever. I lyo 77;e Texts examined which Tapifls cite K I might pafs over what they produce out of Tobit. i 2. 12, 1 5. where the Angel Raphaels faid to bring the re~ membrance of their Prayers before the holy One, and to pre- fect the Prayers of the Saints ; The Book being Apocryphal, and fo not of fufficient Authority, we have no more reafbn to give credit to it in this place, than in others that are apparently falfe, as chap. 5. 12. where it brings in the Angel faying what was not true, viz. lamAzivizs the Son of Ananias the Great, and of thy Brethren. Non fufficit u- There is but one Text more, and I believe the Rea- ms Advocatus der will excufeme, if I do but name it, without making rumanogeneri anY Refleftions upon it, Gen. 2. 18. It is not good that in Caflo, cum Man (hould be alone, let us make a meet help for him \ that toe ac tam pe- [s^ favs Henno, One Advocate or Mediator in Heaven is habeac coram not [efficient for Mankind, which has fo many Caufes of Deo, faciamus the highejl and mofi dangerous confequence depending before "ocljlbeamm God i Lei m make him * meet &&> *' e' the faffed Vir- Virginem. Wi- gin. cd.Eienc.abus. \ muft not ftav here to fhew that the Angels and l2$' Saints above are no way qualified for the Office of a Mediator, unlefs it could be prov'd that they knew our Defires, and were throughly acquainted with our Cafe and Condition, and had a fufficient Power to under- take our Patronage, and a fufficient Merit and Intereft in God to procure it from him. * But my bufinefs is to fhew that the Scripture every where appropriates this to our Lord Chrift, who being God as well as Man, knows our Hearts, hears our Prayers, has Merit enough to purchafe, Intereft enough to procure, nay Power fuf- ficient to grant and beftow whatever we ask and itand in need of. He is fure of good fuccefs, whatever Caufe or Perfbn he becomes an Advocate for. Father, I know, that thou heareji me always, fays our Saviour, John 11.42. Come • for the Worfhip of Jngels, and Stints departed. 1 y i Come unto me all ye that Ubour and Are heavy-laden, and 1 will give you reji, Mat. n. 21. Again, John 14.6. No Man comet h to the Father but by me. And Eph. 2.18. Through him we have an accefs by one Spirit unto the Father. So Eph. }. 12. In whom we have boldnefs and accefs with Confidence by the Faith of him. But there cannot be a clearer and fuller proof to this purpofe, than 1 Tim. 2. 5. There is one God, and one Me- diator between God and Man, the Man Chrifi Jefus. And, In 1 Cor. 8. 5, 6. For tho there be that are called Gods, whether in Heaven or in Earth (as there be Gods many and Lords many) but to ws there is but one God the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him ', and one Lord Jefus Chrifi ', by whom are all things, and we by him. Here in oppofition to the Pagan Idolatry, that toge- gether with one fupreme God worfhip'd many other in- feriour Deities, either as fubordinate Governours of the World, or as Mediators and IntercefTors for them with the fupreme God, The Apoftle aflerts, that to us Chri- ftians, there is but one God, the Maker of all things ', and one Mediator betwixt God and Man, the Man Chrifi Jefm, to be the Object of our Worfhip. In both which places 'tis very evident, the word es, one, fignifies one only, One Mediator in the fame fenfe that there is one God, and you may as well make to your felves more Gods than one as more Mediators than one. Nor will their diftin&ion of a Mediator of Redempti- on and a Mediator of Interceffion be here of any ufe to them. For, 1 . The Apoftle afferts abfolutely without any referve or diftin&ion, there is one God and one Mediator. To diftinguim where the Apoftle does not, is not to fpeak > the 27 % The Texts exctmintd which Papifts cite the Apofttes fenfe, but their own, and 'to fervca Caufe infteadof Truth. .2. The Apoftle eppofes the one Mediator to the Plu- rality of Daemons and Mediators among the Heathens ; now all that the Heathens attributed to their -Damons or Mediators, was Interceffion only : fo that this diftin- ftion, had it been thought of in that Age, would have ferv'd the Heathens turn as well as the Eapifts, and it would have been as good an Anfwer from the one as the other ; Chrilt is a Mediator of Redemption, but ours Me- diators only of Interceflion. .,$. A Mediator of mere Interceflion is a great leiTe- ning and reproach to the Nature and Perfections of God. It brings down God to the'meannefs of earthly Princes, as if he, like them, difpenfed his Favours by the dire- ction of others, and at their importunity ; as if he knew not when to do good, and was not always ready to do it, but wanted the Information and Sollicitation of o- thers, and govern'd himfelf more by Meafures taken from fome Favourites in the Court of Heaven, than by his own infinite Wifdom and Goodnefs. We indeed are commanded to pray to God, to pray for others, and to begone anothers Prayers; but this we do not, to inform God, but to pay our Homage and Worfhjp to Him ; not as relying on any Intereft or Power we or others can \u\:c in God, but on his Good- nefs, and the truth of bis Promifes,that reach alike to all good Men ; and in doing this we give .-Glory to 'God, by owning his Abfblute Suveraignty over us, and decla- ring his Goodnefs and Faithfulnefs to the World : But to pray to Saints and Angels as Mediators of Intercef lion, is to fuppcfe that they have upon the account of their own.Merit and Worth that Power and Intereft in God as feldom or never to be denied,; or at lea/r that jA the / for the Worjhif of Jngeh, and Saints departed. 173 tbe fureft and moft likely way to obtain our Petitions, is firft to petition them to offer them up to God. But now the more of fuch Power and Intereft we think they have in God, the more fhall we place our hope and con- fidence in them ; and the more we truft and depend on them, the lefs fhall we truft and depend on God ; And is not this to take from God, and to give to his Creature, and to divide our hope and confidence betwixt them ? And if Faith and Hope are any parts of Religious Wor- fhip, We give his Glory to others, whilft we give part of that Worfhip to them,that is fblely and peculiarly God s. 4. No one can be a Mediator of Inteceflion that is not a Mediator of Redemption too ; to be a Mediator of Interceffton in the behalf of an offending Perlbn to his provoked Lord, 'tis requifite that he be no Offen- der agarnft him himfelf, that he has a greater Intereft in him than the Perfbn he intercedes for, and that this Intereft is founded on the Merit of fbme Services per- formed to him, by which Services the Honour and Reputation of his Government is as much retriev'd as it was injured by the others offence and difbbedience, otherwife he is no more likely to prevail for him than the Offender is for himfelf, having both by their Sin forfeited their Right and Intereft in God's Favour, and not having done any thing to make that Atone- ment for them, that his Juftiee and Wifdom as Go- vernour of the World has made fit and neceffary. Now fuch a Mediator or Advocate with the Father in the behalf of finful Man can none be, but Chrift our Lord, who, when by our Tranfgreflions we had provok'd God, and brought contempt upon his Laws &r Authority,fuffer- ed Death to make a Propitiation for our Sins,& by his per- fect Obedience^ Sufferings reftor'dthat Honour &■ Reve- rence to his Authority and Government that we had vi- O o lifted 174 ' lb* Texts examined which Tnpifis cite lifted and defpifed, and now in virtue of his meritorious Blood he makes Interceflion for us, not as an ordinary Supplicant, relying wholly on Mercy, but as a powerful Mediator, urging his own Merits : having purchaled what he begs for, having aton'd for what he prays for, his Intercemons for us are never denied, nor our Prayers in his Name, for his Sake. 5. We may obferve therefore that the Scripture makes Chrift's Interceflion to depend on his Propitiation ; fb it follows in this Chapter, ver. 6. the Apoftle, having laid there is one Mediator, adds, who gave him f elf a Ran- fom for all: So Rom. 8. 33 . Who /ball lay any thing to the charge of God's Elefi ? It is God that juftifeth ; who is he -. that condemneth ? It is Chrifi that died, yea rather that ts rifen again, who is even at the Right-hand of God, who al- fo maketh Interceffion for m. So 1 Joh.2. 2,3. If any Man fin, we have an Advocate with the Father, 'Jefus Chrijt the Righteous ; and he is the Propitiation for our Sins. This may farther appear from the Analogy there is and ought to be betwixt the Jewifh and Chriftian Wor- fhip ; S. Raul frequently in his Epiitles, efpecially that to the Hebrews, makes the Legal Priefthood typical of the Evangelical ; now if under that Difpenfation the Priefts were not to make Interceflion for the People without a . Sacrifice firft offer'd up, to atone and propitiate for their Sins ; then it follows that under the Gofpel we can have no other Mediator than one, who brings a Sacrifice along with him ; and that only has our Lord done, who is both our Pried and our Sacrifice, who hath offer'd up himfelf on the Crofs a Sacrifice for our Sins, and now intercedes in the Merits of his own Blood, and the Propitiation he hath made. Thus, as you fee, the A pottle in this Text excludes wholly Angels and Saints from being Mediators of Inters ceffion* ■ for the Worflnj) ofjngeh, and Saints departed. %j j ceffwn. I fhallonly add, that in another place he as plainly condemns it, and forewarns Chriftians againft it, i Tim. 4.1 . Now the Spirit fpeaketh exprejly,that in the Utter times fome /ball depart from the Faith, giving heed to [educing Spirits, and DoBr we s of Devils , A for the Worfhip of Images md %eliques, %j^ nies, which I will examine according to his own me- thod. The fir ft fort is of thole which (b) fpeak expre/ly of (J>) Beliar.de Images; «nd of this there are but two. Thefirft 0f Ima8I,2,c'12, which is in Exod. 25. 1 8. concerning the two Cherubims^ And thou fhalt make two Cherubims of Gold ; of beaten Work (halt ihou make them in the two ends of the Mercy- feat. The other is Numb. 21.8. about the brafen Ser- pent, which God commanded Mofes to make and to fet it upon a Vole : that every one that was bitten by the fery Serpents, might look upon it, and live. But hew are thefe two Places to the purpofe ? there is not one Syllable in either place of their being made and appointed to be worfhipped. We do not difpute with Be/larmine,or any one elfe, the Command from God here of making Images for the purpofes mentioned there ; and the ufe or making of Images is no part of the Con- troverfy, but the worshipping of them : and this is what we can neither find that God commanded, or the Chil- dren of Ifrael pra&ifed here to the Cherubims, and the brafen Serpent : which thing Bellarmine himfelf was a- ware of, and therefore, as to the Cherubims, makes it his bufinefsto lhuffle us off, with giving us (inftead of a Text which he undertakes rhere. and we require ) his own bare affirmation, that the Cherubims were neceffarily Adored by thofe that adored the Ark. But here one Miftake is built upon another, and we have feveral Miftakes and Inconfequences crouded together. For, FirB, ThzArk it felf was not adored by the Ifraelites, as I will fufficiently demonstrate when I come to his Text about the Foot-fiool ; and therefore to retort his reafoning upon him, If the Ark it felf, over which God was pleafed to meet his People, was not adored, much lefs were the Cherubims, which reprefented only P p 2 the i8o The Texts examined which Tapifts cite the Attendants on that reprefentative Throne. But granting the Ark was adored as re preten ting God's Pretence among them, yet why muft the Cherubims be fb too ? Can wenotadore God Almighty in Heaven with- out adoring the Angels which itand about his. Throne ? or do we adore the Angels in Heaven, whenever we a- dore God there ? If no body pretends to affirm a thing fb grofsly abfurd, why could not the Ifraelites worfhip the Ark reprefenting the Pretence of the invi/ible Ma- jefty, without worshipping the Cherubims which were only to repretent the Angels (landing about the Throne of God ? The very defign of them fhews they were not to be worshipped, as well as the filence of the Scrip- ture about appointing any Worfhip to them, and. the Command of God of worfhipping no manner of I- mage. But notwithstanding all this, feveral Romijh Writers will have it that the j^w.r worfhipped God towards the, Cherubims, and thereby worfhipped thzCherubims them- telves ; and the late Dr. Parker Bifhop of Oxford was fb. (c~) Reafwfor over-kind to the Romamfls in this Point, that he affirms mgatmfohe downright (0> tnat at* outward Worjbip was given to the Cherubims. Both thete AfTertions are equally true and conclu/ive, and by this fort of arguing any Man may prove what he has a mind to. Let us mppofe, that the People were to worfhip God with their Faces directed to the Holy of Holies, wherein the Ark with the Cherubims upon it were placed, or,to ute thete Peoples phrate, to worfhip towards the Cherubims* If this proves that they did there- by worfhip the Cherubims j then it follows as clearly that when Chriftiaxs proftrate themtelves to God with Hands^ and Eyes lifted up towards Heaven, they worfhip the Heaven, and are as guilty of worfhipping the Sun, Moon, , for the Wor(btj) of Images and I2(e//t]«w. 1 o i Moon, and Stars, as ever any Pagans were. It was juft iuch wife arguing as this, by which the Heathens were for proving the Primitive Chrifiians as much Idolaters as themfelves, and Woifhippers of the Sun ; becaufe it was their cuftom to worfhip God towards the EaH \ and though the Heathens could not for want of fuch nice piercing wits as thefe Men are bleffed with, yet thefe Po- tty Writers could certainly have proved the thing upon them. The Christians did not deny that they worship- ped the invifible Majefty of Heaven towards the Eajl, towards the Rifing-Sun ; and thefe Men would have fhew'd them thatgiving.Worfhip w«>4r^, and Worfhip to, were the fame thing ; fo that fince they could not de- ny they paid their Worfhip towards the Sun or Eaft, it was certain they paid their Worfhip to the Sun. But cannot fuch Men as thefe diftinguifh between paying our Adoration to an Object of Worfhip, and paying our Worfhip to that Object towards fuch a place ? If they cannot, they are rather to be pittied than difputed with. And as to the Bi/bop^s affirming down-right, that an outward Worfhip was given to the Cherubims ', tho it de- fences no better Anfwer than to affirm that they had no outward Worfhip given them, yet I have thefe Reafbns to confirm our denial with. Firft, We have not one word of Command, or Intima* lion here, that God would have the Cherubims worfbip- ped ; which had been abfblutely neceffary for any ones daring to pay any Worfhip to them, fince God had ex- prefly commanded all the Jews in the fecond Command- ment not to bow down to, or worfhip any manner of Image. Secondly, The People could not worfhip them, fince they were always invifible to them, and could not ferve the 28x The texts examined which P apt fis. cite < the true ends of Images to reprefent after a vifible man- ner invifible things to them ; they were as invifible as any thing that could be reprefented by them, and there- fore altogether ufelefs to fuch purpofes ; and I fuppofe invifible Images were no more in uie then than .they are now. Thirdly, Thefe Reafons togerhcr did fo far fatisfy as great a Friend to Images as ever the Church of Rome 00 Aquin.had, I -mean their Angelick Dotfor, Thomas Aquinas, prima ids Qu. that (d) he averts that the Qherubims were neither pla- io2.Art.4.n.6. cecj jnt^e Tabernacle for Reprefentations.of the invifible Gady nor to have Worfhip paid to them. And with him others of [their Church agree, whom it is not worth while to produce : what I have offered is more than e- nough to fhew that Bellarmins fir ft Text is far from be- ing able.to prove that the Qherubims were worfhipped by the Jews in their Service. Irlis fecond Text is concerning the brafen Serpent ; Numb. 21. $,9. And the Lord [aid unto Mofes, Make thee a fiery Serpent, and fet it upon a Pole : and it fhall come topafs that everyone that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, Jhall live. And Moles made a Serpent of Brafs, and put it upon a Pole ; and it came to pa/s that if a Ser- pent had bitten any Man, when he beheld the Serpent of Brafs, he lived. Now in anfwer to this PafTage we havethe very fame queftion to put that was ufed before about the Qheru- bims., and that is, where is there a Syllable in this place that either commands or mentions the Children of Ifra- efs paying any Worfhip to this, brafen Serpent, though ere&ed for fuch great BleMings to them? Bellarmine here is put to the vevy fame fhifts he was at before, and in- ftead of producing Script/ire to fhew that the brafen Ser- pent , for the Worjhif of Images and %eltaues. 2 8 j pnt was worfhipped ; which is the thing he ought to have done ; he gives this plealant reaibn that the brafen Serpent mufi needs have been worshipped by the Ilraelites, becaufe God had ordered it to be placed aloft, and it gave re- lief to thofe that looked upon it. And is not this very fine arguing ? efpecially in relation to thole People, who lay under fuch ftri& Commands againft ail Image-wor- ship ? One would think the fecond Commandment, which utterly forbids any bowing down, or worshipping any Image, had been a ftronger reafon to conclude the Ifraelites did not worfhip the brafen Serpent, than the jetting it aloft upon a Vole could be that it was worfhipped : and one would think that the perfeQ: filence of the PafTage as to any Worfhip paid, which is yet lb careful to mention the cures done to the People by it, had been more like- ly to determine any wife Man, that notwithstanding the Benefits it was creeled for, yet no Worfhip was paid to it. Such fort of reafbning and guefling is very unfit in any cafe, but far more in this, where Men cannot be content with their Images, but muft undertake to pro- duce Scripture for the Worfh p of them : and Bellarmine had better have kept to his Councils of Nice and Trent in defending Image- worfhip, than to meddle with Scri- pture, and produce fuch places as this, which fpeak not one word of anv Worfhip either commanded, or paid to the brafen Serpent. But though this wild reafbning was all that Beliar- mine had to urge about this place, yet the Author of the touch f one of the Reformed Gofpel can make more of it, and is very pert upon the Reformers ; having put down the 2th Verfe of the 2iy?of Numbers about the irafen Serpent, which you will find above, he very gravely tells the Reader, that hence are evidently proved divers 184 ^)e ^€Xts esammed i^ttS Tapifls cite divers things againfi the Reformers : I . That God com* manded the making of this Image : and which of the Re- formers ever denied this ? 2. The fetting it up for a Sign : and which of the Reformers denies this ? 3. He promi- fed that the Lookers thereon fhould ajfuredly receive Succor and Help. And have any of the Reformers denied this ? This Author muft be owned for a Man of Zeal, but he wants ' both Senie and Modefty, and therefore bufies himfelf about proving that which every body al- ways granted, and which is nothing to the purpofe : however he advances, and intends to make fomething of it, and therefore fets down his fourth : 4. He warran- ted the making, the fetting up, the beholding, and the reve- rencing thereof, to be exempted from the breach of the firfl [fecond fay we] Commandment. As for the warranting the making the. brafen Serpent, it's true ; and for the fet- ting it up, it's true ; and for the beholding it, it's true ; but for the warranting the reverencing of the brafen Ser- pent, that is falfe ; and I would fain know how reveren- cing crept in here : it is neither in the Text, nor in any of his three Propofitions, out of which his fourth is drawn ; the truth is the Man was forc'd toilip it in here, or elfe all he was about had been nothing but Imperti- nence : however, fince the Reverence is of this Author's own putting in, and there is not the leaft countenance for it from the Text, we have reafbn to conclude that there is no ground for Image-rvorjhip from this Paffage concerning the brafen Serpent. But though we cannot grant to Bellarmine and this little Author, that there is any proof of a Reverence to the brafen Serpent from the Texts alledg'd out of Num- bers ; yet I will grant to them that afterwards it was wor- shipped: and had they produced, inftead of Num. 21.8. ■ the Jecond Book of the Kjngs, chap. 18.4. they had gain- ed • / for the WorJJrip of Images and Oblique s\Z i$j ed their Point, and we could not have had one word to oppofe*, for there it is (aid dire&ly, that unto thofe dap the Children of Ifrael did burn Incenfe to it, to wit, the brafen Serpent : but they were wile enough to fee that though the part of the Verfe which I have produ- ced does make for them, yet all the reft of the Verfe was too point-blank againft them. I cannot but admire at the Writers of the Church of Rome, that they dare venture at the bufinefsof the bra- fen Serpent* and can make fuch work to prove that it was worfhipped ; would they but read that whole verfe, furely they would beafhamed ever to urge againft us the brafen Serpent, fince we find that afterwards when it came to be worfhipped (which thefe People are fo zealous to prove it was) that Worjhip was counted down- right Idolatry, and good King Hezekiah's Zeal is com- mended in this Chapter for his doing that which is right in the Eyes of the Lord ; and thefe are reckoned as In- ftances of it, that he removed the high Places, and brake the Images (z), ancicut down the Groves, and BRAK.E IN PIECES THE BRASEN SERPENT reVKinM THAT MOSES HAD MADE; FOR*VNTO *Vj. * THOSE DATS THE C HILD REN 0 F IS- RAEL DID BVRA7 INCENCE TO IT: and he called it Nehufhtan. And this I think is enough to their Inftance from the brafen Serpent. Bellarmines fecond Set of Teftimonies is of thofe which fhew that fome Creatures are to be religioufly ho- noured for their bare relation to God, His firffc Example is that which is generally urged by mod of their Writers in the Church of Rome, Pfal. 9?. $, where in their vulgar Latin Bible the Verfe ends, Et a- dorate Scabellum pedum ejus, that is, and worfbip his Foot- Q_q fool : i86 The Texts examined which Papifts cite < Jiool. From which place they would prove that the Ark of God, which they fay is the Foot-ftool mentioned here, is commanded to be adored ; but in anfwer to this we are as able to fhew that the Ark is not meant here by the Foot-ftool, as that no Adoration is commanded here to the Foot-ftool it felf. That the Earth is it felf God's Foot-ftool, we need no better Evidence than our Savi- our's own words, who hath faid it, Matth. 5. 35. that the Earth is his Foot-ftool ; and that by foot-ftool in that verfe of the Pfalm was meant fome peculiar part of this Globe of the Earth, is apparent from the gth verfe of the Pfalm ; where the Pfalmift repeating the 5th verfe again, puts HOLY HILL inftead of FOOT-STOOL, from which it is evident that by Foot-ftool he meant Mount-^», the Holy-Hill,on which the Temple ftood, and not che Ark. And to demonftrate that no Adoration was com- manded to the Footftool it felf, our People need only look into their Bibles, where they will find that our Englifh Tranftatwn, which is exa&ly from the Hebrew it felf, gives it them quite otherwife. And, wrfbip at (/)P&1.9$.$. hit Foot-ftool, for He is Holy {f J ; which is the fame as if David had faid, Worfhip the Lord in his Temple at Je- rufalem : And to convince our Adverfaries that the Au- , thor of the Vulgar Tranftation meant the fame, and no more than we do, we need only look into his Tranfta- tion of the 9th Verfe, Et adorate in fantto ^Monfe ejus, that is, and worfbif Him IN His Holy Mount ; whereas in the Original Hebrew the Phrafe is the very fame in the fifth as in the ninth Verfe, and therefore we muft allow him the fame meaning- in both places : which is no other certainly than what himfelf exprefTes in the ninth Verfe, of worfhipping God in his Holy Hill,, elfe we muft conclude that not only the Ark ( which our Adver- j 0 for the mrjbtp of images and \eltqttes, 187 Adverfaries contend for) was commanded to be adored, but the Mount ZJon it felf, which 1 think they are not for affertinj;. I think the Qhaldie Paraphrajl hath given the bed Interpretation of the fifth Verfe of this Pfalm, who initead of making it to command an Adoration of the Footitool , hath very briefly explained it in thefe words, and worjbip in the Houfe of his Sanctuary y for He is Holy. And this is fufficient to fhew againft their pro- ducing this Text, that neither was the Ark meant by the Foot (tool, nor any Worfhip intended or commanded to the Footitool it felf, but that the true and whole fenfe of the place is, that David advifes to worfhip God in his Temple upon Mount ZJon. The next Text of this fort which the Cardinal pro- duces is Matthew 5. $ 4, 35. But I fay unto you, Swear not at ally neither by Heaven, for it is God's Throne ; nor by the Earth, for it is his FootjlooL It would have been a very difficult thing to guefs how this Place defends or proves the Worfhip of Images, had not Bellarmine been at fome pains to clear the matter to us ; he argues that in an Oath which is an Act of Religion* as God is primari- ly honoured by it, fo is the thing it felf fecondarily honoured, by which we fwear. Now, fays he, God doth for this reafon forbid the fwear ing by Heaven or by Earth without due Circtun fiances, lejl any Di(bonour fhould thereby be done to thefe Creatures, which have a relation to God. But linages have a like relation to God , and therefore are to be worshipped upon the fame account. TmVConclu- fion unriddles the whole matter, and is a very plea- fant one : but I will examine how Bellarmine carne by it, and what it is he grounds it upon. He firft tells us, that God forbids the fwearing by Heaven or Earth without due Circumjlances ; which is falfe, for Chrift here did Qjq 2 ab- l 8 8 The Texts examined which Vapifts eke i absolutely forbid the fwearing AT ALL by either of them. He next tells us that God forbad it, left thofe Creatures jhould be dishonoured which have relation to God: but this is as groundlefs ; for the true fenfe of the Place is, that thefe were not to be appealed to in our Oaths> becaufe they were not to come into competition, or fhare with God in the Honour of being that fole Wit- nefs and Judg to whom all Men are bound to appeal in their Oaths and Vows. I do grant to Bellarmine that thefe Creatures are really difhonour'd by being appeaPd to in Mens Oaths, but I fay fiich Oaths are forbiidden, not becaufe of any Difgrace or Affront done to them thereby, but becaufe of a Difhonour done to God, by having thefe his Creatures fb infinitely below him ap- pealed to in fuch fblemn Ads of Religion as Oaths are. And this will quite ipoil his extravagant Conclufion-: for if the Heaven and Earth are utterly excluded here ( notwithstanding their relation to God ) from having any Honour done to them : how does Bellarmine con- clude hence that Images are to be worshipped or honoured ? The ground of his Conclufion was, that as the Heaven and Earth are honoured becaufe of their relation to God ; fb Images are upon the fame account to be wor- fhipped, that is, becaufe of their relation to God. But his Ground is funk from under him ; and by fhewing that no Honour is permitted to Earth or Heaven in this Text, we have effectually ruin'd his wild Conclufion from it, that Images are to be worfhipped. But there is one thing I would be gladly inform'd in before I leave this Text and Argument of Bellarmine, and that is, how Images come to have ( as Bellarmine fays they have) a like relation to God, as Heaven and Earth have ? The Relation of the Heaven and Earth to God, our Saviour tells us here, when he makes the one to be his Throne, and , for tie Wor/hip of Imgts aid \efyues. j 8y and the other his Footftool : but wherein Images have a relation to God, which are forbidden by God, I cannot divine. I am lure Bellarmine had been a great deal more in the right, if he had told us, that Images have the fame Relation to Man, that the Heaven and Earth have to God, fince thefe are God's Creatures ; but Images are Mans Creatures , or,, as the Scripture calls them, the work of Mens hands. I muft pafs now to Bellarmine\ third fort of Tefti- monies for Image-worfbip, who by this time is drawn very low ; thefe Teftimonies are to fhew that feme Crea- tures are called, Sacred, or Holy, becaufe of their relation to Holy Things. But fuppofe this be allowed him, yet what is this to the Worfhif of Images I Could he prove that Images ftand in fuch relation to God, as his Houfe, or the Vtenfils of it, or the Pafsover, or the like, then he would argue nearer to the purpofe .? Or, could he fhew that thofe things which are called holy, becaufe of their ref- lation to God, or his Service, were thereby become Ob~ jects of Religious Worfhif^ and had Adoration paid to them ; this would have been a very good Help towards the Proof of his Image-worfhip. But, alas, he muft. wink very hard, that does not plainly fee, that none of thefe things can be proved ; Images are as far from ftanding in any relation to God,, or being approved of, or appointed by him in his Service, as thole other things which were both approved and appointed in his Ser- vice , were from having Religious Worihip paid to. them. • But to pafs this ; Let us examine his Inftances parti- cularly as they come to hand. His firft is Exodus 3. 5. And he fatd, Draw not nigh hither : put off thy Shoes- from off thy feet, for the Place whereon thou fiandett is holy Ground. All that Bellarmine would have hence, is,, that lyo The Texts examined which Papifls cite , that this Ground was holjy becaufe of the Prefence of the Angel ; which we freely grant him, and defire only to know what this is to the defign of proving the Worfhip of Images lawful hence. Either this holy Ground was worfhipped by Mofes, or it was not ; if it was not wor- fhipped, how can this Place help to defend Image-wor- fhip ? if the holy Ground was worfhipped, why did not BeUarmine undertake to clear it, that fo he might make way for the proving that Images might as well be worfhipped as this piece of Ground on which Mofes then ftood ? The truth is, BeUarmine law eafily that thing was not to be done, and was fo wife as to let it alone. But though BeUarmine was fo prudent, yet the Author of the Touchftone of the Reformed Gofpel was for venturing further, and he will have it that when Mofes was commanded to put off his Shoes, becaufe the Place (7) Pag. 112. whereon he ftood was holy Ground, an infenfible Crca-, tare was commanded by God himfelf (0 to be honoured : and all he urges to prove this is, that the refraining to tread upon it, was the doing of Honour to it. This is very eafily anfwered : For, (jirji,) though we allow the Ground on which Mofes ftood was holy, yet it was fuch at that time becaufe of the peculiar Pre- fence of the Angel of God, which was believed by the Fathers to be the Angel of the Covenant, and our Au- thor allows him to be God himfelf. Mofes therefore was commanded to put off his Shoes (which was the Eaft- ern way of paying that Refped which we do by unco- vering the Head ) and thereby to pay Reverence not to the Ground on which he ftood, but to that God in whofe Prefence he then ftood, and who did appear to him, and fend him to deliver his People. So that this Place cannot patronize the Worfhip of Inw- ••■• Bel- , for the Ivor [hif of Images and \eltques. tp i » Bellarmine s next Text is Exodus 12. 16. where ac- cording to him the Feajl of the Paffeover is called, holy And venerable. Exod. 28. 2. wherein the Priefis Gar- ments are called holy. If a. 11. 10. where Chrlji s Sepul- chre ( according to him ) is called Glorious : And 2 Tim. 5.15. where the Scriptures are called Holy. I have crouded all thele Texts together, becaufe they are To wholly impertinent to Bellar -mine's purpole of proving and defending the Worfhip of Images, who it feems was refblved rather to trifle with thefe than to appear deftitute of Scripture for Image-worfhip. For what elfe is it to bring thefe Texts here ? The firft is miftaken by him, as well as nothing to the purpofe, for it is not laid in that 16th Verfe, that the Paffeover was holy and venerable, but only that in the frfi Day £of this Feaft] there /ball he an holy Convocation, and in the feventh day there (hall be an holy Convocation. But fuppofe it had laid what Bellarmine produces it for, does Bellarmine think thereupon, or can he or any of their Church prove that the Feaft of the Paffeover was made an ObjetY (and a very ftrange one it muft have been) of Religious Worfhip. If he dare not attempt this, all his other Labour is loft. And lb Mkewifc for the reft, were the Priefts Garments, becaufe holy, worshipped by the Congregation of Jfrael t Was the Sepulchre of Chrift (allowing that Tranflation) becaufe glorious, adored by the Apoftles and firft Chriftkns?! Is the Bi- ble it felf, becaufe the Scripture thereof is holy, to be adored ? or was it ever adored by any iChriftians ? Bel- larmine muft prove every one of thefe things, or elfe every one of his Texts is altogether vain and imperti- nent here. The things mentioned by him are no ether- wife called haty, than meerly for their being dedicated and jnx The Texts examined which Vapifts eke and appointed to the Honour and Service of the great God of Heaven and Earth, who alone is to be worlhip- j>ed. Thefe are all the Proofs Bellarmine was able to mutter together to prove his Image-worfhip from Texts of Scripture. I obferved before how careful he was to rank them into three forts, to make a better fhew with them : but it was all to no purpofe ; for Image-worfhip is not a matter to be prov'd from Scripture, and he might have brought a thoufand Texts out of any part of the Scripture as much to his purpofe, as molt of thofe he did produce have proved ; which I have fully fhewn to have been either impertinent, or ridiculous as to the proving from Scripture the lawfulnefsof the Wor- fhip of Images. I muft not forget to turn to another part of Bellar- mine* s Works, where he hath made theCrofs an Image, and hath a Text for us to prove the Worfhip of it from Scripture : It is Matthew 24. jo. And then jhall appear the Sign of the Son of Man in Heaven. I do not doubt that moft of my Readers will be angry that I fhould vouchfafe to take notice of, or fet down a Text lb ablb- lutely impertinent : but we cannot help it, if fuch Men as Cardinal Bellarmine will be trifling with fuch Texts, we muft anfwer them, or elfe fuch an unanfwerable Text was flipt over. To confider it therefore, Bellar- mine will have it that by the Sign of the Son of Man, here muft be meant the Sign of the Crofs, which ((ays he) upon this Apparition will be made venerable. But with his leave there is no fuch neceflity of the Crofs's being meant by the Sign of the Son of Man here : for the Senfesof thofe words are both various and probable, and there is as good reafon to underftand by the Sign . . either v / for the Worfhip of Images and \eltques. ly 5 cither our Saviour himfelf coming to Judgment, or the Iaft Trump, or the glorious Majefty with which our Saviour will then, appear, as the fign of the Crofs. But allowing Be/larmine that the fign of the Crofs is meant here; yet what is it he builds the Worfhipof it upon? is the meaning of (ball appear, fhall be worfh pped ? this would be fine interpretation of Scripture ; and yet as fine as it is, it is fuch as the Church of Rome muft frame, or elfe no Proofs from Scripture for the Worfhip of Images. And which is more, if this place did prove any thing, it is only that fuch a thing fhall be at the day of Judg- ment. Well, to be fhort, I am for (pending no more words upon this Text, but we will even refer the deci- fion of this Point to the day of Judgment, when our Sa- viour hath told us, that the fign of the Son of Man fhall appear, upon this condition that they of the Church of Rome allow me, that they have no Scripture to prove that the Image of the Crofs ought to be worfhipped in the mean time. Having done with Rellarmines Texts of Scripture for the Worfhip of Images ; there remains one other proof for Image- worfhip out of the Scripture mentioned by the Cutholick Scripturift, as well as the Author of the Toucbfione of the Reformed Go f pel. Philippians2. 9,10. And given him a Name which is above every Name : that at the Name of Jefm every Kjiee fbould bow. What they would gather hence, is, that this Name of Jeftts is a kind of a Reprefentation of Chrifr, at which we a re commanded to bow the Knee and pay Reverence. But this is nothing to the purpofe, for though we are commanded to bow AT the Name of Jefus, yet we are not commanded to bow TO it, which laft in- R r deed a 94 We texts examined, which Papifls cite < deed would have limited this bowing as much to the word Jefsu which they make one fort of a Reprefenta- tion of Chrift, as the Church of Rome does their Worfhip to a Crucifix. The word [ Jefus] at the hear- ing of which we are to bow the Knee , does no more partake of the' Worfhip then paid, than the Comet , Flute, Sackbut and Harp (at the hearing of which all People were to fall down and worfhip ) did partake of the Worfhip paid to Nebuchadnezzar's Golden Imagey Daniel 3. $, 6. but as thofe Inftruments of Mufick were to give the Notice, and be the Sign when the People were to fall down and worfhip the Golden Image which that King had fet up •, fo the Name of Jefus pronounced and heard, is the Sign to us, and gives us notice to pay our Worfhip to that Glorified Saviour, whom that Name puts us in mind of. And this is certainly the utmoft fenfe of thofe words as to bowing at the Name of Jefus. Having now gone through the Texts which the Pa- ptfts cite for their Worfhip of Images, I cannot but re- mind the Reader, how little the Word of God is a Fa- vourer of fuch unlawful Practices, and how vain the Attempts otBetlarmine and the reft have been to prove Image-worfhip thence. They ought to have confi- dered that as long as the fecond Commandment ftands there, one of the fevereft Laws that ever God made is directly oppofite to, and in full force againft the Worfhip of Images. Of r' / N "71 1 Of the PVorjhip of Reliques. WHat the Church of Rome doth mean by the Reliques of Saints may very eatily be under- ftood, if we obferve what thofe things are fhe bufies her felf fo much in the making Proceifions with, and Pilgrimages to them. She understands by Reliques not only the Bodies, or parts of the Bodies of the Saints, but any of thofe things which did belong to them, and were bleffed fo far as to touch their fancHfied and (which is more) fan&ifying Bodies: Such, as for ex- ample, is S. Francis's Girdle, or S. Simon Stocks Sca- pulary. Thefe things that Church thinks file cannot honour too much, and therefore hath taken care in her Council of Trent, not only to defend her former Practi- ces towards Reliques, but to confirm the Worfbip of them, and to curfe thofe that fhall dare to fay fuch Worfhip is unlawful. We need not wonder at her concern herein, fince no queftion but fhe would very willingly have that thing to be thought very good, and very -ufeful, and lawful, which fhe hath taken fuch care to efta'olifh and recommend to all her Children. My bufinefs at prelent is to inquire whether that Worfhip of Reliques which fhe hath eftablifhed in her Communion, and doth p/a&ife daily, hath any Foun- dation in Scripture ; and to examine thofe Texts of Scripture which are urged and pretended to by Bellar- m>ne and others, in favour of their worshipping of Reiiques. Rr 2 Bellar- 196 The Texts examined which Tapifts cite (a) Bdiar. de Bellarmines firft Text is (jt) Exod.i^.i^. JndMo- \ I t.qc.S^a' ^es took the Bones °f J°^cph with him : for he hadjlraitly [worn the Children of Ifrael, faying, God will furely vifit you 5 and ye jhall carry up my Bones away hence with you. But this Text is nothing to the proving the Worfhip of Reliques ; had the Text told us that the Bones were carried with them in order to their receiving Bleflings from them, and their worfhipping them, and having recourfe to them in their diftreffes, it had been a com* pleat defence of the prefent Practice of the Church of Rome, which hath its Reliques for fuch good and advantagious purpofes, but there is not a Syllable, or the leaft intimation of any fuch things ; and Bellarmine is fb far aware of the juftnefs of this Exception of ours againft this place, that tho his Texts were brought to i prove the Worfhip of Reliques, yet he owns con- cerning this Text , that it only proves that the Tranflation of Reliques is neither new nor fuper- ftitious. But this cannot be admitted, and the cafe is very, different between a Man's Body at his own Requeft being carried into another Country to be buried with his Fathers in the Country his Brethren flhould poffefs ; and the prefent Practice of the Church of Rome> of mangling the Bodies of their Saints, and carrying one piece to this Church, and another part of him to ano- ther Church, and another Country, and making fb- lemn Proceffions with thofe Reliques hither and thi- ther upon their Solemnities, and never burying them at all, but putting them up in Glaifes and Shrines. Jo- feph\ Bones were put up together in a Coffin in Egypt, and upon the departure of the Children of Ifrael thence, were carried by Mofes to the Land of Canaan to jorim w or imp oj images ana tuques. 207 I to be buried there with his Father (as he had, while alive, engaged his Brethren by a fblemn Oath to take care of) and that is all that can be drawn from this place of Exodus, which does not countenance the Romifh Practice of making ProcefTions with, and to their Reliques, much lefs defend their worfhipping of them. The fecond place is Deuteronomy 34. 6. where it is (aid of God that he buried him (to wit Mofes) in &■ Valley in the Land of Moab, over againjl Beth-Peor : but no Man knorveth of his Sepulchre unto this day. From this Bellarmine argues, that God honoured the Body of Mofes in burying it with his own Hands. It is granted him, that the Body of Mofes was extraor- dinarily honoured herein, yet what is this to the wor- fhipping of Reliques, or to the worfhipping of Mofes s Body, which was the thing to be fhewn here ? I hope Bellarmine would not have it that God himfelf did worfhip Mofes\ dead Body: if he did not (which I hope I need not prove) I am fure no Body elfe could, fince it is exprefly faid in the Text, that no Man knorveth of his Sepulchre unto this day, and therefore none could find it, had there been Men as fond as any Papift can be of paying Worfhip, or making Proceffions to it. This Text ought not to have been ftarted by Bellar- mine in this matter, fince the Text is fo favourable to us againft Relique- worfhip ; for the fenfe of it, and the common Interpretation of the Jewifh Doctors them- felves as well as others, is, that God did purpofely hide the Body of Mofes, left the People of Ifrael lhould have been, out of their great Love and Veneration to this their Deliverer out of Egyptian Bondage, perverted at Ibme time or other to worfhip Mofes\ dead Body. Bellar- ic$ The Texts examined wind) Papifls cite , Bellarmine\ next place of Scripture for the Worfhip I of Reliques is, 2 Kjngs \\*i\. And it came to pafs as they were burying a Man, that behold, they fpied a Band of Men, and they cafl the Man into the Sepulchre of Eli- Ana : and when the Man was let down, and touched the Bones of Elifha, he revived and flood upon his feet. From this Text he argues that God did not only honour the Bones of this Saint by working a Miracle by them, bur. is defirous that they fhould be honoured. As to God's defire it does not appear here. We do not deny that an extraordinary Miracle was done here, and that God ho- noured the Bones of his Prophet Elifha by it ; but this does not prove that God doth therefore either give or intend fuch Honour to the dead Bodies of other of his Saints; we read of no more fuch Miracles in the whole Bible. And which is more ; this place is not only unfervice- able to the Church of l^ome for the proof of her Re- lique-worlhip, but may very fairly be urged and rt r- ted againft them upon this account, that not v. iihftand- ing we read here of an extraordinary Miracle done by the dead Bones of the Prophet, yet we neither meet with one word of any Honour done or commanded to Elifha 's Bones thereupon, nor find that they were taken up and enfhrined by the Ifraelttes, or had Procefftons made to them in order to receive any Benefits from them which had been the Reftorers of a dead Man to Life. This perfect Silence of the place (efpecially when fb fair and fo neceflary an opportunity was ofler'd of mentioning fuch a Worfhip of the Bones and Re- liques of Saints, if fuch a thing had then a being ) is a full evidence that fuch Worfhip of dead Bodies as is now pra&ifed in the Church of Rome, was not fb . much as thought of then, notwithstanding fo great a Miracle wrought by Elifba\ Bones. Ano- ;for the WQrjhtf of images and \eltques, 199 Another of Bellarmine s Texts, but to much lefs pur- pofe, is 2 Kjngs 2$. 16, 17, 18. And as Jofiah turned, himfelf, he fpied the Sepulchres that were there in the Mount, and fent and took the Bones out of the Sepulchres, and burnt them upon the Altar, and polluted it, according to the Word of the I ord, which the Man of God proclaimed, who proclaimed thefe Words. Then he faid, What title is that that 1 fee f And the Men of the City told him, It is the Sepulchre of the Man of God which came from Judah, . and proclaimed thefe things that thou haft done againft the Altar of Bethel. And he f aid, Let him alone, let no Man move his Bones. So they let his Bones alone, with the Bones of the Prophet that came out of Samaria. From this large Paffage all that Bellarmine is able to prove, is, that whereas Jofiah broke up the Sepulchres, and burnt the Bones of the falfe Prophets upon the Ido- latrous Altar, yet fo great an Honour he had for the Re- liques of the Man of God, that he commanded them to be prefer ved entire. All this is very readily granted Bellarmine, and yet all this and ten times more is far from proving the Worfhip of Reliques. The good King Jofiah commands here that the Prophet's Bones fhouldnot be disturbed as the reft were, but that they fhould continue quietly in his Grave; and is not this a very fit place to be urged by thofe Men, who inftead of letting the Bodies of good Men reft in their Graves, have in honour to them forfboth digged them up, and inftead of laying them together again to' reft, have lodged here an Arm, and there a Leg, here one of their Hairs, and in another place a piece of their Skul, and are ever and anon carrying them in Proceffion from one place to another ? This Practice hath nothing at all in it like that of good King Jofiah here, who did only order that the Prophet's Bones fhould reft undiftur- bed in his Grave. Bel- joo Th* Texts examined which Tapifts cite Bellarmine' s next Text is If a. 11.10. To it [that is to Chrift the Root of Jefie] [hall the Gentiles feeky and his Reft jhall be glorious .; Bellarmine s vulgar Latin Translation hath it, And his Sepulchre jhall be glorious. What he would hence prove is, that fince Chrift s Sepul- chre is faid to be glorious, Reliques may be honoured : But that does not follow hence, fince the Phrafe here is not literally taken, but by ChrirVs Sepulchre being glo- rious, is meant that therein he fhould obtain V,cl;ory over the Grave, and thereby become the caufe of Salva- tion and Deliverance, from the Power of D^ath and the Grave, for all Believers in him ; a Glory which does not concern the Sepulchre of S:one, which Bellarmin would have it to do, but Chrift himfelf obtaining fuch a glo- rious Vi&ory in that Place : So that the Sepulchre of Stone wherein Chrift lay, ought no more to be wor- fhipped on this account, than Corazin or Capernaum. wherein our Saviour had done Co many mighty' Works: and Bellarmine might have fpared this Place, for it does him no more Service towards the proving the VVcrfhip of Reliques, than it did before towards the proving the worfhipping of Images, for which he alledg'd it. Thefe are all his Texts out of the Old Teftament for his proving the Worfhip of Reliques thence. It is not worth while to remind the Reader, how very imperti- nent they were to the Point in controverfy betwixt us : his Texts out of the New Teftament are of the fame kind and ftrength, and therefore fewer words will ferve to difpatch them. Bellarmine begins with the Hiftory of the Woman difeafed with the IfTue of Blood ; that upon her touching the Hem of our Saviour's Garment, fhe was made whole, Matth. 1 1. 20, 21 , 22. But how dees this Text prove the Worfhip of Reliques ? it proves indeed for the Worjhip of Images and Obliques". 3 0 1 /indeed that the poor Woman was miraculoufly healed J upon the Touch of our Saviour's Garment ; but it does not prove that the Garment it felf did the Cure, but fays exprefly that the Cure was wrought by the Virtue that came out of Chrift himfelf. Could Bellarmine have fhewn the other, it would have made a Relique in- deed of the Garment, and efpecially of the Hem, and the great Misfortune would have been the lofs of it, fince upon our bleffed Saviour's Crucifixion it fell into the Hands of the enraged Souldiers, who parted it a- mong them. But to pafs by this, there is nothing here of any Worfhip paid to the Garment it felf, no Com- mand for any fuch thing, and no laying it up for any fiich future Cures ; and thefe are the things which make a true Relique of the Churchof Rome. His fecond Text is ABs 5. 12,15. An& by the hem As of the Apofiles were many Signs and Wonders wrought among the People, infomuch that they brought forth the Sick into the Streets, and laid them on Beds and Couches , that at the leajl the jhadow of Peter faffing by, might over- jhadow fome of them. From this Paflage Bellarmine ar- gues, that the People were not reprehended for their fbli- citude to get to Peter's Shadow, but that their Faith was rewarded by Cures ; and what Reliques, fays he, can be thought on fb mean or vile as a Shadow ? And is not this a worthy Argument ? here is not fo much as the fhadow of a reafbn : for what are thefe miraculous Cures, wrought for the Confirmation and Propagation of the Chriftian Faith, and attefted by the Word of God, to Bellarmine's purpofe, becaufe fuch Power was given to the Apoftles, that the very fhadow of one of them might cure miraculoufly, muft every thing there- fore that is better or nobler than a Shadow do fuch Cures, and have fuch Virtue ? This proves far too much ; this S f proves } o i The Texts examined which tPapifts cite proves that every Herb, nay every Worm muft work Miracles. It is very vain to difpute with Men that can * argue at this extravagant rate. I will put this Point to this IfTue, that if they will produce any of St. Peters Shadow, that did overfhadow the fick People then, I will own it for a Wonder-working Relique, and be ve- ry civil to it. In the mean time I am fatisfied tharthis place hath nothing to do with Relique-worfhip. Bellarmine's laft Text is of the fame nature with this juft mentioned, and to as much purpole ; Aft. 1 9.1 1 , 1 2. And God wrought fpecial Miracles by the Hands of Paul,. fo that from his Body were brought unto the fick Handker- chiefs or Aprons, and the Difeafes departed from them, and the evil Spirits went &ut of them. What Bellarmine would conclude hence is, that the People were not acculed of Superftition, who carried the Aprons or Handkerchiefs to the fick : I do not only conclude with him, but muft go on, and fay it had been very hard if -they had, and very unjuft too, fince they were certain of the mira- culous Cures to be wrought thereby : however all this is nothing to the purpofe of proving the Worfhip of Reliques from Scripture. This place is fb far from de- fending or proving the Worfhip it felf, that it doth not fb much as prove that there are any ; fuch things as Re- lieves : the place tells us that th£>Aprons were carried from St. PauCs Body, and did carry virtue thence to cure the Sick, but neither this nor any other place doth telius that thefe Aprons or Handkerchiefs did retain that Vir- tue afterwards, and were laid up for fuch miraculous purpofes, and that the People did refort and make PrO- ceflions to them with Incenfe & other fuch religious Ho- nour. The truth is, we meet with no further mention of them, and muft believe they underwent the common fate with other things of the like nature to be caftaw&y when ufelefs, & perifh with them. How- for the Wor/hip of Images and Iteliques. j 0 $ / However, tho I verily believe this was their fate, and ' am fure the Scripture takes no further notice of them, yet I dare not deny that thefe Aprons are kept in fbme Romifh Churches, as well as the Thorns of our Savi- our's Crown. I muft own that Churches diligence hath been ib wonderfully, why fhould I not fay miraculoufly great about thefe things, that they have let nothing efc cape their fearch ? nay the very Stones that the Devil would have had our Saviour to command to be made Match* 4' * Bread, could not efcape them. For, as I remember, it is in the Inventory of the GUffenbury Reliques that we meet with thole extraordinary Stones. I wifh they that laid up fuch a Treafure for the good of the Church, had told us what Diftempers the touch of thefe Stones were particularly good againft. But to wave fuch foolifh and fuperftitious Vanities ; having examined all Bellarminis Old and New Tefta- ment Texts for Reliques ; I hope I have fufficiently (hewn that there is nothing in any of them that doth in the leaft countenance or defend the prefent Practice of the Church of Rome of worfhipping Reliques, which Practice (to give it the mildeft word) is a groundlefs and moft dangerous Superftition, and cannot be at all proved from Scripture. THE END. LONDON, Printed by J. D* for Richard Chifwelzt the Rofe and Q&wn in Sfc-P / 2. That it confer a fan&ifying Grace on thofe who partake of it. 3. That it have Divine Institution. Thefe three are the Qualifications of a true and pro- per Sacrament, and thefe are ib necefTary, and of fo de- terminate a nature, that both fides of us are agreed that it is not in the power of any Men or Church to alter or change them. BelUrmine hath a Chapter (in his firfl Book concerning the Sacraments) to prove that it is un- • lawful either to add to or diminifh, or change the mat- ter or form of a Sacrament ; and the chief reafbn he ur- ges- for it is, becaufe the Sacraments depend upon Di- vine Inftitution, and have all their Virtue from God ; and therefore that cannot be a true Sacrament, where- in we do not obferve to keep to that which God hath in- ftituted ; and he makes it a grievous Sacriledg to change the matter of any of the Sacraments, and thinks the fame charge ought to be laid to any that fhould dare to change the form of any one of them. Well then, having learnt from the Roman Catechifhi what is the proper nature of a Sacrament, and from Bellarmtne that it is unlawful, nay a grievous Sacrilege to change the matter or form of any of the Sacraments ; I am now prepared to debate the Controverfy about the number of the Sacraments, and to examine the Proofs for the feveral particular Sacraments. As for two of the feven, to wit, Baptifm and the Lord's Supper, they are allowed to be true Sacraments by both fides, fo that we have not any Controverfy with the Church of Rome as to their being Sacraments or no : and therefore we mull fet them two afide. However to explain to vulgar Capacities the nature of a Sacrament, and all the Requifites of it , I will- inftance in the . Sacrament of Baptism., and {hew ever.y cue of the t.h re q >? i o , The Texts UtiSSXXi <£± ?f ™ M* three EfTentials of a Sacrament to be in it. i. That Baptifm was inftituted by God the Son, is e- vident from Mat. 28. 19. where the Apoftles are com- manded to go to all Nations, and make Difciples of them, by baptizing them in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft. 2. That there was a matter or outward vifible Sign appointed for this Sacrament, and that that vifible Sign was the Element of Water, is apparent from this and many other places of the New Teftament, particular- ly from Aits 10. 47. where Peter's queftion is, Can any Man forbid WA TER, that thefe Jhould not be BAP- T1X.ED? 3. That this Sacrament of Baptifm doth confer on the Perfbn baptifed the Grace of RemiiTion, of Adop- tion and SancTiirjcation is as plain from feveral Texts, from Atts 2. 38. where the People are called upon to be baptifed for the Remimon of Sins ; from Acts 22. 16. where Baptifm is faid to wafh away Sins ; from 1 Cor. 12.13. where by one Spirit they are baptifed into one Body : and, to name but one Text more, from 1 Pet. 3. 21. where Baptifm is directly faid to fave us. Here we fee not only the true nature of a Sacrament, but how plainly every one of thefe are laid in Scripture. I come now to examine whether Bellarmine hath had as good fuccefs in fhewing that every one of the five ad- ditional Sacraments, which his Church would obtrude upon us, hath all thefe qualifications of trie Sacraments, and that they are as vifible in Scripture as thofe which belong to the Sacrament of Baptifm. I will begin with their Sacramer.t of Confirmation ; the nature of which it is fbmewhat difficult to find. Bellarmine hath not dealt ingenuoufly with us herein, as it *>■ 1 for proof of their Doilrine of [even Sacraments. ? 1 1 •-it fhall be made appear by and by : and the Council of Trent will not yield us much help, fmce fhe was more careful to curie People that denied Confirmation to be a Sacrament, than to define the nature of it : one thing however we muft thank her for, the letting us know that * the matter of this Sacrament is Chrifm. We muft then, to underitand and find out what this Sacrament of Confirmation is, have recourfe to the Rom. Catech. &°m> Catechifm, and efpecially to Pope Eugeniuis Inftruftion ^c%Cm" for the Armenians in the Council of Florence; from both which we form this delcription of Confirmation, that it is an Unction with Chrifm upon the Forehead in the form of a Crofs, by the Hands of a Bifhop, by which the Perfbn confirmed doth receive ftrengthening Grace from Chrift the Author of it. In this delcription of Confirmation we meet with all the Requifites of a true and proper Sacrament. Firfi, We have the vifible Sign or Matter of this Sacrament, Chrifm, which is a com- pound of Oyl of Olives and Balfam. Secondly, We have the Grace conferred by it, viz. ftrengthening Grace. Thirdly, We have the Divine Inftitution of it, that Chrift himfelf was the Author of it. Befides thefe, we have the form of adminiftring this Sacrament in theie words, I fign thee with the Sign of the Crofs, and confirm thee with the Chrifm of Salvation, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoff. This is a full and fatisfa&ory account of the nature of this Sacrament from their moft authentick Books. And now my bufinefs is to fee what Texts of Scripture the Romanifts are able to produce to prove all theie things. BelUrmine will not be drawn in here, this ac- count of Confirmation, though attefted by the conftant vifible Practice of his Church, he cannot away with : he was wife enough to know that the matter of this Sa- crament 1 2 The Texts examined which *Pdpifls cite crament, viz* Chrifin, was utterly a frranger to the Scripture, and therefore he was aware how he engaged ^ , for it. However, Bellarmin is refolved to prove this Sacra - rment from Scripture, but then he fpoils the whole bufi- nels ; for inftead of Chrifm's being the matter or Vi- fible fign of this Sacrament, which the Council of Trent it felf, the Catechifm, and Pope Eugenics Inffruttions fay it is, he very boldly makes Impofition of Hands with Prayer to be the Matter ; and upon this he un- dertakes to prove Confirmation a Sacrament againfl Chemnitiusy and to fhew every one of the three Requi- fits of a Sacrament out of the Scripture, iff, That this Sacrament of Confirmation hath a Promife of Grace ; 2. That it hath a fenfible Sign wtfh the Form by which this Grace is applied. 3. That there is a Divine Com- mand for the Miniftration of this Sacrament. For the proof of the firff, That this Sacrament hath a Promife of Grace, he alledges John 14. 16. And I mil pray the Father ', and he fhall give yon another Comforter, that he may abide with yon for ever. J oh. 1 5. 26. where the Comforter is laid to be lent to tefiify of Chrift. Joh. 16.8, And when he (to wit, the Comforter) is come, he will reprcve the World of Sin, and of Righteoufnefsy and of Judgment. Luke 24. 49. But tarry ye in the Ci- ty of Jeruialem, until you be endued with Power from on high. And laftly, Acts 1.8. But ye ft all receive P diver after that the Holy Ghof is come upon you j and ye jhall be .Witneffes unto me, &c, I have put all thefe Texts together, becaufe they all relate to the very fame thing, and therefore it Was molt requifite they fhould be anfwered together. Here is a Promife of Chrift to his Dilciples ( troubled to hear of his departure from them) of hib fending to them the for proof of their T>ottr'me offeven Sacramtnts. -> \ * / the holy Spirit to be their Comforter, to be their Guide and Afliftant, and Supporter. This Promife we find fulfilled on the day of Pentecoft after his Afcenfion, when the Holy Ghoft appeared like cloven Tongues, and fate upon each of them, and endued them with fu- pernatural Gifts and Graces. And now what is all this to BelUrmrns purpofe, or the proof of Confirmation ? Here we meet with a particular Promife to the Apo- « ifles, particularly applied and made good to them : all which is nothing to the proving of a Promife of ftreng- thening Grace annex'd to the Sacrament of Confirma- tion, which is the thing Bellarmin undertook, and was ■ to prove. Could Bellarmin have proved that it was by Confirmation that the Apoftles received fuch extraordi- nary Afliftances of the bleffed Spirit, it had done his bu- finefs, and effectually proved his Point ; but he was fb unhappy as not only not to fay ithimfejf, but to prevent as much as in him lay, any one's elfe affirming that ; for immediately under his Proofs he tells us, that the Apoftles by a lingular Miracle and Blefling did receive the promifed Grace without any Medium, or Sacrament, on the Day of Pentecofi ; and therefore certainly with- out Confirmation. So that his firft undertaking of pro- ving the Promife of Grace to this Sacrament of Confir- mation hath mifcarried. He next undertakes to prove this Sacrament hath an outward or fenfible fign, and that this fign is Impolition of Hands with Prayer, from Acts 8. 17. But before I examine and give the true import of that Text, I muft debate with Beilarmine this Point a little. Here he aflerts Impofition of Hands with Prayer to be the fenfible fign or matter of this Sacrament of Confir- mation ; and thereby contradicts his own Church; for V v not 3 14 The Texts examined which Tapifls cite not only the Council of trent fays that Chrifm is the matter or fign of this Sacrament, but the Roman Cate- chifm doth as positively affert the contrary ; the Inftru- £Hons of Pope Eugemus for the Armenians in the Coun- cil of Florence doth not only afTert the contrary, but tell us exprefly that Confirmation or Chrifm is now gi- ven in the Church, inftead of that Impofition of Hands • mentioned Alls 8.17. But I have a better Witnefs than all thefe to oppofe Bellarmin with, and that is Bellarmin himfelf, for though here he afTerts Impofition of Hands to be the fenfible fign or matter of Confirmation, yet within eight Chapters of this we are upon, he doth fet it down for a Propofition, that CHRISM or UN- CTION is the MATTER of the Sacrament of Confirmation; fb that Bellarmine hath brought matters to a fine pafs, and is for overdoing his bufinefs, by prov- ing this Sacrament hath two figns, or elfe he mult con- tradict himfelf. The'truth is,. Bellarmine was forc'd to make a little bold with himfelf,. and therefore knowing that Chrifm, which his Church had made the matter of Confirmati- on, could no ways be proved from Scripture, he was forced to make Impofition of Hands the matter of this Sacrament , which might have fbme pretences there. But Bellarmine s contradicting himfelf is not more apparent here, than his firange difingenuity in pallia- ting this matter, when Chemnitius had told them that the Paffage about Impofition of Hands in the Acts made nothing for the Church of Rome, fince they had laid afide Impofition of Hands, and had brought Chrifm in- to its place : Bellarmine is not a (named to deny it, and to affirm that Impofition of Hands is ftill. continued a> aiong thero, and that the Bimop in Confirmation doth twite fort roof of their Dottr'me offei>en Sacraments'. 5 \ « .twice lay his Hands upon the Perfbn confirmed, once 'when he ftretches his Hand over them in Prayer, the other time when he touches their Forehead in anoint- ing. But fuch Fetches are not becoming fo learned a Man as Bellarmine, nor fuch little Arts as cannot be excuied from untruth ; for firft by their Pontifical it appears on- ly that the Bifhop ftretches his Hand TOWARDS the Perfbn to be confirmed j and I hope I need not infift on proving that this is not laying his Hands UPON that Perfbn. And for the anointing on the Forehead, Would any one but he that knows not what to fay, and yet will be faying fbmething, affirm this to be Laying on of Hands ? when the Bifhop touches only the Forehead of the Perfbn, touches him only with his Thumb, with the end of it only ? He that will prove Imposition of Hands is ufed in the confirming with Chrifm in the Church of Romey may as eafily prove that Impofition of Hands is ufed in Baptifm, when the Minifter holds his Hand over the Child's Face to baptife it, or in the Communion, when the Prieft puts the Wafer into the Communicant's Mouth. But to pafs all this fhifting ; let us fuppofe for a while that Impofition of Hands is the matter of the Sacrament of Confirmation in the Church of Rome ; and then fee their Text for it, ABs%. 17. And they laid their Hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghofi. This is the Place chiefly infifted upon by the Church of Rome for the proof of their Sacrament of Confirma- tion. That a Laying on of Hands was ufed. here, can- not be denyed ; but that this was a Rite of a Sacrament inftituted, ought to be proved. Bellarmine is not able to fhew that our Saviour commanded filch an Impofiti- on of Hands for fuch a purpofe ; and that he knows is V v 2 ne- } \ 6 The Texts examined which Tapifts cite neceflary to make any thing of Divine Inftitution. But that which utterly deprives them of any Afli- ftance from this place is, that if this Text concern the Sacrament of Confirmation, then when the Church of Rome doth ufe the Impofition of Hands mentioned in the Text, fhe doth confer the fame Holy Ghoft that was conferred in the Text. This no body can deny me, fince in both the other Sacraments of Baptifm and the Lord's Supper, all Men grant that the fame Grace and Benefits are conferred in the Adminiftration of thofe Sacraments now, that were conferred from the very In- ftitution of them. Upon the granting of this then, I demand to be fhewn thole miraculous Eflufions and Afc fiftances of the Holy Ghoft upon the ufe of Confirma- tion now, that were vifible then upon the Apoftles Impofition of Hands. It muft be acknowledged that the Church of Rome doth not pretend by her Sacrament of Confirmation to confer any of thofe extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghoft, which were conferred by the Apoftles. How then I pray does fhe confer the Grace of the Text, if fhe cannot and does not confer the Grace mentioned there, viz,, the Holy Ghoft ? there is no Foundation thence for her Sacrament of Confirma- tion. And this is that which puts the matter beyond de- bate ; for that by the Holy Ghoft in this Text is meant not fuch a fan&ifying Grace as is neceflary to the nature of one of their Sacraments ; but the miraculous Gifts of the Holy Ghoft, the very fame Gifts with thofe con- ferred upon tfie Apoftles themfelves at the Day of Pen- tecoft, is abundantly apparent from the confideration of the Efte&s. Upon the Apoftles receiving the Holy Ghoft, Atts 2. we find them immediately filled with the Holy Ghoft, and enabled with the Gift of Tongues. Upon for proof of their Dotlrine of feVen Sacraments. 2 1 7 'Upon the Samaritans receiving the Holy Ghoft in the Text by the Impofition of the Apoftles Hands, we find them endued with the very fame Power, for in the next Verfe it is (aid, as before of the Apoftles, that the Holy Ghoft was given them, which did difcover it felf in fome vifible manner to Simon Magus as well as the reft, who otherwife would .not have had occafion to bid Mony, for the Iiaving power by Impofition of Hands to confer the fame Holy Ghoft : and what thole vifible Ef- fects were we may juftly gather from Acts 19. 6. com- pared with this place, where upon S. Paufs Impofition of Hands, the Holy GhoH came on them, and they /pake with Tongues, and prophejied. From all which together it is evident, that fince by the Holy Ghoft in the Text is meant the miraculous Gifts of it, fuchas the Gift of Tongues, of Prophefy- ing, of Miracles, and the like ; and the Church of Rome neither can nor does pretend to confer fiich extraordi- nary Power by her Sacrament of Confirmation ; there is no Footfteps of her Sacramental Grace of Confirma- tion here ; nor any reafon for her to ground that Sacra- ment upon this Text. But let us again fuppofe that by the Apoftles Impofi- tion of Hands here, was conferred only the ordinary Gift of fan£Ufying Grace ; yet this will not prove fuch Impofition of Hands to be a Sacrament, except they of the Church of Rome can fhew that Chrift did com- mand and inftitute fuch a Ceremony of Impofition of Hands for fuch a purpofe. And this is what BeUarminc did undertake in the third place to fhew for this Sacra- ment of Confirmation. But inftead of a Text, he only- falls to concluding that the Apoftles would not have ufed fuch Impofition of Hands, if they had not had their Lord's Command for it* But this is concluding with- h i g Tl?e Texts examined which f apijls cite without ufing Premifes, and this is begging the QuefK-^ on ; for as to the Rite of bleffing by Impofition of Hands, the Apoftles needed no more a Command from our Sa- viour for that than for kneeling at their Prayers, both the one and the other being the frequent and known practice of the Nation of the Joys, to whom the Apo- illes did belong, and therefore requiring no Commands for the life of them. Before we can then grant to Be/Iarmine, or to the Church of Rome, that Confirmation is a Sacrament, they muft prove that it was inftituted by Chrift, which ■ Bellarmine is not able to do : that it hath an outward vifible -Sign appointed and fet apart for it ; which he was not able to do: and laftly, that it had a power of con- ferring fanftifyingGrace to the Perfon confirmed, which Bellarmine is no more able to -prove than either of the other two. lam fure the Texts he hath brought have been far enough from doing it for him. Bellarmin hath two more Texts which do not fb much , concern the proving Confirmation to be a Sacrament, as that Chrifm was the Matter of it. Certainly Bel- larmine did look upon his own Priviledg to be very great, or his Adverfaries Memories and Judgments to be very final), that he can fb formally in one part of a Book fet himfelf to prove that Impofition of hands was the Mat- ter of the Sacrament of Confirmation, and alledg Scrip- ture for it; and in another part of the fame Book, and within feven Chapters of the former, fet himfelf as for- mally toprove that Chrifm made of Oyl of -Olives and Balfain was the Matter of that Sacrament, and alledg Scripture too for the proof of this ; the firli of his Texts for which is 2 Cor. 1. 21,22. Now he which eflablijheth m with you in Chrift, and hath an 01 fit eel us, is 'God \ who hath for proof of their Doclrine offeVm Sacraments. 7 1 p ' hath alfo fealed us, and given the came ft of the Spirit in out Hearts. From this place BclLtrmine gathers that by the An* ointing mentioned here, is either meant the outward Ce* remony of Anointing ufed in Confirmation, or an allu- fion is made to it : but to give a brief Anfwer to this-, Bellarmine fuppofes what he fhould prove ; he fuppofes there was then fuch a Sacrament as Confirmation, but he fhould have proved it : he fuppofes that anointing with Chrifm was ufed then in this Confirmation, but he fliould have proved this too. Without this he hath no Foundation either for his outward Ceremony of A- nointing in this place, or for an allufion to it. The Textitfelf is ferviceable for no fuch purpofes, the whole purport of it being that God had given his holy Spirit, , which is metaphorically called the Unction from above, to thofeDifciples for to ftrengthen and confirm them in all Holinefs, His other Place is 1 John 2. 27. But the Anointing which ye have received of him, abideth in you ', and ye need not that any Man teach you. But as the fame Anointing teacheth you all things , and is Truth and is no Lye : and* even as it hath taught you, ye fhall abide in him. This Text failing in fo directly with the other, needs but a word to anfwer it. Nothing is more plain than by Unction here, is meant the Holy Spirit of God, wh'ch is here faid to abide in them, to teach them, and to be Truth it felf. Can Bellarmine affirm any of thefe things concerning his Chrifm of Oyl of Olives and Bd- fum? Does it abide in the faithful inwardly, dees the Oyl teach them that are confirm'd all things, ov is the Oyl of Confirmation Truth it felf ? To avoid the Imputa- tion of trifling as much as Bellarmine did in gsedticing cadis 110 The Texts examined which (papifts cite thefe Texts, I will not fpend any more words about them. But I mult not forger the Author of the Touchjlone of the Reformed Gofpel, who has another Text for Con- firmation in refer ve. It is Heb. 6. i. where laying on of Hands is reckon'd as a Principle of the Doctrine of Chriff, and he tells us that by Laying on of Hands, here is meant Confirmati- on. But this fhould have been proved as well as laid ; for as to the Laying on of Hands mentioned here, it is altogether difputed among Commentators whereunto it does belong ; whether to Impofition of Hands in Or- dination of Paftors ; or to that Impofition in reconci- ling of Penitents to the Church ; or to the Impofition of Hands on the Sick ; or to that ufed by the Apoilles for conferring the extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghoft ; or for that Impofition of Hands which from Apoftolical Inftitution was ufed by the Bifhops in rati- fying and confirming thatBaptifm to be perfect, which had been adminiftred by Priefts or Deacons ; or laftly, for that Impofition ufed to Perfbns new married. When the Author of the Touchftone, or any Friend for him,hath determined which of the feveral Impofitions is meant here, it will be time enough to otter him another An- fwer to this place. Upon the whole then the Reader cannot but fee how little reafbn the Church of Rome had to make a Sacra- ment of Confirmation ; and to what odd fhifts Cardinal BelLrmine was put to make fbme fort of a Plea for her ; he was fore'd, in order to the having any fhew of be- nefit from Acts. 8. 17. to deny the Matter of Confir- mation now in ufe in his Church ; and by urging that Impofition of hands was the matter of that Sacrament, to prove upon his own Church thatfhe was guilty of a grievous for proof of their Dotlrine of feven Sacraments . i % \ grievous Sacriledg in altering and changing the Mat- ter of that Sacrament. However after all his fhifts and his pains herein, there is not one Syllable in Scri- pture for the Romifh Sacrament of Confirmation. There is no Inlhtution of this Saci anient to be met with there ', not the leart mention of their Chrifin there ; nor any Promife let down there of a Sanctifying Grace annex'd to this Sacrament. Eve- ry one of thele Re.mifites are owned by BelLrmwe himfelf to be neceffary to the advancing any Rite to the being of a Sacrament : fince then every one of thefe is wanting to this pretended Sacrament, we ought to conclude that there is no Scripture which proves Confirmation to be a Sacrament. Kx Of • 1 1 1 The Texts examined which Ta$i[l$ cite Of the Sacrament ^Penance. FOR the better underftanding of this pretended Sa- crament of Penance, and the ground of their Mifc take about it in the Church of Rome, we. ought to know that the Romijh Doctors do not confider Penitence in as much as it is a Vertue of the Soulconfifting of a de- testation of Sin, and a Love of Holinefs, but as it fhews it felf outwards by certain fenfible Actions, fuch as Con- fejfion is, or the like. It is upon this account that they have made it a Sacrament of the New Te (lament, when it hath the Prieftly Abfolution join'd to it. To prevent therefore any Miftakes about this Mat- ter, it is requifite to explain here what things they are in which we are agreed as to Repentance, and what things they are about which our Controversy at prefent is with the Church of Rome. We do acknowledg, as much as they can, the necef- fity of Repentance in Perfbns of years of difcretion, and do look upon it to be fb indifpenfibly laid upon us, that it is impoflible to be laved without Repentance. We are not againftthis Repentance's difcovering it felf outwardly to the World; a truly penitent Man cannot but freely teftify it both by his words and Acti- ons according to that degree of Hatred which he now hath againft Sin, and that AfTe&ion which he. now hath for Works of Holinefs. Nay for proof of their DoEtrine offeVen Sacraments, 313 Nay,further, we add, That if any Man, finding him- felf deprefTed and troubled in Conference by reafon of the nature or circumftances of his Sins, difcovers to his Spiritual Pallor the ftate of his Confcience as to a Spi- ritual Phyfician, to receive from him fuch Comforts and Directions as are necefTary for his Condition and his Cure ; we cannot but commend his prudence. So far are we of the Church of England from difcouraging any fuch care in Spiritual Concerns, that in our Litur- gy it is fufficiently recommended to all pious Chriffi- ans, and particularly in the Exhortation about prepa- ration for the worthy partaking the holy Communi- on, this very Application to the Minifter of God's Word for ghoftly Counfel and Directions about our Spi- ritual State is recommended to all who find themfelves labouring under any Doubts or Scruples concerning their Condition, and the nature of their Sins. But notwithstanding all this,and our Agreement with the Church of Rome thus far, we cannot fee any rea- fon to join with the Church of Rome in making this Repentance a Sacrament of the New Covenant ; and our realbn is, becaufe we cannot find in Scripture all thofe Qualifications and Requifites to the nature of a true Sacrament annexed to their pretended Sacrament of Penance. We can find neither the Inftitution, nor the Matter or vifible Sign, nor the form of this Sacra- ment of Penance there. They of the Church of Rome fay they do findall thefe things in Scripture ; my prefent bufinels is to enquire where. Some of our Adverfaries are for finding the Inftitu- tion of this Sacrament of Penance , or Repentance, in the fourth Chapter of St. Matthew, and the firft of St. Mark, Mat. , ,. where our Saviour, bids them, Repent, and, believe the Mark 1. ij, 3x2 Go/pel. 1^1 The Texts examined which Tapifts cite Go/pel. But the Council of Trent has fpoil'd theie Mens guefles, for that hath defin'd that Pen/wee was no Sacra- ment before our Lord's Refurre&ion. And certainly if this Text of St. Mark be fb proper to eftablifh the Sacrament of Penance, why cannot we as well conclude thence that there is a Sacrament of Faith, our Saviour bidding them there to bslieve the Gofpel, as well as to repent ? It was for this Reafon therefore that that Council was for feeking the Inftitution of this Sacrament in Joh.20. 22,23. where our Saviour fays to his Apoftles, Receive ye the Holy Ghofi. Whofe foever Sins ye remit , they are remitted unto them. This Text is Bellarmines fole foundation for the Sacra- ment of Penance. He obferves that there is in thefe words a plain and direQ: promife of Remiflion of Sins : and thereupon his next bufinefs is to gather hence lome fenfible Sign or Matter -for his Sacrament of Penance ; and he does it hence, becaufe that the Power which our Saviour gives to the Minifters.of the Gofpel cannot be exercifed without fbme exterior fign as well on their part, as on the part of the Penitent. But to anfwer this, There is no doubt to be made that our blefTed Lord in this place doth confer the Power to forgive Sins on the Miniiters of the Gofpel as far as may be confiftent with their condition ; we cannot deny neither that he hath promifed to ratifie their Miniftry in freely granting his pardon to all thofe to whom they have declared the For- givenefs of Sins under condition of Repentance. How_ ever we defire to be fhew'd where the fenfible Outward Sign of this Promife of Forgivenefs of Sins is to be met with ; and where the Commandment was given to the Church to obferve and to partake of it ? Bellarmme and his for proof of their Dottrine of /even Sacraments. 255 his Brethren gather it hence,- that the penitent Sinner ought toteftify his Repentance in order to the receiving of his Pardon ; and that the Miniffer cannot declare the Remiflion of Sins without fbme exteriour Sign. But, firft, the Inftitution of Sacramental Signs ought to be certain and determined : not left to the Fancies and Humors of every particular Perfon, as in this cafe it is, whileoneexpreffes his Penitence one way, and makes that the Sign of this Sacrament, and another Perfon ex- preffes his another way, and makes that the Sign of this Sacrament ; at which rate could Men exprefs their Repentance in an hundred different manners, they would thereby make a hundred different figns for this one Sacrament. Secondly, It is not fufBcient to make a thing a Sa- crament, becaufe it hath fbme fort of a Sign with a Pro- mife annext to it ; otherwife the Repentance which John the Baptijl and the other Prophets of the Old Tejla- ment preached, had been facramental alio, and ought to have been reckoned for a Sacrament. Our Saviour ikysMatth. 6. 14. If you forgive Men their Trefpaffes, your Heavenly V other will alfo forgive you : Now would Bellarmine or any of their Men of fenfe think fit hereupon to ground a Sacrament, under pretence that our Savi- our had made a Promife in thefe Words, and that Men cannot pardon one another without fbme exteriour fign to exprefs it to one another ? In another place he hath promifed his Grace and his Favour to them that affem- ble themfelves in his Name : This cannot be done with- out fbme exteriour fign, we muft then according to the Romijb Writers have the Inftitution of a new Sacrament in thofe words of our Saviour. Certainly Sacramental Signs, or the Matter of Sacra- ments 2 1 6 ' « The Texts examined which Tapifts cite merits were never left by our blefTed Saviour to the Difcretion of Men to eftablifh what they mould think .good therein, but were determined and appointed by God himfelf ; and this BelUrmwe himfelf when he is treating about the Sacraments in Genera], is lb far from denying or doubting, that he makes it a grievous Sacriledge to change or alter the Matter of any one Sacrament : Without this, as I have already obferved before, while the Opinions and Thoughts of Men are fb very different, every Man would be making and coyning Sacraments according to the variety of his Fancies. We have an Inftance of this extravagant and un- reafonable Fancy among the Doctors of the Church of Rome, who are indeed agreed thus far, that there is a Sacrament of Penance, but are, notwithstanding, at mighty Difputes among themfelves, as well about the Nature as the Form of this their fc much contended- for Sacrament of Penance. One denies ConfeJJIon to make any part of this Sacrament: a fecond affures us that Contrition, Confe(Jion^ and Satisfaction make up the Matter; that is to fay, are the Element or Sign of this Sacrament. A third will have the whoie effence of this pretended Sacrament to confifl in the Abfolu- tioH of the Priefl: ; a Fourth is for holding that Abfolu- tion is no more than the Form. Whofbever will be at the pains to examin into thefe things, will find nothing here that ought to be calLd a Sacrament. The Council of Trent was willing to put an end to thefe Controverfies, and declared in Favour of them who make Contrition, Confeffion, and Satisfaction, to be the Matter, that is to fay, the Element or Sacramen- tal Sign here. But for proof of their D oclrine oj [even Sacraments. j 17, But this determination of that Council is as eafily difprov'd as any of the particular Doctor's Opinions juft mentioned. For, Firfiy Contrition cannot be the fenfible fign of this Sacrament, becaufe it is a thing internal, in the heart of the Penitent, and it hath no refemblance at all to the Justifying Grace which is Signified by it, inafmuch as the Justifying Grace cloth rejoyce and reftore the Soul, but Contrition doth afflict and abafe it. 2. Confeflion cannot be any more than Contrition the- Sign of this Sacrament, becaufe its bufinefs is to de- clare the Sin, and neither to declare nor exhibit the Grace of the Sacrament. $. Satisfaction cannot be align, becaufe it hath no refemblance at all to Remiflion of Sins ; and Abfoluti- on is often given without it, upon the bare promife of it, which oftentimes neither is, nor can be performed by the Penitent, who for all that hath had already the PrieStly Absolution. In a word, Tuppofe thole- three Actions of the penitent Sinner had had fbme refemblance and Analogy with the Justifying Grace which they are laid to convey, yet tor all that they cannot be Sacramental Signs, becaufe they are the volun- tary free Actions of a Man, and not natural Signs which are made to fignify by an effect of Divine Institution., which thing thefe three want. Is it not a Strange fancy to make fuch a Sacrament as is adminiitred partly by the People, and partly by the PrieSts ? a Sacrament that is as to the Form of it ad- miniftred to day, but as to the fign, or at leaSt part of the fign , is adminiftred two or three years hence ? as it happens, when the PrieSt enjoins Satisfactions which are not to be accomplished by his own order in lefs than two j 1 8 The Text* examined which fapifts cite two years time, and yet gave Abfolution to the Peni- tent at the very hour he made his Confeflion, and tefti- fied his Contrition. Suppofe further that the Confeflion and Contrition were only feigned and pretended, and that the Perfon abfolved takes no care in the World to perform the Sa- tisfactions en joy n'd him by thePrieft, and that the Prieft miftookin giving Abfolution to fuch a Perfon with the Intention of conferring a true Sacrament ; will not this be a perfect Chimera, made up of nothing elfe but Con- trarieties; a Form without Matter ; a Sacrament with- out any thing to adminifter it with ? It is certain that the Prieft cannot have any certain knowledge whether he that comes to Confeffion be a Hypocrite or no; and confequently when he is giving the facramental Abfolu- tion, he cannot be affured that he adminifters a true Sacrament. In fine, I fhould be glad to underftand why Penance fhould be any more a Sacrament now than it was under the Old Law. Why John the Baptift, nay our Saviour himfelf that preached Repentance, were not able, or had not power to adminifter the Sacrament of Penance, as well as any Prieffs now in the World. Thefe pretend indeed that before our Lord's Refurre- £Honhis Minifters had not the power uf giving Abfolu- lution; but this is advanced for no other end than to mount the Priefts of the prefent Age above the Prophets, and above ChrifVs Forerunner himfelf John the Baptift. However,at leaft our Saviour himfelf had this fame pow- er while he was upon Earth before his Patfion or Re- furre&ion ; we find him exercifing it towards fbme, to whom he declared in particular, that their Sins were forgiven. I for proof of their DoElrine offe^en Sacraments] ^iy I cannot fee what Reply any can make in defence of thofe who have aiTerted that before our Saviour's Refur- re&ion no Paftor had Power to give Abfolution, while we find our Saviour pra£tifing it, as well as John the Baptift, long enough before. They will perhaps reply, that our Lord Jefus Chrilr, John the Baptift, and the Prophets under the Old Teitament did not make ufe of the Sacramental words, and lay, I abfblve thee. But this is very eafily anlwered, and may be retorted upon them, that if we ought to conclude that neither the Frophets nor S. John Baptift, nor our Saviour him- lelf did not forgive Sins upon Repentance, becaufe we do not find it recorded that they made ufe of the form, J abfohe thee, &c. they rnuft give us leave to conclude the fame thing againft the Apoftles, and againft all Pa- llors even after our Saviour's Refurre&ion, becaufe we cannot find, and which is more, are fure that no body elfe can, that ever the Apoftles Gr the Parlors of the Church are recorded in the New Teftament to have for- given Sins by the form of Abfolution now in the Church of Rome, in the words, 1 abfohe thee, &c. And which is more, the Text it felf, upon which this whole Sacrament of Penance is built, to wit, Whofe-foever Sins ye remit, they an remitted unto them, hath not the word Abfolution in it.. After all, if in thefe words, Whofe-foever Sins ye remit) the Romifh Mafters find the Sacerdotal Abfolution, which is the form of their Sacrament ; why may not we affirm upon the fame Principles that the next words, And whofe-foever Sins ye retain, they are retained,do point out to us the form of a Sacrament, which ought to be. looked upon as a Sacrament dire&ly oppofite to the firft, the pretended Sacrament of Penance. To be fhort, I cannot but conclude that this Text out Y y of r 10 The Texts examined which Tapifls cite of St. John (which is the only Text that Bellarminehad to alledg for the proof of his Sacrament of Penance, tho he to make an appearance that he had more, begins with his fir/My-, but had no fecond for all that ) does not in the leaft prove any of thofe things which Bellarmin pretends to conclude from it. The Remiflion here fpo- ken of, concerns the Apoftles Miniftry, who had this large Commiflion to forgive the Sins of all People ; WHOSE SOEVER SINS ye remit, they are remitted \ in oppofition to the Jervifi State, which confin'd all the : Benefits and Bleflings of the Church of God to their own Tribes, excluding all the World befides : this Remiflion did concern all Sins of whatever kind, in oppofition to thejervijh State wherein fomeSins were irremiflible,fuch as Idolatry, for which the guilty Perfon was to dye. And this greateft and moll; enlarged Blefling of Remifli- • on of Sins, was difpenfed to all Men, by admitting them by Baptifm unto the Benefit of it ; and this is often 6*- noush expreft in the New Teftament, where People are laid to be baptiled for the Remiflion of Sins. This feems to be the full and true fenfe of this place, that this Power of Remiflion given to the Apoftles by our blefTed Saviour was imparted to Unbelievers by the Sacrament of Baptifm, and to thofe within the Church by reftoring fuch of them to the Communion of the Faithful, who by their fcandalous Lives and Aftions had been fepara- ted from the Chriftian ArTemblies. And this Interpretation of this place will very much affift us to the difproving of the pretended Sacrament of Tenance ; fince we fee here that Penance is fo far from deferving the honour of being a Sacrament, that it. is meerly and properly a Qualification for our worthy par- taking of the Sacrament of Baptifm. for proof of their D otlrine of fey en Sacraments. 'i$v To conclude ; fince we have no Inftitution of fuch a Sacrament mentioned in the Scriptures '-, fince we can meet with no outward vifible Sign fet apart fork (which by the by, to give the Church of Rome their due, they themfelves do not pretend to, who, inftead of feme vifi- ble Element, fet up fbme Words, Geftures and Jclions, - - which never yet were own'd for an Element or Material Sign) ; nor, laftly, meet with any particular Juftifying Grace annex'd to fuch a Sign. Since the only Text . which Bellarmine had to produce in defence of this pre- tended Sacrament, ought to be taken in a quite diffe- rent fenfe to that Bellarmine would ufe it in, and does concern the Remiflion of Sins by the Sacrament of Bap- tijm, we ought to affirm that the Romi/h Sacrament of Ve nance was not of Qhrifi\ Institution, and therefore ought not to be reckoned as one of his. The Second Part will quickly follow. LONDON, Printed by J. D. for Richard Chifxoel at the Rofe and Crown St. P and another after that. He argues from this, that Matrimony is a Gift of God, and what then ? muft it for that Reafbn be a Sacrament, and have a fan&ifying Grace? at this rate we fhould have Sacraments enow : And to go no fur- ther than this Text, Virginity muft be a Sacrament too, fince it is, as much as Matrimony, a Gift of God. His laft Text is 1 Thejf.4.4. That every one ofyoufbould know horn to pojfefs his Vejfel in Sanciifcation and Honour, InSan&ification (to wit, fays Bellarmin) which they re- cieved in Matrimony. This he fays indeed, but the Text for proof of their T)oEtrine of /even Sacramenis* 34 c lext does not ; and our Bufinefs is to hear that fpeak, and not BeUrmine. It is vain to argue with a Man which from a Duty incumbent on all^Men married and unmarried, will contrary to all Logick and Senfe, be inferring a particular Grace annex'd to a particular Sa- crament*■ ■ And now what other Judgment can be made of thefe things, than that Bellarmine was almoft as much fatisfied as any of us, that Matrimony can be no Sacrament ? He always us'd to infift on the Divine Inftitution, on the outward Sign or Matter : We have had a great deaL of ado about the Grace,, but nothing of News about In- ftitution, or the outward Sign. Bellarmine knew his Sacrament wanted thefe, and therefore was for making a great duft about the other. However, fince JM*r- mine cannot deny that no Inftitution of this Sacrament, appears in the New Teftament ; that there is no out- ward Sign, or Matter, or Fornrfor it, to be met^with there, and that his Texts for a fan&ifying Grace, were altogether forced and perverted from the fenfe given them by the beft Commentators; he ought to have concluded, if not with us, yet with their own Cano- nifts and Dttrandus, that Matrimony is not a true and proper Sacrament* Of m a £ The Texts examined which Tapifts cite .^■— ■ 1 1. » i » ' Of the Sacrament of Extreme VnUion. WE are now arrived to their laft Sacrament, phafc of Extreme Viitfiony which the Council of Trent hath decreed to have been Inftituted by our Saviour himfelf, and publifhed by his Apoflle St. James : It is called Extreme Vnciionr becaufe it is the Sacrament of thofe who are juft d^ ing, and is to be given to none ■but fuch as are look'd upon to be paft recovery. The matter of it is Oyl blelTed by a Bifhop, and the Sancti- fying Grace, or Effed of it, is the cleanfing the Ferfbn anointed from the remains of all Sins committed either by Seeing, Hearing, Taft ing, Smelling, or Touching. This being the nature and a. true account of this pre- tended Sacrament of Extreme Vnffion, we muft now fee what Texts the Papifis have to prove this Sacra- ment. The;firft Text mentioned by Bellarmin, is Mark 6.13. And they cafl out many Devils^and anointed with Oyl many that were Sick^and healed them:B\it this Text is not infilled on by Bellarminy and he tells us that their own Writers are divided ; fome making the Anointing here,and that in St. James to be the fame, while others are as earnefr. that this Anointing in St. Mark, cannot be their Sacra- mental Un&ion, fince it plainly refers to miraculous bodily Cures, whereas Sacramental Unction belongs to the Soul properly, and is concerned about RemiiHon of Sins. Bellarmin himfelf efpoules this latter Opini- on, and one of his wifeft realbns for it, is, becaufe thofe vile Hereticks, Luther, dahin, and Qhemnititts, were of for proof of their DoElrine offeVen Sacraments. 1 47 of the other Opinion : And indeed, it would have been very unfeemly for a Cardinal to be found in fiich Com- pany. We need trouble our ielves therefore no further with this Text, than only to remark that by the Con- feflion of our Adverfaries, the Anointing in St.Mark was a Ceremony of a miraculous cure of Difeafes, and that the effect of that Anointing was a reftoring the Tick Perfbns to bodily Health ; neither of which can by any means be brought to agree with the pretended Sacra- ment of Extreme Vnction \ the anointing in which, ac- cording to the Council of Trent and Romifh Writers, refpe&s the difeafes of the Soul, and the effect: is a Re- * miflbn of Sins. But what was wanting in this, will be fully fupplied in the Text from St.James, wherein Bellarmine tells us we find all the requifits of a true Sacrament laid down together : Jam.^. 14,15. Is any fick among you ? let him call for the Elders of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with Oil in the Name of the Lord. And the Prayer of Faith /hall five the Sick, and the Lord (hall raife him up ', and if he have committed Sins, they /ball be forgiven him. Bellarmine triumphs with this Text, but without any reafom. fince fhould it prove a Sacrament, yet it does not prove their Sacrament of Extreme Unci: ion : And there are thefe two plain differences vifible betwixt this Anointing in St. James, and the Popifh pretended Sa- crament of Extream Unction. 1. That this Anointing in St. James was to be adminiftred to any th.it' were ftck j .whereas the Romijh Extream "Unci, ion is ro be ad- miniftred only to thofe who are mft' a departing, arid paft ail hopes of Recovery. 2. Trj.e Anointing in St. James was to refto re them to bodily Health primarily ; but; the Romifh Unction's defign is primarily the clean- fing } 48 The Texts examined which ipafifts cite fingofthe Soul, and remiflion of all the remainder of Sins : and this is fufficient to fhew that the paifage in S. James does not defend, nor favour the pretended Sa- crament of Extream Un&ion. It is very eafy to explain and evidence the two Dif- ferences I have adigned. That the Anointing in Saint James was to be adminiftred to any Sick, is too plain : Is any Sick among you ? He does not lay, Is any fick to Death among you, but liippofes all alike capable, if God pleafed, of that Anointing. I need not itay to fhew that the Romifh Extreme Vnttion is to be adminiftred only to fuch as are lookt upon as Dying ; upon which very reafbn, they themfelves call this Extreme Unttion, Sa- cr amentum Exeuntium, the Sacrament of the Dying. The truly remaining Difficulty is to prove, that this Anointing here did primarily refpecl; bodily Cures: That it did, cannot be denied us by thofe Papifts, who who make the Anointing here, and in St. Mark, to re- late to the fame effects. Maldonate&ys, They do : And thenlamfiire, Bellarmine ought to grant us, that this Anointing in St. James, does relate to bodily Cures, to a reftoring the fick Perfbns to Health, fince it is evident to a Demonftration, that the Anointing in St. Mark, does relate to nothing elfe : It is plainly faid there, That they JNOINTED WITH OTL, many that were Sick, and HEALED THEM. But there is no need of any of their Conceflions to prove this, the Paffage it felf in St. James, cannot with- out violence be interpreted to any other Senfe ; for up- on the fick Man's calling for the Elders, and their Pray- ing for and Anointing him, the effect we are told mould be, that the Prayer of Faith fhould fave the Sick ; by which can be only meant, the reftoring him to bodily Health, fince to lave a fick Man , is in propriety of fpeech for f roof of their Doelrine of fey en Sacraments. 349 fpeech to fave or refcue him from his Sicknefs ; which is throughly confirm'd by the next Expreflion in St. James, And the Lord /ball raife him ftp ; that is, reftore him to his former Strength and Health. This fair Interpretation might be further confirm'd from thofe antient Offices in the Church for Anointing the Sick, in which the old Prayers run for a Reftitution (upon Anointing) to bodily Soundnefs, and deliverance from all Pain and Languor : This how- ever is fufficient to fhew, how altogether unlike Extreme Vnttion this Anointing in St. James was : In Extreme Vnffion they own and declare, that its proper end and defign is the cleanfing the Anointed Perfbn from all remainders of Sin, and not only their Prayers upon that occafion, but the Form it felf of adminiftring that Unciion, do themfelves tell it us. So that what can be more different than thefe two Un&ions ? and what reafon has the Romijb Extreme Vntfion to plead for its being the Unction menti- oned in St. James ? There is but one Objection to be made to this Interpretation, that this Paflage cannot relate wholly to bodily Cures, fince in the laft words of it it's faid, And if he have committed Sins, they {hall be forgiven him. In anfwer to which, we fay, That we do not af- firm that the EffeS is wholly bodily Cures, but that this Anoint- ing does primarily and chiefly relate to bodily Cures. As for the Forgivenefs of Sins, it was fometimes the confequence of iiich a reftitution to bodily Health ; but did not always attend it, fince the Apoftle makes it to be when the Perfbn hath committed Sins : In which words he could not mean any ordinary Sins, for all Men are gililty of them, and therefore all that were cured, mull have been forgiven. Alfb the Apoftle's Suppofition, doubtlefs, does re- late to fbme extraordinary Sin the fick Perfbn might have been guilty of, and for which God might inflicl: that Sicknefs : So that the fenfe of this muft be, that if the fick Perfbn had been guilty of fbme Sin for which God did inflict that Difeafe upon him, it fhould for his comfort be forgiven him- Bbb And y$o The Texts examined which Papifts cut And this PafTage is far from helping the Romijh Writers for their Extreme Unction, fince it is plain this Remiffion was not general to all fick Perfbns, but was limited to fbme who might have been guilty of fuch a Sin, as brought that bodily Sicknefs for a puniflv ment upon him : But theirs in Extreme VnBwn equally concerns all, and their Anointing does equally good to all, if it do any good at all ; which I am fure it does not, but is an Inflrument to de- lude and ruin poor Souls that truft to it. In a word, Be/larmine cannot but own, that if this PafTage of St. James does not prove their pretended Sacrament of Extreme Vn- tfion, they cannot prove it from Scripture. I have proved that it is not to be found there, fo that the Romijh Writers are bound to own at laft with us, that the pretended Sacrament of Extreme V»~ iiion hath no foundation in Scripture, but that it was unjuflly grounded upon a PafTage of St. James, which did concern a mira- culous cure of Difeafes, which was to ceafe, and hath long fince ceafed to be in the Chriftian Church. Having done with Bellarmine's Texts, I have but one to confider from the Author of the Touchftone of the Reformed GofpeJ, Mark i&.i$, They {ball lay hands on the Sick ; and they {ball recover. But with this wife Author's leave, Where is there a fyllable here of Extreme Vnffzon, of any Vnttion at all ? But fuppofe it had been would it not plainly have referr'd to bodily Health ? Bellarmine ihall anfwer this Ignorant. Scribler, and tell him that this Impcfiti- on of Hands, or Anointing, cannot relate to their Sacramental Vntfion'j fince it is not more plain, that their Sxeramental Vntfton does relate to the Soul and its Difeafes, than that the Unction pre- tended to ija this.PalTage,does.coacevn the Body and its Diftempcrs, G°& for proof of their DoEtrine of/even Sacrament si 3 j i Concerning the Efficacy of Sacraments. IT would not at all anfwer the defign of thefe Papers, to perplex the Reader with all the Niceties and Distinctions about this matter of the Efficacy of Sacraments in the Romifh Writers : It is fufficient to acquaint him, that they differ as much as poffible, and have been as far from being Friends among themfelves as with us. To make this matter as intelligible as we can, it is requifite to lay down how far we agree with the Church of Rome7 as to the Efficacy of Sacraments, and wherein we differ from them. Weacknowledg as well as they, that the Sacraments were not Inftituted by our Saviour to be meet Signs, but that they are Effi- cacious of the Grace for which they were inftituted, and Inftru- ments to convey the*Grace to us which they fignifie. Our Diffe- rence is about their Nature, that is, what fort of Inftruments they are ; the Council of Trent hath defined, that they confer Grace ex opere opcrxto ; which, if I underftand the Explication of this barbarous phrafe, is, that the Efficacy of the Sacraments depends neither upon the goodnefs of theMinifter, nor of the Receiver, but upon the Works being done,upon the Sacrament's being rightly adminiftred. The Council adds indeed, that it is thus Operative or Efficacious only, Non ponentibu* ohicem, to thofe who do not put a Bar in the way : Their meaning in which, is, that the Sacra- ment does confer the Grace of it upon every Perfon that receives it, provided he have now will directly oppofite to the Sacrament he is about to receive. As for inftance, when he is to be Baptized, that he be not refolved not to be Baptized, or not to believe in the Trinity, or not to renounce his Sins. The Council certainly did put in this very wifely, or elfe they had made a ftrange thing of Bh b 2 • . cSiri-, } 5 1 The Texts examined which fiapifts cite Chriftianity, and made it the derifion of Atheifts and Scoffers. But we arefure they ought to have added more, and one reafbn is, becaufe we believe that to Baptize a Man when he is afleep, is not effectual to him, tho' we are well allured the Man is not guilty of putting any Bar in the way. Upon the definition of the Council of Trent, they are generally agreed fince, that the Sacraments do work their effect by virtue of an Inherent Quality fix'd in them, as glowing Iron heats Water, or a Charm works Cures, And this is what we can by no means agree with them in, becaufe fuch a virtue in the Sacraments is con- trary to the great Defign of Chriftianity, which is founded upon Covenant, and configns all its Graces and Benefits to thole only, who have fuch difpofitions and preparations as it requires. Faith and Repentance, and a refolution to lead a Chriftian Life, are the Conditions without which no Man receives the benefit of Remit (ion of Sins in Baptifm; and not meerly a refolution not to be point- blank oppofite to the defign of the Sacrament : This were to make Chriftianity not only a quite different thing from what it is, but a moft ridiculous thing too, when a Man fih£il come to Baptifm, (for inftance) and tell the Minifter, Sir, I underftand your Bap- tifm will have a moft notable effect upon me, and forgive me all my Sins, without giving me any trouble about it : I muft confefs I have no great knowledg of it, nor any preparation for it ; but I hear thefe are not neceffary. I do affure you I do not mock you, and that I have no refolution not to be Baptized, or to receive no benefit, and that I hear is all the Qualification that you make ne- ceffary ', which I affure you I have, or elfe I would not have come hither, and therefore pray Sir, Baptize me. Such Doctrine, as it is derogatory to the temper of Chriftianity, lb it is far from being taught, or being countenanced in the Scrip- tures. Bellarmine pretends to a great many Texts for it, which I will briefly examine. His firft is a fet of four Texts out of Mat. 3. Mark i.Luk/$. John t. where John the Baptift fays, / indeed Baptt&e yon with Water t& m Be- for proof of their Voftrine of fey en Sacraments, 355 Repentance — He fhall Baptize with the Holy Ghofi. From this Bellarmine argues that there is as much difference betwixt the Efficacy of Johns Baptifm, and our Saviour's, as there is betwixt Water and the Holy Ghoft. Well, and fuppofe this fhould be granted him, yet how does this prove that Baptifm is efficaci* ous by an inherent Vertue, this indeed is Bellarmine s Conclufi- on; but it is not in the Text, nor any thing like it. His fecond Text is Mark 16. 16. He that believeth,and is bapti- zed, fhall be faved : That is, faith Bellarmine, Baptifm fhall fave him, which cannot be done but by wafhing away the filth of his Sins. But how comes Faith to be forgotten, and to have no fhare here ? if Bellarmine conclude fuch Effects for Baptifm, and we for Faith, we muft defire to know whether Faith have that in- herent intrinfick Vertue which they talk of; but there isnorea- fon to conclude • any fuch thing of either of them, fince all the Text proves is, that Salvation fhall be the Confequence of Faith and Baptifm, and not that Baptifm doth work this by any inhe- rent Vertue, any more than Incircumcifion doth by an inherent Vertue cut off a Soul from Ifrael, notwithstanding it be faid of it, that the Vncircumcifed fhall be cut off from his People. Bellatmine's third Text is John }. 5. Except a Man be born of Water and* the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kjngdom of God. I will add his other Texts, relating to the fame thing, that fb I may difpatch them together. Acts 2, 38. Repent ; and be baptized every one of you , in the Name of Jefus Chrijtfor the rerniffwn of Sins. Acts 22. 16. Arife, and be baptized, and wafh away thy Sins, calling on the Name of the Lord. Ephef. 5. 26. That he might fanci if y and clean fe it with the wag- ing of Water by the Word. 1 Pet. y$4" The Texts examined which Tapifls cite i. Pet. '$, -21. The like figure whereunto, even Baptifm, doth alfo nowfaveus, (not the putting away of the filth of the Flejh, but the wfver of a good Con fete nee torfitfdi God.) Thefe are his Texts, and now to what purpose are any of them brought here ? It is granted, that Baptifm is ordniafily neceiTary to Salvation, that God hath made if the Inrtrumentof'Remiifion, of Regeneration, and of Salvation to us; but tho this is all which thefe Texts prove, yet this is not all which Bellarmine fhould have proved ; his purpofe was to fhew that Baptifm did work all thefe things by an inherent virtue, as a hot Iron heats Water; but thefe Texts .fay no fuch thing, and fbme of them the contrary, for inftance, Ephef 5. 26. where the Sanftification is attributed to the Word upon the wafhing. His next Text is JcTsS.iS. And whe n Simon / "aw that through laying on of the Apo flies Hands, the Holy Ghofi was given ; to which he adds 2 Tim. 1.6. Wherefore 1 put thee in remembrance, that thou ftir up the Gift of God which is in thee by the putting on of my hands. Thefe two Texts are nothing to the purpofe : for we have already proved that Confirmation (to which they will have the firft Text to belong) is no Sacrament, nor Orders concerning which the other Text fpeaks ; fo that being no Sacraments, they have nothing to do in this Controverly about the efficacy of Sa- craments. And further, I have above proved that by the Holy Ghofi in the Text from the Jets, is meant the extraordinary-Gifts of it, for Tongues, Miracles, and the like : and that by the Gift jf God in Timothy, is understood only an Ability and Authority lor to difcharge the Office in the Church he had been ordain'd to. Thelaft Text that Bellarmine troubles us with is, 1 Cor, to. 17. For we being many, are one Bread, and one Body ; for we are all Par- takers of that one Br£ad. He argues here that the participation of the one Bread is the caufe of our being one Body. This is rea- dily granted him, that as by participation of the Sacramental * Bread for proof of their "Doilrine offeVen Sacraments". 355 Bread in remembrance of Chrift's meritorious Paffion we are united to Chrift ; fb we are to one another by partaking of that one Bread, and being united to the One Chrift in his Myfti- cal Body : and this is the fenfe of this place, but as to the Sacra- mental Bread's working this by an inherent Vertue, there is not one word, or the leaft intimation in this place. # Thefe are all Belhrmwes Texts for the Phyfical Efficacy of 1 Sacraments : how unferviceable they have been to him,the meaneft Reader cannot but fee ; and no wonder, fince fuch pretentions are contrary to the method of Chriftianity laid down by our BlefTed Saviour. Whofbever will examine the Scriptures ferioufly, will find that as the Sacraments are Covenants, fo there are feveral Qualificati- ons required, without which the Sacraments will be of no more efficacy to the Perfbn receiving them, than they would be to a dead Man ; fop the receiving any benefit by Baptifm, the Scrip- tures inform us that Faith and Repentance, with a Refblution to be Chrift's faithful Difciples, are required of everyone to be bap- tized ; that upon the account of thefe they are admitted into Covenant with God, and have a right to the Merits and Benefits of our Saviour's Paflion, which was undergone by him for the, Sins of the whole World, Nor is the defign of the other Sacrament of the Lord's Sapper- different from this ; it is to remember us of the infinite Good ncls of our Saviour's dying for us, to unite us to Chrift, and thereby to inftate us, and confirm to as a {hare in his Merits : none of which it doth or can do without our being fitted by ferious Examination, - and hearty Repentance for fuch an Union With Chrift; and this is fufficient to Ihew that the Sacraments do not work phyfically or like a Charm, but that as gocd Men upon fuch Preparations receive the Benefits, and find : the Efficacy of each Sacrament^ fo wicked Men receive no benefit by them, nor can be united to Chrift by them, which yet they would lor ali 'their Wickedhefs be, if fb be the Sacraments received did as certainly work their Effeft, as"a fharpned Razor cuts, 0; Fire burns, . TV j 56 The Texts examined which Tapifts cite To conclude, As we believe that the two Sacraments were de- figned by God for Bleflings to us, to convey fuch Grace and Afli- ftances as he thought fit, and not to be meer Signs : fo we cannot believe that God made them fuch Phyfical Inftruments, or did give 'them fuch an inherent Vertue as to confer Grace ex of ere ope- rate, upon every Receiver ; becaufe we are fure this would be to difhonour thofe things which are the moft beneficial, and moft honourable in the Chriftian Religion. THE END. LONDON, Printed by ?.#* for IkhArd chifwel at the Rofe and Crown in St Pat's Church-Yard, 1688. (157) The Texts examined which Yapfis cite out of the Bible for the Proof of Their Dodrine OF THE Sacrifice of the Mafs. PART I. I M P R I M A T U R. \f titie 2 o . 1688. GuiL Needham. IT is my Intention, in the following Difcourfe, to confider thofe Parages of the H. Scripture, which are, by the Writers of the Church of Rome, pro- duced in defence of the Doclrine of that Church, concerning the Sacrifice of the Mafs. And before I proceed to that, it will be fit that I fhould ftate the Queftion between that Church and Ours, and briefly fhew what the Church of 'tfome holds, what we allow, and for what Reafbn we reject the Dodrine of the Church of Rome in that Matter. C c c By V- g The Texts examined iv^icb Tapifts cite Bellarmin de By tlie Mafs in this Queftion, Bcllarmine owns, is wifla. li'C.i. ' meant> the whole Celebration of the Divine Office in which the Eucharift was coufecrated. By Sacrifice is meant a Proper One, and fuch as is Matml of con- Propitiatory : Not a Sacrifice in general ( fays a late Au- trmrftts by tnor of the Church of Rome) or improperly fo termed (fuch at DowayT" as are a^ *he actions of the Mind, or any work of Vcrttic 1654. wbatfoever ) but a Jpecial Sacrifice truly and properly fo called. The fame Author adds prefently afterwards ; Our Tenet is, That the Oblation of our Lord^ lall Sup- per, or the Mafs, is a true and Proper, Vnbloody Sacrifice, and propitiatory for Sins. Sef. xxii. The Council of Trent defines it to be a true and proper Sacrifice, and Propitiatory ; and that it is not only pro- fitable to him who receives it, but to be offered up for the Living and the Dead : And that in this Sacrifice of the Mafs, the very fame Chrijl is contained, and un~ bloodily facrificed, who once on the Altar of the Crofs of- fered himfelf bloodily. Cacechifm.Ko- The Trent Catechifm tells us, That the Sacrifice of T/A«wer5" r*ie Mafs, is not only a Sacrifice of Praife, or bare ,583. £ crp' -Commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Crofs, but truly a Propitiatory Sacrifice by which God is appeafed, and Pag. 203. rendred Propitious to us. And a little before, {peaking of the Caufes for which the Eucharift was inftiruted by Chrift, this is afTigned as one, viz. That the Church might have a perpetual Sacrifice, by which our Sins wight be Expiated,and our Heavenly Father being often greatly offend- ed with our Sins, might be brought from Anger to Mercy, and from the f (verity of a jufi Punifhment to Clemency. The fame Author tells us a little before, That if the Sacrifices of the Old Law were pleafing to God, what may be hoped from that Sacrifice (viz. of the Mafs) in which he himfelf is Sacrificed and Offered up, of whom was for their Doclrine of the Sacrifice of the Map. ^p was twice heard, the Voice from Heaven, This is my belo- ved. Son, &c. That Author in another place in Anfwer to the Que- ftion, Whether the Sacrifice of the Mafs be the fame P4S' l0$' Sacrifice with that of the Crofs? Replies thus, We con- fefs it ( lays he ) to be one and the fame Sacrifice, and fo to be accounted, &T. Upon the whole, the Church oVRome in this Matter, affirms thefe three Things. fir fly That the Sacrifice of the laft Supper, or ( as they commonly exprefs it) the Sacrifice of the Mafs, is a true and proper Sacrifice. Secondly, That the Viftim which is Sacrificed in this Sacrifice of the la ft Supper, or Mafs, is the very Body and Blood of our Lord Jeftis Chrift. For they affirm this to be the fame Sacrifice with that of the Crofs. Thirdly, That this facrifice of the Mafs, is Propiti- atory and Expiatory : That it procures Pardon for the , Sins of the Living and Dead, as well as obtains Grace to help in the time of need. This is a fincere and true reprefentation of the Do- ctrine of the Church of Rome in this Matter. And here I cannot but take notice of the Infmcere fPrf^dm!^' Practice of a late Writer, who pretends to give us a true reprefented, by Reprefentation of the Doctrines of the Church of Rome. J- L- ?&$** He, in his difcourfe of the Mafs, craftily baulks what &c* . the Church of Rome teacheth in this matter, viz. That 'tis a Proper and Propitiatory Sacrifice for the Living and Dead ; which is the main Point "contefled between us. And in ftead of that, tells us, That 'tis a Comme- morative Sacrifice, lively reprcfenting in an unbloody man- ner, the Bloody Sacrifice* which was offered for us upon the Crofs) and that Chrift gave in Command to his Apo- C c c 2 files \ 60 The Texts examined which Tapifts cite files to do the fame thing he had done at hislaft Supper, in Commemoration of him.He lays not one word of its be- ing a Propitiatory Sacrifice for the Living and the Dead. He calls it a Commemorative one ', which, taking in the whole Action, we do not deny: And when he affirms that Chrift bid his Apoftles to do what he did in Com- memoration of him ; we fay fo too. But this Author could not but know,*t4iat in the Third Canon of the Council of Trent ( concerning this Matter ) an Ana- thema is denounced againft thofe who affirm the Sacri- fice of the Mafs, to be a bare Commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Crofs. We of this Church of England, do readily grant and allow, That the Eucharifi may be called a Sacrifice ; as a Sa- crament hath the name of that which it does Comme- morate and Reprefent. That as in this Sacrament we Commemorate the Sa- crifice of Chrift on the Crofs, fo we do in it Reprefent to God the Father what Chrift fuftered for us, that he may gracioufiy incline to beftow on us the BlefTmgs which Chrift hath purchafed with his Blood. That we do, when we Communicate, make an Ob- lation of our felves. Thus in the Prayer after the Communion, we read; Here we offer and prefent unto thee, 0 Lord, our Selves, our Souls and Bodies, to be a reafonable, holy, and lively Sacrifice unto thee. That the Eucharift may be called a Sacrifice of Praile. We do therein offer our Praifes and Thankfgivings to Gcd, and as a teftimony of the Senfe we have of the Divine Mercies, we offer our Alms, which is not only a Sacrifice, but fuch an one as with which God is well pleafed. What for their Doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mafs. J 6 1 What our Church holds, is bed learrfd from her D> cl ion in her Articles, in the following wo. offering of Chrifl once made, is, that, perfect Redempii- A»ic-3 I Yropitiation, and, Sa, on, for all the Sins of '. ', 'orld, both Orig inal a$d AcJ tal : And there is none other fatisfattion for Sin-, but that alone. And in die next words, fhe declares againft the Sacrifices of Majfes, it was commonly faid, that the Prie/l did offer ft for the Quick and the Dead, to have remijfwn of Fain or Guilt. Whence it is evident, rhat f] its Dodrine of the Trent Council, that the facrifiee of the Mai'-, is a true and proper Sacrifice propitiator)' I the Quick and Dead. This we deny. And think we have ; ifl Guile fb to do. And that no fuch Doctrine is revealed in the holy Qj«eniin ' Scripture ( as will appear afterwards ) is reafon enough mae™ c for the rejecting it. Such a Doctrine as this had need tuendaperti- be . . proved by feme e'xprefs Teftimonv, or juft n.^c',ca „. . • . ,f .' ,. ■ ' r ' nflime opor- Coniequence. inis is n< . 1 I according to one of their tet ex Scrip- n Writers. . tu'"!s s.c t though this be reafon enough, yet tins is not all. ApoS&pro The Doctrine it felf is perplexed and inconfiltent, and Geji 10 means allowable. And for this, I appeal to the Conference of any indifferent Man, that will but flif-' fer himfelf to weigh and confider things. . I would fain know how that can be faid to be an unblood ice .hem, who hold that the Natural Blood of Chriit is re? How can that be called a Commemoration of the' Sacrifice of the Crofs, which is affirmed to be one and the very fame Sacrifice with it ? How can the facrifi of the Mais be the fame with that of the Crofs, when Chrift's natural Death is of the ElTence of the Sacriii of the Crofs; but that of the Mais dees not compre- hend his Death, and we are told that Chrifl dieth no Rom.& , ore ? $6% The Texts examined which Tapl/ls cite more? How can that be iaid to be a true and proper BeUarm.de ' Sacrifice, where the Effentials of fuch a Sacrifice, even ' ,I,C'2, according to our Adverlaries, are wanting? Here's no- thing vifible Qi'fexjibte, which yet is that which Bellar* mine requires in his definition of a true and proper Sa- crifice, 'lis eafie to amrai indeed, that the Body of Chrift is in the Sacrifice of the Mafs, under the fipecies of Bread. But as this can never be proved, fb 'tis im- . pertinent to alledge it in this place. For where is that which is vifible or fen[ibley which Bcllarmine requires the Viclim fhould be in a proper Sacrifice ? The fpecies of Bread is- fo far from rendring the Bcdy of Chrift vifible or fenfible, that it hides it from our Eyes. And tho' a Subitance may be known by its own Accidents yet it cannot be known by the Accidents of another ^uhffance. Who can tell the difference, that looks on them only, between a Confecrated and Unconfecrated Wafer ? Again, in this Sacrifice of the Mafs here's no dcftruclion, no fenfible tranfmtttation of what is facri- ficed ; winch BelLrminc makes necefiary in a true and proper Sacrifice : Here's no deftru&ion of any thing that can be perceived : No fhedding of Blocd (for 'tis an unbloody Sacrifice) without which there is no Re- miflicn. The Natural Body of Chrift receives no Change, his Natural Being is not dcliroyed or dam- maged. If they fay, that 'tis his Sacramental Being that receives the Change, they muff mean either an Accidental Being (as prefent in the Sacrament) or Subflantial. The latter they cannot mean, unlefis they allow of the deftructton or tranfmutation of his Natu- ral Being, which they will not allow. If the former that the Sacrifice of the Mais is a Sacrifice of Accidents only, and not of Chrift ; and that this Sacrifice of the Mafs is notthe fame with that of the Crofs.And 'tis very ftrange for their Doctrine of the Sacrifice of the %4afsl 36$ Arrange that fhould be a true and proper Sacrifice, in'B$<>? of Con* which Death only intervenes by representation \ and that , °™^ I*y'" • it fliould be the very fame with that of the Crofs, when we are told that it is Jnflituted only to reprefent it 5 as if there were no difference between a Memorial and Re- prefentation, and the thing to which this does refer. In other properSacrifices the Altar fanctified the Victim, and was reputed of greater value, and the Offerer was of greater price than what was offered : This will not be allowed in the prefent Cafe, and yet we muft be obliged to believe it to be a proper Sacrifice. We can- not underftand how the Sacrifice of the Mafs fhould be the very fame with that of the Crofs, when one is but the Memorial of the other, and is acknowledged to receive all its Vertue from it. It cannot be that they fhould be the fame either in Number ■, or in Kjnd. The firfr. is fo abfurd, that no Man can affirm it : Nor can any Man believe the fecond, that confiders the wide difference between the one and the other, viz,, be- tween the Sacrifice of the Crofs > and that of the Mafs. The firft was offered by Chrift, and was a bloody Sa- crifice ; 'twas offered oryfie Crofs, and is the full Price of our Redemption : Chrift -was the Victim, and was offered there in his Natural Subftance ; he was Vifible there, and there he Died. But this Sacrifice of the Mafs, is offered by Priefls, is an unbloody Sacrifice ; is placed on Altars erected for that purpofe, and is not fo much as pretended to be the Price of our Redempti- on : We fee nothing but Bread and Wine, we tafte and handle nothing elfej and 'tis confeifed that Chrift dies no more, and yet are we obliged to believe, that both tlvefe are one and the very fame. Our Church hath further reafbn ftill to reject this Doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mafs, becaufe it is con- 1 64 The Texts examined which Tapifls eke contrary to the Doctrine of the Holy Scripture?. The Author of the Epiftle to the Hebrews had the faireft oc- cafion to acquaint us with this Romifh Doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Ma fs, had there been any fuch thing: For he difcourfeth at large of the Priefthood according to the Order of Melchijedcc and of Aaron; of the in- fuflicicncy of the Jevvifh Sacrifices, and of the fufficiency of the Sacrifice of the Crofs. And yet is he fb far from once mentioning the Sacrifice of the Mafs, that he lays many things which overthrow it. He tells us that Chrift by his own Blood entred in once Hcb. 9. 12. into the Hoi f Place, having obtained Eternal Redemption for us. If he obtained Eternal Redemption,he need not be offered daily to procure our Pardon. There was no need he fhould oiler himfelf more than once. The 'fame Divine Author tells us fo. Nor yet ( fays he ) that Ver.2j.26 fje fho/ild offer himfelf often, as the High Priefi entrcth into the Holy Place every Tear with Blood of others (for then mufi he often have fujfered fmce the Foundation of the World) but now once in the end of the World, hath he appeared to pit away Sin by the Sacrifice of himfelf. The re- petition of the legal SacrificesTpake their Inluffkiency : Heb. 10. 14. our Saviour by one offering hath perfected for ever them that are fanclified. This {peaks the fufficiency of the Sacrifice of the Crofs. Two things we learn from the reafoning of this Divine Author which overthrow the Sacrifice of the Mais. Firft, That Chrift cannot be offered without fuffer- ing ; and therefore if he be offered in the Mafs,be muff funer there : He friu'ft either fttfer in the Mafs, or not be offered there. For if he fhould offer himfelf often, fays this Divine Author, then mufi he often have fuffcred. And if the Sacrifice of the Mais be a Sacrifice properly ■fb called and propitiatory, the oblation of Chrift in it mull infer his Suffering. Second- for their Doftrine of the Sacrifice of the Maf. 3 6 j Secondly, That the fame Confideration is to be had of the time from the beginning of the World to the Death of Chrift, as of the time from his Death to the end of it. If he muft be often offered after his Death upon the Crofs to the end of the World, he muft for the fame reafon have been often offered from the be- % ginning of the World to his Death : But there was no need he fhould have been often offered before his Death, and therefore no need of it afterward, neither to pro- cure our Redemption, nor yet to apply it. If he faved them who went before by this one Offering, why not them that are to come ? He was once offered to bear the Heb. 9. 22. Sins of many : And but once, as appears from what goes before : As it is appointed to Men once to die, Sec. So Chrift was once offered, &c. The fame Divine Author tells that Chrift offered one Sacrifice for Sins, and that by one Offering he hath perfected for ever them that areft&>. 10.12, 18. fanciifed, and that there is no more Offering for Sin. I proceed next to confider the Scriptures produced by thofe of the Church of Rome in defence of the Sa- crifice of the Maft. The firft place of Scripture which I fhalt confider is, what we read of Melchifedec, who is faid to have brought forth Bread and Wine : And he was the Prieft of the moft High God : And he bleffed him, (i. e. Abranr)~~§lc. Gen. 14. 18, 19. This place of Scripture is. very com- monly urged by the Church of Rome, as an Argument to prove their Doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mafs. And Rellarmine takes great pains to prove it from thence. And indeed it requires great labour to form Ci 5. any fhew of an Argument for the Sacrifice of the Mafs from thefe words. However I fhall follow the Cardinal, and confider his reafoning from thefe words. D d d That 3 66 The Texts examined which Papiflscite That the Pfalmift, and the Author of the Epiftleto pfal. no. 4r the Hebrews affirm Chrift to be a Prieft after the Order Heb. 7, of Melchifedec we grant ; and that he was not a Prieft after the Order of Anton. The Cardinal proceeds, and tells us there were two differences between thefe two Priefthoods, from whence he thinks two Arguments may be drawn for the fup- port of his Cauie. The firft and chief difference he reckons is the external form of the Sacrifices. The Aaronical were bloody, that of Melchifedec unbloody and figured, under the fpecies of Bread and Wine, the Body and Blood of Chrift. Hence the Cardinal con- cludes, that if Chrift be a Prieft after the Order of Mel- chifedec y and not of Aaron, he muft inftitute an un- bloDdy Sacrifice, and that under the fpecies of Bread and Wine. This he thinks follows neceffarily from the force of the Type and Figure. Melchifedec offered Bread and Wine, and truly facrificed ; therefore Chrift in the inftitution of the Eucharift did truly facrifice, otherwife he had not fulfilled the Type. The fecond difference between the Prieft hood of Melchifedec and Aaron, the Cardinal fays, is this, that the firft was that of one Man, who had neither Prede- ceffor nor SuccefTor ; of which Order Chrift was, who lives for ever : B_it that of Aaron was of many Men, fucceeding each other, becaufe of Death. If Chrift then be a Prieft for ever, the Rite of facrificing muft continue ; and therefore there muft be another Sacri- fice, befides that of the Crofs once offered, which muft be continually offered. For he cannot be faid to be a Prieft who hath no Sacrifice which he may offer. But there can be. no fuch if we deftroy the Sacrifice of the Mafs, That for their Dollrine of the Sacrifice of the Uafs. 3 67 That I may give aclearanfwer to thefe Pretences, **£ »* (for I cannot call them Arguments) I (hall proceed in preuvesdu ft. the Method of a Learned Proteftant Writer on this Ar- orifice de u Meffe p. 26. gument. I. I fhall fhew that we have no fufficient ground to believe that Melchifedec did offer an unbloody Sa- crifice of Bread and Wine. II. That if he had offered fuch a Sacrifice, it will not thence follow that the Priefthood of Mel- chifedec confifted in this, and that this diftin- guifhed it from that of Aaron. III. That granting that Melchifedec did offer fuch a Sacrifice, and that thereby his Priefthood was different from that of Aaron, it does not thence follow that Chrift ought to inftitute in his Church an unbloody Sacrifice under the fpecies of Bread and Wine. I. We have no fufficient ground to believe that Melchifedec did offer an unbloody Sacrifice of Bread and Wine. The Text alledged gives no manner of ground for this Opinion ; there is not in it the leaft fy liable to this purpofe. Melchifedec brought forth Bread and Wine. It is not faid, he offered, much lefs that he offered to God, which he muff have done had he offered a Sacrifice. He brought forth this as a refrefhment to Abram and his Company. This is all that the Text imports. There is nothing in the Hebrew, or LXXII Interpre- ters, in the Targum of Onkelos, in the Syriac Verfion, nor the ancient Latin Verfion which favours this Opi- nion of the Roman Church. Jofephm, relating this Jofeplws Ant matter,, tells us exprefly that Melchifedec entertained 1 u c' "' Ddd 2 Abrams |6S Tie Texts examined which Vapift's cite zkvitt^TvhKw Abrarns Army, and afforded them plenty of nece/Tary StXw,&c. Provifions. But. he fays nothing of his facrificing phiio TudL Bread and Wine. And Philo the Jew reckons this A&i- i.eg. Alkgor. °n °f Melchifedec as an inftance of his Hofpitality, i- 2. and oppofeth it to the Churlifhnefs of the Moabitcs and Ammonites, who refufed to give refrefhment to the Israelites in their paiTage to the promifed Land. The Nihil feribitur ^^ IS ^° P^in> tnat Several of the Roman Church do hk de facriii- not think thefe words to import any Sacrifice. Cardi- cio,&c. mlCaietan upon the words affirms, that here is not bin* Cajetanin J r c , -r r\i t ■ i i r i . . ™ Gen. 14. 1 8. written of sacrifice or Oblation, but only of bringing forth, which (fays he) Jofephus affirms to have been done for the refrefhment of the Conquerors. Another of their own Church, gives this account of ir, Melchi- \\nl\\Min- fe^ec a^is ^eo °^ vittoriam gratiis, ac faufla omnia bus. DeAbra- Abramo precatus, ipfttm ejiifq\ cibo potuq', refoeillavit. hamo. So that all that he affirms is, that Melchifedec refrefhed Abram and his Followers with Meat and Drink, having given God Thanks for the Victory, and wifhed all Hap- pinefs to Abram. But Bellarmine pretends that the Hebrew word Nt*3fln which we render brought forth, according to the exi- gence of the place, is often ufed for the bringing forth of a Sacrifice to be (lain : And as a proof of this he al- yid.Bonfrer. ledgeth a PaiTage from Judges, Chap. vi. 18. which I m cen. 14.18. £ncj alleged by others of that Church, as referring to yid. Doway a Sacrifice. The Notes upon the Dorvay Bible go far- fot!m Gen.f^* tner ancl %> tnat tms Hebrew w0rd ^ a word pertaining 12. ptinttd. to Sacrifice, as in Judges, Chap. vi. 18, 19. 1<535- Now tho it be nothing to the purpofe, if this word fhould be applicable to a Sacrifice, .as well as to any other thing, which may be (aid to be. brought forth, yet I fliall confider the place produced to prove this to be a word pertaining to a Sacrifice. And 'twill quickly . for their DoFlrine of the Sa:rifice of the Mj/s. 3 6y \ quickly appear that thefe Gentlemen are very unlucky in the choice of their place. Gideon requefts of the Perfbn lent to him, that he might bring forth his Prefent and fet it before him, Judges vi. 18. He offers a re- frefhment, but here is no mention of any Sacrifice ; 'tis fpoken of a Meal, not of a Sacrifice. And this will appear by the Context. Gideon was no Pried, and therefore might not facrifice, he being of another Tribe, ver. 15. nor is it to be imagined he would fa- crifice to a Man as he took him for (<^r. 22.) at that time: To fay that Gideon brought to this Perfbn that he might facrifice, is without all ground, and will ob- lige him that affirms it to prove that he took him for a Pweft. Befides, Gideon did not bring forth his Kid alive, he did not fprinkle the Blood, or ofTer the Fat upon the Altar as a Sacrifice, but he went in and made ready the Kjd : He put the Fle(b in a Basket, and the Broth tn a Pot, (ver. 19.) Theie are tilings not agree- able to a Sacrifice, and altogether inconfiftent with the Laws of a Mwcha, or Me at -Offering, as we render that word when it fignifies a Sacrifice : For that Offer- ing, 'twas exprefiy required that it fhould be offered by the Sons of Aaron (Levit.6. 14.) and at the Altar. Here are abundant Proofs of no Sacrifice: Indeed the Vulgar Latin chanced to render, what we render pre- fent, by Sacrifcium ; and the word fbmetime fignifies fo : But as the Syriac renders it by Meal or Refre/bment, fo'tis infinitely plain from what hath been faid above, that here is no mention of a Sacrifice. It is very well known that the Flebrew word which we render prefent, is a word, that when it is confidered apart from its Sig- x «- nification of a Sacrifice or holy Oblation, fignifies a iKings4. aii Gift, or Prefent, and is fo interpreted by the LXXII. * Kings 8. 8. And our Englifh have well rendred the word in this JJJ -;'; V ^!c, place, - -370 Th Texts examined which Vapifls cite place, tho they have not concealed the other Significa- tion of it in their Marginal reading. For what Bellarmine adds, that there was no need that Melchifedec fhould give Abram any RefreuV ment, becaufe he returned with great Spoils, and thofe who followed him had eaten before ( ver. 24. ) it is of no weight at all. , For it is not faid that Abram had eaten ; nor how long fince it was that his Followers had : nor do we know that they had plenty of Bread and Wine among their Spoils. However Melchifedec hofpitably brought forth Bread and Wine whatever Abrams Neceflity might be. Abram was blelTed before, and yet Melchi- fedec blefTed him ; and why might he not bring forth Corporal Refrefhment tho he had great Spoils ? Bellarmine urgeth that the Scripture fb often menti- oning the Priefthocd of Melchifedec, as diftinct from that of Aaron, and very like to that of Chrifi, it ought alfb fbme where to deliver what was the Sacrifice of Melchifedec. For a Priefthocd is ordained for Sacri- fice ; and where the Sacrifice is unknown, there the Priefthood is unknown alfb. But there is no mention of any Sacrifice which Melchifedec offered, if it be not mentioned here. I anfwer ; 1. A Man muft be Prieft before he hath right to facrifice ; and will continue fo tho he never facrifice, or ceafe to do it. One of thefe may be without the other, and therefore may be known without the other. The Priefts of Jfrael continued Priefts after they were by their Age difcharged from publick Service. 'Tis very abfurd to affirm, that a Prieft continues no longer a Prieft than he facrificeth. The Priefts of the Ro- man Church keep their Character tho they never fay Mafs. 2. It for their Doilrine of the Sacrifice of the Mafs. 3 7 1 2. It does not become us to prefcribe to God. He thought not fit to mention the Genealogy of Melchi- fedec ; nor is he obliged to tell us what Sacrifice he offered. It is farther urged from thefe words, For he was the Priefl, which contain the realbn why he brought forth Bread and Wine, and conftrain us to grant that this was a Sacrifice. Thefe words, For he was the Priejl, kc. can have no other fenfe, but that he did the Function of a, Priejl in the Bread and Wine which he brought. Sd 'tis expreffed in the Annotations of the Doxay Bible. Bon- frerim goes farther, and does not only lay hold of the caufal Particle to prove a Sacrifice, but affirms that there can be no other caule why Chrift fhould be ftiled a Prieft after the Order of Melchi fedec. I an- fwer : Firjl, That this caufal Particle For, on which they lay fo great a frrefs, is not in the Hebrew Text,nor in the LXXII, nor in the Citation from them by Epiplunim : Epiphan.ad- And tho' the Hebrewfdn'icle does in Tome places ftand i.u.Tom.'r. for a Caufal, yet it being moft commonly a Copulative, there is no fmdow of reafbn- why we fhould reject: the moft received, and betake our felfces to the mod in- frequent acceptation of it. Secondly, That this For, was not in the ancient La- tin Verfion, however it be now in the Vulgar: Trs EtipteSater- certain, that Hierom in his He-brew Queftions, hath it dosDei excel- not, Nor hadi he it in his Epiftle to Eva?riw, where ™°]Su2f" 1 • r-»-i • t in run, V^it.iU. he quotes this Text in Hebrew, and tranfiates the Hebr. in Gene. words into Litin. And he was the Priejl, he tranfiates, Erat a:ttem Sacerdos : After the fame manner St. Cyprian Cyprian. Epin. quote i this PafTage, Fait axtem Sacerdos, cVc. And £; .^'V™1 thus alfoS:. Aullin hath it. In a Latin Bible, Printed Oxiticusu* at Lyons ( no Protejlant Bible you may be Cure ) in the '■ 4- ( w Year 3 7% The Texts examined which Tafljls cite Year 1527. we find it thus, Et ipfe erat Sacerdos Deo altijfimo. And therefore thofe words may well relate •to what follows, vet. 19. And he bleffcdhim, and [aid, &c. Nor ought our Verfion to be blamed for rendring the words as we now have them in our Bibles, nor our Divines for connecting them with the following. We have an Englifh Bible, Printed in the clays of Henry the VIII. ( which I hope our Adversaries will not call by way of Reproach, a Protefiant Bible) that will juftifie Printed, 1535. us. Thus we find it there, 05llt Melchifedek tljC fcjmp of Salem tyougljt fo&b %izm ana Ulmz. ana Ije bepngc tlje priePi of tlje maft l)pe ®o&, ulefleti Ijim aitti ffliU, &c. Nor was this Corrected in another Edi- tion of the Year 1557- where we find it, Stitu fje bZ- pup tije jpicfte of t(je mod Ijpgljeit #oti oletTen ijpm, .&c. BelUrmine proceeds and urgeth that in the Hebrew Text, after thefe words, Prieft of the mo(i High God ; there is an Accent ( called Soph Pafuck ) as a Sign that the Period is there terminated, and thofe words cannot be connected to the following, And he bieffed him ; but to the foregoing, where it is (aid, He brought forth Bread and Wine. This diftinftion ( he muft mean of Verfes) he tells us is found in the Chaldee, Greek, and Latih Text. This he thinks fo weighty a Matter , that without the Caufal Particle, for which he contended above, 'tis from hence plain, that the Bread and Wine were brought forth for Sacrifice. To this I anfwer, Firfly That he might have fparedhis Pains. There' . was no need he fhould appeal to the Hebrew, Chaldec, Greek, and Latin, that the Verfe ends there, ( for Soph Pafuk, fignifiesno more but the end of the Verfe) for our Enghfh Verfion ends the Verfe there alfo ; fb fat- were for their Doctrine of the Sacrifice of the SMafs. 373 were our Interpreters from innovating, or from think- ing this any thing to the purpofe in hand. Secondly, Tho7 our Englifb do obferve this diftin&ion of Verfes, which the Cardinal contends for, yet cer- tain it is that their own Bibles have not obferved it. And he does but wound his own Church, when he ifrikes at ours. I have given one Inftance above, and need only to add, that the Vulgar Latin, which they of the Church of Rome adhere to, obferves not this di- itir'£tion which the Cardinal lays fo great a ftrefs upon. For thus the Vulgar, At vero Melchifedech Re x Salem proferens Panem & Vinum ( erat enim Sacerdos Dei alt if- fimi ) benedixit eiy & ait, 8rc. We lee here a plain Connexion or Conjunction of thole words which the Cardinal will not allow of a little above. Thirdly, Certain it is that this Soph Fafuk hath no fuch force,as the Cardinal pretends. And 'tis very fur- prizing to me, that the Cardinal, who pretended to skill in the Hebrew Language, and wrote an Hebrew Grammar, fhould difcourfe at this weak rate. 'Twere very eafie to produce many Inftances where the Soph Pafuk does not terminate the Period, nor reflrain what goes before it from connecting with what follows it. Gen. 25. 17. It is faid, That the Field and Cave, &c. were made fur e : There in the Hebrew we have a Soph Pafuk, which yet does not terminate the Period, or forbid the Connection of thofe words with the follow- ing. ) It follows, ver. 18. Vnto Abraham for a Pojfefli- on, &c. To which may be added, Gen. 48. 15, 16. Deut. 28. 56, 57. Chap. 30. ver. 17, 18. To which may be added, 1 Kjngs 8. 15, 16. and ver. 51, 32, &c. Chap. 10.4, 5. zChron. 30. 18, 19. I dare appeal to the Confcience of any -Honeft Man that underftands any thing of this Matter, whether this be. not a meer Bee Shift . - y The Texts examined which Tapijts cite Shift and empty Pretence, which yet the Cardinal lays a great ftrefsand weight upon. Fourthly, Nor is there any need at all of this Pother which the Cardinal makes, the words of Mofes being very plain and diftinc~t. For he reprelents Melchifedec as a Kjng, and as an inftance of his Royal Bounty/tells us, that he brought forth Bread and Wine ; and alfb as a Prieft,. and as fuch he is faid to blefs Abram, and to take Tithes of him. Bellarmin proceeds, and denies that Melchifedec blef- fed Abram as a Prieft , whereas Abram himfelf was a Prieft. And therefore he did not blefs him as a Prieft, but as a greater, or as one abfblutely greater, being King and Prieft. It is not peculiar to a Prieft to blefs : Solomon blefTed the People, and lb did David and Jofljua. And the Author of the Epiftle to the Hebrews, does not from his blefling Abram infer that he was a Prieft, but only that he was greater than Abram. To this I anfwer. Firit, That this was a Sacerdotal Blefling, is very evident , it being not only joyned with receiving Tithes, but is together with that of receiving Tithes, produced by the Author of the Epiftle to the Hebrews, when he undertakes to prove Chrift (as of the Order of Melchifedec*) to be a Prieft of an higher Rank and Order than that of Aaron. To what purpofe did he produce this Paflage , if the Benediction of Melchife- de-c were not a Sacerdotal Aclion, as well as his recei- ving Tithes ? ■i.7,.6. Secondly, Abram was a Prince as well as a Prieft, with chap. 14. anc{ therefore if becaufe he was a Prieft, lie did not 14,21,24. blefs him; it may be laid with as good reafbn, that lie being a Prince, Melchifedec could not blefs him as fuch an one. Thirdly, Gen. for their Doftrine of the Sacrifice of the Mafs. \y< Thirdly, There was no need that the Author of the Epiftle to the Hebrews iliould from this Blefling infer, that Melchifedec was a Prieft. This Mofes and the Pfalmift (both which he cites) had faid exprefly. But that he was a greater Prieft than Aaron, ( which fuppo- feth him a Prieft ) he proves from his Benediction and receiving Tithes, Heb. 7. The Cardinal goes on, and urgeth that if Chrift be a Prieft after the Order of Melchifedec, he mult agree with him in that which belonged peculiarly to his Priefthood, viz,, the Form of fuch a Sacrifice. This Sacrifice he makes proper to his Priefthood : That he blefted and received Tithes, was, common to him with the Aaronical Priefthood ; that he was not anointed with fenfible Oyl, that he had no PredecefTor or Succefc for was common to him with Abel and others : That his Genealogy is not reported, is not only Extrinfical to his Priefthood, but alfb common to him with Joby Elias, and others ; but his offering Bread and Wine is proper to him, and chiefly belongs to his Priefthood, it being a proper aft thereof. To which I anfwer \ Firft, That the Author of the Epiftle to the Hebrew's, who well underftood what chiefly belonged to the Priefthood of Melchifedec , does not fo much as men- tion his bringing forth ( much lefs his offering ) Bread and Wine ; he does not do it there where he profefled- ly treats of the Priefthood of Melchizedecky and its ta- king place of that of Aaron : He mentions it not even there where he tells us both of his bleffmg Abrarn, and taking Tithes ; and therefore according to the Cardinal, he hath omitted that which chiefly belongs to his Priefthood. E e e 2 Secondly, \j& Tl?e Texts examined which Tapifts cite Secondly, That he BlefTed and Tithed Abraham, from whom Levi and Aaron defcended, is that which the Au- thor of the Epiftle to the Hebrews mentions, and brings as an Argument to prove him Superiour to the Aaronicxl Priefts; and furely this cannot belong, in common to the Sons of Aaron. Thirdly, That Abel, Job, and Elias , are no where reprefented under the Character of Priefts of the mofi High God ; and therefore they are impertinently men- tioned by the Cardinal : Befides, we have Abets Gene- alogy, as account of the Country of Elias, and of the Country, and Wife and Children , and death of Job, But there is not in the Book of Genefis ( which gives the Genealogy of others) any account of that of MeL chifedec, m whom alone all the Particulars meet, which the Author of the Epiftle to the Hebrews mentions as belonging to him. Fourthly, That if it were grafted, (which can never be proved) that Melchifedec did offer Bread and Wine., yet would not this be proper to him, but common to him with the Sons of Aaron. I proceed to prove, * II. That if Melchifedec had offered fuch a Sacri- fice, it will not thence follow, that the Priefthood of Melchifedec confTfted in this, and- was by this diftinguifhed from that of Aaron. The Reafon is obvious, viz. Becaufe the Sons of Aaron did alio offer Bread and Wine. This appears abundantly from Levit. 2. with Exod. 29. 40. and Numb. 28. i}, 14. That in which the Priefthood of Melchifedec does peculiarly confift, cannot belong to Mron, but the Offering of Bread and Wine did be- long to Aaron and his Sons, and cannot therefore be peculiar for their Dotlrine of the Sacrifice of the Mafs. ^77 peculiar to Melchifedec. Bellarmine is forced to con- fers, that under the Aaronical Prieffhood Bread and Wine were iacrificed ; but then he thinks to come off by fubt erf ages. What he fays is to this effect ; 1 . That the Bread and Wine facrificed by Aaron and his Sons was not a principal Sacrifice, but rather a part or kind of Sawce to feme other Sacrifice : That which Melchizedeck offer- - edwasby it felf. 2. The Bread which Aaron and his Sons offered was always fprinkled with Oil, that of Melchifedec was fimple Bread. 3. Another difference between thofe two Prieft hoods was this, that Aaron ofiered all forts of Sacrifices,; bloody and unbloody, but Melchifedec the unbloody only. To which I anfwer, Firfty That 'tis not universally true that the Meat- offering was a Sawce, or acceffory to fbme other Sa- crifice. This {peaks the Cardinal's Ignorance, or fome- thing worfe. The Hebrew Doctors give us a truer fiHJB account of things, when they tell us of a double ^P*3*1 Minchah or Meat-Offering ; that which was acceffory nasy ,,gc or belonged to another Sacrifice, and that which was ' vTd. Maimon, folitary and offered by it felf. The latter of thefe was Prefac- in Me- either publick or private. They reckon three of the "y^ ALaAj. firft fort, and five of the fecond, which I fhall not nei. Prefac. in need to repeat here. Nor is this to be rejected as a Lcvi*' Rabblmcal Fancy -: For theScripture aifures us that this Meat-Offering was fbmetimes folitary, and no ways belonging to any other Offering. This appears from Levit. 5. 11, 12, 1 3. Secondly, That the Bread which Aaron offered was always fprinkled with Oil, is not true. And yet if it were, it were nothing to the purpofe. How can the Cardinal tell, but that the Bread of Melchifedec might have fame Oil in it alfo ? Oil is exprefiy forbid in the Bread* 378 The Texts examined which Tapifls cite Bred-Offering, Levit. 5. 11. and alfo in that mentioned Numb. 5. 15. and a Man may juflly admire- the Car- dinal fhould affirm, that the Bread offered by Aarom- cal Priefts was always fprinkled with Oil. Thirdly, The other difference affigned between the two Priefthoods is grcundlefs, and can never be proved ; who will believe this to be the difference between the Priefthood of Melchifed.ec and Aaron, that the former offered one fort of Sacrifices, the latter all : That Aaron ihould offer the principal, Melchifedec only the acceffory ; Melchifedec only fimple Bread, the other Bread with Oil and Incenfe : In a word, That Melchifedec1* Sacri- fice was fhort of Aaron s, and therefore his Priefthood better : For a bloody Sacrifice was of greater value than a Bread-Offering, which was then accepted when the other could not be had, Lev. 5. 1 1. Fourthly, According to the account of our Adverfa- ries Jefm Chrifi would be a Prieft after the Order of Aaron : For on the Crofs he offered a bloody, and in the Eucharift (according to them) an unbloody Sacri- fice. Bellarmine pretends that if Chrift be a Prieft for ever, the Rite of facrificing muft continue forever : He can- not be faid to be a Prieft who hath no Sacrifice to offer. But there can be no Sacrifice if we deftroy that of the Mafs. To which I anfwer, Firft, That the Prieft's Office was never reftrained to facrificing ; that was but one part of the Prieftly Office : There were many other Offices peculiar to that Order of Men, befides fprinkling the Blood of the Sa- Numb. III. That granting that Melchifedec did offer fuch a Sacrifice, and that thereby his Prieffhood was di- - ftinguifhed from that of Aaron ; it does not hence follow that Chrift ought to inftitute in his Church an unbloody Sacrifice under the fpecies of Bread and \Y ine, The- } 8 o The Texts examined which Tapifts eke The Sacrifice of the Mafs will not refult from this, nor by any fufficient reafon can it be inferred from it. For why may not the Sacrifice of the Crofs, inftead of the Mafs, be fnfRcient ? Chrift there gave himfelf up for the Life of the World : The Bread that came down from Heaven, and that is the Food of our Souls, was there broken : There was his Blood fhed, which gives us Life. What need of the Sacrifice of the Mafs ? Is there any reafon to conclude that mull be inftituted up- on fuppofition of the Premifes? There is a great diffe- rence between the Sacrifice of Melchifcdec and that of the Mafs : What was offered in one was Bread and Wine, the other is the Body and Blood of Chrift : the Sub fiance of Bread and Wine is in one, the Jcci dents only in the other ; we read nothing of Confecration of the one, the other is confecrated with great Ceremony. Melchifedec was a Kjng, without Genealogy, alone without PredecefTor, or Succeffor : Is there any thing like this in the Mafs Priefts ? Melchifedec offered once, and gave of his Oblation to the Uncircumcifed ; Is there any thing like this in the Mafs ? Here's no Blood in Melchifedec s Oblation ; will he allow this to be laid of the Mafs ? His Oblation depended on no other, but that of the Mafs is dependant on that of the Crofs. If the Sacrifice of the Mafs muft beeftablifhed,one would think the refemblance between it and the other fhould be greater. ^>o it is *, the Docfrine which the Church of Rome teacheth of the Sacrifice of the Mafs needs proof from Scripture, and they that maintain the Doclrine are willing to defend k thence. But certain it is that ma- ny wile Men of the Church of Rome know well, that it cannot.be maintained from this and other Scriptures produced to that purpole. This was frankly acknow- ledged for their VoBrine of the Sacrifice of the Mctfs. -i % i ledged by Georgms di At aide ) a Divine of the King- v\&hiftor. dom of Portugal, in the Council of -Trent, who taaii^JJj^ f 6 againft thofe who went about to prove the Sacrifice of Mafs from the Scriptures, and fought to find in the Scriptures that which is not there, 'giving occasion to the Advcrfaries to calumniate the Truth, while they fee it grounded upon fuch an un ft able Sand. He added, as to the Fact of Melchifedec ; that Chrift was a Prieft of that Order, as he was the only Begotten, Eternal, without Predecejfor, Father, Mother, or Genealogy. And that this is proved too plainly by the Epiflle to the Hebrews, where St. Paul, difcourfing at large of this place, doth handle the Eternity and Singularity of this Priefhood, and maketh no mention of the Bread and Wine. He repeated the Do- ctrine of St. Auft in, that when there is a fit place for any thing to be f poke n, and it is nut fpoken, an Argument may be drawn from the Authority negatively. I have before men- tioned Cardinal Cajetan affirming, that in this Story of Melchifedec there is no mention of Sacrifce or Oblation. Salmeron to the fame purpofe, is fo far from pretending that the Mafs is taught in the Scriptures, that he £piftol.s.Paui. placeth it among thofe Apoftolical Traditions which Commentar. were not committed to Writing. Marian.i% in hisTom-I?' Commentaries on Genefis, does indeed affirm, that Melchifedec facrifi ced or offered to God Bread and Wine, the Symbol (fays he) of our Sacrifice, for which he quotes St. Hierom, and tells us that the Plalmift's words, Thou art a Prieft for ever after the Order of Melchifedec, and the words of St. Paul to the Hebrews, refer to the fame matter. But that which is very fur- prizing is this, that the fame Mariana, when- he writes upon the Hebrews, finds nothing there to this purpofe; and tho he refers 'to that Epiftle in his Notes upon Genefit, yet when he comes to die place, he refers in- Fff deed j 8 1 Tfce Text* examined which Papifts cite deed to his Notes on Genefis, but can find nothing of the Sacrifice he mentions there, and refers to the Epi- Mariana in ftle tothe Hebrews for ; inftead of fatisfying his Reader, Heb. 7. 27. he hath thefe words 5 Miror in hoc eapite, &c. / wonder that in this Chapter, among fo many Similitudes, by which Mekhifedec reprefented Chrifl, that he fays nothing of the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine which Melchifedec offered, as we have f aid (Gen. 14. 18.) the Symbol of our Sacri- fice and Eucharift : Of which I had rather hear others than pronounce my felf. A plain Confeffion that there was nothing to be found in this place to the purpofe for which he alledged it. The fecond Pretence for the Sacrifice of the Mais is fetched from the Pafchal Lamb (Exod. xii.) it feems very hard to underftand how this can be any thing like an Argument. But we mull; take it as it is. Cardi- Belfermin. nal BelJarmine endeavours to form an Argument from de Mifsa. 1. 1. Dence . and tnus }t js# The Celebration of the PafTe- over was an exprels Figure of the Eucharift ; but the PaiTeover was a Sacrifice, therefore the Eucharift mult be fo too, that the Anti-type may anfwer the Type. I anfwer, firft, That this way of reafoning will do them one time or other more hurt than good. It would fpoil all, were it ufed in the Cale of Melchifedec. His Bread and Wine was an exprefs Figure of the Eucha- rift ; but that was really Bread and Wine which he brought forth, and therefore the Subftance of Bread and Wine remains in the Eucharift, that the Anti- type may anfwer the Type; fuch an Argument will be apt to go too far, and prove tocJ much, and turn head upon them that ufe it. Again, by this way of argu- c. 7 for their DoElrine of the Sacrifice of the Mafs. 385 arguing we may conclude that Chrift was flain, and rolled before he could be received in the Eucharift ; for fo it was with the Type, and the Anti-type ought- to anfwer the Type. Secondly, It ought to be proved, that the Pafchal Lamb was a Type of the Eucharift. This is taken for granted ■ indeed ; the truth is, it can- never be proved. The Pafchal Lamb was indeed a Type of the Sacrifice of Chrift upon the Crofs : Here is a mar- vellous agreement between the Type and Anti-type, as it were eafy to ftiew. That the Pafchal Lamb was a Type of the Sacrifice of Chrift upon the Crofs is un- deniable : St. Paul fays, Chrift our Pajfeover is facri- * cor« v- 7- feed for us. And when Chrift fuffered, a Bone of him Joh. 19. 3$. was not to be broken, and 'tis faid that the Scripture Exod. 12.45. might be fulfilled. This was a known Law of the Paf- chal Lamb, that a Bone of it was not to be broken. But he pretends to prove that the Pafchal Lamb was a Type of the Eucharift, and to that purpofe produceth the words above-named, Chrift our Pajfeover is facri feed for us. He affirms that it appears from the Gofpel, that the Apoftles did eat Chrift's Flefh before his Paffion, and confequently did eat the true Pafchal Lamb, to the feafting upon which we are exhorted ( 1 Cor. 5. 8.) Let us keep the Feaft, &c. This Feaft muft follow the Immolation, the Lamb muft firft be flain before it can be eaten : And therefore Immolation muft precede the Manducation in the laft Supper, be- fore the Paflion of Chrift. I anfwer, Firft y Here's no proof in all this : Nothing -but bold Affirmation. And becaufe the Do&rine of the Mafs is framed, it muft be maintained : What fhould be proved, is taken for granted, viz,. That the Pafchal F f f 2 Lamb 384 Ke Texts examined which Tapifls cite Lamb was a Figure of the Eucharift. Here's no proof, butinftead of it, falfe reafoning.. For this may be re- torted : The Pafchal Lamb was not to be eaten till it was flain', and the Blood of it filed : But the Eucharift before Chrift's Paflion was eaten, before Chrift's Blood was flied on the Crofs. Therefore that Eucharift was not the Anti-type of the eating of the Pafcal Lamb. Secondly, As to the place alledged, viz,. Chrifi our Takeover is facrificed for us, 'tis evident that it cannot be confiftent with the Doftrine of an unbloody Sacrifice, and Corporal Manducation which the Church of Rome contends for. For the word Sacrificed, imports being flaia or killed, and alio that it is already paft : 'Tis, is (or hath been), facrificed for us. He fpeaks of fome- thing known and notorious. And whereas he fays, Let us keep the Feafl, 'tis manifeft that he alludes to the Feaft of unleavened Bread, which commenced upon the flaying of the Pafchal Lamb. Nor can he be ftp- pofed hereto require a Corporal Manducation of the natural Flefh of Chrift : For the Leaven, and the eating, and the Bread muft be underftood alike. Now 'tis cer- tain that the Leaven of Malice and Wickednefs is not eaten with the Mouth ; nor is the Bread of Sincerity and Truth to be chewed by the Teeth ; and therefore the eating cannot be meant of a bodily eating, but a fpiritual : Joh.6. 35. The Cardinal endeavours to prove the Pafchal Lamb a Figure of the Eucharift. Firfi, Becaufe the Eucharift was inftituted at the time when the Pafchal Lamb was flain. Secondly, That Lamb was flain in memory of the lord's paffing over, and the Deliverance out of Egypt ', the Eucharift is in memory of Chrift's PaiTage from this for their VoBrine of the Sacrifice of the Mafs. 385 this World to his Father, and our Deliverance from the Power of Satan. Thirdly, The Lamb was flain, that it might he eaten as a Viaticum, and was eaten by the Ifrae lit es like Tra- vellers, with Staves in their Hands, &c. So is the Eu- charift a Viaticum of them that travel to an Heavenly Country. Fourthly, The Lamb might be eaten by none but fuch as were circumcifed and clean, and in Jerufalem, ib they muft be baptized, clean and in the Catholick Church, that partake of the Eucharift. I anfwer : I. As to the firlt ; That a Figure fhould be corn- pleated on the day of its firft Institution or Celebration, is by no means neceftary. The High-Prieft's going into the Holy of- Holies, was a Figure of Chrift's Afcenfion into Heaven, but was not performed on the fame day or month in which Chrift afcended. Again, Though the Eucharift were instituted at the time of the Pa'fle- over, yet was this by Accident, and not by any Law belonging to the Eucharift. vl'was inftituted on the 14M day of the firft Month at the time of the PaiTe- over : There was reafon why the PaiTeover fhould be celebrated then; but the Eucharift, though it happened to be then appointed, is not reftrained to that particu- lar time: 'Tvvas in the mean conveniently inftituted at the clefe of the Paflcover, as that which was to take its place, the Eucharift. being a Memorial of the Death of Chrift, as the- Pafchal Lamb was the Type of it, . and as fuch, was very congruoufly appointed at the approach of his Death. But tho the PaiTeover was reftrained 7 86 The Texts examined which Papifts cite reftrained to a certain Month, and Day, and to be offered but once in the Year, and eaten in the Evening of the Day, and followed with a Feaft of Unleavened Bread, yet thefe are not the Laws of the Eucharift, or Ufages peculiar to the Mafs. II. As to the fecond ; 'Tis granted that the Pafchal Lamb was flain, and its Blood put upon the Door- Pofts, to avert the deftroying Angel ; and continued afterwards as a Memorial of the Deliverance out of Egypt. But however this luits with the Death of Chrift, by which we are faved from the Wrath of God, and refcued from the Power of the Devil ; yet it by no means correfponds with the Eucharift, or un- bloody Sacrifice of the Mais. III. As to the third ; Whatever the Eucharift be to the devout Partaker, yet no ftrefs ought to be laid up- on this Correfpondence between it and the PaiTeover kept in Egypt, becaufe that was a Rite peculiar to the PaiTeover of Egypt, as the Hebrew Doctors well ob- ferve, and not ufed in after-Ages. Befides, 'tis from the Death of Chrift we hope to enter into an Hea- venly Country, of which the Eucharift is but a Sacra- ment. IV. As to the fourth ; Thofe Refemblances menti- oned do not infer that the Pafchal Lcmb was a Figure of the Eucharift, becaufe thofe Conditions, as to Per- fbns and Place, were required in other Religious Ser- vices : Befides, there are many other things in which the difference between the PaiTeover and Sacrifice of the Mafs is very difcernible : Not to repeat, that the PafTe- for their Dottrine of the Sacrifice of the Mafs. 387 Paffeover was reftrained to a Month, a Day, an Eve- ning, &c. it ought to be celebrated according to its fiift Institution, to be eaten that Evening and not re- ferved, and not to be carried abroad in Proceffion. Let our Adverfaries»fay how this can agree with their Sa- crifice of the Mafs. For the Pains which the Cardinal takes to prove the Paffeover a Sacrifice, he need not have taken it, for I do readily grant it, nor do I fee any juft caufe to deny it : But all this will not prove it a Figure of the Eu- charift. Befides \ though it be a Sacrifice, yet it was not propitiatory, much left fb for the Dead as well as Living, and therefore no very fit Figure of the Sacrifice of the Mafs. Again, were it proved a Figure «of the Eucharifr, this would be no competent Proof for the Sacrifice of the Mafs. For the Paffeover among the Jews may be confidered either as a Sacrament of that Church, or as a Sacrifice frrictly fo called ; fuppofing it a Figure of the Eucharifr in the firfr refpeel:, this will not eftablifh the Sacrifice of the Mafs. I now proceed to the third Pretence from the Holy Scriptures for the Sacrifice of the Mafs, and that is fetched from Exod. xxiv. where, after the Law given at Mount Sinai, God enters into Covenant with the Ijraelites, promifeth them much Good, and they pro- mife Obedience : This Covenant was confirmed by a folemn Sacrifice and the fprinkling of Blood. 'Tis fa id, Behold the Blood of the Covenant which the Lord hath made with you concerning all thefe words>rvev.8. 'Tis pretended that this Figure was fulfilled in the laft Supper in the Inltitution of the Eucharifr, and there- fore *1 B 3 7he Texts examined which Tapijts cite fore the Blood of that Old Teftament' being the Blood of a Viftim properly facrificed, the Blood of the New Teftament mifft be the Blood of a proper Sacrifice alfo, and therefore Chrift is a Vi&im facrificed in the Eucharift. • From this it might have been as well inferred, and with as much Truth, that that of Mofis being a Sa- crifice of Blood, that of tlie Mafs rauft alfo be a bloody Sacrifice. But this would be too much. And they who maintain the Doctrine of the Mafs, will infer no more from thefe Figures than will juft ferve their purpofe ; other wife 'twere very natural to infer the Subftance of Bread and Wine in the Eucharift, and not Accidents only, from the Bread and Wine of Melchifcdec ; and that both kinds are in the Eucharift to be received. But they that we have to do with will take care that thefe Figures fhall not be ufed againft their received Doctrine. And yet we find that the Ancient Fathers of the Church do affirm, that Chrift offered the fame Oblation with Melchifedec ; and infer from thence that the Symbols in the" Eucharift are Bread and Wine. Full vim of For inftances to this purpofe, I refer the Reader to the pgffoTf^. Learned Author of a late Treatife. Cardinal Bellarmine takes a great deal of Pains to prove the Mafs from this Chapter of Exodus. This Fi- gure he conceits muft be compleated in the laft Supper • and Inftitution of the Eucharift : Then he fays the New Teftament was made, and the words, This Cup is the New Teftament in my Blood, &c. confirm him in this Belief; after this he fays, If ChrifPs Teftament was not made in the laft Supper, it muft be made on the I.C.! for their DoBrine of the Sacrifice of the SMafs. 389 theCrofs; and yet (fays be) all the Conditions of a Ecliarm. de Teftament agree with the laft Supper, none of them1^153'1'* with the Croft; and here he enlargeth tonolefs than feven Particulars. But he might have fpared his Pains : For we do not believe that the New Teftament, or Covenant, ftrictly fpeaking, was made either on the Crofs, or in the laft Supper. Not on the Crofs : For we are well allured that it was then ratified and dedicated, Heb. 9. 18. which fuppofeth it to have a Being before. And for the Lord's Supper it is grofs to call it the New Te- ftament or Covenant, though it be indeed one of the Sacraments of it. Were it the New Teftament it felf, Baptifm ( a Sacrament of the New Teftament ) would be a Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. Befides, were the Supper the New Teftament, none could be laid to partake of this New Teftament, who did not partake of the Eucharift, which would exclude not only thofe who deceafed before the Inftitution of the Eucharift, but all others alfb'who died before they did partake of it : When Chrift calls the Cup the Blood of the New Teftament, it isfuppofed the New Tefta- ment was in being before. And thus it was when the Covenant was ratified in. the time of Mofes. Be- hold the Blood of the Covenant (fays he ) which the Lord hath made with you concerning all thefe words, ( Exod. 24, 8.) That Blood was not the very Covenant, for that was in being before : and we read of the Book of the Covenant^ ver. 7. But it was the Blood by which it was ratified and confirmed. If the Old Covenant were not made in the Ceremony mentioned, Exod. 24. then is that matter ill applied to the Eucharift by him that G g g affirms . o0 The Texts examined which Pa/tfts cite affirms the New Covenant or Teftament to be therein made. And if that Ceremony did but dedicate and con- firm the Old Teftament (Heb. 9. 18.) then was it accomplifhed on the Crofs, and ftill does not belong to the Eucharift, much lefs prove the Sacrifice of the Mafs. The Figure ( Exod. 24. ) is fo far from proving the Sacrifice of the Mafs, that it rather makes againft it. The Blood of the New Teftament in Cbrrefpondence to that of the Old {Exod. 24.) muft be the Blood of a Victim flain before, but Jefus Chrift in the laft Supper was not flain, and therefore the Blood of JefuV in the laft Supper was not the Blood of the New Teftament, and Anti-type of that Figure. If thefe words of Jefus, This is my Blood of the New Teftament, fpeak the Blood already fhed, then muft Chrift have fuffered before ; if they do not, then are they no proof of the Sacrifice of the Mafs. I proceed now from the Figures, to confider what Pretences are fetched from the Prophets for the efta- blifhing the Sacrifice of the Mafs. And I find the firft which Cardinal Bellarmine ur- geth, is fetched from the words of the Man of God rSam. 2. 3$. t0 ^h V1Z" ^ w*^ raife me up a faithful Prieft, that fhall do according to that which is in mine Heart, and in my Mind ; and I will build him a fure Houfe, and he jha-ll walk before mine Anointed for ever. This place fome of the Antients expound ( fays he) of the Prieft-hood and Sacrifice of Chriftians, fucceeding the Aaronical, and which would remain to the end of the World. I for their Doftrine of the Sacrifice of the Mafs. 3 9 1 I anfvver ; That God in the Holy Scriptures expounds this place otherwife ; Solomon removed Abiathar, of the Houfe of Eli, that he might fulfil the Word of the Lord, i Kings 2, 27. ivhich he [pake concerning the Houfe of Eli in Shiloh. And this was all that the Man of God means, when he denounceth againft Eli's Father's Houfe', for by his J Sam* 2* 3r; Father's Houfe is meant not the Houfe of Aaron, but of Ithamar, and were it not fb, the words could not be fulfilled in rejecting Abiathar, and fetting up Sadok, who was defcended from Aaron alfb. After all to bear us down that this was a Type of the Mafs-Priefls, who were to fucceed the Aaronical, is to beg and not prove the Queftion : There being no fhadow of a proof offered. The fecond Proof is from Solomons words : Wifdom hath budded her Houfe : She hath hewen out her [even Prov' 9' K Pillars. She hath killed her Beafis, &rc. Now it will feem hard to prove the Sacrifice of the Mafs from hence : Nor is there any pretence more than that St.Cyprian and St. Augujlin are produced applying thefe words to the Eucharift. I anfwer ; That here's no proof of the Sacrifice of the Mafs, as 'tis now taught in the Roman Church ; no evidence from the Text that thefe words have any reference to the Eucharift, no mention of a Sacrifice, but rather of a Feafl', 'tis a Table, (wr. 2.) not an Altar that Men are invited to ; to eat Bread and drink Wine, (ver. 5.) And 'tis all but parabolical, fuch as that of St. Matthew xxii. and taken out of a Book of Parables too. •' G g g 2 The } 9 1 The Texts examined which Tapifts cite The third Pretence is taken from thefe words : In ifa.i;. io, :i. that day {hall there be an Altar to the Lord, in the midft of the Land of Egypt, dr'c. and the Egyptians Jhall know the Lord in that day, and /hall do Sacrifice and Oblation, &c. Thefe Sacrifices muft be fuch, ftri&ly fb called, becaufe of the exprefs mention of an Altar, and therefore they plainly fhew that among the Gen- tiles in the days of the MeJJlas, a Sacrifice, ftrictly fo called, fhould be offered up. I anfwer; Fir ft. That I grant that this place fpeaks of what fhall obtain among the Gentiles in the days of the Meffias : That they fhould embrace the true Religion, expreffed here in fuch terms as were at that time beft underftood. The Chriftian Worfhip is expreffed m terms agreeing to what obtained under the Law of Mofes ; as I fhall have further occafion to obferve. No wonder then that 'tis expreffed here by fpeaking the Language of Canaan, by fvearing to the Lord, by e* reeling an Altar, doing Sacrifice, and making Vows j thefe being Acts of Religion that then obtained. Secondly, We cannot infer from hence the Sacrifice of the Mafs. For there's no neceffity that the Altar here fhould infer a Sacrifice ffridtly fb called : Both becaufe every Altar does not fuppofe fuch a Sacrifice (fee Jofb. 22. 26,27.) and that the Sacrifices men- tioned here are fpiritual : All other Sacrifices were an- nexed to one certain place.. (See Deut. 12. 13, 14.) And the fetting up an Altar, ftriftly fo called, would be a very unfit Exprefiion of the embracing the true Religion, during the Difpenfation of Mofes. The Altar here is not faid to be for Sacrifice ; but the Al- tar and Pillar are to be for a Sign and Witnefs (ver.20.)' And for their Dotlrine of the Sacrifice of the Mafs. 9p > And for the Sacrifices and Oblations, St. Hierom, upon the place, interprets them in a fpiritual fenfe, of a Contrite Spirit, and the Elevation of the Hands in de- AcjSacrific' vout Prayer. If fb, the Cardinal had better not have fpirimafla mentioned St. Hierom, when he urgeth this Text for J."1^"1 ^^ proof of the Sacrifice of the Mafs. For, as he con- fiiumeftr* ' feffeth, no vifible Altar is necejfary for Spiritual Sacri- fices. The fourth Pretence is taken from the fame Pro- phet : And I wiU alf'o take of them for Priejls, and Jf for Levites, faith the- Lord : To which words are ad- ' w,y* ded thefe of Jeremiah, Neither (hall the Priefts the Le- Jar* 33- »8.- vites want a Mxn before me, to offer Burnt -Offerings, and to kindle Meat-Offerings, and to do facrifce continually. Thefe words the Cardinal contends rauft be under- ftood of Chrijfs Priefts, and appeals to St. Hierom and to Theodoret in the Cafe, and a great ftrefs he lays upon this that they were to offer Burnt -Offerings. I anfwer ; Tirfi, That I am content to yield to the Cardinal that the words have reference to Chriftian Priefts, or Ministers in Holy Things; I'll not contend aA bout it. Secondly,- Thefe words are to be literally under- ftood, or they are not. If they are, then are Chriffi-- an Priefls obliged to Burnt-Offerings and Meat-Offer- ings, &c. If they are not, they are impertinently produced as a Proofcof the Sacrifice of the Mais f which, according to the Church of Rome, is a Sacri--* fice 2p4 The Texts examined which Tapifls itec. fice ftri&ly fo called ; and according to the Letter. If we keep to the Letter, they prove too much ; if not, they prove too little. Thirdly, 'Tis evident that thefe words are not to be underftood according to the ftricl -Letter : For if they were, they would prove the perpetuity of the Aaroni- cal Priefthood. For this Covenant, with the Levites, Jcr.33. 20,21. the Prieft s, God's Minifters, fhall not fboner fail than the Covenant of God of the Day and of the flight. And 'tis without ground, that a real Sacrifice is in- ferred from hence, when the Offering mentioned in lfaiah (Chap. 66. 20.) cannot be underftood of a Sa- crifice, ftri&ly lb called, it being an Offering of Men. And 'tis ftill very unjuft to quote St. Hierom and Theo- dora for the proof of that which is not contefted, and Ffieron. in ifa. t0 conceal what they fay, which makes againftthe main 66. 21. Caufe contended for. For they expound thefe places JeJem.^^iS m a fpn'itual ^en^? of tne fpiritual Victims which are ' pleafing to God, and the reafonable Sacrifice offered up to him. The fifth Pretence is taken from the Prophet Daniel, Dan. 8.11,12. where 'tis faid that Antichrifi: fhould take away the daily Sacrifice. This place, fays Bellarmine, Hippolytus underftands of the Sacrifice of the Mafs ; and that though Daniel feem to fpeak there of Antiochus, yet he does it of him as a Type of Antichrifi, as appears by comparing this place with Revel. 1 $. I anfwer; That tho it be granted that Antiochtu was a Figure or Type of Antichrifi:, it does ^ot thence follow that the daily Sacrifice of the Jews was a Type of, or did in for their Doctrine of the Sacrifice of the JWafs. j p j in the leaft infer, or fuppofe, the Sacrifice of the Mafs. That the daily Sacrifice, was a Sacrifice properly and ftrictly fb called, cannot be denied : But it does not thence follow that it muft be a Type alfb of fuch a Sacrifice in the Chriftian Church. There is no need that the Type and Anti-type fhould be things of the fame Species and Subftance. If there be, the fubftance of Bread and Wine in the Eucharift muft remain, that it may anfwer the Type of Melchifdec's. Again, The daily Sacrifice was not a fit Type of the Sacrifice of the Mafs ; that was bloody, this an unbloody Sacrifice; that was offered Morning and Evening, this only in the Morning ; that in one place, and upon one Altar \ this in many places at once. Nor is there any fhadow of Reafbn to believe that daily Sacrifice a Type of that of the Mafs. The fecond Part will quickly follow. LONDON, Printed by J. D. for Richard Chifioel at the Rofe and Crown in St. Pad's Church- Yard, r688. ( 197 ) The Texts examined which Tapfls cite out of the Bible for the Proof of Their Dodrine of' the Sacrifice of the Maff. P ART IL IMPRIMATUR. June 20. 1688. Guil. Needhanr. T H E next place produced as a Proof of the Sa- crifice of the Mafs by Bellarmine, is from the Prophet Malachi : My Name jhall be great a- mong the Gentiles, and in every place Incenfe jhall be offered unto my Name, and. a pure Offer ing, &c. This is thought an eminent Proof of the Sacrifice of the Mafs. Bellarmine might have {pared his Pains he took to prove that the words cannot be underftood of the Sacrifice of the Crofs, nor of the Jewijb Sacrifices, nor of thofe of the pious Gentiles before the coming of Hhh Chrilt ^pS The Texts examined which P1,5, be taken improperly for the Prayers and Devotions offered up to God, (as the Chaldee Paraphraft under- stands this place) then are thefe words impertinently - alledged for Proof of a ftrictly fo called, or proper Sa- crifice. For the pure Offering here mentioned it will do no Service to the Caufe in hand. For the word we render Offering, does often fignify not a Sacrifice, but a Gift or Prefent : The lame word is ufed in Ifaiajj, where 'tis faid, Tbeyfball bring all your Brethren for an Offering ifa. 66. 20, to the Lord, out of all Nations, upon Horfes, and in Chariots, &c where, by Offering, no Man can under- stand a Sacrifice properly fo called. Thus St. Paul mentions the offering up of the Gentiles. And we Rom* li' Chriftians are called an holy Prieflhood to offer up fpiri- tnal Sacrifices acceptable to God by Jefus Chrifi. And the i Pet. 2. 5. pure Offering imports nc more chan this, that this Ser- vice or Offering is fincere, ^nd without mixture, or a Spiritual Sacrifice in the lirafe of St. Peter. More than this comes to, can neiver be collected from thefe words of Malachi. Nor fhall it need to :eem ftrange to any Man that the Spiritual Sacrifices oi Chriftians fhould in the Pro- phets (during the Mco\. my of Mofes) be defcribed in terms that were conforiwbie to what was ufed and pra&ifed in that time in the Nation of the Jews. For nothing is more common than this among thofe Sacred Writers. Thus the advancement of the Chri- ftian Church, is expreffed by the eftablifhing the Moun- f tain of the Lord's Howie in the top of the Mountains, and exalting it above the Hills. And the Kingly chap. 9. 7. OfRce of the Meffw, is defcribed by his fitting upon Hhh 2 the 400 Ti:e Texts examined which Tafijls cite the Throne of David and upon his Kingdom, to order and eftablifh it. Thus arc the Chriftian Worfhippers ( or Ministers in Holy Things) called Priefis and Le- vites, and their Services are exprefTed by offering Jer. 33. i3. Burnt-Offerings, and kindling Meat-Offerings, &c. And Chrift's planting his Church is exprefTed by building the Lord's Temple, and the Chriftian Worfhip by keep- ehap. 14- l6- ing the Leaf; of Tabernacles. The Meffias himfelf is Hofca 3. 5« fometime called David, and his Fore-runner John Baptifi, who was more than a Prophet, is in this Pro- Ma ' 4' 5* phet Malachi promifed under the Character of Elijah the Prophet. No wonder Chriftian Services fhould be exprefTed by this Prophet under the Character of Incenfe and a pure Offering : Our Spiritual Services in the New Teftament are thus exprefTed. Our yielding. Obedience to Chrift ; charitable Offices and Alms ; con- verting Men to the Faith, or dying for it ; praifing and glorifying God are. exprefTed after the fame manner, Chrift hath made us not only Kings, but Trie ft s unto B,ev. 1.6. God and his Father. And now 'tis not ftrange that our Services fhould be predicted under the Character of Incenfe and a pure Offering. The bare Letter is not always to be infifted on as a fufficient Proof of our Proportion. Even in the New Teftament we are not always to do this : But much FMI 2. 2. ^ *n tne Prophetical Writings. We are required to> Mar. 9. $0. beware of Dogs, to have Salt in our [elves, and forbid Mat. 7.6. t0 CAjj. pear/s before Srvine ; but we are concerned here beyond the Letter. And our Saviour's \\ ords are not joh 4- IO>32' fometimes to be underftood according to the Let- 34Ver. 9. ter, when he fpeaks'of living Water, of Bread that chap. «5.27. endures for ever., of the Leaven of the Pharifees and Mac i6.6, 12. 0£ the ^ adduces. Nor this Offering in Malachi to, be underftood of a proper Sacrifice,, and this will appear Rom. 12. 1. Heb. 13. 1 $ Phil. 4. 18. Rom. 1$. 16 2 Tim. 4. 6. Phil. 2. 17. a Pet. 2. 5. for their Dotlrine of the Sacrifice of the Mafs, 40 1 appear to- thole who confider things without preju- dice. The Intenfe cannot be underftood according to the Letter, as I have fhewed before, and muft therefore be -underft ood fpiritually of the Prayers of the Faith- ful, of which the Miftical Incenfe was a Type or Fi- gure : None can doubt of it that will compare PfaL 141. 2. with Luke 1. 9, 10, 1$. and Rev. 8. 3, 4. Thefe went together, and this Prayer is a Chriftian Heb§ Sacrifice. But the Incenfe of Mofes was annexed to the Sanctuary, this to be offered in every place. I will * Tim. i. 8. th.it Men pray every where, lifting up holy Hands without wrath and doubting. We may lend up this Perfume from our Shops and Clofets : Here every pious Man is a Prielf, and- his Heart an Altar. If the Incenfe befpiritual, fomuft the pure Offering; alfo : If it be taken properly, then are Chriftians ob- liged to offer Meat-Offerings, as-the Jews did ; and then 'twill be hard to fay whether to all or fome of them ? for there were feveral forts: And if to fome, to which of them ? And the words being indefinite, we fhall not be able to determine what our Obligation is. But this cannot be allowed : for 'tis exprefly foretold Dan o , that the Meffias fhould caufe to- ceafe n.ruavnar> **• e. all the Offerings by Fire whatfoever. But if taken improperly, it will be a very unfit Argument to prove a -, proper Sacrifice. Our Saviour's words to the "Woman of Samaria, will- help us to- underftand thefe. words of the Prophet. Our Fathers (fa id (lie to Jefus) worjhipped in this Mountain • J01, I0,20' and ye fay that Jerufalem is the place where Men ought to worfhip. Jefus replies, Woman, believe me, the hour comet b, when ye j]j all neither in this Mountain, nor yet at ' Jerufalem worjlipthe Father.- And prefently afterward, t>xe~ 4©i Ver. 21. 2 j, Pfal. $i. 19. & 50. 14,2 1 Cor. 10. The Texts exant'med which Tapifls cite the hour cometh, and now is, when the true Worshippers jhall worjhip the Father in Spirit and in Truth ; for the Father feeketh fuch to worjhip him. Here's the Incenfc and pure Offering ; not annexed to a Mountain or City, or certain place (as of old ) but to be offered in every place. This is a fpiritual Offering, not a legal or typical one. We muft worfhip God in Spirit and Truth, not accor- ding to the Type and bare Letter. Thefe fpiritual Services are called Sacrifices both in the Old and New Teftament : And no other Sacrifices 5- but thefe are required in the New Teftament. There's no mention of the Sacrifice of the Mafs. The Eiicha- rift is no where called a Sacrifice, nor is the place whei e it was &t9 called an Altar : Ihftead of that the •.- otd Table is u ihd. The Eucharift is called the Lord's Sup- per, the Communion j breaking of Bread, but not Sacri- fice. The Chriftians of old wefe accufed by the Pagans for Impiety, becaufe t' ey had no Sacrifice. Athenn- goras defends them ; he tells the Heathens, that' the greater! Sacrifice was to know God, and chat the lifting up of holy Hands to him was more than an Hecatomb. What have I to do ( fays he ) with Hoiucanfls ? He re- • quires an unbloody Sacrifice, and that we ojjer him a. rea- sonable Service^ So far was be from affirming that Chriftians had among them any proper Sacrifice. The ancient Chriftians undei flood thefe words in Malachi of a fpiritual Sacrifice. Juflin Martyr con- Dialce. cum ^ronts Trypho the Jew with thefe words of 'Malachi feveral Tryph. advcrf. times, oppoling our Chriftian Sacrifices to the Jevvifh. judam Tertullian produccth thefe words againft the Jews, as a proof of the Spiritual Sacrifices which were to be offered up when the. carnal ones were to be rejected. De fpiritualibm vero Sacrifciis addit, dicens, & omni loco Athenagor. Legat. pro Chriftian. for their DoHrine of the Sacrifice of the Mafs. 405 loco facrificia wtnda afferent:::- nomrni meo dicit Domini. And m his Book againft Mkrcim this pure Offering of Ma/.tcb: is explained by him by Simplex orati'^e Con- on°n[^ard" fcienti.i pur a. And in his third Book againff^/^/'^ he explains what is meant by Incenfe and a pure Offering, by Gloria relatio & benediclio & lam & hymni. Cy- Adverf.Judaras prian quoting feveral Paifages out of the Pfalms con- * *' c' I6' cerium* Spiritual Sacrifices, adds Malacbi 1. n. Eufe- bms cites thefe words of Malachi, and adds^ to 5B, &c. Demonft. 1. 1. What is [aid (fays he) in every place Incenfe {ball be c' 6' offered, and a pure Offering to God ', What is meant but that not in jerufalem, or any other particular place, but in every Country, and in all Nations, they Jh 'all offer the Incenfe of Prayers, and not by Blood, but by piom Works, offsr unto God that which is called a pure Offering. Tbeo- doret expounds the Incenfe and pure Offering; by the J^°K Knowledg and Worfhip of God, and applies our Sa- viour's words to the Woman of Samaria, as alio Jo!M- 2I>24 1 Tim. 2. 8. to this purpofe. And the fame Author in another place ; " If (fays he) the legal Prieffhood " be at an end, and he that is after the Order of Melchi- ic fedec hath offered a Sacrifice, and we maintain that " other Sacrifices are needlefs, Why then do the Priefts u^9 Ae' 0 perform the Myftical Strvice ? He anfwers, that 'tis T evident to them that are inftru&ed in Divine Things, that we offer no other kind of Sacrifice. AM*. *% theodorcc. in [ixz$ \xA\w$ Kj cwrn^lx thv (amu/mm k'ffrr&Ss/utAv, i. e. We Heb. 8. 4. only celebrate the Memory of that one laving Sacri- fice. From what hath been faid, it appears, that the words of the Prophet are no Proof of the Sacrifice of the Mais 5 and that to interpret them of the Spiritual Services of Chriftians, cannot be charged with No- velty. And we may, from what hath been laid, learn that Cardinal Bellarminc had not ground diffident to 404 'Ihe Texts examined which Tafifls cite Ecllarm. de mifsal.i.c 10. to affirm, as he hath done, that the Fathers have always underfiood this place of Malachi of the Sacrifice of the EucharM, and not of thofe good, Works which may be done by allM Eelkrm. de The next P^ace -produced by Bellarrnim as a Proof mifsal.i.c. 1 1. of the Sacrifice of the Mais, is from the New Teffa- ment, viz,. 'John iv. 21, 23. where Jefus, upon the Woman of Samaria's enquiry after the place of God's ;publick Worfhip, faid to her, The hour cometh when ye fljall neither in this Mountain, nor yet at Jerufalem wor- Jhip the Father: and preiently afterwards, The hour eometh, and now is, when the true IVorJhippers fljall wor- fhip the Father in Spirit and in Truth : For the Father feeketh fuch to worfljip him. Here's no mention indeed of Mafs or Sacrifice, nor infinuation of one or the other , and it may feem very ft range, that this place fhould be produced to the purpofe in hand. I fhall put toge- ther the Cardinals ftrength, and then give a diftin£b Anfwer to all his Pretences. The fubftance of what he fays is this ; That 'tis not unufual by Worfhip to undetftand Sacrifice, and to that purpofe produceth Gen. 22. Joh. 12. Affs 8. And that by Worfhip (ver. 2$.) is meant Sacrifice, be- caufe the Woman's Quefrion, ver. 20. is about Sacri- fice, and therefore 'tis reafbnable to believe that our Saviour's Anfwer muft be fo alfo. Befides, the Quefti- on was of a Worfhip tied to a certain place, as Sacri-* iice was, and confequently, the Anfwer of Jefus muft be underftood of fuch a Worfhip. And thence he con- cludes, that by true Worfhippers {ver. 23. ) are meant Chriltians who worfljip, i. e. facrifce to the Father in Spirit and Truth, i. e. by a fpiritual and true Sacrifce, not carnd and typical, as the Jews did. And that' the ^ Eucha- for their DoFtrine of the Sacrifice of the Mafs. 40 f Eucharift is a fpiritualand true Sacrifice, becaufe effected by the Holy Ghoft, and the words of Confecration, and" is the Completion of the old Figures, tho it be typical, with refpecl: to the Sacrifice of the Crofs. And becaufe Jefus fays, The hour cometh^and now is, he contends that he fpeaks of a new Worfhip that did not obtain before, as fpiritual Sacrifices did, and there- fore of a proper Sacrifice. .And that Jefus muff fpeak of external, publick and folemn Worfhip, as tjiat which was to fucceed to that of the Jews, which was fuch. For what he adds concerning the place in Malachi, as parallel to this, and fpeaking of a proper Sacrifice, needs not to be confidered here ; that place in Malachi having been confidered before. To thefe Pretences I anfwer in the following Particulars. Firfi, That the word Worfhip does fometimes de- note Sacrifice ; a great part of the Jewiflh Worfhip can- not be denied, but then it is altogether impertinent to alledg it here, unlefs it did always do fb. Secondly, That it is very certain, that the Greek word which we render Worfhip, does not always denote Sa- crifice : As appears from Joh. 9. 38. Heb. 11. 2r. Rev. 22. 8. Mat. 9. 10. The word is to be interpreted according to the fubjecT: matter. Thirdly, That granting the Woman's Queftion to be about Sacrifice, (which I eafily allow) ;, yet it does not follow that our Saviour's Anfwer muff, be underftood in the fame fenfe. For, 1 . It is often found otherwife. Our Saviour's words are to be interpreted in a different fenfe from the Queft ion put to him, and the occafion of his words. We have in this Chapter feveral Inftances to this pur- pofe. The Woman fpeaks of common Water to Jefus, when he fpeaks of living Water to her. She in her In Quefti- 40 6 Tfie Texts examined which Tapifts cite Queftion Ipeaks of the Water of Jacob's Well {ver.\ 2.) Jefus anfwers of Spiritual Water fpringing up to Eter- nal Life, ver. 14. Again, his Difciples fpeak to Jefus of Corporal Food, ver. 31. He replies to them of ano- ther kind of Food, ver. 32. And when they perilftin their Enquiry after that kind of Food, our Saviour goes on ftill {peaking of a different fort of Meat, ver. 32, 34. Our Saviour takes eccafion to divert Men from Temporal to Spiritual and Heavenly Things, and his Anfwers and Difeourfes muft not be thought imperti- nent, becaufe they are not dirett to the Queftion pro- pounded, or conformable to the firft occaficn of them. 'Twere eafie to produce feveral nftances re this pur- pofe : See Luke 13. 23. Joh. 4, 35, 36. Job. 6. 32, 33. 2. This Argument of the Cardinal, if admitted, would prove too much. For if the Worfhip, our Sa- viour fpeaks of, muft be the fame with that in the Queftion of the Woman ; then muft our Saviour's words be underftood of bloody Sacrifices, for the Wo- man meant fuch-', whereas the Sacrifice of the Mafs is owned to be an unbloody one. 3. It is evident that our Saviour fpeaks not of fuch a Worfliip as the Woman enquires after : For her Qnefti- • on is of fuch an one as divided the Jews and Samaritans, of fuch as was tied to a certain place; Jefm fpeaks of that wherein all Chriftians fhould agree, and which fhould not be affixed to one certain place. The Wo- man enquires of Worfhip by Sacrifices ; and they were but of two forts, viz.. proper and carnal, of which fhe muft be meant, or elfe [piritual : 'Tis certain our Sa- viour does not mean the former, and therefore is to be underftood of the latter. He taketh away the firfl, thai- he may ejlabliflj the fecond : Heb. I o. 0. Fourthly, for their Doctrine of the Sacrifice of the JMafs. 407 Fourthly, That therefore the Interpretation which the Cardinal gives of ver. 23. is groundlefs, and what lie affirms (for he proves nothing) is trifling. By trorjbippixg the Father ', lie would have meant facrifcing to the Father^ and by in Spirit and Truth, he would have underftood a Spiritual and true Sacrifice, and this mull: be the Eucharift. But this is to fuppofe the thing in Queition, and not to prove it. For we deny it to be a Sacrifice properly ib called, we deny it to be the erfecl of the Holy Ghoft, or to be turned into a Sacrifice by the words of Conlecration, or the Anti- type of the Legal Sacrifices. Befides, we do not believe the Jewifh Sacrifices Spiritual, becaufe the Koly Spirit directed the Jews to offer them up. Nor can we be- lieve their Sacrifice of the Mais to be fuch. 'Tis a Spiritual Worfhip our Lord here fpeaks of, his words tell us ib : They fhall worfhip the Father in Spirit. Circumc.ifion in the Spirit denotes the inward Cir- Rom- 2- 22- cumcifion in the Heart, and is oppofed to the outward in the Flefli, and Letter : And why fhould Worship in Spirit be meant of a true and proper Sacrifice, as that of the Mafs is affirmed to be ? The Cardinal's Inter- pretation will,to any ingenuous and unprejudiced Mind, appear very abfurd and groundlefs. For, 1. According to it, neither Jeftts, or any of his Difciples, or any other holy Men could be (aid to wor- fhip the Father in Spirit and Truth till the laft Supper. 2. 'Tis very improbable that this Secret of the Sa- crifice of the Mafs fhould be revealed to this Woman ; fhe was a Samaritan, the Eucharift not yet inftitured, and file could notpoilibly underftand what Jefus taught, if this be the meaning of the words. 3. Where there was the faireft occafionof teaching this Doctrine, there is no mention of it. This there I i i 2 was # 408 We Texts MtMMd which Tapifts cite was in the Epiftle to the Hebrews : And yet the Cardi- nal thinks not fit to prove this Doctrine from any place of that Epiftle. And tho he mentions Chap. 13. 10. as a Proof produced to that purpole, yet he declines to make ufe of it. And whereas in the mention of Mel- chifedefs Priefthood, the Author of that Epiftle makes no mention of his Sacrifice or Oblation of Bread and Bella m de Wine, tne Cardinal pretends to give a Reafon of this Mifsal.'i.c.^. Omiffion, and 'tis this, viz. Left he fljould be forced to explain the My fiery of the Eucharift which was too high for them. But it feems this Myftery which the Jews, who entertained Chriftianity, were not able to compre- hend, is here revealed by Jefrn in hisdifcourfe with this Woman of Samaria, tho the Eucharift it felf was not inftituted, or made known at that time. 4. It is plain that our Saviour does not fpeak of the quality of the Sacrifice, but of the difyofition of the the Worfhippers. The Father feeketh fuch P$ worship him, ver. 23. God is a Spirit; and then it follows, They that wor/hip him, muft worjhip him in Spirit and in Truth. The Connexion is clofe : But where would the Connexion be, if the Cardinal's fenfe were admitted ? q. d. God is a Spirit, and therefore there muft be offered to him the Sacrifice of the Mafs, or a proper and continual Sacrifice. Fifthly, Whereas the Cardinal would prove from thole words, The hour cometh, and now is, that Jefus fpeaks of a new Worfhip that was not known before, as Spiritual Sacrifices of Praife, &c. were, and that therefore he fpeaks of a Sacrifice properly fo called : His Difcourfe is very inconfequent, becaufe when the New Teftament requires and commends circumcifion in the Heart and Spirit, it does not thence follow, that fuch a Circumcifion was not required before. A Spiritual Wor- for their Dotlr'me of the Sacrifice of the SMafs. 40 9 Worfhip God required of the Jews of old, when yet he required alfo an External and Ritual one. That Syftem of Ceremonies is now deftroyed, and God re- quires a Spiritual Worfhip free from fiich Rites : Such Spiritual Worfhippers he leeks, and he being a Spirit will be worfhipped in Spirit. The Cardinal's Argu- ment recoils upon him. If this Worfhip which Jefm fpeaks of mull be fomething that did not obtain be- fore then, he ought not to interpret it of a proper and propitiatory Sacrifice, becaufe fuch Sacrifices were in u'ie before. Laflly, For that pretence that this Worfhip muft be of the fame nature and kind with the Jewifh Worfhip, becaufeit was to fucceed it, 'tis fb far from being good reafbning, that the contrary may be rather inferred from it. 'Tis certain that Spiritual Circumcihon fuc- ceeds the Carnal, and the Unction with the Spirit that with Oil. I might add, that the Interpretation given of this place is not new. St. Chryfoflom on the place gives the very fame : He, by the true Werfhippers, un- derftands fpritual, and quotes, as parallel places, Rom. 1. 9. & Chap. 12. 1. The next Scripture-Proof of the Sacrifice of the Mais DeMifsa i. rJ produced by Cardinal Bellarmine, is taken from the In- ftitution and firft Celebration of this Myftery, menti- oned by St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke, as alfo by St. Paul, 1 Cor. xi. This is indeed the moft likely place to find fomething to this purpofe, if there be any foundation in the Holy Scripture for the Sacrifice of the Mafs. And therefore I fhall diligently confider what he hath to offer on this occafion. He C. 12. 4 1 o The Texti examined which Tj.fifts eke He affirms that Chriit. in his lad Supper offered hiin- ', under the Species of Breid and Wine, to -Gcd ■ icr, and required that the I their $.uc- cerTors fliould do the fame to the end of the \ and this Argument (could he make it good) we gi fnfncient to prove the Sacr fice of the Mais. But how can it be proved that Chriit offered himfelf up in the lad Supper, and commanded his A poiUes to repeat this Sacrifice ? Here he refers his Header to his firir,, fecond, and third ^cripture-Arguments, drawn from the Prieit- liood of Melchifedcc, the Pafchal Lamb, and the Blcod of the Covenant, Exod. 24. And 1 do alfo refer the Rea- der to what hath been laid before as to thofe Pretences. He offers three other Arguments : We'll take them .in the order in which he hath laid them before us. The firit is from thofe words of Chriit, This is my Luk.22. 19,20. Body which is given for you : To which he adds thole in 1 Cor. 11. 24. St. Paul, which is broken for you : And, this Cup is the A7ew TejlamerJ. in my Blood which is /bed for you \ .v.at. 25. 28. and St. Matthew adds, for the remiffwn of Sins. Thefe words in the Prefent Tenfe, is given, is broken, is filed, do import a Sacrifice given to God, not to the Apoftles to eat and drink. It not being laid to be given to, but for them. Befides, in St. Matthew, this Blood is laid to be fhed for many, the Apoftles Only being then prefent : The meaning is, 'Tis given for you, and for many, and 'tis offered to God as a Sacrifice propitiatory for rem; on of Sins. To this I anfwer : 1. That nothing is more common in the Sacred Wri- ters, than to put the prefent for the future Tenle, e'peci- ally where the thing fpoken of is certainly and JudJenly to come to pals, ' fwere eafie to give many Iniiances of this out of the Old and New Teitamenc. From the 01 for their Diclrine of the Sacrifice of the Map. 4 1 1 Old I refer the Reader to the Hebrew Text of Exod. . 16.4, 5. & Chap. 17. 6. Gen. 15. 13. In the New Te- ftament there are many Inftances to this pur pole, I lay down my Life for the Sheep, fays Jefus, Joh. 10. 1 5. i. e. I will fhortly lay it down. See alio ver. 17, 18. I leave id, and go unto the Father, lays our Saviour ; i. e. Iarn about to leave it, Joh. 16. 28. Again, lie fays, And now I am no more in the World, Joh. 17. 11. i.e. I am about to leave it : And tho he had not yet left this foyrer World ; yet becaufe he was about to do it, he {peaks of it as come to pais already: While I was with v in the World) I kept them, &c. ver. 12. And now come I to thee, ver. 13. i.e. I am about to come. Woman ( fays he) thou art looped from thine Infrmity, Luk. 13. 12. i.e. thou (halt be prefciKly loafed : For it follows ^ that he laid his Hands on her, and after this fhe was "9 immediately made (freight, ver. 1 3. Whofe coming it after the working of Satan, fays St. Paul of the wicked one, who was not yet revealed ; 2 Thejf. 2. 9. with -ver. 6. For I am ofere'd ('tis in the Prefent Tenfe in the Greek) fays St. Paul, 2 Tim; 4.-6. i. e. I am ready to be offered, as we render it well: So trhrat there is no foch force in the Cardinal's Argument from the Prefent Tenfe : And tho- he thought good to make a flouriili with it, yet ought he not to in fi If upon it. 2. Becaufe the vulgar Latin, which the Romanifts are bound not to reject, and their Canon of the Mafs, . read words in the future Tenfe, and confequently de- irroy all the force of his Argument, and confirm our Ex- ation of the words. Thus what we render which is (bed for many, Mat. 26. 28. the vulgar renders, qui pro ■■:/, i. e. which {lull be filed for many, ft Vcrfnn does \o again, Mark. 14. 24. Again, it Future Tenfe, L'ik: 22. 20. :.r,d v, hat we render 4ll The Texts examined which Tapifls Itec render ( i Cw.11.34. ) is broken, the vulgar renders by tradetur, i. e. fhall be delivered ; and the Canon of the Mafs is conformable to the Vulgar in this matter. The Cardinal was fenfihle of this difficulty, and would willingly get loofefrom it : He finds out a Compromife, and admits both Readings, and that of the Prefent Tenfe he refers to our Lord's Supper, the Future to the Sacrifice of the Crofs, which was fhortly to follow and the Sacrifice of the Mafs, which the Church fhould offer up to the end of the World. But this is but a mere invention, and that which he is fb far from any ■proof of, that it is nothing lefs than a begging of the Queff ion. If with the Vulgar, and Canon of the Mafs we read in the Future, {hall be /bed, i. e. on the Crofs ; can it thence be inferred that it was fhed in the Sup- per? And if we read in the Prefent, is [bed, does it . follow from thence, that it muff be filed on the Crofs alfo ? Surely Chrift died but once : And muft his Blood be twice fhed ? The Mafs is an unbloody Sacrifice ; but how can that be if the Blood were fhed in the Supper/ and is to be fhed in the Mafs ? The vulgar Latin is to be adhered to, or not. If not, we muft renounce the Declaration of the Tridentine Fathers, and indeed of the Roman Church : If it be to be adhered to, where lies the fault of Proteftants in understanding thofe words in that fenfe, into which that Verfion renders them ? I appeal to the Confcience of any indifferent Man in this cafe. 5. If we confider how clofely the Death of Chrift/ followed upon his Supper, the difficulty will be re- moved prefently. That may be faid to be done which was doing. The prefent time is not always ftriclrly to be confined to a moment. Jefus was juff entring upon his laft Sufferings, his bloody Sweat and Crucifixion were for their Doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mafs. 4 \ j were juft at hand : No wonder his Blood fhould be laid to be (bed, which was juft ready to be fhed ! 'Twas done on the lame Day with the Evening of the Supper. We fay in common fpeech of a Man that is juft a dying, that he is a dead Man ; of one that is juft breaking, that lie is an undone Man , of a Victory alrnoft obtained, that \'\s gained; of a Prize, of which we have no hope, that 'tis loft. The fecond Argument which the Cardinal produceth to prove, that Chrift in his laft Supper, offered himfelf a Sacrifice, is from the true Prefence of the Body and Blood of Chrift in that Supper, which are received as the Flefh and Blood of a Victim offered for us. This Prefence, he fays, the Lutherans allow ; and that the Calvinifts would do it, did they not refift the plaineft Teftimonies of Holy Writ. To which I anfwer, 1. That whatever the Lutherans hold, 'tis plain that they believe not the Doctrine of the Church of Rome concerning the Sacrifice of the Mafs, and conlequently that they canrtot be fuppofed to hold any Doctrine which manifeftly infers the Sacrifice of the Mafs. But be that as it will, I am not concerned in that Queftion at prefent. 2. That for the Cahini/ls refifting the plaineft Tefti- monies of Scripture, 'tis eafily charged upon them in- deed ; but as it is again'ft their avowed Principles fb to do upon other occafions, fo it can never be made good againft them in the prefent Queftion. 'Tis true, they do reject the Romanifts Senfe ajnd Interpretation of ibme Scriptures produced by them ; but this is no proof that they reject the plaineft Evidence from thofe holy Books. And there is ho reafon why the Cardinal fhould charge them fb feverely, when he, and others of the Church Kkk of 4 \ 4 The Texts examined which Paftjli cite of Rome of great Name, have owned that the Corporal Pretence in the Sacrament, as taught in their Church or their Doctrine of Tranfubftantiation, cannot be plainly proved from any Text of Holy Scripture. 3. That tho we believe not Chrift's Corporal Pre- sence in the Sacrament with the Church of Rome, yet we believe him truly prefent to the Souls of the Faith- ful, who come prepared, and in the fruits of his Death and PafTion. But fuch a Real Prefence as this, is far from being any fupport to the Sacrifice of the Mafs. •The third Argument which the Cardinal produceth, being from the Teftimony of the Fathers, I pals by, becaufe 'tis foreign to my prefent bufinefs. And for that reafon, and that alone, I pafs it by. JBefides, that 'tis very well known, that the pretence of the Fathers Teftimony in this matter hath been Strictly examined by feveral of our Learned Men, to whom therefore I refer the Reader. I-fhall, before I difmifs this Argument, fhew that the Inftitution of the Lord's Supper, as delivered to us in the Evangelifts and St. Paul, is fb far from proving the Romifh Doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mafs, that it overthrows it. There is nothing in the firft Inftitution that fpeaks a proper Sacrifice : For befides that neither in the words of Inftitution (or any-where elfe in all the New Te- Ifament ) is the Eucharift called a Sacrifice ; fo is there no intimation of any Altar on which 'twas offered, which is required where theje is a proper Sacrifice. In- ftead of that 'twas inftituted and celebrated in a Gueft- Chamber, and at a Table, and after Supper ; Luke 22.11, 12. Befides, here's no vijible or fenjible Victim, which yet Bellarmine requires in a proper Sacrifice. No Senfe can. for their Doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mafs. 4 » 5 can perceive it, nor can we believe it. till we renounce our Senfesfirft. And to fay that is fenfible which no Senle can perceive, is no better than down-right Non- fenfe. Tis eafie to fay that Chrift's Body lay hid un- der the Species of Bread ; but we have no intimation of this from the Inftitution of the Lord's Supper. Befides, this would be fb far from rendring the Victim vifible and fenfible, that it would hide it from our Eyes. And whereas in a proper Sacrifice, a deftru&ion and great change of the Victim is neceffary ; in the Iaft Supper there was no fuch thing. If we believe there was, we muft do it upon the bare word of the Church of Rome. There's no fhadow of proof from the Inftitution it felf. Let them prove when this Change was wrought, and by what Action or Words it was effected ; or, at leaft that it was wrought. If it were a proper Sacrifice, the Victim muft be defiroyed; this the Cardinal makes an EfTential of a proper Sacrifice : Was this definition effected when Jefus eat and drank, or when his Difciples did ? That Jefus did eat and drink at all of this Supper, appears not from the exprefs words of Inftitution in the Evangelifis, and therefore cannot be.urged from the Inftitution. But fuppofing that he did eat and drink, he did it before thofe words, This is my Body, &x. and This is my Blood, &x. or afterwards. If before, then it ' was Bread that he did eat, and Wine that he drank : If afterwards, yet we find no fuch thing faid ; befides, the Evangelifts mention nothing between his blejjing and breaking of Bread, and giving it to his Difciples. Nay, fo far are we from receiving any proof that Jefus did eat and drink of this Supper, after thofe words, This is is my Body, &c. and This is my Blood, "Sec. that a Man might rat'her conclude fromSt. Mark, that the Difciples did drink -of the Cup before thofe words, This is my Kk k 2 Blood, 4 1 6 Tbe Texts examined which Tapijls cite Blood, &c. were pronounced. He mentions their drink- ing of it firff, and then our Saviour's words, This is my Blood, Ike his words are thefe, And he took the Cup, Mark 14. 23, an^ when be h^d given Thanks, he gave it to them', and 24, they all drank of it. Then it follows, And he faid unto them, This is my Blood, &c. That the deftruction of the Victim was not effected by the eating of the Apoftles, the Church of Rome cannot deny : The Communi- cants receiving makes no Change : Befides that Church, among a great many other Mylteries, hath a way of ce-r lebrating the Communion without Communicants. A Sacrifice is given to God alone : But in this Supper here's no Oblation made to God ; what is given is given to the Apoftles. Jefus took Bread, &c. and gave it to his Difciples (Mat. 26. 26.) He took the Cup, &c. and gave it to them, ver. 27. To them he fpeaks, when he fays, Take, Eat : To them, when he fays, Drink ye all of it. To them, when he fays, This is my Body, &x. and This is my Blood,Scc. He firft bids them eat and d?inkf and then afterwards tells them, This is my Body, &c\ and This is my Blood, &c. Here's no mention of any Sacrifice. So far from that, that 'tis plain there was no fuch thing intended. If this were a. Sacrifice to God, 'twould not have been given to Men ; they could have no fhare in it till God had been firft fervedv This was againft the order of things, to receive that which was due to Gcd alone, and to partake of the Vi&im before it had been offered at the Altar. We have no external Rites or Actions in the Institution that fpeak a proper Sacrifice ; but the whole of it loudly fpeaks the contrary. Nor will thofe words, This is my Body, help out. thole of the Church of Rome. For tho feme of that Church make great ufe of thofe words among the ignorant fort of for their VoFlr'me of the Sacrifice of the Mafs. 417 of People, and upon occafion produce them in their Writings, as an Argument for Tranfubftantiation, and Sacrifice of the Mafs, yet they will not rely upon themv And if we would but confider the words frri&ly, we fhould foon find that they are fo far from making for tliofe Doctrines, that they make againft them. I fhall go over them with great brevity, and then let the Rea- der judg whether they are a proof of thofe Dodrines or not. I begin with This. If by this be meant this Bread, here will be no frreng?b to be had from it for fupporting thofe Doctrines of the Church of Rome : And by This muff be meant Chrift's Body, or Bread, or nothing at all. To fay that by this, Chrift meant his Body, is to fuppofe him to fay. that his Body is his Body ; but if hefaid that this Bread was his Body, .then is not our Proteftant Interpretation of the words to, be rejected, nor the Senfe of the. Ro- manics to be admitted. And that by This, our Saviour meant this Bread, , is infinitely plain to any that are un-M prejudiced. What did he take f The Text tells us that mtb ver. 2L he took- Bread : what he took, he alfo bleffed, and brake, and gave, of this he laid, Take, Eat, and then adds, This ism/ Body. This will be put out of doubt, if by* the following This, in thofe- words, This is my Blood, by this be meant this Cup, no reafbn can be afTigned why This {Mat. 16. 26.) fhould not denote This Bread, if This {ver. 28.) denote This Cup. 'Tis true,.- St. Matthew and St. Mark, having mentioned the Cup which Jefus took and bleffed, and gave, tell us that. Jefa laid, This is my Blood : And tho it be plain from Mac 26 what goes before, that by This, is meant this Cup, Mark 14. 24. yest we have further proof of it ftill. For -whereas ™tb Lukc 22> St. Matthew and St. Mark fay only This, St. Luke and £ £ ^ St. Raul fay This C«/. And having this warrant by This .n> 26, 2j7^g,.. in 4 1 8 The Texts examined which fPapijls cite in the latter words to underftand This Cup, where lies the blame, when by this in the former we underftand This Bread? I proceed, Is. This Verb is interpretable according to the fub- ject matter ; but where 'tis ufed of a Sacrament, and joins the Sign and Thing fignified together, and where another Senfe contended for is deftructive to our Senfes, and againft Reafbn, and other Scripture, 'tis reafonable to underffand it to import the fame with the word fig- nifieth. And that is the prefent cafe. Nor is there any more common than this way of fpeaking in the Holy Scriptures, in other Authors, and common Con- versation. This Verb here cannot be underftood in the Senfe of the Church of Rome, as implying Tranfub- ffantiation, and the Sacrifice of the Mafs ; becaufe that Change of Subftance they fpeak of is not effected till thefe* words, This is my Body, are fully pronounced. And therefore this not being effected till the laft Sylla- ble be pronounced (according to our Adverfaries) it cannot be faid to be before it hath received its Being. The Pronunciation of the words muff be precedent to the Being of the Thing ; and therefore cannot be true before they are fully pronounced. According to our Adverfaries, the Real Prefence of Chrift in the Sacra- ment ( which they contend for ) muff be the caufe and effect of the Truth of this Propofition, This is my Body. If their Doctrine be not true, the Propofition is falfe in the Senfe they take it in. Again, If their Doctrine be true, the Propofition pronounced by a Prieft makes it fb. And whereas elfewhere the Exiftence of a thing makes good the Propofition, here the Propofition makes good the thing. My Body. By his Body, our Lord muft mean what was known to be fb, and what had- the Properties of' an for their Dottrine of the Sacrifice of the Mafs. 4 1 9 an Human Body. The Difciples were grofs, and apt Mac- l6- *, enough to take fpiritual things in a carnal Senfe, when joh/^Vz, 33. the Letter gave them any occaiion fo to do. They had not fo quick an Apprehenfion as to conquer all the diffi- culties of the Romifh Doctrine. They could not com- prehend the Miracles (aid to be wrought by the words of Confecration. They were not eafily convinced that Chrift was rifen from the Dead, even after many Proofs of it, and Predictions to that purpofe. 'Tis not to be imagined that they would eat Human Flefh, and drink Blood ; and believe Jeftts facriflcedf and alive at the fame time ; and at the lame time intire, and yet con- fumed ; and eaten entirely by each of them, and in every the leaft crumb of Bread that wa§ taken. The next place produced by Cardinal Bellarmine for Proof of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, con- cerning the Sacrifice of the Mafs is, AcJs xiii. 2. As they misfired to the Lord and fafied, the Holy Ghojl faid, Sec. whereby minijtring muft be meant facrifcing, and that muft be underftood of the Sacrifice of the Mafs. I fhall, before I fum up what the Cardinal produceth from hence for proof of the Doctrine of the Roman Church in this matter, lay before the Reader the Annotation of the Rhemifis upon thefe words. And the words are thefe, If we Jhould, as our Adverfaries do, boldly turn what Text we lift, and flee from one Language to another for the Advantage of our Qaufe, we might have tranflated for miniftring, facrifcing *, for fo the Greek doth fignify, and fo Erafmus tranflated : Tea we might have tranflated fay- ing Mafs ; for fo they did. And the Greek Fathers hereof had their Name Liturgy-, which Erafmus tranjlateth Mafs ; faying, Mifla Chryfoftomi. But we keep our Text, as the Tranflators of the Scriptures jhould do, moH reli- 4 * o 7be Texts examined which tpapifls cite religion fly. I was much furprized when I fir ft read this Annotation : For 'tis (6 far from proving what it is produced for, that it is inconfiftent with it felf, and is an Argument of a bad Caufe. For f would fain know what harm there is in fleeing from one Language to another for the advantage of our Caufe, whilfr. we flee from a Tranflation to the Original Text ? I would know for what reafon he can be charged with boldly turning the Text as he lifleth, who fliould turn it into what it really fignifies,and in that place ? If the Greek word fignify Sa- crificing and faying Mafs, why might they not have turned it fo ? Had it been a fault to have tranflated truly ? Erafmtes did well in his Verfion, or he did amifs : If he did amifs, to what purpofe is his Authority produced here ? If he dicl well, Why (hould they fear to do like him ? If this Text prove the Sacrifice of the Mafs, it does fo either as we have it in the Vulgar Latin, or as it is in the Greek. The Vulgar renders the word as we do, miniftring, and that is lb far from denoting the^Sa- crifice of the Mafs, that it does not fb much as infinuate any Sacrifice at all. If it have any force then for proving their Doctrine, it muft be from the Greek ; and thefe Men lay it there : But then I would know if they do not flee from one Language- to another for the ad- vantage of their Caufe : And then they blame what themielves practife ; and their meaning muff be this, that they would not have us flee from one Language to another, tho they do it in the mean time. Thefe Men pretend indeed great Religion and Sanctity : We keep our Text , ( fay they ) as the Tranfiators of the Scriptures fljould do, molt religioufly. If, by keeping the Text, they mean the Vulgar Latin, much good may it do them : Let them keep here as clofeto it as they can ; if they do, they will never find any proof of the Sacrifice * of for their Doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mafs. 411 of the Mafs. There are others of the Church of Rome who, it feems, have not kept to the Text religioufly, as thefe pretend to do. Erafmm could not fay he did it, when he ufed the word Jacrificing. Menochius the Je- Menoch. in fuit did not keep the Text, when lie interprets the A&' J3- 2- Greek word by Jacrificantibus. And the Publishers of the Mons Teftament did boldly turn a* they lift, and flee .^ its Sacr*- s- 7- 1 r 1 1 /> 1 • fount. N. Tefl: ' from one Language to another for the advantage of their 1 Mons l6 Caufe, when they render as they facrificed. But I return to Cardinal Beflarmine, and fum up what he hath to fay from this Text for the proof of the EcIkrm. de Sacrifice of the Mafs. And thus it is : That the Mi- ffi L r' niftry or Service exhibited to the Lord here, does not feem poffible to be any thing elfe than a Sacrifice, and the aliud dfe po- Sacrifice of the Mafs ; and that becaufe there is this Sa- tui!re qua™ crifice in the Church, or there is none at all. He en- sSffcS & deavours to confirm what he fays, 1. From the Greek Miffa. • word which ( he fays) is granted to import a publick (not private) Miniitry, and therefore an external. Nor can it fignify the Miniftry of the Word and Sa- craments, becaufe that Service, tho publick, yet is not performed unto God, to whom we neither preach nor difpenfe the Sacraments : For tho thefe things may be laid to be for the Honour of God ; yet if for that rea- fbn St. Luke had thus expreffed himfelf, he would not have added, and fafted. For faffing in that fenfe is for the Honour of God; Rom.14.6. 2. Becaufe the Greek word Aarsyfcfij, tho it may be accommodated to f acred and profane Services, yet, when 'tis applied to j "acrea f,and abfolutely ufed in the Scriptures, it is always taken for the Service rendred by Sacrifice. For proof of this he refers the Reader to Lukei. and Heb. 11. 8, 9, 10. To this he adds the Verlion of Erafmus, and that the , Greeks call the Celebration of the Mafs Ken^^ycuv. L 1 1 Before 4 1 * The Texts examined which Tapifls cite Before I anfwer thefe Pretences of the Cardinal's, I fhall premife two things. Firft, That the Cardinal is not of the mind of the Rhemifts ; he thinks it very convenient to flee from one Language to another for the advantage of his Caufe. He lays not the ftrefs upon the Latin, but Greek word ; in which he fhewed much greater Judgment than is to be found in the RhemijFs Annotation. Secondly, As to the importance of the Greek word; there is a great difference between the RhemifPs and the Cardinal. They fay they might have tranflated the Greek word facriftcing, or faying Mafs : The firft, they fay, the word fignifies ; the latter was pracTtifed here. But who told them that the Greek word fignifies to fa- crifice ? Their Vulgar Latin renders it by minifiring. Miniftramibus 'Twould have been fbme fiipport to their Caufe, or they would have thought it fb, had it been in that an- cient Verfion rcndred by facrifcing. To pretend that the Greek word fignifies to facrifice, is an Argu- „ „ ment of great Impudence, or Ignorance. We have w"I«?^J\l another account from thofe who well underftand this Mvc-iv. 'Hefy- matter. They tell us that it fignifies to t oil, and to cl™s* , fervey and denotes fome ■publick Miniftry or Service. ei«f,Ty autem illis V. L. for their Dotlr'me of the Sacrifice of the SMafs. 41 j Firft, There is no need that we underftand this mi- ni firing of a proper Sacrifice, or elfe of the Miniftry of the Word and Sacramerits. Becaufe it may be un- derftood of the publick Prayers of the Church. Thus the Syriac Verfion does. And Prayer and Failing are often joined together : And in the very next words 'tis faid, And when they had fajled and prayed, &c. (ver. 3.) Prayers are offered to God, and, admitting this fenfe, the Cardinal's way of arguing is fpoiled. For tho we do not preach or minifter the Sacraments to God, yet we offer our Prayers to him. Secondly, That preaching the Word however is not by this excluded : It may well be called miniftring to the Lord. He that does it, exercifeth his Charge and Fun- Ti \? *«- £tion, and helps to prepare and make ready a People r*!y*wi '■> for the Lord. Both Chryfoftom and TheophylacJ on this ^Z^'' place, expound what we render miniftring by preach- ing. And Cardinal Cajetan upon the place fpeaks to Cajecan. in the fame purpofe : The kind of Miniftry is not explained Aa- '3« 2° ( fays he ) but becaufe Doclors and Prophets are mentioned, it is inftnuated that they miniftrcd to the Lord, docendo Sc prophetando. i. e. by teaching and prophefying. Thirdly, That for the Import of the Greek word, we are contented to be determined by the Scripture ufe of it in the Old Teftament, where the LXXII make ufe of it, and in the New. In the New Tefta- ment 'tis far from being reftrained to facrificing: Their Vulgar Latin (as hath been obferved) renders it by miniftr.intibus, i. e. miniftring in this place. And elfewhere it reprefents the Miniftry 'of Princes, Rom. 13.6. and that of Angels, Heb. 1. 14. and that of Alms-giving to the poor ( which is but improperly a Sacrifice ) 2 Cor. 9. 1 2. And when 'tis applied to Sa- crifice, it appears from the fubjecl: matter fo to be. For L 1 1 2 the a x jl T\x Texts examined whit h faplfts cite the Old Teffament, it is by the LXXII made ufe of frequently ; and 'tis ufed to interpret the Hebrew may, which fignifies Service or Miniflry in general, and is accordingly rendred by the Vulgar Latin Minifterinm <& Officium : And it is fb far from being reftrained to the Office of facrificing Priefts, that it is ufed very commonly and frequently to exprefs the Office or Mi- niftry of the Levites. For the Truth of which, I re- fer the Reader to the following Texts in the LXXII Interpreters: A^m^.4.24,28. & 7. 5. & 8.22,25. 8c 16. 9. &18.6. 1 Chron. 6.52. fourthly, Nor is there any fhadow for understanding this place of a proper Sacrifice. Here's no mention of facrificing Priefts, but exprefs mention of Prophets and Dodtors. They are (aid to be miniftring to the Lord, or to Chrift, as 'tis probable the words import, but that Senfe will not agree with offering to him the Sa- crifice of himfeif. The Faffing alfo that follows agrees well with Prayer, but not with a proper Sacrifice which was generally attended with a Feaft or Banquet upon it. De Mi(Tal. 1. m 14. The next Argument from Scripture for the Sacrifice of the Mafs, produced by Cardinal B'ellarmine, is taken from 1 Cor. x. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21. Flee from Idolatry. I /peak as to wife Men : judg ye what 7 fay. The Cup of Blejfing which we hlefs, is it not the Communion of the Blood of Chrift ? The Bread which we break, is it not the Communion of the Body of Chrift ? For we being many, are one Bread, and one Body : for we are all partakers of that one Bread. Behold Ifrael after the Flejh : are not they which eat of the Sacrifices, parta- kers of the Altar ? What fay I then ? that the Idol is any thing ', or that which is offered in Sacrifice to Idols is any for their Doctrine of the Sacrifice of the SMafs. 425 any thing ? But I fay, th.xt the things which the Gentiles facnfce, they facnfce to Devils and not unto God : and I would not th.tt ye jjjould have Fellow/hip with Devils. Te cannot drink the Cup of the Lord, and the Cup of De- vils : ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's Table, and of the Table of Devils. From thefe words Bellarmine collects three Arguments for the Sacrifice of the Mafs. Fir ft, From this, that St. Pa>U compares the Lord's Table with the Altars of the Gentiles and of the Jews, whence he infers, that the Lord's Table is an Altar, and confequently that the Eucharift is a Sacrifice. Secondly, Becaufe the Apoftle compares the Eucha- rift with the Sacrifices of the Heathens and of the Jews, and thence he infers tlfat the Eucharift muft be a Sacrifice. Thirdly, Becaufe he compares the Communion of them who receive the Eucharift, with that Communion which the Gentiles have with their Idols in partaking with their Altars, whence he infers that the Eucharift : muft be a Sacrifice. To this I anfwer ; Firjl, That St. Paid does not compare the Lord's < Table with the Altars, but with the Tables of the Jews and of the Heathens, where they did eat the re- mainder of the Sacrifices which were ofered at the Altar. 'Tis certain that the Jews had but one Altar for Sacrifices, and that not built after a Table fa'fhion, » and fb placed, that the Jewifh People might not be ad- mitted to it to eat- upon-it. And for the Gentiles, 'tis certain that St. Paul (peaks here of the Tables on which they 4i6 The Texts examined which Tapifts eke they eat the remainder of their Sacrifices 5 Ye cannot ( fays he ) be partakers of the Lord's Table, «kJ. of the Table of Devils ; ver. 20. This Lord's Table is no- where called an Altar, nor the Eucharift a Sacrifice in any part of Scripture. And tho Haymo, and other grave Authors think the Lord's Table called an Altar, Heb. 15. 10. yet the Cardinal is fb wife as not to nrge it, as he tells us, when he mentions their Opinion. And tho it fhould be compared with an Altar, it follows not hence that it was an Altar, no more than it follows that the Gofpel is Leaven, or the Church a Woman, or Jefus a Vine, becaule compared with fuch things. Secondly, For the fecond Companion between the Eucharift with the Sacrifices of the Jews and Gentiles, 'twill not ferve the Cardinal's purpofe. For be it fb, that we receive from the Lord's Table the Body and Blood of Chrifr, as the Jews receive their Vitlims, and the Heathens their Idolothyta from their Altars or Tables ; this will not infer the Sacrifice of the Mafs. 'Tis confeft. that they that eat the Eucharift, have Communion with the Body and Blood of Chrift, as thefe Jews who did eat the Sacrifice did partake of the Altar, and the Heathens that did eat the Idolothyta had Communion with Devils. But fhall we conclude from hence, that the Jews did eat up the Altar, and the Pagans did eat up the Devils ? For fo we may, as well as we do infer, that Chriftians facrifice the very Bo- dy of Chrifr, becaufe the Bread which we break is laid to be the Communion, or Communication of the Body of Chrifr. Thirdly, That allowing that St. Paul compares the Communion we have with Chrifr. by the Eucharift, .with the Communion the Heathens had with Devils, by for their Votlrine of the Sacrifice of the Mafs. 4 27 by eating the Idolothyta, it follows not thence, that the Eucharift is a Sacrifice in that Senfe which the Roma- nijls contend for. This fhould have been proved by the Cardinal. Upon the whole matter, thefe words of St. Paul are fo far from proving the Sacrifice of the Mafs, as taught in the Romifh Church, that they afford Argu- ments againft it, viz. 1. Be it, that the Communion the Faithful have with God in the Eucharift, be compared with that Communion which the Jews have with the Altar, and the Heathens with Devils ; this will be fo far from proving the Romifh Doftrine of the Sacrifice of the Mafs, that it makes againft it. For with the fame reafbn the Cardinal does from this Comparifbn conclude the Eucharift to be a Sacrifice, I may infer alfb, that 'tis not a proper one, and that the natural Flefh and Blood are not in it. The other Communions with the Altar and with Devils, are not to be underftood Cor* poreally and fubftantially : And why then Ihould the Communion of Chrift's Body and Blood be underftood in fo grofs a Senfe ? The Jew that partook of the Altar, did not eat the very Altar; the Heathen that eat the Idolothyta, with Confcience of the Idol, had Fellofhip with the Devil : But this is ftill to be underftood in a moral and fpiritual Senfe. This Jew received of the benefits of the Altar, and did, by his partaking, de- clare himfelf of the Jewifh Religion. The Heathen did alfo, by partaking, do an Aft of Worfhip, and thereby acknOwledg himfelf a Worfhipper of the Devil. And he that eats the Eucharift, does thereby profefs himfelf a Chriftian, and reap the benefits of Chrift's Death and Sufferings, 2, The- 4 1 8 The Texts examined which Tapifls cite 2. The eating of the Eucharift is exprelTed by partaking of the Bread, ver. 17. That Expreffion makes againft the -Romifli Doctrine, which teacheth that the natural Subitance is changed : Befides, that in the other Manducations there is no Tranfubftantia- tion ) none where the Jew is (aid, when he did cat the Sacrifice, to partake of the Altar ; nor yet when the Heathen is (aid to have Fellowfhip with Devils, when he partakes of their Tables. And therefore there is no reafon that we fhould here fancy -a Tranfubftan- tiation, nor confequently the Sacrifice of the Mafs. 'Tis exprefly faid, that what we eat and drink in the Eucharift, is Bread and Wine ; and if it be fb, this does deftroy the Romifli Doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mafs. In the Inftitution our Lord is faid to have taken Bread, Sec. Hence the Eucharift is ex- preffed by breaking of Bread, Acts 2.42,46. Chap. 20.7. And in this Chapter 'tis fo called three times, ver. 16, 17. and in the following 'tis fb called three times, 1 Cor. 11. 26, 27, 28. And, which is very remark- able , when the Apoftle reproves their irreverent and indevout partaking of the Eucharift, and where he had the faireft occafion of acquainting them with the Myftery of Tranfubftantiation, had that Doctrine been true. Once indeed our Saviour faid, This is my Body, and but once : But 'tis exprefly called Bread nine or ten times. The Bread which we break, fays St. Paul. The natural Body of Chrift is not broken : and to interpret breaking by Immolation, is without Autho- rity and Reafjn. "lis Bread ftill if we believe our Senfe, or the Scripture, where 'tis frequently fo called after Confecration, and where we are faid to partake of that one EreadfV. ij. and to eat this Bread, 1 Cor.i 1. 26,27, 28. 3- It for their Dour me of tbe Sacrifice 0/ the Majs. 410, 5. It appears that the Apoftle hei*e does not com- pare the Eucharift with the Jewifh or Gentile Sa- crifices ( upon which Suppofition the Cardinal grounds his fecond Argument) but with the Feafts or Ban- quets which they made upon the remainder of the Sacrifice. Hence it is that he calls it the Lord's Table, not Altar ; and the Table, not Altar of Devils, ver. 21. The Sacrifice was offered by a Pnefi and upon an Altar, the Feaft upon it was eaten by the People, and on a Table . The Corinthians knew it was not lawful to facrifice to Devils; all the Queftion was, whether they might not eat of the remainder of thofe Sacrifices ? The Apoftle here difTwades them from it, from the Eucharift, and the relation that hath to our Lord Jefus Chrift, that from that they might judg of the relation which the Table of De- vils hath to Devils. . Hence they might learn, that as they who partake of the Lord's Table have Fellowship with Chrift ; fb they who partake of the Devil's Table, have Fellowship with Devils. * He alio makes ufe of another Argument, and that was a parallel Rite among the Jews. Behold Iftael after the Flefb, are not they which eat of the Sacrifices Levic- r- 9- partakers of the Altar ? For the more fully compre- l Sam' 7' 9> hending this whole matter, it is to be confidered to my prefent purpofe, that among the Jews there were three forts of Sacrifices. Firfi, Some which no Man was permitted to eat any part of: Such were the Holocauji, and thofe Sin- Levit. 1. 4. Offerings, the Blood whereof was carried into the chaP« 6. 30. Holy Place: The Fat, Kjdneys and Cawl of thefe §££ [°6\ £ M m m were 430 The Texts examined which Papifts cite were burnt on the Alart of Brafs, the Skin, and F/efh without the Camp, and when the Temple was built without the City. Thefe were Types of Chrift, who fuffered without the Gate. The adherers to that Law, all the Legal Eaters are excluded from par- Heb. 13. 10. faking of him according to the Principles of their own Law ; the People not being admitted to partake of fuch Sacrifices. Secondly, Some the Priefts did only eat of, and chlp.'to^iy. that they were not permitted to do every-where, but chap'. 7. V. in an holy place. Thefe Sacrifices were called mofi Wy. .... Thirdly j Some were lefs holy : Thefe the Piiefts were not only permitted to eat of, but their Chil- dren and Servants, and the Offerers were alfb per- Lev.22.10,11. mitted to eat part of them too ; fuch were the Peace- chap. 10. 14. ojfcriffgS . Thefe were fbmetimes to be eaten the fame Deur. 27. 7. ^ay tneY were offered ; and therefore not to be eaten 1 Sam. 11. 15. by the Offerer alone, but by him and his Friends chap. 1.4. or kindred, or whomfbever of the fame Religion he thought fit to invite to the Feaft or Banquet, . which' Ltvir.7. 15. made of the remainder of the Sacrifice-. This eating part of the Sacrifice is frequently mentioned as a Rite belonging to that Service, and an acknow- ledgment of that Religion which was profeffed where that Rite obtained. Exod. 34. 15. Numb. 25.2. Pfal. 206. 28. Exod. 18. 12. & Chap. 32. 1 Sam. }. Of the Remainders of thefe Sacrifices the Apoftle mtift be underftood wr. 18. The People were admitted to no other : 'Twas never lawful for them to facrifice:' what they eat was no more but a Feaft upon a Sa- crifice. for their D ottrine of the Sacrifice of the Mafs. 431 crifice. This which they were admitted to eat, they did not offer a new to God : 'Twas a Meal or Feaft, a Portion allowed them out of what they had brought. This will be far enough from proving the Sacrifice of the Mafs; though it helps us to underftand the nature of the Eucharift, as 'tis a Feaft upon a Sa- crifice, and the Efficacy of the Sacrifice of the Crofs, of which the Eucharift is the Memorial. Mo/es required expiatory Sacrifices, interdicted the Offerer to eat any part of it, and forbad Blood to all Ifrael. This fpake the Imperfection of thefe Sacri- fices, and that they were not to be relied upon ; they were confumed on the Altar to the Divine Juftice and Will, no Portion was allowed to the Offerer as a token of God's Favour. They had not fb much Efficacy with God ; 'tis otherwife now. The Sacrifice of the Crofs hath made abundant Atone- ment, and fatisfied the Divine Juftice : We are allow? ed to feaft upon this precious Victim, and to rejoice in the faving vertue of Chrift's Death. The legal Offerer brought his Sacrifice, imparted his Crime to it, it died in his ftead : This was all he had to do with it. It came not back from the Altar : He eat no part of it. He imparted Death to the Beaft, that imparted not Life nor Nourishment to him back again. Our Lord made Expiation by his Death, and gives us fpiritual Nourishment in his Holy Sacrament. But then to fuppofe him offered again, is to fuppofe him to fuffer more than once, and cortfequently to deny the iufficiency of the Sacrifice he offered on the Crofs. From 4ji The Texts examined which fapijls cite, &c. From what hath been faid, the unprejudiced Rea- der, and fincere Lover of Truth, will eafily difcern that the Scriptures will afford no proof for the Do- ctrine of the Roman Church concerning the Sacrifice of the Mafs. THE END. LONDON, Printed by $ ^« f°r R^ard Chifml at the Rofe and Crown in St. TmCs Church- Yard, 1688. (43J) The Texts examined which Papifts cite out of the Bible for the Proof of Their Doftrine OF TRANS VBSfANTIATlOK I M P R I MATUR. Aug.il. 1688. Guil. Needham, TRA^SUBSTANTIATION (as defined seff. 13. c4; by the Council of Trent) is, when by the Con- fecration of Bread and Wine, there is the Conver- verfwn of the whole Subjlance of the Bread into the Subjlance of Chrilfs Body, and of the whole Subjlance of the Wine into the Subjlance of his Blood. Upon this Conversion they fay, 1. That there is exigent in the Sacrament truly, r*-cap.i.fccan. *lly and fubftantiaUy the lame Body of Chrift which 1. was born of the Virgin Mary, confining of Flefh, Bones f"f s/"*1, and Sinews, together with his Soul and Divinity. & 27!" ' *3' 2. That there is nothing of the Bread and Wine but the Accidents or Forms without the Subftance. There is no need to obferve that this is a. Doctrine •full of Contradiction to the fenfe aad reaibn of Man- N n n kind ; 4] 4 The Texts examined which Papifts cite kind ; and therefore can have no help or proof from thence ; for Senfe and Reafbn cannnot (peak againft themfelves. And if we repair to .Scripture, we are herein alfo much prevented, for many learned Men of the Church of Rome have infeveral Ages acknowledged that there is not one place of Scripture lb exprels as to ob- DeEucha , lige a Man to believe it without the Authority of the c 23. ' Church,this Bellarmin alio lays is not altogether improbable. l. i.e. 3. SS. j}ut yet ne can find out upon occafion robujlif/ima Jr- tx^fttej Mwt- gtimenUi very forcibie Arguments for this Doctrine. For which purpofe he divides what he has to lay in- to two Heads. I. He undertakes to fhew from Scripture that the Euchariil is not natural Bread and Wine, but is the very Body and Blood of Chrift, really and fub- ftantially, under the Forms of Bread and Wine. II. That there is a Tranfubftantiation or Converfion of the Subftance of the Bread and Wine irito Chrift's very Body and Blood. * A PART I. That the Eucharift is the very natural Body and Blood of Chrift. Upon thisfirfthe largely dilcourles, from the Figures of it in Scripture, from the Promile, the Inftitution, and the Ufe and" End for which it lerves. S5. 1. He argues thus from the Figures of it, That Figures ncceffarily ought to be inferior to the things figured, there- fore they are called a Shadow, Col. 2. 17. But if the Bread C. j.SS.w FU become not the true and proper Body of Chrift upon Confe- z*ris. cration} then the Figure would be often equal, andfometimes fuperior to the things figured, in their matter and aptnefs for fignif cation. Of the former fort were the Bread of Melchi- for their Qottrhie of Tranfubftantiatjon. 435 Melchifedec, the Shew-Bread, the Bread of the Firjl- . frttits, and of Elias. Of the Utter fort are the Lamb in the Pajfover, the Blood of the Covenant, and Manna, which fever al fathers acknowledg to be Figures of the Eu- charifi. In the frfi of which Bread is equal to the Bread in -the Eucharifi : And in the laft a Lamb and Blood do much more clearly exprefs the Sacrifice of Chrijl than Bread, if it be no other than Bread in Subfiance, and is only a fig- nification of that Sacrifice, and not the Sacrifice it [elf. ' This is the Sum of his Argument, which includes thefe things. 1. That the Bread and Wine of 'Melchifedec, the Shew-Bread, the PafTover, &c. are Figures of theEu- charift. The Arguments by which he endeavours to sS/VrL prove this have been in the chief Inftance already con- ^p.334, iidered. &c- 2. That in the matter and aptnefs to fignify thofe Fi- gures, are fome of them equal, others fuperiour to the Bread and Wine in the Lord's Supper. This is not al- together true. But fuppofe it, that there was for Ex- ample, more in the Pafchal Lamb both for the Quality of the thing and its aptnefs to fignify, than there is in Bread and Wine ; yet there might be reafon for it. (1.) With refpe&to the Temper of the Ifraelites,' and theWorfhip fuited to them, which was grofs and car- nal ; whereas in the Gofpel the temper is fuppofed to be more ingenuous, and the Worfhip is more fpiritual. (2.) There was Reafon for it as the Pafchal Lamb was a Type of what was to follow afar off: But the Lord's Supper is a memorial of what is paft, and clearly reveal- ed in all the points and particulars of it ; and fb there needed not the like aptnefs to fignify, when all was fulfilled, as before. >T nn 2 3. There $\6 The Texts examined which Papifts cite 3. There is further implied that the Equality and Superiority of the Figures in their matter and aptnefs to fignify, makes them to be equal and fuperiour to the Eucharift. But this is not to be allowed: For the Signification in matters of Divine Inftitution (as the Sacraments are ) proceeds not, nor is to be eftimated Co much from the Nature and Quality of the things reprefcnting, or from an aptnefs in them to reprefent, as from the Will of the Xnftitutor. And therefore. i. A Sacrament (whatever the Matter of it is) is to hi. preierred-before what is not a Sacrament. And fq> though the Bread and Wine of ' MeUhifedet, ortheJBread of the firft-Fruits be equal in kind to Bread in the Eu- charift, yet that makes not the former equal to the Iai> ter in Place or Office ; for in them the Bread was not Sacramental, but here it is Sacramental. 2. Again, Sacraments themfelves arete be eftimated according to their Effects and Virtue. And -therefore though we fhould allow the Pafchal Lamb in its Nature and Aptnefs to fignify to-be fuperiour to Bread, yet it follows not that the PafTover would have been fuperiour to the Eucharift, if the Body and Blood of Ch rift be not actually and fubftantially there : for without any fuchreafon, the Eucharift is fuperiour to the-Pa'flbver, as this immediately refpeclted a temporal Deliverance ; that a Deliverance purely fpiritual and eternal : This was but a Type of our Saviour's Sacrifice ; that*a Me- morial of it. And the Church of Rome is bound to Bdferm.de tf- allow this, which holds that the Sacraments of the Law fetfuSacram.1. ^ only fignify Grace", bttt tbefe of 'the G off el do confer ity 2.c.r3. :>. 1, ^ ^rf optrato. So that- in conclufion, the Argument from matter and aptnefs to fignify, and of preferring the Figure before the thing figured comes to nothing. In- deed for their DoElrine of Trdnfubftandatloru 4 } y deed the Argument proves too much ; for if the Figure will be equal or fuperiour to the thing figured ( when the matter or aptnels to fignify is equal or fuperior) un- lets the tiling let forth in the Sacrament be actually there; then the Waters of the Red-Sea and the Rock would be equal to Ghriftian Baptilm, unlefs the Water of Baptifm be Regeneration, and turn'd into it. For Bellarmine faith , thole Waters were Figures of the Sacrament of Baptifm. The fecond Way to prove from Scripture, that the ve- s^- n. ry Body and Blood of Gbrifi are properly in the Eucha- rift, is taken fi'om>\v\mt Bellarmine calls a Promife, con- tained in John 6.^1. The Bread that I will give, is my flefh. Here ho undertakes two things : 1. To fbew that this Diflourfe of our Saviour belongs to. the Eucharift. 2. To prove from thence that- Chrift's natural Body and Blood are truly in the Euchariil. 1. He lays this Difeourfe belongs to- the Eucharifi. Where I premile,that the Queftion is notAvhether there may not befbme refpeel: to- the Eucharift in it, and that our Saviour might not ufe tho. Words Flejh and Blood, . fo that at the Sacrament they might recal to their minds what he at this time had dilcourled upon ; but the Queftion is whether the Eucharift be the proper Subje&of this Dhcourle, and the eating the Fkjh and drinking the Blood of Ghrifty be no other but the eating and drinking of it as contained, under the Species of Bread and Wine in the Eucharift ; as- for Example, that the meaning of ver. 55. is, except ye eat the Flefljof the Son of Man, and drink his Blood in the Eucharift, ye have no Life in you. This is what they affirm, and we deny. That the proper Flefh and Blood^of Chrift rs here diicourfed of we deny nor, but then we withal do hold - 4} 8 The Texts examined which Papi/ls cite hold that by the Flefh and Blood of Chrift is here under- flood the fame as the Bread, ver. $5, 48, 51 : And by both Chrift himfelf, who was to die for the World ; and fo eating his Flefh, and drinking Ins Blood, are the fame with coming to him, or believing in him, ver ^5. 45. 47, 51. Which though in a more efpecial manner is in the Eucharift (as Chrift and his Sufferings are therein more peculiarly reprefented ) yet is to be out of the Sa- crament as well as in it. Whether this Difcourfe of our Saviour did peculiarly thus belong to the Eucharift, is a Point not agreed amongft themielves, as it is ac- Seff. 21. c 1. knowledged by the Council of Trent (where it was l. i.e. ss. l°n§ debated) and by Bellarmine. But yet this Author Pom cat'boiid. did not go far, buthefo forgot himfelf, as to affirm fb'T S»* Ri" tnat a^ IntcrPreters expound it of the EuchariH. We fliall confider his Arguments, and leave his Contradicti- on to himfelf. jiYg% 1. He argues from the above-cited Verfe, The Bread that I will give is my Flefh : where faith he, */ Bread fignifes Chrift as received by Faith, without any Relation to the Sacramental Species, it would not be in the Future, \l will give '.] Therefore our Lord promt fed his Flejh, not abfolutely, but as to be eaten in the loft Supper. To this I anfwer : jiufw. 1. If the Word Bread abfolutely refers to the Eucharift, and is to be taken literally, then it would follow that as truly as his Flefh was-Flefh, his Flefh fhould become Bread, for it's (aid, the Bread which I will hereafter give, is now my Flefh ', which implies the Converfion of Flefh into Bread, rather than what they hold, the Converfion of Bread into Flefh. 2. If it will follow that it muft be underftood abfo- lutely of the Sacramental Species, becaufe it's in the Future, 1 will give ; then it will follow by the like way of for their Dotlrlm of Tranfubfiantiation. a *p of arguing, that it cannot be underftood of the Sacra- mental Species, becaufe it's alfo in the Prefent, / am that Bread, ver. 48. Is my Flejb, ver. 51. My Fle(b is Meat, ver. 55. And that it was thus with refpecl to the Prefent, not only the Jews underftood, but our Sa- viour grants to them, ver. 5 J. Except ye eat. So ver. 56> 57i 58- j. From hence it therefore follows, that our Saviour is here not to be abfoltttely underftood of the Sacramen- tal Species, but of that Bread which might be eaten out of the Eucharift as well as in it, at that prefent as well as afterwards ; and confequehtly that the eating of it is by Faith. He argues that the Difcourfe belongs thus to the Eu- ^r, z charifr, from the Words of the lajl Spuper which bear a correspondence to this. Here it V \_l will give] byway of Promife : There it's \is given] by way of Performance. This he confeffes is only a probable Argument, it's Anfo. ufhered in with a Videatur, and is indeed of no force. For though we yield that the Words I will give contain a Promife, yet we differ from him. 1. As to the Time and Cafe when this Promife was performed. Rellarmine faith it was in the Eucharift ; but if we confult the Text, that tells us 'twas when he gave his Flejh for the Life of the World, which was on the Crofs. For fb is that Phrafe to give his Life, and give bimfelf, always applied in Scripture, to his Death, and never to the Eucharift : See John 10. 11, 15. Gal. 1.4. &2.20. Ephef. vhwvtr ■»'* i~*\ _ _ thp AutVtAY /It rt O 0 o ver tbs AuthtroJit* 441 Ihe Texts examined which Tapijis cite ver. 68, 69. Thou haft the Words of eternal Life, and we believe, &c. Chrift was the Flefh and Blood to be eaten, and belief in him was (as he underftood ) the eating of that Flefh and Blood. So that from the Beginning to the End of it, is not one Word of eating Flefh and drink* ing Blood under the Forms of Bread and Wine. And here our Author is defective who agrees with us, the Tranfub. defend- Words cannot be carnally underJlood,but inftead of proving Uy P- 58- his own part, has Recourfe not to a Text but the Omni- potency of our Saviour. Arg. 4. The Dijlinclion obferved, ver. 53. betwixt eating and drinking, betwixt Flefh and Blood, refer to the Species of Bread and Wine in the Eucharijl, or elfe there would be no need of fuch Difiinciwn, fince a Perception by Faith needs it not. Andiw. ^. My Flefh is Meat indeed, and my Blood is Drink indeed, fignify the difiinB manner of eating his Flefh, and drinking his Blood, which is utterly lofr> if not in the Sacramental Forms of Bread and Wine. *rw 1 . Meat and Drink are the constituent Parts of corpo- ral Refrefhments, and fb do aptly fet forth Chrift as the Object of our Faith ; for what Meat and Drink is to the Body, that is he to the Soul by Faith, and therefore, we are faidto be Partakers of Chrift, Heb. 3.14. 2.. By the Terms, Flefh and Blood-, is fet forth,. (1.) The humane Nature which he afTumed, ufual- ly in Scripture call'd Flefb and Blood, Matth. 16.27. and accordingly his Incarnation is thus defcribed, he al- fo took part of the fame Flefh and Blood, Heb. 2. 14. (2.) There is further thereby fet forth his Suffer- ings, futable to the Sacrifices under the Law, in which there was a feparate Confideration of thefe two. And though thefe are fet forth in the Eucharift ; yet had there been no fuch Inftitution, there would have been reafonfuffrxientforthe reprefenting our Saviour under t . this for their DoElrine of Tranfubflantiation. 44 j this Notion, and for Faith thus to refpefl him. But methinks they of the Church of Rome fhould be fhy of arguing from this Diftin&ion of Flefh and Bloody and the different manner of receiving them in the Sa- crament, that do by their DocVine of Concomitancy make thefe two to be but one, and the Flefh to be Flefh and Blood too; and alfo in the Adminiftration of it, deliver it but in one kind to the People. The Irreconcila- blenefs of which Doclrine and Practice to this Difcourfe of our Saviour, made Cajetan and others utterly to de- ny it had any Reference to the Eucharift, as Bellarmine ss. Pom a- faith. thoM- Ii*s f aid, ver. 49. Tour Fathers did eat Manna in the ^r! Wilder nefs ; this is the Bread that cometh down from Hea- ven, &C. Where the Comparifon is not between Manna and the Body of Chrffl, as taken only -by Faith, but' as ta- ken in the Sacrament, as is evident from 1 Cor. 10. 1,2,3. where the Waters of the Red-Sea are compared to Btptifm, and Manna to the Euchariji. Our Saviour doth not compare his Body (which did jfnfv. not defcendfrom Heaven) but himfelf to Manna \ ver. 33. The Bread of God is he which cometh down from Hea- ven : ver. 51, 52. This is the Bread which cometh down from Heaven, —1 am the living Bread. He was fpiritual- ly to the Soul, what Manna was corporeally to the Bo- dy ; and fb it's understood by the Apoftle, 1 Cor. 10. 3,4. They did all eat the fame fpiritual Meat, and did all drink the fame fpiritual Drink ; for they drank of that fpiritu- aI Rock that followed them-, and that Rock wasChrifl. The Words [eating the Flefh of Chrijf ] cannot be taken Arg. $t figuratively, but properly, lecaufe always the proper Signifi- cation is to be chofen unlefs the contrary be evidently pro- ved. And when our Saviour fo often repeats it with the Oath Amen, Amen, it would be abfurd that i) fhould be Ooo 2 taken, 444 Th Texts examined which Paftfts cite taken figuratively ; for it's not lawful to confirm an After- lion by an Oath, unlefs the Matter be clear and certain, fo that it cannot be wre/led to another fenfe ', ne detur occa*- fio Perjurii, left there be an occafton given of Perjury. But Flefb properly fignifies Flefb, and. to eat fignifies a corporal Action , by which Meat is thrown into the. Stomachy but that is not by Faith, and no where but in the Eucharifi. Anfw. i~ We admit of this Rule that the proper Signification is to be chofm, when the contrary is not evident ', being ac- cording to what is faid by St. Auflin. But then how fhall we know whether the contrary be not eyident ; that we have the fame Father guiding us in, who thus ch$unn'c delivers himfelf, If a. Saying be preceptive, either for- 1$. ■ ' bidding a wicked Action, or commanding what is good, it's not figurative : If it commands any Wickednefs, or forbids what if good, it \ figurative ; as this faying [Except ye 'eat the Flejb of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, ye have- no~Lifeinyou,~\ feems to command a heinous and wicked thing. And is therefore a Figure enjoy ning us to communi- cate in the Faffionof our Lordy and to lay it up in a pro- jit able Remembrance, becaufe his Flefb teas wounded and crucified for our. faka. 2. As to what he alledges from the Terms Amen Amen, or Verily Verily, it's not probable that it was a Formoffwearing, When, (i.) Our Saviour ufes it. fb frequently, as five and. twenty times in this Gofpel ; and that as well in matters of Obfervation and Fact, as Doctrine and Promife, and Declaration, as Matth. 8. io. Verily I have not found fo great Faith : Mat. 18. 13. So John 10. 1. Verily verily he that comet h not by the Door, &c. & 1 J. 16. (2.) Bellarmine ufes it as an Argument why thefe Words fhould be underffood literally, becaufe confirmed by an Oath, and then according to his reafb.i- ing, they*are.not an Oath, becaufe they are often ap- plied for their DoElrint of Tranfubftantiation. 44^ plied to what is not to be underftood literally. So John 1.51. Verily verily I fay unto you, Hereafter ye /ball fee Heaven open, and the Angels of God afcending and defend' ing upon the Son of Man. chap. 3. }. Verily verily ', except a Man he born again, &c. So in this chap. ver. $2. Vc rily verily my father gave you the true Bread : And fb in the Vcrfe he makes ule of, Verily verily, except ye eat, &c. Where, if he is fight in his Argument, the Fleffo is then proper Flefh, and the eating muft be carnal eating of that Flefh ; and which he cannot expound to an eating of Flefh under the Form of Bread without one of die har- deft Metaphors in the.World. Surely he was hard put to it, when he muft bring our bleffed Saviour fb near the Precipice, as to an octafio Perjurii ; and that nothing lefs will ferve than fuch a clear and determinate Phrafe, as is not pofjible to he wrefled to another Senfe. As our Saviour, John 3. 3. when he would infinuate the Arg.j.] ufe and nature of Baptifm, teaches Nicodemus, and re- peat* it, that hi muft be born again : So here that he might infinuate the Nature of the Eucharift, he faith, and re* peats it, Except ye eat the Flejh, Sec. And as Nicodemus then did wonder, fo did the Difciples here. 1 . Bellarmine contends elfewhere that Words in Sacra- Anfvo. ments are to be under fteod literally. If fb, then how can c; *•..?• I* it be fo, John 3. for if to be born again is literally to ***'**** be underftood, then Nicodemus was in the right, ver. $. Can a Man enter the fecond time into hi& Mother's Womb; and be born ? 2. If thefe Words are alluiively to be underftood, and fignify a moral and fpiritual Birth (as is not denied) and that by them we are to interpret thefe, Except ye eat the Flejh of the Son of Man, then, we can no more un-* derftand thefe of oral and corporal eating, tlian thofe . of a natural Birth ; but as by the. Terms being born again were ...lav'. &■ 446 Tu Texts examined winch fafijls cite were fignified a moral fpiritual Birth, lb by the Terms eating the Fleflj «/* Chrilt, we are to underftanda fpiri- tual and figurative eating, which is by Faith. Jrg. 8. As for what Bellarmine urges from the Abmrdities that will follow, if this Difcourfe of our Saviour is not to be underftood of the Eucharift. They only ferve to prove that our Saviour referr'd here to the Sacrament ; -but as they don't prove it, fo if they did, yet that alone, as I have fnewd, belongs not to the Cafe in Debate. ~ Bellarmine having thus largely infifted upon the firft, he proceeds to fhew the Truth of Chrift's Body in the Eucharift, from this Difcourfe of our Saviour. And to what has been beforelaid, he adds an Argument from ver. 61,62. Doth this offend you ? What and if ye /ball fee the Son of Man afcend up where he was before $ Of this he faith there is a double Expofitwn, and from each of which he endeavours to prove it. Expof. 1 . Our Saviour doth prove one Wonder by another, more or equally wonderful', as Matth. 9. 2. John 1. 51.^,8. Andfo he doth here in the In (lance of his Afcenfion. But if our Saviour had notpromifed to give his true Flejh in the Sacrament y there had been no need to prove his Power in the Jnjlance of his Afcenfwn. a r I anfwer ; Admitting this Expofition, yet there is no * ' Foundation for his Inference. Forthelnftance to prove muft be equally, if not more wonderful than what it's brought to prove ; but that is not here ; for the Exiftence of Chrift's natural Body and Blood under the Forms of Bread and Wine, is far more wonderful than Chrift's Afcenfion into Heaven. The bodily Afcenfion into Heaven carries in it no Repugnan- cy to reafbn, and there have been Inftances of it in Enoch and Elijah ', but as to Chrift's Body under the Forms of Bread and Wine, it's what there is nothing that for their T)otirine of Tranfubftantiation. 447 that doth or can parallel ( as the Roman Catechifm) ours. Our Saviour reproves the Incredulity of his Difciples> Expof. 2, and teacheth them that they JhaU have a greater Occafwn of doubting in his Abfence. And if they now doubt, what will they do when he is gone into Heaven, and his Body will be far from them, then how will they believe the fame Body to be m the Eucharift ? whereas if it were by Faith, it would be more eafy to believe after his Afcenfion, and our Lord would not have f aid, What and if ye /ball fee the Son of Man afcend up where he was before ? i.I deny that if it was by Faith,it would be more eafy Anfw. to believe after the Afcenfion ; and that for what our Saviour faid to Thomas, Joh/f 20. 29. Becaufe thou haft feen me, thou haft believed, bleffed are they which have not feen, and yet have believed. 2. 1 deny again that it's more difficult to believe Chrift's Body in the Eucharifi: after his Afcenfion than before ; for it's equally difficult to believe Chrift's Body to be contain'd under the Forms of Bread and Wine, whether he be in Heaven or Earth, prefent or abfent. It's again as equally difficult to believe Chrift to have a humane Body united to his Soul, and another Body under the Forms of Bread and Wine, and thefe to be one and the fame Body. 3. I deny again, that there is the leaft reafbn for this Expofition of that Phrafe, that they jhall have a greater occafion of doubting in his Ab fence ; and that will appear by confidering what were the things thofe Difciples murmured at ; and they were two : (1 .) That he fhould fpeak of eating his Flefh, ver. 55, &c. (2.) That he fhould, fay, This is the Bread which came down from Hea- ven, &c. ver. 58. Now to both of thefe he returns a diltinft Anfwer; beginning (according as it's ufual in 44 8 The Texts examined which faplfi: cite in Scripture) with the laft firfr. To which he anfwers, ver. 61,62. Doth this offend yon? What and if ye fhali fee the Son of Man afcend where he was before? Why fhould it be lefs credible that I came from Heaven, than that \ fball afcend thither ? but this (hall fhortly be leen ; ,, j^.or (to ufe the Words of a late Author oftheir's) as if ed, p. $7. he fhould have faid, If you do not yet bctieve that the Son of Man came down from Heaven, yet when you fee him afcend thither again, you wit be more ready to believe, that it was really God who came down, - took Plejh and dwelt amongH you. As to the fecond he anfwers, ver. 65. It's the Spirit that qnickneth, the Flefh profiteth nothing : The Words that I fpeak unto you, they are Spirit and they are Life. What he had taught them all along of coming to him and believing in him, as the way and means to eternal Life ; lb ver. 3 5, 40, 45, 47. 5S m The third Head of Arguments to prove the very Bo- dy and Blood of Chrift are fubftantially in the Eucha- rift, is taken from the Words of Inftitution, This is my Body. c.8.ss.c#wfc*j. Here Billarmine faith from the Council of Trent, that concii.Trid.tjie Catholick Church doth teach that thefe Words are e I3'c* ** to be taken fimply and properly, and then gives this fenfe of them thus, This, which is contained under thefe Species of Bread and Wine, is truly and properly my very true and natural Body. In proof of this, Arg. 1. He undertakes to fhew that irs not probable our Lord would fpeak figuratively, whether we confider the Matter, a c. $. Sacrament, Sec. the Perfons to whom he fpake, the Jpo~ files ; the Place and Time. For the Matter he faith, it's a Sacrament 9 a Will, a Covenant, a Law, a Doctrine, all which do require a proper, and not a fgurative Speech. But for their Doftrine of Tranfubftantiatiotu 440. But tho this holds precifely in none of his Instances, yet in none doth it fail more than the firft, and indeed the chiefeft of them ; and that whether we confider the Nature of a Sacrament, or the Inftances of it. The Nature of it is Myftical and Reprefentative, and fo myftical ExprefTions do become and bear a Correfpon- dence to the nature of the thing. And accordingly we ■fliall find it to be the manner of fpeaking in fuch Sym- bolical Cafes. Thus it was in the Sacraments of the Law, Circumcifion, and the PafTover. In the former ofthele, Circumcifion is called the Covenant, Gm.17. 10, 1 3. which was but a token of the Covenant, v. 1 1. and Rom.4. 11, In the latter the Lamb is called the Pajf- over, which it was the Sign and Reprefentation of. Thus they are faid to kill, to facrifice, to rofi, to eat the Pdffover,'ExQd.i2.2i. Deut.16.2,7. Mat. 26.17. Thus it is alfo in the Chriftian Sacrament of Baptifm, which is called, TV* .3.5. The haver of Regeneration ; and we are {aid to be born of Water, John 3. 5. To be buried, with Chrift by Baptifm, Rom. 6. 4. Nay let us come to this very Sacrament in Difpute, and they themfelves muft and do acknowledg leveral things to be figuratively fpoken, as when This, in Bel- larmines way of Expofition, is, what is contain d under J^.2, ss* Sei the Forms vf Bread and Wine: Broken, that is, by the breaking the Accidents of Bread : Cupy that is, thec-ir-ss-^*- Wine in the Cup : Bread, after Confecration, that is, ™ Axgw(m' what was once Bread. Now if Bellar mine's Argument be good, that a Sacrament requires a proper Senfe, all theie were meant, and fb ought to[be underftood pro- perly. He argues from the Words themfelves, This is my Bo- 4rg- 2. dy ; and he begins with the Word This, which, faith he, jnuit relate either to the Bread, or the Body, or the Ac- P P p cidents 450 The Texts examined which Papifts cite cidents of Bread. The two former he difcards after this Manner. C 10 SSFonh ^e Word [This] cannot relate to Bread, becaufe if ta~ ' ken adjeffively, it muji be of the fame Gender with the Sub' jlantive it belongs to ', but now in the Greek, the Word, for Bread Cap-res] is in the Mafculine, and the Word for Thi* Ct«to] is in the Neuter, 'jfnfw. But here he is out in his Grammar. Were the Ad- jective immediately connected to the Subftantive, as it isver. 26. fynw -rihw, this Bread, or as a late Adverfary Tranfub. defend- would read it for us, when he faith we read it totd a/ms, td> introdua. then it would be, as he faith, falfe Grammar ; but though tyros Bread be the Antecedent to tStd, yet neither is our Saviour or theEvangelift out in theirGrammar, nor we in following them in it. That our Saviour refers This to Bread, not only the Reafbn of the thing and the order of Grammar require (becaufe it's the fame that he faitft This of, that he before took, and blejfed, and gave) but al- io that the Apoftle afterward immediately connects them together, 1 Cor.i 1 .26. As often as ye eat this Bread ', where the this Bread as much refers to the Bread, as the this Cup to the Cup, before fpoken of. And that it's agreeable to Rules of Grammar, Ifhall make appear by thefe Obfervations. 1 . As, it's ordinary in Latin and Greek, when the Subftantive is underftood, or the Antecedent is a Sen- tence going before, to put the Relative (whatever Gen- der the Subftantive is of) in the Neuter Gender,as Joh.6i 6 1 . i5tt>, doth this offend you? that is,Chrift's coming from Heaven ; fa here v. 24,2 5.7S™, this do', that is,take 8r eat. 2. When the Subftantive properly belonging to the Adjective is not immediately repeated with the Adje* ftive, the Ad je&ive may be in the Neuter Gender, as Gen. 2. 1 J. wto os*»v, this is Bone, where the Word yjv* Woman is the Antecedent*. t 3. It's for their Dottr'me of Tranfuhftantiatwu 47 1 3. It's common again in Greek and Latin, to put the Relative in the lame Gender with the confequent, as in the foregoing Inftance, tvvsqsv^ which the vulgar La- tin, reads hoc efios. And fo when the Sentence going before was the Antecedent, yet we find the Relative is in the Feminine if the Confequent Subftantive befb, as Ezek. 5.5. aim* m 'iw/ixffaAMft, This tsjerufalem. So St. Dec«niDom. Cyprian, hac eft Caro mea. Now it happens that there is none of thefe but what is applicable to our Cafe. For, (1.) The Antecedent may be the Sentence going before, and the Bread, and ' the breaking, giving, taking, eating, may be the Bo- dy of Chrift by Signification ; as the Lamb, the taking, killing, drefling, and eating, is faid to be the Loras Paffover, Exod. 1 2. 1 1 . And the Hair, the weighing^ burning, fmiting, and fcattering it, is faid to be Jerufa~ lem, Ezek. 5.5. (2.) The Subftantive is not repeated with, nor immediately connected to the Adje&ive. (■}.) And the Noun confequent to tvtx> this, isotfytaof the Neuter Gender ; and confequently in all Points no- thing more regular and grammatical. He argues further, The Word [This'] cannot refer to the Word [Body] (as many of their own' Authors hold) becaufe the Qonverfton of the Sub fiance of the Bread- into the Sub- fiance of ChrifPs Body is not accompli (Fd till the Words [this is my Body] are pronounced', and to fay the Word [This] (which implies fomewh at pre fent) refers to [Body] is to / make that to be there which is not there ', which is abfurd, faith Bellarmine, and 'twould be to fay, This Body is my Body, which faith another, is ridiculous. * S, p!t7. Laftly, he contends that by the Wor< ■ This is meant, ^ 'E„ .' what is contained under the Species of Bread. Here thole that were of thelaft Opinion are even wftiihim, and fay this Account of the Word This, is fall of Abfurdities. Ppp 2 For / 1 5 4 ^ 'texts txtmned which fdfifts die For what is contained under the Species or Accidents of Bread muft refer to the Bread, or the Body, or the Spe- cies. Not to the Bread, for that is to go over to the Pro- teftants. Not to the Body, for that (as we have heard) is to make that prefent which is not yet prefent. Not to the Species, for till the Bread be changed into the Body, the Species are in the Subftance of the Bread, and one with it ; and befides Bellarmine himielf faith that. Ibid. SS. no. j-|ie senfe js not> t]iat the fe Species are the Body. But here mas' we meet with a Guide, who tells us that it's This thing, . Tunfub. dtftni- Now it would be worth knowing what is the Substan- ce p. 2d. tive to. the Word thts in Greek, for if it be » to be refolved into none. 1. But Bellarmine himfelf foon recals this, granting ■Am^v' that where Signs are concerned, the Word \_ls~] is to ss. Dices in Ex- Jh explained by [Signifies. ~\ piicatione. 2. I add from another Hand, that as often as the Verb [Zr] pins things of diverfe Natures together , we Ssl^erontom' rnafi neceffar/ly have reco:irfe to a Figure and a Trope, ae- p] I?8, ' cording to that Rule in Logick, Dijparatum de difparato nan proprie pradkatur. 3. Bread and the Body of Chrift are things of diffe- rent Natures ; arid therefore if in the Proportion, This is my Body, Body is meant of the proper Body of Chrift, and the Word This refers to proper Bread, ( as I have . fhewed it does) then the Word Is muft be interpreted, by the word Signifies,or reprefents. - And this is not on- ly true in common forms of Speech, as this is C*far, this is my Will, my Hand, my Seal ; where it's not €efar> but his Picture ; not the Will, but the Legacy ; not the Hand, but the Writing ; not the Seal, but the Impreflion : But it's alfo ufual in Scripture, as the Seed is the Word, Luke 8. 11. 1 am the Door, John 10. 7. This is the Blood of the Men, 2 Sam.2 3.17. And in the Initances before-given, This is the Lord?s Pajfover, This is Jerufalem. Of this fee before, fag. 417. The laft Head of Arguments to prove the Truth of ss. ry. Chrift's proper Body4 to be truly in the Euchariff, is taken from the ufe of it> Here Bellarmin argues from the Cap' 12> & *3' Confecration, the Fraction, *the Communication, and the Guilt by unworthy Participation, He argues from 1 Cor. 10. 16. The Cup of B! effing, jr which ( faith he) fignifies Confecration to be neceffary, but there irtr. (4 J4) "« T? xtt examined which Pafi/ls eke there is no need of Confecration if it he a. Figure, for then a Declaration of his Will would be fufflcient. Jrtfw. i i . Thei r Blefli ng is not their Conf ecration , For Confe- cration with them is the ufe of the words of Conversion (To called by thtm)This is my Body. But our Saviour blefc led, and brake, and gave, before hefaid, Take, eat, This is my Body. And if blefling be confecrating, then conle- crating would be when it was but a Figure. 2. It's a Figure if there be no fubftantial Changt; but Confecration may be where there is no fubftantial Change, and confequently may be where there is a Fi- gure. For elfe Baptifm mull not be Baptifm, nor Chrifm in their Confirmation be Chrifm, after Confecration, where they ow'n is no fubftantial Change. oBrine of Tranfubftantiation. (45 3) Blood ( when his Sufferings are let forth and commemo- rated ) be fa id to be guilty of his Body and Blood ; for what Relation the Gofpel and Meifengers have to Chrift, that Relation and more has the Sacrament of his Body and Blood to his Body and Blood. So Chrift is faid to be crucified among the Galatians,as his Sufferings were evi- dently fit forth by the preaching of the Apoftle, Gal. 2.1. And Apoftates are (aid to crucify to t hem fe Ives the Son of God afrefh, Heb. 6.6. So St. Jerom faith of this lalCo[lit Place, He is guilty of the Body and Blood of Chrift, who dejpifes the Sacrament of this fo great a My fiery as a vile thing. Thus indeed St. Paul doth diftinguifh the Sa- crament of it from the thing ; for he faith not, he that eateth the Body of Chrift and drinketh his Blood un- worthily fhall be guilty of the Body and Blood of Chrift ; but whofoever fhall eat this Bread, and drink this Cup of the Lord unworthily, (ball be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord. The one being the Confequence of the other; he that is guilty of the former, is in reafbn to be efteemed guilty of the other, from the near Relation the one has to the other. PAR T II.T ItY contended that Tranfubfiantiation is to be proved front Scripture. After fo large a Difcourfe upon the firft Head, about the Truth of Chrift's natural Body and Blood in the Eucharift, it might reafonably be ^xpeded that there fhould be fbmeconfiderable care taker to prove rhs Con- verfion of the Bread and Wine into the proper Subftance of Chrift's Body and Blood. But this has a very fhort ^ e< Chapter bellowed upon it, where BeUarmine tells us that his firft Place is Mat- 26. This is my Body. He might have .(4 5 6) ^je "^exts exmi ™ wb*d> tPtp'ffts tite have better called it his only place, for th;re is no fecond that • SS. Rejbondco follows his firft. And even here when he comes to his utmofl ebfilite. proof, that it may fas he faith,) be abfolutdy calleUfdfrom it, it amounts to this, that from the common manner of /peaking, what is fgnified in the Words [This is my Body] is, that there is nothing elfe but the Body of Chrift. For if it h.xd been Bread, our Lord ought to fay, Here, that is, in this Bread, is my Body. So that it feems as our Saviour muft do what they would have him do, fo he muft fpeak what they would have him fpeak , he ought, faith he, to fay. But why then ought not our Lord to have faid-, This ris turned into my Body? That indeed fome of them fay is to be underftood, and fo is fuppofed by them. And indeed without proving If .doth fo fignify, it's impoflible to prove the Bread to be turned into the proper Body of Chrift by virtue of the fe Words, This is my Body. In fine, this knowing Man was fofenfibleofthefhortnefsof his Argument, that he thus con- cludes the whole \ Let me add, faith he, that though there Jhoutd SS. Adds quod, foj-ome Obfcurity and Ambiguity in our Lord?* Words, yet that is ta- ken away by many Councils of the Catholicise hurch £fuch as thofe of Lateran and* Trent~\ and the Confent of the Fathers. So that though they do make fome offer at Scripture, and at fometime Cath. Scriptu- b°aft (as one doth) of clear Words, even word for word -, yet that rift, Point. 12. they foon forfake •, and, ns'Bellarmine fhelters himfelf againft the p. 90. Obfcurity and Ambiguity of the Text, by a pretence of Councils, and the Confent of the Fathers : So this lafl: Author ; after he has juft named iheclear Words (as he calls them J foon quits that for a Proof by Demonflration. It looks fomewhat great to begin with Scripture, and to pafs thence to Councils, Fathers, and Demonftrations. But when it comes to be enquired into, Scrip- ture is one Text alone, and that Text obfeure and ambiguous ; the Councils are thefe of Lateran and Trent ; and the Fathers, the Fathers of thofe and the like Councils:, and their Demonflrati- on, Fiction, and Imagination. But this belongs not to the prefent Defign to fliew. r HE EN D. LONDON, Printed by J.V.-f&r Richard Chifml at the Rofe andvGrcwa in St. Paul's Church-Yard, 1688. Place this at Page 453. POPERY Not Founded on SCRIPTURE: O R, The Texts which Papists cite out of the Bibl e., for the Proof of the Points of Clieir ^elision, Examin'd, And (hew'd to be alledg'd without Ground. VOL. II. With Tables to the Whole. LONDON; Printed for EfcfoatB C&tftDtllj at the Rofe and Crown in St. PauPs Church-Yard, MDCLXXXIX. ( 453 ) The Texts examined which Papifts cite out of the Bible for the Proof of Their Doftrine O F Auricular Confession. IMPRIMATUR. May 29. 1688. Jo.Battely. TH E Church of Rome taking all courfes, whe- ther direct or indirect, to bring Men over to her Communion, or at leaft to make them out of love with ours, as in other cafes, fb in this of Confeflion, pretends fbmetimes a great Friendship, at other times a great Enmity with the Church of Eng- land : fometimes we are reported to hold Confeflion juft as that Church does ; at other times we want one of the Chriftian Sacraments, and belt means to pro- mote a Religious and Godly Life. By the firft of thefe they endeavour both to keep our diflenting Brethren at as great a diftance as they can from us, and to tempt the more unwary amongft our felves to Itep out of our Church into another, betwixt whom they are made to Qjj q believe 454 The Texts examined which Tapifts cite believe there is already Co clofe a Correfpondence ; by the other they fbmetimes infnare the more ignorant and more' devout, who are too apt to be mifled by the fpecious pretence of better means of Salvation than they at prefent enjoy. Now being engaged to examine thofe Scriptures by which the Doctrine of Auricular ConfefTion is by that Church defended, that all Parties may under- stand one another aright, and there may be no mifrake about our or their holding either too little or too much concerning it, I fhall fet down how far we agree, and wherein we difagree as to the fore-mentioned Point. Firftj We agree- that all ought toconfefs their Sins unto Almighty God. Not becaufe God does not know them before (for he is intimately acquainted with all our mod fecret Faults ) but becaule without Repen- tance there can be no hopes of Pardon ; and Repen- tance never can be rightly performed without Confeffi- on : Having afted contrary to God's rn"0$ righteous Laws, we become thereby obnoxious to Punifhment ; but fuch is God's Kindneis to us, that for the fake of a Crucified Saviour he is willing to pardon fuch our Offences, provided we are heartily fbrry for them, and refblve to forfake them ; but how can we be heartily forry for them, or difpofed to forfake them, unlets we are willing to own and confrfs them ? By publifhing our Offences before God, we difcern the folly thereof, - and God's Hatred againft them ; and by making fuch difcoveries, we become more afhamed of our felves, and more inclinable to make Refolutions of never be- ing guilty of the like Follies for the future. And for their DoFlrine of Auricular Confefsion.l A r-™> termined, and denounced an Anathema agaiiift all fuch ' 7' who aitert the contrary. My 460 The Texts examined whkb Tapijls cite My defign at prefent is, to examine the Authority which that Council, and the Defenders of it, have pro- duced from Scripture for the defence of the fore-men- tioned Articles. Now the chief place of Scripture infifted on, both by the Council and others, is that of St. 'John, ch 20. 23. Whojefoever Sins ye remit ,t hey are remitted unto them ', and ■whofejoever Sins ye retain, they are retained. Unto which Bellarmine annexeth thefe two as pa- rallel, Mat. 16. 19. And I will give unto thee the Kjys of the Kjngdom of Heaven ', and rvhatfoever thou /halt bind in Earth, /hall be bound in Heaven : and rvhatfoever . thou /halt loofe on Earth, /hall be loofed in Heaven* Mat. 18. 18. Whatfoever ye fljall bind on Earth, fhall be bound in Heaven : and whatfoever ye fhall loofe on Earth, (hall be loofed in Heaven. From which places it is thus argued ; That fince here is a Power plainly given by Chrift to his Apoftles, and confequently to their SuccefTors, of remiflion of Sins ; and that it is impoflible that this Power fhould be exerted unlefs they come to the knowledg of them, and they cannot come to the knowledg of them, but by the Confeflion of thofe who are guilty of them ; therefore it is abfblutely ne- cefTary, that they who are defirous to have their Sins forgiven, fhould make a particular Confeflion of them. In anfwer to which Argument I obferve, Tirfi, That as to that of St. Matthew 18. 18. it is by fome made to have refpect not only to the Prieft, but to every particular Chriftian. For in the fore- going Verfes,Direcl:ions are given to every one, of what .Condition fbever, how to behave himfelf towards his offend- for their Voilrine of Auricular Confefsion. 46 1 offending Brother. He mud firft adrnonifh him atone, then in the pretence of two or three JVitneJfes, then tell it Ver- '?• to the Church, and if he continue ftill incorrigible, ac- VJ| \°7[ count him no better than as a Heathen Man and a Publi- can. And then immediately follows, Verily I fay unto you, whatfoever ye foall bind en Earth, (Jja 11 be bound in Heaven *, Ver# ' *' and whatfoever ye jhatl loofe on Earth, /hall be loo fed in Heaven. By which words, upon the account of what went before, they underftand a Power to be given to every good Chriftian of judging concerning any Offence committed againft him, together with an afTurance of having any fuch Judgment which he fhall here make upon Earth ( provided that it be jiift and impartial ) ratified by God in Heaven. Hence St. Auguftine faith, Aug. de verb. Thou hafl begun to account thy Brother no better than a Domini in E- Publican, thou bindeft him in Earth, but take care that J*"8' J*16* thou bindeft him juftly, for Divine Juftice breaks in f un- der the Bonds that are unjuft : When thou hafl corrected and agreed with thy Brother thou haft loofed him in Earth, ■when thou haft loofed him in Earth he is loofed in Heaven. But fuppofe theie words of St. Matthew were directed only to the Apoftles and their SuccelTors. I then ob- ferve, Secondly, That both this place and that of St. Mat. 16. 19. may be interpreted with refpecl; to that gene- ral Power and Authority which was given by our Sa- viour to the Apoftles of determining in all matters con- cerning the Chriftian Religion, and of declaring what was right and fit to be done, and what was other- wile. All are agreed that by the Kjngdom of Heaven, is to be underftood the State and Condition of God's Church under the Gofpel, wherein he is worfhipped after a fpiritual manner as refiding in Heaven, as giving his Difciples and Followers the hopes thereof, and as pre- R r r fcribing Tte Texts examined which Tapifls cite {bribing means for the obtaining it ; whereas under the Law he was worfhipped after a terreftrial manner, as dwelling more particularly here on Earth amongft his felecl People the Jews, requiring external Performances, and promifing Earthly Benefits to fuch Performances. •By the Kjys of the Kjngdom of Heaven, islikewife generally underftood that Power and Authority in his Church which was given by Chrift e Texts eootmned which Taftfls cite lrfh it to all fuch whom they find fitly qualified for it ; but our Saviour has left no Power in his Church to compel them to it. They of the Church of Rome will needs perfwade us that God has tied himfelf to the determination of his own Priefts, and that he will give no Pardon until they have declared the Penitent deferving of it. Now God may, it is true, appoint what means he pleafeth of conveying any Mercy to us, and if he had plainly faid, that he would forgive none but fuch whom his Minifters, after a due Examination of their State and Condition, according to the Rules of the Gofpel, had declared capable of Forgivenefs, there had then Jain an Obligation upon every one of us to have recourfe to fuch his Minifters, if ever we expected the forgivenefs of our Sins. But what our Saviour faith in this place of St. John, implies no fuch thing. Neither does Bel- Urm'ine any where prove (what he fo confidently afTerts) that the Minifters of the Gofpel are fo far forth conftituted Judges by our Saviour, that all thofe Ub. 3. c. 2. ' who are at Enmity with God are bound to have re- courfe to them for Forgivenefs. They may be fo far forth faid to be Judges, in that; upon a due examination of their Condition who come unto them, they are au- thorized to pronounce the Sentence of Abfblution upon all fuch, whom, according to the Tenor of the Gofpel, they find deferving of it : But this does no ways infer the abfblute neceffity of having recourfe to them for their Judgment ; or that no Reconciliation can be had with God, without making fuch an Application to tliem. And therefore that is a very ridiculous Inference of BcllarmineS) that becaufe it is faid, Wh&tfoevcr' you for their DoBrlne of Jurkular Confefsioni 471 you loofe on Earthy jhalibe loofed in Heaven ; therefore &&. de Poen. it follows, that whatfoever you do not loofe on Earth, !lb" 3* c# 2' - fhall not be loofed in Heaven. They who with Sincerity do acquaint his Minifters with their Condition, and upon their acquainting them with it are, according to God's Laws, abfolved ■by them, thefe have a well-grounded Affurance, that what is pardoned thus on Earth, fhall be forgiven in Heaven. But ftill they are left to their liberty, either of applying themfelves thus to God's Minifters for their Judgment, or of confeffing their Sins only to God, who, without any fuch Application, will for- give them if he finds them truly deferving of it. But to make one ftep farther, Suppofe it fhould be granted that it were abfolutely neceffary to make Ap- plication to the Priefts for the forgivenefs of Sins. I obferve then in the Sixth and laft place, that notwithstanding this, there would be no Obligation to the particular enumeration of all Sins together, with their Circumitances, which is a thing fb rigoroufly infifted upon by the Church of Rome, as to denounce a Curie againft all fuch as declare againft: it. For befides that, this oftentimes is impofTible as well as very indecent ; the great bufinefs of the Minifters of the Gofpel, in order to their giving any one aftu- rance of forgivenefs of Sins, is to examine whether he be truly penitent, which may he done without a particular enumeration of all Crimes whatfoever. Had God given his Minifters | Power of pimii]ii|ig Sinners according to their deferts, it wrould then have been neceffary that they fhould have had a particular account of all thofe feveral Sins which they had been Sl'f 2 guilty aj I Tl?e Texts examined which fapijls cite guilty of. But their Authority confifts not in punifh- ing, but in giving affurance of Pardon, and in order to their doing this, it is not fo much necefTary to know what kind of Sins he has been guilty of, as what kind of Man the Sinner at prefent is. How great foever any ones Crimes may have been, if he ap- pears to be one who is heartily troubled for his having offended a good and gracious God ; if he has emptied himlelf of all vain Conceits concerping the beft of his Actions ; if he depends wholly upon the Merits of our Saviour's undertaking, and gives good reafon to be- lieve that he will be more careful for the future in the obfervance of all God's Laws ; fuch an one may very juftly be abfblved, altho he who gives him the afTurance of forgivenefs of Sins has not a diftinft knowledg of all his wicked Practices. It is Impenitence only which can exclude from the forgivenefs of Sins ; and therefore where nothing of this appears but the quite contrary, there the Sinner may have afTurance thereof given, although his particular Faults be only known to God and his own Confci- ence. Where Doubts and Scruples arife in reference to par- ticular Sins, there muft be a particular difcovery there- of in order to the obtaining a refolution of them ; but in other cafes, if the Sinner expreffeth- himfelf truly humble and penitent, that will be a fuffkient ground for the Prieft's giving him hopes of Pardon^ although he is no ways informed concerning all thole feveral Sins which he has ever been guilty of. Having thus fliown what little reafon there is to- ground this Doctrine of Auricular Gonfeflion upon- this p. 122. for their DoBr'me of Auricular Confefsion. 47^ this place of St. John, I fhall only add, that feveral of Gerhard««- the Writers of the Church of Rome have been of the feff. cath. Lib. fame Opinion; and although the Council of Treat 2- ,Par* 5* Arc* has founded the divine right of Confeflion upon thefe £r. Jt'iMng- words of our Saviour, yet that it has not been the flcet Cm'cU °f traditionary fenfe of thofe of that Communion. The next Text I fhall examine, is that of J&. 1 9. 18. And many that believed came, and confejfed, and {hewed their Deeds. Where, by their Peeds, Bellarmine under- stands all particular Sins of what kind foever, and that, the Confeflion here fpoken of was to St. PauL I anfwer, 1. That it does not appear but that the Con- feflion here fpoken of was made to God alone, and not to Man. 2. That if it were made to Man, it is not certain whether it was private to St. Paul, and not rather pub^- lick to the whole Church. 3. That it is moft probable that the Deeds here . fpoken of were not a Catalogueof all QUences what- soever, but only of fuch as did more particularly re- fpect the ufe of Charms and Conjurations. St. Paul having done many Miracles at Ephefus, feveral Vaga- bond Jews took upon them to do the like, and to call over them which had evil Spirits, ver. 1 3. butr with very ill fuccefs, for the Spirits fell upon them and wounded thtm, ver. 16. Upon this the Name of the Lord Jefus began to be magnified, and thofe who had been ac- cuftomed to ufe Enchantments, being terrified with this Example, became Converts to Christianity,, to&t 474 rH'e Texts examined which 'Tapifts cite feffed and /hewed their Deeds, /*. e. acknowledged the grievous Crime of being fo addicted to Magical Arts as they had been. Now there is a great deal of diffe- rence betwixt any ones acknowledging lome particu- lar Sins which he happens to be guilty of, and of which the prefent fear of Punifhment has extorted a Con- fefiion, and the being obliged to make a ConfefTion of all Sins whatfoever. 4. That altho it fhould be granted, that all Sins whatfoever were here .confefled by thefe new Con- verts, yet this makes nothing for Auricular ConfeiTion. For we do not deny but that any one for Advice and Counfel may unbofom himfelf, and difcove'r whatever lie has been guilty of, but this we contend, that it is no-where abfblutely required by our Saviour. If thefe new Converts, having fat in Darknefs and in the fhadow of Death, d id difcover all their Mifcarriages, of what nature fbever, to St. Paul, and intreat his direction thereupon, they did well. But altho they had not been fb punctual in giving an account of themfelves, if they had truly repented them of all their wicked ways, God would have forgiven them ; and fb he will every one elfe who does the like, altho he fhould not make fuch a particular difcovery of his Mifcarriages to thofe whom God has appointed to hear fuch Difcoveries, and when they are made to apply his Promifes of For- givenefs according as they are found dii'pofed who make them. Another Text infifted upon by Bellarminc and others, is 2 Cor. 5. 18, 19. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled ii6 to hir/ifelf by Jeftx Ckrtjl, and hath given to m the Miniflry of Reconcilialton, to wit, that God was for their DoHrine of Auricular Confefsiori. Aye was in Chrift, reconciling the World unto himfelf^ not imputing their Trefpajfes unto them, and hath committed unto us the Word of Reconciliation. From whence it is inferred, that fince the Apoftles, and confequently their bucceffors, were to be the Minifters of Reconcilia- tion, it was impoflible for them rightly to perform fiich their Office, unlefs they were inform'd concerning the Nature of that Enmity which is betwixt God and Sinners, and this they could not be, unlefs they re- ceived from thofe who had offended, a particular ac- count of their Guilt. To which Inference I reply, i. That thefe- words are to be interpreted (as they are even by Cajetan, and other Popifh Writers) of the preaching of the Gofpel, the care whereof was com- mitted to the Apoftles upon our Saviour's leaving the World. God, by the Sufferings of our Saviour, did reconcile Sinners to himfelf, and neceffary it was that fomc fhould be appointed by our Saviour to give no- tice of this Reconciliation : Upon which account it is here faid, that the Miniftry of Reconciliation was given to them ; and ver. 19. that the Word of Reconcili- ation was committed unto them, i. e. that they were fet apart to publifh unto the World, That God was in Chrijl reconciling the World unto himfelf not imputing their Trefpajfes unto them. Of their being fet apart for - which purpefe, St.Paul gives further evidence, ver. 20. Now then we are Ambajfadours for Chrijl, as though God did befcech yon by us, we pray you in ChrijVs jleady be re- conciled to God. For here the Apoftle exercifech that Minijlry of Reconciliation which was committed to him, 47 6 Tlx Texts examined which Tapifts cite him, but this he does without giving the leaft inti- mation of the neceffity of Auricular Confeffion. 2. Suppofe the Miniftry of Reconciliation, here fpoken of, fhould imply the Authority delegated by ■Chrift unto his Apoifles, of giving the affurance of forgivenefs of Sins to all liich who confefs their faults, and are truly penitent, yet this dees not imply the neceffity of rigoroufly exacting a particular account of every Sin, with the Circumftances that attend it. For in order to the Ministers of the Gofpel thus recon- ciling Men to God by giving them the aflurance of the forgivenefs of Sins, nothing is more required than to find out whether they are truly penitent, which may be known without fuch an exact knowledg of all their Sins. And here it may not be amifs to take notice, that although they of the Church of Rome do exact a.par- ticular Confeflion of all their Sins from thoie who are within the bofbm of the Church, yet they do not require it of fuch who are without, and only about to be admitted into it: Were an Heathen to be received into their Communion, a general Confeflion fhould then ferve in order to his being abfolved. But after he is once received, then whatever Sin he happens to be guilty of, his Ccnfeflcr muft have a particular account of. As if they did not care what they made the terms of Communion for the gaining a Profelyte, tut after they had gained him, were refolved to tie him to the hardeft terms they could think of. For otherwife fince fincere Repentance is that alone which can give any alfurance of forgivenefs of Sins, there is no reafbn why, if this at firit gave a Man a Title to Gcd's for their TtoElrine of Auricular Confefsion. 477 God's Prom ifes upon his entrance into the Church, it might not do the fame afterwards without a particular enumeration of all private Sins whatfbever. Another Text is that of St. James, Jam. 5. 16. Confefs your Faults one to another, and fray for one ano~ ther, that ye may be healed. Where Bellarmine will have Faults, to denote all Faults whatfbever ; and the Con- feflion fpoken of, to be made only to fuch to whom (he faith) it ought to be made, vi*. to the Priefts. I anfwer; Tirfi, That thefe Words are by fome interpreted with relation to thofe Injuries Men do to one another, and then the meaning of them is, — That they who have injured one another, fhould freely acknowledg fuch their Offences, and beg Pardon for what they had done, heartily praying for one another, that fb they might be healed, i. e. either that the SicknefTes of their Minds might be done away by God's forgiving fuch, their Trefpafles upon their forgiving one another, or that their Corporal SicknefTes, which God had infli&ed upon them for fuch their injurious Behaviour, might be removed, and they reftored to their wonted healthful Condition. Secondly, That if the Apoftle's words are confidered as clofely connected to what went before ; then the faults here made mention of, are not only Injuries, but any Crimes whatfoever, which God in the begin- ning of the Church punifhed with Sicknefs ; and the being healed, denotes the miraculous Cure of fuch upon T 1 1 their - 47 8 Th* Texts examined which fa ft/Is cite their Repentance } and the praying for one another ', fig- nifies the Prayer of faith, i. e. the Prayer of ilich, who, from fome inward Infpiration, were allured that what they had prayed for, fhould certainly come to pafs. For the cafe in fhort was this : God in the beginning of the Church was wont to punifh feveral notorious and fcandalous Sinners with bodily Sicknefs (as is manifelt from i Cor. it, 30. For this caufe many are weak and fckly among yon, and many (leep.~) And the Apoftle St. James here direfts thole whom God had thus punifhed, to fend for the Elders of the Church, ver. 14. who were endued with a Power of working Miracles, ( Luke 9.1,2. Mark 6. 13. Jets 2. 43. ) and to acquaint them what they had been guilty of, which might give occafion to God thus to punifh them ; and if the Elders of the Church, from fbme inward Infpiration, underftood that God, by them, would work a miraculous Cure upon fuch who were Tick, they would then pray over them, anointing them with Oil, and the effect fhould imme- diately follow. Now is there not a great deal of difference betwixt publickly confeffing fome particular Faults upon fuch an occafion as this was, and when there was fuch a Power of healing in the Church, and the being con- ftantly obliged to confefs in private to the Priefr all Sins whatfbever ? But they, who, from anointing with Oil, which was nothing elfe but a Ceremony of the Gift of Healing, could fo eafily infer the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, are to be excufed if they have de- duced another Sacrament from what is in the fame place faid concerning Confeflion. Thirdly, for their Dotlrine of Auricular Confefsion. 47 0, Thirdly, That although the Words of St.Jawes may be thus interpreted with relation to what, went before ; yet they may be considered as a general Propofition, deduceable from what the Apoftle had difcourfed in the i^th and iyh Verfes, concerning thofe extraordinary Cures wrought by the Prayers of the blders upon fucli as were fick ; and that becaufe, 1. Here is nothing (aid concerning anointing with Oily which was only ufed when any extraordinary Cure was wrought. 2. Becaufe it isnotfaid, Confefs to the Elders, but to one another ; which is a general term, and takes in thofe of the Laity as well as thole of the Clergy. $. Becaufe there is annexed a known general Duty of praying for one another. Now if the worcls contain a general Propofition, and that the Apoftle, having fhown how prevalent the Prayers of good Men are in fbme cafes on the behalf of Penitents, does from thence take occafion to per- fwade all Chriftians to acknowledg their Faults to one another, that fo by their mutual Advice and Prayers for one another, they may be recovered of all their fpiritual Diftempers, of what kind fbever : there will ftill be lefs foundation in this PaiTage for the Doctrine of Auricular Confeifion. For then Bellar mine's forced Interpretation [ Confefs to one another, i. e. you who want Abfolution, to thofe who have power of giving it ] can never take place. But the Confeflion, here fpoken of, muft be mutual, of any good Chriftian to another : and it may as well be inferred from the latter Exhorta- tion, to pray for one another, that none but the Prieft Ttt 2 is 480 The Texts examined which Paplfts cite is to put up Prayers unto God for us, as from the former, that we are only to confefs to him. The laft Text in the New Teftament which Bel- larmine does more particularly infift upon, is that of St. John, 1 Joh. 1. 9. But if we confefs our Sins, be is faithful and juft to forgive us our Sins, and to cleanfe ns from all Vnrighteoufnefs. To which it may be replied : 1. That he himfelf is fb modeft as to aflert Sacra- mental Confeflion to be only probably inferred from this place. 2. That he grounds this Probability upon the Sup- pofition, that in the 20th of St.Jofrn, ver. 23. Whofe-jo- ever Sins ye remit, they are remitted, &c. Confeflion is determined to be of ablblute neceflity ; and therefore that when it is here faid, that God is faithful and juft, it is with refpedl: to the Promife by him there made, of pardoning all fuch who confefTed their Sins to the Prieft, and none elle ; whereas it has been fhown, the neceflity of Auricular Confeflion cannot be proved from that PafTage. 3. That the Confeflion, here fpoken of, is (according to the Interpretation of fome of the beft Popifh Com- mentators ) to God alone, and does denote not a par- ticular recital of all Sins whatfoever, but an humble acknowledgment (like that of the Publicans, Luk. 18. 13.) of having offended God, in oppofrtion to their Preemption, who (like the proud Pharifee, Luk. 18-. 11,12.) for their Dottrine of Juricular Confefsionl 481 11,12.) rely too much .upon their own Merits, and (as it is expreffed in the Verle precedent) fay they have 1 joh. 1. 8. no Sin. Having thus examined thofe Texts wherein Auricu- lar Confeffion is fuppofed to be directly proved, I might with good reafon pafs over fuch wherein it is de- clared to be only prefigured. 1. Becaufe Bellarmine himfelf confeffeth, that Argu- Bell, de ver- mentSy which carry any force or efficacy along with them, c°D" J^?* can be fetched only from the literal Senfe of the Scrip- venic inter tures. ' ftr°ios&e$dfol' 2. Becaufe when the thing it felf is not to be found ]Sie fen°u° in the Scriptures, it is to no purpofe to talk of its be- p«i debere ing prefigured. If neither thofe Texts which I have ^™entacffi" examined, nor any other, do clearly fhow Auricular Confeffion to be of Divine Inftitution, of what ufe can it be to appeal to other Scriptures for the finding out fome refemblances of it ■? But however, that all pretence of Argument from Scripture may be wholly removed, I fhall likewife briefly confider the feveral Figures of Auricular Con- feffion let down by Bellarmine, and from him bor- rowed by the Catholick Scripturifi, and other Popifh Writers. The firft Figure of Auricular Confeffion is fetched Belt de Pc*n. from Gen. 3. &" 4. where God is laid to require a Con- llb- 3- c- 3- feffion firft of Adam, and then of Cain, by an Angel, the Reprefentative of the Prieft under the Gofpel. I anfwer : The Confeffion, here fpoken of, was made only to God, and that the Voice of one walking in the 4$ i 1 he Texts examined which Vapijls cite the Garden {Gen. $.) faid by BelUrmine to be the Voice of an Angel, was the Voice of God : For it was the Voice of him who gave the Commandment Corn, a Lap. aDOUt not eating of the Tree of Life (ver. 1 1. ) and the Voice of him who gave the Woman to the Man,vcr.i 2. The fecond Figure is found in the i^th and i<\th Chapters of Levitictts, where the Leper coming to the Prieft to receive his Judgment, whether he were clean or no, isfuppofed to prefigure the Sinner's coming to ConfeiTion to the Prieit under the Gofpel. But there is a great difference betwixt thefe two. 1. Becaufe the Leper's coming was publick; but the ConfeiTion required is private. 2. Becaufe the Leprofie was but one particular Dif- eafe; whereas Auricular Confeflion is an enumeration of all Sins whatfoever. 3. Becaufe the Leprofie was vifible in the outward parts of the Body ; but Auricular Confeflion is not only of open and fcandalous Sins, but of the moft internal and fecret Faults. 4. Becaufe the Leper came for Judgment, whether he were clean or no ; but the Sinner who comes to Confeflion, comes to be made clean, /'. e. to be ab- folved. 5. Becaufe the Leper came when he himfelf was not certain whether he was infe&ed with the Leprofie or for their DoBrine of Auricular Confefsion. 48 > or no ; whereas in Auricular Confeflion, the Sinner is fuppofed to be confcious of the Sins which he is to confefs. 6. Becaufe the Priefts in the Old Teftament are Types not of the Minifters of the Gofpel, but of our Saviour, who is the Chiiftians only High-Prieft. The Third Figure is fetched from Numb. 5. 6. Speak unto the Children of Ifrael, When a Man or Wo- man (hall commit any Sin that Men commit, to do a Tref- pafs again ft the Lord, and that Per [on be guilty. Ver. 7. Then they jhall confefs their Sins, which they have done : and he Jhall recompence his Trefpafs with the principal thereof, and add unto it the fifth part thereof and give it unto him againjl whom he hath trefpajfed. I anfwer ; r. That it is not neceffary that every Ceremony or Paffage in the Old Teftament fhould prefigure fomething in the New: nor that if ConfefTion under the Gofpel were prefigured in this Paffage, it fhould be ConfefTion to any other but to Chrift alone, 2. That here is no mention made of a particular enu- meration of all Sins whatfbever. The Touch-fione of the Reformed Gofpel aflerts, that by conf effing their Sin, Pag« ??• is to be underftood their Sin in particular ; and we could agree with him, if by their Sin in particular he underftood (as he ought) that particular Sin whereby any one had injured his Neighbour, and not ail parti- cular Sins whatfbever-. The 4$ 4 ^e ^exts examme^ wkkb Tapifts cite The Catholick Scripturift inft anting in this PafTage for the proof of Auricular Confeflion, cries out, Be- pag- ln- hold Confefflon ! Behold Refutation ! Which laft words fhow that he fuppofed the Recommence here fpoken of, to be a Recofnpehce for feme Injury done ; and if fb, then has the Confeflion here fpoken of, refpeel: like- wife to fuch an Injury, and not to all manner of Sins of which any one happens to be guilty. The fourth Figure mentioned by Bellarmine, is in Mat. 5. 5, 6. then went out to him Jerufalem, and all judea, and all the Region round about Jordan, and were baptized of himy confeffing their Sins* I anfwer; 1. That Confeflion here fpoken of, is of fucu ^c were to be baptized ; but Auricular Confeflion is rc yuired of fuch as are already baptized, and therefore it may be as well inferred from hence, that Men are often to be baptized, as that they are often to confefs. 2. That this Confeflion was voluntary ; but Auri- cular Confeflion is declared to be of abfblute neceflity. 3. That this Confeflion was publick ; but Auricular Confeflion is private to the Prieft alone. 4. That by confefling their Sins, can be only meant an owning themfelves (as Ca]etan and other Popifh Commentators do affirm) to have been great Offenders ; it being impoflible to fuppofe that ever St. John Baptift could for their VOCtrim oj ziummar wnftjsion, 40 5 could have heard the particular ConfefTions of all fiich who came to his Baptifm. . The fifth and laft Figure is fetch'd from St. John, ch. 1 1 . 44- Loofe him (Lazarus) and let him go. Where Bellarmtne makes Lazarus his coming out of the Grave, to denote the Sinner's coming out of his Sins by Con- feflion ; and the loojing him, to exprels the Power of Absolution in the Prieft. I anfwer; 1. That Alphonfm de Capo having fhown that no proper Argument for Confeflion can be fetched from iheHiftory of fending the Lepers to the Prieft, adds simile eft i!- that the like may be [aid of what our Saviour fpofc to the {^o°refufci- Apoftles concerning Lazarus ; and that Maldonat, ano- caco, chriftus ther Popifh Writer, aflerts, that they do not build Sa- di^Apoftoiis, 1 ^ r rr l* 1 • r Solvice eum, & cramental Confeuion upon this place, /. e. upon the finite abire. Sand, but upuu thau other Pailage, Whofe-foever Sins ye Maldonac. in remit, they are remitted, &c. Ioc* 2. That our Saviour's Words do properly denote nothing elfe but the untying thofe Grave-Cloaths wherewith Lazarus, having been dead and buried, was bound; and although an ingenious Fancy may apply them to Confeflion and Abfolution of Sins, yet this does not prove either of them (efpecially as pra&ifed in the Church of Rome) to be of Divine Inftitution. ♦ 3. That our Saviour fpoke not only to his Apoftles, but likewife to other Standers-by, who by untying V V v Laza- 4 86 The Texts examined which Tapifts cite Lazarus, were to be WitnefTes of the Miracle wrought by him : and therefore if Abfolution is here prefigured ; it is prefigured to be in the People as well as in the Prieff, and every private Perfon may from hence be concluded to have a Power of remitting the Sins of thofe who confels to him. Having thus confidered all the moft material PafTages, which the Defenders of the Church of Rome infift upon for the proof of Auricular Confeflion, I fhall con- clude with thefe following Obfervations. Firfi, That befides fuch Writers of that Church, who (as we have obferved ) do deny the feveraL Gerhard. PafTages before-mentioned to have any relation to Au- Gonfeff. each, ricular£onfeffion, there are others of the fame Com- i. 2. par. 2. munion, who have pofitively declared that it cannot Daiiusde4' De proved from the Word of God; as the G/offator, Auric Confefc JSJuolaus de Orbellis, Scotm, Gabriel, &c. p. iz. Secondly, That whereas they of the Church of Rome do Co extravagantly commend thofe who come to Con- fefTion, and make it part of the Character of the moft vertuous Perfbns ; there is no inftance of fuch kind of Penitents in Scripture, neither are any there corn-- mended upon any fiich account. Thirdly, That St. Paul, who gives Directions all moft concerning every thing relating to the Church, gives no Directions either about making ConfefTions to- the Prieftj or his receiving them. fourthly,. Fourthly, That there are in- the Scriptures many places which do plainly declare Confeflion to God to be fufficient, as well as Inftances of fuch as have had JJ* l6> *7' their Sins forgiven them upon their Repentance, Ezek. 18. without a particular enumeration of all their Faults, 21»&c* as in the cafe of the Prodigal Son, Luke 15. 18. of ZjcJj£tts, Luke 19. 8. of the Woman that was a Sinner,, Luke 7. 48> &c- THE END. L 0 N D 0 N, Printed by % D. for Richard Chifwel at the Rofe and Crown ' in St. Paul's Church-Yard, 1688. (48? ) The Texts examined which Papijis cite out of the Bible for the Proof of Their Do&rine o F SATISFACTIONS. PARTI. IMPRIMATUR. Jug. 1 6. 1688. Guil. Needham. THE Church of Rome having advanced a cer- tain Doctrine of Satisfactions , which they maintain to be founded upon feveral Places of Holy Scriptures, the defign of fbme fol- lowing Pages is to obferve the meaning of thofe Pla- ces, and whether they be a fuflicient Foundation of fiich a Doctrine. But for the better Advantage of this Defign, that I may perform it with more Perfpicuity, I (hall diicourfe of thefe Satisfactions in fbme latitude, and explain fbme things that are previous, and in order to a right ftating of thole Scriptures which are brought for the proof of them, X x x I. I 490 Ihe Texts examined which fapifls cite I. I fhall give an account of this Doctrine of-Safcfar clionS) as it is afferted in the Roman Church. II. I fhall obferve the Grounds and Arguments it is founded upon. III. That thefe being removed, or there being no Sa- tisfactions for fuch Purpofes, as they maintain them, I fhall obferve the Reafon of Afflictions, and voluntary Chaftifements or Penances, which are the Matter of Satisfactions, in the Church. IV. And fo come in the fourth place, to explain thofe Texts of Scripture which they produce for this Do- ctrine. V. And, laftly, fhew the Original of it, when it began, and was effablifhed in the Church. I. To give an account of this Doctrine of Satisfacti- ons, which is this, That God, upon the exercife of a true Repentance, through the Mercy of his own Na- ture, and the Satisfaction of Chnift's Sufferings, remits the Guilt, and eternal punifhment of Sin ; but leaves a Debt of fome Temporal Pains to be undergone by us, which we are to expiate, and fatisfy for, either in the Afflictions of humane Life (as they are the Difpenfati- onsof Divine Providence) or in fbme undue Performan- ces, and voluntary Penances of our own ; which if we do not, they ftill remain upon us as a neceiTary Suffering in the other State. And by thefe Afflictions, or in thefe Penances, they affirm, that we can truly fatisfy for the temporal Penalties of our Sins, which are ftill retained, or required from us after the Remillion of their eternal Punilhment. Now all this is to be underftood in refpect of fuch Sins as are committed after Baptifm j for thofe that are ante for their DoElrine of Satisfattions. 4« i antecedent to that are wholly cancelled thereby in that fuller Application of Chrift's Sufferings ; and thofe Per- fbns that immediately die, after the Benefit of that Sa- crament, as they are capable of no punifhment in this Life, fo they are fecure from the Purgatory of another in the notion of thefe Authors. As if Remiffion of Sins, and the Application of Chrift's Sufferings did not belong to a true Repentance, without which even Bap- tifm it felf of adult Perfbns would fignify nothing ) (^2.38. & l, 19.) This is the Sum of the Roman Doctrine in this Par- ticular : The ProfelTors of that Church very nicely di- fringuifh the punifhment of Sin into Temporal and E« ternal, the latter of which they affirm to be remitted to all true Penitents through the Efficacy of Chrift's Sacri- fice ; but the former to be payed and fatisfied for in their own Perfbns. This Do&rine hath a general Content to it, although they differ in fbme certain Notions and Definitions about it, fome maintaining that the Guilt of Sin, or the Of- fence of the Divine Majefty is remitted through Con- trition alone, or in the Benefit of Abfolution added there- to, and that the eternal Punifhment in the Virtue of the Keys is changed into a Temporal, which Works of Sa- tisfaction are neceffary to the Difcharge and Removal of. Others think that both the Guilt and Eternal Punifh- ment are remitted through Contrition, but that an Ob- ligation ftill remains to fome Temporal punifhment in the order of the Divine Mercy, which the Gofpel-Mi- nifters in the Authority of their Prieftly Office can re- mit one part of, and injoin fome Penances as a Satisfa- ction for the other. X x x 2 Now 49 1 The Texts examined which Papifls cite Now fbme diftinguifh in Sin, between the Offence thereof, or Averfion from God ; and inordinate Appe- tite, or Converfion to the Creature : and for the firft they fay, being infinite, as it refpedts, or is an Affront of an infinite Majefty, none can fatisfy but the Man Chrift Jefiis ; and therefore this is only forgiven thro' the Faith of him, and his Performance on our behalf ; but for the other, which is only a finite thing, every Per- fbn may fatisfy in his own Action,through the Affiftance of the holy Spirit which enables him thereto. . And as to the Efficacy of thefe Satisfactions, fbme modeftly affirm that they only apply the infinite Satis- , faction of Chrift to us, and are effectual as they are joined through Faith to his Paffion. Others maintain that they have no Value from Chrift's Paffion, which they would not have in their own Nature, though the Influence they are performed by, were obtained in a- nother Means, or Conveyance to us. However 'tis their general Doctrine that they are equivalent in themfelves to the Temporal Penalties due to Sin, and obtain in a commutative manner, the Re- miffion of them, as they are acted from the Graces of the Holy Spirit, which being an infinite Principle in our Souls, makes the Performances that derive from them, fully anfwerable to the Demerit of Sin, and & proper Satisfaction on our part for it. Now it is obfervable, that the Council of Trent, which is now the Canon of the Roman Church, deter- mines nothing amongthefe Niceties of School-Authors, but only affirms in a general manner, that a Temporal Punifhment is frill due to Sin, after its Guilt, and eter- nal Punifhment is cancelled in refpect to Chrift's Me- rits, which mult be undergone either in the Chaftife- ments of this Life, as they are inflicted by Divine Provi- dence, for their DoEtrine of Satisfattions. ^p, dence, or fbme undue Works, and voluntary Penances upon our (elves ; or elfe it remains upon us as a necefla- ry Debt in another World, which we muft pay to Di- vine Juftice, before we can enter into the BlefTednefs of that State ; but that by a patient fufFerance of outward Afflictions, or Works of Penance upon our feives, wc can fully fatisfy the Juftice of God through the Merits of our Saviour, and redeem that temporal penalty, or obtain a compleat Remiflion of the whole punifhment and Guilt of Sin. And therefore thefe Satisfactions, as they are defined by Afflictions, or Works of Penance ; fb they are called Compenfations of the Divine Offence, and accounted not only as proper Remedies of ill Ha- bits, or Prefervatives againft frefh Mifcarriages after- Concii. Trid; wards ; but punifhments of paft Sins in order to the for- $e |5f . B.elL givenefs and pardon of them. And that by this Means d fi>^66@. in the Help of Divine Grace we can purchafe that Pardon, Exam- P- 2- P- or fully fatisfy, by way of equivalence, for the temporal 2°6' penalties of our Sins. And not only lb, but that we may Edi. ibid. cap. perform more than is neceflary upon that account, or *• found an Overplus of Satisfactions, which through the Communion, or intimate Relation of Chriitian People, they all being Members of one Spiritual Head, may be applied to the Advantage of others ; upon which account the Saints may be called our Redeemers, as they deli- ver us from the Debt of temporal Punifhment by the payment of it themlelves, according to BelUrminc, lib, i. cap. 48. de IndtUg. Now this Doctrine does fuppofe many things : 1 . That Sin is not wholly pardoned altogether as to both Guilt and Punifhment ; but fome part of the Pe- nalty due thereto ftill remains after the Pardon or Re- miflion of it. 2. That 404 3$i? Texts examined which Vapifts cite 2. That we can add to our Chriftian Duty, and ar- rive at a flate of Vertuc above the Precept, or perlbi.m undue, Works, and more than is requifite, upon the ac- count of our former Sins. And, 3,. That thefe Performances, or undue Works, can fa- tisty the Divine Juftice for the Remains of Temporal punifhment due to Sin after its Pardon and Forgivenef^, through the Efficacy of Chrift's Sufferings : Nay that they ean fatisfy in fuch an abundant manner as may be communicated to the benefit of other People. i. Now as to the firfr of thefe, that certain Tempo- ral Pains or Punifhments are ftill left as a juft penance after the remiflion of- Sin as to its Guilt and eternal Pa- nifhment. This is, flrft, contrary to the Gofpel-Covenant in .the Sacrifice of our Saviour ; Heb. 8. 12. I mil be merci- ful to their Vnrighteoufneffes, and their Sins, and their Iniquities will I remember no more ; that is, upon the term of a true Repentance, and in the fpecial means of applying Chrift's Benefits, the Laver of Baptifm, and Regeneration, their Sins will I remit, as fb many can- celled and difcharged Debts, and deal with them as if they had perfifted perfectly innocent, or never been guilty of Mn at all ; according to the Doctrine of St. refer. to the obftinate Jews, Acts 2. 38. Repent and be baptized every one of you, in the Name of Jefm Chrift, for the remtjfion of Sins. And we may be convinced of the latitude of our par- don from God by thofe Scriptures, Where our bins are compared to Debts, upon which account we are laid to be Debtors, and the remiflion of them is deno- ted by the remiflion of a Debt, as Matth. 18. 15, 14. In the Parable of a King that would reckon with his Servants, where, upon the humble entreaty of one of them, for their Doctrine of Satis faBions, 405 them, 'tis (aid, That his Lord was moved with Compani- on, and forgave him the Debt. And Mat. 6. 9. that Pe- tition in our Lord's Prayer is thus expreffed, Forgive us our Debts, as we forgive our Debtors. Now as we can- not imagine that he anfvvers this Precept, or the quali- fication of Forgivenefs at God's Hands, who remits a part of his Brother's Trefpaffes, and revenges or dial-; lenges a Recompenee for the reft, but that a plenary Remiflion is injoined hereby, that we receive our of- fending Brethren into all the Beneficence or kind effects of Christian Charity; fo neither can we interpret the Divine Mercy concerning a part of our Offences, when God declares in an indefinite manner, that he will for- give us our Debts, or that he does forgive them in regard to Chrift's Sufferings, according to the Apoftle, Col. }. 5 2. where he alfo fets forth our Chriftian Duty by way of Simile, Be ye kind one to another, tender-hearted, for- giving one another, even as God for Chrijfs fake hath forgiven you. Now as Forgivenefs denotes the remov- ing of the Punifhment, fb that cannot fupport the Ro- man Doctrine, which they commonly fay, that God forgives the greateft part of the punifhment of Sin in regard to what he requires of us according to the Relati- on of eternal and temporal pains to one another, fee- ing thexQ is no mention of this in the Revelation of God's Word, which is the only meafure of our Know- ledg concerning the Mercy and free Emanations of the Divine Nature \ and feeing this derogates from the per- formance of our Saviour, and leaves but one part of our Redemption to him, whofe purchafe it wholly is, and whom it does intirely belong to ; (of which more after- wards.) Nor is this reconcileable to the ordinary Acception, and cuiloni of Speech among Men, to remit any thing, and a n^ The Texts examined which tPapifts cite yet demand the folution of one half of it ; as it is in- confiftent with the ufe of thofe Words which the Scrip- tures expfefs this thing by, which fignify freely to par- don without any thing of equivalent, or compenfation thereto, (jagioroSa/) and to put away or remove from one, (acfjeroc/) or when it pafTes into a third Perfbn j liber are debitorem per accept ilationem & dicere acceptum fero ; to fet free a Debtor by an Acquittance, wherein the Creditor does declare that he is fatisfied as much as if he had received the full paiment. This is the accep- tion of the Word among prophane Authors, and may be beft explained as to its importance among the Pen- men of the holy Scriptures, by St. John, where he joins this with the oppofite Word (n^Tev) to hold or retain, chap. 20. 23. Whofe foever Sins ye remit, they are remit* ted unto them ', and whofe foever Sins ye retain, they are retained ; that is, thofe Perfbns whom ye the Apoftles rightly receive into the Communion of the Churchy upon the profeffion of a true Faith, and Repentance of their pall Sins, they fhall partake of all the Advantages and Priviledges thereof, Remiflion of Sins, a more plentiful influence of God's Spirit and eternal Happi- nefs, afterwards ; and thofe Perfbns whom ye exclude from that Communion, as truly wanting a Chriftian Habit in their Minds, fball Mill remain under the con- fluence of their Sins, both in this and the other World. And thofe other Places of holy Scripture, which de- clare the pardon of Sin to be a gratuitous and free thing, cannot be accommodated to this Do£trine, as Rom.3.24. We are jujlified freely by his Grace, through the Redemp- tion that is in Chrifi Jefus. And Eph. 1.7. We fiave Re- demption through his Blood, the remijjion of Sins, accor- ding to the Riches of his Grace ', that is, our Sins are free- ly pardoned in the Benignity of the Divine Nature, through for their Doctrine of Satisfactions 4p7 through tne Ranfom of our bleiTed Saviour ; bat how can that be gratuitous and free, or what Relation has it to the Benignity of the Divine Nature, when we fuffer half of the Punifhment due to Sin, and as it were, pur- chafe it by that Means ? ' And thofe Exprellions among the Prophets, of God's blotting out Tranfgrefjions as a thick Cloud, when foe ver any truly repents of them, //*. 4$. 25. 8^44. 22. his fubduing our Iniquities , and cafiing our Sins into the depths of the Sea, Micah 7. 19. Pfal. 103. 12. his promifing Life to the penitent Sinner, whatfbever his Mifcarria- ges have been before: Thefe cannot confift with an Obli- gation ftill left to fbme Penalties for paft Sins, but rauft needs import a full exemption from all Sufferings, by rvay of Punifhment, upon that account, as well temporal as eternal, either of which are not reconcilable to fuch Expreflions, nor would it be a blotting out Tranfgrefji- ons, where fome of the Punifhment is Ifill retained. And more exprefly, as a refutation of this Doctrine, Rom. 8. 1. There is no Condemnation to them that are in Chrijl Jeftts, who walk not after the Flejh, but after the Spirit ', that is, thofe who endeavour in an honeft com- pliance with Divine Grace, to fiibdue their carnal Af- fections, and follow the Dictates of their Spirits, and the more certain Suggeftions of the Spirit of God, as thofe are difplayed upon that Principle, and interming- led or blended with it ; fuch Perfons, although they be guilty of many Mifcarriages, asthe^neceflary Refults of humane Infirmity, yet in the efficacy of ChrifPs Sacrifice they fhall be fully acquitted and difcharged therefrom, fo as no Condemnation fhall enfue, nor any punifhment temporal or eternal. This is the notion of the Words,that thro the means of Chrift's Sufferings,we are refcued from the penalties of our Sins, and this Be- Y y y nefit 40$ 1he Texts examined which fapijls cite nefit is only applied to thofe Perfbns that purfue a Gof- pel-Life, and are only chargeable with the lapfes of humane Nature, or truly repent of deliberate Sins. And thofe following Words have the fame importance, ver. 34. Who is he that condemneth? ^titCbrttt that died) or rather that is rifen again ', that is, 'tis an unreafonable thing to condemn or adiudg to any punifhment the pi- ous Profeffors of Chrift's Name, 'feeing he has furferetf upon their account, and payed the price of their Re- demption. And 'tis a more plain Affirmation of our Impunity, as alio of the Means by which it was purchafed, and acquired for us, that of the Apoftle in two parallel pla- ces, Gal. 3. 13. Chriji hath redeemed us from the Cnrfe of the Law f being made a Qurfe for us : And God hath made him to be Sin for us, who knew no Sin, that we might be made the Righteoufnefs of God in him ; that is, the Death and Sufferings of the Man Chrift Jefus being fb righteous as he was to the utmoft rigour of the Law, were upon our account, to redeem us thereby from the juft demerits and ftipend of our Sins, that he being treated as a finful Man, we fhould be confidered upon the exercife of a true Repentance, notwithstanding the many Failures we are guilty of, as righteous Per- fbns, and wholly acquitted from the penalties due to them. For if there fhould be any remainder of fb much *. as a temporal punifhment unremoved by this Mediation of our Saviour, it could not be faid in an indefinite manner, that he hath redeemed us from the Qurfe, or that we were made the Righteoufnefs of God in him. And purfuant to this purpoleis that other place of the Apoftle, Rom. 5. 1. Therefore being jn (lifted by Faith, we have Peace with God through our Lord jefus Chrifl ; that is, being arrived at the due Improvement ofaQhrifii- for their DoFlrine of Satis f aft ions, 40^ An Faith, fuch as belongs to the farther Difcoveries or Revelation of the Gofpel, which will carry us to a higher advancement of Holinels of Life, as we are poC- felled of a higher degree and proportion of it ; we be- ing arrived at this Chriftian Faith, the molt powerful inducement of a vertuous Convention, fhall be refcu- cd from the penalty of our part Sins, or have Peace with God, through the Atonement of his Son, and be no longer in a ftate of Difpleafure or Enmity with him. Ail theie places plainly manifelt that when we have arrived at the qualifications of Forgivenels, according to the tenour of the Gofpel-Covenant, we are fully ex- empt from all Sufferings upon the fcore of former Sins, and have no remains of any fort of Punifhment to be undergone by us, the whole guilt and the whole punifh- ment being both remitted and relaxed together. And,moreover, as it would argue Infincerity and Un- faithfulnefs in God to deal with us lb exprefly contrary to his own Declarations in his holy Word, lb it would likewile be a plain repugnancy'to his Juftice. He has been gracioufly plealed to confirm and ratify a New Co- venant with Mankind in his Son, in which he has pro- mifed upon certain terms of Faith and Repentance, to constitute him a Sacrifice for us, and transfer the punifh- ment of our paff. Sins to him, or indemnify us through his Sufferings : Of which we find an exprefs account in many places of holy Scripture ; thus in that particular Prophecy to this purpole, If a. 5 5. 4, 5, 6- Surely he hath born our Griefs., and carried our Sorrows ; he was wounded for our Tranfgreflions, he was bruifed for our Iniquities ; the chaftifement of our Peace was upon him, and with his Stripes we are healed, &c. the Lord has laid on him the Ini- quity of us all : and ver. 12. He was numbred with the Tranfgrefforsy and he bare the Sin of many, &c. part of ^ Y y y 2 which <.oo T^>e Texts eximinzd which Papifts cite which is cited by St; Peter, i Epift. 2. 24. His own felf b*re our Sins in his own Body on the Tree, that we being dead to Sin, might live unto Righteoufnefs, by whofe Stripes we are healed. And fb the Apoftle to the Hebrews, chap. 9. 28. Chrift was once offered to bear the Sins of many. And Chrijl hath once fnffered for Sins, the Jufl for the Vn- juft, 1 Pet. 5.18. And he is defcribed by the Baptift, the Lamb that taketh away the Sins of the World, Joh. 1. 29. And in thofeplaces mentioned before, He was made a Cur/e for us, and he was made Sin for us ; that is, ac- cording to the Idiotifm of the Hebrew Language, he- was a Sacrifice for our Sins. Now then our Ranfom being paid in Chrift, or he having fufFered the fult demerit of our Sins in our room, as having no foun- dation of Sufferings in his own Perfbn, we are fully ac- quitted from that Debt, if we only perform thofe terms,' which in the difpenfation of the Divine Wifdom apply thofe Sufferings to our account, or transfer the benefit thereof to us ; and it would be an Inftance of Injuftice to require a Satisfaction of penitent Sinners for their paft Mifdemeanours, as it would be for a Creditor to demand that Debt from any Perfon, which his Surety had dilcharged before either in kind or in fomething elfe of a higher value. And then this depreciates the infinite paiment and fa- tisfa£tion of Chrift, if there be ftill fbme temporal pains left to us upon the fcore of former Sins, which we muft fuftain in our own Perfbns after a true Repen- tance of them, then Chrift did redeem us but in part, and did not wholly- fatisfy for us, which muft either be chargeable on the Divine purpofe; and fb would be a plain Collufion in the God of Truth, or on the InefH- cacy of Chrift's Sufferings, as if they were infufficient to compenfate. the Divine Juftice, or to purchafe our Im- punity for their D ottnne' of Satis faSlions. ,Ql punity, and fome Satisfactions of our own were to be joined with them to render them adequate upon that account. But then they fay that Chrift immediately fatisfied for the eternal punifhrnent and guilt of Sin, and imme- diately for temporal pains likewife, in as much as he ob- tained fueh an infl jence of Divine Grace, by which ws may fatisfy ourown felves. Which Doctrine, as a fuller evidence of the Abfurdi- ty of it, afcribes this Satisfaction to the Perfbn of the Father as his Act, who was the Object thereof, or whom it was offered as an Atonement to, in as much as he be- ing the Root of the Divine Nature did communicate^ . by an eternal Emanation, thofe Powers to Chrift, which enabled him to fatisfy for us. But if it mult be afcribed to Chrift who performed that bitter Inftance, or as him- felf fpeaks in the Prophet, who trode the Wine-frefs a* lone of the Wrath of God, Ifa.63.3. then it is a dan- gerous thing thus to diminifh the ineftimable Value of his Sufferings, and deprive him of the Merit of one half of them by a facrilegious reference to our felves ; which would induce one to believe no Satisfaction at all, and fo detain one under the horror of his Sins, or prevent the happy confidence of remiflion of them, and the Sav- ing Graces of God's Spirit to enable him againft them for the time to come. And it is alfb bold and venturefbmto affert fuch a Dc- ctrine as has no fupportin holy Scripture, there being no-whereany mention there of this half-Satisfaction, or that Chrift fatisfied for the whole Guilt of our Sins, but • not the whole punifhrnent of them ; but tbat he univer- fally fuffered for Sin, and entirely diffolved the Obliga- tion thereof. The Apoftle fays, Col. 2. 14. That he blotted out the Hrad-wtiing of Ordinances again (I #*, nhicb «oi The Texts examined which fapijls cite which was contrary to us, and took it away, nailing it to the Crofs. But if a company of temporal punifhments ftill remain to be fatisfied for in our own Perfons, which were not expiated in Chrift's Sufferings, then the Hand- writing is ftill unremoved, and in force againft us. But moreover there are feveral Abfurdities in this Do- ctrine upon their own Principles ; firft, that venial Sins, as they ftile fbme, only having a temporal Punifhment belonging to them, which muft always be fuffered and fatisfied tor in our own Perfons, are not included in Chrift's Sacrifice, and fiich Perfons as are only guilty of thofe, have no benefit there-from as to the Pardon ob- tained by it : which is a direct repugnancy to the Apo- ftle, i John 1.7. If we walk in the Light as he is in the Light y the Blood of Chrijl Jefus cleanfeth us from all Sin \ that is, every Sin is acquitted and pardoned to us thro' him upon a due difpofal, and qualification in our felves. And they maintain, that Sin is wholly remitted and pardoned in Baptifm, both as to the Guilt and Punifh- ment of it : which is a flat Contradiction to their other AfTertion, that we muft fatisfy our felves for fbme part of the punifhment of Sin, notwithstanding the infinite Payment and Satisfaction of Chrift ; for the efficacy of Baptifm does wholly derive from Chrift's Satisfaction, and we partake of nothing in that Sacrament, but what is the Purchafe and Influence thereof, and therefore fee- ing the temporal pains of thofe Sins, that were acted before, are remitted in Baptifm ; it plainly follows,even upon their Principles, that Chrift's Satisfaction is appli- 1 cable to the whole penalty of Sin, and no portion there- of is left und^fcharged by it. But 'tis the fate of an er- roneous Doctrine, that one always falls into contradicti- on in the Defence thereof , which Truth alone, from the Uniformity it carries.toall the Parts and Branches of it, can fecure us from. And for their DoRrine of Sails faBions, 502 And whereas they affirm that Chrift fatisfied for the eternal punifhment of Sin, and that mortal Sins have only fuch belonging to them. This would make the cir- cumftance of fuch Perlbns, who have been guilty of thefe, after Repentance, and the Application of Chrift's Sufferings in the Sacrament, much better, than what is the Portion of lefs Offenders, which is Confutation e- nough only to mention. But then fbmetimes they fay,to falve this. (with what confiftency let themfelves confider) that although God requires a certain punifhment, either here, or in Purga- tory, from the trueft Converts, yet he exchanges an im- menfe Debt for a Tittle Sum, and only inflicts fbme tem- porary Sufferings for eternal Mifery. This indeed, if he fhould do of his own Benignity, as it was to accept of a Surety and Mediator for us at the firff, without any Paiment or Solution made, would have been an In fiance of great Grace ; but feeing he has accepted of a Surety, and the whole account is cancelled in him, he cannot* rightfully challenge any fhareor portion of it over again ; andthefmalnelsof the Challenge dees not at all help the matter, feeing^tis the fame Injuftice although lefs Inju- ry, to demand a parcel only where all was dilcharged and paid before, as to infift on the whole Sum. And if this befo contrary to the Juftice of God, it is much more fb to the benignity and immenfe Goodnefs of- his Nature. For feeing the Scriptures every-where teach us (as they alfo confefs themfelves) that God, through the performance of our blefted Saviour, is no more an angry Judg, but a compaiTionate and loving Father, and that bis Love does far exceed the ftrongeft ' Affection in human Nature of Parents to their Children, t(jis being abundantly with more concern in him, aItho-> devoid of Fondneis 8t Pamon,it cannot be imagined how ilut V04 Tfo Texfr examined which Tapifts cite ^ that unufual Severity fhould confift with that ftrength , of Affection ; that he who has remitted eternal Death to us moft deferving of it, fhould yet require thofe Pe- nalties from us which are inconfiftent with the notion of remiffion of Sins, or which, if the Offence be forgi- ven through the Merit of Chrift's Sacrifice, we are no ways under the Obligation of. Thus the Doctrine of fome remains of temporal Punish- ments, after the pardon of Sin, as to its Guilt and eter- nal Confequence, is exprefiy contrary to abundance of Places of holy Scripture, which being a matter of God's • free Bounty, is only to be known & obferved therefrom. It is alio repugnant to the Divine Juft ice to demand a Debt twice over that in our own Acl: and Performance, which was already fatisfied for by the great Oblation of Chrift Jefus for the Sins of the whole World. It alio depreciates the infinite Value of this Oblation, when it is not allowed to extend to the whole demerit of 1 our Sins, but we muff atone for one part of it in our own Perfbns. 'Tis likewife inconfiftent with the Fatherly Affecti- ons, and Kindnefsof God through Chrift Jefus, to pu- - nifli thofe whom he has admitted to Reconciliation and Friendfhip in regard to his Sufferings. From'all which it plainly follows, that there is no referve of temporal Pu- nifhment left to Sin after the pardon and forgivenefs of it, through the Efficacy of Chrift's Sufferings, and the qua- lification of a true Repentance on our part, which was the firft ground of the Duclxine of Satisfactions. The fecond is that we canfupercrogate with God; . tliat is, that we can arrive at a ftatc of Vertue a- bo've the Precept and Obligation of our Chriftian ■Duty, or perform undue Works, and fuffer more than the demerit of our former Sins. Which we fhall find for their VoElrine of Satis faftiom. 50 j find quite impofiible both in refpefl: of Jtfion, and Sufferings. As to the former, the entire ufe of all our Faculties belongs to him, from whom we received them, or who made and framed us in thele admirable Advantages of reafbnable Creatures j there is nothing that we can per- form or do, that can exceed fuch great Obligations on our Side, the utmoft effort of our reafbnable Povvers in his Service, and to his Glory is no more than a juft Gra- titude, or equitable difcharge of our (elves to him, nor is this above our Chriftian Rule, or the exprefs definiti- on of our Chriftian Duty ; Mar. 12. $0. Thou /bait love the Lord thy God with all thy Heart, arfd with all thy Soul> and with all thy Mind, and with all thy Strength. Which Love of God as it contains all Chriftian Vertues as to its latitude (jfo/w 14. 15. &21.23. iJohn2.$. & 5. 3.) fb being expreffed in fuch a manner, does declare the higheft degree and advancement thereof. And 1 Pet. 1.15. Be ye holy in all manner of Converfationy as he who hath called you is holy. From which two Places we may in- fer thatthofe who are commanded to exert themfelves up- on God in fuch a manner, in the utmoft ftrefsof all their Faculties, Underftanding, Will, and rational AfTecti- on, and are alfb enjoined to approach the great Exem- plar of all Holinefs, as near as they can in a careful imi- tation and conformity thereto, they are obliged by way of Precept to the higheft perfection and degree of Ver- tue, according to the capacity of humane Nature. In- deed the advancement of our Vertues is not juft the fame height to all People, but muft be fuppofed of a great la- titude in regard to the feveral Tempers of Mankind, which being in fuch a difference as they are, make it impoflible that all mould attain to the fame Perfection, as to the matter of their Vertues, or conqueft of them- Z z z felves, 506 The Texts examined which Tapifls eke felves. Though they may advance as far upon their Temper, having a greater ftrength of animal Affection to combate withal, yet they do not all ftand in the fame elevation or degree of holy Habit with one another. And this difference in our felves of the force of the ani- mal Affections in different Perfbns will explain thofe Texts of Scripture which the Romania's bring for the proof of undue Works, and refute fuch a Doctrine, as Mat. 19. 10, ii, 12. the plain Interpretation of which is, that thofe Perfbns in whom the incitements of Flefli and Blood are lefs prevalent ; fo that they may the more eafily obtain a Conqueft of them m a due guard of themfelves, and the proper means of reducing their Bo- dies into a managable Habit, conftant Temperance, fre- quent Falling, and the ufe of intenfe Prayer to fupply the defects of our own Strength, by a more liberal In- fluence of Divine Grace ; thofe that can attain this in the better Advantages of Temper or Grace that they may have to this purpofe, upon which account they'I be more delivered from the entanglements of this World, and in a better freedom for the exercifes of Religion ; as St. Paul acquaints us, 1 Cor. 7. they feem to have a Precept to this freer fhte of holy Celibacy, ver. 1 2. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it, and not only counfel or advife thereto. And that other Place, which they explain of a volun- tary Poverty, concerning the young Man, Mat. 19. 21. Go, fell all thou haft, and give to the Poor, has this Leffon and meaning in it, that we fhould be confrantly affect- ed to relinquifh our whole Effates, whenfbever they hinder us in any inftance of a ChiifHan Vertue, that we cannot exprefs becaufe of them, a due Obedience to any Doctrine of our Saviour : When we obferve too great an adherence to thefe things, that our Affecti- ons for their DoBrine of Satisfattions. 507 ons are too deeply engaged in them, and our dependance fetled upon them, fo that they exclude a due Faith and Truft inGodjOrourneceffary compliance with fomedif- coveries of his Will to us. This is the fame importance with that other place, to take up our Crofs, and follow Chrift, and is a Precept ftill to all Chriftians in the Suf- ferings of the Church, or in times of Perfecution for the Truths fake, that we renounce our temporal Enjoyments when they Itand in competition with that, and we can- not jointly preferve both. Indeed as to the inftance of Chriftian Charity we ought to give liberally in a conftant reliance on God's Providence, and the Reward of eternal Glory at the lair, according to our Saviour, Luke 6. 38. Give, andit jhall be given yon, &c. But we ought to obferve a certain proportion according to the Store we are blelfed withal, lb as to referve a due Competency for our lelves, fuch as may anfwer the Conveniences of Life, without any pro virion for the Luxuries of it ; as the Apoftle advifes, that others be not eafed, and we burdened, 2 Cor. 8.1 $. This is the Doclxine of the Place, that we ought to relinquifh all, either in cafe of an exprefs Command to. this thing, or by way of confequence, when there is fuch an Incompetency between the holding of our E-. {fates, and the Profeffion of any Gofpel-Truth, that we cannot retain or enjoy both of them. So that it is a Precept ftill in its true Relation, as it denotes a tran- fcendent Love and Affection to Chrift above all things elfe, and not a ftateof voluntary Poverty, which may often prevent us of an A£t of Beneficence, when we thus diveft our felves of the capacity of it. And altho the Romanifts frequently boaft of their many Examples of a voluntary Poverty, yet they always in fo much wiidom part with their Poileflions, as to procure a cer- Z z z 2 tain 5 o 8 The Texts examined which Tapifts cite * B; wring tain Subfiftence in fbme way or other *, and not be cafl ^lb$tiSfeTh uPon ^ie un^een Supplies of Divine Providence by that means ; and they alio afcribe fuch a Merit to them, and make fuch Challenges thereupon from Divine Juftice, that they are rather inftances of fpiritual Pride than true Humility, and fo cannot be thought to have fuch a Per- fection or Reward in them. And then if we confider the definition of our Duty in a farther latitude,thePreceptsof God are in fuch a degree;& prefcribe fuch an abfblute Per- fection of our Behaviour, that in this prelent compofure of Flefh and Blood we can never attain or reach to it. To love our Enemies, fo as to have no intention of Re- venge to them, or be hindred in any Inftances of Bene- ficence towards them, when it happens in our way : And to love our Neighbours as our [elves , to be indiffe- rently affected to the PolTeffions of this World, fo that we can be contented with our own Portion and meafiire of them whatever it be ; or part with them all m the defence of a righteous Caufe, not to entertain a motion of Concupifcence in our Hearts, or the fancy of any o- ther thing, which being performed and brought into Action, would be a Sin. Thefe are fuch heights and ad- vancements of Vertue as we can never alcend to, much left exceed and lay a Merit of Supererrogations, Or un- due Performances thereupon. j And as to the lecond thing, that we can fuffer more either in the chaftifements of Divine Providence which we patiently fubmit to ; or in voluntary Inflictions up- on our felves, than the demerit of our Sins, fb as to be a Satisfaction for them, or a Treafure for thofe of other People, will appear very abfurd, when we confider the abominable Nature and Defert of Sin, the infinite Ma- jefty, and the infinite Goodnels, and the infinite Afli- france of divine Grace, which in the higheft Inftance of for their VoBrine of Satisfactions. «oo of Ingratitude, it is committed and a£led againft. And that there is no Equivalency in the Sufferings of this Life, to the Reward of Heaven, fo as to purchafe it, either for our ielvcs, or other People, the Apoftle gives us his Opinion, Rom. 8. 18. I reckon that the Sufferings of this prefent time are not worthy to be compared, with the Glory which jba.ll be revealed in us. Thus having proved that we are not capable of undue Performances, or Inftances of Vertue above the Rules of our Chriftian Duty, nor that we can fufferin an ag- gravated manner above the Debt of our Sins, which quite removes the Ground of Satisfactions, both for our felves, and other People : I might flop here as to any further Purfuit of this Matter; Yet becaufethey ex- prefly affirm that juft ified Perfons can fatisfy for the tem- poral Pains left to Sin after the Remiflion of eternal Pu- nishment, I fhall a little further confider this Doctrine. EdL de Peni^ In Confutation of which we may obferve thatfuchis ,4'c*7" the Nature and Offence of Sin, and its bold Effront to the Divine Majefty, that God in the.Effecl; of his infi- nite Mercy would not remit it without anlnftance of his juft Difpleafure and Indignation upon it, the more to imprint by this Means a due Notion of his own Pu- rity upon the Mind's of Men,and the Repugnancy of Sin to him, which would have been more loft in them by an A£t of pure Impunity. And then an Offence of the Di- vine Majefty being to be compenfated and fatisfied for, there could no Equivalent be found bat Ms-Sufferings, or the free Oblation of himfelf, who was God and Man inonePerfbn, or in whom the Godhead dwelt bodily \ and fo having both the Subject of humane Nature to fufter in, and the Divinity joyned thereto in a wonder- ful manner to inhance the Value of thofe Sufferings, he was only a proper Atonement upon that Account, and i o The Texts examined which fyafift cite and did fully expiate the whole Offence and Punifh- ment of Sin. Il: tie Sacrifice of himfelf which had fo much Obedience and Refignation in it, to anfwer the Rebellion of our Sins, and fuch an high Efiimation from the Dignity of his Peribn, he purchaled the Privi- ledg of Repentance to us, and whenfbever we truly perform that, a full Remiition of our paft Sins, accord- ing to his own exprefs Declaration, Luke 24. 47. Which is alfo the Dictate of the holy Spirit, Ephef. 1. 7. In him we have Redemption, the Forgivenefs of Sins. And he is the Propitiation for our Sins, 1 John 2. 2. And he has given himfelf a Ranfom for all, 1 Tim. 2. 6. And he has redeemed us from the Curfe of the Law, Gal. 1. 1 3. And by the Obedience of one many are made righteous, Rom. 5. 1 9. The true Importance of all which places is plain- ■ ly this, that we are wholly related from all the Guilt and Penalties of Sin in the Sufferings of our Saviour, thofe are our Ranfom, and the Price of our Redempti- on, and there is no Remains of any Punifhment to paft Sins, after a fincere Repentance of them, and the Ap- plication of Chrift's Sufferings thereto through Faith. And that this great Atonement was ablblutely neceffa- ry in Refpecl: to the whole Punifhment of Sin, both temporal and eternal, which has no fuch nice DiJ tribu- tion of it in Scripture, and that we cannot fatisfy the Divine Juftice upon either Account by any Behaviour, or Action of ours, is very demonftrable from the Inabili- ties of lapfed Nature, that we can perform no good thing in our own Strength, or the abftra&ed Principle of our own Natures, without an Influence of Divine Grace, (which Bellarmine ibmetimes affirms to be necetfary in Satisfaction, Ibid. p. 1104.) neither if we could en- tirely comply with the infinite Principle of Divine Grace, as it infpires good Thoughts into us, and as it ail Mis for their DoElrim of Satisfactions. « \ i a (Tiffs us in the exerting of them, would our Affions be of a fuflicient Value to fatisfy the Offence of an infinite Majefty, or offer a due Compenfation thereto ; feeing they are not confiderable abftractedly as the Operations of the holy Spirit (as one cannot fay that that abftains, gives Alms, or the like ; ) but as they proceed from hu- mqpe Liberty, and are the Ejects of our own Wills, which we produce in that A Alliance ; but then confi- dering that wc are often wanting to this Heavenly In- fluence in our Minds, and too much yield to our carnal Affeclions, not endeavouring in a due Intention of our Faculties againft them, and fo through Remifhefs in our felves, and Difapoinrrnent cf Divine Help by that Means, fall into many Inflates of Sin; as alfo that our beft Actions have many Imperfections, and Defecls in them, either wanting a clue Direction to God's Glo- ry, which isrequifite to every Inftance and Action of Vertue, or fome other efferieial thing thereto, we are more unlikely to compenfate the Divine Juftice, for a Share of the Penalties of paft Sins by any Performances of ours, which are only Ids Degrees of Sin themfelves. And therefore the Sufferings or Afflictions that we are at any time engaged in, feeing they cannot be a due Satisfaction upon this Account, muft be fuppofed to have another Intention and Defign in them, and that God does not fend them for a Compenfation of his Ju- ftice, or Revenge upon S'-n as to a certain Remain of Pu» nifhment (till left undifcharged in the Sufferings of our Saviour, but that they are fent for other Purpofes. And firit, they are fent in a great Inftance of the Di- vine Love, to cure the finful Inclinations in us ; that the rebellious Principle of Flefh and Blood may be more fubdued by this Means, and the Caufe and Nutriment of our Sins in a great Abatement, when our Spirits are brought 5 1 I The Texts examined, which Tapifts cite brought down by fome temporal Hardfhip. We (hall I then be more recovered to all the benefits of confide ra- tion, which a profperous Circumffance often hinders, and fo be more left in the free exercife of our reasonable i Faculties, to determine our felves in the refult of them, as Creatures of cur quality ought to do. And there be- ing this Preffure upon the animal Nature, it will b^efs apt to (ally forth into its ufual habits of Pride, Intem- perance, or the like ; and fo we fhall have more moderate Temptations to engage withal. Afflictions, when they happen to good Peribns, are fignal Advantages to their Vertues, and they always grow into a more Chriftian Habit and Temper by them : Nay, in refpecl: of wicked Men, they have this tendency likewife, and will obtain the like Advantage, unlefs it be prevented by an incor- rigible Obftinacy, or a confirmed Habit and Difpofition that cannot change. This' was the Apoftle's Method concerning the Corinthian that was guilty of Inceft, to excommunicate him (which was always attended with bodily Pain ) and is therefore expreffed to deliver him to Satan for the deftruciion of the Flcjh, that the Spirit might be faved in the Day of the Lord, I Cor. 5. 5. And 'tis not to be queftioned but this is often the Procefs of Di- vine Providence to call: Men into a Hate of Adverfity, as the moft proper and effectual Remedy of their Vices-. And then fecondly, Afflictions as they reduce the ex- travagant temper of Flefh and Blood, by which our Vertues become more eafy, fo they will excite a great- er Vigilancy for the future, that we offend not afterwards, when we confidcr the fever e Chajlifements we either prefently are, or formerly have been engaged in, as our own Conlcience will inform us of the true caufe and oc- cafion of them. Thefe will bring us to a juft appre- hension and notion of Sin, that we rightly conceive of it, for their DoBrme of Satisfactions. 5 l 5 ir, as it is in its own Nature, when we obferve thefe Chaftifcments upon it, and fb carry us in our utmoft diligence to a hearty Repentance, and Endeavour againft it. "" Afflictions likewifearea proper means, and have a direct Influence to many particular Inftances of Vertue, they conquer the Infolency of our Natures by a kind of weight, and prefTure upon them, and fb enftate us in a habit of Humility, and lowlymindednefs, that we be not poflefled with any vain Conceptions of our felves ; they take off the fretfulnefs of our Temper, and work a difpofition of Patience in us, and a quiet refignation to the Will of God, whatfbever Events we fhall at any time be concerned in. And thefe difappointments of our outward Circumftances will excite a due Faith in. us, and make us look up to our Heavenly Father in a firm reliance upon him, either for the Influences of his blef- fed Spirit to fupport us under them, or the Effects of his gracious Providence to deliver tfs from them ; as God himfelf fpeaks in an equal reflection upon the Jews, and other People, Hof.^.i^ In their Jfflifl 'ion they will feek me early. And this holy Difcipline continued upon us will, fecure our Constancy in thefe Vertues, or promote our farther advance in them ; And if it be removed from us through this effect of it, 'twill leave fuch a fenfe and remembrance behind it, that we fhall fcarce venture up- on fuch Courfes as may incur it over again, And Afflictions furthermore are a demonflxation to other People of the defert and offence of Sin, which is always the occafion of them, and fo may be the fame means of Recovery therefrom, and of the Vertues of a holy Life to them likewife. They are not diftinguifha- ble, as to the matter of them, from Punifhment, al- A a a a though 0 514 The Texts examined which fapifts cite though they are not formally fb, the fame Inftances ha- ving this difference upon the Righteous, and upon the Wicked, that they are only a Difcipline to the one for Reformation, but pure Judgment to the other for De- ftru&ion. And therefore whatfoever defign they are fent upon, they are plain Convictions of the contrarie- ty of Sin to the Nature of God, and the fevere Judg- ment that he will at laft inflift upon it, and fb may be a proper Inducement to all People to repent and depart from it. Thefe may be the Reafons why God infli&s his tem- poral punifhments, or the Calamities of this Life upon good People, altho he does not equally inflict them up- on all. Some he allows in a perpetual Profperity with- out any portion of them, or any chaftifement of their paft Sins: and fbme he exercifes continually under them notwithstanding their fignal Attainments and Proficien- cy in a good Life : and fome he refcues from them when they have more proceeded in their Vertues, and arrived at the further habits of them ; and all this according to the Counfel of his own Will,or the unfearchable Depths of infinite Wifdom. And as to thofe Penances that were ufually inflifted upc>n notorious Sinners in the Difcipline of the Church they were for other purpofes, and not to fatisfy the Di- vine Juftice for fuch a fhare of Punifhment due to Sin as was exempt from the expiation of Chrift's Sufferings. And firfr, they were infli&ed, that fuch Offenders in ■a. long procefs of holy Difcipline might afford a more certain Evidence of the Sincerity of their Repentance ; and that other People who cannot look into the Heart or fee the difpofition of that deceitful Principle, might be fully fatisfied thereof, that the Church by this means. rl as for their Doftrine of Satis faHioml 5 1 J as much as is competible with human Frailty,might con- fift of pure Members, and mutually excite to Hohnefs of Life, and be a mutual check in refpectof the contra- ry Courles. Another reafon of thefe Penances was to give Satisfa- ction to the Church, or anfwer the Offence that is offer- ed to it by a diffolute Action, and take off all Scandal and Xefle&ioafrom it, that it allows no fuch Mifde- meanours, by thus proceeding in the fevered: Cenfure and Penalties upon them, which if otherwife, would both encourage its own Members to an Unchriftian Be- haviour, and alio afford an infinite difparagement of that holy Society, and the Gofpel-Profeflion to thofe without. Another Reafon of fuch a fevere Dilcipline according to the proportion of their Sins (lome excluding longer from Ci:riftian ArTemblies,and the Prayers of the Church, and the Advantage of the bleiTed Sacrament, lome lefs) was this, that f uch Offenders might duly reflect upon the Nature of Sin, in that opportunity of fuffering for it ; and from thence be carried to a hearty Contrition and Sorrow for it, a humble SupolicaiiJn for Mercy, and pardon through the Atonement of Chrift Jefus, and a fincere Endeavour and firm Refblution of Amend- ment afterwards, which will be more in rente accord- ing to the degree of thefe Penances, and more preferve them from the like Offences left they incur the fame Punifhment over again. Another Defign was the Benefit of others, that being admonifhed by thefe Examples upon Sin they might be more deterr'd from the pra&ife of it,8t not account it fuch a flight thing as corrupt Nature, and the Suggestions of Flefh and Blood would pronounce, or repreient it to be ; which Reafon is affigned by the Apoftle, i Tim. 5. 20. And thefe publick Cenfures on the Actors of more grie- A a a a 2 vous k 1 6 The Texts examined which Papijls cite vous Sins will produce a greater Averfion in the Minds of Men, and a greater caution and endeavour againft tfeem, than the moft reafonable Institution or Precepts can do, that have no fiich Penalty annexed to them, as might be demonstrated from a Profpect of humane Na- ture, if a fad Experience did not witnefs to it, where thele Cenfures are wanting. This is the notion of Ec- clefiaftical Difcipline,or publick Penances in the Church, according to the Doctrine of the antient Fathers, not to Satisfy the Divine JuStice for a certain fliare of the pu- nifhment of our Sins, as the RomaniSts now maintain, but as a better Advantage of our Christian Vertues, either to recover us from habits of Sin, or in the Effi- cacy of a publick example, preferve and fecure us from falling into them. Thus having laid down the true account of Satisfa- ction, which is only proper to ChriSt Jefus from the Dignity of his Perfon, and which he fully rendred to the Divine Juftice upon the Crofs in regard to the whole Offence and ConSequence of Sin, leaving no part of the punifhment thereof to our ownPerfbns,after the exercile of a true Repentance; and alSb having Shown that the Af- flictions of this Life are gracioufly lent in the effect of the Divine Goodnefs to reftore us to a State of Vertue, or that we may arrive at a farther improvement and de- gree of it ; and likewife that Church-Cen fares had the Same notion and defign in them, according to the fenfe of the firft Antiquity, where they were moft carefully practiSed with that true Succefs of a more eminent Pie- ty that belongs to them ; I Shall now upon this Advan- tage proceed to explain thoSe Texts of scripture which the Romanifts bring for the demonstration of their Do- ctrine, that Some temporal Penalties Still remain to be undergone by us after the remiflion of the Guilt of Sin, and for their DoCtr'me of Satis faEihis. c f m and its whole relation to eternal Mifery ; and that tfiefe Penalties can ba removed and fatisfied for either in the Sufferings of this Life or (bme certain Penances upon our lelves. Now as to the firft, that fbme Penalties fl: ill remain after the Sin is pardoned, they inflft upon thele Places. Firft, Gen. 2. 17. concerning Adam, that he was left fubie£t to Death, and his whole Polierity in like man- ner after hisTrelpals was remitted in the Promiie of a Redeemer : Which common Fate of all Man-kind, with the firft Patent and Author of it, the Apoille defcribes, Rom. 5. 12. As by one Man Sin entred into the World, and Death by Sin, and fo Death pajfed upon all Men, for that all have fmned. Now the Anfwerto thisisealy, That Death now is no Punifhment to good People, nor comes upon them in that refpeft ; for fmce the Sting thereof is taken away by our Saviour, the whole Defer t of our Sins fully expiated and atoned for in his Suffer- ings upon the Term of our Repentance, there is a dou- ble Advantage in Death, both a Deliverance from the Temptations of this Life, and a Translation of us in- to the BleiTcdnefs of another. Such is the Contrivance of infinite Wifdom, and the Efficacy of the Divine Good- nefs, that that which was our greateft Punifhment, in the. Means of Chrift's Sufferings is become our greateft Benefit ; that which terminated this animal Life, and alfo contained in it eternal Death, or delivered us over to the Miferies of another World, is made the Paffage to the Glories of the Heavenly State. And whereas Bel- larmine lays in a fuppoied Triumph over Calvin, that Death can have no Relation to our Vertues or Proficiency, in them for the Time to come, feeing it would be a ridicu- lous Affertion to maintain that Men were punijhed with Death, that they might live more cautioujly afterwards. This 518 The Texts examined which Taplfts cite This does-not hinder but that Death is truly confiderable as a Benefit to good People, and not .a Punifhment, which transfers them then to the Haven of Heavenly Blifs. But however the Manner of Death may give an Occafion to feveral Vertues, and be an Exercife of our Piety in many Refpecfo ; as fuppofe it be the Inftanceof Martyrdom,then it affords a due Matter of a holy Resig- nation to the Will of God, a refolved Patience and For- titude of Mind to fupport under thofe Agonies, as it is a proper Incitement of our Chriftian Faith to exert it felf with more Vigour upon God for a more liberal Afli- fiance of Divine Grace, and alfo of great Influence to other People, to confirm them in thole Truths for which it is undertaken and fubmitted to. And Death may be a Benefit to many, as it may come immaturely upon them in the Vigour of their Conftitution, and not in a State of Weaknefs and Infirmity, or the natural Caufes thereof; in that it prevents fome certain Oppor- tunities and Temptations to fin, which in the Continu- ance of Life and Health would have have been undoubt- edly complied withal, as the Author of the Book of Wildom fpeaks of lome that were Jjteedtly taken away left that Wickedaefs jhould alter their Vnderftandwgy or De~ ceit beguile their Soul, chap. 4.10. New although it be a ridiculous thing to affirm that Men are punifhed with Death, that they may live more cautiouily after- wards, feeing there is no Repentance or Amendment after that, yet it is no ridiculous thing at all, but a Me- thod of Divine Providence to remove thofe by an Anti- cipation to their natural Temper, into the Happinefs of the other World, while they are in a better Difpofition and Habit for it, whom a longer Stay or Continuance would certainly carry into fbme Vices : And therefore Death in the Manner thereof, as it refpe&s the laft In- ftance C. I. for their Dottrine of SatitfaElions. 5 19 ftance of our Lives, or the time antecedent to it, may be very beneficial to us, this* may bring us into more thorow Inquiries of our felves, a more full Apprehen- fion of our former Sins, a ftronger Averfion to them,, and more hearty Purpoles, and a fincere Beginning of the contrary Vertues ; and thefe Examples of the Di- vine Providence in this refpecl are like to produce the feme Efre&s and good Fruits upon other People. But then according to their own Argument, ( fo full of Contradiction is a falfe Do&rine) Death cannot be fuppofed in the Nature of a Punifhment as to feveral People,who yet are fub jeQ: to it,for thofe that immediate- ly die after Baptifm are quite free both from the^enal- Bell. lib. 4. ty and Guilt of Sin in their Notion, that being per- Penic- " fecTbly done away in that holy Sacrament, and fpecial Application of thrift's Sacrifice ; and therefore there is no manner of Sufferings left or remaining to fuch Per- fbns ; but Death is a pure Benefit to them, as indeed it is to all that die in the Exercife of a true Repentance, and the Habit of their Chriftian Vertues. Another Argument they infift on for thefe remains of temporal Punifhment after the Pardon of Sin, is the Ex- ample of David, who was punifhed for his Adultery with Bethjhebaby the Death of the young Child, after the Guilt of that abominable Inftance was remitted to him, 2 Sam. 12. 13. But that this had a future Regard in it to reftrain David and other People by his Example from fuch lawlefs Indulgences afterwards, and fb was the Chaftifement of a Father, and not an A£t of pure Judgment, may be plainly evinced in opposition to the Cardinal's two Reafons to the contrary. Thefirftof which is that thofe Words of the Prophet, after he had declared the Pardon of his Sin, ver. 14. Horvbeit becaufe by this Deed thou haft given great occafwnto the Enemies* *f «2j The Texts examined which Tapifts cite of the Lord to bUJpheme, the Child alfo that is horn unto iiTtto thee [ball furely die ; R* fpect only what was paft, and fo exprefs a Punifhment in them : And indeed that it was a Puniihment as to the Matter of it, cannot be de- nied ; but that 'cwas not formally fo,as not being inflict- ed without a gracious Purpofe of a moral good or better Converfation for the time to come, which pure Punifh- ment quite excludes, and fb had a future Reference in it, needs no further Argument, than only a Confidera- tion of the Words themfelves, which may be thus ex- plained, and paraphrafed upon, becaufe by this enor- mous Ad: thou haft offered a Pretence to prophane Peo- ple to think unworthily of the Divine Nature, or deny the effential Purity thereof, and fo allow themfelves in fuch brutifh Practices ; therefore to vindicate that, and prevent the Confequence of fuch an ill Notion, or the loofe Behaviour that would more prevail upon it, the Child that is born to thee fhall furely die : for if it had lived it might plaufibly have been faid,that God receives into his fpecial Favour Adulterers , and Murderers , and noway difcriminates between the Profligate and theVertuous, which would have been a main Encou- ragement to fuch wicked Courfes. His fecond Reafon that it was an Act of pure Juftice or Punifhment upon David, is drawn from Davids Opinion in the matter, that it was fb, which his Mourning, Fafting, and Pro- Itration upon the Ground for the Recovery of the Child dees plainly evidence ; for fays he, be would never have deprecated fuch a thing as was beneficial to him up- on the Account of his ftri&er Caution, and more con- ftant Piety afterwards, and which was inflicted for that very Purpofe. But how does this appear to be Davids Opinion ? his Behaviour in the Cafe leems only to be in- fluenced from his Companion for the Child, and his great for their Dottrine of Satisfactions. j i I great Faith, or his firong Perfwafion of the exorable Nature of God ; for when the Child was dead he retur- . ned to his wonted Comforts and Enjoyments of Life. And as to his better Behaviour for the time to come, Were not his Fafting, &c. proper Expreflions of a true Repentance ? and the more thefe Exercifes were intend- ed, or the longer he kept in the Occafion of them, the more they were like to imprint upon him, and produce the ftronger Purpofes againft fuch Enormities after- wards. And what he urges that he would never have depre- cated fuch a Penalty as he faw to have a direct Tenden- cy both to his own and other's Vertues, is as inconH- ftent, as if one fhould conclude that becaufe a fick Per- fbn is very averfe to the bitter Potions that are prefcri- t>ed him, and would willingly decline them if he could with any regard to his own Safety ; therefore they are only Penalties upon him, and not Remedies ofhisDi- ftemper, being to be denominated from his Aver/ion to them, and not from the Effe&s which they produce in him. The Apoftle fays, that he befought the Lord thrice, when he was buffeted, of the Meffenger of Satan, that it might depart from him. Shall one therefore affirm that that Calamity was inflifted upon him, as a Punifh- ment of his paftSins, and not for his caution afterwards? The ApohMe himfelf refutes this, and exprefly declares that that Circumftance, whether it were fome bodily Sicknefs, or whatfbever elfe, was therefore difpenled to him, to fecure him from fpiritual Pride, and preferve him in a Habit of Chriftian Modefty ; left Ifhouldbe ex- alted above meafure through the abundance of. Revelations, there was given to me a Thorn in the Fleflp, i Cor. 12. 7, The Saints may deprecate from a eertain Common Senfe of Nature that abhors Suffering, thofe things B b b b that 5 1 % The Texts examined which Tapijls cite that they dilcern to be profitable for them, if they be painful or grievous to them. And that David did ib much pray againft the Death of his Son, does only figni- fy that it was a moft fenfible Lois to him ; and not that it would be no advantage to his Repentance, and bet- ter Life for the time to come. And as to that other Inftance of David his numbring the People, 2 Sam. 24. which he heartily repented of, ver. 10. and therefore according to the Divine Promife was remitted and pardoned to him, yet after that had his choice of three Evils, one of which he muft fuffer and fubmit to. This alio is to be explained in a Paral- lel-meaning with the former Place, that 'twas only a fatherly Chaftifement upon David, in order to recover him to his proper Vertue of Humility of Spirit, and Dependance on God, and remove him from a vain Con- fidence in an Arm of Flefh, or the Multitude of his People which his Mind was pofTefTed with at that time. And as to the People it was moft certainly a righte- ous Difpenfation and Judgment upon them, and perhaps may be thus accounted for, that thole that were flain by this Peftilence, were fuch as were Parties in Shebas Rebellion, chap. 20. that of Abfalom s being punifhed before with the Slaughter of twenty thoufand Men, chap. 18. 7. Which was lefs in refpe£t of the People, he being of the Lineage of David, and having the right of Pri- mogeniture in it, but the other a Benjamite and For- reigrier thereto. And that this was the probable Reafbn of this Mortality, may hence appear, that Jerufalem which maintained her Allegiance, and adhered to D*- vid in that Confpiracy, was (pared, ver. 16. chap. 24. Another Paffage they produce to this Effect, is con- cerning Miriam, Numb. 12. who for her Controverfy with Mofa (in which fhe had engaged Aaron likewife ) upoc for their DoBrine of Satisfattionsl 5 1 $ upon the Account of his foreign Wife from the Lineage of Ifrael, being fmitten with a Leprofy, the ufual Pu- nifhment of Pride, as Grotius obferves, and being heal- ed thereof at the Supplication of Mofes, which was a Sign of the Pardon of her Sin, was yet excluded from the AfTembly feven Days, to dernonftrate a remaining Punifhment to it after that. But this Separation like- wife being fuch a flight thing as it was, cannot be efteemed a judicial Act, but was the Difcipline of a Fa- ther only for her moral good; that by a kind of Pe- nance for her Misbehaviour, fhe might be brought to a greater Shame and Senle of it, and a more hearty Contrition upon that Account, and alfo repair the great Offence fhe had offered thereby, and afford an Inftructi- on to all People, what a grievous Wickednefs that is in the Sight of God to envy his Minifters the Advance- ment of their high Function, or contemn them in the Difcharge of it. And upon this Inftance were founded thejewifh Cenfures or Separations from the Synagogue in cafe of any publick Sin.; as alfb Exclufions from hoJy things in the Chriftian Church, till the offending Per- fons had given fome Evidence of the Truth of their Re- pentance. But neither this removal of Miriam for fe- ven Days, nor the Cenfures of the Church were pro- per Punifhments, or inflicted as Satisfactions to Divine Juflice, as I proved before. Another Inftance which they hring,is from the Hifto- ry of the Golden Calf,when the People fell into Idolatry to it, Exod. 32. Bellarmins Words hereupon are thefe. Many thoufand Men were Jlain without any 'difference for the Adoration of the Calf ', neither is it credible that all thofe did die in the merit of that Siny when the Lord did tefiify that at the Prayers o/'Mofes he had remitted it. But here is no mention of the remiflion of the Sin,, all B b b b 2 that 534 The Texts examined which (Papifts cite that is fignified in the Text being only this, that God through the Entreaty and Interceflion of Mofes was pre- vailed upon to reprefs the vehemency of his Anger to- wards them, and not confume them by an utter De- ftruclion as he was firft inclinM to do, ver. 10/ for 'tis immediately iiibjoyned to his Supplication, and the Lord repented of the Evil which he thought to do his People ; that is, upon this occafion he as it were reverfed his pur- pofe of their final Ruin and Defolation, which is the whole importance of the Place ; not that he pardoned that abominable FaQ;, for he ftored it up for future Ven- geance, as he himfelf acquaints us, ver. 31. Never the- lefs in the Day when I vifit, I will vifit this their Sin upon them: and ver. 35. The Lord plagued the People becaufe they made the Calf that Aaron made, which was after the Slaughter or Atonement that Mofes commanded,i/*r. 27. And whereas he fays, that there were many thou- land flain, it is exprefly contrary to the Hebrew Text, in ageneral Agreement of all Copies, which only mention three ; but perhaps a Latin Verfion where the Turn is twenty thoufand, may be more authentick than the O- riginal with fbme People. And what he affirms not to be credible, that all thofe fhould die in their Sin, is with- out any proof or reafon at alL Why fhould one reckon U-ib incredible, that among fuch a number of guilty Perfons (the whole amounting to fix hundred thoufand) there fhould be three thoufand fb wholly refolv'd to their Idol-worfhip, that they fhould die in that obftinate pur- pofe, without any motion of Repentance in them? For if we reflect upan the Perfon of Mofes twc cannot imagin, if we could fuppofe fuch a thing or the Levites, .and that they had not been more averfe to that Wickednefs,which infpired them with fb much Zeal to be the Inftruments of Vengeance upon it ; I fay, we cannot imagine it of Mofes for their Voftrine of Satisfactions. jij Mofcs, if we could of the Performance of the Levites, that he fhould command an undiftinguifhing,SIaughter without any difference of Guilt, or Innocency> or Re- pentance ; but that they were a Company of more furi- ous Idolaters, and the chief promoters of that foul Im- morality, whom he enjoined to be (lain, and they per- formedhis Injunctions upon. And this mofr probable account of the Adtion makes it nothing relating to the purpofe- it is brought for. For what refpeft has a juft Punifhment upon fome hardned and impenitent Idola- ters to thofe Penalties which, according to the Roman Hypothefis, God requires from good Men after the par- doruof their former Sins. But however, fuppofe, which is lefs probable, that in that Slaughter of three thou- sand fbme fell in the advantage of a true Repentance, and theremiflion that is confequent thereto,how is that a Punifhment^or how imports it a Satisfaction to Divine Juftice to be translated into the Happinefs of another World, which Death,thro the Efficacy of Chrift's Suffer- ings, is the PaiTage to? Or is it not rather a fignal In- ftance of infinite Goodnefs to be removed from the Temptations of. this Life, while one remains in the ha- bit of a true Repentance, and firm Resolution of their Vertues ? Another Proof they bring is Numb. 14. BelUr mines Argument from this Place is in thefe Words, The whole People repined and murmured, yet in the means of Molest Inter cejfion God was appeafed and reconciled to them : but never thelefs, as the punishment of that Crime > all the jlews that were then numbred, died in the Wilder nefsy except Caleb and Jofhua who murmured not, and now be fides (as we have (aid before) that the puni(bwent of Death cannot be for future amendment , God himfelf tejlifies in that place y that he exacted that Punifljment in revenge of their Sin, and ■ 5 1 6 The Texts examined which Papijl cite and ye fbali know, fays be, my revenge, Et fcietis ultionem meam — . Now let us confider this Author's Reafbns, why the temporal Death of this People within the com- pafs of fourty years for their diffatisfaftion with an ex- traordinary Bounty of Providence towards them after the pardon or remiffion thereof, ver. 20. muft be con- cluded to have been a punifhment. And his firft is, That Death cannot be inflicted upon any account of Reformation. This had been true in regard to the Perfbns themfelves upon whom it was inflidted, if it had been a prefent Death, becaufe it is allowed on both fides that there is no Repentance after that. But did all this People die at once ? was not this Judgment ex* preily declared and denounced to them ? And were they not leifurely fummoned by it, fb as one to be an Exam- ple to another, and all to have fufHcient notice of it ? And was not Death then denounced and infli&ed in fuch a manner a proper means of .their Reformation, when they beheld it marching up and down the Hebrew Camp, and knew certainly it would come to themfelves in fiich a time ? So that it is not to be queftioned but that this Death had the efFecl: of a certain Difcipline upon good People, and was very beneficial to their ftri&er Behaviour, and their farther Attainments in a vertuous Life ; and as to impenitent perfbns, who moft probably were the firft inftances thereof, as not being reclamable by any farther opportunities, or examples before them, (and I hope he will not fay their Sins were pardoned ) it was indeed a punifhment to them, which muft needs be their portion fbme-time or other ; but it afforded a proper Inftruttion to thofe that fiirvived them, and was likewife defigned as a moral Advantage and fpecial Do- cument to fucceeding Ages, according to the Apoftle, I Cor. 10, 11. where he reckons up this, among other Pu- for their Dottrine of Sat iff aft ions. 5x7 Punifliments of the Jewifh Nation, Now thefe things happened unto them for E/rfamples, and they are written for our Admonition^ttpon whom the ends of the World are come. And as to what he, fecondly, infifts on that this is called a Revenge, ver. 34. (although it was proper- ly a Punifhment, and a commencement of everlaft- ing Mifery in refpecl of thofe that were not qua- lified for the remiffion of Sins) is only their Latin Verfion, and not agreeable to the * Hebrew Text, q^«^»h * which fignifies a Breach or Rupture, and imports thus .ijjvjaK much, That whereas by a ftrange Inftance of Difcon- >ri« tentment anddiftruft of my Power you have violated my Covenant on your part, I will alfo break it in my refpecl:, or receed from the Promifes annexed to it, as to your own Perfons (you fhall all die in this Wilder- nefs ) although I will perform it upon your Posterity, Caleb the Son of Jephunneh, and Jofhua the Son of Nun, and your little ones which you faid fliould be a Prey, them will I bring in, and they fhall know the Land which ye have defpifed, ver. 3.1. So that the whole Scope of the place is this, Upon the Entreaty and Sup- plication of Mofes God was pleafed to pardon their Sin that he would not fmite them with the Peftilence, or disinherit them, as he firft declared he would do, ver. i2„ but he would gracioudy exercife them under the fenle and apprehenfion of Death within a certain compafs of fourty Years, as a means of their ftri&er Vertues and more careful Behaviour afterwards. And the Death of Mofes and Aaron in the Wildernefs, they being not permitted, becaufe of their Unbelief at the Waters of Meribah, to enter the promiled Land, is produced as another Inftance to this purpofe, {Numb. 2.0,. Dent. 32.) for fays Bell.irmine, Nome cxn deny bnt that 5 i 8 Ihe Texts examined which (Papijls cite that they were both received, inU the Divine Favour after the commiffion of that Sin, and therefore a certain Pitn/JJj. went remained after the Guilt thereof was pardoned. That they were received into the Divine Favour is not to be questioned, and therefore 'twas only a Fatherly Difcipline for their own and the Peoples Good. Their Death denounced to them, would always prelerve and keep in their Minds a fenfe of their Sin which was the occafion of it, and be an incitement of their Repentance ; and being inflicted, would be an Inftance to other Peo- ple of the great Offence of Infidelity, or diftruft in God, the more effe&ually to fecure them from that Sin, and to engage their dependance upon him for a due Provifi- on in all their Circumftances that he fhould at anytime bring them into. And 'tis a famous Example of hu- mane Infirmity, and alio of the Purity of the Divine EfTence, that will not fufFer the leaft Mifcarriage in his deareft Servants without Tome inftance of Difplea- fure upon «it, though that always be in fuch a matter as has a relation to their fpiritual Good : and 'tis no -queftion but thefe holy Men made thefe Advantages from it. Although there was fbmething of Myftery in it, that Mofes fhould not enter the promifed Land, -that Felicity being referved to Jojhua to reprefent or •fignify to us, that true Jfraelites did not arrive at the Kingdom of Blifs through the efficacy of the Old Law which Mofes was the Minifter of, but by the Conduct of our Saviour Chrift, whole Figure Jojhua was, and whole Name he bore. And if we confider the thing it felf, it cannot be accounted really a Punifhment to be tranfiated into an Heavenly Canaan zgainft fuchaftrange fancy to continue fomc longer time in an earthly one, which was exactly their cale in both their refpecls. Ano- for their DoElrine of Satis/aBions. % jy Another Inftance is the Prophet ofjudah, who came toprophefy againft the Altar at Bethel, and was llain by a Lion for his Difobedience to the Command of God, in eating and drinking in that Place, i Kjngs 13. Now BeDarmine's Argument upon the Place runs thus; See- ing this Calamity was foretold, this Prophet, by the other Prophet in Bethel, it ctnnot be doubted but that he repent- ed, and fo obtained Forgiveness from God : For "'tis an evidence of his S 'anility , in which he fnijhed this mortal Life, that the hungry Lion offered no Violence to his Car- cafe, nor to the Jfs that flood by it. And this of his Re- pentance muft eafily be granted, for he that pay'd fuch a regard-to the Meifage of God, that he was feduced by a Pretence of it, may well befuppofed to have been perfwaded by a true Oracle and Embafly to him, which being in fuch a matter concerning his hafty or untime- ly Death, muft needs be the ftrongeft Inducement to the Confederation of his Sin, and the moft hearty Ad- drefs for Pardon of it. But in that it was fb, that it had this Efficacy to his Repentance, it mull: be conclu- ded to have been a fatherly Chaftifement,and not a Satis- faction to 'Divine Juftice, or ameer Punifhment and Vengeance upon him. And this fatherly Severity could not but have this Influence with it as to other People to be a perpetual Admonition to them, not to be carried againft the Authority of a Divine Revelation, or even the Dictates of unprejudie'd Reafon by the contrary Do- ctrines of any Man, though he fhould bear the Name of a Prophet, and even pretend a particular Million or Infpiration for it ; and therefore there is no need to determine this Calamity of this holy Man to have been properly a Divine Punifhment, when there are fb ma- ny other evident Reafons and Advantages of that thing, C c c c his 53© 7he Texts examined, which fpdpi/b cue his own Proficiency, or the further attainment of his own Vertues, and the exemplary Inftruction of good People, that they fhould firmly adhere to the Word of God againft all the Doctrines, and Traditions of Men that are contrary thereto. But perhaps Bellarmine had no mind to take notice of fuch a plain Deduction and Inference as this. The laft Place this Author produces for thefe remains of temporal Punifhments after the Pardon of Sin, is from the i uh chapter of the firft Epiftle to the Corin- thians, ver. 29. &c. Upon which he thus forms his Ar- gument : The Apoftle writes that many of thofe who un- worthily communicated of the Sacrament of ChrijFs Body, had Death inflicted on them as the Punifhment of their Sin : for, fays he, therefore many are weak among you, and many jleep : but that thefe 'very People were reconciled to God be- fore their Death he acquaints us after, when he adds, we are chained of the Lord, that we fhould not be condemned with the World. But the Apoftle does not fay that Death was inflicted as a Punifhment, this is a Commentary befidesthe Text in Defence of a Doctrine that has no Text for it, but he fays, that we are therefore chafined of the Lord, leFi we fhould be condemned with the World. Then which he could not have informed us more ex- prefly of the Nature of this Correption, that it was not to pun ifh the Offence, but to recover the Offender, and therefore 'twas no Punifhment properly fpeaking, but a a Medicine or Remedy ; whofe whole Defignment is to that Effect. Nor upon this mention of Death can he object his o,ld Sentence, that 'tis ridiculous to affirm that Men are punifhed with Death, that they may live more cautioufly afterwards, feeing it was not inflicted in one moment, as is obfervable from the Words of the Texts> for their Doftrine of Satis faElions. < ? i Texts, but they were flrft Tick, by which they perceiv- ed their mortal Condition, or the feveral Advances of their Diffolution, the more forcibly to induce them to prepare for it, and then they died in fome fpace of that Sickneft. They were thus chaftifed with thefe Infir- mities, and the Fear of Death thereupon, that by this means they might more examine their former Neglects, and more ferioufly purpofe and refolve againft them, and either live with more Caution afterwards, if their Health was reftored to them, or depart in a better Pre- paration, and more Confidence into the Manfions of another World. And fb their Death in fuch a manner was an Advantage to their own Salvation, as well as exemplary to other People, to inftrucl: them from thefe Afflictions of their Brethren, that they approach with more Reverence to the holy Sacrament of ChrihVs Bo- dy, and not as to an ordinary Meal or Table. And thus we fee how little thefe Texts prove that AfTertion they are brought for, that they do not denote a judicial Punifhment, or a Satisfaction to Divine Ju<- ftice, which has no Regard to the moral Good, or Re- formation of the Offender, as appears from thofe Male- factors that are either condemned by the civil Magi- frrate, or delivered over to the Pains of Hell, by the jufter Judgment and Tribunal of God ; but that they only fignify a fatherly Discipline, and a gracious Me- thod of the Divine Love in order to their Amendment, who are exercifed under them. I fhould now confider thofe Texts of Scripture which the Romanifts bring for ^feefe Satisfactions in another World, or thofe temporal Pains that are to be endured * in a State of Purgatory, which is a middle Region be- tween Heaven and Hell ', for that Place is founded for C c c c 2 Men 5 j i . Tke Texts examined which Vapijls cite Men to difcharge fome Remains of Punifhment that are left on the Score to Divine Juftice above their Suf- ferings in this Life, and not to improve them any-whit thereby, or gain the Difpofition of oneVertue in them. ' Such a more improbable Notion is it than the Purgatory of Plato, or Pythagoras was, who made it a place of Purification for thole that were but indifferently .either good or evil,in order to qualify them for a higher v1 phere of Heavenly Happinefs : I fay, I fhould confider thofe Texts of Scripture which the Romanics bring for their Satisfactions in Purgatory, but they will be examined by a better Hand. The Secpnd Part will quickly follow. ERRATA. Pag. $oi. lin. 5. for immediately, read mediately. 502. lin. 30. for height to all People, read level to all, &c. 520. lin.4. for Mafter,read Matter, 528. lin. 3 r . for ftrange, read ftrong. ibid. lin. 3 3. in both their Refpe&s, dele their. LONDON, Printed by % D. for Richard Chifwel at the Rofe and Crown in St. Paul's Church-Yard, 1 688. ( m ; The Texts examined which Tapfts cite out of the. Bible for the Proof of their Do&rine O F SATISFACTION'S. PART II. IMPRIMATUR. Aug. 2 J. 1688. GniL Needham. I Therefore come to their fecond Affertion,That thofe temporal Penalties that flill remain as a Debt to Sin after the Pardon or Forgivenefs of it, may be removed, and fatisfied for either in the Chaftifo- ments of this Life ( as they are inflicted in a Courfe of Providence,) which we patiently lufFer and fiibmit to; or by fbme voluntary Penances upon our felves. - And having proved before that there are no fuch remaining Penalties, and that the Scriptures brought for that Pur- pofe have no fiich Scope or Defign in them, as alfb that ■ Penances had another Reafon in the firft Inft itution and -Practice of them, I have. quite obviated this Labour, D d d d but 5 ] 4 ^ Texf j examined which Tapifls cite but however feeing they produce Texts of Scripture for this alio, I fhall examine them, and endeavour to put their right Senfe and Comment upon them. And the iirft is the Example of the Ninevites, who had an utter Defblation proclaimed againftthem, Tet forty days, and Nineveh jball be overthrow*, Jonah 3. 4. Never thelefl ( fays our Author ) by their Works of Pe~ nance, Fa/ling, Prayers, and Sacklotb and Afhes, God was appeafed towards them, and preferved their City, or de- livered them from that Ruine. But he here takes the outward Signs, and "Concomitants of Repentance for the thing it felf, and applies that to them, which be- longs to the inward Principle or Caufe of them. 'Twas an unfeigned Change of Mind From their evil Courfes, and their particular Sin of Violence, and Oppreflion in their great Men, which is almoft infeparable from ab- folute Governments, to which this Deliverance is affert- ed, vcr. 10. And God f aw their Works that they turned from their evil Way, and God repented of the Evil that he faid he would do unto them, and he did it not. A fincere Re- pentance, which only confifts in a true Reformation of Temper and Spirit, muft needs produce a hearty Sorrow for pair Mifdemeanours, which will demonftrate it felf in moft earnert Supplications, ievere Fairings, coarfe Apparel, and the like, as the necelfary Effe&s thereof; ■but then the Reconcilement that is in it is,not to be attri- buted to thefe outward Performances, as if the Offence of die Divine Majefty were fatisfied for by thefe, but to that change of Spirit which they refult from, this be- ing the Obje£t of the whole Art and Management of •Providence, -as that which God only delights in an in- ward Principle or Habit of Righteoufnefs in,our Natures. Another Place is in 2 Chron. 7. 14. where God de- clares that in cafe of any publick Calamity upon his Peo- . pie for their IfoElrme of Satisfactions] $ $ as we find it more than once in holy Scrip are, that Sins may be redeemed ', then it is an eafier After* ion that they may be fatisfied for. To which it may be firit anfwered, t at Redeemed is not the Importance or proper reudring of the Word, but purged, or expiated, or propitiated for, which agrees in meaning with remitted ; and to this fenfe the Septuagint expound it in feveral Places, If a. 22. 14. 8c 27.9, &c. But to allow our Adverlaries a Word, fuppoie it Ihould be Redeemed, it would not found the Roman Doctrine in this Particular: for if we fhould grant that Iniquity here implies the effect; there- of, that is, Punifliment, as it often does, tho probably not in this place ; yet Beneficence and Truth being the molt joyous Employments that we are capable of, which have the greater!: Pleafure belonging to them, cannot be called penal Actions, fuch as thofe are defined to be, that are. Satisfactions to Divine Juftice for the temporal punifhment of our Sins, as we fay that through the Graces of Faith and Repentance our Sins are remitted, yet it cannot be affirmed that Faith and Repentance are proper Penalties or Satisfactions, by which the Confe- quence of Sin is taken away as to the temporal punifh- ment of it. But fuppofing that redeem be the proper .rendring, and this refer to the punifhment of Sin, not to the Guilt or Matter of it, yet we muft obferve that to for their DoEirim of Satisfactions. tin to redeem does not always fignify in the ufage of holy Scripture, to deliver one from an Inconvenience by the Iblution of a certain Price, or fbmething equivalent and adequate thereto, as in the Ranfbm of our Saviour ; but it often denotes barely to deliver without any Satisfaction or Payment at all ; as when it is fb often laid, God re- deemed his People from the Bondage of Mgy pt : And fuch a frequent Expreflion in the Book of Pfalms concerning the exemption of holy David from his perfbnal Dangers, The Lord redeemed my Life from DefiruElion, Pfal. 119. 154, &c. And 'tis very remarkable that of the Prophet, If a. 52. \. Te fhall be redeemed without Mony. So that whether we take this Place in its natural rendring, or after their own Interpretation of it, it cannot be the proof of fuch a Doctrine ; the plain meaning of which is this, that thofe particular Vices of Fraud or Injuftice are purged away, and a righteous Temper advanced in us, by the exercile of a true Beneficence to one onother, (the latter Subftantive fupplying the place of an Adje- ftive, as it often does in the Hebrew Language ; ) or if Iniquity be here to be explained of the punifhrnent thereof, then the fenfe is, that through the habit of this Vertue that is remitted and done away. But the firif Explanation concerning a Spring and Principle of Righteoufnefs in our (elves is more probable from the latter Member of this Verfe, And by the fear of the Lord Men depart from Evil ; it being the manner of this proverbial Writer for the moft part to repeat the fenfe of the former Claule of every Verfe in the fecond, or exprefs it over again in other Words. Another Place that is commonly urged for thefe Sa- tisfactions to Divine Juftice for the temporal punifh- rnent of Sin, is that of Daniel to Nebuchadnezzar, Dan. 4. 27. Wherefore, 0 Kjng, let my Qounfel be acceptable un- f to KB uo The Texts examined which Papijls cite to thee, break ojf thy Sins by Right eottfnefs, and thine Ini- quities by jheiv/ng Mercy to the Poor, if it may be a length- ning of thy Tranquillity. Now the word where the whole ftrefs of the Argument lies which we render break off, does alfo fignify to redeem or free, and there- fore may well be matched at by fbme Men for the ground of fuch a Doctrine, as being againft the harmonious fenfe of the whole Bible, can only be maintained by ibme forced Interpretations of fome places of it. But then allowing the word redeem, which often denotes, as I obferved before, only to relcue or free, without the interpolal of any Satisfa&icn, it cannot be applied to this purpofe, according to the tenour of their own Prin- ciples, if they'l proceed confidently upon them. For as they account for this thing, Men only fatisfy for the temporal pains of their Sins, after they are received in- to the Divine Favour, and have their Guilt and eternal Punifhment remitted to them, and therefore Believers or juftified Perfons are only within this Priviledg. But Nebucadnezzar being a Tyrant, and an Idolater, and a Stranger from the Jewifh Religion, the Prophet Dani- el could not apply to him in thisSenfe, as if he were in Friendship with God, and had the Demerit and Guilt of Sin with the eternal Confequence thereof par- doned and cancelled ; nor does he intimate fuch a Di- ftinftion in the Punifhment of Sin, but only fpeaks in a general manner, Redeem thy Sins by Righteoufnefs, 8rc. What Bellarmine fays upon the account of this Heathen, that the Works of unregenerate Men in a fpecial Influ- ence of Divine Grace, can redeem by a kind of Congru- ity from the Guilt of Sin ; and therefore thofe of juft Men being exerted by more plentiful Meafures of the holy Spirit dwelling in them, are (b available, that they may be faid condignly to redeem by a juft Defert I f in for their DoSlrlne of Satisfactions. c 4 1 in themfelves, from the Penalty of Sin, is unreafbnable as well as againft the tenour of the Scripture, feeing none can attain fuch a Difpofition in themfelves, which is to found that Congruity, or arrive at fuch a Perfecti- on of good Works, even with all the Ad vantage of Gof pel-Grace as may entitle them to the Divine Favour in the Merit of the thing, and not in the effect of infinite Mercy, or according to the gracious Allowances there- of, (but this belongs to another Argument.) Wherefore the plain Interpretation and Senfe of the Place is this, Change the Habit of thy former Courfes, thy Pride, thy Avarice and Oppreflion, with which thou haft treat- ed all People, as if they were not in the fame Preroga- tive of reafbnable Creatures, and the mutual Offices, and the common regard that belongs to fuch not due to them, and poffefs thy Mind with a juft fenfe of the com- mon Nature of Mankind, and the civil Duties thou oweft to thofe whom God has appointed, or fet thee over, and then behave thy felf with a due humanity to thy Fellow-Creatures, an impartial Juftice to every Subject of thy great Empire, and a fpecial Beneficence to afflicted People, fuch as are in a diftrefTed Circum- ftance, particularly the poor Captive Ifraelites, who are the Examples of thy Pride and Tyranny ; and if thou arrive at fuch a Converfion in thy felf, thou mayft happily divert the Divine Vengeance that hangs over thee, there being then no (pbject for it, but that remo- ved which God both denounces and executes it upon. So that here is no Compenfation to the Juftice of God, but only the change of a true Repentance thar leaves no Vi- ces in the Minds of Men to be the matter of his In- dignation. Another Place is Luke 11. 41. Give jilms of fuch at ye have ', and behold, all things are clean unto you. Upon Eeee which 541 7he Texts ex&mmd which fapifts cite which fome affirm that to give Alms is to fat is fj fir Sin. But, firft, wharfoever we are purified by, cannot be faid to be a Satisfa&ion, for fo we are by Faith and Baptifm, and the Word of God. . And then Purity refers to the Mind it felf, and the Removal of the vicious Inclinati- ons and Habits thereof, that that be pofTefTed with an inward Frame and Difpofition of Vertue, which Satif- fettion has no Regard to, being only to compenfate the Divine Juftice, and not to make one the better by it. The place indeed is very remote to their Furpofe, and one- would wonder how it fhould have been produced for it, the Importance of which is plainly this in Refutation of the out-fide Purities of the Pharrfees, who were fo fuperftitious upon that account, that Alms-giving, or' Beneficence to the Poor, is the beft means to purify our' felves, and to render our PofTeflions pure likewife. Which is very evident, as this Beneficence or Charity' is an Inftance of Juftice to our Heavenly Father to re-' turn him a certain Tribute of his Bounty to us, and as it contains Repentance in it of our Frauds or Oppreili-' ons that we may have poflibly been guilty of, and makes amends for them to beftow that upon indigent- People, which perhaps through fbtne Impediment we cannot" reftore to the Owners themfelves i and as it alfo demon-* ftrates a Chriftian Difpofition of Love in us to our Bre- thren : So that thofe who are due Proficients in this, both their Confciences are pure, and all their Eftates' or Enjoyments likewife, as the Apoftle acquaints us in like manner, Tit. i. i^Vnto the Pure all things are janfenius. pure, &C, And an * Author of their own thus explains1 this Place in reference to the Pharifees, fays he, The fenfe of it is, that their Minds being polluted with Inju- fiice and Rapine might he purified, they were commanded to £ive Alms of fuch as they had, that thofe who had nnjujlly taken- for their Voclr'me of Satis fa&ions] < 4 > taken what did not belong to them, fhould beftow their jujl Poffefjions in the relief of other People, that fo it might come to paftthat to thofe who were of a pure Spirit, all out- ward things might be pure to them before God. And now from this obvious Account and Interpretation of the Place, let any one obferve what a Support it is to the Do- ctrine of Satisfactions. Another Place is produced from the Words of John Baptift to the Pharifees, Matt h. 3.8. Bring forth Fruits meet for Repentance. Now thefe Fruits of Repentance mutt needs be thefe famous Satisfactions by which Men compenfatethe Divine Juftice for one part of the Penal- ty of their Sins, but how they can be aiTerted from this Place is not fo obvious ; the Scope and Meaning of which is that John obferving what great reforts of Pharifees and Sadduces came to his Baptifai, whom he knew to be rank Hypocrites, and only concerned for a Shew of Religion among Men, without any regard to an inward San&ity or Habit of Vertue in their Spirits, as being fecure of their Acceptance with God in their Relation to Abraham, that they were his Offspring ac- cording to the Flefh, to whom the Promifes were made ; I fay, John obferving fuch Confluxes of fuch Men, he plainly told them of their Hypocrify, and that if they repented according to the Purpofe of his Baptifmthey fhould exemplify a true Reformation in all the Inftan- cesof a holy Life, as the proper Fruits and Evidence thereof, by which they mould be the true Children and Heirs of Abr.am, and divert the Judgments impend- ing upon them. And what has all this to do with Satis- faction, as fbme of their own || Authors explain it ? Meet \ [anfenius^ Fruits of Repentance does not require any bodily Labour, Maldonac uft* but only an inward Temper of Piety, which is necejfary to all , Me». And another fays, By thefe Fruits we intend A- Eeee 2 mendment 5 44 The Texts t%M hied which faftfls cite mendment of Manners, and all thofe Works that proceed from a truly penitent and reformed Mind. But let us ob- ferve how Bellarmine argues upon the Words ; lays he, Our Adverfaries do not rightly expound this place in refpect to Newnefs of Life, and the Obfervation of the Divine Law. For to bring forth worthy Fruits of Repentance, is to aft in fuch a manner, as becomes a true Penitent ; but he that is a true Penitent, if he have injured any not only ceafes from the Injury, and is more cautious in his Behaviour to that Perfon after- wards, but repairs the Damage or Inconvenience he has done him. The Argument proceeds thus, that be- taufe we are to repair our Injuries of Men in the Exerctfe of our Repentance, we are therefore to do fo in ref^eU of God likewife. But this is not a general Truth even in its re- ference to Men, an Injury may be in fuch a matter, as exceeds our Ability either to reftore or compenfate for, and we cannot imagine that the Repentance Should be un- acceptable for not performing an impoffible Term, fup- pofing the Inftance of David, for his Murder of Vriah, which we are certain was true ; and he againft whom the Injury was a&ed, may remit it, not infifting on a Satisfaction upon that account, and then there is no Obligation thereto. But what have we that we can offer as a Compenfation to an infinite Maiefty to repair the Offence thereof ? or where does he require a Satis- faction of us as the means of Pardon or Remiffion from him? But then if the Parallel fhould hold, that becaufe Men muft compenfate one another for the Injuries done them, therefore they muft do fb to God likewife, fee- ing Compenfation does confift of an equal return of Honour or Profit to the Detriment of the former Action, and thereby fatisfying for the whole Penalty that be- longed to it, it would follow that we could compenfate not for their Dotlriw of Satu faElions. 545 not only for the temporal part of the Punifhment of Sin, but for the whole Guilt and Punifhment of it, which is a Conclusion they will not allow in Honour to Chrift, though they have no fuch. true regard thereto. From whence it appears, that this part of the BaptirVs Ser- mon of Repentance has no more reference to the Ro- mifh Satisfactions than the former Places of Scripture have. Another Place is 2 Cor. 7. ir. Where the Jpoflle Among other good Fruits of a holy Sorrow, that tvorketh Re- pcntance, puts Revenge in the Words of Bellarmine. Now this Revenge he makes to refpect the paft time, and to be the fame with Satisfaction, or a Severity up- on our felves, whereby we compenfate the Divine Ju- ftice for the Injury of our paft Sins. But if we take Revenge here (tw cacAiWiv) in a great content of the Roman Authors for the Excommunication of the In- ceftuous Perfbn, which the Apoftle denounced himfelf in the former Epiftle, chap. 5. |, 4, 5, he. And which always had this Defignment in it, (befides the Vindica- tion of the holy Doctrines of Chrift's Church by fuch #n Inftance upon the TranfgrefTors of them ) t& reclaim the guilty Perfbns by a moderate Infliction or Chaftife- ment upon them, as our Apoftle exprefly acquaints us in the fame place, ver. 5. That this is for the Dejlrutfion of the Flejb, that the Spirit might, be faved in the day of the Lord Jefus : I fay, if we take this Revenge in this fenfe, as we are juftified in fb doing by very many of the Roman Communion, then it had a future Profpecfc to Amendment or Reformation, and was not inflicted as a Satisfaction to Divine Juftice for any part of the Pu- nifhment of fuch a Mifcarriage, which indeed, that it fhould be upon that account, is againft their own Do- ctrine, for according thereto Satisfaction lies open to t none 5 4^ T*e Texts exdmimd which fapifls cite- none till after the Exercife of Repentance, being only the Benefit of fuch Perlbns as already are in a State of Grace and Divine Favour ; but this Revenge was Antecedent to that, upon a Perfbn that then had no Difpofition for it, or was in the Cuftom and Habit of his Sin. But then if we may not interpret the place in this refe- rence to the Excommunication of the inceftuous Per- fbn, with fuch an Harmony of learned Men, I do not lee but it ftill has the fame profpecl: to afterwards, and was performed as a means pf their Amendment, and not an Aft of pure Punifhment, fuch as Satisfaction properly is : for every word of this whole Text looks for- wards to their Improvement in fome Vertue^or other. This Correption of the A poftle did excite more Vigi- lance in them, a ftronger Indignation and Difdain of Sin,a more fenfible Fear & Caution againftit,and a more intenfe Purpofe to refrain from it, and it made them a£t a certain Revenge upon themfelves to cwt themfelves fhort in their lawful Enjoyments that they might ob- tain an Advantage of Vertue by reducing their ie.niual Appetites, and bringing their Bodies into a better, Com- pliance^ that means, and this is only a due Prudence, the more to fecure us in the Morals of a Chriilian Life* which muftbe allowed by all People, and their Practice too, to chaftife themfelves by Works of Penance, pro- per Abftinences and the like, while thefe are accounted only as a X>ifcipline, and net ' Satisfactions for the Penal- ties of their Sins. The laft place infilled on to this Purpofe is i Cor. 1 1 . 3 1 . If we would judg our [elves, rve jhould not be judged. "Which the Roman Writers thus explain and comment upon, If we jhould duly exercife our [elves inWsrks of Penance, Alms, Fajlings, and other Severities upon our Bodies, we jhould thereby compenf&te for the temporal Pe- nalties for their DoBrine of Satis fattionf. r^ nalties of our Sins, and prevent them in the Effeff of Di- vine 'Jujlice^ But this is a plain mifapplying of the place which does not relate to judicial Ads or pure Pu- nifhment, but to fatherly Gorreptions, or Chaltile- ments, only having this Parpofe in them, to render Men better, and reform them thereby ; as evidently appears from the following Verfe, But when we Ate judged we are chaftned of the Lord, that we jhouldnot be condemned with the World. The natural Expofition of the Text is this, if upon a due Inquiry into our felves to know the Propen- fions of our Natures, and the actual Mifcarriages we have been guilty of in our eafy Compliance therewith, and fb oppofe them with more Caution, and preclude all Advantages they may have againft us by a rtricTreL- Guard over them, and frequent Abftinences to abate the Principle of them ; ifwedothus, and obtain a Chriiti- an Temper in our Spirits in the Efficacy thereof, we fhall quite prevent the Chaltifements of God,as being already Partakers of the Defign of them, and having no need of fuch an Admonition and Difcipline upon us. Another Argument that Bellarmine urges for his Satis- factions is from the Parallel of the Jewifh Sacrificesin' the 4th, jth, 6th Chapters of Leviticus, where they are defcribed of a different Value and Eftimation, accord- ing to the Meafure of the Fault. And thefe he proves to have been a Compenfation for temporal Punijhment, be- caufe elfe they would have been fruflaneoujly inftituted, fee- ing they did not expiate the eternal Yunifjment and Guilt- of Sin. ■ And now allowing this Notion of Legal Sacri- fices, yet that Penances fhould have the fame efficacy to compenfate for temporal Puniihment, becaufe thefe Sa- crifices ina fpecial Appointment, and Regard to 'Chrilt, or by an-Influence derived from him had llich a Vertue annexed to them, is -no Confequence. Different Pe~ nances,' 548 ^e Tex** examined which Tapifts cite nances or Degrees of them according to the Exigence of the Difteroper, fo as to be the beft Remedies, and the moft effectual Cures thereof, we do not deny ; but thefe have no Relation to the old Sacrifices, nor is there any realbn to conclude a common Effect or Operation between them, the one being the Inftitution of God for what Purpoles he pleafed, and the other only the Contrivance of Men, though not without their pro- per Advantage in the due Ufe and Exercife of them. But to fpeak the truth of the matter, thefe were only typical things both Sacrifices and Satisfactions, and did only take away legal Defilements, that fuch as had been polluted therewith, in this means might again be ad- mitted into the Tabernacle, and the publick Service of God there, which otherwile they were to be deprived of; as the Apoftle teftifies, that they only (anBifed to the purifying of the tlefh, and that they did not purge the Con- fcience of the Offerers from dead Works, which is only at- tributed to Chrift's Sacrifice, Heh.g.i 3,14. Butit may be demanded, If this was the only Effect of them, and there was no remiflion of Immoralities by them,or Sins againft the Law of Nature, but only Tranfgreflions of pofitive Precepts, that a pofitive Punifhment, or temporal In- convenience fhould not be inflicted on them, how were the Worthies of the old Teftament exempt and puri- fied from their Sins? Juft as we are in the Efficacy of o ChrifVs Sacrifice which was to be offered for the Sins of the World, and which was then offered both in the Intention of the Son, and the Acceptation of the Fa- ther ; they were exempt from all the Confequences of Sin, in the means on their fide of a true Repentance and Faith in this Sacrifice : And the whole Pardon did belong to thefe Difpofitions in their Minds, as we may oblerve from the People of the Jews, who although they for their Dottrine of Satis} attiom. *49 they facrificed in the greateft Abundance, yet had their Sins ftill charged upon them, enjoying no other Advan- tage therefrom, but only the Efteem of a legal Purity, and the Liberty of their Temple-Service, and free Commerce with one another, which elfe they would have been debarred of. And whenlbever God promifed RemuTion of Sins, it was to thefe Qualifications of Faith and Repentance, and not to the material thing of offer- ing a Sacrifice, which neverthelefs might reprieve them from lome temporal Judgment in the Divine Defignati- on, as it related to the Oblation of Chrift. Neither were thefe Sacrifices vainly inftituted, according to BelUr- mine, though Remiflion of Sins was not purchaled by them, becaufe they were exprefs Reprefentations of the Sacrifice of Chrift, and did excellently inftrucl: the pi- ous People of thofe Times in the Notion and Faith of him. So that the Sacrifices under the Law, as they were only typical things both of the Sacrifice of Chrift, and the Compenfation thereof to the Divine Juftice for the Offence of our Sins, and were neither Compenfa- tions themfelves, nor had any Remiflion belonging to them, except only in a civil Regard of Legal Impuri- ties, . they cannot be Proofs of this Doctrine of Satisfacti- ons if there were any reference between them. The Argument founded upon Merits,that becaufe we can delerve eternal Life, we can therefore fatisfy for fome part of the Punifhment of our Sins, which is lefs than the other, being only one falfe Doctrine for the ground-work of another, I fhall not need to enlarge upon, only obferve how harmonioufly to the Roman .AfTertion let them confider, that eternal Life is ftiled in Scripture the Gift of God, Rom. 6. 23. and afcrib- ed to the Mercy of the Lord in the day of Judgment : 2 Tim. 1. 18. And when it is called a Reward, as Ffff Math. 550 The Texts examined which Tapifts cite Matth. 20. call the Labourers, and give them their Reward. And when it is expreffed a Crown of Juftice, 2 Tim. 4. that Reward muft be explained of the Di- vine Goodnefs, which propofes fuch an ample Return to our imperfect Labours, fb much above the Equiva- lency of them in a commutative way ; and that Juftice muft be referred to the Promife of God, by which he is obliged to perform his Word, that had no other Reafbn but his own Bounty, and infinite Goodnefs. Thus I have endeavoured to lay down the true fenfe of thofe Texts of Scripture which the Romanifts bring for their Satisfactions ; which all refults into this gene- ral Doctrine, That the Favour of God is always obtain- ed, and his Judgments diverted in the exercife of a true Repentance : this is that which ftops the Vials of God's Wrath towards any People, not a Compenfation to Divine Juftice, which is impoflible for any Creature, and is only the purchafe of Chrift's Blood, but a true Change and Conversion in themfelves. A moft com- panionate and merciful Father, after the more gentle Methods of Precepts and Doctrines, and fecret work- ings in our Spirits, often inflicts fbre Chaftifements up- on us to excite us by a kind of Violence to a Reformati- on by that means ; and when he has difciplined Us into this Habit, and advanced a Chriftian Difpofition in us, he then removes thofe Scourges from us, which have nowaccomplifhed their Defign,. and purged away that vicious Matter. that was thecaufeand occafionof them. So that thefe temporal Punifhments or Afflictions are ta- ken off, not after the manner of Satisfaction, but by way ©f Difpofition or change of Temper in our felves. And as to Works of Penance, which are either means of Repentance, or Effects and Signs of it, feeing they may be. fuch great Advantages to the repreflingof our fenfual for their Dottrine of SatisfaBioni. 551 fenfual Appetites, and affording us a more eafy conqueft ofourfelves, there can be no Objection to them, whe- ther they be voluntarily undertaken, or by the Autho- rity of a Gofpel-Minifter who has the care of Souls com- mitted to him, if they be not fucn as are repugnant to the true Service and Worfhip of God, or having no foun- dation in his holy Word, but only being the Command- ments of Men, would make a Will-worfhip in the obfer- vers of them ; and if they be not magifterially enjoin- ed without a due Prudence or relation to the Exigency they are defigned for. Thofe three Instances muft needs be admitted if they be difcreetly applied, Prayer, Faff- ing, and Alms, as being of great efficacy to the promo- ting of a Chriftian Temper in our Spirits. Falling will bring us into the government of our Bodies, that our Vertues will be more attainable by us ; and giving of Alms in the more repeated Exercife thereof, when we more converle with the Joys and Thanks of relieved People, will advance us to a Difpofition of Charity and Chriftian Affections in our Souls : And Prayer not only procures a more liberal Afliftance of Grace with us, but in the more frequent practice of that Duty, raifes our Spirits above Senfuality, and the World, and begets an Heavenly-mindednefs in us. But then fbme of thefe cannot be Works of Satisfaction which are defined labo- rious Works, being the moft joyous Employments we are capable of; what can be a more pleafurable Aftion than converfing with God in Prayers, and Praiies, and Thankfgivings to him, or in frequent Study and Con- templations on his Word ? And what can afford us a more comfortable Reflection than to redrefsthc Mileiies of our indigent Brethren, and help them to fbme fhare of the Enjoyments of this Life ? That Perlbn to whom thefe Performances are irkfbm and grievous, is not only F f f f 2 not < c % The Texts examined which Tapifts cite not to be reckoned as a Chriftian, but to have loft the proper Inftincl: of a Man through fbme ill Courles or Behaviour. And even Failing it felf, and thofe other Aufterities in our Apparel,being clothed with Sackcloth and the like, ib often mentioned in Scripture, have a fpiritual Comfort and Joy in them, as being either the means of a fincere Repentance, or the Effects of it, tho they be fb ungrateful to the Body. But however they are no Satisfactions for any part of the penalty of Sin, but only Advantages to repent of it, and remove the Judgments that belong to it, as we attain in the u(e of them to a more vertuous habit and Difpofition in our Natures. And now having fhown againft the Doctrine of Sa- tisfactions, that there is no Proof of it in Scripture, viz. That Men can compenfate by any Afflictions, or vo- luntary Penances for any part of the punifhment of their Sins, which is an unreafbnable AfTertion in refpect of mere Men, as well as derogatory to the Redemption of our bleiled Saviour ; it manifeftly follows, that none can fatisfy for the Penalties of other People, or acquit and releafe them, which muft be done by an overplus of Sa- tisfactions, or a performance of more than is requifite upon their account. Yet feeing the Romanifts do main- tain this unreafbnable thing, that Men may exceed in their Satisfactions, and fb found aTreafure of the Church,, as they call it, which the Governours thereof, efpecially our holy Father the Pope (to fpeak in their phrafe) have the power to apply as they pleafe. I fball alfb confider thofe Texts of Scripture which they produce for thefe Redundances with as much Brevity as may be. And the firlr is Col. i. 24. where the Apoftle fays, I now rejoice in my Sufferings for you, and fiU up that which is behind of the Afflictions ofQhrifk in my Flejh, for his for their Dottrine of SatisfaElions* 555 his Bodies fake, which is the Church. Bell at mine com- plains upon this Place of Chemnitiusy anc^ other Pro- teftants for affirming of the Catholick Writers (as the Roman Party ftile themfelves) as if it were a Doctrine of theirs that there was fbmething wanting to the abfo- lute Fulnefs of Chrift's Satisfaction, which he calls an impudent Lie, and declares that none of their Writers can be alledged for it, they all maintaining in a great Agreement, the Satisfaction of Chrift to have been of infinite Value, and a full Atonement not only for the Sins of one World, but of Millions more, if there had been fo many, and that all manner of Sin, and all kinds of Punifhment are expiated by it, that which they aflert being only this, that the Sufferings of the Saints may be an Acceffion to the Treafure of Satisfactions in the Church, but are not requifite to fiipply any Defect in Chrift's Paflion. And they were to be thanked for this Juftice to our Saviour, if their Practice did not contradict it, for if they believe this ample Sufficiency, nay this-Redundancy of Chrift's Satisfaction, why do fhey then join others to it, and why do they perfwade their unhappy Penitents to fly to thefe, and difpenfe their Pardons and Indulgences from them. But howe- ver feeing he fpeaks of a general Agreement, let us hear how fbme of them exprefs themfelves in this matter, which can only be a reafbnable Foundation of their Pra- ctice. Thus a certain * Author comments upon the place, * Poiygran. m The Apoftle openly declares that his Sufferings in the Flefh ^Ecdcf, did profit the Church, and fnf plied the Deficiency ofChriJPs dogmacum. Paffion, or that which that had left in it, not that the Suf- ferings 0/ Paul were more efficacious thanthofe ofChrift, but that Chrifi removed the Guilt of Sin by his Paffion, and Paul with other juft Perfons in their Sufferings for his Bo- dy, or the Church hive accomplijhed the' Remainder. I fiip- *t pofe 554 ^ Texts examined which Tapi/ls cite pofe he means that which was to be a Stock for Indul- gences, and the Difcharge of temporal Punifhment. Now whaf*can be more plainly fpoken as to the DefecT: of Chrift's Sufferings, and that a Sufficiency in all Re- fpecls.is made up from the Saints, which is the fenfe of their other Authors, only expreffed with more Decency, that indeed through an Influence of Divine Grace in the Purchafe of Chrift, we can fatisfy for the temporal pains of our Sins, and that we may do more than is requifite for our felves upon that account. Now this being liich a Repugnancy to the Apoftle in abundance of other Pla- ces, cannot be his meaning in this, that he fhould join any thing elfe, as a Completion to the Atonement and Satisfaction of Chrift's Sufferings, or fuppole a want in them. His Doctrine is this, there being two forts of the Sufferings of Chrift expreffed in Scripture, one perfbnal which he fubmitted to on the Crofs for the Redempti- on of his Church, and which was there compleated ; others, which he ftill fuftains in his faithful Members, whom he has a Sympathy and fellow-feeling with, and which lie fhall always be concerned in, to the end of the World : I fay, there being thefe two forts of Chrift's Sufferings, the Doctrine of the Apoftle in this Place is in relation to the latter of them, that he moft willingly did engage in his ftiare of the Afflictions of faithful Peo- ple for the Benefit of the Church, to confirm them in their Chriftian Habits of Faith, and Patience, and Re- fignation to God by his Example. And that thefe Affli- ctions being fuftained by the Members of Chrift, and for his Name are reckoned to him, is very evident, not only from the Sentence of the laft day upon uncharita- ble People, / was an hungry , and I was thirjly, and I was in Prifon, and ye minifired not unto me ', but from many other places. Thus our Saviour fpoke from Heaven,when our for their Dottrine of Satisfactions. « « « our Apoftle was a Perfecutor of the Chriftians, SauitSa:/l, why perfecuteft thou me ? A&s 9. 4. And fo it is faid con- cerning Mofesjhat he efieemed the Reproach of Chrijl great- er Riches than the Treafures of ' jEgy pt. And the Apoftle likewife after his account of the kinds of their Afflictions, 2 Cor. 4. 10. We bear in our Body the Mortification or Suf- ferings of the Lord Jefus. And again, 2 Cor. 1.5. As the Sufferings of Chrijl abound in us. And that his Afflictions were a Angular Advantage and Edification to the Church, he himfelf tells us more than once, Phil.i. 1 2, 1 3, 14. I would ye fhould under/land, Brethren, that the things which happened unto me, have fain out rather to the Furtherance, of the Gofpel ; fo that my Bonds in Chrilt are manifeft in nil the Balace >, and all other Places ; and many of the Bre- thren in the Lord, waxing confident by my Bonds , are much more bold to /peak the Word without Fear. And fb again, 2 Cor. 1.6. Whether we be afflicted it is for your Confola- tion and Salvation, which is effectual in the enduring of the fame Sufferings which we alfo fuffer ; or whether we be com- forted, it is for your Confolation and ■Salvation^ Where the Apoftle plainly informs us of the EfTed of his Affli- ctions, that it was not to exempt his pious Brethren from fuch like Chaftifements in their ownPerfbns, (which is the account of Satisfaction) but to encourage them thereto, and infpire them with more Refblutiori under all the Hardships of a Chriftian Life, by the Ex- ample of his Conftancy, which well explains the End of his Afflictions in this place to the Colofftans, that they were for the Edification of the Church in fome of the Vertues of their Heavenly Profeflion, whether Faith or Perfevorance, or any other proper Product of fuch a Circurmrance ; and both the Expreflions will admit of this fenfe. And very many of the Roman Writers are content with it, which Bellarmine himfelf does allow f. to j 5^ The Texts examined which Paplfts cite to be natural enough for one Acception of die place: and if lb, if it may be expounded another way , then thefe Satisfactions for other People 3re no neceflary In- ference or Deduction from it. And 'tis very obfervable that where he afferts his own fenfe, he only does it up- on a Suppofal of the C&tog in Controverfy, that becaufe the Apoftle was willing to promote their Advantage in all the Refpects that he was able, as one muff conceive of the Author of that Sentence, I would gladly be Jpent for you, therefore he communicated his Sufferings to the Expiation of the temporal' Guilt or Penalty of their Sins. But might not one as well conclude concerning Merit, that becaufe he was defirous \ to be beneficial to them in every thing that he could, therefore he merit- ed eternal Happinefs and Glory for them? Ought it not to have been proved firft of all, that he could do ei- ther of thefe, or that he could profit them in other In- ftances, than only by confirming and building them up in their holy Faith, which we allow, and no more? By this kind of Argument one might maintain the moft extravagant things, and affure ones felf of all thofe.Ad- vantages that the Charity, or Chriftian Affection of any Perfon would be willing to procure for him, wher ther they be poffible and expedient, or no. 'This there- fore cannot be underftood as a Proof of Satisfactions for other People, but only imports thus much, that the Apo- ftle was very joyful to endure the hardeft things, and accomplifh his Prdpdrtion ofthofc Afflictions that fuc- eeflively are to be undergone by the Company of faith- ful People, or Members of Chrift to the end of the World ; she was glad to endure thefe, for tk; fpiritual Advantage and Edification that might redormd there- from to the Church. To which is parallel, and to be explained in the fame manner, that other place of our Apo- for thtir VoBrine of Satisfactions*. jj7 Apoftle, 2 Tim. 2. 10. Therefore I endure all things for the ElecVs Sake, that they may obtain the Salvation which is in Chrift Jefus with eternal Glory : .and alio 2 Cor. 12. 15. I will very gladly fpend, and befpent for you, viz,. That he would cheerfully part with all that he had for the Procurement of their Salvation. Another Place is Ephef. 5.1,2. Be ye followers of God, as dear Children, and walk in Love, as Chrift alfo hath lo- ved us, and given htmfelf for man Offering and Sacrifice to God for a fweet-fmelling Savour. Thus one of them comments upon this place,That as Chrift being the Head of his myftical Body, in the efFec~bof his ardent Charity, offered up himfelf for his Membersjlb ought every Mem- ber upon any needful or important occafion,even lacrifice it felf for its Fellow-Member. And what if we fhould yield all this to be contained in our Chriftian Charity, that after the Example, of our Saviour, we fhould be difc poled even to die for the procurement of fbme greater ad- vantage to our Brethren, which is no more than the Do- ctrine of the.Apoftle, 1 John $. 16. Hereby perceive we the Love of God, becaufe he laid down his Life for us ; and vee ought to lay down-our Lives for the Brethren : Does it therefore follow that it can only be by way of Satisfacti- on for the penalties of their Sins, and upon no account of their moral Good or proficiency in a Chriftian Life ? But then if the parallel fhould be exactly infifted. on ac- cording to their Interpretation, feeing Chrift iatisfied by his Death for the whole guilt and demerit of Sin, it muft then be allowed that in our Death for our Brethren we alfo fatisfy in the fame latitude, not only for the tem- poral punifhment of Sin, but the eternal Guilt and penal- ty of it,which is a repugnancy to their own Doctrine. For the Inftance of ourSaviour cannot uni verfally be propoled Gggg to 558 The Texts examined which fdjnfls eke to our imitation, who was God as well as Man, and in the exercife of his Divinity did perform abundance of things ; but only he is propoled to us in the Actions of his humane Nature, the admirable Santtity, and moral Perfe&ions which he exemplified in his whole Behavi- our. But however, aitho we are obliged to lay down our Lives for the Brethren in fome fignal Inft ance of their Advantage, yet this is not the Scope or Do&rine of the Place, but only the Sincerity of our Chriftian Affecti- ons to one another, that as Chrift by his voluntary Ob- lation and Sacrifice of himfelf for our Sins, did afford thehigheft Example of an intenfe Charity ; fo we fhould be hearty and unfeigned in our Refpe£ts to our Fellow- Chriftians, Love as Brethren,* be pitiful and courteous ? And thus the Writers of the Church of Rome do gene- rally explain it. Another place for thele vicarious Satisfactions, that the effeft of any ones Sufferings can redound to others, is Gal. 6. 2. Bear ye one another s Burdens : Which that it relates to that particular fort of Charity, thatconfifts in a candid Interpretation of one anothers Actions, and not cenfuring them in the hardeft fenfe or conftru&ion of them, is very manifeft from the Context both before and after : That we fet up a Tribunal of Equity for one another, and make all the Condefbenfions that we fair- ly can as to any Misbehaviour any Perfbn has been guilty of,his Circumftance might have rendred him more liable to it, or the natural habit of his own Body, and we are not fecure from the like Inftance our felves. The Para- phrafeof the place then may be this, that we ought with a great deal of Patience to bear the Faults of other Peo- ple, to be candid and favourable in our cenfures of them, and not to ufe Severity upon them ; which expreffion of a due Charity, ( not to mention how apt it is to in- duce for their DoElrim of Satisfactions. j jp duce one to Repentance, when the contrary Method would exafperate and harden ) is the accomplishing of the Law, and will obtain the raoft lenity to our felves, if we fhould happen according to the liablenefs of hu- mane Nature to be overcome by any Temptation. This is the true Expofition of the Place, as it lies with the Context, and how much it relates to Satisfactions one for another, let any one judg. Another Argument is drawn from the Communion of the Saints. We are taught (fays Bellarmine) in indulg. lib. i. thit Article ', that all faithful People are mutually Members •, eaP- 3- and one living Body : and as living Members do afjifi one another \ fo the Faithful in like manner do communicate their good things among them felves, efpecially thofe which being fuperfluous to one, may be necejfary or profitable to 0- thers. But the Communion of Saints does only require a mutual Sympathy and refentment among them, or a kind of Partnerfhip both in Grief and Joy, and all the Accommodations of this Life,when the afflicted Circum- stance of any of our Brethren ftands in need thereof, that they fhould all be affected jufr as any of them are, and make their Pofleflions a common Treafure or Store for them ; and that they fhould likewife communicate as much as they are able, their fpiritual good things, their Knowledg, and Counfels, and Chriftian Admonitions to a holy Life ; but that they fhould tranfmit their pro- ^ per Actions to one another, is unconceivable, and againft the Logick of all Men, as that the Effects of an undoubt- ed Faith, the Conftancy and Fortitude of the blefTed A- poftles fhould be reckoned to any other Perfbn as their own Vermes. And this they confefs in refpect of Me- rit, that that is a thing which cannot be communicated ; and how an inftance of fuffering fhould be more, being both alike perfonal Performances, I cannot perceive. Ggggs In- 5 60 Tke Texts Mffljiwd which Taftjls cite Indeed the fruits of our Example or good Works have a common Influence and Nature, as they are Ornaments of the fame Body, and excite every Member to the like Behaviour, and1 Chriftian Morals; but the Actions themfelves are appropriate to the Subject and incom- municable ;and Bellarmines Argument, when he afferts, and maintains the contrary, is only begging of the Que- ftion. The Saints fays hc,do communicate their good things to one another- : So lay we too, all the good things that they have, but Satisfactions are denied by us Protectants to belong to them, as being only the Prerogative of Chrift and that the Sufferings of fome may be applied to other Peo- ple. But this is a violent and forc'd Ufage of the place ; here is nothing to carry ones thoughts to thfs Commutation of a different Kind or Recompence Of fpiritual for temporal, but they are plainly temporal on both fides. The meaning of the Apoftle is apparently this, ( there being no certainty of thefe worldly Poffeili- ons, which make themglves Wings and fly away, but he that is now furnifh'd with abundance of them, and fb enabled to relieve others, may fhortly be reduced to- fb much Indigence, as to (land in need of Charity himfclf, and fo on the contrary ) that the Corinthi-: ans abounding h t&T iuv >&ip£>/m this prefent time fhould adminifter to the Jews, who were then wanting, that in cafe there fhould happen a change of Circumltance ; and they both, placed in oppofite Fortunes, the Jews might again aflift the Corinthians, not only from the Ob- ligation of Chriftian Charity, but common Juftice. Commentators refer this to a Famine in Judea, which mighc quickly be. over, and fb they in a Condition of giving Alms, and not receiving.. And now if there be. this interchangeable Charity, or mutual Beneficence among Chriftians, what does that concern Satisfaction ? or how does it ■ follow that fbme pious People fhould compenfate in the Meafure of their Sufferings for the Penalty of others Sins ? which is their Inference from the place. And that place to the Romans 15.27. is no Advantage to this Argument, If the Gentiks -have ken made Partakers of their (jtriritual things, their Duty is dfo to minifker unto them in carnal things. The Recom- pence here isexpreffy in carnal things, and to be applied- not 5 6 % Tlx Texts examined which Tapifts cite not to the Benefit of Satisfactions, but to the Doctrines of Salvation, and the ineftimable Treafureof the Word of Life, which the Gentiles firft received from the p reach- ing of the Jews, and which well deferved fuch a return as this. But then fuppofe that the Place fhould be meant of a Retribution of fpiritual things, which they wanted for thofe temporal things wherein they abound- ed, yet why fhould thefebe Satisfactions? are there no other fpiritual Bounties which a pious and grateful Soul can remunerate a fecular Kindneft, or Beneficence with- al ? Have Prayers no Value or ftffect in them ? Are ho- ly Instructions, or Improvements in the facred Science of the Scriptures of Truth, and Examples of Vertue copied therefrom, of no Benefit to any Perfbn, fb that they may recompenfe a fmall Contribution of the good things of this World ? Thofe that understand this place with Bellarmine, of fpiritual returns for temporal things, do define thefe returns by Prayers and Suffrages for their Alms-Givers, or Benefactors, of whom a cer- tain Author fets down a long Catalogue. Another place which they bring from this Article of the Communion of Saints for the Eftablifhment of Satisfactions one for another, is Pfal. no. 6$. The Ar- gument whereof only depends upon the Latin Verfion, Particeps ego fum omnium timentium te ', I am a Parta- ker with all thofe that fear thee ; but the Hebrew Word is "Un> which we better render in our Englifh Bible a Companion, I am a Companion of all that fear thee. Which only argues the Prophet's converfe to have been with pious Men, and proves him alfb to have been fuch at the fame time. But what if we fhould allow their Latin Verfion7 are not there many Effects and Offices of Charity, which all good People participate in, a mutual Refentment of one anothers Circumstances, and moft for their Dottrine of SatisfaStiom. 56} moft hearty Applications and Afliftances under them^ and Prayers to God to accomplifhthat in their Behalf, which lies beyond their proper Powers to perform for them? And will not thefe Inftancesfufficiently explain the Communion of faithful People, which are all fet forth in the Revelations of God's Word ? But muft we needs run to the unfcriptural thing of Satisfactions for the full Importance, and definition of it ? This is adding to the Oracles of God, and the ftating of things we find there : what the Conlequence thereof is, let them confider who do fb. Another Place is 2 Cor. 2. which they form into this Argument, The Apojlle mitigated the due Penalty to the incefluous Perfon, whom he had excommunicated for that grievous Crime, upon the Entreaty and Inter cejjion of the Corinthians. Ver. 10. To whom ye forgive any things I forgive alfo, for I forgive any thing to whom I forgive it, for your fakes forgive I it in the Perfon of Chrift. Now from hence they conclude, that we may be delivered from the Penalties that belong to our Sins by the Sufferings of other good People, as thefe are applicable to our account. But firft of all, fuppofing Prayer to be a laborious Work, as they define Satisfaction, which being the tranfport of our Souls to Heaven, cannot come under that notion ; here is no mention of the Corinthians Prayers in this matter: indeed he remitted this publick Cenfure, or fhortned the time of it, for their fakes,or for their advan- tage, that perhaps they might not grow proud of them- felves, or contract a hardned and uncompaflionate Tem- per towards any Brother by that means, but it no ways appears that he did this at their requeft. And befides, if they had addreffed him in this behalf, it could not have been reckoned as a Satisfaction, which was thus offered to the Apoftle, and not to God, againft whom the In- f jury j 64 Ihe Texts examined which Tapifts cite jury of Sin efpecially redounds, and to whom a Com- pcnfation is chiefly to be rendred. But however that this was a Difcipline of the Church, to lead this Perfon, and all the Members of that Communion to a true Refor- mation and Holinefs of Life, and not a Sat u f action up- on him, or to be performed by any other Perfon upon his-Account, which has no refpecl: taa future Amend- ment, is very evident, that afloon as it had this effect upon him, it was then relaxed, and he exempt and de- livered from it ; ver.6, 7, 8 Sufficient to fuch a Man is this Pumjhment, &rc. And that laft Argument of theirs, thafrGod vouch- fafed many Advantages to fome for the good Works and Merits of others; as for she: Piety of Abraham hefpa- red hot ; and for' the Uprightnefs of holy David almoft all the Kings of Judah after him, who were abundance of them very ill Men ; and feveral times at the Inftance of Mofes he retrieved the whole People from fudden ru- ine. And therefore this regard to vertuous Men being allowed in the Difpenfation of his Benefits, which is evident from the Scriptures, why fhould it not be ad- mitted in the pardon of temporal Punifhment ? And 'tis certain that God has fignified this regard to pious Men by more Examples than thefe, and not only in the colla- tion of Advantages or Benefits, but in the remiffion of punifhment too ; but then this was not done in the pur- chafe of their Merits, which none can poflibly arrive at, nor by way of Commutation, or one fatisfying for ano- ther, which none could ever do upon his own account, but it wholly proceeded from the immenfe Goodnefs and infinite Affection of the Divine Nature to Mankind, which takes hold of any occafion of their Benefit, or free exertion of it felf towards them. Thus for their Doftrine of Satisfactions* 565 Thus I have done with thofe Texts of Scripture, that either Bell.trmine or any other of his Communion, that I know of, produce for A\tf«/i#/0/w,whether they be fuch as are performed by any Perfon for himfelf,or being a redun- dancy on that account are applied to other People; and I hope fufficienuly made it manifeft that they bear another ienfe than what thele Authors have put upon them. I fhall now in the lair, place with as much brevity as may be, fhew the Original of thele Satisfactions, how they began, and were eftablifhed in the Church. In order to which we muft, firfr, obferve the antient Di£ . cipline of the Church, that thole who were guilty of any notorious or greater Offences were always removed from the Communion of it, and were to undergo a long Exclufion and ftate of Penance, before they were ad- mitted into it again, which might be a proper means of a true Repentance in themfelves, and both a teftifi- cation thereof, and a determent to other People from the like Mifcarriages (as I obferved before.) The time of this Exclufion was often long, according to the nature of the Offences. The great St. Bafil in his Canons of Ecclefiaftical Cenfures, prefcribes a Penance of fifteen years to thofe that had been guilty of the Sin of Adul- tery, before they were to be admitted into the Commu- nion of faithful People, as to all the advantages thereof, both of Prayer, and the holy Eucharift: and thole who had committed the lefs inftance of that Sin with an un- married Perfon, which is (tiled Fornication, were not ordinarily to partake of thele Advantages till after a Pe- nance of ibvGn years : And fo other Sins, as they were efteemed of an higher Nature, or were more influentL al upon other people from the quality of the Perfons acting them, had a proportionable Penance afligned to them, which was always longer and more levere, when Hhhh it 566 37;? Texts examined which iPapifts cite it was fubje&ed in any of the Orders of the Prieftiy Fim&ion, than when it related to Lay-people, as we might produce many Canons to this purpofe concerning Drunkennefs and the like ; nay, thofe things that were always reckoned inoffenfive, and no matter of Cenfure at all in Lay-people, when admitted by a Clergyman, were adjudged to great Penalties, as to play at Dice, or enter the Theater, and publick Spectacle, with the like ; the pious Fathers of the primitive Times being of opi- nion, that thefe were Indecences to the holy Chara- cter, and not confident with the Sacrednefs of it ; or which being allowed in fuch Perfbns would be too much an occafion to thofe Vices that are commonly the Effe&s of fuch Liberties. Now thefe Penances, as they were allowed to none, or none were capable of the Benefit of them, but thofe Can. ad Am- w^° were difpofed f°r tne Gface of Repentance to relin- phy. 75. quifli their evil Courfes, and no longer perfift in them ; lb they were accomplifhed by feveral fteps or gradual advances above one another. The firfr. was called the Station of weeping (tIu) TTfoffKhxvmv) without the Port of the holy . Oratory , where the Sinners were obliged to ftand, not being permitted to enter therein, and entreat the Prayers of the happy partakers of that Priviledg, which they of- ten did with flouds of Tears in a juft refentment of their Offences. The fecond jftep was the place of Hearing within the Port, and which extended to the Station of the Catechumens y whether they were thofe ^ who being willing to become Chriftians from a Pagan State, did only apply for a due Information in the Faith and Morals of that Heavenly. Profeflion ; or thofe other that being arrived at a competent notion and knowledg thereof, for their Do&rine of Satis faftionsl 567 thereof, did dcfire, and had a right to the Sacrament of Baptifm : and here the Penitents were ufed to ftand only partaking of the Word preached, and then de- parting with the Catechumens, not being allowed to join with the Faithful in the Church-Liturgy or Com- mon-Prayer. The third was the place of Subjection or Subftrati- on, (vffaVrains) to which were appropriated the pe- nitentiary Acts, as it is rendred by Tranflators who were very skilful in this Difcipline, Panite#tut and the Verb <3jaTi7rfav, ptftitere. The Areopagite explains this of a kneeling down, by which the Penitents fub- mitted themfelves to the Presbyter, who was appoint- Eccief. me- ed to have the charge over them, without all queftion rarch- caP- s» for a relaxation of their Penance, that they might fbo- ner come into all the benefits of Church-Communi- on. But it is more probable that thefe Acts of Ho- mage were performed to God, and were the effects of a true Contrition. Now thefe Penitents of this Station were further promoted in the Temple, but only participating of the Expofition or preaching of the Word, departed alfo with the Catechumens, when the Church began their fblemn Devotions. The fourth Station was as it were ftill a farther Ad- vancement in the Oratory, where thefe Penitents were conjoined with the AfTembly of the Faithful, and im- ployed in Prayer with them, though they were not ad- mitted to the holy Table, or the Communion of Chrift's Body, and mofl: effectual means of appl) ing the laving Benefits of his Paffion to us, which was to be at the Dilcretion of the Minift er, when he conceiv- ed that in the Degree of their Repentance they were qualified for it. And this is the Senle of that frequent" Expreflion that the Penitents of this Order were rc- H h h h 2 ceived 5 68 The Texts examined which Papifls cite ceived into Church-Communion, y&fa -npocrcpo^s (ttoi- voveTv %upk 7rpocrcpo^) that they had the Priviledg of Common-Prayer with thofe faithful People who were not under any Church-Cenfure, but were not admit- ted to a Participation of the Sacrament with them. For whether this ObUtion relate to the blefled Sacrament it felf according to the Opinion of Zonara* and Balfa- non in many Places ; or to thofe Gifts that were ufually offered upon the holy Table by every Communicant at the time of receiving, it ftill carries the fame Senfe, feeing thole that were refl raindti from the Concomi- tants of the holy Eucharift cannot be fuppoled to have enjoyed the free Ufe and Benefit thereof. For the further Illuft ration of thele feveral Degrees, or Stations of Penance, I fhall tranflate two Canons of Saint Bafd, which will both confirm the former ac- count I have given of them, and alfo render that more obvious. The firft is the 7 yh of the firft Epiftle to Amphilochium. " If any have defiled himfelf with il his half-Sifter either by the Father or Mother's fide, " permit him not entrance into the Houfe of Prayer, " till he refrain from that abominable Practice, and " after he's come to a due Apprehenfion of his fear- * • ful Sin , let him lament three whole years at the " door of the Sanctuary, entreating the Devotions of . for Richard Chifwel at the Rofe and Crown in St. P*hTs Church-Yard, 1688. I ( 577 ) The Texts examined wlciich'PapJls cite out of the Bible for the Proof of their Do&rine CONCERNING PVRGATORT. PART I. IMPRIMATUR. Sept. 19. 1688. Gml. Needham. TH E Council of Trent fhews her Artifice and Subtilty in no one Point defin'd by her, more, than in her definition concerning Purgatory, which, tho fhe propounds for an Article of Faith, (and that a moft important one) yet her Wis- dom has thought fit to give no defcription of it, but leaves it to her Prelates and Priefts to tell what it is, and in what Extent to be believ'd. Again, Tho fhe Prefaces her Canon with a pretence of a Purgatory eftablifh'd in the Catholick Church ac- cording to the Doftrinesof Scripture, and the Tradi- tions of Primitive Fathers, yet when fee comes to give K k k k heri Decree, de Purgac. in inl cio. 578 Tin Texts examined which Tapifts cite her own Injunctions about it, fhe is pleas'd to pals by the Scriptures, and oblige her Bifhops to be careful to have it preach'd too, and believ'd by all the Faithful, not as founded in Scripture, but as it has been deliver'd by holy Fathers and Councils. It feems ( whatever the later Defenders of it may have found out) that HolyGhoft which directed her, aflurM her of a much better fecurity from Tradition, than foundation in the Scriptures. But was not this Infallible Council all this while much more cautious of her own Honour and Eafe, than careful of the Souls of her Profelytes, whole Faith fhe thus expofes to the uncertainty of Man's Re- prefentations ? What if any Prieft fhould trump up Origens old Purgatory, he may produce a much fairer pretence for it from Antiquity, than can be produe'd in vindication of the preient Roman Purgatory ? and let him but make it appear to be as beneficial to the Churchmen, and there can be no doubt but it fhall be ailow'd to be as necefTary to be believ'd by the Church. Amongft the Ancient Writers, we meet many ftrange and unaccountable Fancies this way, and there feems to have been a general Notion amongft them of a Pur- ging Fire : But then this was as different from the.jpre- fent PapifticalPurgatory^s the preient Time is, from the Time to come, or as that, which is to purge fome-o»]y, from that which is to purge and purify all Men : For theirs was a Fire which was fuppos'd to burn out at the Day of Judgment, and through which not only Venial Sinners, and fuch as are defective in fbme part of latis- fattion, but alfo the pureft Saints, Prophets, Apoftlesr Martyrs, nay, the holy Virgin her felt, was imagin'd to endure and pals through : "And this Purgatory is abun- ikn.de Purg. dantly prov'd out of the Fathers by Bellarmine himielf fib.2. cap. 1. $0 that if the Opinion of holy Fathers muft guide their Faith \ for their DoRrine of furgatory. 579 Faith ; or if they arc to believe now as the Fathers be- lieved in this particular, they muft have not only a very implicite, but according to Betlarmin? himlelr, a very groundlefs and erroneous Faith ; fince he explodes Bell. ibid, thefe Imaginations of the Fathers for fuch. But to come more clofe to the Bufinefs in Hand, tho the Trent Dotfors were fb nice and tender in their Canons, yet we catech. ad find them more couragious in their Catechifm, where Para.dequin- amongft the Articles of their Creed they not only num- ^f "?' Aru ber Purgatory, but alio define or defcribe to us what it is, viz. A Purgatory Fire, by which the Souls of the Faithful, after fome determinate Torments, are purg'd ; or, as the word Expiare more properly imports, in which they make fatisfa&ion and amends to God's Ju- ftice for the failures which they had not time to repair in this Life ; and fb become qualify'd to enter thofe everlafting Manfions, into which nothing that isdefil'd fhall enter. And no doubt it muft be upon this Autho- rity that Bellarmine fb confidently maintains the punifh- Ben. de purg. ment of Purgatory to be the punifhment of Fire, fince tb' 7,cip' lo' 1 y> 1 r rr> j r • \ Pang, certiua the Council or Trent no ways defines it to be a eft quarto. Fire in her Decree about it. As to the place of this Purgatory, whether it be in the Heavens above, or in the Earth beneath, we as yet hear not one word ; now for this they are to relie upon their ConfeiTors, and how they will be able to refblve what the Church Re- prefentative prefum'^ not to meddle with , I leave them to jua£ that can take a view of thofe irreconcila- ble Imaginations fbme of the later of the Fathers and Schoolmen had concerning this Particular. For my part I cannot but wonderfully miftruft the Infpiration, which is pretended to have directed thefe holy Fathers to believe, and propofe to be believed , on pain of Damnation, a Place, of which' they dared not to give Kkkk 2 any 5 So The Texts examined which Papi/ls cite any manner of account at all : Since there is Icarce any one Text either in the Old or New Teftament, where we meet the word Fire, but what with fbme fetch or other their Arguers apply to, and interpret of their Purgatory, muft it not follow that this Council really miftruft'd the Explications of their own Expofitors,that it was fatisfy'd Purgatory was not intended in, or a£ ferted by thofe places, fince notwithstanding all of them, Ihe hath avoided defining it to be a Fire ? Perhaps in- deed fuch a particular alfignment of Place as we meet defended by the Cardinal and others, was not lb fit for an Infallible Synod to aiTert ; yet fince fhe pretends that her Faith hereof is grounded on the Scriptures, me- thinks it might well become her Infallibility to have aflerted as much as is, according to their own Principles, to be deriv'd from Scripture ; and if that 'be any thing at all, it muft be both that it is a Fire, as Bellarmine in- Beliquo fu- fers from i Cor. 1. 1 5. — JJjail be favd fo as by Fire ; and ?ra# alfb that it is a place under the Earth ; fince almoft all fhl 2. wjvio. of them reafbn for it,from thefe words, — to whom every Kjiee /ball bow, of things in Heaven, in Earth, and un- der the Earth • Concluding thofe under the Earth can be none but the Souls in Purgatory ; for at laft, if it be no Subterraneous Prifon, what Impudence muft it be thus to abufe and mifapply this Scripture ? So that without mifreprelentation, I hope, we may aver, that the Pe- pifh Article in this Point, is this, That there is a Sub- terraneous Place, where after this Life tiie Souls of the Faithful do abide for fome time, till chaftis'd with the Torments of its Fire, they have paid Satisfaction for fuch Sins as they had not fatisfy'd for in this World, iand which Satisfaction may be haftned, by the Prayers of the Living ; fince the one is the plain Do£trine of their Catechifm, and the other a neceffary Inference from for their VoBrine of Purgatory. 581 from thofe Arguments from Scripture, wherewith they themfelves defend their Purgatory. And therefore we may obferve, that the bare Doctrine of a third Place ( tho that is as inconfiftent with the Scriptures) with which the Author of Popery Reprefented and Mifrepre- fentcd, would fhuffle off this Article of Purgatory, will not fuit with the Doctrine and Article of the Church of Rome ; unlefs it be a place of Fiery Torments,where he that has obtained full pardon for all his Sins, may fur- ther fatisfy and atone; and out of which he may be pray'd by the Interceflions of the Living. Now then we of the Reformed Church of England, not only par- ticularly difbwn fuch a Purgatory, but alfb abfblutely deny that there is any fuch ftate at all forSatisfactions by Torments after this Life. We acknowledg but two States, the one of the Faithful in Heaven, the ou- tlier for the Unrighteous and Impenitent in Hell ; and this we maintain ; Firft, Becaufe the Scriptures fpeak of no more but thele two ; befides, fince the Church of Chrift has , never beon reprefented under other Titles than thefe two, Militant, and- Triumphant : They do neceffarily exclude this third Subterraneous Church, which is neither Militant, becaufe afcertain'd of Salva- tion, and freed from the Conflicts and Oppofitions of this World ; nor Triumphant, becaufe Scorched and Af- flicted with the moft exquifite Pains and Torments. Secondly, We reject their Purgatory, becaufe it is no other than a Dream and Delufion of Man's Fancy and Contrivance, without the leaft colour or countenance of the Holy Scriptures to fupport it ^ much more, with- out plain and clear Scripture to recommend and enforce it for an Article of Faith; and this is that we under- take to make good at prefent. Nor can we more hap- pily difcharge this Performance, than by a clofe Encoun- t tor i <8i The Texts examined which fPapifls cite ter with our Adverfaries, and by laying open the -dark Obfcurities they depend on, and difcovering with what weak and impertinent Mifapplications they abufe the^ Scriptures, fondly enfnaring their own Souls, and o- ther Mens. The Author I fhall the more purpofely examine fhall be the Catholick Scripturift, who as he is the lateft, fb we may expect to find him the moft profound and pre- pared ; amonglt forty Popifh Points boaft'd to be made apparent in Scripture, we may certainly expeel: to have this' of Purgatory, which is of fiich incomparable Ufe and Accomplifhment for the Churches Grandeur, moft irrefutably difplay'd and laid open. Now then the Method he obferves in proving it from Scripture, is this, firft, From Principles of Scripture, neceffarily in- ferring fuch a Purgatory. Secondly, £rom feveral ex- prefs Texts which prove a Purgatory. We fhall therefore follow him in the lame Method ; Firfi, Difcover the Impertinence of his pretended Principles. Secondly, Shew the Infufficiency of the Texts al- ledg'd, and that, with this advantage given him, that where we find his judgment and knowledg in the Scrip- tures failing, ( which I afTure you labours under many great Infirmities) we will help him with the Texts urg'd and infilled on by thole of better Judgments and Knowledg, of his own Party. cat.sMp.2s. The firft Principle he pretends from Scripture, is point of pur- this, That there are Scriptures which teach, that after gamy. t^Q sin it felf is forgiven, there do remain fome Pains ftilldue, evert to that Sin, and therefore confequently infer a Purgatory, becaufe that Man to whom the Sin is forgiven, may Die before he has paid rhofe pains in this Life. But for their D'oElr'me of Turgttory. 5 8 > But may not that Man who has read thole Pa/Tages of the Prophet, He has born our Griefs, he has carried ft- 5 £• our Sorrows ; he was bmifedfar our Iniquities, and wound- ed for our Tranfgrejfions. And again, The chafiifewent of our Sins was upon him : Wonder what Scripture there can potfibly be, which teaches us that there are Pains and borrows due for Sin, not comprehended with-* in Chriit's Sufferings, but fuch, which even after his full Pardon and Remiflion granted to us, mult actually be born and fatisfy'd for in our own Perfons. Why this he attempts to make out by thefe two Inftances. FirfT, That Original Sin, tho it is effectually wafh'd Cath. Scrip. away in Baptifm, yet the Infant Baptiz'd is ftill obnoxi-pj:^* ^ ous to Death, after fuch Rerniilion, which is the Pu- nifhment due to that Sin. Secondly, From what we meet with in the 14th Chap- ter of Numbers, where God tells his People, That tho he had forgiven them their Sins according to his Word, yet that they jhould not fee the Promifed Land, ver.32. But their Car cafes Jhould fall in the Wilder nefs. Ver. $ }. Their Children fhould wander in the Wilder nefs forty Tears, and jhould bear their Fornication, until the Carcafes of their Fathers jhould be confumed in the Defart. Now the anfwer to both thefe Inftances, is clear and obvious : For, firif, They fpeak only of fuch Pun i fo- ments, as God for their Tranfgreflions inflicted on the. Living in this World, and therefore to infer hence a Punifhment neceffarily to be inflicted on the Dead, muft be Irrational. For, iecondly, God may no doubt in- flict a Temporal Punifbment, as he did on David ; ei- ther as a condition of his Remiflion, or as an outward Admonition and Mark of our Iniquities for all Gene- • rations, whereby to deter and affright them from the like mifdoings, and yet this no ways argue a Satisfa- i £tion ■ T\x Texts examined which Papifts cite &ion inherent in fiich a Temporal Punifhment ; or, that when he pardons us without any fuch Temporal Afflictions annexed, fome Punifhment muft ftill necef- farily be due by way ;of a Satisfaction for our Sins, which muft unavoidably be paid, either here, or here- after : What ? Becaufe God hath entail'd Death upon all for a Teftimony, and outward Remembrancer of our Parents difobedience in this Life, therefore there muft be a Purgatory for fatisfa&ions hereafter. Is Death a Satisfa&ion for our Original Sin ? Then how comes it wafh'd away by Baptifm before Death ? Or again, Be- caufe according to the degeneracy of Man's Nature, fuch an innocent Baptiz'd Infant may die, Is it more rational to fay with this Scripturift, it died for a Satis- faction due to our Original Guilt, which remains after our Remiflion by Baptifm, or to fay it died according to the Difpofition and Appointment of God, who has made Death a continual Memorandum of that Original Guilt ? The Scriptures indeed tell us, that Death came through Sin, and hath fopaf^d upon all; but they tell US withal, that for a good Chriftian, fuch as we may be- lieve a Baptiz'd Infant to be, to die U Gain : to be fure they fay no fuch thing as this Scripturift would teach us, to wit, that for fbme Sins forgiven, and remitted to us through Ch rift's Blood, there remain fome after- pains, for a Perfbnal Satisfaction payable by us in ano- ther State. Death no doubt is the confequence of that Corruption which our Parents have deriv'd on us through their Difobedience ; but by no means a fatisfa- clory punifhment for their Tranfgreflions. And there- fore, lecondly, Tho God in the fame Breath tells his People, They jbaU bear their Fornication in the Wilder- nefs forty Tears^ in which he told them he bad forgiven them their Sins, yet this proves not that it was upon the for their DoElrine of Vurgatory* 58c the account of any remaining Satisfaction that God afflicted them forty Years, as the Catholick Script urifi in- fers, (for let him anfwer me, how a Punifhment of forty Years, could be a juft Satisfaction to the offended Juftice of God, againft whom they had then finned moft mortal- ly) but that in this Life God would have them fubdued, humbled, and kept in forty Years Straits and Severi- ties for a Curb and Bridle to their Pofterities, tho in the mean time thofe who died in the Wildernefs with this Promife of Forgivenefs, no doubt flept with their Fathers even in the Bofbm of Abraham ; and thus their own Ex- pofitors will teach them that thefe Tribulations and Pu- • nifhments, wherewith God fbmetimes afflicls us in this World, are to keep us humble, and dependent upon his Goodnefs, to remember us continually of our Mifcar- riages and Iniquities, and fb increafe our Repentance and Submiflion, but no Satisfactions or Recompences to compleat the ultimate difcharge of our Debts to his Juftice. And therefore certainly it muff be the greateft wonder in the World, to hear a Man that pretends to be a Father of the Children of Chrift, and one of the Priefts of the Lamb, conclude with this Catholick Scripturift, that becaule God threatned the Fathers to punifh their Pofterity fo feverely in this Life, becaufe thefe were the Terms and Particulars upon which he had remitted their Iniquity, therefore it mult be rea- fbnable to infer the Fathers themielves, who obtained a Promife of Remiflion before Death, fhould for a time, nay, forty Tears, fays our Script urijl, be tormented in cath. Script* Purgatory, or that they could not be forgiven without pag. 233. undergoing the Pains of a middle State. For all that I fee, he may as well conclude Tranfubftantiation^ or the Worfhip of Images, from this place and inftance, as any the leaft pretence of a Purgatory. And there- L, 1 1 1 fore « 86 Tl)e Texts examined which Tapifts cite fore it will not be worth the while to follow him „ through the reft of his Inftances, fince they all tend to the fame end, and fhew only that there was a prefent Punifhment accompanying an eternal Remiflion, which was purely in the Juftice of God to inflict or abate ac- cording to his free Mercy, it relating only to this Life ; but tell us nothing, that fitch Punifhments were fb due to the Divine Juftice in another World if not under- gone in this, that it could not be fatisfied without them ; this certainly muft reflect on the All-fufficient Sacrifice of our Redeemer, whofe Blood is the Propitiation for our Sins, and therefore as his Principle is without Gofpel or Divinity, fo muft the Purgatory founded thereon be without Scripture or Divine Revelation, cath. Script. ^ls fecond Principle from Scripture is this, " The pag. 337. " Scriptures teach that there are venial Sins, /*. e. fuch " Sins as are light and trivial, which, tho they deferve iC fbme temporal Mulct, yet no eternal Torments, and " therefore he that dies impenitent in them can't go to " Heaven, becaufe nothing that is in the leaft defiled can " enter therein ; nor to Hell, becaufe he deferves not * thofe everlafting Burnings ; therefore a third State " there muft be, even Purgatory, where he may in " fbme fenfe be purged,and through his own Satisfaction " in enduring its Torments, prepare and qualify himfelf " for Heaven. What incomparable reafoning is here ! which fets a Man above the Satisfaction of Chrift's Merits, his Sins being too finallto need his Expiation, which finds Remiflion for a Man dying in Impeni- tence, that contradicts the whole Current of the Gofpel, which teaches us without Repentance there can be no Remiflion ; and again, to fix a Purgatory, calls in que- ftion the Juftice and Equity of God himfelf, who hath pronounced by his Holy Spirit, that he that fhall offend t in for their DoBrlne of Vurgatory. 587 in the leaft of his Commands, fhall in no wife be his Difciple, and then certainly by no means enter into his Glory. As to the Inftances alledg'd by him of the Mid- cath. Script, wives pejfferving the Hebrew Children, and TfybaPs pa8- 337. denying, and hiding away the MelTengers, what grounds they went upon in their Anfwers appear not to us, whether God, who is the Difpofer of all things, by his Holy Spirit immediately infpired and directed them or no, is not mention'd, but for their incurring fuch venial Sins as he fpeaks of,there is not the leaft Pre- tence nor Circumftance to infer it ; the Text fays, they feared God in that Action, Exod. 1. 15. and that becaufe they did lb, he provided for themy and built them Houfes. And of Rahab it is recorded, that fhe was juftified by Works, receiving the Mejfengers, and putting them forth another way, after fhe had fir ft hid them, James 2. 25. By which we may conclude they finned not at all in 16 doing ; but how it proves them guilty of a venial Tranfgreffion, when God himfelf applauded their Per- formance, I profefs I cannot apprehend. I fhall make bold to aver, that had there been any unjuft Equivoca- tion, or finful Fabrication, God would never have ap- proved, much lefs by his Holy Spirit commended and rewarded them. Thefe indeed are two of thole Trans- actions which we are to believe well done,- becaufe God himfelf has vouch'd them to be fiich, but we can take no meafures from fuch dark Proceedings which remain fo unaccountable ; and now how even Venial Sins could be thus meritorious, as to obtain God's exprefs Favour, particular Approbation, nay Rewards, will take up our Scripturijl another labour to make out. In the mean time let us go on and fee with what profound Stupidity he toys and trifles with the mofr terrible LI 11 2 Denim- 588 The Texts examined which Papifts cite Denunciations of Chrift himfelf: Mat. ^22. Whom- ever is angry, fays our Saviour, with his Brother without a caufe, [hall be in danger of the judgment ', and whofoever fhall fay unto his Brother, Racha, {ball be in danger of the Council ; but whofoever fhall fay, Thou Fool, /hall be in danger of Hell fire : here our Scripturifi is very pompous and triumphant, and from the pretence of three kinds of Punifhments,very confidently proclaims three kinds of Sins, a'mongft which venial are one, which he will have to merit only a Temporal Punifhment,whereas now our Saviour is moft ferious here in reprefenting the Terrors and Punifhments, threatning all the Works and Fruits of our unlawful Anger even in the other World : But what wonder to fee fb blundering a Jefuit thus ridiculoufly infulting with fuch Straws, when the great Cardinal Bel. de Purg. himfelf lays hold on fuch inconfiftent Conclufions to lib. i. cap. 8. eftablifh his Purgatory ? One would think nothing could poflibly be more plain than our Saviour's Intention in this place, which was to fhew, that't-ho the Law of Man only cenlur'd and condemn'd the Murde- rer, yet the Divine Juftice revealed in Chrift, will purfue every difbrderly Paflion, every undue Mo- tion and Operation of Anger, even in a capital manner in the World to come; to which purpofe, as Murder was accountable to the Judgment, which had the cog- nizance of Capital Matters ; fo fays our Saviour, Who- foever is angry with his Brother without a Caufe, that is, is guilty but in the leaft degree, fhall be in danger of the 'Judgment : r:hofoever fhall fay, Racha, fhall be in danger of the Council, which inflicTts a yet feverer Punifhment, viz,, that of {toning ; but whofoever fhall fay, Thou Fool, fhall be in danger of Hell Fire ', that is, the higher!: and moft afflicting of all Punifhments. Now what can be more plain, than that, as Murder is the higheft and moft for their Dottrineof Purgatory. 589 moft grievous of all the Effects of Paffion, and unjuffc Wrath, and that which gave occafion to this Difcourfe of our Saviour ; Co thefe three are reprefented by him as feveral degrees and approaches towards that dreadful Sin, not different kinds of Sins, as the Cardinal, with- out the leaft occafion infers, but different degrees of the fame Sin, and fb confequently the Penalties annex'd to them not different kinds, but feveral degrees of the fame Punifhment, viz,, all equally eternal, tho not all equally afflicting and tormenting. Bellarmin acknow- leges that the Punifhments infinuated here, are fuch as fhali be inflicted in the next World, but by an inex- plicable fetch, would have part temporal, viz. thofe threatened to the firft two degrees punifhable by the Judgment and Council, and part eternal : but he pro- duces no Realbn for his Conjecture, nor indeed does any appear, unlefs it be thefe words Hell Vire> which tho I confefs, they may be taken literally, yet our Sa- viour feems to ufe them here in a metaphorical way, with refpect to the Terrors of Hinnom, which the set Grotius Jews even then had in Memory, and by which 'tis pro- UP* the place. pable he took occafion to exprels the exquifitenefs of the Punifhment due to the higheft degree, fince they had no fuch Punifhment among them as burning in a light Fire : .but fince our Saviour here declares every degree to be Capital, why muff not every degree be liable to an eternal Punifhment ? Did ever any Man reckon Ve- nial Offences amongft Capital Punifhments? I will here refer our Scriptttrift to one of his own Fraternity, MdcLonat in his Comment upon this Chapter : As for mid.'mioc. the Council, fays he, that alio comprehends Capital dein1e Per Concilium - at- Punifhments, nay fuch, by which eternal Death is fig- p;taj# p2 nifled. I would fain know what Temporal Punifh- intciiigic per ments are to be expected at the Judgment-Seat of God, iuam ete™m 1 jo 7 mortem figtn- bllt ficat. 59 o The Texts examined which Paplfls cite but that it is there where this Sentence will be given, Theophiiaa. Theophilaci apparently informs us, explaining the cafe in locum %vo- 0f tjie sinner in the fecond degree, who is in danger of Ss3te» 'fir the Council : in danger of the Council (fays he) of the jyicov a*dsb- holy Apoftles when they fet judging the twelve Tribes &« S- °f UraeL I doubt that Puniffiment will be of an eter- % -nit Stof*- nal duration which they inflict. And therefore becaufe I yj. tjs migiltv probable thofe three Particulars S^ch^:^S (7«fe*«w, Court!, and Hell Fire) inti- atcmam damnadonem, & pee- mate an eternal Damnation, which is grea- nam uata^eUftofllm rem' ter or leffer according to the quality of the procpaitate ei Offence. And then for the Cardinal's three kinds of Sins and PunifTiments, hear Maid, in Mat. 5. Cercum eft the refolution of Maldonate in the place be- hoc in loco pcenarum & pecca- fore.citecJ 't|s ccrtain fays ne that' not the torum gradus, non genera di- . > > J j ftingui, qux tria peccaea chn- kinds but the degrees ot bins are diftin- rtus eadem infemi poena, licet gUjfhed in this place, which three degrees noncukm gravitate, dxgnaeffe ^^ ^ ^ prc,n0unc'd deferving the fame infernal Punifhment, tho not the fame Weight and Severity of it. I fhall only admonifh fuch Scripturifts as thefe of thefe two things, and fb leave them to a more impar- tial Reflection on their own Caufe, i. That it is ve- ry requifite they flbould agree amongft themfelves about this Text of Scripture, before they lay fuch ftrefs and weight upon it in fo important a Point as an Article of their for their DoElrim of TurgaWy. jn\ their Faith. 2. That they would remember that they are not only Proteftants, but thofe of their own Order which thus terrify againft them, how fhamefully thele have abus'd and diftorted this plain Scripture. And thus we come to his Convincing Words, his few and many Stripes, his Motes and Beams, his Gnats and Camels, which are the remaining fupport of his Venial Reafonings ; to all which, I fhall firft, give this general Anfvver, and let our Scripturift make the beft of it : That if thofe Offences exprefs'd in thefe Terms, and which, for the manner of the exprefling them, he concludes to be but Venial, are Sins indeed, then they muft be a Tranfgreffion of the Law of God, for with- out Law there can be no Sin. Secondly, If they are committed againft any part of the Law of God, then they muft be equally Obnoxious to the infinite Wrath and Judgment of God, with other Sins, which are ex- prefs'd in the moft heinous manner. For, fince the holy Apoftle tells us, Whofoever jhall offend in any one, ( tho the moft minute particular of the Law ) is guilty of all: Muft it not neceffarily follow, that fuch a Mi- nute Tranfgreffor, muft alfobe equally liable to the Punifhments due to the whole Law ? And then thofe can never he made appear by Scripture to be other than Eternal ; for tho God indeed, does not threaten an equal degree of Sufferings, to unequal Offenders, yet the wages of all Sin, is reveaFd to be Death, and that too Death Eternal ; and we hear of no other Punifh- mentfor Sinners of what kind loever in the New Te- itament, but a fearful looking fo* of Judgment , and Fiery Indignation ; but without timely Repentance, a final Exclufion from the Kingdom of Heaven. Our Scripturift indeed infmuates that God and Chrift muft Cath. script, be Tyrants, and cruel in his Opinion, fhould they re- Pas- 33~- ward 5 9 1 The Texts examined which Tapi/ls cite ward our lighter Mifcarriages with Eternal Pains ; but God's Juftice has left no comfortable expectation for any- Impenitent Sinner whatfbever, dying unrepentant, tho but in the leaft of Sins ; nor indeed do we find any thing offer'd by the CathoHck Scripturift himfelf, to evince the contrary. To pals by his Motes and Beams, which our Saviour calls fo, only in companion with the more heinous Enormities of the Pharifces ; can any thing be more Venial, than a few Idle Words? and yet if the Scripture the Catholick produces, may be relied upon, I dare aver, all pretence of Purgatory, for Venial Satif- Mat. 12. %6. factions, is altogether Ridiculous: For I fay unto you, fays our Saviour, that every Idle Word that Men {hall [peak, they Jhall give an account thereof in the Day of judgment : What can be the meaning of this Text,if not this, That every idle word not here repented of, fhall be accounted for, at the Day of Judgment ? And then where's your Purgatory-Satisfaction ? He flutters next with his many and few Stripes, making the many fignify eternal Punifhment, but the few no more than two or three ftroaks of a Difcipline, or fuch a fhort Risk in Purgatory as may eafily be bought off with a fmall Prelent to his Confeffor at the laft Gafp : But can any one be more fit for many Strifes than this Jefuit, that blufhes not to fool and trifle thus with the Word of God ? Do not Theophylafi, and all Divines ( but thofe that underftand no Divinity ) un- derftand thefe Stripes, as the fame in kind, but diffe- rent in their number and portion ? Does not our Savi- our plainly fhew how he will require from us all ac- cording to thole Gifts and Capacities he has endowed us with, that whofoever offends or neglects Obedience totiis Will, muff expect the very fame Revenges of his Juftice, tho not in the fame Degree ? Is here any thing f to for their Vottrine of Vurgatory. 591 to incite us to Sin againftGod, or neglect the opportu- nities of amendment in this Life, upon the confidence of Salvation through our enduring, a few momentary Stroaks in another State ? Cannot 'the Stripes be few and many, but they muft needs be Temporal and Eter- nal ? Did ever any Divine before this Scripturift fuggeft, each. Script. if all were eternal, then they muft all be equally many pag* *42, and numerous? What fays ThopbyUB upon the place, « Let us be afraid my Brethren, iS&lftTSftS. " for if/he who knoweth nothing,is worthy >IWV, &%* vxnySv, -mot li of Stripes, . what fhall become of us, ««***'§«*&;«? t«c# y«V« "who knowingly offepd? This was his SB^S * «-"» " * Addrefs to the Doctors of the Church, and may admonifh our Scripturift, that even an igno- rant Tranfgreflion of the Law expofes us to the Stripes due to the Law, yea even to the fame in qua- lity, tho not in number, as is payable to the moft knowing Offender : and therefore, tho this Catholick Scripturift's Underftanding in the Scriptures can't much endanger him, tho he be in the rank of Doctors, yet he has great reafbn to beware left his affected Igno- rance don't expofe both himlelf and Followers to the greateft Stripes ; for my part, I lee no other way for him to efcape, but by his honeft recanting fuch wretch- ed Diftortions and Violations of the Scriptures, and fb conferring, that, as the Scriptures enforce no fuch Prin- ciple as Sins Venial, fb neither do they eftablifh any fuch Place as a Purgatory for their Expiation. And thus I come to his third Principle from Scrip- ture which is this, The Scriptures teach, us to pray 'for the Dead, therefore they tea\;h us there is a Purgatory. Now this is as unconcluding in the Confluence, as ' w it is falfe in the Premises. We deny not, but that Prayer M m m m for 594 . Tke Texts examined which Papifts cite for the Dead is of great Date and Antiquity, but we •are fure Purgatory is never the lefs a Novelty for that ; the Grounds the Ancients went upon in their Prayers for thofe deceas'd being altogether inconfiftent with the prefent Circumftances. of the Popifh Purgatory.. Every body knows what different Conceptions they had of the State of the Dead, fbme fancying, that tho they flept in Peace, ,yet they were detain'd in various Receptacles, out of which at the laft day they fhould be removed, fbme fboner, fome later, according to the Guilt and number of their Sins. Others conceiv'd, that tho they enjoy'd a prefent; eafe, yet there would a purging Fire flame out at the laft day, which fhould try and purify, and through which both bad and good were all to pais. Now thofe who were led with fuch Imaginations as thefe, I hope, might offer up. their Prayers for the happy Refurre£tion, fpeedy acquittal at the day of Judgment, and perfect Confiimmation of the Bleffednefs of them who were fallen afleep id the fleep of Death, without the leaft apprehenfion of a Purgatory, where even thofe which die in the Lord, are in continual Broilings and Torments : It is one thing furely to beleech God to be merciful in his laft Judg- ment, and another thing to entreat him to grant a Re- laxation, and deliverance out of prefent Torments j nay, nothing is more apparent than that the Ancients when they pray'd for thofe departed out of this Life, thought of nothing lefs than a Purgatory ; for if we look into their Liturgies, do we not find their Publick Offices for the Dead fram'd in this manner, nay in thefe Bafil. &Chry-very words, " Offer imus 'tibi Rationalem hum cultum, fofUialicurg. « p0 jn fide requiejcentibus, major ibus, j4poftolis,pr muft conclude that Prayers for the Dead, and Purgatory, are no fuch reciprocal Principles, but that the one may be made without the leaft E?Vh- 9U0 fuP/a »/ jrfw fuppofition of the other. His nrit and main nttfflat, 077 h, *W9wtw reafon for them is this, That they which C«<* *} «• Jvvmtfia, «* wWr, are prefent at the Prayers, may hereby be-' j£%™> •**■ •&'* come afTur'd that the Dead are not reduc'd to a Non-Exiftance, but ftill alive and in being with God himfelf:. which is inconfiftent with their Notion of Purgatory, which is this, That the Souls of the de- parted are therein detain'd from God's bleiTed Pretence. 2. He not only fhews it done to diftinguifh the faith- ful Servants of Chrift from Other Men, but alfb Chrift himfelf, who is not to be prayed for, from the beft of Saints. And when he reckons up the differences between E - . .... Chrift and thofe they pray'd for then, he defcribes *} a^'Ji- them thus ; He is God, the other Men 5 He is in Hea- ep'^oj^ m ven, the other in the Earth, by reafon of their bodilv w* •%- M Remains detain'd there ; he lays not, by reafon of their A«4ac*. Sauls detain'd in a fubterraneous Prifbn, as no doubt he would have fuggefted, had that Church pray'd for their Dead with thofe Religious Apprehenfions of a Purgatory, M m m m 2 which jp6 Vn Texts examined which faflfis cite which the -prefent Defenders of it now do. ?. He tells us that Prayers offer'd for the Dead are indeed profitable for them, tho they take not a- Epiph. ibid. «fe*« $ $ » way all their Sins. Which fhews that in ^ivWTnofj&'wtfteif ms time the hop>d b them -in ffime OTj»V7«. mealure to *emit, and take away the Sins of thole for whom they pray'd, and fb confequently that the Prayers then made in the Church, had no refemblance at all to fuch as now fuppole a Purgatory, becaufe thefe neither refpecl nor entreat for the Remiflion of Sins or Guilt, which is all obtain'd and perfected in this Life, before their coming thither ; and therefore tho Epiphanius tells us they pray'd for the Wicked that God would extend his Mercy to them, yet it was the Mercy of remitting their Sins, not delivering them out of fbme Punifh- ments they endur'd for a time for want of a full Satis- faction. And fince the Juft, fiich as Pa- ibid. •&$> <*v diMfmhSv. triarchs, and Apoftles, were alike men- ^ ff^ficT * tion'd with the Wicked, nothing can be wbtejwc, *& » more plain, than that they pray'd for the Dead without the leaft Apprehenfion of a Purgatory, and fb confequently that Prayer for the Dead does not neceffarily infer a Purgatory. As for his reafoning, why fhould they pray either for the Souls in Heaven, or thole in Hell ? 'tis nothing to the purpole, fince fbme of them pray'd for the battening and perfecting their Blifs at the day of Judgment ; others with an Opinion that even the Souls in Hell might perceive fbme relief and mitigation by their Prayers, which Encbirid. ad Opinion St. Auguflin pro'feifes he will not ftrive againft, Laurent, cap. fQ jQng as tjie ytfV2x\\ 0f God is acknowledged to re- main eternally upon them. And therefore I fhall fay no f for their DoEirine of furgatory. 5p7 no more, but proceed , to examine what Scriptures they are which teach, and recommend to us Prayer for the Dead. Now for this purpofe he has pitch'd upon two places ; the firft of which is tli^ : What /ball they do which are * Cor- '$• 29- baptized for the Dead, if the Dead rife not at alU why are they then baptized for the Dead? A very dark Text, to clear a very obfcure Doctrine. Why are they baptized for the Dead ? As if he .had faid, fays our Scripturift, To what end do Men do Penance for the Dead, if the Dead .rife not ? Why to a very good end, may the Jefuit reply, viz. To reftore them from the pains of Purga- tory ; and lb the Apoftle be never the nearer proving the Refurrection at the laft Day, from this Baptifm. Again, May "we not here demand, why muft, be bap^ tizd for the Dead , be interpreted , doing Penance, offering Prayers, Sacrifices, and Afflicting a Man's felf for the Dead ; fince the Catholic k Scripturift brings not one Authority fork, and Bellarmine renounces- the *{f'dePur§' Expofitions of the moft Celebrated amongft the Fa- ' I-Cap' " thers, viz,. Tertullian', Ambrofe , Chryfofiom , Epipha- nius, Theophylafi, befides their own Angelical Thomas> to affert it ? Indeed, our Saviour exprefTes his own Paffion in fuch words as thefe, I have a Baptifm»to be batiz,ed'withy Luke 12. 50. And fb Martyrdom by the Ancient Church, wascall'd the -Baptifm of Blood; but what's all this to Prayers and Sacrifices, or indeed to a Man's perforral Afflicting himfelf? Let Baptizari pro mortuis fignify affligi, to be afflicted in the Paflive, yet ftill how fhall it imply affligerel or to afflict ones felf in the Active ? Is it the fame thing to fuffer Afflicti- ons from others,and to afflict our felves for others ? Let them fhew where ever Baptifm, or to be Baptiz'd, is. ufed in this fence through the whole Scriptures : Why, that Chryftftofo in locum. _ Tbeoph. in Lucae tercium Ca- put verfum 16. Ti a,Tn/, ap- l^Vb^Z" tl™ plies this of the Second of the Affs, and pteretur tota domus in qua thus explains it ; Te (hall be baptized.with f"nc S£P* "^ i»f*' I -rr t ^ll n CC I J /» P 1 * J g1IT1US "IUd» Mitt)). 2. Ipfc rte H?/y Ghoft. " they were to far baptized baptif. &c. ^ " with the Holy Ghoft ( fays he ) that the ^ ■ -. • _ " whole Houfe was fill'd therewith \ and hence ( fays " lie ) we underftand that of St. Matthew, Be (hall bap- * tize with the Holy Ghoft, and, with fire. I confefs in- deed, the Fathers fometimes apply the word Fire to another meaning ; but then, not with refpecl: to P«r- gatory, but the Fire of Gehenna ; and notwithftanding the Cardinal quotes Baftl for the other, yet befides- a Man's own reading, To let tells us, that Baftl, Hihry, Tol in Luc. and Damafcene, all interpret it of Hell Fire, "nenunSr And as we have thus refuted the Cardinal's Proof, preracw Baft, fo fhall we eafily difappoint him in the Text it felf ; for BUnm^D^ why fuch Strains here, Metaphors, and.Fetches? Raf-m*cm' tifari pro mortuU, i. e. to do Pennance, Sacrifice, Pray and Groan for Dead Men. SalmerdH tells us, the rea- Satmm Cora ion why fbme make ufe of this Metaphorical Interpre- "jS^Jl tation, is, becaufe if the words fhould be taken pro- Oxonians pro-* perly here, there could be.no iblid Argument, whence Prlc for the Apoftlc to conclude a Refurrection , and we know the only reafon for fuch Interpretations, is? the abfurdicy 600 The Texts examined which Vapifis cite abfurdity and impoflibility of the Literal Senfe. But is here really any thing of all this in the Cafe? Suppofe fome Men out of concern for thofe who died without Baptifra,in a mistaken Zeal would be baptized for them, in hope -j the Deac1 might perceive the benefit of their Vicariate Baptifm at the Refurre&ion ; would not fuch a Cuftom as this be a good Argument againft fuch Men, that there is a Refurreftion ? Again, fuppofe there was fuch a Cuftom in the Church ( and we can bring great Authorities to confirm there was)that the Catechumens, in all defperate Difeafes, or upon a certain profpecl: of Death, when they were as to this Life ( as we (ay ) loft Men, to be look'jd upon rather as Dead, than Living, uled to receive the Baptifmal Laver ; and fo Baptifari pro mortuis, be interpreted to mean no more, than to be Baptized for fuch as were accounted for dead Men : How would this weaken the Apoftle's Reafoning? Muft not an Argument preffed from fuch a Cuftom, rather convince fuch Men, that according to their own ufage there muft be a Refurrection ; than deftroy the ftrength of fuch an Inference? I fhall determine nothing of certainty of Co uncertain a Text ( unlefs it be that it fignifies nothing to a Purgatory ) ; but thus much Epiphanius tells us, That it was in £^/>r Certothian. Hares 2§. the fenfe of the firft Suppofition that Tra- |4 raft ta» » mejZJbw dijion had interpreted thofe words of the tw Jyiov 'aotsbmw «>x*r*/. Apoitle, // the Dead rije not, why are they ti Ixas rtK&i, &c. p. 114. then baptized for the Dead ? And as to the Cat^humens, that they by this their ufage, declared for the Refurrettron of the Dead. That the Apoftle alluded to a particular manner of fome Men, 'tis plain, by the way in which he expreffes it, Why are they baptizd for the Dead ? And why Jland we in 'Jeo- pardy every Hour ? By the one, referring to the manner of for their Dottrine of Purgatory* 60 1 of fome particular Men ; in the other refpe&ing the general Afflictions of all Chriftians, fuffering, in hopes of the Refurre&ion : And therefore how a Univerfal Obligation of praying for the Dead , can be inferred from fuch a particular Inftance, as does not lb much as glance at Prayer, I conceive not. All that BeUarmine replies to this, is this, That Baptizantur refers to all the Jews, and that our Saviour did chule here rather BlU- de Purga. to Reafon them into the belief of a Refurre&ion from "^n^&J1' the old Cuftom of the Jews, who uled to pray for the Dead, than the latter uiage and manner of Chriftians : Bat is not this to anfwer one Difficulty with another ? How prepared the Cardinal was to make out fuch a Cuftom amongft the Jews, as founded upon the Com- mands of God's Law in the Scriptures, we may eafi- ly conjecture, by his flicking fo clofe to his Apocryphal Canon for it : and if fuch a Cuftom was not ground- ed upon the Law of God, the Cardinal's reply is to no purpofe, unlefs it be, to remember us of this Anfrver, that, Why are they baptized for the Dead ? may be only mentioned here , as an Argument ad Hommem, made ufe of by the Apoftle only to illuftrate the truth of the Refurre&ion, no ways delivered as a Truth, and Doctrine, approv'd here, and eftablifh'd, by the Apoftolical Authority. 'Tis more than probable that fbme of them, who had that Cuftom amongft them, yet ftill denied the Refurre&ion, becaufe the Apoftle does fo preflingly, and with fuch a vehement Iteration of their own Cuftom, endeavour to convince them of the certainty of it ; but then it muft follow, that, let thcfe words fignify what they will, they can be no Argu- ment for the Recommendation of what they fignify to our ule and performance, and fo the Papifis as far as ever from making out this Doftrine of Praying for the Dead, from this Scripture. Nor is this of its being ufed N n n n only 601 The Texts examined which Papifts cite only as an Argument ad Hominem our own Conjecture, but fuch a one, as has the judgment of no lefs a Cardinal Bmn. Annul, than Baronius to fupport it. And now is not this an Tom. 1. Ann. admirable way of founding Articles of Faith upon fuch fciw.1 *' Scriptures, which they dare not truft the Fathers to In- terpret, iior yet can accord in their own Explications about them. But now it will be time to enquire, how much ftronger the Catholick Scripturifl is, in his other Text, which is this : i John 5..16. If any Man fee his Brother fin a Sin which is not unto Death, he fhall ask, and he fhall give him Life for them that (in not unto Death. As, when they find the word Fire, they prefently difcover the terrible Flames of Purgatory ; fb where ever they light upon the word Death, or Dead, they can immedi- "^ ately perceive that advantageous relief of Praying for the Dead. Was ever Text fo manag'd, as our Scriptu- rilt has handled this ? If he makes any thing of it, I think 'tis only this, that it treats not of Sins Mortal, cath. Scrip, and Sins Venial. There is a Sin unto Death, fays the Pag- 247« Apoftle, J do not fay, ye {ball Pray for it ', andfo we, fays the Scripturift, never Pray for thofe whom we know to die Unreppntant ; and this is the true meaning of the place. Is this the true meaning ? Then let me ask this Catholick Expofitor, Do you Pray for thofe whom ye know to live Unrepentant ? That is, Do you Pray for thofe very Sins, which ye know the Sinner has not ibkL,SCnp' Repented him of? Yes, that they do, if the Scripturift is in the right of it ; For they hold Prayer lawfully and fruitfully made, for all Sins whatever, during the Life- time of the Sinner. But how this can agree with the true fenfe of the place, or be reconcileable with the Apo- ftles meaning,whom he acknowledges to have taught us. here, that there is a Sin unto Death, for which, he dares not fay we fhall Pray, let the Scripturift explain. What is for their Doftrine of Purgatory. <$0. is the true meaning of this place? when the Apoftle infinuates, there is a Sin unto death , i. e. of that deadly provocation as fhall never be forgiven , and therefore fuch as we can have no grounds to Pray for. He does plainly teach us we muft not Pray for the Dead : when he fpeaks of a Sin not unto death, he does then as plainly juftify us in our Prayers for the Dead. I know not the way of Breeding amongft the Catholick Fa- thers, but fhould a Protefiant Sophifter have inferr'd fuch a Conclufion from fuch PremuTes, he would certainly have been foon hifs'd out of our Schools. Suppole the Apoftle had fpoke in the words of this Scripturift,. ( with which he thinks to falve up all) there is a Sin until death, and a Sin not until death ; this would have informed us, that there remains no help by our Prayers in this World, for Final Im- penitence ; and fo again, that we are to Pray here for the Penitent in this Life ; but it muft ftill remain a Myftery,. how the Apoftle fhould hereby fuggeft, or recommend to us Prayers for the Dead. What is the Apoftle doing in this Chapter ? Is he not endeavouring to excite and ftir us. up to Prayer, with the aflurance that God will hearken to, and grant us our Petition if we ask any thing according to his Will? Ver. 14. Again, does he not here give an In- ftance what it is God is willing we fhould ask of him, and tell us, that if we lee our Brother fin a Sin, yet if we ex- perience withal, that he relents, and continues not obfti- nate and unrepentant in his Sin ( which certainly brings Death, and fhall be pardon'd upon no Prayers or Intercef- fions ) we may pray for fuch a Sinner, and he fhall be rais'd from the death of his Sin, and reftor'd unto the Life of Salvation upon our Prayers : What's all this to Praying for the Dead ? Does he not ftrangely manifeft his extraordi- nary Knowledg in the Scriptures when we hear him repeat- ing this, that we may pray for all Sins before the death Cath.Scr» of the Sinner, as a Reafbn why St. John muft neceffarily pag" 248, in 604 7k Texts examined which Tafijls eke in this place intend Praying for the Dead,fince every Novice can inform him that we are no more to pray for all the fins of the living, than we are to Pray for all the fins of the dead,if there be any force in thefe words of the ApoftlerWe may no doubt Pray for the Converfion of all Sinners upon Earth, and that God would give them a timely Repentance in this Life, but we muft not pray for their Impenitence, or that God would forgive them their Sins Unrepented of; and this muft be the Import of the Apoftle's Expreflion, who tells us not, that we are to pray for fuch Sinners while living; or that we may not Pray for them, when dead; but only that he affirms not, that we may Pray for them at all. But is it not ftiil more admirable, to hear the Scripturift pro- cath. Scri. ving Prayer for the Dead from this Text ? Becauie the it the fame Apoftle fpeaks of their Prayers who knew their Brother to fin not unto Death, that is, as he himfelf explains it, to have given Signs of true Repentance ; which I warrant a Man cant'tgive Signs of true Repentance till he is dead: the words are, Who fees his Brother fa , which muft fuppofe, that he that prays, and the Sinner who is pray'd for, are both in the fame ftate as to place, tiz,. in this Land of the Living : and I believe, no Man could have apprehended any thing of the condition of the Dead from this Text,but he that has no Life at all in his Under (landing. Good God ! may not a Man read his Bible all the days of his Life, with- out the leaft apprehenfions of a Purgatory from fuch Scrip- tures as thefe be ? Has not the Catholick Scripturift plainly deftroyM his own Undertaking, by appealing to fuch Scrip- tures, which as they prove no Prayer for the Dead, fodo they, according to his own Meafures, lead us to conclude, that there is no Purgatory. And thus much for his pretend- ed Principles from Scripture inferring a Purgatory. . LONDON, Printed by J. V. for Richard Chifwel at the Rofe and Crown in St. Pads Church- Yard, 1688. ( 6o, ) The Texts examined which Pafiftf cite out of the Bible for the Proof of their Do&rine CONCERNING PVRGATORT. PART II. IMPRIMATUR, Sept. 19. 1688. Guil. Need ham. BU T we have not done yet, there remain ftill fbme ranks of more exprefs Texts, ufherM in with all the Wit and Artifice of the raoft ac- complifh'd Bellarmine, which may require (bme ftay, tho give no great flop to this Conclufion, no Pur- gatory in the Scriptures. Thefe are marfhalPd into two Heads, fome out of the Old, (bme out of the New Teftament ; out of both which, with great Pomp, he proclaims there is a Purgatory. For the greater Honour 5S-? verbo of the Old, he makes his firft, and raoft vigorous at- atlheb'tlinim^ tempt out of the Apocrypha, as if that Book, which Hie libri fimui he himfelf grants the Jews received not, was the beft °"",es rueciP1_ 0 •Vv ' TTT. ~ untur ab Hc- O 0 0 O WltneiS br*is. 606 The Texts examined which Tapijls cite Witnefs of their Faith and Devotion. I fhall not fpend time now in examining fuch Proofs as t^ofe, which come not out of the Scriptures, but proceed to his -ijipre -Canonical Quotations, whofe Authority is allow'd by all fides. And firft ; Is it not very ftrange to find a Purgatory pleaded for out of the Old Law, which tho mod exprefs and particular in all things relating to Prayers and Sacrifices, yet jnfinuates not the leaft Offices, for a deliverance out of that fubterraneous Captivity f Have not many of th^ir own Party doubted, and as many openly deny'd there was any Purgatory before Chrift, and indeed does not the nature of the thing it fe If abundantly proclaim as much? for to what end fhould Qpd eiljoyji jiktW- tfcus to pray and afflict themfelves, for thole tormented in fuch a State, out of which there was no pofiibility of Relief or Re- demption for them then, there having been, accor- ding to their own Principles, no entrance for any into Heaven before Chrift? Again, after all their Sins were forgiven, which is the cafe of thofe in Purgatory, what hinder'd, but they were as fit for Limits Patrum, wherein the deceas'd are fuppofed to have been then detained from the glorious Vifion of God, which myp have been Torment enough to every righteous :Squ1, as any other whatever, But to fpeak to the tTeits themfelves alledg'd for proof hereof, Zjch. 9. 11. As for thee alfo, by the Blood of thy Covenant ', / have fent forth thy Prif oners out of the Pit, wherein is no Water', is one of the ftrongeft and moft appeal'd to, and which «CpPg?§.1 iio-' Btfarwin concludes abfolutely to refer to a Purgatory. nus locus. But would it not be very expedient thefe Arguers fhould determine amongft, themfelves what is the true meaning of thefe words before they found an Article cf Faith upon them ? Was Lmbtts Patrum, where all the for their QoBrbtt of furgatory. *$9 the pureft Saints are fancy'd to have refided with Peace and fweet Contentment, fb very like or agreeable to Purgatory, with all its fiery Pa figs and Scorchrngs, as that God may have represented both in the fame Words and Chara&ers ? That this ufe is, and has been made Bell, de Purg. of this Text, to infer the one as well as the other, not llb- l- caP'3- onlv the Cardinal acknowledges, but Becanus alfb tells Eecan. de us tnat Catholicks commonly underftand it either of Purg- c|!vin- Lrrnbus Patnm, or our Purgatory : and one of their pag' 53 ' prefent Champions applies it direftly to a Umbos \ and ^ffmldaff^ then may not we with better reafbn conclude it alludes Pag.8o. to neither of thofe two States which are fb irrecon- cileably different from each other ? Bellarmins reafbn Bell. ibid. - why it muft be underftood of a Purgatory, and not Limbus Patrum, is this, becaufe the Lake mention'd here is defcrib'd to have been without Water, whereas in Linibo Patrum, there are the fweet Waters of Con- ization and Refrefhment : But how confident is this with his own Defcriptions of Purgatory in the fourth Chapter of his fecond Book, where he treats of the ftate of the Souls held therein ? What ? Is Purgatory without Water, without the leaft Refrigeration or Comfort? Can they who have obtain'd the certainty of their Salvation, even that certainty which excJudeth all Fear, remain without the leaft Capacity of Eafe and Refrefhment ? Does not the Cardinal himfelf tell *"• deJ^- us that the Church in the Canon of her Mafs prays §. 'tenicTqula for thofe in Purgatcry under the Denomination of fuch.ad finera ca- a-s ileep in the Lord ? An .! a^ , in, that thofe who' Fx fleep in the Lord by reafbn of the:r certainty of Salva- tion, perceive an incredible mixture of Confblation with their Torments : and then, if this reafon of the C-ar'iind be no reafbn at all, why may not the ethers of them- who interpret it of a Limbus : be efteem'd the Oooo 2 more 60% The Texts examined which Papifts cite more fubftantial Expofitors, and (b the Papifts without a Purgatory in Scripture, for all fuch Paflages as this ? The meaning of this Text is plain and eafy to any one who reads the Chapter, wherein he will perceive, thar, tho it may have had feme refpecl: to the Redemption of Jfrael out of that horrible Captivity of Babylon, where they had been deftitute of the fweet Refrefh- ments, the refrefhing Streams Ipringing from the true Worfhip and Sacrifices of God, which were not to be offerM but at Jerufalem ; yet it had a more particular Eye to the Redemption of Man out of the bottomlefs Lake of everlafting Damnation by the ftrength of that Covenant eftablifhed in the Blood of Chrift : for does not the gth Verfe in thefe words, Behold, thy Kjng tometh unto thee : He is jufi, and having Salvation, lowly, and riding upon an Ajs, and upon a Colt the Foal of an Afs ; plainly defcribe to us our Bleffed Redeemer haftning to the joyful Triumph and Accomplifhment of our Eternal Bieffed nefs upon the Crofs ? Has not the Holy Ghoft, Mat. 21. S. applied to, and interpreted this very Prophecy of Chrift ? In a word, here is nothing in the Cireumftances of this place, which, according to their own Principles, is applicable to a Purgatory : for firft, the Souls therein detain'd can no ways be laid to be the Prifbners of Chrift, becaufe they are fuppos'd to have obtain'd his full Remiflion before their coming thither, neither can any Soul be (aid to be deliver'd from Purgatory by the Blood of his Covenant fince they profefs that this Releafement is either to be purchafed by the Prayers of the Living, or work'd out by our own Perfbnal Pains and Torments. Another place alledg'd by the Cardinal for proof here- of, are thofe words of thePfalmift, Pfal. 66, 12. fVe went through Fire and Watery and thou broughteft us out int* for their DoSlrtne of Purgatory. 609 into a wealthy place. The former Text afTerted a Purga- tory by marking out to us a Lake wherein is no Water ; behola here both Fire and Water confpiring to make up a Purgatory. We may obferve here, that tho Bel- larmine is rnoft pofitively confident in his Vindication of the Texts cited out of the Apocryphal Books, yet as for thofe brought out of the Canonical Scripture of the Old Teftament, he neither juftifies them with one Argument, nor yet avouches any one of them upon his own word; as to this before us he (ays nothing for it, but that among divers Explications Origen under- stands it of a Purgatory : but whoever examines Ori- gins Purgatory, will find his Notion can give but little advantage to the Chimera Bellarmine undertakes to maintain, neither will the Cardinal abide by the Ex- plication of Origen : and therefore we will anfwer him ■ here in the words of an applauded Bifhop of their own, utter'd by him upon the occafion of their mifufing this ve*y Text to this purpofe. "I approve not fuehtri- Roffen. in *' fling as this (fays he) which explains thefe words S^fu'fc f of Purgatory. Indeed if we read thePfalm, it is un- nugantur noa accountable to imagine how any Men could poflibly Prob°. produce fuch a Text for fuch a DoQxine, wherein there appears not theleaft relation to, or countenance for a Purgatory, unlefs it be in the word Fire ; and they may as well derive it from Hell Fire, as that Fire and Wa- ter herein reprefented : For does not the Pfalmift in the fore-going part of this very Verfe repeat before the, Almighty, thou fuffered'fi Men to ride over our Heads I: and does that look like a State of Purgatory I Again, does he not in the yth and loth Verfes fhew how God had. proved and tried them as the Silver is tried ; and Verfe, i}, 14, man ifeft before the Lord that he would now go into his Houfe with Burnt-Offerings, and pay him thofe f Vorvi, Zech 6 1 o The. Texts examined which Papi /is cite Vows which he had /poke with his Month, and fromifed with his hip when he was in thofe Troubles. Do not all thele Circumftances abundantly evince that the Fire and Water through which God had now brought them into the prefent eafe and enjoyment of this World, was that Five of Afflictions, Miferies, and Ne- ceflities wherewith he had chaftis'd and vifited them in this Life ? And t! erefore confequently that the only Inference deducible from thefe words mult be, that of the Holy Ghoft, through much Tribulation we may en- ter into the Kingdom of God. And thus have we this Rib. Com. in Text explained by Ribera a Jefuit in his Comment upon ech.15.Num. tne ]aft Verfe of the 1 jth of Z^echary, where he interprets Populum Cat tn°fe words, I will bring the third part through the Fire, chriftianum and will refine them as Silver is refined, and try them as onibusCeenxCS Gold is tried, &c. thus, This (Lews, fays he, thatChri- cendum acq-, ftians fhali be exercifed, tried and approv'd by Tempta- Probandum,ut t;ons and, Miferies, as we read Pfal. 66. to that we Sm^pwiffi?" maY! Pa^s tnr°ugn tne &eat anc* Terrors of this Fire mum, ut pfal. and Water, and yet be never the more in danger of 66' T&fWl' tne Parcmngs of &&k Purgatory : What Jefuitical ,^us, ' Theology is this, to interpret fuch Difcourfes as relate to Afflictions and Trials in this1 Life1, fo as to efta- blifh thereby the fictitious Pains and Torments of the Dead? • There are feveral other Texts and Places alledg'd by the Cardinal to the lame purpofe, as 1 Sam. V. The ^ Inhabitants of Jabifh Gilead when they heard what the Phili (lines had- done to Saul, fa/led [even days* and 2 Kjngs 1. where it is laid, David wept until Even for Saul and for Jonathan, and the Men that were with him, " For tho indeed, fays Bellarmine, all this might- " have been the Effects of Grief and Sorrow, occafion'd * by that difmal Slaughter, yet it is credible it was to f help for their Doilrine wf four the Briars and the Thorns.The clear lenfe and mean- demheex"-"1^0^ tne Prophet in this place, is apparent enough pugnata, fed from verf. 9. where he begins the defcription of the iterum *difi- pride and Haughtinefs of tfrael; and admonifhes them r* of the Vengeance of God pouring forth all her Enemies upon her ; and therefore when he tells us in this Verfe that Wickednefs burnetii like a Fire, it is the Wicked- nefs of thefe Enemies of Jfrael whom the Prophet meaneth, and whom God would now permit to devour not all the People, viz. not thofe who yet worfhipped and obeyed aright, but the Thorns and Briars, the moft lewd and finful Perfbns amongff them. But now how the devouring the Thorns and Briars, which denote the moft grievous and mortal Sinners, can intimate thofe Venial Tranfgreflions which the Fire of Purga- tory may confume, wear away, and fatisfy for, I fhall leave to thefe Framers of a Purgatory to ex- plain. Another; for their DoElrlne of Purgatory. 6 \ 5 Another Text (till is out of the 3d Chapter of Ma- lachi, and the 3d Verfe, And he fh all fit as a Refiner and Purifier of Silver, and he /ball Purify the Sons of Levi, and purge them as Gold and Silver. Who this Refiner and Purifier is whom the Prophet fpeaks of in this Chapter, it is plain in the firft Verfe, viz. The Lord, even the Meffenger of the Covenant renew'd by the Father in his Son Chrift, whom our Fathers before, and all Chriitians now delight in. 2dly. The end and pur pole of this Purification and Refining by Fire, is alio clear in the latter end of the 3d Verfe, viz. That they may offer unto the Lord an Offering of Righteoufuefs. And therefore, thirdly, the Peribns to be thus refined and purified, by the efficacious operation of this Fire of God's holy Spirit, could be none but the Sons of Levi, the Priefts and Congregations of Ifrael- conver- fant in this Life at the time of Chrift's coming and Appearance, the end of this Refiner being to prepare and qualifle fucb, to pay thofe Sacrifices and Oblations as may become plealant unto the Lord, ver. 4. In a word, the Prophet in this place foretels the Expiation, and cleanfing of our Hearts by the Holy Ghoft given by Chrift, and therefore he is laid by the Fire of his holy Spirit to warm our Souls, to purge and cleanfe them, as the Fire purgeth and cleanfeth Metals, by feparating and throwing off their Drofs ; and in this fenfe the Spirit of Chrift, i. e. by which he is faid to renew and purify us from our Corruptions and Filthi- nefs, is frequently by the Prophets entitled the Spirit of Fire, and the Spirit of Burning , particularly Ifa. 4.4. which place alfo is alledged for the Confirmation of Purgatory, but with what ground, let the C^tdinal de- termin, who in his Argument from this place , ac- _ . knowledges the Refining and Purging mentioned in Cap.'3. §. ?o?' this place, to relate meerly to the Living, whereas that cus decimus. P.ppp 2 refpe&s 6 1 6 The Texts examined which Pafifts cite refpe&s only the Dead : For he may as well infer the Dead to be the Living, as from this Purifying the Li- ving by the Spirit of God, conclude a Purging and Sa- tisfying for the Sins of the Dead in another ftate. And thus we have taken a view of their whole Force and Strength in the Old Teftament ; and I perfuade my felf there cannot be a greater Argument of the weaknefs of their Caufe, a clearer Refutation of "their fhameful Obtrufions of this State on the Faith and Belief of a Chriftian Confcience, than what the naked recital and examination of their own Proofs muft neceiTarily evince. I proceed now to their Conclufions and Deductions from the New Teftament. The firft Text which we meet cited by Bellarmine, is Mat. 12. $ 2. But tvhofoever fpeaketh againjl the Holy Ghofi , it Jhall not be forgiven him , neither in this World, nor in the World to come. The main ftrefs of the Argument from thefe words lies in that Expceflion, Neither in this World, neither in the World to come ; that is, as Bellarmine and his Followers underftand it, neither in this World, nor in Purgatory. Indeed Saint Jugufiine feems to infer fome future Remiffion of Sins after this Life from this Text, but what Remiffion, or of what Sins, he declares he dares not aver ; fb that his Conje&ure was far from the Cardinal's prefent imagi- nation of a Purgatory , which determins what is re- mitted, viz. the guilt of fome light Miicarriages ; and alfo'the way how it is remitted, viz,, by a deter- minate enduranceof Pains and Torments. ' . Secondly ; Whatever Remiffion that holy Father con- ceived fhould be hereafter, it could be only a thing pro- bable and conjectural, and therefore no ground for an Article of Faith, ( which he tells us is to be founded on plain and indubitable Scripture) becaufe he hirnfelf •*1~ was for their DoBrine of Purgatory. . 617 was both Doubtful and Uncertain of it ; as is apparent in Four diff in& places of his Writings *. I confefs it *St.^.Enchi- feems very ftrange to me how the World to come fhould it'^t^T here figniry Purgatory, which is nx d in an intermedi- & cap. 68. ate fpace or time between a Man's Death, and the Re- Ju^0a ^m furre&ion ; fince the Scriptures do To generally under- id dS.* Hand by it the Day of Judgment, or the Time after Q"*ft« «• and that properly too, becaufe noviffimo )u- then it is publifhed before the whole World to the great- dicio, quia eft Honour of the Righteous, and the higheft Infamy ramcorSmun-and Reproach of the Ungodly: And does the Scrip- do manifeftif- ture any where fuggeft to us under the title of the ? me' &i °no World to come, any place or ftate diftincl: from Hea- reISuftorum& ven or Hell, fb that without inferring a third place in ignominia im- the World to come for Remiflion of Sins, according to piorum,^. Bel/armine himfelf, our Saviour's manner of fpeaking, may be allowed rnoft clear and exprefTive. Secondly \ Since Blafphemy againft the Holy Ghoft is here expreffed a Sin of the rnoft unpardonable pro- vocation to God, fince our Saviour repeats it with* the higheft Abhorrency, telling us twice, that tho all other Sins and Blafphemies may be forgiven, yet ftill that againft the Holy Ghoft fhall not, may we not very agreeably to the whole Narration, here aver, that our Lord makes ufe of that Expreflion , Neither in this World, nor in the World, to come, rather by way of Ag- gravation, or to exprefs ftill the greater heinoufnefs of the Sin, than tacitly to infer, that there remains a Re- miflion and Forgivenefs of other Sins in the World to come ; rather to fhew that this Sin fhall be eternally Unpardonable, or as St. Mark expreifes, ver. 14. never be forgiven at all, than to teach us that other Sins and Tranfgreffions not forgiven in this, may yet be remitted in the World to come, and that too, before we enter into the other World, which is the cafe of Remiflion Bell, dc Purg. had by Purgatory. All that I find rcply'd by the Cardi- - contra,^ na' t0 tms' *s> That b^ a ^ie Aggravation we may fhuffieofl Hellitfelf, and calk it an Aggravation when our Lord condemns the Wicked, Go you into everlafting burn- for their VoBrine of Purgatory, 6\Q burnings ; but by what Logick, or from what Premises he draws his Conclufion, it is paft my Capacity to Con- jecture : Our Lord in divers places, and upon feveral opportunities exprefsly tells us, That the portion of the Wicked (ball be everlafiing Burnings : Well, therefore when he fays, Blafpbemy againjl the Holy Ghoji /ball not be forgiven, neither in this World,, neither in the World to come, he muft either be underftood to infinuate a Remiflion of Sins in Purgatory, or we may as reafbna- bly conclude that there is no fuch Puniffiment as Hell Fire. Is not the Cardinal more Impertinent, in this Induction, than he would infer our saviour's Expref- fion to be, were there no Purgatory-Remiffion after this Life ? That this Expreflion is Hyperbolical and Figurative, St. Mark manifeftly insinuates, briefly com- prehending this more Figurative and ample Circuition of St. tMxtthew in that fhort fpeech, Non remittetur in ALternum, fhall never be forgiven. Indeed, Bellarmine Bell, quo fa- fays, St. Mark is no fit Interpreter of St. Matthew, but Pra • Re- his reafon for it is beyond the Cardinal himfelf, viz,, fi^ noa Becaufe St. Matthew writ more copioufly and largely, and St. Mark's Gofpel is but a Compendium of Saint Matthew : As if that Man which Contrads another . Man's meaning, and that too by the guidance of an In- fallible Spirit, were not to be allowed a Competent Judg of his Intentions. Or, again, As if the more Flourifhing and Rhetorical, were to determine and over-rule the more Concife and Comprehenfive. 'Tis certain St. Mark, who was guided by the fame Spirit with St. Matthew, has delivered nothing different from, . or difcording with St. Matthews meaning; and there- fore fincethe whole tendency of the Scriptures may in- cline us this way, and St. Mark has explained it to this purpoie, muft it not be molt confequential' to infer, that, To be forgiven neither in this World, nor in the World 6io T7:e Texts examined which Tapijls cite World to come, imports no more but this, (ball never be Beikrm. ibid, forgiven. As for this Induction which the Cardinal makes, either our Saviour fpake the words as Saint Matthew relates them, or as St. Mark, or as both : If as St. Matthew ', or as both, we have gain'd our Point, it. will in no meafure advantage his Caufe ; for tho he fpoke the very words of St. Matthew, yet he meant no more by them than St. Mark has explained : So that by confequence they are very far from evincing a Third Place for Remiffion of Sins after Death-; or Inftru£ring us; that that Remiffion in the World to come, which he here denies of the Sin againft the Holy Ghoft, he tacitly infinuates to be competible to other Sins. The Cardinal himfelf acknowledges fuch an Inference as this to be no good Logick ; and to argue by way»of Inftance ; When the Scriptures 'affirm Hypocrifie is a Sin fo hateful to God that he cannot bear it, may we rationally infer, that there be fbme other Sins of that nature, that his Infinite Purity can bear with them ? Is it not more clear to affirm, that by this ExprefTion the Scriptures only manifeft the grievoufnels of this $in of Hypocrifie, no ways tacitly affirm God can en- dure and bear With other Sins? So that according .to the way of the Scriptures themfelves, we may fay that our Saviour in thefe words only aggravates the Odiouf- nefs of the Sin againft the Holy Ghoft, fhewing it fhall never be forgiven, but no ways advifes us that there are other Sins which may be forgiven, if not in this, yet in the World to come. As to what the Cardinal alledges of the Impropriety of this Expreflion, Neither in this World, nor in-the World to come \ if there were no Remiffion in the World to come, it is Impertinent and to no Purpole, fince thole words do fully anfwer the purpbfe of our Saviour, and with the greater vehe- . mency for their DoBrim of Turgatory, 6l\ mency deny all Remiflion whatever to that Sin : And although it would be improper to fay, I will Marry neither in this World, neither in the World to come, becaufe there is no fuch thing as Marrying and giving in Mai riage there ; yet it follows not that it mult be as imp er to lay it fihall neither be remitted in this World, neither in the World to come, becaufe tho ther o Remillion for Sins not remitted in this World, yet all Remiflion is faid to be confirmed there, and the Scriptures ufually acquaint us our Final Doom and Sentence fhall be pronounced at the Judgment Seat of Chrift. Thirdly, That this Text advantageth not the Popiftr Purgatorj ,is farther clear,becaufe it treats of the Remifc fion it feif of Sin, not fatisfaction for fome light failures, which is the chiefeft Remiflion of their Purgatory. All that the Cardinal has to reply here, is no more but this, That in Purgatory there is alfb a Remiflion of Venial Faults, To which I anfwer, That Venial Sins, as they call them, have nothing to do with this place ; for fince they are the moft Mortal Sins and Blafphe- mies, to which our Lord here compares the Sin againffc the Holy Ghoft, declaring that tho they might be for- given, yet this fhould not, neither in this, nor in the World to come : Muft it not follow, that if any Re- miflion in the World to come be to be inferred from thefe words of our Lord, it mult certainly be a Re- miflion of Mortal Sins ; and fb the Cardinal as far to feek as ever for the eftablifhment of his Purgatory , fince from thence they profefs all Mortal Sins excluded, fb as that there is no Remiflion at all for them there. The Cardinal makes an offer of a return to this, but it is fuch a one, as may quite end the Controverfie of a Purgatory from this Text ; for he fays, Our Saviour Q^q q q fpake 6 1 1 The Texts examined which Vapifts cite {pake here of a compleat and perfect Remiflion, which comprehends the Remiflion both of the BtU. ubi fupra & tcrdo Refpon- sin? ancj the Punifhment, in which man- & *2£W£|E nert!>e moft grievous Sins are faid to be ftkur Remiflfionera cnlpr , & Remitted in another World, for this Rea- poetix , quomodo gravita f becaufe their RemifTion is compleat- peccata remitcuntur in alio ie- y . c n ,ui j 11 t- cub quia ibi compkwr eorum ted there. But, firit, Whats all this to Rcmiffio. Venial Sins, or the RemifTion had in Pur- gatory, which according to his own Prin- ciples, has nothing to do with grievous Sinners ? Again, How can the completion or perfection of all Remif- fion belong to Purgatory, when the Scriptures every- where refer it to the laft Judgment by Chrift ? Second- ly, If the moft grievous Sins are faid to be remitted in the other World, for this Reafbn, becaufe their Re- miflion is compleated there, then why may not this Ex predion, Shall be forgiven neither in this Worldy nei- ther in the World to come, fignifie one and the lame Re- miflion, the one, viz. That in the World to come, be- ing only a Confirmation, and Completion of the other ?' Thirdly, If the Remiflion in the World to come be the feme with that in this Life, only in a higher and more comprehenfive Perfection compleating it, then how can thefe words infer a third State for Remiflion of fuch Sins as are no ways Remitted in this World. Indeed according to the Doftrine of ChrilHanity, tho not ac- cording to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, the Remiflion of the Punifhment always accompanies the Remiflion of the Sin, but yet it will not follow that this Text of Scripture which treateth of the Re- miflion of Sins only, is agreeable orappliable, much lefs demonftrative of their Purgatory , wherein they pre- tend only to a Remiflion of Punifhment, and fbme Pe- nal Satisfactions for fdch Sins as are already Remitted in for their DoElrine of Turgatory. 6i J in this World. And thus I think by the help of the Cardinal , we have fufficiently difappointed them of the aiTiftance of this Text in the fupport of their Pur- gatory. The next place alledged, is i Cor. ?. 15. Shall be Beti.de pHrg. faved,yetfo «' wvpcs, [0 as by Fire, upon which all his ftrefs depends, This certainly clearly ma- nifests that Fire is here mentioned only Figuratively, or by way of likenefs, or refemblance ; as who fhould fay, his works fhall perifti in the Fire, but the Work- man fhall efcape, yet with that difficulty and hazard, as if that Examining Fire had got hold on and been rea- dy to devour him ; now the Cardinal acknowledges that Examining Fire to be Metaphorical : Indeed the Apoftle feems carefully to have obviated the Improprie- ty of the proper acceptation of that word Fire, here, by the interpofition of that Particle ( & ), nor can the Grammatical Conftru&ion any ways help out the Car- dinal's imagination of fuch a Material Fire, which by its Pains and Tortures fhould a£hially fave and reftore the Perfon Tortur'd therein unto Life. As for what the Cardinal alledges from thofe words, If my Mans ibid. §. fecwi- wrkfliall be burnt, he jhall fuffer lofs, inferring that it %t]?™d^ meaneth that fuch a Perfon fhall receive a Punifhment : Tho a Lofs and Punifhment are very different things ; the one being inflicted on us by another, the other ma- ny times the effecl: of a Man's perfbnal Negligence, and Error ; yet if we agree with the Cardinal in this Pun- Bilio, it will not follow, that the Punifhment referr'd to here, muft necefTarily be a Punifhment by Fire ; is not the lofs of all his Labours, and the experiencing them 6i 6 Tl?e Texts examined which Papifts cite them, to be rather the works of Damnation than lead- ing to a Reward, a very heavy Punifhment ? As for any other, there is not the leaft colour or pretence from the words. The moft material Objection I find made to this Explication is this, That if the words, So as by fire, are not to be underftood of a Material and Tor- Eeli.ibid. §. menting Fire; then thofe Builders who are laid to quemnr,ffe Build, Gold, Silver, and precious Stones, may as pro- tbe beginning, perly be (aid to efcape fo as by Fire, as the raifers up of Hay, Wood, and Stubble ; and fo that diftin&ion which the Apoftle plainly fuggefts to be between them Iafig- niflcant, and to no Purpofe. But this is eafily remo- ved, if we obferve, that, tho they are all fubjecl: to this Fire of Trial and Examination, yet they are not all Obnoxious to the like hazard and danger by it ; for tho it confumes and deftroys the one, {viz,, the Wood, Hay, and Stubble, ) yet it does but illuftrate and make more manifeft the Worth and Perfections of the other, viz,, the Gold, Silver, and Precious Stones. As I fup- pole two Men of unequal Qualifications, may run through the fame Examination, tho the one with no hazard, but rather advantage to his Reputation: So that as Wood, Hay, and Stubble, which refer to fuch falfe, and unwarrantable Doclrines as fhall be account- able for, at the Fiery Examination of God's fierceft v Judgment, bear no relation at all to Venial Sins,, which a fmall Penance, perhaps a fupernumerary Ave Maria, may wipe off in this Life, or at moft a few Pangs in Purgatory , clear us from, long before that terrible Day, which fhall declare our Works. So is the Fire here mentioned to try every Man'* work of what fort it is, far from the nature of their Purgatory Scorchings, becaufe they are only to Pi:rge and Satisfy, thefe to Ex- amine and make Tryal ; in a word, the one is a Proba- tory, for their DoElrint of Purgatory. 617 tvry, the other a Purgatory Fire. There are thofe indeed which interpret this Fire of thofe Tribulations and Affli- ctions wherewith God often examines our Works and Doctrines in this Life, particularly St. Augujiiney and Gregory the Great, whole Dreams and Deluiions feem to have given thefirft occafion to this Chimerical Purga- tory ; but I fhall not determin the time when God will exercife and examin us with this Fiery Trial, it being fufBcient to fhew, that the nature of this Examining Fire, let it happen when it will, is no ways fuitable to that Imaginary one, fancied to be now burning in Pur- gatory, the property of that being to Try works, but the efficacy of this to Afflict and Punifh Souls : And that this place is thus to be underftood Metaphorically, we might Confirm by divers of their own Expofitors : Befides many prefling Arguments urged by Erafmus, to Eraf. in locum, evince that it makes neither for Venial Sins, nor a Pur- ■ gatory for which Bellarmwe declares it fb profitable, Suarez. cites Sedulius , Lyranus , Cajetan , and others, Suarez Tom. Interpreting it aimoft in our very words, tho indeed J'flnJ"hom; he himfelf will have the whole place underftood of a num.25.5'" Proper and Material Fire ; but he brings no better In- Ibid, §# I# ducements to determin us on his fide, tlun Bellarmine num.28, offers to make out, that tho Fire in one part of the Text muft be meant Allegorically, yet fo as by F/re, muft neceffarily be taken in a Literal and Proper mean- ing : Indeed the Inftance by* which the Cardinal un- dertakes to make it appear to us, that it was the man- ner and cuftom of St. Paul, thus to ufe the fame word BeIL fu_ in divers fenies in the famefentence is moft Remarka- pra §.feamdo ble, and does abundantly Evince, that the Cardinal's ^co no° e/e »,-. J , !_• -n • t 1 • lnfuetum, &c. Wit was more put to it to make out this Point, than his Conference concern'd for laying down the Truth : The Text appeal'd to is this, He hath made him Sin for us, who 6 1 8 The Texts examined which Papi/ls cite who knew no Sin ; here the word Sin is to be taken in as different an acceptation as the word Fire in the former place : What ? Was he made Mortal Sin, who knew only Venial Sins, or how is Sin here taken in a diffe- rent meaning ? Indeed to be made Sin, and to know Sin, have different meanings, but then they are alfo diffe- rent Sentences ; but as fo.- the word Sin, that imports the very fame in relation to them both ; as to his being made Sin, it means no other than that that Spotlels. Lamb was fent by God to be the Sacrifice for our Mor- tal Sins ; and the Puoifhment he under-went fhews, that the Sins imputed to him, or for which in our ftead . he accounted, were thofe very Sins which he knew not, that is, which he had not been perlbnally con- cerned in committing. What Agreement is here with Sins different, fuch as Mortal and Venial, with a refem- blance of a Metaphorical and a Proper Fire ? Or be- caufe we meet the one Expreffion, what countenance can it give to the other Inference and Deduction 5 they were the fame mortal Tranfgreflions which the Apoftle intimated in the one place, and it was no doubt one and the fame Metaphorical Fire which he reprefents and alludes to, in the other : But thus it is when Men will appeal to Scripture for the confirmation of fuch Do- ctrines, as differ from the very Spirit and Letter of the Scriptures, that they are compelled to fuch irrational and unconcluding Mifapplications. And thus I proceed to another place infilled on for the juftification of a Purgatory by the Cardinal, and that is Mat. 5. 25, 26. Agree with thine Adverfary quickly whilft thou art in the way with him, left at any time the Adverfary deliver thee to the Judg, and the Judg deliver thee to the Officer, and thou he cafl into Prifon. Verily I [ay unto thee, thou [halt by no means t,omc out thence un- til for their Doftrine of Turgatory. 6io til thou haft paid the utmoft Farthing. How ! Shall he by no means come out thence, until he himfelf has paid his utmoft Farthing ? Then how can this Prifbn be ima- gined to be Purgatory, out of which, by the means of the Prayers, and MafTes of the Living, the Dead are every day fuppofed to come forth, dilcharg'd from all Payments to be made by themfelves ? Bellarmine tells us, St. ChryfoHom understands this place in its Literal meaning,that is,as having refpe£r. purely to enforce Peace and Reconciliation with our Neighbour in this Life ; and Emanuel Sa teftifies, St. Jerom explains it of a Re- ^.hol in Ioc conciliation and Peace to be made with our Enemies in this World. If we confider the Defign of the whole Chapter , which was an enforcement of thofe Chri- stian Vermes, whereby we might enfure to our felves Peace and Happinefs here in this World , as well as Comfort and Felicity in that which is to come, we fhall perceive no Inconfiitency, or Impropriety in fuch an Interpretation ; for tho Bellarmine infinuates Chrift: would not have fb positively inferred, He jhould not go thence, till he hath paid the utmoft Farthing ; had he meant only the Imprifbnment of Offenders againft the Law of Man in this World, out of which they mod frequently efcape, without fuch Payment; yet as Theo- fhylaci upon the 12th Chapter of St. Luke fuggefts, this might be for the greater Terror, and more effectually to allure mean and carnal minds to Love and Agreement, with the frightfulleft profpecl: of thofe Severities they feem moft to dread; I fay, it may very confidently and agreeably to our Saviour's intention in the Chap- ter, thus be taken in its moft Obvious and Literal meaning : But it is, and hath been often explain'd in an Allegorical manner, but yet with no regard, or ad- vantage to their Purgatory, as fhall plainly be evinc'd R r r r out 6jo MaldoH. in Mattb. 5. 25. Ad- verfarius nofter eft ille quern lifimus, quern raca auc ftultum appellavimus, qui a&ionem a- pud Deum contra nos habet: Via eft hujus vitac tempus : Ju- dex Chriftus, qui di&urus quod uni ex his minimis feciftis , mi- hi feciftis: Minifter Da?mon malus, qui in torquendis dam- natis Deo minifterium prsbet#: Career Infernus: quadrans mi- nima culpa ad quadrantem fol- vere, pro fummo Jure puniri proverbio dicebatur. Et po- ftea quod autem dicit, nos in- de non exituros, donee ulti- mum quadrantem perfolvaraus, non fignificat, ut ait Auguftinus, exituros poftea, fed nunquam exituros : Quia qui in inferno funt, cum femper debitas pxnas folvant, quia pro quolibetmor- talipeccato infinitas pxnas de- tent, nunquam perfolvunt. The Texts examined which Papi/ls cite out of their own Expofitors. Thus Mal- donate in his Comment upon the place, gives us this clear and familiar account of it : Our Adverfary here intimated , fays he, is that Man whom we have offended, whom we have abufively called Racha, and Fool; for which he mail implead us at God's Tribunal : The way, is the time of this Life ; the Judg, Chrift, who fhall then tell us, what we have done to the lea ft of his, we have done to himfelf : The Officer is the Devil, or fbme evil Spirit by whom God affii&s Sinners; the Prifon is Hell', and the lafi Farthing, the leaftSins and Offences : And that this expreffion of paying the lafi Farthing, is proverbially ufed, to fignify one to be punifhed after the utmoft Rigour. And then further, when our Saviour tells us, He (ball not go thence till he ha* paid his lafi Farthing ; his meaning, fays he, is not, that they fhouldgo out after- wards, but as St. Augufline exprefTes it, that he fhall not go out at all, for this reafbn, becaufe thofe in Hell for every mortal Sin ftand indebted in infinite Punifh- ment, which 'tis impoffible they fhould ever be able to fatisfy. And Stella in his Comment upon the 12th of St. Luke, farther ex- plains the fame in this manner ; If a Man, fays he,fhould infer from thefe words, #»- til he has paid, that when he has paid he fhall be releafed, he would not *?T,but then this would be the fame as never : Becaufe there is no end of Infinite, and this Particle Donee in Scripture, fignifies Eternity ; and to oppofe an equal match for f the Sulla in Luc. cap. 12. Non intelligas quod aliquando exiet, quia donee particula in Sacris liceris jetemicatern fignificat, for their Doftrine of furgatory. 6^\ the Cardinal, Tolet ( who was both a Jefuit, and the firft Cardinal of their Order ) in his Comment upon the fame place of St. Luke, explains it to the very fame effect, telling us that it is to be applied to that Man who dies without Remiflion ob- . Ann- .8?>.& 9°- Applicant tained in this life, he fhall certainly be cim^cbrfee^SLSS lent tO the Prifon Of Hell Until he fatisfies & remifllone peccati in hac his Debt ; not that he (Hall one day fatisfy ™a faai> ff™ Pr<*efto rin . . 2 . , r , r i n 11 Carcerem Inferni, quoufque fa- It, and fo be relealed, tor that lhall never tisfedac debko, ncn quod ali- be, neither fhall he be releafed forever; quando facis&ciec, id enim but our Saviour ufes this way of expref- SJ *J RfflSS fion to fhew, there is no other, and lb by quod non aliter liberabkw & confequence no way at all ■ of efcaping j£££*SEr * *" or getting out. And this is molt proper and agreeable to the Parable. And thus you fee not only we Protectants in favour of a Herefie, butfbme plain-dealing Jefuits in vindication of the Truth, do honeftly confront the Cardinal in his Proofs of a Pur- gatory. The main Particulars on which he grounds the ftrength of his Reafbnings from this Text, are thefe two : i ft. Our Saviour's making ule rather of the Si- militude of a Debtor, which relates I warrant to Ve- nial Sins, than a Murderer , or an Adulterer, whofe Offences are mortal indeed. The 2d. The force of this Particle Donee, which he would have to fignify a time of Releafement after Payment. But to the firft, Did not the Cardinal remember his Pater Nojter, and that Chrift himfelf has there comprehended the moft mor- tal Offences under that &vpvz&ony forgive m our Debts ? Can any Sin be believed more mortal than thofe which • are there numbred amongft our Debts to God ? Had the Cardinal been more intent upon his prayers,\\tcou\6. never have been fozealoufly bent towards the maintaining fuch R r r r 2 Errors, 6 it The Texts examined which Papi/ls cite Errors, with fuch Triflings as this. As to the 2d. The force of that Particle Donee, Is it not a wonder to fee lb great a Cardinal fheltering himfelf with fb ignorant a Shuffle? Is not this word frequently uled in the Scrip- tures with reipect to Eternity, as Pfal. no. Sit thou on my Right Hand, until I make thine Enemies thy Foot- fioolf Were his Enemies no fooner to be made his Footftool, but Chrift was to be difplac'd from the Right Hand of God, or do thefe words oppofe his eternal continuance at God's Right Hand? This I think no Chriftian will affirm that believes the Nicene Creed, when it obliges us to confefs his Kingdom fhall have no end. Again, The ufe of this Particle is fb fre- quent in Scripture, that Theophylatf in his Comment up- on the firit Chapter of Matthew, tells us 'tis the Proprie- ty of the Scriptures to ufe it in this Latitude, and from the force of Donee peperit, with St. Jerom, concludes Jofeph never knew Mary at all ; to be fure they fignify not that he knew her afterwards, which I fuppofe the Worfhippers of the holy Virgin, and Defenders of her perpetual Virginity, will no ways oppofe. And as for the Inference the Cardinal draws from thefe words, He knew her not till /he had brought forth, viz. That they fignified fhe fhould certainly bring forth : Whatever it was to his purpofe, yet it was no ways agreeable to the Scope of the place, which was now to fignify the en- tire Chaftity of her Virginal Purity, when fhe Con- ceiv'd and brought forth our BleiTed Lord ; not to de- monstrate his Birth, or that fhe ihould bear him : And therefore I fhall conclude the Controverfy •£?iS?BJ i"n '3 &** ** wordS)with the words of J,„/i quis refte ex hoc locourgere #««i,teHing us, firft,That no Man can juft- vd°btom Pur8atorii' &c' Pleaa for a Purgatory from this place. And again, That the defign and tendency of the: for their Dottrineof Purgatory. ^n the Parable, fheweth that the Particle Donee mani- fefts not that the Debt here mentioned fhall one day be paid, but that the extreameft Juftice mail be exe- cuted upon fuch a Debtor ; and that he that mail unjuftly offend his Neighbour, and Co make him his Adverfary, and afterwards will not endeavour a Satisfaction and Reconciliation whilft he is in the way here in this Life, but defer all till the Day that God cometh to Judgment, fhall then feel thefear- fulleft Judgement of God ; and becaufe he muff be uncapable to pay the Debt then , be tormented with everlafting Punifhment. This is clear with- out Force or Straining, and therefore this Prifon far different from the Goal of Purgatory. And thus have I done with the Cardinal : But there have been other. Wits at work fince, and at- tempted to ftrengthen their Arguments with fuch Additions as thefe, the iff of Peter the 3d Chapter the 1 9th Verfe, By which alfo he went, and Preached to the Souls in Prifon, which fometimes were Difobe- dienty when once the Long-fuffering of God waited in the days of Noah. Our Modern Arguers now, con- clude here is a clear and manifeft Illuftration of their Purgatory, in this very dark and myftical Infi- nuation of Chrift's Preaching in that very Spirit, by which he was railed from the Dead, to the Spi- rits in Prifon in the Days of Noah. \ Bellarmine in- deed in his Fourth Book De Chrifio, and the Thir- teenth Chapter, makes ufe of thefe Words to prove Chrift's Defcent ad Inferos ; contrary to the Ex- pofition and Opinion of St. Auguftwe, but he brings them not to eitablifh his Reafonings about Purga- tory f 6$4 Salm. in Ioc. Tlie Texts examined which for their DoElrine of Purgatory. 635 inPrifbn, which fbmetimes were difbbedient in the days of Noah ; which manifeftly fuggefts to us, that this going forth to Preach, was in the Spirit of his Divinity, and before his Appearance in the Flefla ; and therefore no ways to be underftood of his Preaching the Gofpel after his Death , and before his Refurre&ion , to thofe who remained in cer- tain Receptacles of the Earth. But fecondly, That they were the Souls of Men living in this World, and not the Souls of thofe Departed, to whom in this Spirit of his Divinity Chrift is faid here to have Preached, further appears from the very Text, which tells us, That the Souls to whom he Preached, * were fuch as were then Difobedient, and that the time of their Difbbedience , was before the Flood , when the Ark was building: And therefore that Long-fuffering of God, which St. Peter fpeaks of, muft denote thrift's Patience, who had call'd thofe Men, living thus in difbbedience, to Repentance by his Holy Spirit, Preaching to them by the Tongue of Noah; And giving them farther Testimonies of his Love, and Mercy to them by that Preacher of Righteouf- nefs in the time that the Ark was a Building, which was a fair warning of their approaching Deftru- 6tion , and therefore might well have won them to Repentance. What is there here any ways a- greeable to the Souls of the Dead ? Befides, Since they were the dif obedient to whom Chrift is faid to have Preactid in his Sprit ; it is manifeft that ac- cording to their own Principles it could not be thofe detained in Limbo Patrum, for they were the obedient Preachers of Righteoufhefs themfelves, viz. Noah, Abraham, Ifaac, &c. Nor could it be the 6 1 6 The Texts examined which Papi/ls cut the Souls in Purgatory, for befides, that there could be no fuch ftate before Chrift had opened unto us the Gate of Heaven ; to what end or purpofe could he have Preached to thefe who muft have obtained his full Remiflion of all their Sins in this Life, who wanted no knowledg of Righteoufheii, only fbme few fatisfa&ory ftroaks to introduce them into Paradife. To conclude, Tho we take the words in the meaning which their own Expofitors put upon them, yet we cannot pofitively infer there is a * Purgatory from them , becaufe at laft they may more clearly be understood of that Prifbn, where- in they imagine the Righteous Patriarchs them- felves to have been detained ; not that thefe could ftand more in need of fuch Preaching who are ex- preifed by God's Holy Spirit both to have known before , and to have rejoyced when they faw the Day of Chrift ; as the Apoftle fully explains to us, when he tells us how Mofes efieemed the Reproach of Chrifi greater Riches than the Treafures of Egypt. And therefore we may with the raoft reafbn con- clude this Preaching was neither to the Souls in the one place, nor thole in the other : And that from this Text can be made out , no fuch place as either of them is fancied to be. ABs 2. 24. is alfo cited by fbme of them, the words are , Whom God raised up , having loofed the Pains of Death : The fenfe of which, as they explain it, is this, That when Chrift died, and de- fended beneath in the Earth, he freed many from their for their DoUrine of Purgatory. $ j 7 their Pains and Torments ; not the Damn'd, becaufe they are paft all deliverance ; not the Saints, becaufe they endure no pains at all ; therefore the Souls in Fur gat cry. But do the words intimate the leaft glimpfe of any fuch releafement performed here by Chrift ? Do they not tell us exprefly, that the Per- fon loos'd was the Lord Jefus himfelf, whom they had crucified, verf 23. And moreover, that the Pains from which he was loosed, were thofe of Death, fofivcu, tv Skvoltx, as the words are in the Greek, by which 'twas impfjible he jhoidd be holden. What's all this to "Purgatory, or the releafement of Souls from its fiery Terrors ? What a Arrange Zeal is here for a Purgatory, that cann't allow of our Lord's Refurre&ion from the Dead, without his leaving fuch a State behind him ? Again, Luke 32.42. Lord, remember me when thou tome]}: into thy Kjngdom'-, is applied to the fame purpofe, though the Thief^ when yet alive, made this Requeft to our Saviour, yet this muft necefc farily argue an Opinion of a Remiflion after this Life ; and though our Lord anfwers him, To day thou (bait be with me in Paradife ; yet this difproves not a Purgatory , but muft be look'd upon as an extraordinary Cafe that he efcap'd that Prifbn, and an exemption to that general Rule of a Purga- tory, which yet never was effablifh'd in the Go- fpel. Again, when the Apoftle, Phil. 2. 10. tells us, That at the Name of Je/us every Kjiee /ball bow, of things in Heaven, and things in Earth, and 5 f ff things 6 3 8 The Texts examined winch Tapifts eke things under the Earth, he moft convincingly in- forms us of a Purgatory ; by reaibn ( as they in- terpret it) thole under the Earth, muft necefTa- rily be underftood to be the Souls tormented there. But what Shifts are thefe, to advance an Article of Belief ? Does not the Apoftle here re- prefent unto us the univerfal Soveraignty of Chrift ? And bowing of Knees here mention'd, denote that fubje&ion, which not only every hu- mane Creature, but even the Inanimate, nay the very Devils, trembling and quaking, confefs due to Chrift ? Why muft thofe in the Earth necef- larily be the Souls in Purgatory ? Are there not many Men, Women, and baptiz'd Infants, dead in the Faith, whofe Bodies lie therein eover'd, befides many living Animals and Vegetables, which are frequently faid in Scripture, to bow to, and glorify God in their kind, and according to the confiftency of their Natures ? Is not this fuffici- ently explain'd to us in the yh Chapter of the Revelations at the 13/^Verfe; All Creatures which are in the Heavens, and in the Earth, and in the Sea, and all that are in them, heard I faying, Praife, and Honour, and Glory, and Power, be unto Him that fitteth upon upon the Throne, and unto the Lamb for evermore ? And fometimes we hear Holy David in like manner calling upon the Sun and Moon to praife the Lord with him. What Creatures are thofe in the Sea, which fhall knowingly, and with a fenle of veneration glorify Chrift ? May they not as realbnably fix a Purgatory in the Moon, or in the Waters, as in the Earth, from fuch Texts as thefe are? I for their Vottrine of Turgatory. 6}p I fhall conclude all with that in the 21/? Chap- ter of the Revelations, at the zjth Verfe, and there (ball enter into it no unclean thing. From whence they infer, that the Souls of the Faithful that are (potted with Sin, mud be purg'd in the next Life, before they enter into the Kingdom of God, and fo confequently a Purgatory. We need here but repeat the whole Verie for an Anfwer ; which runs thus, And there /ball enter into it no unclean Thing ; neither whatfoever worketh Abomination, or maketh a Lie, hut they which are written in the Lamtfs Book of Life. For does it not clearly ap- pear whom the holy Apoftle meant by the Unclean ? Were they not the workers of Lies and Abomina- tions, or fuch whole Impenitence had excluded them the Lamb's Book of Life ? And will this agree with the State and Condition of Purgatory, which receives not any thing unclean, but thofe juft Perlbns who have obtain'd remiflion through his Blood, who are ftop'd therein, not for any purification of Sins retained, but to make pai- ment and fatisfa&ion for fbme Debts forgotten to be difcharg'd in this Life? I hope thole Souls therein detain'd, are not fuch as are excluded the Lamb's Book of Life. Befides, though the Heirs of Salvation are yet unclean, frill I hope Faith, with the Blood and Merits of Chrifr, are much better Refiners and Purifiers than the Fire of Punito- ry : When once our Sins are purifi'd and cleans'd hereby, there is no fear we fhaM be bound by tlie way, or detain'd from the Kingdom prepar'd for us ; fince the Holy Ghoft has fo fully afTur'd all fuch, If our earthly Houfe of this Tabernacle were dijfolv'd, ($4° The Tests examined which fdpifts cite diffolvd, tve have a Building of Gody a Houfe Eter- nal in the Heavens, 2 Cor. 5. i. So far is this Do&rine of a Purgatory from being clear or ap- parent in the Scriptures, that he muft want com- mon Senfe that fhall be perverted by fuch illogical Deductions as are made in its behalf. t HE END*. ERRATA PART I. PAge 579. line 15. for«on>, read no." P. 603. J. r. r. of the place this? P. 604. 1. 17. f.ivbich, x.vohat. 1. 18. t. is dead ? P. 697. 1. 29. f. one s, r. owns. PART II. PAge ^05. Marg. f. hie. r. hi. f. rec'qiuntHr, r. rejecimtnr¥ P. 6 1 5. 1. 3. f. Siver, r. Silver. LONDON, Printed by J. V. for Richard Cbifwel at the Rofe and Crowff in St. Pant's Church-Yard, 1688. ( *4i ) The Texts examined which Tapfls cite out of the Bible for the Proof of their Doftriue FOR Prayers in an ZJnfytonfti Tongue, PART I. 'imprimatur. Octob.^. 16S8: ■ Jo. Battefy. TH E common Pretence of the Doctors of the Church of Rome, againft allowing to the Peo- ple the ufe of the Holy Scriptures, is their be- ing fo' extreamly liable to be mifunderftood, and to have falfe and corrupt Senfes impofed upon them. And indeed, whofbever impartially confiders the wild and extravagant Senfes which they themfelves impofe upon fundry Texts of Scripture, in defence of their own unferiptural Doctrines, will be very much temp- ted to fufpect, that 'their Defign was to make Iaftances of the truth of this their Pretence, and to convince the World how liable the Scripture is'to be abufed; not on- Tttt ly 6^z The Texts examined which P aft/Is cite • ly by the common People, but alfo by Men of Wit and Learning, when once they are lifted by their Inte- reft to ferve a bad Caufe : And to ftrengthen this fa- fpicion, I know no greater Argument, than their vain and impotent indeavour to juftify from Scripture this moft. uncharitable and unchriltian Practice of their £hurch, viz. their concealing from the People their £>ublick Offices of Prayer in a Language that they do not underftand : To expofe the vanity of which At- tempt, and let the World fee what miferablc Shifts the managers of it are put to, is the Defign of the enfuing Papers; in which I fhall, * • I- Firft', Examine the more general Proofs from Scrip- ture which they urge for it. IL Secondly ; Confider the particular Texltsof Scripture by which they defend it. HI. , Thirdly, Produce our Scripture- Arguments againft it. IV. Fourthly \ Anfvver the Objections by which they en- deavour to invalidate the Force of t-hefe Argu- ments. Firjl \ I fhall examine thofe general -Proofs from Scripture which they urge for it. And for this Mat- ter, we need leek no further than the Catholick-Scrip- tnrijl, and the Touch- ft one ''of the Reformed Gofpel, which two Books are Collections out of Bellarmine, and other Popifh Writers, of fuch Scripture-Proofs as they have preffedto ferve and defend the difputed Doctrines and Practices of their Church ; and the latter of which hath done little elfe than, jufl: recited the former, and this, in my Opinion, with far -kis ftrength and advan- tage -, fo that when we have anfwercd one, we have an- fwered both. Now, l' for Trayers in an Unknown Tongue* 6±* Now as for the Catholick-Scripturifty the molt fpc- cious Arguments which he urges in defence of their Latin Service (and which is wholly omitted by the Touch-jlone) is the Practice of the Jewifh Church ; which from the Babylonifh Captivity to the Time of Chrift, had all her Scriptures, and as he tells us, all her vid. Eellarm. publick Service and Prayers (which was all taken out of the i^*. 2-dcverb« • -Pfalms, the Law, and the Prophets) in that very Lan- ' 5' gttage in which they wert written, viz. in the Old Hebrew, that is, in a Language well known indeed to the common People of the Jews, before their Tranfmigration into Ba- bylon ; but in their Captivity at Babylon, they loft the knowledg of their Old Hebrew Language, and confequent' ly had all their Scriptures and Publick Service read in a Language unknown to the common People, and this for fourteen Generations— ~ And this, faith he, before the Eyes of Chrift and his Apoftles, 'and they never did in the leaft reprehend it. W hich Argument, though it feems plau- iible enough at the firft, I doubt not will appear, upon a more intimate enquiry, lighter than Vanity : And therefore in Anfwer to it, I fhall briefly propofe thefc four Things to the Reader's confideration. Firft ; That long before this Captivity, God himfelf delivered the Scriptures, and confequently the publick Offices of Prayer contained in them to the Jews, •in their native "and vulgar Language ; for it is agreed on . all hands, that the Ancient Hebrew, in which God delivered to the Jews the Book of the Law, the Pfalms, and the greatest part of the Prophets, was before this Captivity, the vulgar Language of the Hebrew Na- tion, which is a much better Argument that God would have the Publick Prayers of his Church performed in a known Language, than this pretended Practice of the Jewifh Church is, that it is all one to God whether Tttt 2 they <$44 Tie Texts examined which Papifts cite they be performed in a Language known cr unknown : for fuppofing it were.true, that the common People of the Jews did, under this Captivity, forget their Old Hebrew Language, and confequently that they under- ftoodnot their Publick Prayers, which were frill con- tinued in Hebrew ; all this was accidental, and argues no more, than that God did permit the, Jews to lofe • their Original Language, and confequently to offer up- their Publick Prayers to him in a Language which they did not then nnderftand; And what then, doth, he not permit a great many things which he doth by no means allow? Notwithstanding this permiflion, it might, for any thing that appears from it, be in. God's efreem either a great Fault in their Rabbins,. that they did .not tranflate their Publick Prayers into the New Vulgar, or a great Fault in the People, that they did not take care to tranfmit to Pofterity their knowledg of the Old' Hebrew, and perhaps it might be a Fault in both. And doth it follow, that becaufe God permitted them to be faulty, therefore he appro- ved their Fault ? The Queftion is, Whether God did approve this their Practice, or no? and till it appears that he did, God's permiflion of it is a very fallacious Proof of"his Approbation. For it's evident from the many fevere Animadverfions our Saviour made upon the Practices of that Church, that Go3 for a long time did permit a 'great many .Corruptions in it ; and for all that yet appears, this may be one of them,«tend a very great one too ; and till fuch time as it's proved to be no Corruption, no Argument of the lawfulnefs of it can be fetch'd from God's Permiffion. Allowing therefore the Matter of Fact to be true, viz,. That the Jervifi? Church for Fourteen Generations celebrated her Publick Services in a Language that was unknown to the" for Prayers in an Unknown Tongue. the People, it's certain that for feveral Generations the R oman Church hath practifed the fame.^Why then may we not as well argue the lawfulnefs of it from the practice of the later Church, as of the former, and fo bring the thing in Queftion for a Proof of it felf, than which nothing can be more extravagant from all the Laws of Difputation : But this, faith our Au- thor, w.is pra^tifed in the Jewifb Church before the £yes of Chrijl and hi* Apojiles\ and they never did in the leajt reprehend it. Suppcfing this at prelent to be true, which. (as I Hiall fliew by and by) is notoriously falfe; yet even from hence there is no neceffity ofConfe- quence that therefore the thing is Iawful,until it be firft proved that there is nothing can be unlawful but what our Saviour or his Apoftles have exprefly reprehended ; and this I doubt can never be proved : For how doth it a ppear that our Saviour reprehended every fingle Corruption in the Jewifb Church ? And if he did not, it's, poflibfe tnat this might be one of her Corruptions, though our Saviour never reprehended it ; perhaps there might be fbme Things in her- Worfhip fb very abfurd, as that they needed no reprehenfion, they being a fufficient reprehension to themfelves ; and among this number of Things, her praying in an Vnknorvn Tongue, . (fuppofing fhe was guilty of it) may, I think, as fairly claim a place as moft things we can imagine ; fo that at beft this Argument concludes but contingently. Had our Saviour judged this Practice unlawful, it may be he would have reproved it, and it may be he would nor, either becaufe he looked upon it as a practice that fuffi- ciently expoled it felf, or for fome other Reafbn which we at this diftance cannot arrive to : But, on the other hand, God's delivering to the Jews their Publick Ser- vice in their Native Language, is an tinanfwerable. Argument, 646 lie Texts examined which fapifts cite Argument,*fhat it was his Will that they mould offer u.,p their Prayers to him in a Language that they un- derftood; for he did not barely permit this to be done, but he himfelf chofe to do it, by the Advice and Ap- probation of his own All-comprehending Reafon, which upon full -confultation of .what was beftand fitteft to be done, determined him to infpire thofe Prayers they ufed in their own Language, rather than in a Lan- guage that was unknown to them ; and feeing all Languages are alike known and eafy to him, why fhould he chufe to dictate their Prayers in a known Language, rather than in an Unknown, had it been indifferent to him whether they prayed to him in the one or the other- ? To be fure his Defign in giving them their Prayers in their own Language, and no other, was, that they fhould pray to him in their own Lan- guage, and not in any other which they did not un- derhand- ; that (b underftanding all along what they prayed for, their Hearts might be duly affected with the Matter of their Prayers ; and if this were his De-? fign, then to be fure Prayers in an unknown Tongue are a dire£f. Contradiction thereunto. God's giving the Jews therefore their Holy Prayers in Hebrew, which was then their Native Tongue, is as plain an Argu- ment that it was his Will and Intention that the Peo- ple fhould offer up their Prayers to him in a Language which they beft underftood, as the Church of Eng- lan£s publifhing her Prayers in Englifb, is, that her •Members fhould from thenceforth no longer pray in an unknown Tongue; and therefore, though after- wards, during their Captivity, their Native Language was altered, yet feeing they had no reafon to apprehend that God's Will and Intention was altered, they ought to have purfued that, and to have tranflated their Prayers for ^Prayers in an Unknown Tongue* 647 Prayers into their own Vulgar, fuppofing that they had loft the knowledg of their Old Hebrew. They knew well enough that the Reafon why God firft in- fpired their Prayers in the Hebrew Tongue, was not becaufe it was Hebrew, out of any particular refp^ct he had to that Language more than to any other, but becaufe it was their Native Language which they all understood ; and therefore as foon as they ceafed to un- derftand the Hebrew, thofe who were, their Guides and Paftors, ought to have proceeded upon God's Rea- fon, and to have tranflated their Prayers out of Her brew into their new Native Language ; there being the very fame reafon why the People fhould under- ftan4 their Prayers now when they fpoke Chaldee, as there was when they fpoke Hebrew. To illuftrate this Argument by a plain Inftance, Xhe Wifdom of our Anceftors hath thought fit to publifh our Statute- Laws in Englifh, for this Reafon, becaufe they in- tended the People fhould fo far at leaft underftand. them, as to know how to govern their Anions by them. Now fuppofe that hereafter England (which God forbid ) fhould be conquered by fome Neighbour- ing Nation, and thereupon receive the Language of the Conqueror, and in procefs of Time the common People ( though continuing frill under the fame Laws) fhould quite forget to (peak and underftand Englijb ; in this cafe, if the Reafon of publifhing the Laws at fir ft in Englifl; were good, it certainly holds as good for the tranilating them into' the New Language of England, there being the fame Reafon why the People fhould underftand their Laws when they fpeak French, or Spaniflj, or Italian, as when they fpoke Englifh. This Confederation I have the longer infifted on, be- caufe, if I miftake aot, it deftroys the whole force of i our 6\% The Texts examined which Vnftjls cite our Author's Argument, fuppofing the whole matter of FaG: from which he argues to be true. But then, Secondly, It is farther to be confidered, that it doth not at all appear that in this Captivity the Old Hebrew was fo univerfally loft as is pretended, but rather the . contrary : For confidering that throughout all this Cap- tivity, the Jews continued firm and ftedfaft to their Religion, the Precepts and Inftitutions whereof were Recorded in no other Language but their Old Native Hebrew, they could not but apprehend, themfelves very highly concerned to preferve and continue it ; feeing without it they could have no accefs to their Sacred Oracles , which for the conduct of their Lives and Actions they had fuch frequent occafions to Coniult : For, for a Nation toloie, or-preferve a Language which is the lole Repofitory of the Religion to which they zealoufly and devoutly adhere, muil doubtlefs be very far from a thing indifferent to them ; it being impof- fible for Men that are truly Zealous for their Religion not to be very tenacious of the Language in which its Laws are contained, when they are to be found in no other Language ; and this, as our Author grants,was the cafe of the Jews, when they were lead Captive into Bab)' Ion ; whither they carried no other Language with them buttheir Native Hebrew : But then confidering the ftrange, if not SuperhMtious Veneration which the Jews have always retained for the Hebrew, it is not to be ima- gined that they would eafily part with it ; for. they always looked upon it as the peculiar Language of God and confequentiy as having in it fbmething more Sa- cred than any other Language in the World ; info- much that they efteemed the holy Scripture it fdf to be much more holy in the Original Hebrew, than when it was tranilated into another Language, and that the Nobility for Prayers in an Unknown Tongue* 64? Nobility of thofe Sacred Books was very much Dimi- nifhed when any Change was made in their Language or Chara&ers * ; and it is likely that they who had fb *vid.DrMiht- high an efteem of this Language, fhould be remifs in ftX g04. their care of preferving it, efpecially confidering that it was the only Language in which the Sacred Oracles of their Religion were contained ? This to be fure muft neceflarily render all thofe who had any fenfe of Religion very careful and follicitous to preferve it, and accordingly we find the Jews of all Ages to be very careful in this matter : Thus Theodoret tells us, Other Nations have their Children /peaking quickly in their own Mother-Tongue , but there are no Children of the Hebrews, who mturally [peak the Hebrew Tongue, but qJefHn ow- the Language of the Country where they were Born. Af- 55*. <5o. ter wards when they grow up, they are taught the Letters, and learn to read the holy Scripture in the Hebrew Tongue. And one of their Rabbins in Pirke Jvoth, tells us, perek i; That they taught their Children the Scriptures at five Tears Old; that is, to read the Scripture in the Hebrew Lan- guage; and to this day the jews are very careful to teach their Children Hebrew y that lb they may be capa- ble to read and underftand the Scriptures : and if now they teach them Hebrew when it is lb difficult for them, the Languages where they are Born and Bred, having no affinity with it ; how much more would they do it then, when it was fo very eafie, the Chaldee which was the Language of Babylon , being of all Tongues in the World the neareft a-kin to the Hebrew, its Letters being all the fame with the Hebrew^ and abundance of its words being derived. from Hebrew Originals : And only differing from them either in their Declenfion or Formation: What their different Declen- fions are the common Rules of the Chaldee Language V v v v declare ; 6^0 The Texts examined which (papifts cite declare ; and as for their different Formations, it con- fifts either in changing or tranfpofing the Letters of the Radical Words, or in detracting from, or adding to them, or in the tranfmutation of the Vowels; the main of all which differences are reducible to a few *vid. Euxtorf. ^ort anc* ea^e Rules * So that fuppofing the Cha/dee obfervac.Com- to have then the Vulgar Language of the Hebrews, mun. Lexic yet ^y reafon 0f the near alliance of thofe two Lan- fixa;!30' pr guages> tney might with as much eafe have taught their Children the pure Hebrew, as the Scots can theirs to underftand pure Englifh. And is it likely that they who are now fb very careful to teach it to their Chil- dren when it is fo difficult, fhould then neglect it when it was fb eafie ? But as for that AfTertion of our Author, viz. That in this Captivity they lofl the knowledg of their old Hebrew ; though I cannot but look upon it as a moft abfurd Falfhood, yet I confefs in him it is very pitia- ble, it being his misfortune to be impofed upon by much abler Heads than his own ; and particularly by De verb. Dei, Bellarminc, from whom he commonly borrows all his lib. 2. cap. 4. Scripture-Proofs and Arguments. But how far this Afl fertion is from any probable fhew of Truth , will, I doubt not, fufficiently appear upon a clofe enquiry into the matter: For confidering the duration of this Cap- tivity, it is hardly conceivable how in fuch a fhort ipace of time they fhould lofe the knowledg of their native Hebrew, ( though they had induff rioufly endea- voured it ) ; for a Native Language is not loon worn out, but mult pafs into difufe by flow and infenfible de- grees : For fbme considerable time to be fure the gene- rality of the People muff continue to fpeak it, becaufe as yet they can fpeak no other, and after they have been a little initiated into a new Language, they will for a long time be apt,where they know they are uncferflood, to for Prayers in an Unknown Tongue. 651 to be fpeaking their old, that being as yet much more natural and eafie to them, and fb it muft be a confider- able time before they can be fuppofed to forget it. Thus when the Jews were lead Captive into Babylon, they carried thither no other Language with them but only their own native Hebrew, and therefore fbme time after they muft neceffarily fpeak it, or live in a ftate of per- petual Silence ; and after they had got fbme fmattering of the Cbaldee, to be fure they exprefs'd themfelves in it with a great deal of difficulty ; and therefore there is no doubt, but among themfelves, and in their Families, they rather chofe to converfe in their native Hebrew, this being as yet far more familiar to them than the Chaldee, and by commonly fpeaking Hebrew in their Families, they could not but propagate the knowledg of it to their Children. Now this Captivity continu- ing but Seventy Years at moft, its probable that a great many of the firft Generation furvived it, and how is it imaginable that they ihould forget the Hebrew, which was their native Language, and in which having yet no other Language they were forced to converfe for feve- ral of thofe Seventy Years ? by reafon of which the next Generation, which made up a great part of thofe who returned from this Captivity, muft alfo be fuppofed to have imbibed the Hebrew from their Parents, many of whom to be fure, efpecially of the Ruder fort, had for feveral Years no other Language to converfe in ; fb that fuppofing them to have been indifferently affected to their new Chaldee and their old Hebrew Language, yet muft their 70 Years Captivity be elapfed, before they could be fo wholly accuftomed to the one as quite to forget the other. And this will yet more evidently appear, if we confider that this very fame People con- tinued Captive in Mgypt for the fpace of 200 Years, V v v v 2 and 6]i The Texts examined which Tapifls cite and yet in all this long Tract: of Time they, loft not their native Hebrew, but, as all agree, brought it back along with them into the Land of Canaan. And is it not very ftange that they who preferved it in one Captivity of 200 Years duration, fhould quite lofe it' in another of 70, when they had all the advantages of prelerving it in the later, that they had in the for- mer ? There is no doubt but in both they intermingled their Hebrew with fbme words and phrafes of the re- fpeCtive Languages of thofe Countries -7 and that they did fb, is notorious of this later Captivity in Babylon, from whence they brought feveral Chaldee words, of which there are fundry Inftances in the New Tefta- ment,iuch as Bethefda, Golgotha, Akeldama, Sec which yet are faid ££pcus") Ay*<9cci, to be fo called in the Hebrew Tongue, becaufe by common ule they were adopted in- to the Hebrew, even asDeboach, Intrigue, Embarrafment, &c. are now adopted into the Englijh •' But yet the de- riving thefe foreign words into them, render neither the one nor the other a new Language; ftillthe former conti- nued Hebrew , as the later continues Englijh. And though perhaps every ordinary Jew underftood not thofe Chaldee words any more than every ordinary Eng- lifhman thefe French words, yet ftill the one underftood Hebrew as well as the other underftands Englijh: But that the Jews retained their knowledg of the ancient Hebrew under, and a long while after this Captivity, is evi- dent, not only from the. reaibn of the thing, but front much better authority than can be pretended for the contrary : For the main authority which the contrary Opinion depends on, is that of the Jewifh Do&ors, many of whom underftood very little of their own Antiquities ; and though in thofe Collections of their Writings from whence thefe Authorities are cited, it cannot for Trayers in an Unknown Tongue. 6}i cannot be denied but that there are fbme things truly Ancient, yet even thefe are fo notorioufly fophifticated with the Inventions of their Modern Rabbins /that there is hardly any relying upon them for the truth c. matters of Facl: : And yet Barradiu* * quotes one Rabbi * Earndius Simon, who affirms that Nutlo tempore nee fcribendi nee llb* 5-ca£-2.s- loquendi modus mutatus eft ; That there never was any time wherein the manner of either writing or [peaking Hebrew was altered. Which if true , was a plain Argument that in all thofe times the Jews had never diiufed them- felves from fpeaking it: and if what Durandu* faith were true, viz,. Thatthe Jews that were Chriftned, had their Lib. 4. c. 1. Service in the Hebrew Tongue ; it is certain t&at in that time the Hebrew was the Vulgar Language of the Jews, and that it was (b even in St. Jeroms time, at leair of a great many of the P 'ale fine Jews, is evident from that Paffage of his about Paulas Funeral, f Tot a- ^tHieron.in funus eJMs Paleftinarum urbium Turba convenit Hebrseo, EPitaPh* pauI' Graxo, Latino, Syroque Sermone, Pfalmi in or dine per- fonabant', i.e. The whole multitudes of the Cities of Paleftine met at Paula'j Funeral, and fang Pfalms in order in the Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Syrian Tongue. So that it ieems in thofe days the Hebrew was as much the common Language of fome Cities in Paleftine ,as the Greek, and Latin, and Syriack, was of others. And St. Ambrofe, fpeaking of the Jewifh Converts, hath this Paffage, * "Hi ex Hebrseis erant qui aliquan- *lm Cor. 14. l< do Syria Lingua pUrunque Hebraea in Traciatibus & " oblationibu-s-utebantur : i. e. Thefe were Jews who in " their Sermons and Oblations ufed fbmetimes the Sy- cl rian,but moft commonly the Hebrew Language. From whence it's evident that Hebrew was then more com- mon among them than the Syriack. Agaifift all this, it is objected by Bellarmine , and our Author, that when the 6 54 ^:e Texts examined which Tapifts cite the Jews returned from this Captivity into their own Country , Efdras was forced by himfelf and others to » make the Law be interpreted to them, Nehem.8.13. From whence they infer that the Jews did not then under- ftand the Hebrew Tongue, in which the Law was read to them. But what if by Interpreting, weunderftand not conftruing the words, but explaining the Senfe of the Law ? Why truly then this doughty Argument va- nifhes in fumo. But that fo it is, is evident from ver. 8. where it is faid, that They, read in the Book of the Law of God difincl/y, and gave the fenfe, and caufed them to underfiand the reading, or meaning of what they read. But ftill our Author, from Bellarmine his Oracle, objects, " That when our Saviour upon the Crofs did in the old " Hebrew of the Pfalm fay as it was firft written, £//, a Eli, Lamafabatthani', St. Matthew who did write his " Gofpel in that new kind of Hebrew the Syriack, which ** was vulgarly fpoken by the Jews in thofe days, is li forced to interpret thefe words, faying, which is be- " ing interpreted, My God, my God, why haji thou for- " faken me? For which reafon alfo he interpreted feveral " other Hebrew words, which is a manifeft fign that they "could not be underftood by the Jews in whofeLanguage "he did write, without Interpretation. Butnowfup- pofe in the firft place that thefe words of our Saviour upon the Crofs were Syriack, and not the old Hebrew, as our Author from Bellarmine will needs have them, why then it will very unluckily follow, that the Jews underftood not Syriack, which yet both he and Bellar- mine will needs have to be their Vulgar Language in our Saviour's time. For what need had St. ^Matthew to interpret Syriack words to the Jews, if at that time their Vulgar Language was Syriack ? But if in ftead of Eli, Eli, as it is in St. Matthew, the words of our Saviour for (Prayers in an Unknown Tongue. 6 5 J Saviour were Eloi, Eloi, as St. Mark reports them, the whole fentence is Syriac k : And feeirg the later part is fb, I fhould think it more reafbnabb to conclude the former fo too, than to make our Saviour fpeak two different Languages in fo fhort a Sentence. But fup- pofe that for once we fhould be fb civil as to allow the whole to be Hebrew, yet St. Matthews interpreting it, doth by no means infer that the Jews of tha: Age did not understand Hebrew: For what if St. Matthew wrcre his Gofpel in Greek, and not in Syriack, as our Author affirms ; why truly then he is utterly undone again, for then all that can be inferred from St. Matthew's in- terpreting thofe Hebrew words, is, that all that under- ftood Greek did not underftand Hebrew, or at moft that there were fbme of the Heleniftical Jews that lived abroad in Gentile Countries, who fince the Translation of their Scriptures into Greek (which was then the moft Univerfal Language in the World) had quite forgot the Hebrew, and that for their fakes it was that Saint Matthew interpreted thofe Hebrew words of our Saviour, either of which we may fafely grant without the lealt ■ damage to our Caufe, or advantage to our Adverfaries. Now that St. Matthew did write his Gofpel in Greek, is the current Opinion of a great many Learned Men both in his Church and ours; which Opinion of theirs is foundedupon fuch Arguments, as I am apt to think will puzzle much Wifer Heads than his to anfwer: For upon the Rife of the Grecian Empire the Greek Language was fo far dirfufed through all the Eaftern Countries, that it became almoft their Univerfal Mo- ther-Language, and particularly in Jndea, where by rheir own Rabbins it is ftiled the Mot her -Language * \^f*£m it being in all probability the Language which they ordinarily fpoke, when they converfed either with their Brethren 6)6 * Cicero pro Archia. ■\ inProacm. 2. lib. Com- ment. £pift. .id Galac. •J- Lightfoot, Vol. 2. p. 103 The Texts examined which Papiftscke Brethren the Heleniftst or with Foreigners , even as Lingua Franca is now ordinarily fpoke by the Natives all along the Straits in their Converfe with Foreigners, though it be not their native Language; and from P Hates writing the Title, or Accufation of Chrift up- on his Crofs in thofe three Languages, Hebrew, Greek% and Latin, it feems very probable that they were all three very commonly understood by many, if not moft of the Jews ; for St. John tells us, That many of them read it, and it was written in Hebrew, Greek, and La- tin : And therefore if they read it as it was written, they read it in all thole Languages, and confequentiy underftood them all : For as for the Greek, Cicero tells us, That it was underftood almofl among all Nations *. And St. Jerom, fpeaking of the Qaiatians, tells us, " Ex- " cepto Sermone Graeco quo omnis oriens loquitur, propri- " am linguam, eandem habere quam Treviros 'j~, /. e . That " befides the Greek Tongue which all the Eaft fpoke, " they had their own proper Language, which was the "very fame with that that was fpoke at Trevers. And as the Jews commonly fpoke and underftood the Greeky fo they preferred it before all other Languages in the World but the Hebrew, ftiling it the fair eft of the Tongues which belong to the Sons of Japhet, and affirming that the Law could not be tranflated according to what was need- ful for it into any other Language but Greek f. Seeing ' therefore the Greek was fo univerfally underftood, and fo highly celebrated by the Jews of that Age, it's high- ly probable that St. Matthew, who wrote his Gofpel purely for the Jews, chofe rather to write it in this Language than in any other, this being moft univerfal- ly underftood by them, it being the Mother-language of the Helenifticaljews, and a Language which a great part of the Hebrew Jews underftood and could (peak upon for Prayers in an Unknown Tongue. 65:7 upon occafion ; befides which, in moft of thole places which St. Matthew cites out of the Old Teftament, he follows the Greek Tranflation of the LXX, and not the Original Hebrew, which in all probability he would not have done had he wrote in Hebrew, the latter being of much more Authority among the Jews than the for- mer ; upon which account it would doubtlefs have been more advifeable for him, had he wrote in HebreiV, to tranfcribe the Hebrew Text, than to translate the Greek Text into Hebrew. Upon thefe and fbme other Reafons, a great many Learned Men are of Opinion that St. Matthew wrote his Gofpel in Greek ; and if this be true, then all the fputter that Bellarmine makes a- bout his tranllating Hebrew Words, amounts to no more than this, that the Heleniftical Jews, a great part of them at leaf!:, and Gentile Greeks, did not under- ftand Hebrew : And this,if it be worth their acceptance, we readily grant, and much good may it do them, pro- vided always that the Hebrew Jews who had their Scrip- tures in Hebrew, may be allowed to underftand Hebrew, as there is no doubt but the Heleni/lal Jews did Greek, who had their Scriptures in Greek, for then both of them muft have had their Service in a known Tongue. Thirdly ; Suppofing that after this Captivity thzjews did not underftand tiebrew, yet the reafbn why they translated not their Scriptures, wherein their Publick Service was contained, into their New Vulgar, was peculiar to themfelves, and fuch as is by no means ju- stifiable upon Chriftian Principles. There was a fu- perftitious Opinion, of very ancient Date, received among the Pivines of all Religions, that fome Lan- guages were in themfelves more Sacred than others, and hence it was that in their Religion they retained certain Names which they called 'aoyi^oc ovoyuocm., i. e. Names X x x x with- 658 The Texts examined which Tapifts cite without fignification, fuch as Mew, Threw, Mor, Phor, Jax, Afaph, Threux, Zjock, and the like ; which be- ing borrowed from thofe Sacred Languages, they thought unlawful to tranflate, and fo at laft loft the* fignirication of them. And lamblicus in anfwer to that Queftion, Why among the figniflcant Divine Names they preferred thefe barbarous Ones before * De Myft. tneir own> tells US, * tt b it, 7»T» fAAJpKoc, 0 Koy&. Atari Seit.7.cap.4. ^ ™ \ipZu tc3"v£v, cxs-mp 'Acj-c-s-rifov ts £, Ao-ovpiGiv, ol ^01 tIiu oAlto SlaAtKTov h^o-^pi'nv ^t?^/|«v 2lj (^uP^csi 7rpc? t»? 0tas Ae'fa -npo(scp(- f.m. i. e. 77^ Reafon of which Matter is myftical, viz. becaufe the Gods do ejleem the Languages of the Sacred Nations, fuch as the ^Egyptians and jffyrians, to be wholly Sacred ; and therefore we conceive that our Difcourfes with the Gods ought 04 much as may be to be performed in thefe Sacred Languages , which are fo near a-kin to them. Where under the Jffyrians he includes the Jews, who had fuch an high Opinion of the Sacrednels of then- own above all other Languages, that, as our Learned * vol.2, pag. Lightfoot obferves *, it is difputed by them, whether it 8c4- be lawful to fnatch the Holy Books out of the Fire on the Sabbath Day, when it cannot be done without fbme labour ; and it is concluded without all fcruple, that if they be wrote in Hebrew, they ought to be fnatch'd out ; but if in any other Language or Character, it is doubted : and Rabbi Jofe affirms they are not to be (hatched out, nor wTould they tolerate, as he there ob- serves, the Verfion of the Book of Job in the Chaldee Language, much left the Verfion of the Law and the Prophets into any more remote and heathen Language. This therefore was one Reafon why they were fb ffiy of tranflating their Scriptures into any other Language, becaufe they looked upon all other Languages as too f prophane for Prayers in an Unknown Tongue. 6$q prophane to exprefs their Sacred Oracles. As for the Hebrew, they tell us that it is Lingua, divinitm creata & omnium perfect ijjima, & rebus ip/is convenient iffima, and that Angeli major em ejus rationem habent quam alia- rum *, that it is a Language of God's creating, and * Lib. c0fri. of all others the moft perfect and agreeable to the Na- pag. 4. ture of Things ; and that the Angels themfelves have a higher veneration for it than for any other ; and up- on this fuperftitious apprehenfion, they look'd upon it as a kind of prophanation of the Holy Books totran- flate them'into any other Language. Which is fuch a Reafbn as cannot with any modefty be pretended by the Romantjh -tgainft our tranflating the Scripture into vulgar Languages, and much lefs againft having our Publick Prayers in a known Tongue ; for fiire they will not pretend, either that their Latin is a more Sacred Language than another, or that their Prayers, which are for the moft part of humane compofure, are too facred to be expreffed in Vulgar Languages. But then the other and main Reafbn why the Jews were fb averfe to the transiting their Scriptures out of Hebrew, was, that they look'd upon the Scripture as their own proper Treafure ; by being pclTeft of which, they thought themfelves advanced to a higher pitch of Glory than any other Nation, and therefore they could not indure to think of communicating it to the Hea- then, whom they defpifed and abominated ; they look'd upon it as a high prophanation of the Sacred Mvfteries, toexpofe them to the view of the Gentile World, and to caft fuch precious Pearls before fuch un- clean Swine, as they efteemed all Nations but their own. And therefore when they were forced againft their Wills, by Ptolomy Philadelphia, to tranflate their Sci-pturesintoGra^, that day they accounted a; bitter X xxx 2 unto 660 The Texts examined which Papijls cite unto Jfrael, as the day wherein th£ Golden Calf was made, and for a long while after they kept an annual Faft to bewail that Work of the Tranftation ; and in the Tranflation it felf they ufed an unprick'd Bible, in which the Words being written without Vowels, they might the better diftort them divers ways, and into different fenfes from the Original ; and if they were queftioned, might point them fo as to make them agree with their falfe Tranflations, by which means they induftrioufly concealed a great deal of the true fenfe of their Scriptures from the Gentiles. But how julrifiable foever this Reafon might be in the Jem, ( who were the peculiar People of God, inclofed by the Laws of their Religion, from all Sacred Communication with any other Nations, and with whom the Gentile World was legally unclean ) to be fure now the middle- Wall of Partition is broken down, and the Gentiles received into free participation of all the Priviledges of the Church of God, no Chriftian Church or People can pretend to it ; and unlefs the learned Part of the Church of Rome, who underftand Latin, can advance the fame pretence that the Jews did, viz. That they are the Peculiar of God, and that all illiterate Chrifti- ans are to be look'd upon and treated by them as un- clean Heathens, and Strangers and Aliens to the Com- mon-Wealth of their Ifrael, it will doubtlefs be highly impious, as well as uncharitable, for them to pretend to ad upon this Jewifh Reafon. Seeing therefore the Jews in not tranflating their Scriptures, a&ed upon iiich Reafons, as no Chriftian People can pretend to, their Example can ' be no Warrant for any Chriftian Church to follow them : for it is the Reafon of Hu- mane Actions, that either juftifies or condemns them ; and therefore though we fhould fuppofe thefe Jewifh Reafons for Tray en in an Unknown Tongue, ££ Reafons to be juft and good in their State and Circum- ftances ; yet this can be no warrant for any Chriftian Church to a£t upon them, unlefs its State and Circum- ftances were the fame : But if the State of all Chriftian Churches be in both thefe refpe&s dire&ly contrary to that of the Jewifh ; that is,, if all their Languages are equally holy, and all the People that fpeak them are equally intitled to the Priviledges of the Church of God, then the fame Reafons that obliged the Jewifh Church to do as they did, oblige all Chriftian Churches to do the contrary ; and confequently, the fame Rea^ fbns which obliged the Jewifh Church not to tranflate her Scriptures and Divine Offices out of Hebrew into other Languages, do equally oblige the Roman Church to tranflate her Scriptures and Divine Offices out of Latin, into the Vulgar Languages of all other Chur- ches in Communion with her : And thus their mighty Argument recoils upon themfelves, which is all that Men ufually get by endeavouring to colour their foul Practices with falfe Pretences. Fourthly, and laftly ; That fuppofing that after this Captivity, the Jews did not underftand the Hebrew ; yet, whenever their Scriptures and Divine Offices were read to them in Hebrew, they had them always inter^ preted to them into their Vulgar Languages. After the Hebrew ceafed to be the Vulgar Language of the // ne bowed himfelf and went his way * : mon. V the In ^ which account there is not the leaft fyllable daily service. 0f anv Publick Prayer that was offer'd by him. Cap. 3. ?-p-s true^ j^ 0fferjng t|ie Incenfe was a fymbolical Prayer, fignifying his offering up the Prayers of the People by way of Interceflion ; but this, as I fhall fhew by and by, was peculiar to his Office ; and the People having no part in it, it was no way neceffary they fhould be prefent at it ; but if they had had their part in it, they could as eafily join with him when they faw him not^ as if they had feen him ; for they knew as well what he was do- ing as if they had been prefent with him, they certainly knew that when the Prefident gave the Signal, Sir, Offer, he immediately ftrewed the In- cenfe on the Coals, and there-withal offered up their Prayers for Prayers in an Unknown Tongue. 66? Prayers unto Gcd: For fure a common Symbol of every days ufe is much more eafy to be underftood by illiterate People, than a Latin Prayer ; the A- ftion fpake as plain to them, and was as well un- derflood by them as their Mother- Tongue ; they faw their Priefts carry the Coals and Incenfe into the Holy Place, and they knew it was in order to offering it up to God for them ; they heard the President command the Prieft to offer, and there- upon did as certainly know that he offer'd it, as if they had feen him do it. So that their not feeing him do it, did not at all obfcure the meaning of that Sacred Right for them, as an Unknown Tongue muft neceffarily do the meaning of the Prayers ex- prefs'd in it ; and therefore unlets it can be proved that it is as eafy for our People to underftand La- tin Prayers, as it was for the Jews to know that their Prieft was offering the Incenfe ; and what he intended by it, though they faw him not, 'twill be a mighty wide arguing from the one to the other, though we fhould fuppofe the Jews to be as much obliged to join with their Priefts in that Symbolical Prayer, as we are with ours in our vocal Prayers. The Jews did not fee their Prieft when he offer'd the Incenfe, but yet very well understood what he was doing ; therefore we who fee our Prieft when he offers our Prayers, need not underftand what he prays for: or thus, the Jews faw not this Symbolical Prayer of their Prieft, which yet they underftood as well as if they faw it ; therefore our vocal Prayers may be lawfully read to us by our Priefts in an Un- known Tongue, which we do not underftand at all. A wonderful wife Confequence this, and fuch as very Y y y y 2 well 668 Ihe Texts examined which Vapijls cite well becomes fuch Logicians,as think themfelves bound to fay fomething, even when they can fay nothing to the purpofe. 2ly. That the Symbolical Prayer expreft by this fa- cred Action of the Prieft was peculiar to himfelf, and the People had no part in it ; for it is agreed among all Chriftians.that both the High Prieft and Priefts in thefe facred performances were Types and Figures of Jefus Chrift, and that particularly in their offering the In- cenfe, they did prefigure his Interceffion for us, where- in he offers up our Prayers to his Father perfumed and hallowed by his own Meritorious Sacrifice, in which it was impoflible for the People to bear any part, they being the party interceded for ; and feeing the Priefts only, and not the People, were appointed by God to reprelent by this facred Action our Saviour's IntercefTi- on for us, it had been a degree of Sacriledg in the Peo- ple to affume any part in it ; and feeing they had no part in it, what need had they to be prefent at it ? No more fure than we have to be prefent with our Saviour at the Right Hand of his Father, while he is there making Interceffion for us. But doth it follow that becaufe the Jews were not allowed to be prelent at the Incenfe offering in which they had no part, therefore we Chriftians are not allowed to be prefent at the pub- lick Prayers of the Church in which we have all our parts? No; This our Adverfaries will by no means allow : And yet this I think is a much better Confe- quence than that of our wife Author's, via. Therefore the People need, not underfiand thofe Prayers, feeing it is to no purpofe for them to be prefent at Prayers which they do not underfiand. But the. People did not fee what for Trayers in an Unknown Tongue. 66y what the Prieft did when he offered the Incenfe, and what then? Why then they did not underftand what he did. Suppofe they did not, (which, as Ifhewed before, is notoriously falfe ) doth it follow that becaufe they underftood not what the Prieft did when he offer- ed the Incenfe , in which they had no part at all, therefore we need not underftand the publick Prayers which the Prieft reads, in which we have all our parts, and are obliged to joyn ? Or, that becaufe the Jewifh Priefts did not permit the People to fee the Incenfe offering, which was an Office peculiar to the Prieft- hood, therefore the Chriftian Priefts need not permit the People to underftand the publick Prayers which are the common Office of all Chriftian People ? Dare any of our Adverfaries affirm that Chriftians are no more obliged to pray with their Priefts in the publick Prayers of the Church, than the Jews were to offer Incenfe with their Priefts in their Incenfe-Offerings ? No ; Though we know they are daring enough at a bold A {lemon, yet this I am apt to think they have hardly the confidence to adventure on. Well then ; How doth it follow that Chriftians are not obliged to underftand what they are obliged to act in ? Becaufe the Jews were not obliged to underftand what they were not obliged to act in. Which is as much as to fay, Be- caufe I need not underftand that which I have nothing to do with, therefore there is no neceflity I fhould un- derftand that which is my duty. jdly. That the reafon why in this facred Action the High Prieft and Priefts withdraw from the fight of the People was wholly Myfterious and Typical, and as fucli is not to be urged in Vindication of Chriftians Pray- t 6?o The Texts examined which Paplfts cite Praying in an Unknown Tongue. For as the High Prieftand Priefts were in this Aft Types and Reprelen- tations of our Saviour Interceding for us, and offer- ing up our Prayers, fo the Holy and molt holy' Place where they performed this A£t, were Types and Re- prefentations of Heaven where he Intercedes. The truth of which is fo Univerfally owned among Chri- ftians, that I need not infill: upon the Proof of it. The true reafon therefore why thefe Jewifh Priefts in their Incenfe-offering withdrew from the fight of the Peo- ple into the Holy and moft holy Place, was to repre- sent our Saviour's withdrawing himfelf out of the fight of this lower World into the Heavenly Place, when he afcended thither to intercede for us at the Right Hand of God.. Suppofing then that the Jewifh People did not Underftand what their Prieft did while he was offering the Incenfe, becaule they did not fee him, yet this will by no means juftifie the Chrifti- an Priefts in not permitting the People to underftand what they fay when they offer up the publick Pray- ers, unlefs they can pretend to have the fame reafon to conceal the Prayers from the People by expref- ling them in an Unknown Tougue, that the Jewifh Priefts had to conceal the Incenfe-Offering from their People by performing it in the Holy, or moft holy Place. And this, I think, without difparaging the confidence of ou» Adverfaries, they have not yet forehead enough to pretend to. For fure their Priefts were never in- tended for Types and Shadows of our Saviour ; or if they were , their reading Mafs was never meant to Typifie the Interceftion of our Saviour ; or if it were, yet their reading Mafs in an Unknown Tongue was never defigned to reprefent our Savi- our's for (Prayers in an Unknown Tongue. 6y i our's Afcenfion into Heaven , to intercede for us there. Why then do they pretend to juftifie this Practice of theirs by the Example of the Jewifli Priefts, when they have not the leaft fhadow of pretence to the. reafon upon which they acted ? Suppofe we fhould be fb civil '' as to grant them , that offering the Incenfe out of the fight of the People, and offer- ing publick Prayers in an Unknown Tongue , were parallel Cafes, ( which I am fure is much more than they can juftly demand) yet how doth the one ju- ftifie the other? The Jewifh Priefts offered the In- cenfe out of the fight of the People upon this Rea- fon , becaufe God required them thereby to pre- figure the 'Afcenfion of our Saviour into Heaven, there to offer up our Prayers to his Father. What then, I befeech you? Why .then the Chriftian Priefts may lawfully offer up the publick Prayers in an Unknown Tongue. Say you 16, Beloved ! what whe- ther they have the fame reafon or no ? Yes, yes, reafon or not reafon, that's all one. I confefs by this way of Arguing , one would think fo ; but hitherto Men always fancied , that the reafon of the Law was the Law , and that when the Lawgiver took away the Reafon , he took away the Law with it. But our Sage Authors , it feems , are refolved upon it that the Law fhall ftand in defpite of the Rea- fon. I'muft needs fay if the jf«wtlo not thank them for this Refolution , they are very ungrateful Peo- ple , feeing it as well eftablifhes their whole Cere- monial Law, as this. 4thly. That during the time of this facred Action,, the People had their prefcribed Prayers^ for them- felves T 6? t The Texts examined which fapifts cite felves in a Language which they underftood. So the Text tells us, Luke i. 10. That the whole Multi- tude of the People were Praying without at the time of Incwfe. And in the 50th of Eccleftajlicus , the whole Order of this Action is thus delcribed ; The High Prie(l Simon the Son of Onias, offering to God the Odour of fweet fmell, the Sons of Aaron cried out and founded with Trumpets ', then all the People toge- ther, made hajle and fell on their faces to the Ground, and bef ought the Lord mofl High in Prayer before the Merciful, until the Minifiry of the Lord were done, i. e. the Incenfe confumed , and then Simon defend- ing, i. e. from the Sanctuary, lift up his Hands over all the Congregation of Ifrael to give the Lord's Blef- fwg. From whence it's plain that while the In- cenfe was offering, the People had their own pecu- liar Prayers appointed them ; and what they were, the Hebrew Doctors acquaint us, 1 iz,. Three ; which fife voff " they recite> and caI1 The Peoples Prayers *. All which ^946°, 947. Prayers being Collects of a considerable length, muft in all probability be indited in a Language which they well underftood ; otherwife as they muft have prayed for they knew not what, lb it had been next too impoflible for them to have recited their Pray- ers truly ; which was a Circumftance upon which the Jews did very nicely (if not fuperftitioufly ) infift in all their Puhlick Offices. So that this Ar- gument of our Author's from the Incenfe-Oflering, if they do not handle it more cautioufly , will go near to cut the Throat of their own dear Caufe. For, firft, it was no wonder at all that the People were not permitted to be prefent with the Prieft in his Incenfe- Offering , feeing at the fame time they for Prayers in an Unknown Tongue. 67 3 they had their peculiar Offices of Prayer appointed them. They were to be Praying without in the Court of the Jews, which together with that of the Gentiles reprefented the lower World , while the Prieft was offering within the Sanctuary, which re- prefented the upper World ; the defign of whicli was to rcprelent and fhadow forth the Chriftian Church fending up its Prayers to Heaven from this lower World, whilft Jefus her High Prieft is offering them up to his Father in the Heavenly Sanctuary. But had the Jevvifh Prieft. on the one hand been pre- fent with the People in their Court without , he could not have repvefented Jefus interceding for his Church in Heaven ; or had the People been prefeqt on the other hand with the Prieft in the Sanctuary, they could not have reprefented the Chriftian Church fending up her Prayers from Earth to Heaven. So that the nature of this whole Myftical Action was fuch as did require the Prieft and People to bea- part while they were performing their refpe&ive Offices. But, I befeech you, what Myftical Office have Chriftian People in the publick Prayers that can render it as neceffary for them not to under- ftand the Prayers, as it was for the Jewifh People not to be prefent at the Incenfe-Offering ? None at all, that ever I could hear of, fb much as fancied or pretended to. The Jewifh Pqpple wereSbliged, by the very part they acted in this facred Solemnity, to be in a fcparate place from the Prieft ; and therefore till it be proved that Chriftian People have fome part alotted them in their publick Worfhip that equally obligeth them not to underftand the Lan- Zzzz grage 674 The Texts txdmimd which Pafifts cite guage of their prayers ; to infer the lawfulnefs of the later from the former, is juft as good Logick as the Stick ftands in the Chimney-Corner, therefore it muft rain to Morrow. But then, fecondly , It is further obfervable , that there was no other Vocal-prayer ufed in this facred Solemnity but what the People underftood ; feeing it is evident not only that they underftood Hebrew in our Saviour's rime, ( as was proved before ) which was the Language in which their Prayers were indited ; but alfb that it had been extreamly difficult for them truly to have recited three fuch long Collects, and ut- terly impoffible to have accompanied the Matter of them with their devout Defires and Affections, (as was juft now obferved) had they not underftood the Language in which they were expreft. And if this be lo, then this Scripture-Inftance which our Au- thors urge in their own Vindication, (if. it be confidered in all its Circumftances) argues point- blank againft them ; for then it will "follow from it, that though it be not neceffary that the People ihould be admitted to fee x and ( which is more than I need allow) to underftand every Myftick Action of the Prieft ; ( fuch as was that of the In- cenfe-Orleiing ) yet it is neceffary that they fliould underftand the Prayers in which they are obliged to joyn. And thus , I think , I have fufficiently anfwered cur Adverfaries Texts, which at firft view do evi- dently appear fo far from their purpofe, that their urgin IT for Trayers in an Unknown Tongue. 6y 5 urging them is a plain Demon ftrat ion what a mi- ferable 111 i tic they are put to for Scripture-proof to juftifie this abfurd and unlcriptural practice of their Church. For certainly , could they have flickered it under any fair colour of Scripture , they would never have lodged in fuch a deplorable Refuge, ■which in ftead of defending it , doth only more ex- pofe it. But there is one Text more urged by the Scrip- turifi , which he mentions fb faintly , that its plain his intent was rather to Flourifh , than to Fight with it ; which I fuppofe was the reafon why his modeft Tranfcriber the Touchftone , left it out of his Copy. The Text is Mat. 21. 16. where when the Children cried out in the Temple , Of anna to the Son of David , though they knew not what they faidy faith our Author , yet Chrift called it a perfect Praife, faying , that out of the Mouths of Infants and Suck- lings thou haft perfected Praife. But what makes our- Author fo confidently affirm, that they knew not what they faid? Is it becaufe the Text calls them Children? However it's plain, they were fuch Chil- dren as could go to the TempleT, and confequently could fpeak and underftand what they fpoke. Or, is it becaufe Hofanna is an Hebrew word , which Language , as our Author will have it , was not understood by the Common People , and much lefs by the Children ? Suppofe this were true, ( though we have largely proved the contrary) yet why might not thole Hebrew Children as well under- ftood the meaning of Hofanna, as ours do of Amen, Z z z z 2 which 676 The Texts examined which fapifts cite which is an Hebrew word as well as that ? Hofan- va, was a word of that common ule, that they cal- led the Bundks of Boughs, which they carried about in the Feait of Tabernacles, Hofanna's ; Hofanna, i. e. fave, I befeech thee, being the form of Acclama- tion which the Jews were wont to ufe in the Ce- lebration of that Feaft ; and it being the manner of * vol. 2. p. the Jews, as our Lightfoot obferves *, to teach their 225- Children from their infancy how to manage thole Bundles of Boughs, and in their waving them to cry Hofanna, it is very fairly fuppofable that they did as well underltand the meaning of the word, (al- lowing that they did not underftand Hebrew) as our catechifed Children do the meaning of Amen, And now feeing our Author is fb unfortunate as not to be able to make out his Point by Scripture, he is refolved to try what he can do by Illuftration, for lb he gravely tells us, That a Petition well made> p. 1 52. even when it's prefented by a Petitioner who under- Jlands not the Language in which the Petition is made, obtains of the Kjng, or Emperor, who under* Jlands it, as much as if the Petitioner had perfectly un- dcr flood every word of it. Even fo, &c. But now fuppofe this King, or Emperor, fhould. ask this Pe- titioner ; Friend, do you know what it is you here petition for ? and he fhould anfwer, No indeed, and it fhall pleafe your Mafefty, I confefs I do not underftand one fyllable of what is there contained ; whether it be for Pardon for fbme Fault, or Pro- tection from fome Danger, or for fbme particular place of Preferment, I do not know, only this f am informed by thofe that do understand it, That it for -Trayers in an Unknown Tongue, 677 it doth contain a particular praife of your Majefty, (they are our Author's own words, with the ne- H>iA celfary Variations) and a [fecial Worfbip or Honour to your Perfon, and a peculiar recommending of my Ne' ceffities to you ', and that it is a very decent Petition, approved by the Company of Petition-makers, and re- commended by all the Learned of that Faculty, who ve- ry rveH under ft and it, though I do not. I flrongly fancy, that how gracious fbever our flippofed King or Emperor may be, he would conclude fuch a Pe- titioner to be either a very rude Fellow that came with a defign to mock him, or a very filly and im- pertinent one , a'nd treat him accordingly ; Even 16, &c. -But we have choice of Illuftrations; and therefore feeing this will not do, let us try another. A rich Jewel (as our Author proceeds) in the hands v. 16^ of an Infant or Clown, who knows not to penetrate the value of it, doth not for that caufe ceafe to be truly of as great value, as when "'tis in the hands of a great Jeweller : So Latin Prayers in the Mouths of the Vulgar, be as p/ecious in the fight of. God, (when they be [aid with equal Devotion) as when they are in the Mouths of great Scholars. Very pretty indeed ; but one misfortune is, that this precious Jewel is ftollen Goods, filched, word for word, from Cardi- nal Antoninus'*. And then there is another worfe *Sum.Part.3. than this, that when all is done, it is not worth Tlc* 2*' ftealing: For as I take it, there is a great deal of difference between a good Prayer, and a precious Jewel. A Jewel is never to be rend red more or lefs precious to another, by any Act of my Mind.; nor will my Defire, or Hope, or Love, rciife the price 6y$ Tie Texts examined which fapifls cife price of it ", and whether it be in my Hand, or Mouth, or Pocket, its value is the fame : But fure- ly it is not thus with a Prayer, the intrinfick va- lue whereof principally depends upon the devotional Afts of the Mind. There is, no doubt, but the fame Prayer is much better in God's efteem, when it is infpired with our Faith and Hope, Defire and Love, than when it is only written in a Book, or. read or heard with a cold indifferency ; and I cannot but think that a good Prayer is much more acceptable to God in a devout Man's Mouth, than in his Pocket, provided he underftaiids it, attends to it, and joins his Affections with it-; without which 'tis every whit as acceptable in his Pocket, as in his Mouth : For a Form of Prayer, while it hath none of thofe devotional Acts of the Mind join'd to it, is only the meer Carcale of a Prayer, without the Soul that animates and etflivens it ; and he who recites it without exerting with it any mental Act of Devotion, doth fay a Prayer indeed, but he doth by no means pray. But how can a Man exert thefe' devotional Acts in a form of words, which he doth not underftand*? How can he pray in Faith, when he knows not what he is to pray for ? How can heconfefs his Sins with forrow and remorfeof Soul, when he confeffes he knows not what ? How can he defire or hope for the particular BlelFings which the Prayer contains, when he knows not what they are ? How can he cordially praife or give thanks, when he knows not either what it is that he praifes, or what it is that he gives thanks for ? Or, how can he know when to coniefs, or when to petition or give thanks, when for Grayer* in an Unknown Tongue. £7Q when he knows not whether the Prayer that is reading be a Coneflbn, Petition, or Thankfgiving ? And then how is it poflible for htm to attend to a Prayer which he doth not underftand ? He may at- tend indeed to the Sound and Figure of the Words, but not to their Senle and Meaning. And if this be all that is required, a Parrot may be as duly at- tentive as a Chri Irian : So that all thole devotional Acts which conftitute a form of Prayer an actual Prayer, are under the direction of the Understand- ing •, without which they cannot be exerted. But how can the Underftand ing direct thefe Acts, in a form of Prayer, which it doth not underftand I How can ' it direct our Sorrow or Hope, or Deftre or Gratitude, to go along with the Prayer, when it knows, not what Sins they are that "the Prayer con- feiTes, or what Bleflings they are that it asks or. returns Thanks for? Though our Author's Jewel be every whit as precious in the hand of one that underftands it not, as one that underftands it ; yet, by his leave,, it is far otherwife in a Prayer. It may be as good a form of Prayer indeed in the one hand, as in the other, but by no means fb good a Prayer, or fo precious and acceptable iri the fight of God. The Lord's Prayer written upon a Label, coming out of the Mouth of our great Grandfather's Statue, kneeling on his Monument, with itsT-fands and Eyes lift up to Heaven, is as good a form of Prayer as when it is pronounced from the Mouth of a devout Soul,- with the higheft R'aptures'-pf Zealand Fervour. But fure no Man can think it to be as good a Prayer ; indeed^ from the one's Mouih it is no » «■. ~> o . 71-e Texts examined which Tapifts cite no actual Prayer at all, but only a dead form of Prayer ; for how can that be an actual Prayer, which is not actually prayed? But from the Mouth of the other, it is an actual, living, animated Pray- er, which is fure to find acceptance with God. And I doubt the Cafe is near the lame, between a Prayer for the Mouth of one that underftands it not, and one that underftands it ; from the one it is not fo much a Prayer, as a form of words con- taining Matter of Prayer \ for unlefs he defires the Matter contained in this form of words, he cannot be faid to pray for it ; but how is it poflible he fhould defire it, when he knows not what it is ? He may indeed exert a general undetermined De- votion while the words are laying, but it is im- poMible for him. to determine his Devotion to the Matter and meaning of the words, becaufe he doth not underftand it. So that a Latin Prayer from one who underftands' not Latin, can be no more than a form of Prayer, becaufe he can only fay it, but cannot pray it: And therefore when our Au- thor tells us, That Latin Prayers in the Mouths of the Vulgar be as preciom in the fight of God, ( when they be faid with equal Devotion) as when they are in the Mouths of great Scholars. He fuppofes that which is not to be fuppofed, ( if by Devotion he under- ftands the Devotion of the Mind) viz. That he who underftands not Latin, may pray over a Latin Prayer with equal Devotion with him who under- ftands it ; which is impjflible, feeing a Man can no more pray a Prayer of which he doth not know the meaning, than fing a Tune of which he doth not for Trayers in an Unknown Tongue? 68 1 not know the Meafures ; He may fay over the words indeed with equal outward Devotion with him that underftands them, but he cannot accompany them with equal Devotion of Mind, nor indeed with any at all; for how can his Mind go along with Words of which he doth not know the mean- ing ? fiich Words can fignify nothing to the Mind ; and therefore the Mind can attend to nothing in them, unlels it be in their Sound and Figure, which I am apt to think were never intended to be the fubjefl: Matter of our inward Devotion, though there are Writers of great Name in the Roman Church, of a quite contrary Opinion : For Suarez, tells us, That it is not effential. to Prayer to think particularly of what he fays, and that it is not neceffary to think of the things fignifed by the Words. But I am not able to imagine, either how a Man can delirea thing which he doth not think of, or how he can pray for a thing which he doth not defire. But yet he goes on to tell us, That it is not DeOrat. i.3. neceffary to the EJfence of Prayer, that he who prays, c* 4* (hould think even of the Jpeaking of the Prayer. So that it feems a Man may pray, when he thinks neither of the words nor meaning of his Prayer; and if fb, I lee no reafbn why our Great Grand- father's Statue, as before defcribed, may not as truly be faid to pray, as our Great Grand-father himfelf. Cardinal Tolet indeed tells us, That to attend to inftruft. Sacr. the words, fo as not fpeak them too f aft, or to begin C,I3-N 5>& fa greatly advantage, not only them felves, but alfo thofe that hear them. Bat what Harmony can there be be- tween for Trayers in an Unknown Tongue. 687 tween the Soul and the Words ? or how can her AfFe- ftions keep Time with them, when flhe knows not one fyllabie of their meaning ? If therefore we are obliged to fing Prailes with Understanding, we are equally obliged, fo far as we are capable, to underftand what we fing ; and how can we do this, while we fing in a Language we do not underftand. Again, the Apoftle exhorts his Zphefians, in oppofi- tion to thofe drunken Songs the Heathen ufed in their Bacchanalia, To [peak to themfelves in Pfalms and, Hymns, and ffaitual Songs, finging and making Melody in their Hearts to the Lord. Which in all proba- bility refpecls not fo much their private Converfa- tion, as their publick Worfhip, as being oppofed to that publick drunken Worfhip which the Heathen rendred to their God Bacchus. And if Chriftians in their publick Hymns and Songs of Praife, are ob- liged to make Melody in their Hearts to the Lord, that is, to keep Time with what they fing, with an inward hearty Affection ; then doubtlefs, fo far as they are capable, they ought to underftand thofe Hymns, which they can never do in a Language which they underftand not. And to the fame pur- Co], .?# l6t pofe the fame Apoftle exhorts the Church of Co- * AmbV. in $ lofs, to admonifh one another in Pfalms and Hymns, ^V n9*- 1 r ■ • 10 r • t r- 1 ■ 1 r Cnryfon. in and fpiritual oongs, Jinging with Urace in their Hearts lac. Jcrom.in to the Lord. Where, by finging with Melody in our {oc- and alf° the Hearts to the Lord, and finging with Grace in our fam Etifth ■' Hearts to the Lord, the Fathers generally under- that geitbwder ftand finging with due attention, and anfwerable ^'J^ti" L d affection, to the Matter contained in thofe Holy inEph. Pri-' Hymns which they fung in their publick Affem- mas Ifid- 0c- blies *. But how is it pofftble for Men to attend ^Halmo!" $ B 2 to, Scdui. 638 Tl:e Texts examined which (papifls cite to, or be duly affeded with the matter of words where- of they do not know the meaning ? either therefore the Obligation of thefe Apoftolick Precepts rnuft be quite worn out, or the Church of Rome muff be highly to blame, who by wording her facred Hymns in an Unknown Tongue, renders the performance of them impoiTible to the People. adty. The Scripture makes praying in an Unknown Tongue inconfifient with the Edification of the Church; fb in fundry Paffages of i Cor. 14.. where the Apoftle throughout the whole Chapter purpofely dilputes againft Preaching and Praying in an Unknown Tongue ; for in thofe days the miraculous Gift of Tongues being very common in the Church of Cllrift, many of thofe who were infpired with it, were too apt to over-value themfelves upon it, infbmuch that to gratify their own Vanity and Oftentation, it became a ufual Practice among them (and that particularly in the Church of Corinth ) to preach, and pray, and ling Pfalms in Languages unknown to their Auditory, without ever interpreting what they (aid into the Vulgar Tongue, either through wilful neglect, or for want of the Gift of Interpretation ; againft which evil Practice of theirs, the Apoftle purpofely oppofes himfelf throughout this whole Chapter, and that prin- cipally upon this very Argument, that it was not con- fident with the Edification of the Church, which he applys as well to Praying as to Preaching: Sover. 2. 5,4,5.6. For -he that fpeaketh in an Unknown Tongue, fpeaketh not unto Men but unto God, that is, he fpeaks to the Underftanding of none but God, who equally underftands all Languages ; for no Man underflandeth himy howbeit in the Spirit he fpeaketh Myfteries, but he that for Triers hi an Unknown Tongue. fi% th.it prophefieth, that is, expoundcth Scripture in a known Tongue, fpeaketh unto Men to Edification, and Exhortation, and Comfort ', he that fpeaketh ■ in an Un- known Tongue edifeth himfelf, provided he understands what he fpeaks ; but he that prophejieth edifies the Church: 1 would that ye all [peak with Tongues, but rather thai yt prophesied ', (or greater is he that prophejieth, that is, he is much more uleful to the Church, than he that fpeaketh with Tongues. Now, Brethren, if I come unto- you [peaking with Tongues, what fhall 1 profit you, except I ffjall fpeak to. you cither by Revelation, or by Kjiowledg^ or by Prophefying, or by Doctrine, i. e. either by expound- ing facred Figures, or communicating my Knowledg in great Myfteries, or interpreting difficult Scriptures, or by a Catechiftial Inftru&ion of you what you ought to believe and do. So again, ver. 18, 19. I thank my God, I fpeak with Tongues more than you all', yet in th& Church 1 had rather fpeak five words with Under {landing, that by my Voice I might teach others alfoy than ten thou* [and words in an Unknown Tongue : in all which places the Apoftle doth as exprefly condemn Preaching in an Unknown Tongue without interpreting what is preach'd, as words can do it. But you will fay what is this to us ? We do no more preach in an Unknown Tongue than you do: And as for the Controversy in hand, 'tis only about praying in an Unknown Tongue, of which hitherto the Apoftle hath taken no notice*: To which I anfwer, Firft, That the Roman Mafs contains in it not only Prayers, but fundry Portions of Scripture and pious LerTons, the latter of which as well as the former, are read to the People in an Un- known Tongue. Now either thefe Scriptures and Leflbns are read for no end -at all, or for the lame end £oo Tbe Text j examined which Tapifts cite with Preaching, which is to inftruct. the People ; and therefore the reafon which the Apoftle urges for Preachino- in an Unknown Tongue, viz.. the Edifica- tion of the People, doth equally inforcc the reading of thefe Scriptures and Leffons in a known Tongue. But then, fecondly, The Apoftle applies this reafon of his as well to Fraying as to Preaching in an Unknown Tongue and therefore if for that reafon the one is not to be allowed, neither is the other : The reafon why he forbids them to preach in an Unknown Tongue is, ' thafit was a hinderance to the Edification of the Peo- ple, and this very Reafon he urges againft their Pray- ing in an Unknown Tongue: So Ver.i^. For if I pr% in an "Unknown Tongue, my Spirit, 1. e. my Gift of Tongues frays, b:>t my Vnder/ianding is unfruitful, Tkeod.inkc.that is, it .is unfruitful to others. So Theodoret, For the Fruit of the Speaker, faith lie, is the Profit of the fearers; and when the words of the Prayer are unknown to thofe that are prefent (faith St. Baft) the Mind of him that prays is unfruitful, becaufe it profits none ', but when thofe who are prefent do under ft and the Prayers fo, as that it is capable of profiting them, then he who prays hath the Fruit, viz. the bettering of thofe that are pro- • Bafil Re* fited by him*', and that this is the Apoftles meaning Brcv.Jp.278. he himfelf allures us, ver. 17. for thou verily giveji Thanks well, i.e. thou, it maybe, mayft be very de- vout in thy own Heart and AfFe&ions whilft thou art praifin« God in an Unknown Tongue ; but the other, that isfhe that doth not underftand the Tongues thou fpeakeft, is not edified. So that the Apoftle proceeds upon the fame reafon againft Praying as againft Preach- in* in an Unknown Tongue : And this our Catholick Scriptunft acknowledges, for (6 he expounds thofe fore- cited for Trayers in an Unknown Tongue! 69 1 cited word-;, icr. 14. [but my Under ft in ding it without fruit ] th.it ftf, faith he, without the fruit of Jxftrufti- p- l5s» on, or edifying others ; and therefore by the way, that PaiTage of his is a little furprizing (tho it is only what his Mailer Bellarmine had taught him) where he would have his *l{eader note that until Verfe 14. St. Paul }£ V5fb" fie only fpcaks of ufing an unknown Language in Pr •caching ', Exhorting, Interpreting, and Teaching, in all which Ex- p l6 ereifes we ft ill ufe the Vulgar Tongue, fo that hitherto he hath nothing againft m, no not when he himfelf confelTes that St. Paul urges the very fame reafbn againft Pray- ing in an Unknown Tongue, in which they of the. Church of Rome agree with thole Corinthians againft whom he argues, that he had urged before againft Preaching in an Unknown Tongue, in which they difc agree with them. Whether the reafbn hold as good againft the one as the other, I ieave St. Pud and hiir: todifpute it out ; but certainly while a Man. is urging the fame reafbn againft one thing as he afterwards intends to urge againft another, he intentionally levels it at them both, and confequently, feeing St. Paul urges the fame reafbn againft Praying, which juft before he had ufed againft Preaching in an Unknown Tongue, it's a plain cafe, that while he was urging it againft the one, he all along intended it againft the other ; and if the unedifyingneis of an Unknown Tongue in either be a good reafbn againft both (as it mult be at leaft in St. Paul\ Opinion ) then while he urges it againft an Unknown Tongue in one, he muft neceffarily con- demn it in both ; lb that by our Author's good leave he and his Church are as much concerned in what St. Paul pronounces in the feven firft Verfes of this Chapter, where he only mentions Preaching in an Unknown - >pi The Texts examined which Papijls cite Unknown Tongue, as in what he afterwards difcourfes from verf 14, to the 18. where he treats of rrgying * in an Unknown Tongue, feeing he proceeds upon the lame Reafon in both : And therefore if notwithstand- ing this Reafon, Praying in an Unknown Tongue be allowable, Preaching mud be fo too, feeing the lame Reafon in St. PauCs Opinion, acquits or condemns them both. Is Preaching in an Unknown Tongue al- lowable? No, faith our "Author, No faith his Matter Bellarmine : But why, Ibefeechyou? becaufe St. Paul condemns it as being unedifying to the Auditors. Is Praying in an Unknown Tongue allowable ? Yes, very allowable fay both : But doth not St. Paul urge the fame Reafon. againft this as the other? 'Tis true in- deed ; Why then, it teems St. Pant's Reafon is good where it doth not condemn Holy Churches pra&ice ; but where it doth, away with it ; that is, in plain Englifh, it's Good or Bad as it ferves our turn. $ly. The Scripture condemns performing Religious Offices in an Unknown Tongue, as diredly contra- ry to the natural End of Speech. The natural End of Speech, is, to communicate our Minds to, and 'make our felves beunderftood by one another, to which there is nothing can be more contrary, than fpeaking in a Language that is not underftood by thofe that hear us, becaufe hereby we do no more communicate our Minds to them, than if we did not fpeak at all. And thus St. Paul himfelf argues, Kw/7, 8, 9, io, 11. For even things nit bout Life giving founds ', whether Pipe or Harp, except they give a ctijlinciion in the founds, .how {ball it be known what is piped or harped ? For if the Trumpet give an uncertain found, who [ball prepare him- felf to the Battel ? So youy except ye utter by the Tongue words for Tr ayers in an Unknown Tongue, 6p j words eafy to be underftood, how /ball it be known what is fpoken ? for ye (hall [peak into the Air. There are, it may be, fo many kinds of Voices in the World, and none of them without Unification ; therefore if I know not the meaning of the Voice, I (hall be unto him that fpeaketh a Barbarian, and he that fpeaketh (hall be a Barbarian unto me. The Defign of all which is to fhew, that the end of fpeaking is to be underftood ; and that there- fore he who fpeaks in a Language that is not under- ftood, whether it be in common Conversion, or in Religious Offices, fpeaks to no purpofe. Which Rea- fon is equally applicable to fpeaking in Prayer, as in Preaching, fince if it be not underftood, it is as much in vain in the one as in the other. The Komanifts would fain juftify their ufing an Unknown Tongue in their Religious Offices, upon this Pretence, that it is only in Praying they do it, not in Preaching. But fhouid you ask them why they fpeak in a Known Tongue in Preaching, their Anfwer doubtlefs would be to this purpofe, becaufe we would be underftood ; which is the proper End of {peaking : But then, why do they fpeak in an Unknown Tongue when they pray ? fiire they will not anfwer, becaufe they would be underftood. But then, to what purpofe do they fpeak at all, feeing, by fpeaking in an Unkown Tongue, they lofe the proper end of fpeaking, and confequently fpeak in vain ? And if to fpeak without End or Aim, be an abfurdity in common Converfa- ition, it is doubtlefs prophane as well as abfurd in Reli- gion : And I fhouid think it much more excufable in |:he Mafs-Prieft to hold his Tongue, and turn his Con- legation into a Silent Meeting, while he is adding over fet-form of Ceremonies, than to fpeak out the 5 C Publick 6p4 "fl* Texts examined which fPapifts cite Publick Prayers to them in a Language which they do not underftand, it being far more feemly, in a Reli- gious Exercife, not to fpeak at all, than to fpeak to no purpofe : And St. Paul, I am fure, is fully of this Opi- nion, for 'twas upon this Reafbn that he required thofe who had the Gift of Tongues, if there were no Inter- preter, to keep filence in the Chitrcb, and to fpeak to him- (elf and, to God, verf. 28. For either words are of fome ufe in Publick Prayer, or they are not : if they are not, doubtlefs it would be far more becoming that Sacred Office to lay them wholly afide ; if they are, it muft be either upon God's account, or Mens ; not upon God's to be fure, who underftands our Thoughts and * Defires, as well without words as with them. If up- on Mens account, it muft be either wholly upon the Prieft's that pronounces them, or upon the Peoples al- io ; if it be wholly upon the Prieft's account, it mufl be to raife his Devotion, and then he himfelf muft un- derftand the meaning of them, (which their Lack- Latin Priefts cannot pretend to ) for how can the De- votion of his Mind be railed by words that fignify no- thing to his Mind? or if he doth underftand them, , why may he not as well raife his Devotion with them by reading them to himfelf alone, as by reading them out to the People, feeing by reading them to himfelf,he follows the Apoftolick Precept of fupprefling his Unknown Tongue, and of [peaking only to himfelf - and to God. But if words are neceffary in Public Prayers upon the Peoples account alfb, then it muft be either to direct them what to pray for, or to unite their Defires id the fame Petitions, neither of which can be per- 1 formed by fuch words as they do not underftand ; fc that I cannot apprehend of what ufe the readin or for Trajers in an Unknown Tongue. 6$ 5 or fpeaking Latin Prayers can be in a mere Eriglifh Auditory ( fuppofe ) 'tis no more than breathing of fb ■many empty Sounds ( that fignify nothing ) into the . empty Air, whilft the friefts and People are mere Barbarians to one another, that like two fenfeiefs Ecchoes, fpeak and refpoud they know not what, and to no purpofe. tyhly, The Scripture exprefly declares Praying in an Unknown Tongue, to be contrary to the Defign and Nature of Religious Worflhip ; which being a reafo- nable Service, requires, That our Rational Faculties R0m.I2iI. fhould clofly attend to, and concur with it ; for the Life of Divine Worfhip confifts in the Internal Acts of the Mind, fuch as Defire, and Love, and Hope, and Fear, and Reverence, &c. And unlefs thefe con- cur with the external fignifications of our Worfhip^ (that is, our Words and Actions) and inform anda- nimate them, it is all but a dead Formality. But how is it poflible lor us to join thefe inward Affections of our Minds, with thole outward Significations of our Worfhip, when we know not what they fignify ? How fhould I accompany my Kneeling or Proftration in Prayer, with my inward awe and veneration, while I am perfectly ignorant of the meaning and fignifica- (tion of thofe Gelt' ires ? And when I lift up my Hands and Eyes to Heaven, how can I exert with it an inward afpiration of my Soul to God, if I do not know that by the one, I fignify the other ? In fhort, how is it poflible for my Mind, in any Inftance, either .in Fact or Fiction, to join the Thing fignified with the Sign, when I know not what tiie Sign fignifies ? Xnd as it is in Actions in Prayer, fb it is in Words, to which it is impoflible for us to join thole Defires and Hopes 5 C 2 which 6o6 The Texts examined which Papifts cite which they exprefs and fignify, if we do not know their fignification. Whilft therefore Men fay their Prayers in an Unknown Tongue, it is impoflible for them to join their Affe&ions with them ; and whilft their Affections are feparate from them, they are fo far from being acceptable Prayers, that they are only fo many empty Sounds in the Ears of God. And upon this very Topick the Apoftle himfelf difputes againft Praying in an Unknown Tongue, in the i yh and 16th Verfes of the aforecited Chapter ; What is it then ? I will pray with the Spirit ; or Gift of Tongues, and, I will pray with the Under/landing alfo ; /. e . as he who hath not the Gift of Tongues is wont to pray, viz. in a Language that he, and thole who pray with him, underftand. I will fing with the Spirit, and I wiS fing with the Vnderfianding alfo. Elfe when thou {halt blefs with the Spirit, or thy Unknown Tongue, how {ball he that occupieth the room of the Unlearned, or hath not thy Gift, fay. Amen at thy giving of Thanks, feeing he underfiands not what thou fayefi ? Where the Apoftle makes it neceflary, in all Publick Prayer, that he who is the Mouth of the Congregation, fhould pray, or at leaft interpret his Prayer in the Vulgar Language of the People ; and that for this Reafbn, becaufe, unlels the People underftand the Language of his Prayer, they are not capable of praying with him; and if they cannot pray in a Language they do not underftand, then an Unknown Tongue is utterly inconfiftent with the Nature of Prayer. And hence, in the following Verfe (where he ftill purfues this Reafbn) he fup- poies it neceffary for thofe who are to join in the Pub- lick Service to be edified, i.e. (as it is notorioufly evi- dent from the whole Context ) to underftand the fenfe and for ^Prayers in an Unknown Tongue. 60 7 and meaning of the words. This is the Apoftle's own Argument, and when once our Adverfaries have made it appear, that Men may truly pray in a Language unknown to them ; for my part, I fhall readily yield that they have fairly baffled Us and St. Paul together t But in the mean time this Argument (rands in force againft them in defpite of all their Cavils and Eva- Cons, which fhall be confidered in their proper place. yklyy The Scripture makes praying in an Unknown Tongue utterly inconfiftent with that joint Concur- rence of Devotion that is required in Publick Wor- fhip : That in all our Publick AfTemblies for Divine Worfhip it is required that we fhould joyn our Hearts and Affeclions in the fame Con feffions, Petitions, and Thankfgivings, is evident, as from fiindry other Argu- ments, fb particularly from that Refponfe, Amen, which the People of God did always make at the clofe of their Publick Prayers, by which they expreft the Confent of their Hearts and Affections with thofe Pe- titions and TJiankfgivings that were offered up in their Publick AfTemblies. So in their publick Imprecations upon themfelves and others, the Jews were exprefly commanded torefpond Amen\ and in the clofe of the Dew. 27. I$1 Pfalm of Praife which David order'd to be fung by the Quire in the Temple, we are told that all the People fat d* Amen, and praifed the Lord; and fb alfb when . Ezra, in a publick AfTembly of the Jews, bleffed the 3t. Lord the great God, it is laid that all the People anfwerd Nehem Amen, Amen, with lifting up their Hands : And this Practice of theirs the Pfalmift himfelf exprefly or- ders and directs, Bleffed be the Lord God of lfraelfrom aver la fling and World without end, and let all the People Pfal.10tf.48. \fay Amen. And accordingly we find this very Practice conti- 6y 8 The Texts examined which Tapifts cite continued in the Primitive Church, for fb Juftitt * Apol. 2. Martyr * tells us, that the People always concluded the Divine Service with a fblemn iwpviyioL Ajumv. By all which it's evident that the People of God always eifeem- ed them (elves obliged to concur in their Hearts and Af- fections, and to make fome^ Expreflion of their Con- currence with the Publick Prayers, which, how is it poffibJe for them to perform when thofe Prayers are read to them in a Language which they do not under- ftand ? how can their Hearts follow, where their Un- derftandings cannot lead? And in fhort, how can rhey hope, defire, or give Thanks for they know not what ? Nay, and when they know not whether the words which they hear,conta i i i a Petition or a Thankfgiving ? And this is St. Paul'i own Argument, ver. i$, 16. I will pray with the Spir it , and I will pray with the Un- der (landing alfo. I will JIng with the Spirit, and I will fing with the Under/landing alfo. I do allow that you may lawfully ufe your Gift of Tongues in your Pub- lick Worfhip ; but then you mult be fure that you interpret your Tongue thatTb you may be intelligible 6 to others, elfe when thou Jhalt blefs with the Spirit, * how {ball he that occupieth the room- of the Unlearn- ed fay Amen at thy giving of Thanks, when he knows not what thou fayfi f Where it is firft implied that the common People ought to fay Amen ; that Is, to confent with their Hearts and Affections in the Pub- lick Prayers, and to exprefs their Confent in them. And, fecondly, it is exprefly afTerted that this they are not capable of performing, if they do not under- ftand the Language of their Prayers ; and if the un- learned Corinthians could not fay Amen to thofe in-, fpired Prayers for this reafon, becaufe they knew not what he for Trayers in an Unhiown Tongue. 609 he who di&ated and pronounced them /aid; for the lame reafon neither can the common People in the Ro- man Church fay Amen to their Latin Prayers, becaufe they know as little what is laid when they are read to them. So that by exprefling her Publick Prayers in a Language unknown to the People, the Church of Rome renders their Duty of faying Amen to them im~ practicable. 6thly, The Scripture reprefents Prayers in an Un~ known Tongue as a great Indecency in Publick Wor- ship : For what an extravagant Spectacle would it feem to a Stranger that knows nothing of the matter,, to fee a company of People afTemble together, with a mighty appearance of Devotion, only to fee or hear a Pi ieft officiating to them in a form of words, of which neither they nor he himfelf perhaps underftands one syllable! Suppofe that this Stranger fhould go. from one to another round the Congregation, and ask them every one in their Ear, Good Sir, you feem to be mightily concern'd and affected with what yonder Man in the gay Garment is reading ; for my part, I underftand not one word that he fays, I would fain know whether you do? and fuppofe they fhould all of them anfwer, No truly, Friend, we underftand no more than you. But why then do you ejaculate your Eyes, lift up your Hands, and beat your Breafts as if you did underftand them ? Why as for that we can give no other reafon, but that we believe they are very de- vout words, and 'tis an old fafhion among us thus to behave our felves whilftthey are reading. What would this Stranger think of thefe People? Would he not laugh at their Simplicity, and be apt to fufpecl: fbme flaw in their Brain-pans? And yet juft thus doth St. 700 The Texts examined which Tapijls cite St. Paul reprefent the cafe, ver. 23. If therefore the whole Church be come together in one place, and all fpeak with Tongues y and there come in thofe that are unlearned or Unbelievers, will they not fay that ye are mad f But why will they lay fb ? Becaufe thofe that come to your Meeting, knowing that you meet upon a Religious Account, come with an intent to underftand your way of Worfhip, to hear what you pray for, and to learn what you teach, inftead of which you only fill their Ears with a loud Rattle of unintelligible Sounds, which convey no other Notion to their Minds but only this, that you are out of your Wits, feeing like fb many Mad-Men you fpeak and hear without any end or aim; For to what purpofe can you fpeak, when you do not fpeak to be underftood? Or, to what purpofe can you hear, when you do not hear to underftand? And if fpeaking in an Unknown Tongue was fb great an Indecency in -thofe Corinthian Affemblies, as that in St. Paul's Opinion, it reprefented them more like Con- gregations of Mad-men than of Worfhippers. I doubt if St. Paul had the cenfuring of the Latin Worfhip in the Roman Churches, where in moft places fcarce one in five hundred underftands it, it would hardly pafs for a very reafonable Service. 7thly, The Scripture declares an Unknown Tongue in Divine Service to be of no other ufe, but only to give Evidence to the Truth of the Chriftian Religion, which ufe it ferves not, as it is acquired by natural means ; but as it is miraculoufly infufed for the Gift of Tongues, was one of thofe Miracles by which God gave Teftimony to the Truth of the Gofpel, which it terrified no otherwife than as all other Miracles did, viz. as it was a fenfible Effect of the Divine Power, and this for Trayers in an Unknown Tongue. 701 this is all the ufe that the Apoftle allows it in the Pub- lick Exercile of Religious Worfhip, ver. 21,22. In the Law it is written, With Men of other Tongues find other Lips will I fpe.il: unto this People , and yet for all that, will they not hear me , faith the Lord; i.e. though I in- tend to {peak unto them in a miraculous manner, viz. by infpiring thole by whom I intend to fpeak with the miraculous Gift of (peaking unknown Languages, yet ftill they will continue obftinate in their Unbelief, from whence he infers in the next Verfe, Wherefore Tongues are for a fign not to them that believe, but to them that believe not \ but Prophecy ferveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe; i. e. the great- end of {peaking unknown Languages in your Religious AfTemblies is, that by this miraculous Gift you may convince Unbelievers of the Truth of the Religion you teach : But the Gift of prophefying, or explaining to the People the Holy Scripture in their Vulgar Lan- guage ferves for the Edification of Believers , and not for the Conviction of Infidels ; feeing therefore that the proper ufe of fpeaking in an unknown Lan- guage in Religious AfTemblies, was to give a mira- culous . Atteftation to the Truth of Christianity, it thence neceflarily follows, that when fpeaking an un- known Language in our- Religious AfTemblies doth not ferve this ufe, it ferves no Religious Ufe at all : but the Latin Tongue, as it is ufed in the Religious AlTemblies of the Roman Church, can be no miraculous Attefta- tion of the Chriftian Religion, (unlefs you will flip- pofe it a Miracle for a JVlafs-Prieft to underftand it) and therefore it can be of no Religious Ufe there. If therefore an Unknown Tongue, even when it was mira- culous, and as fucb, did ferve the common end of Mira- cles, was not to be ufed in Publick Worfhip without an 5 D Inter- 70i. The Texts examined which Tapijls cite Interpreter, how much lefs fhould ah unknown Tongue be ufed that is acquired by meer Natural Means, and if the ufe of it were allowable upon this account only, be- caufe it was a Miracle, then when it is no Miracle, it is no longer allowable at all ; fuppofe Latin to have been one of thofe Unknown Tongues that was fpoke in thofe Corinthian Aifemblies, if St. Paul condemned the ufe of it without an Interpteter in that Church, even though it was miraculous, and as fuch, was a Sign to convince Unbelievers, how much more would he have condemned it now in the Roman Church, where it is only an acquired Endowment, and as fuch, can be no Sign at all, unlefs it be of the Folly and Wicked- nefs of thofe that impofe it. IV. I now proceed to the fourth and laft Head of Di£ courfe propofed, which is to confider and examine the Objections which the Romanifts urge againft thefe Arguments of ours, which are all of them reducible to one General Head, which is this, That in i Cor. 14. whence we deduce the main of our Arguments, the Apoftle there treats not of the itated Liturgy or Worfhip of their Publick AfTemblies, but of cer- tain Extemporary Exercifes of Preaching and Prayer performed by them, by the immediate Infpiratipn of 0) De verb, the Holy Ghoft, in the latter of which they allow that Dei lib. 2. c St. P^/difapproves the ufe of an Unknown Tongue, (% Lt>ft-(h?ep. at leaft without an Interpreter, but not in the former, p. 355. fo Bellarmine fa J, Vane (b), and our Catholick Scriptu- COp.154. rift (c). To which I anfwer. 1/?, That it doth not appear either from this Chapter, or any other part of this Epiftle, that they had any other Liturgy of Prayers in their Publick AfTemblies (excepting the Lord's Prayer J than what was per- formed for ^Prayers in an Unknown Tongue. 70 j formed extemporanioufly by infpired Perfons; and in- deed whilft immediate Infpirations were Co frequent and ordinary among the Paftors of the Church, and particularly of this Church of Qorinthy there feems not to have been that urgent occafion for ftated Forms of Litargy, as there was aftersvards when immedi- ate Infpiration ceafed,or became lefs common ; for as by this Gift of immediate Infpiration the Paftors were fe- cured from all Errors and Indecencies in thefe their extemporary Effufions ; fb the People having a moral affurance that the Prayers which were offered up in their Publick Affemblies were immediately dictated by the Spirit of God, could fafely concur with them in their Hearts and Affections without making any pauie to examine either the truth or lawfulnefs,fitnelsor propriety of each particular Palfage, to which great In- conveniencies, both Paftors and People are unavoidably expofed whilft they joyn in fuch Extempore Prayers as are immediately dictated from the Invention of the Speaker; to prevent which, when the Gift of immediate Infpiration cealed, or at leaft became more rare, it is highly probable that the Bifhops and Paftors of the feveral Churches collected from the Prayers of thefe infpired Perfons fuch Confeflions, Petitions, and Thankfgivings as they thought moft proper, aud com- pofed them into fet-Forms of Publick Prayer ; fo that ftated Liturgies feem to have been fubftituted in the room of Infpired Prayers, and defigned to fupply the difcontinuanceof immediate Infpiration; for it's very ftrange, that if from the firft beginning of Chriftianity there had been ftated Liturgies prepared either by Chrift or his Apoftles for all Chriftian Churches, there fhould no mention be made of them, either in Serip- |ture or Primitive Antiquity ; for, as for thole Litur- 5 D 2 gies 704 Tire Texts examined which Waft/Is cite gies that go under the venerable Names of the Apo- ftles, foch as St. James's, St. Peters, and St. Mark\, it's now agreed by almoft all the Learned of all fides, that though fbme parts of them- are very ancient, and feem to have been introduc'd into the Chriftian Affemblies long before the clofe of the firft Century, yet none of them are of that prime Antiquity they pretend to ; but for Men fo confidently to affirm, that befides thefe infpired Extemporary Prayers, there was at the fame time a ftated Liturgy ufed in the Publick Affemblies of the Church of Corinth, when they have not the leaft fhadow of true Authority for it, is a fufpicious fign that their Faces have at length out-worn the mean. Infirmity of blufhing. But if it be true that ftated Liturgies were introduc'd to fupply the room of in- fpired Prayers, then there is the fame reafbn why the former fhould be expreft in a known Tongue as the latter, becaufe where one thing is placed in the fteacl of another, they muff, be both defigned for the fame end ; and therefore feeing that to obtain the end of an infpired Prayer, it was necefTary it fhould be expreft . in a known Tongue, it is no lefs necefTary to obtain the end of a fet Form of Prayer, the end of both be- ing the fame. ily. I Anfwer, That ai! thofe Reafons which the Apoftle afligns againft the ufe of an Unknown Tongue in an infpired Prayer, make as effectually againft the ufe of it in a ftated Liturgy, or form of Prayer. This I doubt not will evidently appear, upon a juft exami- nation of thofe pretended Difpanties which our Ad- verfaries make between the one and the other, which yet are only in three of thofe feven particular Reafons afligned by the Apoftle : So that though we fhould al- low thefe three to-be real, yet till they find out four Di- fparities for T; dyers in an Unknown Tongue. joe fparities more, there are four fubftantial Arguments of the Apoftle will ftill remain in force againhY them ; and I am apt to think, that unlefs the four to be yet found out, prove better than the three that are found, it will appear in the main IiTue that they have taken a great deal of pains tofeek for that which they had much better have loft than found. The firft Difparity they pretend, between ufing an Unknown Tongue in an infpired Prayer, and a ftated. Liturgy is, That thofe infpired Prayers were intended for the Edification of the People ; but fo are not ftated ' Liturgies, and therefore there is not the fame neceffity (a) Apud Dr why the latter fhould be in a Known Tongue as the mkev- 374> former. Thus Fifoer (a). T)r.Vane (b). The Ca-^jp. 35g. tholick Scripturift (c). And Bcllarmine himfelf (el). (OP- 166. To which I Anfwer, CO ibid. Firft ; That ftated Liturgies ought to be designed for the edification of the People, as well as thofe infpi- red Prayers were : And therefore when the Romanics tell us that they are not fo defigned, we give them free leave to fpeak this for themfelves, and for their own Liturgy ; and the greater fhame we think it isy both for them and that ; but we can by no means al- low them to fay this for us, or for any other Chrift ians in the World, there being none but themfelves that we could ever hear of, that have the Face to affirm, that their Publick Liturgies were never defigned for the edification of the People, which perhaps is one of the worft things that can befaid of a Liturgy ; for the great end of Publick Liturgies (as I fhall fhew by and by) is todire£t the Devotions of Chriftian Aflemblies, into a common concurrence, with fuch Confeflions, Petitions, and Thankfgivings, as are moft conducive. to their Spiritual Benefit and Advantage, to prescribe* to 70 6 The Texts examined which Tapifts cite to them fuch Confeffions of Sin as are moftaptto in- fpirethem with forrow for, and hatred and abhorrence of it, fuch Petitions for Mercy as are moft apt to affect them with the fenfe of their Wants, and of their depen- dance upon God for Supply and Relief, with fuch Praifes and Thankfgivings as are moft apt to excite in them a grateful fenfe of the Divine Goodnefs,a flagrant Love of God,and a profound Admiration of his Perfections, toge- ther with an active Refolution of tranfcribing and imi- tating them in their Converfation. In a word, the End which God aims at in requiring us to pray to him, is not meerly that we may pray to him,and acoft him with our bended Knees, and humble Supplications ; but, princi- pally ,that by Praying to him we may improve our felves in'allthofe Holy and Devout Difpofitions wherein the perfection of our Nature dothconfift ; and this the Trent Catechifmit felf acknowledges, viz,. That the efpecial End of our Praying to God, is, That by converfing with himjve may be the more ardently excited to the Love and A- * Part. 4. c. 2. dotation of him *. And this, as all agree, is the greatefr. fca. 7,8. ancj m0{\ valuable part of our Edification. And if the Church of Rome intends that the Publick Prayers fhould minifter to this 'End, viz. the Peoples Edifica- tion, doubtlefs fhe ought to let the People underftand them ; for how they can be edified by hearing fuch Prayers as they do not underftand, I am not yet able to comprehend ; but if fhe -doth not intend it, I doubt that God's Intention, and hers, will be found directly 1 Cor. 14. 2*.oppoiite to one another: lam fure St. Paul requires, that in our Religious AlTemblies all Things fhoxld be done to edifying : Not fo, faith the Scriptnrift, for the greateft part of what is done there, viz. the (rated and ordinary Service of the Church, is not to be done to edifying: So then it feems, the meaning of let all Things for Trayers in an Unknown Tongue. 707 Things be done, is no more than this, Let lome few- Things, and thole the moft inconfiderable, be done to edi- fying. Bellarmine indeed fpeaks fomething more wa- rily, telling us, That the InftruBion and Conflation ef^, ^c'.^T* the People, is not the principal End of Divine Offices. But then it ieems it is an End, and therefore .though it be not the principal One, it ought to be aimed at. But how can they at all aim to inftrucl: the Peoples Underftandings, by fuch Divine Offices as they do not underftand ? Or,ho\v can they intend the Peoples Conlb- lation by fuch forms of Words as convey no Senfe or Meaning to their Minds ? Well, but what then is the principal End of thefe Divine Offices ? Why (the Worfhip of God, faith Bellarmine.) But to what purpofe ferves jy^ their Worfhip of God ? do they worfhip him purely •to worfhip him without any further End and Pro- fped ? If lb, I am fure they fall fhort of God's End in requiring Worfhip from his Creatures ; for it is not for any advantage to himlelf that he requires our Wor- fhip and Service : Our Goodnefs extends not tojrim, faith praI- l6' 2' the Pfalmift ; nor is it any Gain to him that we make T . our Ways perfect : And therefore if he aim at any Good or Advantage at all in it, it mult be at Ours ; that by thefe our folemn Adrefles to him,we may be infpired with fuch an awful fenfe of his Majefty,as is necelfary to ob'igeusto our Duty, that thereby we may be accom- plished with all thole Heavenly Graces and Perfections that are neceffcAy to our own Happinefs ; and if for this End (which is in other words our own Edification) God requires our Worfhip,for this End we ought to ren- der it to him ; 'Tis true, faith the Script urift, this' was the End of thofe infpired Prayers St. Paul makes mention of, viz,. To edify the Brethren affembled, to ?• i^+i excite him to love, , to honoxr, and to praife God} not in- 70 8 The Texts examined which Pafifls cite intending chiefly to fray to pod for the People, as we Jo in our Liturgy. But do 'they defign at all to edify the Brethren, &x. in their Liturgy? If not, I am fure their Liturgy falls jfhort of one of the common Ends of Divine Worfhip : if they do, all that he talks is dull impertinence , feeing an Unknown Tongue doth equally obftrucl: the edification of the Brethren in a compofed Liturgy, as in an infpired Prayer. ily. That there are fundry parts of the Roman Liturgy which can ferve no End at all, unlefs it be the Peoples Edification ; fuch are the LefTons, the Creeds, and pious Exhortations, which make a con- siderable part of it ; the reading of which in their Publick AiTemblies, can be of no other ule, but on- ly to inftrucl and edify the People. The Prayers, as they pretend, are the Prayers of the Prieft only, whole peculiar Office it is to offer them up for the People, and therefore there is no need that the Peo- ple fhould underftand them. But fure they will not lay that their Creeds and Scripture-Le'ITons are the Prieft's only, or that it is his peculiar Office to be inftructed by the Word of God , and make con- feflion of the Chriftian Faith, or that he is to un- derftand for the People, and confefs the Faith for the People, as well as to pray for them ; for if fo, I doubt the Prieft at laft muft go to peaven or Hell too for the People, feeing he it feems muft either perform or neglect for them a principal part of their Religion ; unlefs therefore they will allow that the Scriptures, and Creeds, in their Publick Service, are intended for the edification of the People, I cannot imagine to what End they ferve there, un- lefs it be, like the Dead Pictures in Arras, to enter- tain the Eye, and make an empty fliew of doing feme- for Prayers in an Unknown Tongue, 709 iomething, while they do nothing. But if they arc inferred there for the edification of the People, why are they inferted in an Unknown Tongue ? Is k poffible that the People fhouid be edified by that which they do not underftand ? or that their Minds fhouid be at all informed by that which conveys no meaning to their Minds? The Apoftle tells us, That all Scriptures are profitable for Infraction. And that 2 Tim. 3. 9. wbatfoever Things were written afore-time, were written Rom-I5-4« for our Learning ; he means, for the Learning of the People fure as well as the Prieft. But how can the Scriptures in the Roman Service be profitable, for the inftru&ion and learning of the People, when they are all fhutup from them in the dark Lanthorn of an Unknown Tongue, and not permitted to trans- mit to them the leaft Ray of Light and Information ? It's certain therefore, whatever End thefe Scripture- Lefifons are defign'd for, they cannot be defign'd to ferve the End of Scripture, becaufe the End of Scrip- ture is to inftrudl:, which it can never do in an Un- known Tongue. We are told by the Council of Trent, That the Mafs contains very plentiful Matter of Inftrufiion for all faith- ful People * : And truly if it doth not, in my Opinion, * $efl- 22 'tis a very jejune and fruitlefs Office of Publick Wor- 8. fhip : but notwithflanding it doth fo, (fay thofe goodly Fathers ) it doth by no means feem expedient to us, that ... t fhouid every where be celebrated in the Vulgar Tongue ; >r indeed, that it fhouid be any where fb celebrated, for mmediately afterwards they decree, That the Cuflom of very Church in this Matt™ fhouid be every where retained, e. that the Mais fhouid be every where celebrated in .atin, that being then the Cuftom of every Church in Communion with the Church of Rome ; which is in 5 E effeft 710 Tlrt Texts examined which Tapifts eke effe£t to make this open Declaration to the People Good People, you rauft know, that in this fame Mafs- Book of ours, there is contained fuch excellent Matter for Edification, as if you would come at it, would do you a world of good, and make you much wiler, and better Chriftians than you are : But for Reafons belt known to our felves, we think it expedient to lock it up from you in an Unknown Tongue : and therefore pray fatisfy your Hunger with the belief, that here is great ftore of Spiritual Food for you, though you ne- ver be permitted to tafte of it ; and if you can lubfift by believing, or make fhift to live upon the Picture of a Feaft ; or, which is the lame thing, to feed and nou- rifh your hungry Souls with the found of Words, with- out the Senfe of them, with all our Hearts, much good may it do you. Good God ! what fhameful Bantering is this, in a Matter of infinite Moment ? Are not the People moft extreamly obliged to thefe tender-hearted Fathers, that only talk to them of Bread, but give them a Stone ? But here all on a fudden, a Pang of Fa- therly Compaflion leizes them ; But left (fay they im- mediately after) the Sheep of Chri/l fbould hunger, and the little Ones defire Bread, and there be none to break it to them, the Holy Synod commands Paflors, and all that have the Care of Souls, by themf elves, or others, while the Mafs is celebrated, frequently to expound fome ■part of I p\ thofe things which are read in it. This indeed is fbme- | fc, thing, but in reality amounts to very little : for, Firfi ; They knew very well, that abundance of their Priefts at that very Time, understood the Lanr guage of their Mafs no more than the People, and were incapable of expounding it to them. Secondly ; They could not but foreiee, that fevera of their Priefts who were able, would yet, througl negli- for Trayers in an Unknown Tonguel y 1 1 negligence, very often omit the expounding it, as k is notorious they have done ever fince, and do to this Day ; in which Cafes, let their Mafs contain never lb much Matter of Edification, it is impoflible it fhould edify their People, or render them either the better or wifer; and lo notwithftanding this their pretended Charitable Provision, they have fo ordered the Matter, that abundance of their little Ones who defire Bread, are in danger of famifhing for want of it, they having lock'd it up from them in an Unknown Tongue,and left them to the courtefy of Cuch Oeconomifs as do fbmetimes want Will and fbmetimes Ability to di- ftribute it to them ; whereas had they but taken care to have it fet before them in their own Native Lan- guage, thofe of them who were truly hungry would have made a fhift, when ever they wanted help, to help themfelves, but this will by no means down with that Church's Politiques, which flints the People to the PriefPs allowance, and to reduce them to a perfect dependance, proportions them no more Spiritual Food than juft what he thinks fit to carve them. But then, Thirdly ; 'Tis only fome part of the Mafs that they oblige the Priefts to expound to the People, they do not prefer ibe how much, but leave that wholly to the Prieffs difcretion, who may expound as little as he pleafe ; if they expound but one in an hundred of thofe Sentences wherein this matter of Edification is con- tained, the Injunction isfatisfied, tho there are ninety nine of the hundred for which they, are never the wifer ; fb that the far greater! part of this their plen- tiful matter of Edification doth, nothwithftanding this Injunction, remain incapable of edifying for want of being expounded : for the reafbn why they expound any part of it is, becaufe it cannot edify the People 5 E 2 while 7ii The Texts examined which Vapifts cite while it is read to them in an Unknown Tongue, which reafbn, if it be good, obliges them either to expound the whole every time they read it, or to read no more than they expound ; for if it cannot edify the People without being expounded, either the Priefts muft be very uncharitable in not expounding to them ail that they read, or very impertinent in reading to them more than they expound. Fourthly ; The Injunction is only that they frequent- ly expound, but how often is not determined, whe- ther once a Week, or once a Month, or once a Quar- ter, all this is left to the difcretion of the Prieft, who, if he be either negligent or unskilful, can make this frequently to fignify as feldom as he pleafes j and I believe none of them ever thought themlelves obliged by it to expound thefe edifying things as often as they read them : but then to what purpofe do they read them when they do not expound them ? for how can they be edified by that which they do not underftand ? The Council itfelf fiippofes, that when the Prieft doth not expound, the Sheep of Chrifi muft hunger ; and the little ones defire Bread in vain, there being none to break it to them, for it is to prevent this Milchief (as they pretend at leaft) that they impofe this frequent Exposition ; fo that by this frequently y they licenfe their Priefts many times to lend Chrifr s Sheep away an hungry, and not to break the Bread of Life to them, let them never fb earneftly defire it : and feeing how often is not determined, it is as often as the Prieft: thinks fit ; fo that after all, this feemingly companio- nate Injunction amounts to no more than this, It is our Will and Pleafure, good People, to lock up the Bread of Life from you in an Unknown Tongue, but left you fhould ft arve , we do hereby injoyn your Priefts for Prayers In an Unknown Tongue. y \ y Priefts frequently, or as often as they pleafe, to bring it forth and break it to you in your own Native Language. Truly we are much obliged to your good Fatherhoods for injoyning our Priefts to ufe us as they pleafe, or, which is much the fame, to feed us as often as they fhall reckon themfelves obliged by this loofe and undetermined frequently ; but God help our poor Souls that are thus abandoned by you (who fhould have taken better care of them) to the meer Mercy and Charity of every flothful, or vici- ous, or ignorant Prieft. Fifthly, and laftly ; The Expofition here injoined is not at all fpecified or determined; they tell us that thofe Prayers and Religious Difcourfes which St. Paul treats of, were defigned for the Edification, of the People, and therefore it was necefTary they fhould be interpreted into their Vulgar Language. Was it fb ? Then pray what was the plentiful matter of Edifica- tion in your Mafs defigned for ? To.be fure if for any thing, it was for the Edification of the People ; and if fb, the fame reafbn obliges you to interpret it into the Language of the People ; and therefore, if by expounding it they do not mean interpreting it into the Vulgar Language, by their own ConreflionjSt.PWs Reafbn is as much againft their matter of Edificati- on in Latin, as againft thofe Sermons and Prayers in an Unknown Tongue ; fb that unlefs by their Expo- sition of this matter they mean interpreting it into the Vulgar Language, St. Paufs Reafon,evenhy their own confeflion, doth as much conclude their Priefts to be Men that fpeak into the Air, and Barbarians to their People, and doth as much oblige them to keepjilence in the Church, as it did thofe infpired Speakers in an Un- known Tongue, againft whom he levels it \ but that by 7 1 4 Tlx Texts examined which Paftfts cite by expounding, they do not mean this fort of Interpre- tation, we have too much reafon to believe ; not only becaufe no fuch Interpretation is pra&ifed among them, or at leaft very rarely, but alfo becaufe their own Di- vines tell us, that the fenfe of the Council was, That * vid Ledefm. t^je ^eoP^ fhould be injlruffed only by Sermons *, and c. 15. Se&. ' that fuch a Verbal Interpretation, during the Celebration Decree. Con. 0f t^e fy[a[sy was condemned by the Council as the caufe f vid. Epift. and feed-plot of many Errors f : by which it feems that cier.An.1660. by expounding, they meant no more than preaching p* 62, upon, or expounding fbme Do£trine or Ceremony con- tained in the Mafs ; and if fb, it is no more an ex- pounding of the Mafs than of any other Book in which that Doclxine is contained : fo that hitherto I cannot apprehend to what purpofe all this plentiful matter of Edification in the Mafs-book ferves ; not to edify the People to be fure, for why then fhould it be lock'd up from their Underftanding ? Ay, but it is there that it may be read to them : but to what pur- pole is it to read to them, when fuch effectual Care is taken that they fhould never be the wifer for it ? Why,it is read that it may be expounded : but fure it may be expounded whether it be read or no ; and then to what purpofe is it read, when it is not expounded ? Why are the Peoples Ears continually harrafed with a tedious jangling of words, which fignify nothing to their Minds ? They contain in them edifying matter, you will fay : But what does this edifying matter fig- nify, when it is fb worded that it cannot edify ? In fhort therefore, all this plentiful matter of Edification, which the Council allures us their Mafs contains, is only a Cipher to the People ; while it is continued in an Unknown Tongue, it's read to them with as little efteel as if it were read only to their Church-walls, it being for Tr dyers in an Unhiom Tongue, . yi* being impoflible that they fhould be edified by hearing that which they do not understand, nor doth the Expo- fition they require, at all mend the matter, feeing by that they do not mean rendering it into the Vulgar Language, without which their reading it is all in vain, and if they did, yet ftill their reading it in Latin is im- pertinent ; for to what purpofe can their reading of edi- fying matter ferve, whilft they read it fb as that it cannot edify, unlefs it be to fhew that the Prieft hath Learning enough to read Latin. So that this pre- tended Difparity between the ftated Liturgy of the Church, and thofe infpired Prayers and Difcourfes of .which St. Paul treats, viz,, that the one was defigned for Edification and the other not, amounts to no- thing ; both becaufe Publick Liturgies ought to be de- figned for Edification, and a great part of the Roman Liturgy muft be fb defigned as well as thofe infpired Prayers and Sermons, and confequently the one as well as the other ought to be expreft in the known and vulgar Language, without which neither can edify. idly, Another Difparity they make between Hated Liturgies and thofe Religious Exercifes St. Paul treats of, is, that in the latter the People were obliged to joyn, but not in the former ; thus our Scripturift, Thefe Prayers, i. e. the fet- Forms of Prayer in our Liturgy ', are Pa8« i^»- chiefly appointed to the Prieft, who well under (lands them, to offer them up to God for the People ; and elfewhere, The Pag. 16S. chief end of the Liturgy is to pray to God for the People. So alfo Bellarmine, The Prayer of the Church is not made to the People, but to God for the People, and therefore there is no need that the People fhould underftand it in order to their profiting by it, but it is fufficient that God under (lands, De verb. Dei which he illuflrttes by one Mansprefenting a Latin Petition !it>. 2. c. 16. to the Kjngfor another who underflands not Latin : which plainly j 1 6 Tlie Texts examined which Tapifts cite plainly implies that in the Church's Prayer thePrieft only prays for the People, but not the People for them- felves. And thus alfo Tifher more expreily, The Publick Service is for a continual daily Tribute or Homage of Apud Dr.white Prayer and Thankfgiving to be offered publickly, and paid T' 374> 375- untoGod by his Priefts. And from hence they conclude, that tho it was very necefTary that thole infpired Prayers fhould be fpoken in the Vulgar Tongue, be- caufe all the People were obliged to joyn in them, yet as for ftated Liturgies, provided the Priefts underftand them, whofe Prayers they properly are, it is no great matter whether the People underftand them or no, they being not obliged to pray them : it is needful indeed that the People know what is done in general, viz. That God is worshipped and honoured, that the Priejl prays to him ; that good things are asked of him for the People, and Thanks given to him) that the Memory of Chrif and his Pajfion are celebrated, and the Sacrifice offered to God ; * Lcdefma a^ this no Clown is ignorant of and this is fufficient : * To c. 21. n. 23. which I anfwer ; Firjl ; That tho the People were not obliged to joyn in the ftated Offices of Publick Prayer, yet there is the fame reafbn why they fhould under/rand the Language of them,as why they fhould underftant' any thing at all appertaining to them ; they themlelves confefs that in their Publick Liturgy there are fundry things, at leaft, which the People ought to underftand either by Actions, Ceremonies and Circumftances, or by Cuflcm, Affinity with the Vulgar ; or Books interpreting and containing Prayers correfpondent to every fart wherein the Auditory is con- f ProtefUeflit. cerned t, and that by publick Signals they fhould be ef Scrij>t.Proof, taught when to kneel, to adore, to knock their Breafts, when ll'cath. Scripr. t0 ri[e'> when tofand, or to do any thing elfe that concerns f. 166. them, or is proper for them to do || : it is enough, fay the Rhe- for Prayers in an Unknown Tongue, Rhemifta, that the People can tell this holy Oraifon, (viz. Pater N oiler) to be appointed to call upon God, tho they do not know to what Petition their part pertaineth ; and fure if this be enough, then fo much is needful : But why is it neceffary for the People to know thefe things, viz. that Pater Nofier is a form of words appointed to call upon God, unlefi it be to excite them by the found of thefe words to call upon God, or that fuch and fuch Actions, Ceremonies, and Circus fiances, are intended for Signals to them when to kneel, to adore, to knock their Breafis, &rc. unlefs it be to ftir up their Hearts to that inward Devotion and Compunction which thefe Acti- ons of theirs do exprefs and fignify ; and if this be the reafon, then certainly it is at leaft as neceffary that they fhould call upon God when Pafter Nofier is pro- nounced, and be inwardly devout and contrite when the Signals were given to kneel, Src. as to know thofe things which are but the means of thefe Ends. There can be no Religious Purpofe ferved by the Peoples knowing that now the F'rieft is calling upon God, unlefs it be to excite them to call upon God alfb ; and if it be necelfary for them to know that God is in- voked, to the end that they may invoke him, then fure it is as neceffary for them to invoke him,as to know that he is invoked ; and if it be necelfary that the People fhould be intruded, when the Prieft is praying to the end that they may pray alfo, fure it is neceffary they fhould be inftru&ed in fuch manner as is moil effectual to excite them to pray ; and then I would fain know whether plain and intelligible Words are not far more inftru&ive than dumb Shews and Signs ? or, whe- ther an illiterate Englifh-man would not be far better inftru£ted in order to his being excited to pray, by Our Father, which he underftands, than by Pater Nofier, $ F which 7*7 7 1 8 TJx Texts examined which Tapifts cite which he understands not ; or, which is the fame thing, whether Mens devout Affections are better excited with their Underftanding or without it ? for I would fain know, Are the People obliged to call upon God when they hear thofe words Pater Nofier, or to confefs their Sins with Contrition of Soul when they hear Miferere ? If they are not, what neceflity is there that they fhould know that Pater Nofier is an Invocation of God, or Miferere a ConfefEon of Sin to him ? feeing in point of Duty they are not at all concerned in it : if they are, I defire to know again, whether they are ob- liged to call upon God and confefs their Sins in that form of words, or in fbme other : If in that form, then in the firft place, the People are obliged to joyn with the Prieft in the Publick Prayer, which is the Point we contend for : And fecondly, they ought to under- stand the fenfe and meaning of thole Forms, it being impofiible for them to exprefs the Devotion of their Minds in a form of words which they do not under- stand : if in fome other, the Church ought to have pro- vided fuch other Forms as the People might underftahd (which it yetnever did) otherwife,whilft the Prieft, who hath lefs need of a Form, is praying and confefling by Form, the People who have more need mult be left to pray and confefs Extempore ; and for what good reafon this fhould be I cannot apprehend, feeing not only the matter of the Roman Prayers,but the words too (if they were tranflated into the Peoples Language ) are gene- i rally as proper for the People to pray and confefs in, as for the Prieft : either therefore the People are bound to pray in time of Publick Prayer, or they are not ; if I they are not, I fee no neceflity why they fhould be in- structed in any thing appertaining to the Publick Pray- ers, feeing their Duty is not at all concerned in them,:! A for Trayers in an Unknown Tongue. 7 1 9 if they are, what good reafbn can there be afligned why they fhould not pray in thofe Forms of Prayer which the Prieft reads to them ? feeing the matter of thole Prayers is as proper for the People to pray, as for the Prieft, and confequently ib would the Prayers themfelves, if they were but expreft in the Peoples Language. Secondly , That there is no part of Publick Worfhip in which the Duty of the People is not as well concer- ned as of the Prieft. The Publick Worfhip of Chrifti- ans confifts either of Prayers, Praifes, and Thankfgi- vings, or of Communion in the Chriftian Sacraments ; to all which I think no Chriftian will deny but the Peo- ple are as much obliged as the Prieft ; and therefore to quote Scripture-Proofs for this, would be the fame thing as to cite Chapter and Verfe to evince that all Chrifti- ans are obliged to believe in God and in Jefus Chrift : And if in all thefe Inftances all Chriftians, as well Laity as Clergy, are obliged to worfhip God, then ei- ther they are obliged to it in private only, or in pub- lick alfb ; if in private only, to what purpofe fhould they frequent the Publick Worfhip wherein they have nothing to do ? for what can they have to do in Publick Worfhip, but to worfhip ? if in publick alfo, then either they muft joyn with the Prieft in their A&s of Worlhip, and pray, and praife, and give Thanks with him in the fame ftated Forms, which is the thing we contend for, ( and which draws after it an abfblute ne- ceflity of having thofe ftated Forms in the Vulgar Lan- guage, it being impoflible for them to pray and give Thanks for they know not what ) ; or elfe they muft psrforrriotheir Worfhip feparately from the Prieft, either in diftindl: Forms of Prayer, and Praife, and Thanks- giving, or from their own Extemporary Invention, 5 F 2 wliich 710 Tie Texts examined which Tapifls cite which (befides what hath been faid againft it under the former Head ) muft neceffarily introduce a vaft Cbn- fufion into the Puhlick Worfhip ; for at this rate it will be itnpoilible for them ever to unite their Hearts and Affections in the fame things, which is the pecu- liar advantage of Publick Worfbip ; that there is a con- currence of Hearts in the fame Acts of Worfhip, and an union of Defires in the fame Petitions throughout the whole Congregation, which renders them more ac- ceptable and prevalent: but whilft the People are left to pray feparately from the Publick Liturgy, in all pro- bability there will be as many different Hopes, Defires, and Affections in their Worfhip, as there are different Men in the Congregation ; here will be one confefling his Sins, there another returning Thanks for Mercy ; and whilft this Man is praying for Heaven, another will be praying for a gccd Harveff, a third for Repen- tance or Pardon, a fourth for a fick Wife or Child ; and whilft a fifth is imploring of afliftance againft Tempta- tions, a fixth will be deprecating Thunder and Light- ning, Storms and Tempeft ; and lb there will be as vaft a Confufion of Affections in their Worfhip, as there was of Languages among the Brick-layers of Babel : if therefore the People are at all obliged to pray, and praife, and give Thanks in the Publick Worfhip, which one would think no Chriftian ftiould deny ; it is im- poffible for them otherwife to perform it with any decency or order, but in Conjunction with the Prieft in the Publick Prayers, or Liturgy ; and this they can ne- ver do, unlefs they underftand the Language of it. And then as for the Sacraments, feeing the People as well as the Prieft, do by partaking of them enter int© and re- new their Vow and Covenant with God, which, fo far forth as they are capable, muft be their own free and volun- for Triers in an Unknown Tongue. y 2 ! voluntary Aft, it is neceflfary they fhould joyn and concur in them either by their Sponfors, who a&for them, as in Baptiim, or by themfelves, afting for themfelves, as in the Eucharift ; for how can they per- • form a Federal Right between God and themfelves without concurring in it by their own free Aft and Deed ? We are told indeed by the Kepref enter, That the Mafs being a Sacrifice, wherein is daily commemorated the Death and Pafflon of Chrijl, by an Oblation made by the Prieft, of the Body and Blood of the ImmacnUte Lamb, under the Symbols of Bread and Wine ', according to his own In ft it ut ion ) *tis not the bufinefs of the Congregation prefent, to imploy their Ears in attending to the words, but their Hearts in contemplation of the Divine My ft cries , by raijing up fervent Affections of Love, Thankfgiv- ing, 8cc. And for this, he tells us, there is little need of Words, a true Faith without thefe is alfuffcient. Now granting all this to be true, about the Mafs's being a Sacrifice in the Roman Senfe ; yet, by this good Au- thor's leave, " I cannot apprehend, but that if the words they ufe in the Celebration of it, were plain and intelligible to the People, and apt and proper for the Occaiion, their imploying their Ears in attending to them, would very much amft their Hearts in contemplation of the Divine Myferies, &c. Nor can I think their Faith [o alfufficient, efpecially in a Point fo contradictory to their Reafbn, (as Tranfubftantiation is) as not to need the afliftance of plain, inftruftive, and perfwa- five words. The Apoftle tells us, That Faith it felf comes by hearing ; and that which begets it, to be fure muft nourifh and increafe it : But if Words are of no ufe at all in the Celebration of the Mafs, in the Name of God to what End do they ufe them ? and why are the People commanded (as juft before he tells us they are) 7ii - T%e Texts examined which Tapifts cite are) to ajfift at the Church-Service, and to hear Mafs, when in this they are injlrutfed not to underftand the Words, but to know what is done ? What confounded Gib- berifn is this ! the People muft hear the Words of the Mafs,but not imploy their Ears in attending to the Words \ that is, they muft hear them, fb as not to hear them. Again, they muft hear the Words of the Mafs, and be therein inftrufted not to under fland the Words ; that is, they muft hear the Words to no purpofe, fb as to be never the better or wifer for hearing them. Once more, they muft hear the Words of the Mafs, which they do not underftand, fb as to underftand by them what is done in the Mafs ; that is, they muft underftand by Words, which they do not underftand. Well, go thy way for a bold Heroick Self-contradictor, thou mayeft defy the beft Mafter of Nonfenfe of them all, to vouch in fo few Lines,fb many direct Repugnancies. But to pafs by all this ; Is there nothing in their Mafs but only the Sacrifice ? Are there not Lections and Se- quences proper enough to edify the People, were they permitted to underftand them ? Are there not Refpon- fes appointed to them, in which they might exprefs . their devout Defires, did they but know the meaning of them ? In a word, are there not Poft-Communions, in which, together with the Prieft, they might offer up their Prayers and Praifes to God, did they but un- derftand the Language of them? Without which it is impoffible for them to join in them ; and this they them- felves confefs, by pretending this difpaiity between thofe infpired Prayers St. Paul treats of, and their La- tin Service, viz. That in the former, the People are obliged to join, but not the latter ; which fuppofes, that they muft underftand the Service they are obliged to join in ; and confequently, that they cannot join in the . for Prayers in an Unknown Tongue. y 2 the Latin Service, becaufe they do not underftand it ; for could they join in the latter, as well as the former, this Difparity could be no Reafon why the one fhould not be in a Known Tongue as well as the other. In fhort, we argue, that there is the fame neceffity that the People fhould underftand the ftated Prayers of the Church, as that they fhould underftand thole infpired Prayers which St. Paul treats of,becaufe they are obliged to join in one as well as the other. And weconfefs, fay our Adverfaries, were this Reafon good, there would be the fame neceflity ; but therefore we aflert, that there is not the fame neceflity, becaufe,tho we allow they were obliged to join in thofe infpired Prayers, yet we utterly deny that they are obliged to join in the ftated Prayers of the Church, this muft be their Senfe, or this pretence of Difparity between thefe two forts of Prayer muft be Nonfenfe : and therefore feeing the whole of their Ser- vice is worded in Latin,which is an Unknown Tongue to moft of their People, it necefTarily follows, that the moft of their People are not obliged to join in any part of it, and confequently in thofe Congregations, .where neither the Prieft, nor any of the People, underftand Latin ; their Praters are read, and no Body is obliged to pray them j and their Worfhip is performed, and no Body obliged to worfhip by it ; which is a plain con- feflion, that that which they call their Publick Wor- fhip, is no Worfhip ; or which is the fame thing, a : Worfhip that no Body is concerned in, or obliged to. Thirdly ; That the Publick Prayers of the Church have been always look'd upon as Prayers that were com- mon to the People with the Priefts ; for fb it's plain, that the Publick Prayers of the Temple were common to all the People, and that they joined in them 5 not only from their refponding ^ww at the dole of them, (as 724 Ti?e Texts examined which Paptjls cite (as wasobferved before) but alfo from feveral pafTages rfal. 29. 9. of Scripture; fuehas, In the Temfle doth every one [peak l'fal. 42. 4. of his Glory. And J went with the Multitude to the Honfe of God, with the Voice of Joy and Praife. And Pfal. 107.32. again, hx.tlt him in the Congregation of the People, and prafe him in the AJfembly of the Elders. All which do ihew, that the People were to join in thofe Publick Prayers and Praifes that were offered in the Service of the Temple. And indeed it was an ancient Canon of the Jewifti Church, (as their own Doctors tell us) He who prays, ought always when he prays to join with the Church : And tljiey tell us particularly of Eighteen Prayers in their Publick Service, which the People were every day obliged to pray ; or at leaft, if they were hindred by Bufmefs, or indifpofition of Mind, to pray one Prayer, which was the Summary of them all; and thefe Prayers they were obliged (if they had time) to repeat after the Minifter of the Congrega- tion ; as appears by that Rule of theirs, When a Man vkl. Ligk{Qot,g0es int0 ffoe Synagogue,- and finds the Affembly praying 158.2' ,56' fhe additional Prayer, ( that is, a Prayer which the Mi- nister added to the Eighteen, as theclofe of all) if he is fire he Jhall begin and end, fo that he may anfwer Amen after the Angel of the Church, let him fay his Prayers, i.e. his Eighteen Prayers, or at leaft the Summary. And that the Christian, as well as Jewifh People, did always join in the Publick Prayers, might be demon- strated, if it were needful, from innumerable Autho- rities of the Fathers : Of which it will be Sufficient at 2 prefent to cite three or four ; Jujlin Martyr tells us, 97P,VL' 2' ' That in their Administration ot Baptifm, the whole AJfembly being gathered together, did put up Common Prayers for t hem f elves, for the Baptized Perfon, and for all others throughout the World, with an attentive Mind ; and J for ^Prayers in an Unknown Tongue. 725 and that in their Sunday's Service, after they had heard the Scriptures and Exhortations, they rofe up together and poured, forth their Supplications. And that they all joined in the fame Prayers, is evident, not only from the Apoftolick Conftitutions *, where the fubftance of * Lib. 8.cio the Prayer they ufed in Baptifm is recorded, under the Title of, The Prayer for the Faithful ', but alfb from that account which Clemens Alexandrinus gives us of their Publick Worfhip * \ The Terreftrial Altar of the Chri- * Scrom. 7. p. (lians, is the Ajfembly of fuch as join together in Prayers, 7'7« /ju'ocv axzcri(> fcScv cptovhv t ftotvlw jc, /wiocv yvcj/Licv, having, as it were,one Voice or Sentence ', fo that there may be properly /aid to be in the Church, avy-zrvoiot, a breathing together the fame Breath ; for the Sacrifice of the Church is the Word that afcends as Incenfe from the Holy Souls, their whole Minds together, with their Sacrifice, being made known to God. Origen in anfwer to Celfus, who charges Chri- ftians with ufing barbarous Words in their Worfhip, tells him that it is utterly falfe, That the Greeks in their Prayers, ufed the Greek, the Romans, the Latin ', and that every one prayed to God, and praifed him in his own Dialect : and fo the Lord of all Dialects, hears them fraying to him in every Dialect, expreffing, with one Voice, in divers Tongues, the Things which thofe divers Tongues fignify ; for he prefers not one Tongue before another, whether it be Greek or Barbarous, as being either ignorant of, or not regarding what is Jpoken in other Languages *. * cont. Cel.c By which it's evident, that Chrifrian Aflemblies did P-4°2- then, not only pray the fame Prayers, (for otherwife how could they be laid to pray with one Voice ? ) but alfb that their Prayers were all expreffed in their own Vulgar. St. Cyprian exprefly tells us, That in their \Ajfemblies with the Brethren, they celebrated the Divine Sacrifices of Prayer and Eucharift, together with the Prieft 5 G of 7 2 6 The Texts examined which Papi/ls cite * De orat. 0f God *. And to name no more, St. Bajil in his Apo- Dom. logetick Epiftle for his Monks, tells the Clergy of Neocafarea, That at break of Day, we all in common, as from one Mouth and, Heart, offer a Pfalm of Confefjion to God, every one making the Penitential Words his own ; and if yon fhun us for thefe things, you mujt [hun the Egyptians alfo, both the Libias, thofe of Thebes, Pale- ftine, Arabia, Phoenicia, Syria, and the Inhabitants near Euphrates ; and in a word, all thofe that have any ejleem *Ep. 53- p. for Prayers, and Vigils, and Pfalmodies*. Which plain- s'*' ly fhews, that it was then the manner of all Chriftian AfTemblies, to join together in the lame Prayers ; and that they did not only pray them, but vocally repeat them after the Priefts, is evident from what he elfe- where tells us ; and St. Ambrofa from him, viz,. That from the Prayers of Men, Women, and Children to God, a, Hexan^ mixed Sound was heard in the Church, as it were of a p. 46. ' ' * Wave dafhing againft the Shore *. A great many more f yid. a tret- Authorities might be produced to this purpofe f, but tfifcxS* thefe I think are fufficient to fatisfy any modeft Man, service. that in the Publick Prayers, both of the Jewifh and Chriftian Church, the People were always look'd upon as obliged to join and bear their parts: And if in this the Church of Rome be lingular from all other Churches, (as our Authors will have her ) the more is her fhame ; and though this be bad enough, I wifh to God it were the only criminal fingularity (lie is guilty of. But, Fourthly, and laftly ; The Church of Rome it felf muft be forced to own, that the People are obliged to join in her Publick Prayers with the Priefts, or to con- fefs her felf guilty of the higheft abfurdity ; for both in her Maf> and Breviary, the Prieft is ordered to preface a great part of the Prayers with Oremus, i. e. Let us pray. Now, I beieechyou, who doth the Prieft mean br[l for Prayers in an Unknown Tongue. 717 by us f I cannot think he means himfelf only, for then he muft fplit himfelf in twain to make an us, and di- vide himfelf by his Chriftian-name, from himfelf in his Sir-name ; and fo Jofepb mud call to Mum for da Let us pray, and if tie means not this, (as fure it is not imaginable he fhould mean fo wild an Abfurdity in fuch a ferious Matter) he muft mean himfelf, and the Peo- ple : but then, why fhould he call upon the People to tpray, if they are not obliged to pray with him ? If it be faid, that he only calls upon the People to pray, but not to join with him in the fame Prayer; befides that there can be no Reafon afligned, why the People fhould not join in the fame Prayers ; and a great deal, why they fhould, thefe Prayers containing nothing in them, but what is as proper for the People as the Priefts : be- fides this, I fay, it's evident that the Intention of this Or emus is, to excite both Priefts and People to join to- gether in the fame Prayer ; for the Prieft fpeaks to himfelf, conjunctly with the People, Let you and I fray ', and therefore his meaning muft be the fame to both, but to himfelf his meaning is to excite himfelf to pray the following Prayer, and therefore it muft be the fame to the People : As for inftance, when in the Of. fice of the Vigils of Pentecoft, the Prieft faith, Let us fray : 0 God, who haft: commanded us, by the Mouths of the Prophets, to forfake temporal Things, and furfue Eternal, &c. it's plain, that he admonifhes himfelf to pray this very Prayer ; becaufe immediately after he is to read a portion of Scripture; and therefore he muft either read one Prayer, and pray another, or a pray that Prayer, or none : and if the meaning of his i Or emus be to excite himfelf to pray that Prayer, it muft » be to excite the People to do the fame ; which necefTa- ii rily fuppofes the People to be obliged to join with the 5 G 2 Prieft 7 1 8 The Texts examined which faftfls cite Prieft in the fame Prayers, otherwife the Oremus figni- fies nothing; and indeed, take it at beft, it fignifies nothing to the generality of the People, few of whom underftand the fignification of it ; and fuppofe they all underftand that it fignifies, Let us pray, yet are they never the wifer for it ; For what muft they pray ? Why they muft pray, Deus qui nobis per prophet arum Ora, &c. But, good Sir, what is that ? Why it is Latin. Is it fb ? truly had it been Welch or Jrabick, it had been all one, we underftand neither the one nor the other. Underftand ! what is that to the purpofe ; I tell you, you muft pray it whether you underftand it or no. That is a very hard cafe indeed, for a company of filly Souls as we are, to be required to pray we know not what ; or, which is the fame thing, to defire and hope for good things in nubibus, where we know nei- ther what they are, nor of what importance they are to us ; and the truth of it is, it is not only hard, but impoffible ; for feeing it is the knowledg of good Things that renders them defirable, how is it poflible for Men to pray for, or defire of God the good Things contained in a Prayer, of which they have no know- ledg, and which, for all they know, may be a Charm inftead of a Prayer, or an Imprecation of Mifchief, in- ftead of a Supplication for Mercies. But let this be as it will, it is a plain cafe, that whenever the Prieft pro- nounces his Oremus ,(which he is very frequently obliged to do) he calls upon the People to join with him in the fame Prayer, which fuppofes them obliged fb to do : and if they are fb, it's evident our Difparity-makers de- part as far from the Senfe of their own Church, as from the Truth, when they tell us that the People were obli- ged to join in thofe infpired Prayers which St. Paul treats of, bucnotintheftated Liturgy of the Church ; and for Trayers in an Unknown Tongue* yin and that therefore there is not the fame neceflity why the latter fhould be in a Known Tongue as the former. -$dly, and laftly ; Another Difparity they make between thefe two forts of Prayer, is in refpecfc of the Languages in which they were expreft, The Jpoflle, faith Be/larmine, [peaks of that fort of Prayer and giving of Thanks which was performed, by the Gift of Tongues ; in fome Language that was utterly extraneous, which no- body under foody as Arabick, or Perfick, and which he who fpoke it many times did not underfland, but he doth not [peak of the Divine Office •s, which being compofed in Greek were under flood of many* \ and to the fame purpofe *De verb. Dei Fifier f , Vane ||, and the Rhemifts * who tell us, The ^ c- l6-n Apoflle condemns a barbarous Tongue, but not that which \\^g.^.'" is under food by learned and civil People in every great * Annot.p.461. City, as Hebrew, Greek, and Latin : and to the fame Note cants our Scripturifl, who is fure never to boggle at an Abfurdity where-ever his Mafter Bellarmine leads the way, St. Paul, faith he, doth not fo much as mean here to exclude the ufe of fuch well-known Tongues as Greek and Latin were, that is, fuch as were the Languages well v^g. I70„. known to all the better-bred fort of mo ft Nations ', fo that here is nothing againft the Mafs faid in Latin through the Latin Churches, or in all thofe Weflern Parts, where all knowing and underflanding Men very commonly know this Language. To which I anfwer, Fir ft ; That this pretended Difparity perfectly con- tradicts the two former, viz. That the itated Prayers of the Church are not defigned either to inftruct the People, or for the People to joyn in them, for both which purpofes thofe infpired Prayers, of which St. Paul difcourfes, were direftly intended ; and therefore, tho it was very needful that the People fhould understand the latter, yet it is altogether indifferent whether they under- 7 $ 0 Tl?e Texts examined which Papifts cite underftand the former or no ; and if it be fb, it's all one what the Unknown Language is,whetherit be Bar- barous, or Civil, Arabick, or Greek, or Latin, provided that the Prieft underftands it, and if he doth not, he may as well officiate Mafs in Arabick written in Latin Characters, as thofe Priefts do in Latin, who under- ftand neither Latin npr Arabick. To what purpofe therefore do they tell us,' that the Apoftle condemns only a Barbarous Tongue which no body under/lands, but not that which is under f food by learned and civil People ? Is it need- ful or no for the People to underftand their Prayers ? if not, why fhould the Apoftle condemn a Barbarous Tongue which no body underftands,ai:d which no body needs to underftand ? if it be, their two former Diiba- rities vanifh into Air, there being no other imagine Ac Reafons why it fhould be needful for them to under- ftand their Prayers, but only that they may be in- ftrucled by them and inabled to jovn in them. The Apoftle, you fay, means to exclude Barbarous Tongues, fuch as Perfick and Arabick : And pray why doth he fb ? becaufe no body underftands them : But what need any body underftand them ? ( and if none need, the Apo- ftle meant to exclude them without reafbn ) unlefs it be that they may be directed what to pray for, and inftru&ed to joyn in the Prayer ; and if fb, then it feems it is needful both that the People fhould be in- ftrucl:ed by, and joyn in the ftated Prayers of the Church as well as in thofe Extemporary infpired Pray- ers. And thus to eftablifh a third Difparity, you have fairly tript up the Heels of the two foregoing ; The Apoftle doth not mean, you fay, to exclude the ufe of fuch well-known Tongues as Greek and Latin were, which were under ft ood by all the better -bred fort of mo ft Nati- ons, and why not thefe as well as Perfick and Arabick ? why for Trayers in an Unknown Tongue. y > i why, becaufe thefe are better underftood. Ware Hawk, I beieech you ! this is a very dangerous Realbn, and if I may advife you, do not meddle with it ; for then it will unluckily follow, not only that Publick Prayers ought to be celebrated in fuch Languages as are beft underftood (and I am apt to think Englifh in England is better underftood than Latin) but alfo that the People ought (at leal t thofe of them that are better bred) to underftand their Prayers, that fb they may be inftrucTed by them and joyn in them, and then good night to your two preceding Difparities : but this is the common fate of Men that are lifted to ferve a bad Caufe, that their Reafbns generally fall foul upon themfelves, and in- ftead of encountering their Adverfaries, run a-Tilt at one another. Secondly ; That if this Objection fignify any thiag, it allows it to be very needful for Men of Learning and Education to underftand their Prayers, but not for the Unlearned, which is notoriously falfe ; for it grants that the Apoftle condemns the ufeof fuch Bar- barous Tongues in Prayer as no body underftands, but not of fuch as are underftood by Men of Learning and good Education: from whence it muft follow ei- ther that the Apoftle doth needlefly condemn fuch Barr barous Languages in Publick Prayer as the Learned do not underftand, or that it is needful that the Learned fhould underftand the Publick Prayers, but not the Un-> learned, which is directly contrary, to thefenfeof the Apoftle, Elfe when thou [halt blefs with the Spirit^howjhall he that occnpieth the room of the Unlearned fay Amen at thy giving of Thanks, feeing he underflands not what thou fayfi? Where he plainly condemns the ufe of an Un- known Tongue in Prayer, not fb much for the fake of the Learned as the Unlearned ; for it feems the Un- known 73 1 The Texts examined which Papifls eke known Languages in which they pray'd were, fbme of them at leaft, fuch as the Learned among them did as well underftand, and confequently could as well fay Amen to, as the Learned among us do the Latin Prayers in the Roman Liturgy. But this would not fuffice our Apoftle, tho it very well luffices our Objectors ; it is fufficient, fay they, that the Publick Prayers be expreft in a Language that the Learned in allCountries and Congregations underftand,and can fay Amen to, this is not fufficient, faith the Apoftle, the Language of your Publick Prayers ought to be fuch as the Unlearned as well as the Learned underftand, and can fay Amen to. Here are two contradictory Sentences, which of them is in the right, I leave St. Paul and them to difpute ; but our dapper Touch- flone, who in his Road of Controversies rarely ventures a ftep far- ther than Bellarmine leads him, here thinks he may make as bold to contradict his Guide, as he doth to contradict St. Paul : and truly fb far I conceive he is in the right ; but then prefently after he is as much in Pag,«8. tne wrong agam> F°ri faith he, St. Vaults faying how fhall he that occupieth the room of the Unlearned fay Amen ? /hews that fuch giving of Thanks was not accufiomed to be made in the Vulgar Tongue, and requires , or rather f up- pofes, that in the Services of the Church there (hould be fome other to fupply the room of the Unlearned, that is, one that /hould have further under/landing of the Tongue in which the Service of the Church is f aid ', but had the Service been in the Vulgar Tongue, there needed no Man to have fupp lied the place of the Ideot that under (landeth not : So that then it feems they had a Learned Clark in every Congregation, who perfectly underftood that Unknown Tongue, in which the Service of the Church was J aid, and faid Amen to it for the Ideots and Un- learned: for Prayers in an Unknown Tongue] ? ] j learned ; in which choice Period the good Man, to fhew his Impartiality, contradicts himfelf as well as Bellarmine, for a little before in anfwer to this Text of St. Paul he very gravely tells us, that there were trvo p kinds of Prayer 9or giving Thanks, in the Church, the one ' ?f private, which every Man faith by himfelf alone ', the other fublicky which the Priefi faith in the Name and Perfon of the whole Church. As concerning Private Prayer, no Catho- lick denies that it is very expedient that every Man pray in his own Tongue, to the end he may under (I and what he (ays. So then it feems the Prayer in an Unknown Tongue which St. Paul condemns, is only private Prayer which every one faith alone by himfelf otherwife to what pur- pofe is all rhis? And if fo, our Clerk's place will be void again ; for how great plenty of Clerks foever . there might be in the Primitive Ages, I can hardly imagine that every one in the Congregation had a Clerk at his Elbow ready to fay Amen to his private Prayer as foon as it was finifhed; but if the Prayer m the firft Sentence be Publick Prayer (as our Author affirms it is when he calls it the Service of the Church ) and the fame Prayer in the fecond Sentence be a Private Prayer, ( as it muft be, or the whole muft be imperti- nent ) ; I lee no way he hath to vindicate himfelf from a plain felf- Contradiction, but todifmifs his Diftin&i- on and his Clerk together. But inftead of doing this, in the next Paragraph he falls bloodily foul upon the poor Minifters of Geneva, for attempting to turn his imaginary Clerk out of his Desk by rendring St. PaiiPs words mofl deceitfully and malicioufly thus ; He that is an pag. 3$, Ideot how /hall he fay Amen ? inftead of he who fupplies the place of an Ideot. A wife Man one would think when he thus lays about him fhould make fbme diftin&ion between his Friends and his Enemies ; but our wife 5 H Au- 714 ^e Tex** examined which fapifls cite Author here deals his blows at random, and makes no diftinction between thofe hated Minifters and his own dear Mafter Bellarmine, but mauls them both together ; for they both agree in the fame Interpre- tation, and are equally guihy of interpreting our dear Clerk out of his Place and Function ; for fo Bellar- Ibid.utfupra. mine tells us, That thofe words of the Jfojt/e, d avoc- 7rAnp2vTOTfTOV7«i2>a>Ts, according to the Greek Phrafio- logy, doth not fignify one that atls for, or infiead of the Ideoty but one that fits in the place of the Jdeot, or is an ldeot, or of the clafs of the Ideots, as St. Chry- fbftom And Theophiladt upon the place, of which he gives feveral Inftances ; and then in the next Para- graph but one he tells us, that in the times of the JpO' files all she People did refpond in the Divine Offices, and that there was no Man conjlituted to refpond for themy for which he quotes the afore-cited Paffage of Juftin J Martyr at thesnd of his fecond Apology.; and then he goes on to fhew that the fame Cuftom was continued for a long while after, both in the Eaftern and Weftern Churches, which he proves unanfwerably from St. Chry fojlonts Liturgy, and from St. Cyprians Sermon on the LordVPrayer, and St. Jeroms Preface to his fecond Book on the Epiftle to the Galatians, to which, if he had thought fit, he might have added feveral other Authorities : all which our Author would have done well to confider before he fell into thofe raving fits againft the Minifters of Geneva, in .which, inftead of correcting them, he only forces them to take up the Primitive Fathers and his own dear Mafter together, and lames them molt unmercifully upon their backs. Well then, after all, it feems this Objection of our Adverfaries is as direct a Contradiction of St. Paul as of us, he tells you that -lie means to exclude praying in air ! for Ttayers in an Unknown Tanguel y'x j all fiich Languages as the Unlearned do not under/tand,and therefore cannot fay Amen to. No,(ay our Adverfaries, by your good leave St. Paul, your meaning is only to exclude praying in fuch Languages as the more learned do not undee- ftand ; fb that it feems they understand St. Paul's meaning better than St. Paul himfelf. But why fhould he mean ta exclude fuch Languages only as the more Learned do not underftand ? Is it becaufe Scholars only are obliged to pray ? This I think is fuch a Reafon as no Chriftian wfll admit. But what other Keafbn can you aflign why Scho- lars fliould underftand the Language of their Prayers, but only this, that thereby they may be the better inabled to pray ? for if they can pray as well without underftanding their Prayers as with it, there can be no imaginable need why either the Learned or Unlearned fhould underftand them, and confequently this provifion of St. Paul for the Learned will be wholly needlefs and impertinent ; but certainly if to underftand the Language of our Prayers be any advantage to us in Prayer, the Unlearned muft have an equal right to it with the Learned, feeing both are equally obliged to pray ; as for the Learned they under- ftand their Prayers as well in the Vulgar as in any Learned Language ; but the Unlearned underftand them only in their own Vulgar ; Why then fhould the Unlearned be excluded from this great advantage of underftanding their Prayers, whenas would the Church but give leave, they might enjoy it in common with the Learned ? But if there were a neceflity of excluding one or the other, I fhould think it much more charitable to exclude the Learned, the other being incomparably the greateft num- ber ; for if the advantage of the Hearers be at all to be regarded in the Service of the Church, then certainly the advantage of the moft Hearers is moft to be regarded. 5 H 2 Thirdly; 7? 6 The Texts examinedwhichVapiftscits Thirdly ; That St. Paul condemns the ufe. of an Un- known Tongue in.Prayer, not becaufe it is Barbarous, but becaufe it is Unknown ; and this his reafoning againft the ufe of it doth all along fhew,. becaufe he that ufes it /peaks'- not to Men, becaufe he doth not edify the Church , becaufe hps under /landing is unfruitful to others, becaufe he doth not teach or inftruct others ; and becaufe others not under/land- ing hint, cannot fay Amen to him. All which, in other words, amounts to no more than this, becaufe the Tongue being Unknown, can convey no Notices of the Speaker's Mind to the Hearers. To what purpofe then do thefe Men talk of barbarous and learned Languages ? whenas if a Man fpeaks in Latin to thofe who underftand not La- tin, he is far from fpeaking to them, teaching and edifying them ; and if he prays in Latin, his Underftanding is as unfruitful to them, and they^ are as far from being able to lay Amen to his Prayer, as if he fpoke and prayed in Ara- bick or Perjick. But Latin is a Language which all Scho- lars underftand. What then ? The Queftion is not, whe- ther fome or all Scholars underftand it, but whether the People underftand it, of whom the Religious AfTemblies do confift ? for if they do not, it is an Unknown Lan- \ guage after all. There were in fome of thofe Corinthian AfTemblies, fuch as could Interpret the Unknown Lan- guages that were fpoke there, and confequently under- ftood them; notwithftanding which St. Paul condemns the ufe of them, becaufe they were unknown to the Peo- ple. We are told indeed, by the fage Author of Prote- ^ jftancy deflitute 0/ Scripture-Proof, that their fixed Forms of Divine Offices, are in a Language the mofi certain, and the mofi intelligible, not only in Chriftendom, but in every Audi- tory, Which if it be true, the Controverfy is at an end,, for we defire no more but to have the Publick Prayers per-?- .fyrmed in fuch a Language as is moft intelligible to every Auditory. for Tracers in an Unknown Tongue^. y ■>? Auditory. But, good Sir, are not your Divine Offices m Latin? And do you ferioufly believe that Englifh is not incomparably better underftood in our Englifh Auditories than Latin ? I am fure if you do, your Faith is of a pecu- liar make from all the World's : But, pray, how is it moiV intelligible? for hitherto this feems to me one of the wildeft Paradoxes that ever was publifhed to the World : why, you muft know it is not intelligible as all other Languages are, by the particular form and articulation of its Words. . No 1 then I dare boldly fay,it is fo intelligible as never any Language was fince the confufion of Langua- ges. But how then, I befeech you ? Why, it is intelligi-* ble to every one, by either Actions, or Ceremonies, or Circitm- ftances, Sec. I confefs for fuch an Action, to fpeak fb or fb, or that this or that is the Language of fuch a Ceremo- r ny or Circumftance, are figurative Expreffions, common enough in- molt Languages ; but for a Language, to fpeak, or to be intelligible by Actions or Ceremonies, is fuch a Scheem of Speech, as no Figure will warrant that I ever yet heard of, unlefs it be the Figure Blunder; we will allow your Actions, your Ceremonies and Circum- ftances to be very fignificant, and their fignifications to be - very intelligible : But pray what is this to your Language? A French Shrug, or an Italian Grimafe may be intelligible' enough to a Man that underfrands not one word ei-j ther of French or Italian; and fomay the Cringings, and Bowings, and Proftrationsof a Mafs-Prieft be to the Peo- • ple,tho they underftand not one word- of all the Latin Ser-* vice he recites to tjiem ; but frill, if they underftand not the Language, it is in St. PauCs fenfe unknown to them,' how well foever they underftand the Ceremonies ; and for my Life, I cannot fee how the Intelligibility of the Acti- - ons &: Ceremonies of their Prayers mould excufe their ex-- preflingthem in unintelligible words:For to what end ferva . thefec 73 & Tfye Texts examined which Tdpifts cite thefe intelligible A&ions and Ceremonies, unlefs it be to inftruft the People ? and in what are they to inftrud them, but in the "Prayers and Divine Offices to which they apper- tain? And if it be needful that the People fhould be in- truded in the Prayers, (as it muft be, or thefe Aftions and Ceremonies muft be needlefs) I would fain know which is the more likely way to inftrucl: them, whether by dumb Signs and Shews, or by intelligible Words,or whether the People would not better understand the Prayers by hearing them pronounc'd or read in their own Language, than by feeing a Prieft perform the raoft Significant Actions or Ce- remonies of Prayer? and if they would, pray how doth your ufmg the leaft effectual means to inftrucl: the People, excufe your wilful neglect of the moft effectual means ? fo that in.all this Pretence, there is nothing but perfect fhuf- ling. The Queftion between you and us is, Whether the People underftand the Language of your Prayers ? for if they do not, it is Unknown to them, and under that No- tion is condemned by St. Paul : Some of the People, you fay, do underftand it, that is, one in 500 perhaps under- ftand it ; and fo many it's probable of the Corinthian Peo- ple underftood Arabick and Perfick : or fuppofe it were but one in a thoufand, the Cafe is ftillthe lame ; if the gene- rality of the People are the People : and the generality of our People do no more underftand Latin, than the genera- lity of the Corinthians did Arabick or Perfick , the one as-, well as the other muft be an Unknown Tongue to the Peo- ple ; and if it be fo, I fee no way you have, after all your tricking, fhufling, and doubling, to juftiiy your Latin Ser- vice, but by appealing from St. Pants Authority. Fourthly , and laftly ; That fuppofing the People did un- derftand Latin when they hear it, yet this will not at all excufe their muttering their Latin Prayers in fb low a Voice that the People cannot hear them. The Reprefenter tells for Trayers in an Unknown Tongue. y * « tells us, That // their Prayers were in their Mother-Tongue, he fbould receive but little advantage by itjbecaufe thfgreatefi fart is [aid in Co low a.Voicey that it is not pojjible he (hould hear it. And it this be true,I am fully of his Mind,becaufe words which he doth not hear, can doubtlefs fignify no more to him than words which he doth not underftand : but this is only excufing one Fault by another ; for if it be a Fault to perform the Publick Prayers in an Unknown Tongue, it is doubtlefs as great a Fault to perform them in an Unheard "Tongue, feeing what is unheard muft be un- known : But why do they mutter them in fo low a Voice, contrary to the current fenfe and practice of the Primitive Church ? I confefs, if the Language of them be unknown to the People, ( as I doubt it is) it is no great matter how low the Voice is in which they are pronounc'd;for to what End fhouid the People hear that which they cannot under- ftand ? But if they do underftand a Latin Prayer when they hear it, (as fome of their bolder fort of Authors would fain infinuate they do) I am fure they do not underftand it when they hear it not : An Unknown Language in Publick Prayer is forbid, becaufe it hinders the People from un= derftanding the Prayers ; and in my Opinion it is as hard for the People to underftand the Prayers in a Known Lan- guage when they do not hear it, as in an Unknown Lan- guage when they do hear it ; but if they can underftand it, notwithftanding they neither know the Language, nor hear the words of it, truly they are much greater Con- jurers than ever I tpok them for. And thus, I think, I have returned a full Anfwer to all the Cavils of our Adverfaries, the very beft of which are lb very thin and tranfparent, that if I might advife them, they mould tamper no. more with i Cor. 14. And feeing there is no perfwading St. FauL, either by fair means . or foul to be reconciled to their Practice, even to let him alone. -?4° The Texts examined which Qapifts cite alone for the future to abound in his own Senle ; and this fome of their own Authors have judged the moft advifa- ble courfe, who having tried all manner of Artifice to vex and torture the Text into acompliancewith their Church's Service, and all to no purpofe, were at laft forced to betake vid. Hoft- themfelves to this Resolution, That the Church doth not at rneift. in i au 0jfena\ in departing from this Institution of St. Paul, it be- 272'. *ng left free to the Churchy not only to violate this Institution of St. Paul, but alfo the Infittutions of God, himfelf ffuppofwg it to have been once prof table to the Churchy but now to be un- profitable. And this I confefs is a full Catholick Anfwer, not only to what St. Paul, but alio to what God himfelf liath laid or can lay: but before they attribute to their Church fuch an exorbitant Authority over the Word of God, it concerns them to beware, left while they feek to evade St. Paul's Authority, they verify his Prophecy in 2 Thejf. 2. ?, 4. where he tells us that the Day of Chiift /ball not come except there come a falling away fir (I, and the Man of Sin be revealed, the Son of Perdition : who oppofeth and exalt- €th himfelf above all that is called God, or that is worfhip- ped ; fo that he as God fitteth in the Temple of God, (hewing himfelf that he is God. THE END. ERRATA. I Age 7 1 o. I. 4. inftead of for, read of. Ibid, for would, r. could. P. 725. 1. 1 1. read '{%*v. Ibid, read yvcb/wiv. LONDON, Printed by J. V. for'' Richard Chifwel at the Rofe and Crown in St. Paul's Church-Yard, 1688. h iro.: ( 74i ) The Texts examined which Papiftr cite out of the Bible for the Proof of their Dodtrine CONCERNING The Celibacy of Priefly, and Vows of Continence. PART I. IMPRIMATUR. Ottob. i\. Hen. Wharton, Rm- in Chrijio P. ac 1688. D. D. Wilhelmo Archiep. Cantmr. a Sacris Domejl. THERE is nothing more fpecious in the Church of Rome, and carries a greater fhew of more than ordinary Purity and Self-denial , than their profefTed Celibacy and Virginity, and the vowed Continency of their Priefts and others ; this feems a very high degree of Mortification and Abftinence from the allowed Pleafures of Senfe, and from all low and carnal Enjoyments, and fuch an over- coming the ftrongefr, but the moft mean and brutifli PafTions and Inclinations of our Bodies, that it has all the 5 I appearance 1 74 i ^e Texts exatnmed which faftjls eke appearance of an Angelical Perfection, of a more lin- gular and exalted Sanctity than what is common to moft Men ; and fo helps to beget anion gft fome People a great -efteem and veneration, of thole who thus arTecfc and pretend to a more feemingly fevere and more fpiri- tual way of living ; but the unhappinefs is, that thofe who have been the moft remarkable for thefe affected Abftinences, Mortifications, and Self-denials, above other common Chriftians, have been generally Men of no greater Vertue or Religion than others, but only have had fbmething more in them, either of Superfti- on, or Defign, or both. The Hereticks of the firft Ages who lie under as bad a Character for vilenefs and lewdnefs as any Perfons whatever, yet were great pre- tenders to fome thing of this Nature ; the Gnofticks in the beginning condemned Marriage, and abflained from Flejh, that under thefe Pretenfions, as Efiphanius fays, ^ . , they might draw others into their Snares*. The Ebio~ Ha;ren23.' nites, and Encratitesy and Aquarii that fpawned from them, carefully abfiained from all Flejh, and were every day baptized, and celebrated the Eucharifi only in Water , 4 id f for fear °f being defied with the tafle of Wine \. And thofe who were the moft famous for thofe extra- ordinary Severities, fuch as Marciony Montana, and Manicbaus, were the greateft Pefts and Difturbers that the Church ever had ; and generally they that are Co much for overdoing and bringing m fome imaginary Perfections, beyond what God has required of them,., and raifing and refining Chriftianity, above that low and ordinary State which Chrift left it in, by fome fin- gular and peculiar Improvements of their own, thefe are very unfortunate, and do always mifcarry in their new Projects and Deflgns, whereby they would make themfelves wifer than God, and mend and improve his | JQ. for Celibacy of (Priefls) and Vows of Continence*. 74 1 Laws, by Tome higher Perfections than he requires, or calls for ; but they betray great Ignorance and great Su- perftition,anddo not truly understand either the Nature of God, or of Venue and Religion, who think there is any great Matter in allthefe forced Severities,and unna- tural Abitinencies from what is innocent, and lawful, and allowable',and that thefe are any way good in them- ielves, or higher degrees of Perfection ; or that they are a proper Means, either to merit of God, or to procure his Favour, or recommend us the more to him ; or that it is any way evil and unlaw'ful,or lefs pure and perfect, to ufe thofe natural, and free, and innocent Liber- ties and Enjoyments which God has no where forbid- den and reftrained us from, and which are not in them* felves either matter of Vice or Vertue. The Falfe-teachers in the Apoftles Time, firft letup fuch Severities and Abltinences, efpecially from Meats and Marriage, with a touch not, tafte not, h.indk not : And they were apt thereby to cheat the World, and delude weak and unwary People with a falfe Opinion of their greater Sanctity. Thefe things had a jherv of Wifdom, as the Apoftle fays, Colof.2. 22. and neglecting ov\ ^ v^ the Body, without any regard to the Flejb for its fatif- w/ *?&; faftion. Thefe mortified Saints feemed to be above the f™^ Body, and to have very little care or concern tor it ; but yet the Apoftles fpeak againft them as the very worft of Men, and the greatejt Seducers, and as preaching the Doctrine of Devils : How far they are guilty of this, who cenfufe the Marriage of the Cler- gy as Carnal and Impure, and therefore unbecoming the Sacred Office and Employment, I (hall confider more fully afterwards : I premile this, to take off any fuch foolifh Prejudice and Miftake which is got into the Heads of fome weak and fuperftitious admirers 5 I 2 of 744 Tlie Texts examined which Tapifts cite of Celibacy and Virginity, who neither confider the Nature of Things, nor the Nature of the Gofpel and Chriftianity, fo wifely and fully as they ought to do; for the one of thefe makes it fometimes abfolutdy necefla- ry for the Priefts to marry ; and the other does fo p!ai«- ly allow and approve it, that I wonder our Adverfaries fhould ever attempt to bring any thing a gain ft it out of the Bible. The Priefts of the Old Teftament, un- der which God required fome peculiar Purities of Bo- dy, were all married, and their Marriage was neceflary to the very being of their Church, and a thoufand times more fo than Infallibility is now : For had any of their Enemies defigned to deftroy their Succeflion, the taking the prefent Method of the Roman Church, and forbidding the Priefts to marry, had effectually done it ; Marriage was as neceflary then to preferve the Church, as it was to people the World. And before that, in the Time of the Patriarchs, the Elder Son, who was the Head of the Family, and was to keep it up, was a Prieft : And all the Men that are now in the World, derive their Rife and Original from a Prieft, who both facrificed, and was a Preacher of Righteoufhefs. As to the New Teftament, there is not any Altera- tion made by our Blefled Saviour nor his Apoftles in this Matter ; which there ought to have been very ex- prefly, had any fuch thing been intended or defigned by them. But though a new Order of Priefts is there let up, who were not to beget and to propagate their own Order as the Jewifh were; yet their having Wives and Children is particularly mentioned, not as neceflary, but as allowable in their Characters and Qualifications ; (b that were not our Adverfaries Men of Courage and Refolution, that can face a Canon*s Mouth, for Cdibacy of Triefa, and rows of Continence. 74 j Mouth, and run up to it though it thunder never Co loudly, and be levelled never fbdireftly againft them, they would never offer to meddle with Scripture, and to turn that againft PriefVs Marriage which every where fpeaks for it, and exprefly ailows it ; but they refbl veto try to make good their own vile Character and abule of Scripture, that it is a Nofe of Wax that may be wound any way as one pleafes ; and that cne may prove any thing whatever by it,and make it [peak even Contradictions. Hobbs I remember, and Spino- za, do very often quote Scripture for- fome of their Principles againft the Truths or Religion, as Milton does for Divorce, and Ocbintts for Polygamy : And all thefe may with as much Reafon 'make life of it for to juftify their Opinions, as the Papifts produce it againft Prieft's Marriage. How Scripture can be brought off to plead againft it felf, and to condemn a Bifhop, a Prieft, or a Deacon's having a Wife, when it fays of every one of them, Let them be the Husbands of one Wifey is hard to imagine, unlefs our Roman Adverfaries can by their Infallible Power of interpreting Scripture, make one Wife in all thofe places to figniry no Wife at all ; ; far according to our Heretical way of underftanding the Scripture by our own private Spirit and Judgment, or as they call it, Fancy, it muft have another mean- Father Mumford the Jefuit,in his Catholic!; Script»rijt\ brings that very place of 1 Tim. 3. 2. thus tranflated according to them, It behooveth therefore a Btfoop to be the Husband of one Wife. To prove the fingle Life of Prieffs ; It will require,fure, great Art to improve it to that purpofe ; but thus he does it ; * In the hrft Birth of' ' Chriftianity, Virginity was fo rare, both among Jews 'and Gentiles } that ft was not poffible to find Men en- * 'dued s 7^7 *fi>e ^*tJ examined which Tapifls cite 1 dued therewith, who were both of fufficient maturity ' in Years and Know ledg, &c. as is requifite in Bilhops ' andPrieftV, yet even then the Apoftles would have ' this at lead: obferved, that no Man who married a fe- 1 cond. Wife, fhould be made a Bifhop, no noraDea- ' con, nor Prieft. And therefore ever after none of thole fhould beany Husband, or have any Wife at all; that fhould have been put in to make up the Argu- ment, they fljould now be the Husband of one Wifey hereafter of none, which the Apoftle could eafily have added, had he defigned any fuch thing as the Jefuit would have him. Since we are fallen upon this place, and they at- tack us even in our own ftrong Hold, I will firft make good this, and fome other places againft them for Priefts Marriage, and then examine what they can pick up or bring againft it. But this is fuch an impregna- ble Defence for us, that none of their little Attempts up- on it can ever fhake or move it. For can any thing in the World be plainer,for God's allowing and approving of the Marriage of the Clergy, than thofe Rules and Directions of St. Paul ', A Bijhop mufi be blamelefs, the i Tim.3. 2, 4. Husband of one Wife having his Children in fubjetfton with all gravity '-, and ;/ any be blamelefs, the Husband Tit. i. 6. of one Wife, having faithful Children, he was fit to be ordained an Elder. And fo, Let the Deacons be the 1 Tim. 3. 1 3. Husbands of one Wife, ruling their Children and their 11 own Houfes well — and even fo mufl their Wives be grave, &c. How contrary are thefe to the quite diffe- rent Qualifications now required in the Church of Rome jthsit they vow Continence, and profefs Virginity, and have neither Wife nor Children. And what can be (aid to fuch plain places as thefe are ? Why, Father Mumford hath told us, That it was the great rarity and difficulty for Celibacy of {Priefts> and Vow, of Continence. j \6 difficulty of finding fuch as profefs'd Virginity in the beginning of Chriftianity, who were fit to be Or- dained, that was the Reafon of this allowance : and I believe this will be a lafting Reafon for it, that it will not be poffible to find a fufficient number of Men to difcharge the Sacred Office, who will profefs, and let me add, keep thofe Vows of Virginity. But how does he know that this was but a temporary Allow- ance ? Does the Apoftle give any. fuch intimation by his words ? And may we not as well fuppofe, from any thing we find in them, that the other Rules and Di- rections about a Bifbop's being given to Hofpitality, not given to Wine, no firiker, not greedy of jilt by Lu- cre, were but temporary too ? Yet even then, fays he, the Apoflles would have this at leafl obferved, That no Man who married a fecond Wife, foould be made a BJ/fjop, or a Deacon, or Priefi. Well, although the allowance of a firft Wife be quite different from allowing none, yet why not a fecond fbmetimes ? when there may be the very fame Reafons for that as for the firft ; and the Confiderations of not burning, and avoiding Fornica- tion, may as much juftify and oblige to'tlie taking a fecond Wife as a firft : A Bifhop, a Prieft, or a Deacon, were to be the Husbands but of one Wife, but why may not that mean but of one Wife at once, and not one Wife in all ? Why, "'tis otherwife under flood by the Councils and Fathers unanimoti(ly : And Father Mumford is fworn, we know, to interpret the Scripture according to the unanimous Content of the Fathers. But has he confulted Theodoret upon the place, who is *«$'£=/W- exprefly againft him, and lavs, The Jpofile has not V?', U^ herein rejected jecond Marriages, which he often com- -mx\dyM rr-v wands *. But it was the Cttjlom of the Greeks and y*tewufe»~ Jews to have many Wives at the fame time ', and they inioc- ' ufed. . 74 8 T/tf Texts tXJmined which Tapijls cite Vifcd to divorce and put away their Wives, for flight Oc- cafions, and to marry another ; which was not a thing of fo good Fame and Credit, though it were allowed by the Laws,that he fhquld he made a Bifhop who had done , <., c v \' '*! ; v fo: For if be put away bis former Wife, and €«v onjsJ^i, vd& iw&CJyi P*» biwjelf to another, he is worthy of <^4ett« d-toi x} t&my>ei(H w- reprehenfion, andliable to blame ', but not fb, **f;©-f * f& fignify only Woman a- gain, we think would be a great Tautology, and there- fore it ought to be tranflated Wife : and we are con- firmed in this, becaufe tho other Women did alfb attend and accompany the Apoftles in their Travels, and were ufeful to them on fome- Religious Accounts,- yet fince we know de facto that moft of the Apoftles had Wives, all of them, fay the Fathers, except St. John and St. Paul, tho Ignatius *, and Clemens Alexandrinus f ex- * r8nar- EPift- prefly affirm, that St. Paul himfclf was married, (tho f ck^mt not when he wrote this Epiftle) it is not likely, nor lexand. stro- would it have been fo credible to have left their own mat' 3* Wives, and without them to have carried other Women about with them : fb that with our Jefiiit's good leave we cannot think our Translation of this place to be a foul Corruption, but rather theirs to be a great Imper- tinence. I might give in thofe other places of Scripture, It is better to marry than to burn ; and, to avoid Fornication, let every Man have his own Wife, as Evidences to juftify the Marriage of the Clergy, fince they belong to them as much as to any other, unlefs God made them of fuch cold Complexions that burning could not belong to 5 K 2 them, 75* *The Texts examined which Tapifts cite them, or their Character were to enfure them from the4' natural Burnings of Concupifcence, and there was no danger of their ever falling into Fornication, which the Church of Rome has fhamefully difproved ; and therefore they under fuch Circumftances are as much obliged to marry as the reft of Mankind, and perhaps fomething more, fince the Scandal and Mif- chief which arifes to Religion by their failings,, for want of that due Remedy which God has provided, is much greater than in any others. But I fhall more lar^ely^confider, and more fully prefs thofe places upon them, as that alfo of the Apoftle, i Tim. 3. 4. who calls the forbidding of Marriage the Doctrine of De- vils when I ccme to examine their Vows of Conti- nence. But I account thofe clear places of St. Paul about a B'fhop, a Presbyter, and a Deacon, their" being the Husbands of one Wife, fuch a Demonftration for the Marriage of the Clergy from Scripture, that as no- thin^ need to be added to them, fo 'tis the higheft Impudence to bring any thing againft them 5 and before I proceed to a particular Examination of what is cited by thern to that purpofe, I fliall make thefe two Getfaral Remarks and Obfervaticns upoii them. Ytrfjk ; That no good Reafons can be brought out of Scripture againft that which the Scripture fo exprefly allows and approves; for it mu ft be a high Reflection upon Scripture and the Author of it, to make it thus oppofe and contradict it felf: Whatever our Ad verfa- ries produce out of Scripture againft Pi-iefts Marriage, for Celibacy ofTritflsy and Vows of Continence, y 5 j is to fhow either the Inconvenience or Unfitnefs and Undecency of it ; now it is very ftrange that God " fhould approve of that which at the fame time is char- ged by him to be either undecent or inconvenient, as it mull: be acknowledged to be very arrogant and af- fuming for any Church to judg better of thofe tilings than God himfelf, and to condemn that as unfit which he allows, fo to make him himfelf condemn it is much worfe, and a down-right charging him with the folly of making a Law, and at the fame time owning it to be unreafonable. Secondly ', If the Scripture were againft Priefts Mar- riage, then why are our Ad verfaries generally fb mo. deft, which the Counc il of Trent it felf feems alfo to be *, as to make Celibacy to be annexed to Holy Or- *Nonobftame ders only by Ecclefiaitical Right, and not by that mdcanon.p". which ii 'Divine or Apoftolical ? this feems to be a de Sacram. plain Confeflion that Scripture has nowhere declared ^"m" againft it, and therefore to what purpofe do they pro- duce any thing out of it ? fince if there were any po- fitive Divine Law then againft it, the Church, as they own, could not difpenfe with it as it has ofcen done, and as it now permits the Greek Priefts, who are a- mongft them, the ufeof their Wives; and if any fiich Reafbns could be brought againft it from thence, as are founded in Nature, and refuk from any intriniick Evil, or Turpitude in the thing it felf, or a proper unagree- ablenefs between that and the Sacred Function, which moft of their Arguments drive at, then it would be a natural and indifpenfable Law ; I ask therefore, to what purpofe. they bring places out of Scripture for that, which is acknowledged to be only of Lcclefiafti- cai --r 5 4 The Texts examined which Paftfls cite cal Inftitution? Bellarmine owns, there is no tyecept in DcClcr.l. i. all the Scripture againjl Priejls Marriage, which it is C-I?* Arrange there fhould not be if it were either (b incon- venient, or fo indecent as they make it, and how then lie could lay Celibacy upon an Apoftolical Precept, without contradicting himfelf, as well as the Apbftle Paul, in thofe places I have mentioned, wherein the Apoftle is (b far from giving any fuch Precept, that he allows the quite contrary, I cannot underftand. But let us hear what they can bring out of Scripture: for what they own, the Scripture nowhere commands, the Clergy's Celibacy. The firft place brought by BelUrmine, tho omitted by Mumford, (fori am for ke'eping to my two Men in this matter, to the one becaufe fo learned, and the other becaufe fo late) is that of Titus 1.8. A Bijhop ■muft be fober, jufi, holy, temperate, which they tranflate continent iyu.&Tiiy and ib indeed it does fignify the one as well as the other, and they both mean the fame thing, to wit, governing a Man's felf as to his bodily PafTions and Inclinations, fo as to abftain from what- ever is finful and unlawful ; and cwcppova, which both we and they tranflate fober, may, if Bellarmine pleafes, fignify chajl; but then this Chaftity and this Conti- nence belongs as well to the Married State as to Ce- libacy, for elfe the Apoftle would not have required thofe two Vertues in one that he juft before called the Husband of one Wife, this plainly fhows that true Con- tinence and true Chaftity,' fuch as God requires as a Chriftian Vertue, and will reward as fuch, and fuch as the Apoftle makes a Qualification of a Bifhop, is as truly confiftent with a married as an unmarried State : for for Celibacy of Trie/is, and Vows of Continence. ?<< for St. Peter commands iya^Tetx to all Chriftians as well as St. Paul to Bifhops, 2 Pet. 1. 6. and that fare was not a total containing from their own Wives, or other lawful Enjoyments : 'Tisboth a ftingy,unnatural, and unfcriptural Notion to make thofe Vertues He ra- ther in a precife Abfrinence from what God has left free, and what is agreeable to our prefent ftate and to the good of the World, than in that which is a true Foundation for Vice or Vertue, obferving a Divine Law, and abftaining from what is thereby made finful and unlawful ; every thing elfe is left indifferent, and is like a Common lying between Vice and Vertue, that belongs to neither of them, but is open and free to every Man's choice and liberty, and is good or bad only by accident, as it happens to be a means or inftrument to promote the one or the other, and is accordingly to be made ufe of by our own Prudence ; he that abffains from a lawful Pleafure is not to be counted vertuous for that, for there is no Law which makes it be fb, and without a Law, as there can be no Sin, fo there can be no Vertue, but as this Abfrinence from what is lawful is a means to prefervc him from what is unlawful, 10 it is an occafion or a help to Vertue, and that is all. It has been the ground of mighty .Superftition, as I fhewed it was in the old Hereticks, and of a foolifli conceit of Merit and Supererrogation to think it to be a great and extraordinary Vertue to do what God had not commanded, and to abftain from what he had not forbidden ; which, how it can be (b without a relation to a Divine Law, I do not fee, fince that is the only Rule of our Actions, which makes them. either good or evil : but this is by the by, to fettle a right Notion of Moral Vertue, rare want of which, is the caufe of moft Superftition, and the Trp&rov v^u^s of that im- moderate.. 1 7 5 ^ Tl)e Texts examined which Tapifts cite moderate admiration of Virginity, and of that con- tempt and reproach of Marriage, which got very ear- ly into fome weak, tho devout and well-meaning Heads, who neither' underftood Nature and Philofb- phy, nor had any true and Manly Thoughts of Reli- gion, but who, in the ApofHe's Character, hadaXeal, but not according to knowledg ; and tho this Humour got too fbon into the Church, or at leaft into a great parry in it, yet the Hereticks were the firft and original Au- thors of it. The fecond place cited by our Adversaries againft Priefts Marriage, is that of 2 Tim. 2.4. No Mm that ivarreth, entangleth him f elf with the Affairs of this Life, that he may pleafe him who hath chofen him to be a Sotddier : From whence they infer, that Clergy -men fhould not entangle themlelves in Secular BufineiTes and Worldly Affairs, fuch as Marriage will certainly engage them in : but there are Ibme Clergy-men, I am afraid, who are net married, who do as much and a great deal more entangle themfelves in Secular Bufi- neffes and Worldly Affairs than thofe who are, who are for governing the World, and managing the Affairs of States and Kingdoms, and carrying on Secular and Politick Intrigues where-ever they come; which are much more unagreeable and contrary to the Sacred Function, and do more involve them in Worldly Con- cerns, than Marriage, or the Care of a Family ; where a (•lergy-man by committing thofe leffer Concerns to the Care of a Wife, may be in great meafure helped, and be more at leifure for the Duties of his Function ; however 'tis not intangling ones felf in the Affairs of this Life, ib far as a moderate and prudent Care of a Wife for Qlihacy of Triefts, and. Vows of Continence ; 757 Wife and Family may oblige one to, which is here forbid by all the Apoftle, for he would then forbid it to all Chriftians as well as Clergy-men ; for not only Timo- thy, but all Chriftians in general, are all the Souldiers of Chrift, who ought not lb to entangle themfelves in the Affairs of this Life as. not to inind Religion, and the fax greater ones of another ; and this is all that feems here forbidden. The Apoftle indeed in another place fays, Hethat isunmarr&AtAretb for the things of the Lord, how he may fleafe the Lord ; but he that is married, carethfor the things that are of the World, how he maypkafehis Wife, 1 Cor. 7. 32, 33. and this they bring alio againft the Marriage of Priefts, -but if it proves any ivine EiTence, by its preience in all places ; 'tis only fuch Thoughts of the Mind, or Acts of the Will, which are contrary to a Moral or Divine Law that defile the Man, as our Sa- *Mat.i$.i8. viour declares in a like Cafe *, againft that Pharisaical Fancy and Opinion, that fome outward uncleannefs of the Body did fb. He who acts with his Body, or con- fents with his Mind and Thoughts to what God difal- lowsand fflrbids, he defiles himfelf with a Sin, which is the only Defilement the Soul is capable of, and with- out that to fijppofe it to be defiled by a bodily Pollu- tion, is to deftroy Morality, and to make any fuch Pollution unfit, or unqualify a Man for the Offices of Religion, is to bring theJRituals of Judaifm intQ.Chri- ftianity : and yet this Is, and always has been, the ftrongeft Prejudice againii Priefts Marriage, and the whimfical Foundation of their Celibacy and Virginity, as having in it a greater Purity both of Soul and Body. But I hope what I have (aid, may help to let our Thoughts right as to that Matter ; I proceed to exa- mine thofe places of Scripture which they bring to countenance any faeh charge. The for Qelibacy of friefts, and Vowi of Qonttmnce. j 6 Thcfirft is that of i Cor. 7. f his Office were expired, he (Z^charias the Prieft ) departed unto his tiaufe, and af- ter- y6i the Texts examined which Tafifls cite ter thefe days his Wife conceived. Our Vriejls of the New Law being to offer daily Sacrifice, are daily to obferve Vir- ginal Purity. Now here I would ask' our Jefuit, where he finds any fuch Order or Command of God in the Jewifh Law, that the Priefts fhould be feparated from their Wives during the performance of their Office in the Temple? There was a Command given to Aaron and his Sons, Levit. 20. 9. That they Jhould not drink Wine nor ftrong Drink, when they went into the Tabernacle of the Congregation ', And this was to be a Statate for ever throughout their Generations , that they might put diffe- rence between Holy and Vnholy, and between TJntlein and Clean ', and that they might teach the Children of Ifrael all the Statutes which the Lord had fpoken unto them by the Hand of Mofes. And there were a great many legal Pollutions which made them unclean ; fb that whilft under them they were not to Sacrifice, not to eat of the Holy Things, Levit. 22, 3,4, 5. as being a Leper, or having a Running IfTue, or touching any thing that is unclean by the Dead, or touching any creeping thing whereby he may be made unclean j but among all thole which are particularly and punctually reckoned up, there is no mention of any conjugal Uncleannefs, nor were the Priefts.any where commanded, even by the Jewifh Law, which made fb many ritual Unclean- neffes for peculiar Reafbns proper to their grofs Con- ceptions, and their childifh State, to ^bftain from their Wives, or the A&s of Marriage, during the time of exercifing their Sacred Fun&ion. So that as to the" Prieft's miniftring in the Tabernacle and Temple, by' fuch jor Legacy of >f*- up to minifter in his Courfe, for S , he" he came ^ •• ?»• obliged, by any Law, to be fafe not "all Time nor to be feparated from iK^ " that their Courfes of Miniftration Xh „ Unng thefe ted tiil about four hundred YearTafter Mr notaPP°m- ■vtf, for greater Order anH o! • ^> when O* the Prieftf into fom nv Qaffe S^' diftributed the Tabernacle by turns fo tL ™ r^10 attend « be alledged of any fuch Abfence „r /^- Prete"«can nor did Dm>d make any ft T n^*"* bef°re ; when he fetled this new rL? °'deror Provifion «Ch™.J4, Nor is the Inft ^^^1°" °f the Priefts' purpofe, than of a King' Tchariain Ju™ r e t0 th* Country, leaving his Wift ffff j *ho Jives •" the AttendanceTcfur t; ™d vST! *£ mont% much ftorter, to wit 'o^vlntys Z » -Wa* muft be pick'd up to make a few of I • UCh thin& purpofe, but only to alfome r n Th Scripture to no Name 0f iCathollkS^t whW I* 1* "ew furdandidkulousinthe^r^wh^ , ftM M(P//^.- Butever^onemavChrifl-Pn iT- Roman Qa- Addttion, yet I ,J g0 on ^S^f «- managed 764 Freterea in Veceri Teftamcnti contitfcntiam ah uxoribus vide- mus in primis flfifle j-equifitam in iis qui Deo pFqpinquaturi, vcl rem aliquam fanftam craftacuri eranc. Nam Exod. 12. prsci- pitur ut comefluri Agnum Pafclia- lam rcnes fuos -fiecingerent:, quo fignificabatur— debcre eos oarnis voluptacem edomare qui Agmim Pafchalem comedunt. Beltam.de Cler. 1. 1. c. ij>. Tt?e Texts examined which tpapifts cite managed by others : And taene Mar* mine tells us, That in the Old Testament, Continence from Wives was effeciaHy re- quired in tbofe who were drawing nigh to God, or handling any Sacred Matter, as tbofe who. were to cat the Pafchal Lamb, were to:havt their Lows. girt \ whereby was ftgnified $bnt they ought to tame all Carnal P'kofttre. .Now of all Arguments, and of all places of Scripture, tliefe Myftical and Allegorical Ones are the molt unan- swerable^ for 'had foe gone on with the Allegory about purging their Houfes from Leaven, and made that to fignify putting away their Wives at that Time, it would, in my Mind, have done full as well, .and the one would have anfwered the other, and was as much intended by it, as by eating with the Loins girt, ithe iiibduing Carnal Pleafure, or .abstaining from their Wives, when another -plain tReafon of tfeat is added, They were to eat it 4n -haft*, verf n» as they came out of Egypt. But when a Man's JPancy is fet upon Alle- gorizing, which in Engliih is going a Woolgathering, even the Prieft's Breeches which theywereicommanded to wear ^when they .miniftred at the Altar, Exod. 28. 42. thefe (hall be rmade a Symbolical Argument,that Priefts now Qiould haVte .no Wives, as they are by the great Cardinal, becaufe, forfooth, thefe Breeches were to reach from the Loins to the Thighs. When his Hand was thus in at Wit and Fancy, he had even m good have undertaken to prove, that the Priefts mud: necefTa- Item Exod. a&. prscdplt "Deus uc Aaron & filii ejus cum ingre- derentur tabernacuium fcemina- Hbus lineis a renibus ufq-, ad fe- mora tc&i efTent quo figniflcarum eife deberc Sacerdotes Novj Te- ftamenti aut Virgines effe, auc eontrafta cum uxoribus fcedera diifolviife. Jo. for Celibacy of frieflsy arid Vows of Continence! 76* neceffarily be without their Wives at that time, becaufe they themfelves then wore the Breeches. But let us leave thefe Allegories, which are, I fuppofe, to make us more merry than wife in this Matter ; though Bet- Urmine produces them very gravely, and brings very grave Authorities for them, which I will not injure io much, as to examine them. Allegories in a Contro- verfy may be fpared and let alone, as Women and Chil- dren in a War, becaufe there is no ftrength nor no danger in them. But there are two plain places, and Matters of Fact produced to prove this : The one is that of Abimelech's refilling to give the Holy Bread to David and his Ser- vants, unlefs they had kept themfelves from Women, 1 Sam. 21.4. Now would they prove from hence, that the Priefrs who are to eat the Holy Bread under the Gofpel, namely the Eucharift> are therefore to keep themfelves from Women ? This will not do, though the Shew-bread were a Type of the Eucbarifi ', for the Priefts themfelves, to whom alone and their Families it belonged, according to the Law, to eat this Holy Bread, were not obliged to keep themfelves from their Wives in order to it ; for they were to eat it, I fuppofe, every day, their Wives and Children were to eat it with them, and there was no fuch Command in their Law, that they fhowld contain from their Wives when they ate it ; but by this Example ufed to this purpofe, rather Lay-men, fuch as David and his Young-men were, are to keep themfelves from Women upon that occafion than the Priefts. But the Truth is, Abimelech here, in an extraordinary and unufual Cafe, when he gave the Holy Bread to thofe to whom it did 5 M not j 66 The Texts examined which Tdpifts ate not belong by the Law, would make up this, by re- quiring a more than ordinary legal Purity ; or at Ieaft he fpoke thofe words with fbme fuch defiga, If the young Men have kept themfelves at leaft from Women-* Bat I dare fay, Without any the remoteft meaning againft Priells Marriage, or total abftaining from their Wives. The other is that of the Peoples not coming, at their Wives for three days, when they were fanfti- fyi'ng themfelves to receive the Law at Mount Si- nai, Exod. 19. 15. But if this proves any thing, it proves, that the People as well as the Prielts are to contain from their Wives, upon extraordinary approaches to God, for here is nothing peculiar to the one more than to the other ; and when God fhall be pleafed to come down in fo miraculous,, and dreadful, and fenfible a manner, as he did. at Mount Sinai,, we ought to meet him with all thai- purity of Soul' and Body which he requires. Unden the Law he required them to be free, from legal and ritual. Pollutions ; and therefore wafhing their Clothes was as much required here, as aot ccijiiiag, to their Wives ; but under the Gofpel nothing, is* required,, when we draw nigh to God, but rnorai Purity, that is,, a right drfipofition of Mind, a. free- dom from Sin both in Soul and' Body ; for that is the only Pollution that defiles a Man under the Go- fpel, and without that nothing, can, any more imbz us unclean before- God,, than wafhing, with Water can make us clean again, as it did among the J-ems,* The truth is,, all' that fancy of greater Purity ia any fuch. AbCKnences, and of Pollution in the A£Esof Mar- riage, is not' ing^dle hut rank.Judaifm \ and iufteadiof a true Chriftian and Moral Eprity, 'tis a bringing us bade for Celibacy of friefts, and Vows of Qonx'mence. ?6j back to that which was purely Ritual and Cerunom il, and a letting up the Jewifh State and Oeconomy, which fiood only m Meats and Drinks, and divers Wrings , -and Heb.9. 10. Carnal Ordinances mifofed on -thc-m until the time of Re- formation ; wherein many fuch things were required as were mfmciify as to the purifying of the Flejb, tho as pertaining to the Confcience they lignify nothing ; but 'as not a carnal and external, but -an inward, and fpiri- tual, and moral Purity^ by which God will now be fancJified in ail them that draw nigh imto him ; and the Priefts are thus with David to wafh their Hands in In- xocencyy md fo to compafs the Altar ; and if with a grofs and Jewifh, and Unphilofophical Conceit we make any- mere bodiry Pollution to hinder them, or render it lefs fit 04' decent for them to perform the moft facred parts of their Office, we may as well bring in all the Jewifh Ufldeannelfes, of touching a Dead Body, or a creeping thing, or any other Perfon that is thus unclean, and the like ; and J can lee flo more reafbn why Priefts upon any fuch fcore of a fancied Impurity fhould be kept from marrying, or a lawful ufe of it by reafbn of their facred Function and Office, any more than that upon the fame account they fhould be prohibited to make an Iffue, or to take Phyfick. There is a natural Shame indeed attends thole -and other Adls of Nature, and therefore fhe always draws the Curtain of Modefty over them ; and there is a Phyfical Impurity in thele and other bodily Evacuations, but none of them do render a Man lefs fit for the Service of God, or unqua- lify him for the adminiftration of holy things, nor is there any good ground, that I know of, why the one fhould do it more than the other ; yet all the old Ene- mies to Priefts Marriage have always beat upon this 5 M 2 miftake, j 6 8 The Texts examined which Tapijts cite miftake, and eould never get this childifh and low Fancy out of their Heads, that there was an Impurity in it that unfitted and unbecame the Sacred Order, and to prevent this they have brought in a real and horrid Impurity into it, by allowing fbmetimes, as they have icandaloufly done, or at leaft by occafioning that Con- cubinage, and Fornication, and other unlawful and abo- minable Uncleannefs, which their own Authors do alt along witnels and complain of in their unmarried Clergy ; and therefore this mighty pretence and con- cern for higher Purity, which was as hypocritically boafted of by the firft Hereticks as by the late pretended Catholicks, and the forbidding Priefts to marry upon that account comes very near, I doubt, to that Doctrine of Devils, of which the Apoftle fpeaks, i Tim. 4. $. where he gives thefe Characters of the Teachers of it, that they [peak Lies in Hypocrify, and forbid to mar- ry : Whoever then they are that forbid to marry, and make a falfe and hypocritical pretence to greater Puri- ty by the doing fb, thefe leem very plainly to be charg- able with the Doctrine of Devils : and then let the Infallible Church look to it, for I know none are more like to be found guilty of this than they are. I know they would fhift off this black Charge and Indictment to the Marcionites and Manichees, and other early He- reticks ; but however it may be meant of thofe ancient and original Antichrifts, yet others are frill as liable to it as they were : For they did not forbid Marriage to all, but only to their Elect, fb that they did no more condemn it univerfally than the Papifts do; and St. Paul fpeaks not here of Perfbns, but of Doctrines, and there could hardly be any worfe than to difparage Marriage, the wife Ordinance of God to preferve the World, for Celibacy of Vr'tefls, and Vows of Continence! 769 World, and his own Primitive and Original Inftituti- on in the State of Innocence, than what the Roman Church, and the chief Heads and Teachers of it, the Popes, who prohibited Marriage to the Clergy, have openly published and maintained. Siricius the firft of them who did this, did it for thefe Reafbns, as appears by his Epiftle to the Bifhops of * Africa, becauie they * siric EpifK that were in the Fle(hy ( i. e. who were married ) 4- c- 9- could not pleafe God ', and to the pure all things are pure, hut unto them that are defiled with Marriage is nothing pure. This was making Marriage an Impurity with a witnefs, and a State of unlawful Carnality, that neither Prieft nor Layman could live in it, and be a Chriftian. I don't know any Heritick who had called himfelf a Chriftian, could ever have given aworfe Reprefenta- tion of Marriage than this is, and could have put a greater Abufe either upon that, or upon Scripture. After him Pope Innocent gave as bad Reafbns in his Decree againft Marriage of the Clergy, for when they, lays he, ought to be and are called the Temple, andVeffelsy and dwelling of the Holy Ghoft, it is un- fit for them toferve the Beds of Unclean- '(b) Quum enim ipfitemplum **fs (b) ; and it is not lawful to admit them ™k & Samarium Spiritus Sanfti to Holy Offices which ufe carnal Company eos SbwV'immSff^ with their Wives, becaufe it is written, Be ye fervire. Diftinft. 28. can. 2. holy, for 1 am holy *, which makes Mar- *Diftinft. 82. Propofoifti. riage to be in it felf unholy. After- wards when Pope Gregory the Seventh came with more Fury and Violence to eftabiifh the Celibacy of Priefts, r^ Invete„ he calls their Marriage by no other name than Adultery, "turn mor- and Concubinacy, and the inveterate Difeafe of fornka^ SS^lS!"* tion in the Clergy (c) ; and then as their Marriages were rum. g™°V made1,2- Epift.30. i ?yx} lb* Texts txtinwi. which Tapijh ate made null and void, as Pope Innocent the firft bad long before decreed them to be, their Wives were called by nootlier Names than of. Whores, and Concubines., and their Children branded with the Infamy of Bo/lards, and it was made even Herefy, the Herefy of the Nuo- Littansy to defend or 'believe the lawfulness of Priefts Marriage ; and if this were not to make it evil in it fMf, and So to teach the D.o&rioe of Devils, I know not what is! To make it Herefy, Fornication and Adultery, and a frate of Fikliineis, Uncleannefs, and Carnality, fuch as in the life of it renders a Man alto- gether carnal, andwxfitfor Divine Things, as Bvllarmine (Y) qui ho- does (A), and to make it better and more lawful for a totuT carna- ^^ei^'*main t0 commit Fornkation than to marry, lem&inep- which is the avowed, tho Scandalous Doclrine of their tumaddivina. gpeateft Men, even of BelLrmine himfelf (e) ; and is Oer.Li.JU. not 01^y t0 ^ fathered upon fo little a Man as (0 Eft ma- C offer (f)y but is taught by Pighius, and Cardinal jus malum fie J^Gm wh0 tells u$: that this, the it Seems a filthy Do- nubere quam ~^>. » , „ , ,.,./•' n ,J / , ; fomicari. Bel- clrtne to other s, yet to C amoluks it jeems mojt honejt (gj \ ^m.ini. 2.de fothat another Cardinal openly pronounced it before ef&Viibi.3* t^ie Magiftrates of Strajbrtrgh, to be a greater Sin for (f) Be Qe- Pr lefts' to bcmarritAy than to keep fever -d Whores in their I'T Prord' 0)Vn Hwfes (h). If all this taken together, do not 1 U) Repfe?" match, or out-do the worft things that ever were or can henditurafhi- belaid againfl: Marriage, and do not therefore as juflly ^rBJ^I dererve the Charaaer of the Dodrine of Devils, I am magisqampie very much miftaken. fcriptum reli- quic, minus peccare facerdocem qui ex infirmicate C3rnis in fornicationem fie prolapfus quam qui Nuptias contract. Turpis illi videtur lisc oracio contra Carholicfs honeftiflima. Hofius Confeil: c. $6. (j£ Qnod Sacci-cloces mariti fianc grav'ms effe peccatum quam fi plurimas domi meretrices alunu Cirdiualis CMfiiiM apod Sfcidan. I. 4. What for Celibacy of friefl^ and Vows of Continence. 77 1 • What abominable and even unnatural Impurities have been brought into the Church by the forced Celi- bacy and forbidden Marriage of the Clergy, to the fcand a I not only of the Sacred Order, but cS* Religion in general, has been the loud complaint of their own Authors and Hiftorians, and they who, upon pretence of a greater Purity, have prohibited, their Clergy to have Wives, yet have allowed them Concubines at a certain rate ; and as knowing tlie Straits and Ne- cessities they have brought them into, have relieved them with Licenfes and Difpenfations at a fet Price, and as we are told, have made thefe pay for them that did defire or ufe them with an haheant ft veUnt7 & q:a TTon habet Uxorem loco iflim Concuhimim debet hiker e ; as 'tis in the old Edition of Gratians Decretal % * Dirtina. 34. tho 'tis now changed into licet habere ; And the zea- lous Fopes who have forbad any to hear Mais of a. Friefr that was manded, yet? have not only tolerated,. but built publicR Stewed irr the City of Rome, which have had fuel* a good Trade and Caftonj, that they could gay 200C0 Ducats a Tear to^ their Exchequer }• ; f Agrippa d? fo that one would' flarewdTy fufpsclit was not. out of vanit- fcieric- a mighty' Concern for more than ordinary Kirit.^, c' 4* that they allow not' their Priefts. to havaY/i.ves, tho- the.y are willing to, cover their other Defigns with that fpecious, pretence, but for fame other. Ends mor,e. politick and more . advantageous to . ths rater.eft ot Hofy Church, which1 is Rereby not only-. vailJy. en- rich'd, as being made Heirefs to thole EYtates which would otherwife. go to a Wife and Children,- but keep* her (elf and her Clergy more independent, upon- the Civ il' State andJGovernme'nt,as having given no flic ti Pledges ■ jyi 27;e Texts examined which Paplfls cite Pledges and Securities to them as the Married have * Rodoipho done ; And therefore an Italian Cardinal * in the pio di carpo. Council of Trent , where the Marriage of Priefts was greatly preft to be granted by many Catholick Princes, wifely told the Council, this Inconvenience would, follow from it, that having Houfe, Wife and Children, they will not depend on the Pope but on their Prince, and their Love to their Children will make them yeild to any ■prejudice of the Church, and tbey will feek to make the Benefices hereditary, and fo in a jhort time the-Autho- f Hiflory of the rity of Apofiolick See will be confined within Rome \. council 0} So that 'tis this is a good Pillar to maintain the Great- Trent, 1.5. ne£ 0f tjie Roman $QQf ancj t0 keep the Clergy in a more ftrift dependance upon it; and therefore it is obfervable that the fame Man who fb ftrenuoufly promoted it, did at the lame time ft rive to advance the Papacy to the higheft pitch of Glory above any of his PredecefTors, and to make it trample upon all other Kingdoms and Empires who were to fall down and worfhip it ; I mean Pope Hildebrand. Our Age has fufficiently taught us, that 'tis not a Love of great Purity, but of great Liberty and Loofenefs, that caufes an averfion to Marriage, as Augujlus told the Romans of old, who had got the lame Humour among them, licentiam libidini ac lafci- vU veftrx exercenda qutritis. And Aventinw fays this upon Gregory the Seventh, forbidding Marriage to the Clergy, Gratiffima hxc fuere fcortatoribus quibus pro una Vxore fexcentas Mulieres inirc licet, I would no way detract from the honour of Virgi- tiity, nor would have others do fb from that of Mar- riage ; for Celibacy of Triefts, and Vows of Continence. 771 riage ; they were both of them States of Innocence and of Paradife; Chrifl: has confecrated both, who was born of a Virgin, and yet of a married Woman. I would not have any Contention for Preference be- tween them, for fure like other States of Life, they are equal and indifferent in themfelves, there is no internal Excellency or Perfection of the one above the other, but the advantages to either of them are only accidental, and depend upon Circumftances, a,s they are capable of being improved into fuch Ver- tues as tend moft to the Glory of God and the good of the World, and which of them do moil ierve thofe ends is impoflible to be determined for all Times and for all Perfbns : The Apoftle feems to favour and advife the §Re in a particular cafe of outward Diftrefs and Perlecution, but he abfblutely commands the other in cafe of inward Burning and Temptation ; for the one feems to be a fafer Haven againft the Storms of the World, and the other a- gainft thofe of the Flefh ; but there are a great many more I am afraid perifh by the latter than the for- mer. Whether it be more vertuous to deftroy and extin- guifh thofe ParTions which God and Nature has put in us, or wifely to govern and ufe them, was an old Difpute of the Stoicks, and other Philofophers, and may be very fairly applied to the cafe of Marriage and Virginity; the one fide ranted bravely againft the low, and animal, and brutifh Affections and In- clinations of our Bodies ; but the other, thought it un- natural wholly to deftroy thofe that were a true part 5 N of 774 The Texts examined which Tapifts cite of human Nature, and that it was a forgetting we were Men, to fet Vertue to fuch a Romantick height and perfection, which was not proper or luitable to our prefent State. Virginity calls it felf an Angelical Perfection, and Marriage leems to have more of Flefh and Blood in it : but we cannot attain to the one, nor be without the other whilft" we are Men : we muft therefore exercife the proper Vertues of our State and Nature, and that is the higheft Perfection we are capable of. The Angels are pure Spirits, who are neither capable of Virginity nor of Marriage, and Co can never be propofed as Ex- amples of thole thofe things to us, and 'tis a great miitake to think our Saviajl meant any fuch thing, when he laid, That in the Wejurretlion they neither mar- ry nor are given in Marriage , but are as the Angels of God in Heaven', Mat. 22. 50. which was only fpoke againft the SaMucecsy who ask'd, whole Wife fhe mould be in the Refurreftion who had feven Husbands upon Earth ? The greateft Saints in Heaven, at leaft thofe that the Scripture fpeaks of, which is moft to be trufted, were married while upon Earth, and this was no hinderance to their utmoft Perfection here, nor their higheft Hap- pinefs hereafter. Virginity is no more an Heavenly or an Angelical State than Marriage ; for they neither of them belong to Heaven or to the Angels, but are only Conditions of Life proper to this World; but in the other there is neither Male nor Female, Virgin nor Married, Husband nor Wife, Father nor Child, but for Celibacy of Priefts, and Vows of Continence. yy ^ but all thefe Worldly States and Relations are diffolvcd , and a full end is put to all the parts we aQted, or the Peribns we appeared in on tnis Scene terq below. As to its being a more pure *nd a more fpiri- tual State, not drench'd in Bodily Paflions, nor an- noyed fo much with the impure Vapours of what is flefhly and fenfual, I have fhown what a Whim- fy that is, how there is no Impurity of the Body can affe£r. the Mind; nor nothing defile the Soul but what is finful and unlawful, and that this is the true rule and meafure of Moral Purity, and there is no other fancied Uncleannefs under the Gofpel. That as to the Minds being fullied or annoyed with any fuch impure- Vapours rifing up from the Flefh, that is more to be feared in the unmarried, ' where the Fire of Natural Concupifcence not ha- ving vent, it burns and glows the more within ; and as a great Man fpeaks upon this occalion, Fro- fetto fumus qui non exhalatur, tot Am" domum perpetuo reddit fuligwofam, (ecus eft ft aptato camino erum- peret r The Mind and Thoughts are kept pure by having thofe fuliginous Steams carried off another way, that would otherwife perpetually fmoke and foul it, and when the rifing Springs of Paffion and Defire, and the moft ftrong and impetuous Inclina- tions are calmed and quieted by being put into their proper Chanels, the Soul is in a more lerene, and compofed, and undifturbed Temper, and more fitted for all the Duties and Exercifes of Religion. The immoderate and undue admiration of Virginity made 5 N 2 Marri- yy6 • 'the Texts examined which Tapifts cite Marriage to be contemned, and at laft to be forbidden to the Clergy, as a State of Life unfit and improper for holy Perfbns, and therefore I have briefly adjufted the matter between them. At laft the vowing of Continence was fuppofed to be annexed to Holy Or- ders, and made %. New Obligation againft Priefts Marriage ; which will be confidered, with the Scrip- tures theybring for it, in a fecond Part that will quick- . ly follow this. E R R A t A. P Age 751. line 21. for credible^ read creditable* P. 757. 1.'2. dele all. P. 768. 1. penult, for than, r. then. P. 771.I. I2.add«0f. . ,-,,.,.,. .-, LONDON, Printed by % V. for Richard Chifwel at the Rofe and Crown in St. Paul's Churdi-Yard, 1688. ( 77? ) The Texts examined which Papifls cite out of the Bible for the Proof of their Do&rine CONCERNING The Celibacy of Priefls, and Vows of Continence. PART II. IMPRIMATUR. Oclob. 23. Hen. Wharton, Rm- in Chrijlo P. ac 1688. D. D. Wilhelmo Jrchiep.Cantuar. a Sacris Domefi. T H E Places brought by our Adverfaries out of Scripture for their Vows of Continency, are thefe three ; Luke 1. 34. How /bail this be, feeing I know not a. Man? Matth. 19. 12. There be Eunuchs, which have made them/elves Eunuchs for the Kjngdom of Heaven s fake, 5 O 1 Tim. 7; 8 The Texts examined which Tafijls cite i Tim. 5. 11, 1?.. But the younger Widows refufe ; for when they have begun to wax wanton againjl Chrijl, they will marry ; having damnation, becaufe they have ca/l off their prfi Faith. From the firft of thefe they thus Argue ; If the Blef- fed Virgin had not been under a Vow of perpetual Continency, fhe could not have made fuch a return to the Angel, when he told her, fhe fhould conceive and bring forth a Son ; nor propofed fuch a Que- ftion as that, How Jhall this be, feeing I know not a Man ? For fhe being then efpoufed to Jofeph, might have conceived by him and brought forth a Son here- after, though fhe knew not a Man at prefent, if fhe had not been under the Obligation of a Vow to 1 1 e contrary, that had hindered her from knowing a Man for the future. But I fiippofe the Virgin might it. ke fuch an Anfwer very eafily and pertinently, without regard to any fuch Vow ; for the Angel ipeaking to her of this as a Thing not to be done a great while hence, but as what was immediately to come to pars, nothing could be more natural for a Virgin to fay, who was told this, than how can this be, feeing I know not a Man ? We may as well deduce from thofe words, if we ftrain them too hard, an infidelity and disbelief of the Divine Power, or at leaft a disbelief of that fa- mous Jewifh Prophecy of the Meffiah, which could not well be unknown to Mary, that he fhould be born of a Virgin, as her being under the Obligation of a Vow of Continence: But the plain Deflgnof them is only this, to fhew that fhe was a true Virgin who had not known Man, as fhe then aiTerted her felf to be to the Angel. But there is no fuch thing implied, or follows from them, as_ that fhe would not, or could not for Celibacy of (pr'tefls, and Vows of Continence. yyy Rot know a Man for the future. There feems plainly to have been no Revelation before this made to the Virgin, of her beingthe happy Instrument to bring forth our bieffed Saviour : Neither had Jofeph any fuch thing made known to him before fhe was found with Child, and an Angel appeared to him, on purpofe to Satisfy him about it, Mattb. i. 20. fo that they could not be fuppofed to have either of them made any fuch Vow in order to fuch an End, as the forged and Spurious Go- Spel of St. James, the Foundation of this imagined Vow in the Virgin, would have us believe. There is a great deal more Reafbn to think that both of them af- terwards, upon fuch Heavenly Vifions and Revelati- ons made known to them, and out of regard to that great Honour which God had vouchsafed them in making them the Parents of his own Son, might re- fblve to be So of no other, but to preServe that Womb from any common ufe, that had been fanftified and Set apart to one fb great and extraordinary, though I lee no neceffary ground to make this an Article of Faith. But it feems not a little Itrange and impropable, that before they knew any thing of this wonderful Difpen- fation, they Should be under Such a Vow, which was an unufual, or rather an unlawful Thing among the Jews ; and yet relblve to marry, which was not a ve- ry likely way to keep it ; or that after they were mar- ried, both of them (for the one could not then make fuch a Vow without the other) Should, without any knowledg, or any revelation of that great Matter, which is made the Ground and Occafion of this Vow, and which they were no way acquainted with till, this coming of the Angel to Mary, who was then' greatly furprized at it, that they Should both enter into fuch a Vow, which muft have added extreamly to the fup- 5 O 2 pofed 7 8o The Texts examined which (papiftt cite pefed Guilt of the Virgin in the Opinion of hep Huf- band, when he thought to put her away privily ; though there is not then the lean: intimation, of any fuch thing, which is therefore no fraall Argument a- gainft it. It was necelfary that Chrift fhould be born of a Virgin, according to a Divine Prophecy , and tho as a True Man he was to be born of a Woman, yet that he fhould come into the World in a miraculous and extraordinary way, above that of other Men : and had not this Virgin been efpoufed, and under the covert of her legal Husband, fhe had been liable to Death by the Jewifh Law; fo that it was neceffary that fhe who was the Mother of Chrift, fhould be in thofe Circumftances that Mary was : _ But there was no neceflity, nor no manner of reafon that fhe fhould be under a Vow of Continence, fince every thing might- be duly tranfacted without that. The Virgin Mary did immediately conceive, upon the Angel's Salutation and Mefiage to her, and did know that to be the meaning of his words ; and there- fore fhe had reafon to make that return to them, How can this be, feeing 1 know not a Man ? . From our Saviour's words in St. Matthew, Chap. 19, 1 2. There be Eunuchs , that have made themf elves Eunuchs for the Kjngdom of Heaven s fake ; They fuppofe that this voluntary Eunuchifm muft neceffarily be from a Vow, by which thefe Eunuchs are brought under this Obligation, that they cannot but contain ; and that not from a natural Impoilibility, but only from a moral and voluntary one, which muft therefore be a Vow- But I fuppofe, whoever freely and voluntarily abftains from Marriage, upon a good and religious Account, as 5t.Prf#/feemstQadvife in the 7^Chapt€r-ef the Birft Epiftie for Qdihacy of Triefts, and Vows of Continence. y.%%. Epiftle to the Corinthians, namely, that in the time of Diftrefs and Perfecution, he may be more loofe and free from the Troubles of the World, or may be at more liberty to go up and down and preach the Gofpely and w holly to mind the Bufinefs of Religion ; who- ever does this, though without a Vow, makes himielf an Eunuch for the Kingdom of Heaven's fake. He that jlaridcth ftedfafl in his Heart, as the Apoftle fpeaks, having no Neceflity, but hath power over his own Will ; and hath fo decreed in his Heart, that he will keep his Vir- gin, doth well, yerC 37. that is, if he fully purpofrs and refolves with himielf to live unmarried, though without bringing himielf under a Vow, which is the mighty thing that makes it an A 61 of Merit and Su- . pererrogation with our Adverfaries : But there was no- thing of this Nature among the 'Jews, or DifcipJe.s, to whom our Saviour fpake tLefe words ; and 'tis obferva- hle that he fpeaks of this as a thing pair or prefent ; There are Eunuchs, that have made then [elves Eunuchs for the KJngdom of Heaven s fake ; whereas had it been, there {ball be Eunuchs which (hall make themfelves Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven's fake, this would, no doubt, have been improved by our Adver- faries if not into a Prophecy, yet to a more direel: point- ing at their future Votaries, and would have made the words have looked fomething fairer for votive Eu- nuchifm afterwards, rather than to be fo meant at that Time when no fuch thing was in ufe : And the Apo- ftles to whom our Saviour made this anfwer, fpake lice at all of vowing Continence, but only of the greater Expediency of not marrying; and. therefore our Saviour had no reafon from their words to fpeak any thing of fuch a Vow. Thafc y% i The Texts examined which Vapifts cue That this voluntary Eunuchifm is not to be undcr- ftood literally, as it was by Origeny is agreed by all, and our Adverfaries are fo much againft it, that they make it an utter incapacitating a Prieft from his Office, if not deftroying his Character ; and fince this Eunuchifm is to be underftcod in a Figurative and Metaphorical Senfe, I lee not why it mould be underftocd in fc ftrid and narrow a meaning, as that whoever abftains from all forbidden and unlawful Pleafures of that nature, out of a Principle of Vertue and Religion, mould not upon that account be laid to make himfelf an Eunuch for the Kingdom of Heaven's fake, as well as he that dees not marry ; for Metaphors are not to be ftrained • ib far as to touch in all Points ; and tho the Apoftles fpeak only of not marrying, yet our Saviour may as well be fuppofed to take an occafion from thence to fpeak of abftaining from unlawful Pleafures, as of making Vows which are full as remote from the Que- ftion propofed to him about Marriage. The third and great place for thefe Vows of Con- tinency, is that of i Tim. 5. 11, 12. concerning thofe Church-Widows, who, becaufe they will marry, the A poftle fays, they have Damnation, as having caft off their firfl Faith, i. e. that Vow of Continence, fay they, which they made when they were admitted into the Order of thofe Church- Widows. But how do they prove that that is meant by this firfi Faith ? Is Faith ever in Scripture ufed to fignify a Vow ? Or, can they prove that any fuchVows were made in the Apoftles Times, or long after ? this we are fure they cannot ; And why then fhould Faith be taken here in fuch a fenfe as it is no where elfe underftood in the Scripture ? Or, why fhould we apply that to a fuppofed Cuftom, # which for Celibacy of Pr'tefls, and Vows of Continence. ; B j which we have no certain grounds for any where elfe? So that we mult firft precariously imagine fuch a Cuifom, and then bring this place to prove it, and fo grant the thing before 'tis proved, or elfe this place is no manner of proof of it. Thofe Church-Widows who being poor and without Friends, /u^wmwj/t^wt/, as the Apoftle. calls them at the nth Verfe, left quite alone ', for if they had any Friends, he obliges them to provide and take care of them, and Ihews that Chriftians fhould thus (how Piety At home, and requite their Parents, ver. 4. relieve and maintain them out of Gratitude, which he fays is good And acceptable before God, and what they were bound and obliged to, not-only by their Chriftianrv, but by common and natural Duty. For if any provide not for his own, andefpecially for thofe of his oxn Houfe, he hath denied the Faith, and is worfe than an Infidel, ver. 8. Thefe Widows were taken in as Penfioners to be main- tained by the Church, and to be kept out of that common Stock of Charity which was railed for thefe and other Ufes; whether they were not to be employed in fome proper Offices of the Church, as Presbyterijf*, or Diaconiff*, which we meet with in Antiquity, and to be ferviceable to take care of the Poor, and of ' Strangers, I fhall not enquire ', but they were certainly to be maintained wholly by the Church; and the Apo- ftle (peaks of this and of nothing elfe, but their conti- nuing in Prayers and Supplications Day and Night, i. e. attending wholly to Religion, and to conftaut and let times of Devotion, as being taken care of for every thing elfe. Now the Apoftle would have Timothy very, careful who were taken into this number, and would have none be fb under threefcore Tears, ver. 9. becaufe then they were pad their Labour, and were not able to Tl)e Texts examined which Papifts cite to get a Livelihood for them fe Ives, and fo the Church would not be oppreiTed with too gteat a number more than k was able to maintain ; and this he takes care ©f, that the Church be not charged, that it may relieve them that are Widows indeed, ver. 16. There was no ne- ceffity, I fuppofe, for thefe old Women to be under any Vow of Continence, but without that, their Age and Circumftances fuppofed them to continue unmarried, and to have a full purpofe of fb doing, and wholly to give up themfelves to the Service of God, and of the Church. Now the younger Widows who might be better able to keep themfelves, or might marry again, and that perhaps to either Jews or Gentiles, which would be very fcandalous, or who might be fubje£t to other Temptations, thefe the Apoftle would by no means have admitted into the Lift or Roll of thefe Church-Widows, who were a fort of Grave and Godly Matrons that were in no fuch danger ; But the younger Widows refufe, for when they have began to wax wanton againjl Chrijl they will marry ^ having Condemna- tion^ becaufe they have cajl of their firft Faith. Now their waxing wanton againft Chrift, and fb having Condemnation becaufe they have cart off their firft Faith, does feem rnoft plainly to mean one of thefe two things much rather than a Vow of Continency. i. That by committing fbme Acts of Wantonnefs and l.ewdnels, contrary to their Chriftianity and the Religion of Chrift, they brought themfelves under threat Guilt and Condemnation, as having caft off their firft Faitf), /. e. their Baptifmal Covenant, wherein they renounced all the unlawful Lufts of the Flefb, and fo by being guilty of any of thofe, they, caft off and violated their firft Faith, wherein they bound and tied themfelves to Chrift, and fo were unfaithful to him for Celibacy of ^riefts, and Vows cf Continence, 78* him, and to their Promife and Covenant in Bantifm. Or elfe, 2. That they might cart off even their Chriftianity, by marrying eitherto Jewifh or Gentile Husbands, as fome of them did, as the Apoftle intimates concern- ing them,when he fays, -ver. 1 5. Some are already turned, ajide after Satan ', that is, Apoitatized from Chriftia- nity ; which may very fairly alfb be the meaning of their waxing wanton againji Cbrifty*o\: growing . weary of him, as the words will bear, or at leaft of that ftricl: and religious courle of Life they were engaged in, and fo they might be tempted loofely to throw away that and their Religion together, and to marry again to fuch Husbands as were not Chriftians. How- ever, if by their firft Faith were not meant either their Baptifmal Covenant, or their Chriftianity, which they thus caft off by waxing wanton and marrying again, but only their purpofe and engagement of not doing fb when they were received as Church- Widows, yet this, tho without a formal Vow, being fcandalous, and of no good report, they might be fiibjecl: to juft blame for it, which may be all the meaning of -the word Kji'/xar, which we tranflate Condemnation. But fuppofe that there were fuch a Vow taken by thefe Church-Widows, which cannot be proved ; and that thole who madethemfelves Eunuchs for theKingdom of Heaven, did this by vowing Continence ; and that the Virgin Mary had made fuch a Vow when file laid, How can this be, feeing I know not a Man I granting all this, that our Adverlaries have been fo feebly and weakly, proving by no other Arguments but little Surmifes and probable Conjectures at the molt, yet what is all to a Vow of Continence to be "made by all Priefts when they enter into Sacred Orders? thofe Widows and the Virgin M . 5 P could y%6 The Texts examined which Tapifts cite could not be in that number ; nor could thole Eunuchs had they been literally fb> have been any more Priefts' according to our Adversaries, than the Women ; nor does that Metaphorical Eunuchifm belong to Priefts any more than to any others, from any thing we can gather from our Saviour's words- If particular Per- fbns, who have the Gift of Continency, do think fit to make any Vow and Refolution againft Marriage, as flan ding ftedfafl in*their own hearts, having no neceffity, but having power over their own Will, and knowing by fufficient Experience of themfelves, their freedom from any Danger or Temptation, which we no way argue againft, nor do abfblutely condemn all Vows', as our Adverfaries falfely charge us ; yet what is this to the impofing fuch a Vow upon a whole Order of Men ? and making it to be abfolutely and in it felf annexed to Holy Orders, and obliging all thofe who enter into them to this perpetual Continence by fuch a Law as not only forbids them to contract Marriage, but nulls and voids it when contracted ? fo that the Marriage of Priefts hereby becomes, and is accounted by them not only a breach of an Ecclefiaftical Law, but a breach and a violation of a Vow, and the ufe of it no better than Fornication or Adultery ; for lb it muit be, if ac- cording to them, the Marriage it felf be null and void ; which is making a Law in a matter that is not within the compafs of Church-Power and Authority, and re- quiring a Vow of what is impoffible to be obferved, and the higheft violation of a Divine Ordinance by putting afunder thofe whom God hath joyned toge- ther ; And yet all this is done by the late Infallible * Can. de Sa- Council of Trent *, upon this groundlefs and miftaken craro.Matrim. Principle, that all may have the Gift of Continency, and that it is denied by God to none that pray for it, a»nd for (jd'tbacy offr'tefls, and Vows of Qont'mence. y%j and ufe other means to obtain it. Which is I confefs the main iiTue by which their Vows of Continency are to be tried, and the chief Hinge upon which this Controversy about them does turn and depend : for if this Continence be not a common, but a peculiar Gift, fb that all have not Power to attain it, but only thole to whom it is peculiarly given by God, then it muft be conferled to be unlawful to vow that which is not in our Power to perform ; and then it may be lawful to break fnch a Vow, becaufe it is naceffary fb to do, and there is an Obligation not to keep it prior and antecedent to the taking of it. Let us therefore carefully examine thefe two Points according to Scrip- ture. i. Whether this Gift of Continence may be had by all? 2. Whether fuch who have not this Gift, may not lawfully marry, notwithftanding any Vow or Church- Law to the contrary ? i. Whether this Gift of Continence may be had by all ? Now this is hard, if not impoflible to be known any other way than by Revelation ; for no Man can judg of the ftrength and violence of Natural Concu- pifcence in all others : It is certain there are none of the Race of Adam wholly without it ; it feems to be the natural Refult of our frame and make of Flefh and Blood, and the Irregularities of it are owing to fuch a General Caufe, as takes in all the fallen and degene- rate OfF-fpring of our firft fore-Father : The greater!: Saints and the greater!: Votaries have complained of it ; and by the unufual and extraordinary Methods which they ufed to cure it, have acknowledged how ftrong and powerful the Difeaie has been upon them ; for why elfe need St. Benediff to have roll'd himfclf very 5 P 2 often 7 8 8 The Texts examined which Tapifts cite often naked upon Thorns, and St. Francis in the Snow,, if there had not been great occafion for Nature to have been thus cooled and corrected by fuch Penances as thefe ? This natural inbred Fire may burn ftronger and fiercer in fome than in others, according to the different Tempers and Complexions of their Bodies ;. but we can have no certain Gage by which we can judg of thcfe degrees of Heat which it may caufe in others, but only what we feel in our felves ; neither can we be able to determine for all the reft of Man- kind, Whether it be potfible to flake or conquer it any other way, than by that lawful and ordinary one of Marriage, which God himfelf has appointed ? He a- lone who knows our Frame, and whereof we are made, who fearches the Heart and the Reins, he can only certainly tell and refolve this ; He, who for the good and continuance of the World, put this ftrong Paflioa and Inclination in our Nature, can alone know what Bounds he has fet to it, and how far it will go, andwhat Checks and Reftraints it is capable of : Our own common Experience, and general Obfervation of the World, feeins to give us pretty good notice and in- formation,hew uncapable all Men are of this perpetual Continence ; but Scripture has done it fb clearly, that it can hardly admit of any Contradiction, were not our Adverfaries forced to it for the defence. of their otherwise indefenfible Caufe about Vows of Conti- nence. All Men, fays our blelTed Saviour, cannot receive this faying, to wit, of not marrying, fave they to whom it is given', Mat. i<), 11. And tho St. Paul wifhed that all Men were even as he himfelf, i. e. unmarried, yet every Man, lakh he, hath his proper Gift of God, one after this manner, and. another after that, 1 Cor. 7. &. and 1 for Celibacy of firieftSj. and Vows of Continence*, y%<\. and he goes on further confirming this, I fay therefore to the Unmarried and. Widows, It is good for- them- if they abide even as L But if they cannot contain, let them marry : for it is better to marry than to burn, ver. 8,tj, And about Virginity, If need (o reqtire, let them marry , ver. 36. Never thelefs, he that fiwdeth (ledfajl in his Heart, having no necejjhy, bat hath power over his own- Will, and hath fo decreed in his H?art that he will keep his Virgin, doth well, ver. $7. Can any thing be plainer for the neceffity of Marriage, and the impoflibility of Continence in all Perfbns, than thefe places are ? and does not that Divine Spirit, which thus fpeaketh in Scripture, better underftand Human Nature, and all the Paflions and Inclinations belonging to it, than all the Popes or Priefts of the Church of Rome, who have yet given no great Evidence of this their Doctrine, that 'tis in the power of all that pleafe to contain ?'. but if their own Hiltorians are to be, believed, have fhamefully confuted it by their own lewd Practices to the contrary. And tho we might fuppofe it abftra&ed- Iy confldered, to be juft poffible. for any one Perfbn whatever to contain; ib that he were nor under fuc'i a perfect neceffity, but that, by the careful ufe of great and extraordinary means, he might be able to contain: yet confidering the general Temper and Inclinations of Mankind, and the State and Condition they are tri in this World, it is, defaclo, impoffible that ail ffctoultj be able to keep to this total and perpetual Continence \ fo that there is, if not aPhyfical, yet a Moral ImporTi- bility lies againft it*, and all cannot receive that faying, according to our Saviour, and fome cannot contain y ac- cording to St. Paul : By what Shifts and Artifices can •uur Adverlai;ies evade fuch plain places as -thole are,, which 79 o The Texts examined which Tapifts cite which teem directly contrary to this their Fundamental Principle of Vows of Continence? They have no o- ther places of Scripture to oppofe againit them, nor nothing to prove that this Gift of Continence may be obtained by all that defire it, but that general Promife, that rvhatfoever we ask of God, it /ball be given us ; and they might from hence as well pretend, that all may obtain Power to work Miracles, or remove Moun- tains, or fpeak with Tongues, or obtain any fuch extraordinary and miraculous Gift by their Prayers, as this of Continence ; for that general Promife they know is to be bounded with fome Limitations that will utterly cut off this peculiar Gift of Continence, which God has no where promifed to all Men, and at all Times, and which is no way neceffary to their particular Salvation, or to the Edification of the Church, or promoting of Religion ; for all thole Ends may be as well attained by the lawful ufe of Marriage as without it : there may indeed be fbme fpecial and peculiar occafion for to pray and expect this Gift, when other lawful and ufual means fail, as in the . cafe of long Abfence, or ficknefs of either Party, or any other Infirmity which Providence may bring upon thofewho are married ; then God will not be wanting in an extraordinary Affiftance, wThcre ordinary and common means do fail, and mil not fuffer us to be temp- ted above what we are able ; which is another place as impertinently brought by them ; but 'tis a great Pre- emption, and a down-right tempting of God, to neg- lect thofe means which he appoints, and depend upon an unpromifed and an extraordinary Relief, that God is not obliged to afford us, and to run our felves into fuch Dangers and Temptations as we may eafily a- void for Celibacy of Triefl^ and Vows of Continence. yy \ void upon a groundlefs Belief, that God will endue us with an extraordinary Power to perform that which he no way requires of us. It mutt firit be proved, that thefe Vows are agree- able to the Divine Will, and that they# are undertaken in purfuance to the Commands of Heaven, or elfe we have no reafon to hope that God will grant us an ex- traordinary Power and fpecial Grace to perform in them ; but fuch rafh and unadviied Snares, whereby we have intangled our felves, will only admonifh us more fully of our own Weaknefs, Folly, and Temeri- ty ; and God may juftly fuffer us to fall, becaufe we prefumed too much, either upon our own Strength, or upon his unneceffary and extraordinary Aililtance, where he had otherwife provided ordinary means#. BelUrmine * owns, that a Vow rafhly undertaken, is*DeMonach. that Snare which the Apoftle fpeaksof, i Cor. 7. 35. 1.2. c.29. which he would not cafi upon thofe whom he advifes at that Time to continue unmarried ; that is, he would not have them fo relblve againft it, as to run them- felves into great Danger and Jeopardy, which they muft certainly do, who without fufEcient knowledg or trial of themlelves, at thofe early Years of vowing, or of Priefthood, do intangle themfelves with fuch a Vow or Obligation, as 'tis very uncertain whether they are ever able to perform. Tis a very difficult thing for any to know, efpecially at that Time, whe- ther they have this Gift of Continence, and whether they fhall always have it hereafter ; and therefore to vow it, muft be a fad intangling their Conlciences, and expofing themfelves to manifold Temptations. BelUrmine fays, A Will to make this Vow3 is this Gift of Continence \ as if willing and doing were all one, and a Man had always a Power given him to do what he is willing . yy i The Texts examined which Pap'tfts cite willing to do, though it be neither neceffary nor com- manded. A Man may be very willing, and very glad and defirous, that he had all his bodily Paflions, and lower Inclinations, in fuch perfect government and fubje£tion, that they might never rife up in his Mind to diilurb and difquiet the eafe and compofure of it ; und that he might never have an angry any more than ,a luftful Pailion : But whilft we carry this Body of Flefii and Blood about us, we muft not expect to be .wholly without the impreflions and motions of it upon our Souls; and we muft ufe all fit Means, to prevent their being irregular, and betraying us to what is fin- ful and unlawful : And fince many may find themfelves in great danger, and under extream Temptations, without the Remedy of Marriage ; and the Scripture allures us that all cannot contain, and commands ra- ther to Marry than to Burn, and requires a Man to have his own Wife to prevent Fornication, when with- out this there is danger of it ; 'tis very unfafe and un- lawful toabridg either ones felf, or any other, of what may be thus neceffary for them : And fince 'tis very difficult for any Man to know and be certain whether he fhall never be under thofe Dangers and Temptati- ons, therefore he ought not to bring himfelf under the obligation of a Vow, nor deprive himfelf of that liber- ty whereby it may be always free for him either to Marry, or not to Marry, as he pleafes, and as he finds it moil fafe or molt expedient for himfelf. We have a great many in our ■Univerfities and Colledges who live unmarried, and are required to do fb in thofe places, but without any Vow, which is a moft grievous and horrible Snare, that none ought to lay upon themfelves or others, who confider the weaknefs and infirmity, or the neceffities of Humane Nature, which God, who belt for Celibacy of Triefts, and Vows of Continence] jy y beft knows, has fumxiently intimated to us in thofe places ; All cannot receive this faying, but thofe to whom tt is given : Every Man hath his proper Gift, one after this manner, and another after that, &"C. Let us fee how our Adverfaries endeavour to avoid the force of thole places ; which muft, by their own confeffion, ruin their whole Caufe, if they prove, as they feem to do, very manifeftly and fully, that the Gift of Conti- nence is not to be had or obtained by all, and there- fore ought not to be required, either by Law or by Vow. They tell us then, that this is not the fenfe and meaning of thofe places, nor is any fuch thing to be deduced from a right tranflation, and a right under- frandingof them. For as to thefirft, That all cannot receive this Saying, but thofe to rvhom it is given. This they tell us is not rightly rendred, for the word cannot is not in the Original, but only do not ; 'ou7rvVm ^Sot, Non omnes capiunt,^// do not receive this Saying ; which will make a great alteration in the fenfe, and will take off the whole force of them againft them : for they readily acknowledg that all do not receive that Saying, but they utterly deny that all cannot. Now we fay that both the word jafia does mean and fignify cannot receive, and that the context and defign of our Saviour in thofe words do plainly and manifeftly carry that meaning ; ^ciiv fignifies to hold or receive, as a Ve.lel of fuch a meafure holds fb much ; as a Bufhel or a Sack, or a Bag, will hold fo much Corn, or fo much Mcny : but when any of thele are faid not to hold or receive fb much, the known meaning is, they are incapable of holding or receiving it, or they cannot hold and receive it, and fb * yocfim ihould be rendred non [unt capaces, 50. • or 704 The Texts examined which Vapifls eke or elfe non capiunt muft be underftood in that fenfe ; and it is plain our Saviour did fo mean, becaufe he imme^ diately fpeaks of fuch as were uncapable, namely of Eur nuchs that were fo born or made lb by Men ; and he adds at the latter part of the verfe, He that can receive it, let him receive it, which neceffarily fuppofes that fome cannot ; and here the very, word $vvxutfy&, he that can, is put in, Co that there can be no cavilling for the want of it. As to the fecond place, where St. Paul wifhes that all were at that time like himfelf, unmarried, But every one, faith he, hath his proper Gift, one after this man" ner, another after that : To this they fay, That Conti- nence is indeed the gift of God, but it is attainable by all by the Divine Grace and Afliftance ; as Faith and Repentance is the gift of God, but all may by the Grace of God attain to them ; fo no doubt they might to this Continence, if that were as neceffary to their Salvation as Faith and Repentance. But why does the Apoftle call this a proper Gift, if it were common to all ? It would be a very good excufe to thofe who do not believe or repent, if the Scripture, when it ad* vifed us to thofe Duties, had faid, But every one hath his proper Gift, one after this manner, another after that, as St. Paul does here when he advifes them not to mar- ry ; for that plainly fuppofes, that Marriage, as well as Continence, is the Gift of God ; and that neither of them are given indifferently to all, but are peculiar to fbme, whom God hath by his Grace and Providence difpofed and called to them. As to the third ; If they cannot contain, let them marry : Here they cry out again of falfe tranflation, and that the word cannot, upon which the ftrefs of all lies, for Qelibacy offriefls, and Vows of Qontinence. 79 J lies, is put into the Text, and that it ought to be tranflated only thus, // they do not contain ; but the word eyK^7tu'oi/rtx/,fl:ri£Hy and properly figni»fying,having power over one felf, as the common and known Ety- mology of it fhews ; ^X^1' &» k^to, from whence \y^^.~ •nfc, and fb iya^cfhvti ; thofe words iocv in iy^oiiivovfoa may, and ought -to be rendred with the greateft ex- a&nefs, */ they have not power over themfelves j or, which is all one, if they cannot contain *, and what the Apoftle adds in the next words, and the fame verle, do fully make out this fenle and meaning, if the word tyKpafiuovToei did not ; for it is better to Marry than to burn, which fhewed that they muft either Marry or burn, and therefore that they could not con- tain. The laft place of giving the Virgin in Marriage, if need fo require ; neverthelefs, he that ftandeth ftedfafl in his Heart, having no necefjity, but hath power over his own Will) and hath fo decreed in his Heart that he mil keep his Virgin, doth well. This, faith Bellarmin, may be understood either of a Man's own Virginity, or of fbme Virgin under his power and difpofal, as his Daughter, or one that is betrothed to him ; if by Virgin there be meant Virginity, as St. Hierom, by Bellarmineys Confeflion, underftood it. And the Apoftle feems to fpeak of the Perfbn himfelf, who is to give his Virgin in Marriage, that he ftandeth (ledfaft in his Heart, having no necefjity, but hath power over his own Willy and hath fo decreed in his Heart that he will keep his Virgin, which could hardly be faid of a Father, or any one in refpedl: of anothers Virginity ; but only what by experience and knowledg of himfelf, he may determine of his own; if the words be fb meant, as $ Q^2 they -n6 The Texts examined which T a ftjls cite they feem moft fairly to be, though Bellarmine, without bringing any Reafons to the contrary, will by no means allow it ; then they are very clear and evident, that this Virginal Continence cannot beob- ferved by all, but only by him rvho ftands fafi in his Heart, and hath no neceffity -, which fhews, that there is fometimes neceffity to the contrary, and that every one hath not always power over his own Will ; nor can, though he be willing, refalve or vow not to Marry \ and though this be not an abfblute Neceffity,. as Belkrmine fays, but only a conditional one, yet confidering the weaknefs and infirmity of Humane . Nature, and the ftrength and violence of thofe Paffi- ons which difpofe it to Marriage, and the many dan- gers and temptations it may be otherwife expoied to, 'tis fuch a Neceffity as no Man can wifely and fafely ftruggle and contend withal. But if this place be meant of marrying, either a Daughter, or a Virgin betrothed, as molt Interpreters underftand it, though thofe words in the 37. v. Neverthelefs, he that jiand- eth Jledfaji in his Heart, feem plainly to carry it for the other Senie, and to have nothing of that force in them without it, which the Apoftle lays upon them, efpecially if they are underftood of a Daughter, and not of a Virgin betrothed to a Man's felf ; yet how- ever, let the Virgin be whoever fhe will, h is plain that need doth fometimes require, and that there may be a neceffity for giving her in marriage : But this, lays Bellarmine, may be feme other extriniecal Neceffi- ty, not the Neceffity of Marriage, for the want of the gift of Continency ; but what Neceffity that can be is very hard for him to guefs, but it is veryeafy to fee that the Apoftle means no other, but fuch as was ne~ ceffary for Celibacy of Tr'tefls, and Vows of Continence. yyy ceffary to avoid Burning, and fornication, through- out that whole Chapter. The foundation therefore of their perpetual and vowed Continence, to wit, that it is a common Gift attainable by all that defire it, is wholly taken away, and appears to be plainly and expreily contrary to Scripture, which determines, that all cannot receive this faying ; and that all cannot contain, but only thofe to whom it is given ', and that every one hath his proper gift, one after this manner , and - another after that. I come now to confider, Whether it be not lawful for thofe to marry who have not this Gift of Conti- nenc}y notwithfhnding any Vow or Church-Law to the contrary ? Againft this they bring all thofe places of Scripture for performing of Vows ; Vow and pay un- to the Lord their God, Pfal. 76. 11. Fay thy Vows unto the mofi High, Pfal. 50. 14. When thou voweft a Vow unto God, defer not to pay it : Better is it that thou fhouldjt not vow, than that thou fhouldfi vow and not pay, Ecclef. 5. 4, 5. if * Man vow a Vow unto the Lord, or fvare an Oath to bind his Soul with a Bond, he floall not break his Word, he jhall do according to all that pro- ceedeth out of his Mouth, Numb. 30. 2. When thou jhalt vow a Vow unto the Lord thy God, thou flxtlt not flack to pay it ', for the Lord thy God will furely require it of thee \ and it would be Sin in thee. That which is gone out of thy Lips, thou foalt keep and perform, even a free-will Offering according as thou hafl vowed unto the Lord thy God, which thou hafl prom/fed with thy Mouth, Dent. 23. 21,23. And in the New Testament, the younger Widows, who, being under a Vow to the contrary, married, are by St. Paul laid to have Dam- nation, . 70 S Tin Texts examined which Tapifts cite nation, becaufe they have ca(l off their firfi Faith , i Tim. 5. 12. So that they exclaim moft tragically againft thofe Perfons, who in the beginning of the Refor- mation, married, after they had been in Orders in the Roman Church, and 16 taken this Vow of Con- tinence upon them, as the moft filthy and perjured Perfons, and the moft fhameful Vow-breakers, and Violators of what is the moft facred, and the moft binding and obliging that can be. To which we give this plain and fhort Anfwer ; That though all Vows lawfully made are to be obferved, according to thofe places of Scripture brought by them, yet thefe Vows of Continence are not lawfully made by thofe who have not the Gift of Continence, as I have proved all have not , and therefore in fuch a cafe they do not oblige, becaufe there is a prior and antecedent Obli- gation to marry in fuch Perfons who find themfelves under great Dangers and Temptations without doing fo ; and this plainly according to thofe Rules and Commands of Scripture, It is better to marry than to burn ; and, to avoid. Fornication, let every Man have his own Wife ', and, // they cannot contain, let them marry ; and 1 will that the younger Widows marry, tho they were as much under a Vow as thofe who are faid to have Damnation, becaufe they have cajl off their firfi Faith. But I have largely confidered that place before, which is the only one which they can pretend to bring for marrying after vowing Continence; but how little ferviceable it is to any fuch purpofe, I have fully fhewed. Indeed there are no fuch things as Vows to be found in the New Teftament ; they feem for fbme particular Reafbns to be peculiar to a former more imperfeft Difpenfation than that un- der for (jlibacy of Tr'tefls, and Vows of Qontinence. 799 der the Gofpel, where there is no inftance to be found of vowing, or promifing that to God which we are not otherwife obliged to ; for that, according to our Adverfaries, is the ftrift notion of a Vow. That which feems to look the fa i reft for it, is that of Ananias and Saphira, who may be fuppofed to have devoted all their Eftate to God ; and therefore to have been Co feverely punifh'd becaufe they facri- legiouily kept back part of what they had (b vowed ; but there appears no proof or evidence of a Vow in that matter : for St. Peter tells him, While it remained it was his owny and, after it was fold it was in his own power, which it could not have been had it been vowed or devoted ; but their horrid Diflimulation,. and lying to the Holy Ghofi, and offering to deceive the Apoftles, as if they had not been infpired with it, was a fufficient Aggravation of their Crime, and juftifying of their Punifhment, without any additi- onal breach of a Vow. As to the firft Chriftians leaving all that they had, Lands, and Houfes, and PorTeffions, this they did without any Vow of Po- vertVj as our Adverfaries weakly pretend ; for this was not a perfectly free and voluntary Aft in them, but what was abfblutely neceifary at that time when they could not hold their Eftates and their Chrifti- anity together ; neither was the forfaking their Wives then, any more the effeft of a Vow, as 'tis fbme- times made alfb by thofe who want better Argu- ments to prove their Vows of Continence, than the forfaking Father and Mother, and all other Rela- tions, which was only a hard Circumftance that, they were unwillingly forced to in thofe PreiTures and Difficulties ; and they may as well make going to g00 7he Texts examined which Taptfls cite to Prifon, aftd being whipped and fcourged, to be matter of a Vow, and Counfels of higher Perfection, as well as thole other parts of their Sufferings and Persecutions; But however lawful it may be to make Vows under the Gofpel in fome cafes, which I cannot fay are univerfally to be difallowed ; as Pe- ter Martyr teems to be of Opinion in his excellent Book, De Votii contra, Smithaum ; tho there be no In- Itances of them to be found in the Gofpel, nor no Command about them, for I take them to belong to Natural Religion, and not to be peculiar to the Jcwifh Oeconomy ; and therefore we find Jacob and the Patriarchs, fb often making Vows to God before the Law ; yet it is neither lawful to make fuch ram Vows, as the Priefts and others of the Church of Rome are fuppofed to do, of perpetual Conti- nence, neither is it always neceffary to obferve them ; 'tis a cafe indeed which falls not under a particular Inftance or Refblution of Scripture, be- caufe there is no Example of any fuch Vow there to be met with ; for I take not the Church-Widows in i Tim.. 5. to be under any fuch Vow, but if .they were, St. Paul's Determination is clear for the younger to marry, notwithstanding' that ; but there are other plain and general Rules, by which it may be certainly and eafily determined, as thole I men- tioned : It is better to marry than to burn ; and if they cannot contain, let them marry ', and to avoid' Fornica- tion, let every Man have his own Wife. Tftefe plain- ly declare Marriage to be neceifary in fuch cafes, and then no Vow can oblige againft it, nor can any Man by a voluntary Tie bind himfclf to that which is contrary to what God has by an Antecedent Ne- * celfity for Celibacy of Triefts, and Vows of Continence. 80 1 . ceflity and Prior Obligation bound him to, nor ought. any Man to commit a Sin, or to hazard and endanger himfelf with great Temptations upon the (core of any fuch ram and iLiadvifed Vow, which is the Opinion and Determination of St. Cyprian, St. An ft in, Epipha- niu4, and other of the Fathers agreeable to thofe Rules of Scripture, and the Conlequence of right Reafon drawn from them, as may be feen in a late excellent Treatife of the Celibacy of the Clergy f.. * Pag. 44. 49. Bellarmine perceiving the plain Difad vantage of thole Scriptural Directions to his Caufe, and to an Opinion that feemed fo evidently contrary to them, ufes all his Art and Sophift ry to fhift them off and evade them, and becaufe he muft unavoidably meet with them and engage them, he bears up very boldly to them, and does all he can to break the force of them ; Fir ft, fays he, I after t that in none of thofe places, thofe aYe called to B^}llde Mo" Marriage who are tempted by the Sting of the Flejh, but only thofe who live incontinently, f) as to pollute themf elves with Letvdnefs. Secondly, I after t, that thofe who do live incontinently, are not yet called to Marriage by an abfolute Command,, but only an eafy Remedy is jhown them, and an Haven as it were, into which they may betake themf elves ', but yet that it is (till free to them to afpire to greater things. Thirdly, laftert, (for 'tis the Confidence of the Afler- tion muft do the bufmefs, and ferve inftead of Reafon) That this Counfel, or PermiJJion, or Remedy is not given by the Apoftla to thofe who have vowed Continence, but only to thofe who are loofe and free. . I fhall examine thefe AfTertions diftinctly. Firft, then, by Burning, he will have meant not the ftrongeft Ardors of Natural Concupifcence, nor the 5 R fierce ft 'J loV The Texts examined which Tapijh eke fierceft inward Fires of Luft, nor any the moft vio- lent and infuperabie Inclinations whatever ; but only a&ual Incontinence and Fornication ; and when they are broke out into this, then the Apoftle's advice takes place, It is better to marry than to burn ; that is, than to live in Fornication and Incontinence. But muft a Man then ftay till he has actually bin guilty t of thole Sins ? and though he feels himfelf under the greateft UftionSj is he not obliged by this Advice of the Apoftle, till they are broke forth into the ut- moft A& of Lewdnefs and Wickednefs ? This would be letting the Fire be unquench'd till it has burnt down the Houfe, and then bringing the Engin to flop it : this may hinder indeed its fpreading further, and may reftrain any further a£te of Sin ; but 'tis much better to prevent all: And 'tis that we are obliged to by thofe words, and which no doubt the Apoftle intended; and a Chriftian who knows every fuch wilful Sin to.be damnable, and to put him into an ill ftate, ought not to run fo much hazard, nor to venture his Soul upon fuch great Peril and Jeopardy, when he is fenfible of the ftrongand violent Temptations he is daily expo- fed to. For though the firfi Motions of Concupif. cence, which are as natural as thofe of Thirft and Hunger, may not be finful in themfelves, nor can have any guilt in them till the Will is brought fbme way or other to content to them ; yet when they frequently annoy and difturb the Mind, and indif- pofe it for Spiritual and Religious Duties, by having the Imaginations filled with impure Fancies and Ideas, and the Brain clouded and overcafr with the Storms and Vapours rifing from the Flefh , this is lb plain an Indication of the Difeafe that it fuffi- ciently for Celibacy of Triefts, and Vows of Qont'mencel 80 ciently dire&s to the proper Cure of it, which is Marriage ; and to fuppofe the Apoftle not to pre- fcribe that, when he tells us, it is better to mxrzy than to burn, till this is gone fo rar as to the Com- miflion of fome A£ts of Fornication or Uneleannefs, is to make him, like an unskilful Phyfician, not to prefcribe the Remedy till the Difeafe is become Mortal, and the Perfon is deftroyed by it, for want of the timely ufe of that which might have pre- vented it. Bellarmine compares Marriage to a Haven, into which, according to him, tho a Man be toft never Co much with the ftorms of Luft, and be in never fuch great danger of being ca ft away by them, yet he is not bound to betake himTelf, till he is actually Shipwrack'd : Which how far it is from the Apoftle's Mind and Ad- vice given in thofe words, I may leave any Man to judg, who has not too light thoughts of Fornication, and too hard ones of Marriage. But now if a Perfon, under this Vow of Continence, mail yet burn in Bel- tannines Senfe, i. e. mall be actually guilty of Incon- tinence and Fornication, is it not then better for him to marry, than thus to burn ? And does not the Apo- ftle's Direction then reach him, and oblige him to mar- ry, rather than thus to burn, notwithstanding his Vow ? If this were allowed to be the meaning of the word, then fure he muft be acquitted of his Vow, and it muft be owned to be better for him to marry than to burn ; for burning in this fenfe, that is, by actual In- continence and Fornication, is, I hope, as much a- gainft his Vow, and as great an evil as marrying. No, this great Man will by no means allow that; for tho he cannot but own it to be agamft the Vow, yet not in 5 R 2 * lb 8 04 The Texts examined which Tapijts cite ip high a degree, nor lb much Evil in it felf as Mar- riage^ This he pofitively avers : and tho both of thefe be evil, both to marry and- to burn, i.e. to fornicate, yet he declares it to be a worfe evil to marry, however their Ad- versaries exclaim againft it^ efpecially to one that has made a folemn Vow * ', for the V erf on which is guilty of Burning, as it fignijies Fornication, fins. only againft Tern- prance, and againft the Vow ; but jhe who marries \, ( or he either, I fuppofe, for there can be no difference in the Sex, to make any alteration In the Cafe) after a folemn Vow, (which though it be not made by the Priefts, yet is by the Monks as well as the Nuns ) fins both againft Temperance, and a Vow,, and alfo again $ Marriage it felf', when under the name of Marriage jhe covers a perpetual Sacrilege. This dill in£U- on of a folemn and fimple Vow, which is common a- mongft them, depends only upon fbme outward Forms and Solemnities in making it, but fignifies nothing to the intrinfecal Obligation of it, no more than the taking an Oath publickly before a Court, adds any tiling more to the binding power and force of it, than if it were done privately. But Bellarmine goes dn, and roundly pro- nounces, That if one marry after a fim- ple Vow, though the Marriage be true, ( which they deny after a folemn Vow) yet (he finneth more in fome fort than if jhe fornicateth, becaufe jhe renders her felf unable to keep her Vow, which (be who *Namutrumqueeft malum, & nubere, & uri imo pejus eft nubere, quicqirid reclament Ad- verfarii, praefertim ci, qua? ha^ bet votum folenne. Bellarm. de Monach. 1. 2. c. 30. f Nam qui uritur— -peccat fo- lum contra temperantiam & vo- tum, fi fornicatiouem figniftcat, qua? vero nubit poft folenne vo- lum, peccat contra temperanti- am, contra votum, & contra ip^ fum conjugium, cum fub nomine conjugii tegat perpetuum facrile- gium. Ibid. Q^iis aurem nubit poft vo- tum fimplex, ilia verum matri- moniam contrahir, tamen aliquo- modo magis peccat quam qua? fornicatur, quia reddit fe im^o- tentem ad fervandum votum quod non facit, qua; fornicatur. ML * for Celibacy of Trie/Is, and Vows of Continence! S o 5 who fornicateth doth not. Which is (6 fcandalous an Aflfertion, and fuch a preferring one of the greateft moral Evils that God has forbidden, to marriage which is God's own Ordinance and Institution ; that I bring it here not to confute it, (which it needs not among any that have a fenfe of Religi- on ) but to fhame it, and to fpread confufion upon fuch Perfons, and. fuch a Caufe, that are driven to. fay this, to defend it. This Bellarmine was forced to; to maintain his Third AfTertion, to wit, That thofe Rules and Di- rections of the Apoltle, It is better to marry than' to burn \ and if they cannot contain, let them marry \ do not belong to thofe who are under, a Vow, but only to thofe who are free and loole from it. But where does the Apoftle make any fuch Excep- tion ? Are not thofe Rules given generally to all, without a particular limitation to any ? And does not the very Reafbn of them take in all Perfons whatfbever, fo that whoever burns, it is better for them to marry than to do fb ; and whoever cannot contain^ let them marry \ : Ay but this after all** but a Permiffion, fays he-, not a Command ', there is no Command to marry in all thofe places, for the form of ff caking is not imper/t~ five; for the Apoftle does not trie that Mood in his words ; and he gives a Reafon, which fhovvs he is not making a Law, for it is better to marry than to burn. Here our great Man plays the Grammatica- fter as bad as he did the Divine before, for fure there - * Volo junio res nubere. Vulg.Lat. i^iTOt 806 7he Texts examined which Tapifts cite there may be a Command given without an Im- perative Mood, as in what is very much to our prefent purpofe, / will that the younger marry * ; and a Command, I hope, is not ipoU'd, but enforced, by having a Reafbn given of it: And yet to pleafe him, the Apoftle has put it in the Imperative tAiav yuveTiyj. Mood \ Neverthelefs, to avoid Fornication , let every Man have his own Wife. And "if thefe be not fuch Rules as amount to a Command in fuch and fuch Cafes; to wit, that if Perfons cannot contain, they fhould marry ; then there is no Command in Scrip- ture againft burning in Bellarmine^s Senle, or to avoid Fornication, or not to run our felves into danger and temptation. For my part, I cannot but think this to be fufficient to oblige a Man to make ufe of a lawful means to fecure himfelf againft what may put him into fb great peril and hazard of his Sal- vation: And were I a Prieft of the Church of Rome, and found my felf under thofe Burnings that difturbed both Body and Mind, I would not in the leaft doubt to marry, notwithstanding any fuppofed Vow, or any Law of the Church to the contrary, - but rather think' my felf obliged to' tk> fo, than to tempt God, and endanger my Soul by nourifhing an inward Fire, whofe fboty Flame ful- lied a Man's Thoughts, and fouled his Imaginati- on, till it was ftifled, and when it unduly broke forth, which it was ready to do upon every occa- iion, would be infinitely mifchievous and deftru- ftive, both to my felf and others : and therefore though it be one of the greateft Charges and Im- putations brought by our Adverfaries againft Jbme of for Celibacy of Vriefts, and Vows of Cont'mmce. 807 of the firit Reformers, that they married after they had been in Popifh Orders, and took to themfelves Wives upon their forfaking that Church ; which their Enemies aggravate to the higheft degree of Wickednefs ; and fbme of their Friends excufe by no fofter a word than thofe of a blamable Impru- dence. Yqf I think they are capable of Co full a Vindication, that they may not deferve in the leaft to be either cenfured or condemned for Co doing : for though the light breach of a Vow be juftly ac- counted a very great Fault, and that which is to free and excufe from it, is a confeflion and acknow- ledgment of a great Weaknefs, which has fbme- thing of Shame, though nothing of Sin joined with it ; Co that the ignominious Character of Luftful and Vow-breaker is put together, and clapt as a Mark of the greateft Infamy upon them ; though one faying of Scripture does wholly wipe it our, Marriage is honourable, and the Bed un defiled •; and what follows, does ftigmatize generally thofe who -bring it , but Whoremongers and Adulterers God will judg, yet to clear thofe worthy and good Men, and to be juft to the Church of Rome, which needs not to have a greater Load laid upon it than it de- serves ; I muft own that it does .not impofe any fuch Vow of Continence upon its Priefts or Cler- gy j nor is there any fuch thing made by them, or required of them in their Ordination , or at any other time , as this Vow of perpetual Conti- nence. . But why then do we charge them with this ? and why 808 The Texts examined which Papifis cite why do we fb grofly mifreprefent them in this Point? I anfwer, That they mifreprefent themfelves, and endeavour all they can to prove there is a Vow where there is really none, and fb to make their Church more Tyrannical, and themlelves worfe. than they really are; and here we are willing to come in and vindicate them even againft themlelves. There is no fuch Vow mentioned or exprefled in their Ritual or Ordinal, nor is any fuch thing put to the Clergy, or made by them in any of their Forms of Ordination; but they would have an Implied and Interpretative Vow then made, and they would lome of them fuppofe this to be annexed to Orders even by Divine Right, fo that it is always infeparable from them : But then how could a JSifhop, or a Priefr, or a Deacon have been ever the Husband of one Wife, even in the Apoftles time, as St*. Paul fuppofes them to be beyond all Contradiction? The more moderate there- fore amongft them will have it annexed only by an Ecclefiaftical Law. But how a Vow can be annexed to Orders, without the Perfori's making fuch a Vow who is ordained, I cannot underftand ? For a Vow is a free and voluntary Aft of him that voweth ; fb that were -the matter of it never fo necefTary and obliging, yet it is not bound upon us by a Vow, till we our felves do freely and voluntarily make it ; there may be other Obligations arifing from the nature of the thing, or the Command of a Superior ; but for the Obligation -of a Vow or a Promife ( for a Vow is but a Prornife to God) for Celibacy ofTriefts, ami Vowi of Continence. 809 God) that none can bring upon us but our felves ; fb that were a Prieft obliged to this perpetual Continence by never Co many Laws, either of God or Man, yet he were not obliged to it by the additional force of a Vow, till he had by his own Act freely made it; for I think it is as plain a Contradiction, to fay a Man vows what he does not vow, as to will what he does not will, or to fay what he does not fay ; fo that this Interpretative and implied Vow will at laft come to no Vow at all. The Writers of thevChurch of Rome, as in molt other cafes, they are forced to lbften their Doctrines by palliating Abatements and Extenuations, fb in this they over-rigoroufly ftrain and prefs it on the other fide, and make it a great deal harder than it in truth is, or ought to be j ib that they can both condenfe and ratify them as they fee fit, and fhrink or ftretch them as is tnoft convenient for their pur- pofe. It had been very eafy for the Church of Rome to have put in an exprefs Vow of Continence into their Offices of Ordination, and to have obliged all the four Superior Orders to have actually made them, ' had not the Scandal and Novelty of it hindred them from fb doing, or had they not believed it impoflibleto have found out a fufficient number who would have been ordained upon fuch hard terms; for with how much Struggle and Oppofition this Tyrannical and Unreafbnable Law gaine'd upon the Weftern Clergy in all places is very well known, but falls not under my prefent Province to relate ; for I doubt not but to this day a great many of the belt of the Roman Cler- gy are fecretly married, as the Bavarian Embaflador :gave it in to the Council of Trent for the Clergy of his 5 S Time 8 i o Tfie Texts examined which Tapifts cite Time and Country ; and what the worft of them do lias been in all Ages very well known, and very loud- ly complained of: for after -all, there is no fuch thing as a Vow to reftrain the Romifh Clergy, meerly as fuch, from marrying, without entring into Monaftick Vows, and 'tis only an Ecclefiaftical Law at molr, not of the whole Church, but only of their own, that forbids and prohibits this; and I can by no means allow the Univerial Church, much lefs a particular one, as that of Rome, to have a fufficient Power to make any fuch Law contrary to the natural Freedom and Liberty which God has left all Men in, much more contrary to that neceflity which he may put upon fbme Men who cannot contain, nor are able to receive that faying, and in a word, fuch a Power as is not for Edification , but for Deftrutfion, which is a {landing limit and boundary to all Ecclefiaftical Power, that it muft never exceed or trangrefs. But I defign not here to meddle with that Subject, tho it lie fbme- thing in my way, becaule it would lead me a great deal further than I am to go at this time ; nor had it. been at all neceffary to confider and examine their Pretences from Scripture for their Vows of Conti- nence, had they no otherwife impofed them upon their Monks, and Nuns, and Regulars, than they do upon the Clergy, who I think do neither make them, nor are required to do fo by any Conftitution even in the Church of Rome it felf ; and therefore I hope I fhall be the more eafily pardon'd for laying open the true faults of the Church of Rome, when they fee I am fo willing to excufe and vindicate her in a mat- ter wherein I think file is over-charged, and that I am for Celibacy of Triefts, and Vows of Continence. 8 i i am fo far from any Mifrcprefentation of her, which they fometimes are pleafed to charge us with, that I have taken all the care I can (he fhould not mifrepre- fent her felf by a pretended Vow of Continence, which fhe no where obliges her Clergy to make, and which they themfelves, one would gueft, do not think they are under any very great Obligation to obferve, either by an Implied and Interpretative Vow, or by any Law of their Church, which are both equally null and void in themfelves. THE END. E R R At A. >Age 779. line 21. for impropable, read 'mfrobaUt. P. 798. 1. 28. f. for, r. againfl. LONDON, Printed by J. D. for Richard Chifwel at the Rofe and Crow§ in St. Paul's Church- Yard, 1688. Mt^ ( 8ij ) The Texts examined which Papifts cite out of the Bible for the Proof of their Do&rine CONCERNING The Vtjibiltty of the Church. IMPRIMATUR. Nov. 23. 1688. ■ Guil. Needham. IN that part of the Controverfy which we have with thofe of the Church of Rome, under this Head of the Viability of the Churchy it is abfblute- ly neceffary to ftate the Cafe with all cleamefs imaginable ; becaufe by doing this, it will on the one fide appear, that thofe Texts which are cited by the Romanijis, have no other Concern than with the Church Militant here on Earth, generally considered : And on the other fide, that thofe of the Learned Pro- tcjlants that have defended the Invifibility of the Church, have mainly refug'd themfeives under the Notion of the Church Vniverfal. For this is certain, if this be the Definition of the Church, that it is Cattus Fidelium, or, the Company of the Faithful, that is, the Company of all thofe that are already poffefs'd of their Eternal Happinefs with God, and of all thofe 5 T that 8 14 The Texts examined, which ^afijls cite that are now in the way toward that Happinefs ; as alfbof thofe who to the End of the World fhall be ever calPd to the obtainment of it ; if, I fay, we take all this in, as neceffary to the Definition -of the Church, then, all the Proofs of Scripture that are brought to' argue the diffufivenefs, and moft glorious Figure the Church hath made in this World, are impertinent to the purpofe, as to its Viability ; becaufe, as to that part of it which is in Heaven, and as to that part of it which is not yet in being, only in the Eternal Pur- pofe of God, it muff ftill be to Vs invifible ; neither can it poflibly be fuppos'd (under this Notion) as one common Society united under any one mortal Man as its vicarious and fitbftituted Head, or indeed under any other Government than that which the Blef- fed Jefa, the Lord of all, univerfally maintains. Again, if the Notion of the Church were to be li- mited (as fome have done) to thofe only who from Eternity were Elect and Predeftinate, and in Time aye effectually call'd by the Spirit of God, and inwardly endu'd with thofe Graces and Vertues that are ne- ceffary to qualify for everlafting Happinefs ; then al- io, there is no poflible Proof can be alledg'd to make the Church (thus confider'd) in any Age Vifible; be- caufe God only knows the Hearts, and tries the Spi-' rits : Thefe Graces are inward, and however they may and will (according to the Notion fuchhave) unavoidably exert themfelves in moft excellent Fruits of a good Life ; yet they are Rich as may be fb coun- terfeited by the Hypocrite, that they cannot be al- ways diftinguifh'd, but by the All-feeing Eye that difcerns into the very Root an4 Principle of all. So that, under either of thefe Notions, the Church is in- vifibley nor can it poffibly be other wife. And thus confider'd for the Vipblllty of the Qhurch. 8 1 j confider'd (as fome have rightly obferv'd) the Church is the Subject of our Faith, and not our Sight; to which therefore they have apply'd that Article in the Apoftles Creed, i" believe the Holy Catholick Church 7 that is, tho I cannot poflibly fee it as it is Catholick and Univerfal, yet I believe it. There is no Queftion, but as to the Notion of the Eeii.de Ecd. Church m general, it is, (as Bellarminehim&lf: expref MiHc. lib. 3. leth it, deriving it from the word 'ehkW*, Ccetu* Vo- cap' *' catorum) the whole Company of the Faithful, or thofe that are called to the knowledg, and belief, and pro- feflion of the Truth : But then, as I have laid, 'tis as certain, that the Churchy thus confider'd, is invifible. For tho the Perfbns, who in their Turns upon the Stage of this World, have or do embrace the Truth, who are baptiz'd into, and live in the profeflion of it, tho thefe may be actually feen, and known, and con- vers'd with, and link'd into one common and vifible Society ; yet, take the Church in its aggregate Senfey as the whole Company of thofe that have, or do, or fhall thus profefs, as fb it rnulr needs be invifible, unlefs to that Eye only that can fee all things, uno aclu & in- tuitu, by one a£t and view: That therefore in which this part of the Contro- verfy is concern'd, is the Church indeed ; but it is that part of the Church only, which we exprefs by the Church Militant. And it is the Cardinal's own Title, when he enters upon this Difpute 5 De Ecclepa Mili- tante ; that is, that part of the Church that is conver- fant in this World, that have embrac'd the Faith of the Gofpel, that have taken up the Profeflion of it, and do maintain this Profeflion in the ufe of the Holy Rites and Sacraments which Chrifthath inftituted and commanded to be obferv'd. And here one would 5 T 2 think 1 1 5 Jhe Texts examined which Taplfls cite think, that the Queftion between us fhould be, Whe- ther the Vifibility of the Church, as thus confider'd, is not fo firmly affur'd to us in the Holy Scriptures, as that there neither hath been, nor ever will be any one part of Time or Age, wherein there fhall not be a viftble Society of Men profefftng the True Faith, and maintaining the True Religion in Do&rine and Wor- ship, as it hath been taught and eftablifh'd by Chrift and his Apoftles ; or, whether it is pofTible for the Church, in any the leaft fpace of Time, from its firft rile and beginning, to the end and confummation of the World, wholly and entirely to fail ? But this is not the Queftion ; tho the Papijls would fometimes in their Arguings feem to make it fb : And fome Prote- ctants (at leaft as to any publick or vifible profeflion of the Truth) have feem'd to own and maintain that there hath been, or may be fuch an entire defection in the Churchy as that it may have even univerfally fallen off as to fome of the very Fundamentals in Chriftianity. As to this, taking the Queftion in its due latitude, there is really no Controverfy betwixt the Church of Rotne and Vs. For as the Romanics will not content themfelves'with lome little referv'd number of Men profefling the Truth, that that fhould go under the ftile cr Notion of the Church ; fo the Protectants on the other fide, however fome in the warmth of Di- fpute, or the hiafs of Contradiction may have given themfelves too great a liberty in afTerting the De- feciibility of the Church ; yet in their fober Reafo- •nings, there are none poffibly of the Writers, nor in- deed of the whole Reformed Communion, that right- ly underftand what they fayy or whereof they affirm, but do fo fecurely depend upon the Truth and Faithful- nefs for the Vifibilky of the Qhmch, % 1 7 nefs of Chrift's blefTed Promifes to his Church, as to afllire themfelves, that there always were, and always will be a vifible part of Mankind that fhall profefs his Truth. Vifible ( I fay ) not perhaps in any glo- rious Splendor, or with external Pomp or Obfervati- on ; Chrift himfelf never defign'd to make that an infeparable Note of his Church, as appears when he tells us, that the Kjngdom of God comes not with Obfer- Luke xvii v-uion : But vifible lb, as that it may be apparently difcern'd by thofe that will not fhut their Eyes, even by fuch as (if I may fb exprefs it) are themfelves without, and much more by thofe who are of the fame Faith and Communion. This indeed, thofe places in the Scripture give us juft ground to hope and believe, that tell us, that upon that Confeilion St. Peter had made, Chrijl would build his Church, and the. Gates of Match. Xvi. 18. Hell jh on Id not prevail againfi if, that he would be with them to the End of the World. And that, where two MJC-xxviii-2o. or three are gathered together in his Name, he will be in midfl of them. It is fa fmall a number as two or three x' xna" I0' will make a gathering together, and that fmalieft Col- lection of Men, is Chrift ready to own as his Church, by being in the midfl of them. The Church is there- fore call'd the Pillar and Ground of Truth, and the l TinL iiL J5- Apoftle tells us, the foundation of God flandeih fure, having this Seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. 2Tim;ij..i?. Herein, I fay, we may be fuppos'd to agree with our Adverfaries, that the Church, generally fpeaking,, neither ever did, nor ever will, as to the Fundamentals, of Chriftianity, totally and entirely fail, but in one. part of the World or other, will in every Age main- tain even its Vifibilky to the End and Confummarion of all things. When the ArrUn Herefy had fo far prevaifd that it became proverbial, Athanafius contra Mtindjm. 8 1 8 the Texts examined which (Papifts cite Mundum, & Mundm contra Athanafiium : Athanafius again (I the World, and the World againji Athanafius : it is true, fb far as that Herefy prevailed, there was an abfolute Defection in fbme of the Effentials of a ChrifKan Church, and that Defection was of vaft Extent, and look'd fomething like Univerfal, when they had gain'd over to themfelves the Secular Power to encourage and cover them : But yet, even then all Church-Hiftories agree in confiderable numbers of Bi[hopsy and Fathers, and their Churches, who were contemporary with Athanafius, and maintain'd the Orthodox Faith with all clearnefs and ftedfaftnefs a- gainft all the Subtilty or Cruelty of their Enemies. So I may add as to the Church of Rome, it is not to be deny'd but the very Fundamentals of Christianity, as they are fumm'd up in that which we call the Apoftles and the Nicene Creed, they are ftill kept up and profeft, and have always fo been, tho miierably blended with many impious and impure, both Do- ctrines and Ufages, which for fbme hundreds of Years have been creeping in, and are now in their full height, being of that Quality, that tho they do not directly and immediately cut them off from all Title to a Chri- ftian Church, yet ex confequenti, mediately and by neceffary Confequence they feem to ftrike at and over- throw the Foundation of Faith, and that fb far that it abfolutely binds and obliges all Perfons that know and are aware of it, upon pain of Damnation, to fe- parate from her, in fuch Faith and fuch Practices. Such, for inftance, as their Do&rines of Merits, Tran- fubfiantiation, Sacrifice of the Mafis, fraying to Saints and Angels, the worfhipping of Images, the Obficurity of the Scriptures, Purgatory, with fbme others. And yet, even as to this part of that Church's Apofhcy, were it for the V'tfibtlity of the QhurcK 8 1 p it not fomething foreign to the defign of thefe Pa- pers, it might be fairly enough made out, that in all -Ages, by the Confeffion of their own feveral Writers and Hijtorians, there have ftill appear'd, fbmetimes whole Communities of People, and other times par- ticular Perfons of fam'd Learning; remarkable Piety, and ftrong Intereft in the World, who have either noted and complain'd of, or openly oppos'd and re- fitted, at leaft diffented and kept themfelves*free from the Errors, Corruptions, and Superftitions, as they fprung and grew up in the Times wherein they liv'd. This therefore is not the Queftion really betwixt the Church of Rome and Vs, Whether' the Church may in any Age fb entirely fail as to become no where vifible ? But that which is plainly in difpute, and that which our Adverfaries would pretend under this Head of the Visibility of the Church to prove from the many Texts of Scripture which they alledge, is this., viz. That it is neceflary, from the Prophecies in the Old Teftament, and the Promifes that Chrift * and his Apoftles^ive left with us in the New Tefta- ment, thaqfliie Church fhould in all Ages appear in its juft Splendor, DirTufivenefs, Succeffion, and regu- lated Form, in the Vifible Profeflion of its Faith, and uniform ufe of its Sacraments, under its ftated Go- vernors and Paftors, fubordinate to one Monarch or Head of the Church thus conftituted. And- that the Church of Rome hath throughout all Ages appeared thus vifible ; and was that Church thus pointed out by Prophecies of old, fecured by infallible Promifes, and could digit 0 monjirari, be always fhown and viewM in its Succeflion, in its Numbers, and in its Vifible Head, and Monarch under Chrift, whofe Vicar he is, 8 io The Texts examined which Tapijls cite is, viz. the Pope or Bifhop of Rome: That this, and no other, is the State of the Queftion, may be made out from all or moft of the Romifh Writers, both from the Definitions they give of their Church, the drift of their Arguments, and the (corn they generally throw upon the Reform d'Q\mxd\i charging it with Novelty, flendernefs of Number, weaknefs of Intereff, and want of Succeffion. I fhall pitch upon Eellarmine, and ob- ferve it fupm the Definition he gives us of the Church when he is letting himielf to argue its Vifibility from Scriptures, Reafon, and the Fathers. His Definition * Noflra au- is this, * It is a Company of Men knit together in the eft" EcclSkm Profelfion °f the fame Faith, the Communion of the fame una'm tantum Sacraments, -and under the Government of lawful Pafiors, dfe & non du- efpecially of that one Vicar of Chrift upon the Earth, the namVver^m', BiftfOp of Rome. efle cxtum ho- minum ejufdem Chriftianx Fidei Profcfflone, & eorundem Sacramentorum Communionc colligatum, fub regimine legitimorum Paftorum, ac prxcipue Unius Chrifti in terris Vicarii Roraani Poncificis. Bell, dt Ecclef. Milit. lib. 5. cap. 2. This is his Definition, and this we are to fuppofe he icks to in all the Proofs that himfelL or indeed after him the Catholick Script urift, and m f i^hor of the Uedc flicks to in all the Proofs that himfelL or indeed after Touch- flone of the Reformed Gofpel do allecFg to juftify it. So that he and they make the Church of Rome, as comprehended in its numerous Communion, and as govern'd under its fplendid and glorious Head and Monarch, the Bijhop of Rome, to be the One and True Church, and wholly the Subject of thofe Texts which they cite, either from the Prophets of Old, or from the New Teirament. In confidering of which, it will not be amifs to fhew, I. That for the Vifibllity of the Church, 8 1 1 I. That it is not in the ftile or ufual manner of de- fcribing the Church, efpecially in the Books of the New Teitament, to infift much upon the Numbers, or the outward Pomp and Splendor of the Church, but rather to the contrary. II. That none of thole places of Scripture which either the Cardinal, or the Touch-fione of the Reformed Gofpel, or the Catholick Scripturijl have cited, do prove any thing of the Vifibility of the Church, as fuppos'd ( in Bellarmmis Definition ) under the Government of one Vifible Head, ChrijFs Vicar upon Earth, the Bifiop of Rome. I. The firft I fhall touch at but briefly, viz. That it is not in the ftile or ufual manner of the Scriptures, efpecially of the Books of the New Teftament, in de- fcribing the Church, to infift much upon the Numbers, or outward Pomp and Splendor of the Church, but ra- ther to the contrary. I confefs, many of the Prophe- cies in the Old Teftament, and tjiofe particularly which the Catholick Scripturijl hath muftered up in fuch plen- Cath: s«ipt. ty, do fpeak of Glorious Things that fhould in time 3 Poin:" befal the Church ; but thefe (as fhall be fhewn in their proper place ) are generally to be underftood of the vaft dirTufivenefs of the Gofpel, that it fhould run through all Nations, fhould fhine into the darker!: and moft diftant Corners of the World ; or elfe they re- fpe£f. the Spiritual, and not the Carnal or Temporal Eltate of the Church ; or elfe they are reftrain'd, fome of them, meerly to the recovery of the Jewifh State from its Captivity, toward whom fuch kind of Ex- 5 V prellions 8 ix The Texts examined which Pdfifts cite prefiions were proper and accommodate to their Oeco- nomy ; or, in a word, may point at the laft upfhot and confummation of the Church. Otherwife, in al- moft all the Paflages that concern the Church in the Books of the New Teftament, fhe is generally de- fcrib'd in another kind of ftile. Our Saviour calls them Lukexli.32. by the name of a little Flock. He difcourfcth them continually under the fuppofal of Perfecution and Po- verty, great hardfhips of Life, perfect fcorn and con- tetnpt in this World, drc. He never fo much as hints to St. Peter the Grandure of his SuccefTor, the Riches of his See, the Extent of his Dominion, his Suprema- cy over Kings and Emperors, or the uncontroulable Intereft he fhould have with fo many States and Prin- cipalities in the World. But when the Apoftleswere contefting a little Superiority amongft themielves, he checks the Difpute as fond, andforreign to their Cha- racter ; he reproaches them for affecting what might become only the Heathen Potentates and Great Ones in the World, who were then making Power and Extent of Government their main Defign and Endeavour. He Luke^xxn. 24, y^ mtQ tfjem^ j*^ Kjngs of the Gentiles exercife Lord- JJjip over them —But ye jh all not be fo ', but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he that is chief, as he that ■ doth ferve. Nay, the Apo- ftle St. Paul fpeaks of himfelf, and thofe who in com- mon with him, bore the mighty Character of Jpo- Jlles, and firjl Publishers of the Gofpel, that they are made as the Filth of the World, and the Off-fcouring of all Things unto this Day. We are told indeed of the falling away of the Church in a great part of it, and » Cor. iv. 13. tnat Part of the Apoflacy is, I confefs, fet forth to us in fbme fplendor, when the Man of Sin /hall be re- vealed. for the Fifibility of the Church. 82$ vealed, the Son of Perdition, who oppofcth and exalteth himfelf above all that is called God, and is worfbipped : So that he as God Jitteth in the Temple of God, /hewing T| ff .. himfelf that he is God. This* Text of Scripture (if they pleale to accept of it) we heartily allow them for the proof of their Church and its Vifibility for ma- ny Ages. Bat to proceed ; We find in the Book of the Reve- lation of St. John, a Book wherein the Romanifls them- felves will acknowledg that fbme great Revolutions of the Church are determinately fet down ; there the Church is represented under the Character of a Wo- man flying into the Wildernefs, fed and maintained there by the meer Providence of God. It is true, fhe is Revc,*xu-^ defcrib'd in terms that proclaim her great and illuftri- ous enough ; fhe is clothed with the Sun, file hath the Moon under her Feet, and upon her Head a Crown o^ibid.v. i. twelve Stars. But all this points plainly at her Spiri- tual State : and as'fhe is fuppos'd to be elevated above this World and all fublunary Things : Whereas the A- poftatiz'd part of Mankind, fet up in oppofition to the True Church, is defcribed under the Character of a Woman too, but in a very gaudy Drefs : She is ar- ray d in Purple and Scarlet-Colour, and decked with Gold ev* xm 4* and precious Stones and Pearls, with a golden Cup in her Hand, 8cc. Ail which intimates to us the Secular Grandeur by which that Apoftatizd Party that were in direct oppofition to the True Church, fhould make themfelves fb notorious and remarkable. And fo all along throughout the whole Book, we may obfervethe True Church, (unlefs in her Ian; Con- fummation, when fhe appears adorn'd as becomes the 5 V 2 own'd 8 14 The Text's examined which Papiftt cite own'd and acknowledg'd Bride of the Holy Jefus) her Circumftances are generally reprofented as very low and difcourag'd, trampled on, and triumphed over, prophefying in Sackcloth, made merry upon amongit her fuccesful Enemies, bearing frill the afflictive and tragical Part throughout every Scene : A thing which thofe of the Church of Rome themfelves feem Co con- vinc'd of, thatfomeof their Writers, in the Defcnp- tions they make of that Antichrifi whom they have feign'd and imagined, tell us, That *'// the Reign of Vid. Rhem. Jntichrijl, the external State of the Roman Church, and 2 Theff. ii. publick intercom fe of the Faithful with the fame, (hall bt£t. io. ccafe, and that there (hall he only a Communion in Heart with it, and Practice in Secret ', fo rfie Rhemrjls confefs. And Suarez declares, Diebws Antichrifi, omnem cultum Tom 2S<£r«* Divinum cejfaturum ; That in the Days of Antichrifi, all Arc.d.'sta.d. Divine Worfhip fhould ceafe. Here one might by the way, put in a remembring Queiiion, viz,. Where then will our Adversaries place the Viability of the Church* But, . - ' H. Come we to confider that none of thofe places of Scripture, which either the Cardinal, or the Touch- Jlone of the Reformed Gofpel, or the Catholick Scriptu- rijl have cited, do prove any thing of the Vifibility of the Church as defin'd by Be liar mine, viz,, a company of Men hmt together under the Government of Chrijfs Vjcar on Earthy the BiJJjop of Rome* And here, before I fet my felf to examine the Scrip- tures by which the C^-^/>«rTJretends to confirm or ll- luftrate this Argument, I mull beg the Reader's par- don, that lib much as mention moftof them, becaufe tbey for the Vifibility of the Church. %i< they are fb very impertinent to the purpofe for which he quoteth them, that were not his Writings every- where in the hands of the Learned, it would feem im- poflible to perfuade thofe that could not confult them, that ever lb great a Difputant as Bellarmine, on ib pub- lick a Stage of Learning, wherein his Writings, both in his own and future Ages muft be conversant, fhould fo extravagantly trifle, in firft pretending (b folemnly to the Scriptures, and then pitching upon fuch PafTa- ges, that one would think a Man in jeft while he is propounding them. He tells us, firft, he can prove it from all thofe Bel] de ~. Scriptures where the Church is fo much as named, mil. lib. $&pc- For (faith he) where-ever we meet with the Name I2- of Church, there a Vifible Congregation muft always be underftood ; upon this he quotes Numb. xx. 4. Why have ye brought up Ecclefiam Domini, the Congregation of the Lord into this Wilder nefs ? Here (faith the Cardinal gravely ) that moft known and noted People of Ifrael is call'd the Church, or Congregation of the Lord* This is ftricl: reafoning indeed ! The People of Jfrael were many in Number, and vifible enough at that time, to every Eye that then had the good fortune to meet or converfe with them, and this vifi- ble Company of the Ifraelites are here call'd Ecclefia- ■ Domini, the Congregation of the Lord, therefore the Church is always vifiblt to the World's End, under the Government of one Vifible Head, the Bifhop of. . Rome. He follows this mighty Blow of his with ano~ ther irrefragable Text, wherein he tells us the Scrip- viri, Bdi.'ubi ; ture exprefty fpeaks of rbe vifible Church: 1 Kjngs (u^';' viii. 14. The Kjr*g turned his Fdce about and hleffed^ omni : 8 1 6 The Texts examined which Tapijls cite omni Ecclefise Ifrael, all the Congregation of Ifrael, and all the Congregation of Ifrael food. Now, had we been fo lucky in our Translation as to have ren- dered it the Church of Ifrael, as the Vulgar hath it, Ecclefia Ifrael, we fhould long before this time have been convine'd that God had a Vifible Church then, and not have been fo hardy as to have ventur'd the Lifts with the Romanifis about their Vifible Church now. But this it is to out-face an Argument through our meer ignorance of a Latin word ! His next Citation from Scripture is that of Matth. xvi. 1 8. Upon this Rock will 1 build my Church : A place Cath. Script, which the Catholick Scripturift mentions indeed, but 5. point, pag. teijs us jie wm nQt -mQ£ Qn ^ Whether he was con- vine'd it was nothing to the purpofe ? or whether he thought it a Text fo plain and cogent, that it would be but holding a Candle to the Sun, to enlarge much upon it ? as he hath not thought fit to tell us, fb we difmifs him. The Cardinal however fpends his Re- marks upon it, and gives his Adverfary pretty good fcope too ; he finds he can play with him here, and vid. Eeliar. yet take jjjm at iaft • for fie tc\\s us? « Whether by this ubi fupra. u <^ock we unc}erftand chriji9 or the Confeffion of his " Faith, as the Hereticks would have it ? Or, Whether " by this Tfyckwe underftand Peter, as the Roman Ca- " tholicks do? ftill the Foundation of the Church is " fbmething fenfible, and therefore the Church it felf " muft be fenfible too, or vifible. For, tho we fee " neither Chrift, nor Peter at prefent,yet they were both " of them at that time view'd by bodily Eyes, and " at this time are both feen in their Vicar or SuccefTor. I was willing to lay before the Reader the whole weight ] for the Vifibllity of the Church. 817 weight of the Argument, that he himfelf may judg how very unanfwerably the Cardinal hath urged it. However, fince -he hath given us our choice to under- ftand this Rock of the Confeflion that St. Peter then made, we will take it fb, and then fee how the Ar- gument will go. As to the understanding of St. Pe- ter himfelf to be this Rock, I need only refer the Reader to thofe feveral Treatifes that have of late been publifh\l upon the Subject of the Pope's Supre- macy, and particularly that that fets it felf to examine ■ the Texts by which the Papifls pretend to prove it. And fo proceed to confider, Whether, if we take this Pock to be the Confeflion that Peter made of Chrift, that he was the Son of the Living God, and that Chrift upon this Confeflion of his, promis'd that this fhould be the Foundation upon which he would build his Church ', whether from hence it muft unquestionably follow, that the Church fhall be always vifible, under the known Government of that one Paftor, the Bifhop of Rome, or Vicar of Chrift ? I grant that, could it be made out, that by this Rock the Perfbn of Peter was immediately intended, and in his Perfbn the Pope was unavoidably included as his direct and perpetual SuccerTor, this Text might carry fbme force in it, and Chrift's Promife, that the Gates of Hell fbould never prevail againjl it might be made to fpeak fbmething of an endlefs and unalterable Succeflion fecur'd to that See : But fince none but the Romanifls could ever fb much as have dream'd of fiich an Interpretation as this, and fb many Traces have formerly and of late fb ftrenuoufly vindicated this Paflage from fb falfe a glofs; and the Cardinal hath laid, tho we fhould not underftand it of the Perfon of S.Peter, yet his Argu- ment 8 1 8 The Texts examined which faplfts cite ment holds good ; let us confider it in the true fenfe it muft, and only muft bear. Our Lord, having asked his Difciples what the World generally, and afterward what they themfelves thought of him, Simon Peter, ufually the nioff for- ward in any thing of this kind, makes a very plain and home Confeflion, Thou art Chrift the Son of the Living God. Upon this, our Saviour, approving this hearty Confeflion, tells Peter, with fome allufion to his Name, that this CcnfefTion of his was the very T\ock or Foundation upon which he would build his Church ; that is, That whoever fhould hereafter hearti- ly believe and profefs Jefu-s to be the Son of God, i. e. the true Meffiah and Saviour of the World, that eve- ry flich I eifon fhould be entituled to this relation with Chrift; he fhould beefteemed a Member of that Society which fhould make up his Church. And the Gates of Hell jhall not prevail againfl it ; that is, the Belief and Profeflion of this great Truth fhould never hereafter be rooted out, but ftill there fhall be always fome in the World who, notwithftanding all the op- pofition of Hell it felf, fhall own and profefs this Faith. This, in the event, hath hitherto been accompliftfd ever finceit proceeded from our Saviour's Mouth ; and this we queftion not will for ever be. In every Succefli- on of Ages there will ftill be fome whom Chrift fhall own and acknowledg as his Church, from this Fun- damental Confeflion of him. And thus far of the Churches Viftbility, that is, that it fhall never fail, but fome numbers of Perfons fhall ftill he known and diftinguifh.'d as the Followers of Chrift ; I have al- ready for the Vijibilky of the Church. 8 ip ready faid, is. the undoubted Promife of our Lord, and lb believed and embrac'd by every good Prote- ft Ant. And here let me further add, that as it may be ■ made out, that there have not wanted in all Ages fince the firft depravation of the Church, fbme who (till have born their witnefs,- and aliened the pure and unblended Truth againft the Corruptions and Su- perftitions of the Church of Rome it felf ; fb upon the ftrength of this very Promife we ftill depend, that there will never fail a Generation of Men that fhall keep themfelves unfpotted from thefe Garments of the F/ejJ;, fhall never drink of the Cup of Babylon's For- nications, and fhall keep the Truths of God intire and inviolate, notwithstanding all the Force, the Frowns, the Blood and Deftruclion which the Church of Rome hath hitherto wrought, or is ftill meditating againft any in this Caufe, by which fhe hath gain'd a confide- rable Title to the Gates of Hell mentioned in the Text. But how from hence fhould be colle&ed that there fhall be always a fplendid vifible Church under the Headfhip of that great Monarch the Bifhop of Rome, and that whoever are not under the Government of this Monarchy, or within the Communion of this So- ciety,, are to be fuppos'd as not having made St. Peter's Confeflion, that Chrift is the Son of the Living God', this, as the Text doth not feem to point toward it, fb the Cardinal hath not fb much as attempted to make it -out. His next Text is Mat. will. 1 7. Tell it to the Church ; Bellarm. ubi hut if he neglect to hear the Church, &c. Certainly (faith ftpra. the Cardinal} this could by no means be obferv'd, were the Church inviftble. It were an hard cafe ( faith the * 5 X Touch- 8 ]0 . The Texts examinei which Tapifts cite Tmcbftone Re- Touch fl one ) to be condemn *d as an Heathen for not teHin? Kag!^.031' or hearing a Church which hath fo clofely lam hidy that no Man could hear, fee, feel, nor under/land it for a thotifand tears. The Catholick Seripturijl mentions pott's. °p! ^i. this Text, and enforce'th it the fame way. Here if the Queftion were asked, To whom did our Saviour then fpeak ? It muft be anfwer'd, To his Dilciples liirely, to St. Peter probably, and the reft of the Apoftles. Who then was the Church that they muft tell the Offence of their Brother to ? Was St. Peter at that time feated in his Pontifical Throne, and had he his Confijlory of Cardinals about him to receive the Com- plaints and Accufations of his Subjects one againft another? If not, then the Church might be invifible at that time, notwithstanding Chrift's Directions to T i makes her capable of throwing a juft awe upon Cri- minals by the infliction of Punifhments tremendous and dreadful ; and nothing further is here fuppos'd or commanded. Nor is it to be doubted (as I have al- ready laid ) but that there will always be fuch a So- ciety of Men, I mean, fb much of the Church of Chrift. vifible in all Ages, wherein this Rule may per- petually be of great ufe and influence, where any noto- rious and fcandalous Offencs of its Members may be fb reprefented as to meet with their due Check by Re- bukes, Inftru&ions, Excommunication, or otherwife, as the Offender may need or delerve ; tho I muft alfo here add, that by Experience it appears how much more effectual thefe Methods have prov'd when the Church is in the loweft and moft perfecuted State, and a£ts by its own more peculiar Inftruments of Cor- rection and Dilcipline. And therefore, notwithstand- ing the Rule, and the ufefulnefs of this Rule, there is nothing in it from whence can be pick'd out fuch a Vifible Church, as Bellarmin defines. Much lefris there in fbme following Texts which he proceeds to cite, ' which I fhall but name, as he himfelf hath done, with this Remark only, that the Cardinal in merely quoting them feems very well aflur'd in this his firft Head of arguing, that where-ever the Name of Church is, there alio it is evidently vifible, and under its re- quifite form of Monarchical Government, whole Head is ChrifVs Vicar upon Earth. His Texts are thefe, Acts xx. 28. Take heed therefore to your f elves, and, to all the 'Block over which the Holy Ghojl hath made you, Overfeers, to feed the Church of Gody &rc. How, faith he, can they feed the Church .which they know nothing of? Again, Atfsxv. $.. Being br aught on their 5X2 way g * i 7he Texts examined which (paplfls cite' way by the Church, they faffed through Phoenice, ver. 4. And when they were come to Jeruialem they were re- ceived of the Church, AQts xviii. 22. When Paul had gone up and faluted the Church. Again, 1 Cor. XV. Gal. i. Phil. iii. St. Paul tells us of himfelf, that he persecuted the Church. And befpeaks Timothy, Thefe things 1 write unto thee, that thou mayjl know how thou ought e (I to behave thy. [elf in the Houfe of God, which is the Church of the Living God, 1 Tim. iii. 14, 15. Thefe Texts prove ( as the Cardinal gravely obferves) that Chrift had a Church in being at that time : So they do, and fo may twenty more of that kind do, for any Difpute we have with him in that matter. From thefe Proofs where the Church is named, the Cardinal proceeds to others, where fhe is not nam'd, ubi'fupnu™1' but plainly defcribed : Thus Pfal. xviii. (to us Pfal. xix. ) In Sole pofuit Tabemaculum fuum ; He hath fet his Tabernacle in the Sun, fb Vulg. hath it from the LXXII. but we render it, In them hath he fet a Taber- nacle for the Sun : I will not contend which of them * followeth the Original the nearefr. The Argument the Pfalmifi is upon will bear either of them : For, fpeaking of the Vifible Tefrimony that is given to the Power and Providence of God from the mighty Fa- brick of the Heavens, and that all Nations in the World may fee enough of God, in the Frame, and Or- der, and Influences of thofe vaft and glorious Bodies, it may very well be faid of God, That he hath fet his Tabernacle in the Sun, i. e. he hath made himfelf very vifible in that glorious piece of his own Workmanfhip, that whoever beholds that, may contemplate and adore the for the Vifibility of the Qburcb. 82 V the Divine Power and Goodnefs, who hath fram'd fb goodly and fb ufeful a Body as that is. But if it be render'd as we have it in our Tranflation, then it re- fers to the Heavens, and the Firmament, which, v. r. the Pfalmifi tells us, did every-where declare the Glo- ry of God ; they do it in all their feveral parts, but more efpecially, and more confpicuoufly in the Sun, for which the Heavens are made a Seat and Tabernacle. And what then is this to the Vifibility of the Church ? Yes : Doth not the Apoftle, when he is upon the Sub- ject of the univerfal publication of the Gofpel, make ufe of the words immediately foregoing ? Their Sound, went into all the Earth, and their Words unto the end of the World, Rom. x. 18. What then ! He does not e- ven there cite this Expreflion particularly, He hath fet his Tabernacle in the Sun. Or, if he did unqueftiona- bly refer to thole words in the Pfalmifi which he feems to quote, it were not very ablurd to fup- pofe, ( 1 . ) The Apoftle upon the fame Argument with the Pfalmifi, that is, that all Nations, both Jew and Gentile, had been already effectually preach'd to, by the mighty Works of the Creation, which had been fb long, fb confpicuoufly, fb univerfally feen,and might have been contemplated by all the Rational World, Their Sound went into all the Earth, &c. But, (2.) to allow this, that 'the Apoftle is upon the extenfive and univerfal Promulgation of the Go- fpel, yet does he not feem to bring in this Paffage of the Pfalmifi as a Proof, but allufively only, and by way of accommodation. However, ( 3 . and laftly ) Suppofe we to the utmofr, that the words, as utter'd by David, were Prophetical, and • $ i 4 the Texts examined which Vafifls cite and they are brought in by the Jpoftle in proof of the fulfilling of this Prophecy ; yet all that could be made out thence, would be only, that the Gofpel was diffu- • 'lively publifh'd;, not only throughout all the Region of Judea7 but amongft the Gentiles too ; which we rea- dily grant, and have infinite reafbn to blcfs God for it, becaule the Glad Tidings have reach'd even our re- moter!: Ifles too. And what is this frill to the perpe- tual Vifibility of the Church under the Government of one great Paftor and Vicar of Chrift the Biihop of Rome ? Having mention'd this, that this Jaft Text cited by the Cardinal, if it be any way refer r'd to by the Jpo- ftle, it muft be underftood of the vaft publications of the Gofpel, both in Judea and amongft the Gentiles : Our due Obfervation of this, will cut fhort a great deal of Work, and ferve as one Anfwer to a great heap of Texts which the Catholick Scripturift hath fetchM out of the Old Teftament, in proof of his third Point about the Vifibility of the Church, and its continu- ance ftill, from one Age to another, under lawful Pa- llors. We are to confider, that one great Subject of the Prophecies of old was, not only the coming of the Meffiah) but the Confequence of that, viz. breaking down the middle Wall of Partition, and enlarging the Boundaries of the Church, which in the Prophets Time were kept within the Pale of the Jewifh Na- tion, at leaft within the Communion of their Rites and Ulages, and the Seal of their Covenant. And this will appear a Subject fit for the Prophets to have for the Vifibility of the Qhwch. 8 j j have been very lofty and very large upon, if we con- fider, (i.) How prejudiced the Jews were in their Con- ceptions about the eternal duration of their prefent Oeconomy, that it was never to be alter'd, much lefs abolifh'd, for the bringing in of the Gentiles to fo near an Affinity and Relation with God. Or if we confider (2.) how mighty and fignal an Event and Revolution of Providence this would be when it once came about. For the Chriftian Religion to fpread it felf into fo large a compafs, to gain over to it felf fuch vaft Empires and Kingdoms, to break in with its Light into the darker!, the moft barbarous and uncultivated Parts and Corners of the World, to triumph over ftrongeft Oppofitions, to level greater!: Mountains, to plain the rougher!: PafTages, to prevail upon the moft prejudic'd and oppofite* part of Man- kind, reducing them from the greater!: ignorance of God and averfion to Good, to the Knowledg and Love of God, and the practice of all Vertue and true Goodnefs, and this in places moft diftant from one a- nother ; and all from fuch fmall and ineonfiderable Beginnings, the appearance of one Perfdn in the World, who in his outward guife was poor and con- temptible to a Proverb, fcorn a and hated to the moft cruel and ignominious Death that could be thought of and for the generality followed only by Perfbns of the meaneft Figure, and loweft Education ; a few poor and unlearned Fifhermen, whom he appointed the firft Publifhers of his Gofpel, and by whole means notwithstanding, it became fo difTus'd and univer- fal. This was a Subject worthy the nobleft Thoughts, and the moft flaming Expreftlons they could 8 j 6 The Texts examined tolicb (papifts cite could be deliver'd in by infpir'd Prophets, who ac- cordingly enlarg'd and expatiated upon it, in great variety of phrafe, which every-where occurs in their Writings. Having thus prepar'd a juft Light to fet thole Texts in, which the Catholick Script urift, without a- ny Order or Method, but in great number, hath huddlfcd together in proof of his Roman Church, as now under the Government of thofe whom he calls Lawful Pafiors : Having thus doro, I fay, I need give ltty felf or the Reader very little trouble ' in examining them further than barely propounding them ; in the reading of which, when refcu'd out of fome of his uncouth and barbarous Tranflations, every one may^ fee how little to his purpole they are brought in by him. Cach. Script. Thus he quotes Pfal. Lxxxix. 3, 4. 1 have made a Covenant with my Chofen, I have [worn unto David f mt'$. p. $1, m~y Servant. Thy Seed will I ejlablijh for ever, and build up thy Throne in all Generations. This he tells us is verified in none but Chrift, and hath rightly enough apply'd to it that PafTage of the Angel, Luke i. 32. The Lord God /hall give him the Throne of his Father David, and he {hall reign over the Houfe of Jacob for ever} and of his Kjngdom there /hall be no end. / Thus far we are fatisfied, if the Scripturifi be fb too, we own it all, and let him make his befr. on't. Then he tells us, that thefe Promifes are of that id ibid. Kind and Nature, that they cannot be made void or prevented, even by the Sins of David's Poilerity ; and I for the Vifibility of the Church. 8 ] 7 and for this, he citeth feveral Verfes in the fame Pfalm, fromverf.29, to v erf 38. If his Children for- fake my Larv, and walk not in my judgments, &rc. All which we own as moll ailuredly true, but ff ill nothing to bis purpofe. Of the fame intent and meaning is that Promife made by Nathan to David, quoted by the Scriptu* rift, 2 Sarft.vn. 16. primarily intended to affaire Da- vid, that his Pofterity fhould inherit the Throne after him, which Saul's did not. And, fecondarily, that his Kingdom fhould be everlafting in him who is Lord of all, and who fhould in time proceed from David's Loins. To the fame purpofe is that long PafTage out of Pfal. Lxxii. verf. 5. and fo on , which with other Quotations of the fame and greater length, I fhall take leave not to tranferibe, becaufe I would not fwell the bulk of thefe Papers too much, but refer the Reader to their perufal himfelf, alluring him that though he will apprehend nothing in them to the pur- pofe of this Authors Argument ; yet he will not lofe his labour, but meet with fomethlng therein that is ve- ry ufeful and comfortable. 80 thofe many Texts he cites from lfaiah\ Prophe- cy ; they do indeed reprefent the care and faithful- nefs of God to his Church ; the unchangeablenefsof his Love, and his wife over-ruling all things for their Protection, Or for their feafbnable Deliverance in his own Time § which as they were originally de- fign'd for the fupport of the Jetvifi Church under 5 Y her S j 8 The Texts examined which Paftjls cite her Bondage, and the Hardfhips of her Gaptivitv giving her frequent aflurances of Reftoration and Deli- verance in due time : So alfo, in fome Analogy, they have, no doubt, a prophetical refpect to the Church un- der the Difpenfation of the Gofpel, both as to its en- largement and diflfufivenefs amongft the Gentiles, as alio its feafbnable Supports, or Vindication under all her Oppreflions, and the Violences of her Enemies. Id Ibid. i/i. xlix. 14, i$, 16. Chap. liv. verf. 9, 10, 11, 12. Chap.hx. 15,18,19,20. Chap. lxi. (the Verfe mis- printed in the Author) verf.%,(). Chap, lxi 1. verf, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 12. All which, if the Rentier will con- llilt, as they are rendered in our Bibles, or indeed, as they are in the barbarous Tranflation wherein this Man hath quoted them, he will find (as I have laid) fome things very ufeful, and very comforta- ble, and efpecially not unfit for that part of Chrift's Church to converfe with, who are at this prefent Time under moil: fevere and deplorable Circumitances, through the mercilefs Cruelty of thofe that would pre- tend themfelves the only Viftble Church. each. Script. But this Authors choicelt Remark is, upon his laft P-3& Quotation from If a. ixvi. 21. where he tells us, is very clearly exprefc'd, that the True Church fhall have a perpetual Succeffion of Priejls and Levites : 1 will alfo take of them for Priejls and Levites., faith the Lord : For as the New Heavens, and the Areiv Earth, which' I will make, {hall remain before me, faith the Lord, fo /ball your Seed and your Name remain. This Prophecy, in all probability, did primarily con- cern a very particular Inltance of Providence to the 'Jews, whom the Romans and Grecians in their Ma- cedonian for the Fijibility of the Church. g * p cedonian and Syrian Wars , finding in Captivity , fhould reftore them to their Liberty, and fend them back with Honour into their own Country : So the Learned Grot'wt conjectures ; and then, that thofa who were of the Prieftly and Levitical Order, un- der what {rate of Servitude and* Drudgery fb'ever, they had lain hid and obfcure in the Time of their Captivity , fhould be reftor'd to the Dig- nity and Service of their Office and Function in their own Country. But if (as in mod of the Pro- phecies of this kind, we may reafbnably conceive) the Prophet points toward the State of the Church under the Difpenfation of the Gofpel, it does indeed mean no lefs, than that the Gofpel fhould fpread it felfinto the Regions and Countries before- mention'd ; that it fhall have its Minifters to publifh it, and that the Church, from one Age to another, fhall remain and have its being to the End of the World. This Calvin himfelf owns in his Commentaries up- vid- Calvin, ia on the place, who yet is no Friend to this Authors, oc" or Bellarmines Viability of the Church. Nor in- deed is the Emphafis to be laid upon the ExprefTion of Priejls and Levites (as our Author would feem to do) to alTert from thence the Certain and Vifible Succerlion of Lawful Pa/tors in the Church, parti- cularly of that one Paflor the Bifhop of Rome. For, befides that the Prieftly and Leviticd Order under the Mofaick Law, is not to be look'd upon as ty- pifying the Epifcopacy and Minijiry of the Chrifti- an Church, but of the Lord Jefut only, the great High Priett of our Profeffion, who himfelf offer'd the only proper and propitiatory Sacrifice that made all the other for ever ceafe ; befides this, I fay, where can 5 Y 2 the 2 4° Tbe Texts examined which Papi/ls cite the Church of Rome at this inftant fhow its Suc- ceifion, or Pajloral Authority and Jurifdi&ion in any parts of Africk, I may add of Greece either, which yet our Author is fb angry with our Bibles, that they each, script. have avoided to tranflate the proper Names of Tharfhifh, p. 57. Pul, and Lud into. . His next Tranfition is to the Prophet Jeremy ; and the firft PalTage he remarks upon in him, is pretty obfervable, both for the Text it £elf, and his own Note upon it. The Text is this, Jer. xxx. 2. Though I make a full End of all Nations whither I have fcattered thee, yet will 1 not make a full End of thee, but I will correct thee in meafure. In which words it is evident, the Church may be fcattered among Nations that are his profefs'd and victorious Ene- mies, and confequently not in lb ftourijhing a condi- id. Pag. 24. t-l0n upn tjj€ pace 0f tjjS Earth, as he elfewhere ex- preifeth it, and contend's for. And his own Com- ment upon it in this place is, That the Church in- deed may be chaftifed for a while, but never brought to Confummation. Which in the meaning of it, is true, but the Phrafe of being brought to Confummation, as he ufeth it, hath an elegancy in it very extraordi- nary, perhaps an Original. His next Texts out of 'Jeremiah are of the fame purport and defign with thofe I have already noted from him out of Ifaiah, viz,, the glorious Frogrefs the Gofpel fhould make, and its continuance againfl: all Oppofition, that it fhould no more fail than the Ordinances of Heaven, the Sun and Moon, Day and Night. The Texts are, Jer. xxxi. verf. 35, 36, 37. Chap. for the Vijibility of the Church. 84 1 Chap, xxxii. 38,39,40. And again. Chap, xxxiii. 14, 15, 16,17, J^5 I0>2°> 2I- All which (asformerly ) I refer to the Reader's own perufalj only cannot without fbme indignation remark, that thofe Ex- preflions of the Prophet, which cannot poilibly be- long to any other than the Holy Jefus only, he blafphemoufly applieth them, jaiore than once, to his pretended Vicar the Pope. So upon Jer. xxxiii. 17. David /ball never want a Man to fit upon the Throne of the Houfe of Ifrael ', he makes his remark in a Parenthefis, Chrift mufi fucceffively have his Vicar, pjg. 38* or Vice-gerent in all Ages. Again, where the Pro- phet in the fame Chapter, verf. 21. exprefTeth it, Then may alfo my Covenant be broken with David my Servant, that he Jhould not have a Son (a Vi- car, or Vice-gerent, faith the Author) to reign upon his Throne. The Texts out of Ezekiel are of the fame kind ; E^Kxxxiv. 22, 23, 24. Chap, xxxvii. 23, 24, 25, 26. Chap, xlviii. 35. In all which there is nothing fur* flier remarkable, but that he ftill drives at that blafphemous Thought, to make whatfoever is fpoken by God, of the glorious and endlefs Reign of David his Servant, that is, of Jefus the MeJJiah, and Son of the Living God, to -feem primarily defigned and fully accomplifhM in the Pope, or Head of the Reman Church. However, we Prote/lants have one invin- cible Argument that the Letter of fbme of thefe Texts which this Man hath cited, is not fulfilled in every Age, and in every part of the Chriftian Church ; that particularly of Ezek. xxxvii. 23. Nei- ther jhall they defle themfelves any more with their rbld- F£- \9 Idols, % a i The Texts examined which Tapijls cite Idols,' nor with their detefiable things, &c. We know there are fome parts of the World who call them- felves the Churchy who do pollute themfelves with Idols ', tlio we alfo believe and affure our lelves that there will come a time when this part of the Prophecy, fo far as it reflects the Chriltian Church, fhall be literally accomplifli'dij that is, when all the wretched Idolatry which as yet any where prevails, fliall for ever ceafe ; that time when Babylon the gr%eai, the Mo- ther of Harlots and Abominations, (hall be doom'd to its Fall and Ruine ; and when thofe Kjngs that have c-ommitted Fornication with her, fliall come to hate the Whore, and make her defolate and naked, and eat her Flcfb, and burn her with Fire ; which we are afTur'd by the Holy Ghoft, will all in due time come to pafs. Rev. xv.ii. 5, 16. Amen ! even fo Lord Jefus. This Author cites but one PaiTage from Daniel, Chap, ii. 44. which we alfb eafily allow him may be in- terpreted of that Kingdom, which Chrift fhould fet up in the times of his Gofpel, but this is wholly fpiritual, and refers to his Mediatory Adminiftra- tion. And now, the Scripturi(l having fb largely prov'd (as ycu may imagine) what he defign'd from thofe numerous Texts in the Old Teftament, he thinks he hardly needs to offer at any from the New ; only Ibid. p. 4041. ex abundant i is pleafed to throw us in two or three from thence, which I fliall briefly confider : His fir ft is that of 2 Cor. iv. 3. If our Gofpel be hid, it Tiucbl p 22. ** n*^ t0 f^em f^at are l°ft* This alfb the Touch 'ft 'one hath noted. The Apoflle is indeed fpeaking here of the plain and 1 for the Vifibdhy of the Church. 84, and perfpicuous Revelation of the Gofpel, that they had preached it in all fmiplicity and plainnels, without any of the Arts, which Seducers were wont to gloze or cover their Falfhoods with ; and befides their Preach- ing, they had alTerted the Truth of what they pub- liuYd, with fuch miraculous Powers deriv'd upon them from above, that thole who would not difcern and embrace it, being thus plainly and convi£Hve- ly tenderM, muft be inexculably blind, and periOi through their own fatal Obduracy. What is this to the Vifible Conftitution of the Church, under the great Head of all at Rome ? Could any body but a Priejl of the Society of Jefa have fmelt or fufpe&ed i that the meaning of this Text is, that whoever do not fee and acknowledg the Bifhop of 'Home to be the Vicar of Chrijt, and Head of the Church, is loft and muft perifh ? There may be fomething perhaps pick'd out from this PaiTage, that looks a little afquint at one darling Opinion of the Roma-nifis concerning the Obfcurity of the Scriptures, but nothing to their advantage, as to this part of our Controveify with them. His next Text is that which the Cardinal citesvid.Bdiar.de too; Ephef.iv. 11, 12, 13. He gave fome Jpoflles, and Ecclef. Mifir. feme Prophets, and fome Evangelifis, and fome 'Payors • 5- cdP- * S* * and Teachers, till roe all come in the Unity of the Vaith, &c. This place doubtlels exprelTeth to us the nnfpeakable Bounty and Goodnefs of God in Chriit jefus, in fupplying his Church with fuch variety of Officers and Minifters, who in the difcharge of their feveral Functions, fbou-ld fufficiently publifh and make known the Gofpel, and fhould form and con- ftit.iue 844 ^,e texts examined which Tafy'ifts cite fritute the Church under fome Government, and that this Mini (try in the Church (at leaft in one or other of its Characters ) fhould continue til! the Church had attain'd its perfected State in the other World. But what ! Will you fay it is necefTary that all theie Qffices fhould continue, that the Church might not fail or prove invifible? Where then are the Offices of the Jpoflles, or Prophets, or Evangelifts ftill vefted ? Hither they were not necefTary to the continuance ( however they might be to laying the Foundations ) of the Church, or elfe the Church hath failed ever fince thofe Perfbns dy'd off, for the Character it felf . dy'd with them. Or, are the Apofile , and Prophet , and Evangelifl all together center'd in the Bifhop or Pope of Rome? Is he an Jpoflle? where- was his immediate Ordination by Chrift ? Is he a Prophet? Where does he utter his Predictions, and dbnfirni them with Miracles ? Is he an Evangelifl ? What Regions and Countries doth he travel into to pub- lifh the Goipel? I confefs, if ever there had been •any reafon to have mention'd the Bifhop of Rome as a necefTary Univerfal Monarch, who muft in all Ages fucceflively have continued viflbly feated in his Throne, to whom the whole Chriftian Church fhould be fub ordinate, here had been the opportunity the Apofile -would have taken to have laid it before us. But fince the Holy Spirit of God hath not thought fit upon fb fair an occafion, fo much as to point to- ward it, the Cardinal^ and thofe that work under him, might have had fbme Modefty, and not ven- tured upon that for proof, which feems fb dire&ly againft them. The for the Vifibility of the Church, g . - The next Quotations are made both by the Car- ^^m. ubi dinal and the other two; Mat. v. 14, 15. The Apo fHpra' flies are, the Light of the World, fit upon Candle- ^ ** Jlicks, not hid under a Bttjbcl, and a City fet upon an Hill. It is pity that Hill which the City is fet upon had»not been kvzn Hills, and then the proof had been invincible on Rome's fide. We know where Rome is defcrib'd, and to what purpofe, by that very- Situation, which in time may make it fuiHcientJv vifible. But the plain and unaffected meaning of thefe Texts is, that the Jpoftles and firft Publifhers of the GofpsI, were Perfons which were to bring into the World a mighty Light which would make them very confpicuous .and remarkable, and there- fore they are cautioifd both as to their Work that they fliould not be flothful or negligent in dischar- ging fo great a Truft, they fliould not hide the Light that was put into their Hands, for that very reafon that they might difplay it every-where a- broad. And then as to their Behaviour, they are further, caution'd that that may be blamelefs and irreprovable, becaufe, as a City on an Hill, they were in the view of all Men. Befides, I may add Similitudes make no Proofs, much lefs do Parables' Which may be an Anfwer in fhort to the Parable of the Muftard-Seed urg'd by the Scripturi) ; and Cath- Script, to Bellarmms Parables of the Floor, the Net i-Kp Ea£4r- Sheepfoldy and the Raft, Sec. ' • ? ^ BEgS They further quote that of Matth. xxviii. 20 /• mil be with you to the End of the World. " The Cath- Script. ; Apoftles (faith Bellarmine, and after him the Scrip- P* 42, uturijl) could not continue to the End of the 5 Z " World, $ 4 6 T6e Text i examined which

. for Richard Chifwel at the Rofe and Crown in St. Paul's Church-Yard, 1688. C 849 ) The Texts examined which Tapfls cite out of the Bible for the Proof of their Do&rine O F M E*R ITS. IMPRIMATUR. Decemb. 3. 1688. Hen. Wharton. TH E Doctrine of Merit, although it was a great occafion of that happy Reformation which was made by the firft Proteftants from the Errors and Superftitions of the Church of Rome, yet has of late been ib refined and new-modell'd by fbme of that Communion, that we and they are made to agree even in that Point which was in a great meafure the caufe of the firft feparation betwixt us. We were wont to be charged with denying the necef- fity of good Works, and that Mens Salvation does at all depend on them. But now that Obsclion is laid afide, and our greateft Crime, a^ to this Doctrine of Merit, is, That we charge thofe of that Church with what they do not hold, and pretend a difference when both Parties a re of the fame Mind. 6 A Now 8 5 o The Texts examined which Tafifts cite Now that I may wipe off this Scandal which the Bi- fhop of Condom and others are pleafed to lay upon us, I fhall endeavour to ftate the cafe fairly betwixt us, and then to (hew that the Scriptures produced in the defence of that Doclriue of Merit which we find fault with, give no countenance at all unto it. As to the mating the Cafe aright, confider, • Fir si. That we agree an eternal Reward tb become clue upon the performance of hj:h Conditions for which God has been pleafed to promife to beftow it. Some of the Church of Rome (as will be fhewn by and by) go further,and make the Reward to depend upon fbmethin^ elfe befides God's Fromife, but they all agree it to be plain from Scripture that God has promifed it ; and if fb, then there is as much reafon to expecl: it upon the ac- count of fuch a Promife as upon any other account what- lbever. For it would be contrary to God's moil excel- lent Nature. It would argue either want of Power or Righteoufhefs in him, not to make good what lie had promifed. So much therefore is on all hands maintained both by. them and us, that an eternal Reward will certainly be beftowed where Men take care to perform the conditi- ons upon which it is promifed. Secondly, We agree good Works to be the conditions without which an eternal Reward can. never be obtain- ed. Although 'we do not fet fo high a value upon good Works as Tome of the Church of Rome do, yet we go fo faj* with them, as toaflert them to be be the means pre- ferred by God for the obtaining of Salvation. We de- clare that without Holinef no Man jhall fee God, and that with fear and trembling we ought to work out our own Happinefs, and thereby teach as great a neceffity of good Works as they who place fo much tr'uft and confi- dence in them. In for their DoBrme of JMmtsI 8 ? i In the beginning of the Reformation fuch mighty tilings were fpoken of Faith, that fomeof the Church of Rome imagined that the firft Reformers did wholly exclude good Works from having any thing to do in Mans Salvation. Whereas they were (b far from think- ing any thing of this nature, that they accounted Faith itfelf a good Work ; and when they explained the Na- ture thereof, they always difcourfed of it as working by Love, and productive of an holy and vertuous Behavi- our. The reafon why they magnified Faith at fuch a rate was the fame with what happened in the begin- ning of the Church in the Apoftles Time. For as the Apoftle St. Paul then found many to rely too much up- on Legal Performances and Pharifaical Obfervances, fo likewife did the firft Reformers in the beginning of the Reformation find thole of the Church of Rome to de- pend above meafure upon external Performances, fuch as Alms-giving, Pilgrimages, abftinence from Meats, &c. To wean them 6*fF from doing which, they imi- tated the fame Apoftle in extolling Faith, and the Me- rits of a crucified Saviour. Although at the fame time they likewife taught that belief in Chrift would avail them nothing, unlefs they added thereunto an holy and vertuous Conversion. So far therefore we are willing to go along with thofe of the Church of Rome, as to affert good W.orks to be ib far forth the caufe of an eternal Reward, that it can- not be obtained without them. Thirdly , We agree God's Grace to benecefTary to ena- ble us to do any good Work. Although there has been found amongft thofe of the Church of Rome fuch as have run into Pelagius his Error, in afferting Works done without God's Grace and Afliftance to be good : yet thefe have been but few, and fuch their Opinion 6 A 2 has, 8 5 1 The Texts examined which fapifts cite has, as Bellarmine relates, been condemned by two of . Hb. 5.cfu. ■ tne^r own P°Pes> P?u* V. and Gregory Xlil. The ge- nerality do affirm it to be necefTary in order to render them capable of any Reward that they be adopted the Sons of God, and have his Spirit dwelling in them, for enabling them to perform any fort of vertuous Actions* And this is what we affert as well as they. . Fourthly, We are ready to affirm it to be agreeable to God's Wifdom and Goodnefs tobeftow a Reward upon good Works, although he had never promifed it. For good Works are performed by the Affiftance of GodV Grace, they are done with great difficulty, they carry a refemblance to what is always inherent in the Divine Nature, they flow from the Love of God, and are plea- ling and acceptable unto him. For which reafbns it may well become fo wife and gracious a Being,as God is, to beftow fbme fignal Mark of his Favour upon them. For by this means he (hews the distinction betwixt good and bad Deeds, he encourageth t+ie Jove of Vertue and Holinefs, and gives publick teftimony of his pure and excellent Nature in approving only thofe things which are worthy to be approved by him*. Fifthly, We allow that the word Merit may be nfcd in an improper fenfe, fo as to fignify to procure or obtain, without ever confidering the worth of the Perfon, or the Work it felf. For thus feveral Ecclefiaflical Writers, as well as others, have ufed it ; and when the Fathers call good Works Merits, as they often do, they mean no more thereby than that' they are acceptable to God, and con"ftmde8' will procure a Reward for thofe who perforin them. In bon. op. which fenfe feveral Frotefiants have ufed the word in f4UgA^cC. snu.ixw, Trent. Now with thefe we -heartily agree, and by ^fCki:i! * what thev have declared in this matter, do think we Geriwd. Coa- J]arcfc.i-.Ca:h. c, j 4 7/;e Texts examined which Tafifls eke have a mighty advantage of fitch cf the Church of Rome - as pretend Tradition for their Dc&rine of Merit, as they do for other things, fince it is fo eafy to fhew them that nothing like it was known in the firlt Ages of the Church, and that many great Men of their own Com- . munion have all along taught contrary to it. 2. There have been others, -who although they feem to make a Reward to depend wholly upon God's Pro- mife in thrift, yet at the fame time will needs have it that good Works may be truly laid to be meritorious of it. Thus Bellarmine after he has proved at large good Dejaft. l. 5.- Works to be meritorious, has a Chapter on purpofe to c- !4- .fhew, That God's Promife is requifite to make them Co. Thus the Bifliop of Condom declares it out of the Coun- cil of Trent, to be the fenfe of the Catholick Church, Expf. of the That eternal Life ought to be propofed to the Children of vu~i. Sea. 7. God, both as a Grac£, which is mercifully promifed to them by the Mediation of our "Lord Jefus ChriH, and as a Recom- mence which is faithfully rendred to their good Works and Merits in virtue of this Promife,-** And that God will have thofe Gifts which he beflows upon them to be their Me- rits. Thus likewife the Reprefenter makes the good Faj# mfrefr. Catliplick to affirm, That through the Merits of Chr iff &np. ch. 6-tljeg00d Works of a juff Man proceeding from Grace, are fo acceptable to God, that through his Goodnefs and Pro- mife they are truly merit oriom of eternal Life. Now as to thefe, all that we can charge them with is with fpeaking improperly. We fay as well as they that the Reward depends upon God's Promife, but then we fay likewife that this deftroys the nature of true Me- rit. For true Merit con lifts in having upon the account of the worthinefs of the Action, a juft Right and Ti- tle to a Reward ; fo as that although he had no pro- mife thereof, a Man might lawfully complain of Injii- ftice for their Do&rine of Merits. &5J Trice done him, fhould it not be bellowed upon him, - but he who wholly depends upon a Fromife for what is bellowed, cannot be properly laid to have fuch a Title as this is. For it is the Promife which gives fuch an one a Title to the Reward, and not his own Worthiness, which is that which is always fuppofed in the nature of true Merit. And therefore to fay, as the Reprefenter does, That good Works through God's Goodnefs and Pro- mife are truly, meritorious, is the fame thing as to fay, That God's Fromife of a Reward does make good Works to be in themfelves deferving of a Reward, although j there had been no Promife made of it. Which is cer- tainly a very improper way of fpeaking. But yet we fhould be glad, had we nothing more to charge any of the Church of Rome with, as to this Doctrine of Me- rit, but impropriety of Speech. Whereas to our great trouble we find others gone fo far as, 3. To aiTert, That Gods Promife is indeed annexed to the Works of jttB Men, but yet that belongeth no way to the Reafon of the Merit, but comet h rather to the Works which ^.uez Conv" are already not worthy only, but alfo meritorious. Thus qu. u4. difpl Vafauez, with a great deal more to the fame purpofe in 2I4-C- 8. feveral parts of his Writings. Which is agreeable to what Bellarmine afferts, 'viz. That the good Works of Bell, dejuft..: jutf Perfons do merit eternal Life condign ly, not only by 5> c' I7' reafon of God's Covenant and Acceptation, but alfo by rea- fon of the Work it felf fo that in a good Work proceeding from Grace there may he a certain proportion and equality unto the Reward of eternal Life. As likewife to that of Cajetan, That the good Works of juHMen are merit or iom of eternal Life condign ly, although there were no Divine Cajec-in Compact, &-C. ^ " ^ 3 Now this is the Doctrine which we find fo much fault with, and that upon thefe following accounts. 1. Be- 1,2. g c 6 77;e Texts examined which Tapifts cite i. Becaufe we are bound to pay all manner of Obe- dience to God, although we were not fure of any Re- ward hereafter, and that upon the account of our Crea- tion, and that conftant liipply of outward Bleflings, fuchasLife, Health, &c. winch God is pleafed to af- ford us; and hkewiie, becaufe fuch is the nature of all vertuous Actions, that they do really tend to promote even our prelent Eaie and Advantage. For where we are out of Gratitude, prefent Intereii, and upon the account of God's Supreme Authority over us, bound to make our Actions as good as we can, although there were no future Reward : in inch a cafe, how can we be laid truly tomeritany thing further from him than what we at prelent enjoy I 2. Becauie although many of our Works are good, yet many of them are evil too ; and if God fhoulcl deal itnctiy with us, inftead of rewarding our good Deeds, he might, if he pleafed, punifh our evil ones. Such indeed is his Mercy, that tor the fake of a crucified Sa- viour he is willing to allow of Repentance for what is pari, but fince nothing which we can do could have merited even this at his hands, much lefs can our beft Actions, when our Tranfgreffions are fb many, give us a Title to an eternal Reward. 3; Becaufe even our beft Actions are im per feci, and ftand in need of God's Clemency and Forgivenefs to co- ver their Defects, and then what juft Claim can we have to a Reward upon their account ? 4. Becaufe, whatever is praife-worthy in us, is not performed by our own power and Skill, but by 'the Af- iilxance of God's Grace. God may, if he pleafes, re- ward his own -Gifts, but it would be no good manners in us to pretend that he was boui>d to do it, or that his own Gifts can properly be called our Merits. 5. Be- for their VoElr'me of Merits. g <-* 5. Becaufe there is no equality or proportion betwixt the beft Actions of us finite imperfect Creatures, and the eternal Favour of an infinitely wife and gracious God. Having thus fet down what in the Doctrine of Me- rit we find fault with, and for what reafbns I know it will be objected, that ia this cafe I oppofe only the Opi- nion of private Men, and that the Council of Trent, which is the Standard of true Catholick Doctrine, has. taught otherwife- I anfwer ; 1. That fince there has beenfuchin the Church of Rome, and thofe Men of great note too, who have taugfit this Doctrine of Merit, and fince it has had, and has I doubt ftill a very great influence upon feveral of that Communion, fo as to make them place too much Reli- gion in external Performances, it is very requifite it fhould be Oppofed whether the Council of Trent teach it or no. 2. That if the Council of Trent fhould be fuppofed not to have taught this Do&rine in exprefs terms,- yet there is creat reafcn to believe that it did at leaft intend to give great countenance unto it. For, isl. The Council knew well enough thatfuch a Do- ctrine was maintained by fbme of that Church, that the Practices thereupon enfuing were very fcandalous, that the fir ft Reformers clamoured mightily againftir, and therefore unlefsthey had had a mind to countenance ' it, why did they not give the World fatisfaction by de- claringexp/efly againft it ? An.\ 354- we find one Guido, an Auftin Friar, for holding this Doctrine, fentenced by the CHancellour a,nd the Theological Faculty of Pjrii, to make this following Recantation, I [aid agairiB a.- Ratcbelour of the. Order of Predicant Pnars in conference ' 6 B with $ 5$ Ike Texts examined which Tapifis cite Fiblioth. Eaw. with him, that a Man merits eternal Life by way of Con- tom.i4.p.?4?- dignity f i.e. That be would be injured if it were not be- flowed upon him. And I writ that God would do him an Injury in fuch a cafe. And this Opinion I then approved, J now revoke it as falfe, heretical, and blafphemom. Now why did not the Council take fome fuch courfe as this was, to exprefs their diflike of fuch a Do&rine ? or, fince they were lb free of their Anathema s, if they did not approve it themfelves, or were not defirous that o- thers fhould, why did they not Anathcmatife all fuch as held good Works to be truly meritorious ? But they were fo far from doing this, that, idly. We find an Anathema denounced againft him who afTerts, The good Works of any juftifed Perfon to be fo much the Gifts of God, as not to be alfo the Merits of the fame juftified Perfon ; or that he who is jujlified by Scff. 5. can. 3 2. the good Works which are done by him through the Grace of God, and Merit of "fefut Chritt, of whom he is a living Member, does not truly merit increafe of Grace, eternal Life, increafe of Glory. Whatever may have been their Opinion who did make this Canon, or however they may have exprefTed themfelves in other places, it is plain that the manner of expreffing themfelves in this Ganon, is fufHcient enough to make the generality of People believe, that they held good Works to be meri- torious in the frri&eft fenfe. They do not indeed ex- plain what they mean by true merit ; but becaufe they have not done it, this is enough to make it fufpicious that they at leaft intended it fhould be under/food ac- cording to the moft proper and moft ufual fignificati- on. And that it has been thus generally taken, may appear from thefe following Obfervations. i. That feveral Divines of the Church of Rome, fome for their Dottrine of ^Merits. 859 fbme of which lived in the time of the Council, have &. sailing. the fhown, that truly to merit muff be oppofcd to anv im- ~m'1 °f r -a • c^\ j J Trent exjrru proper iignihcation or the word. . p< 5?5 5o< 2. That in the Index Expurgatorius, fet out accord- ing to the Order of the Council by Cardinal Quiroga, An. 1 584, feveral paiTages,which deny the merit of gcoi Works, are commanded to be blotted out of feveral Books, as more particularly' out of the Works of Eraf- m-us and "Johannes Ferns, But that which is moft'remar- Bp'Vfferscbd. feablfi in this Cafe, and which has been taken notice of '***■ P- 42 »• by feveral Learned Men who have treated of this Sub- ^TS.Si je'£t, is, That out of a publick OfBce of the Church thefe p- ut the bellowing of it does wholly depend upon the bounty of him that gives it. Which diftinction is appro- ved of by Sr. Paul, when he makes a difference (as he does, Rom. 4. 4. ) betwixt a Reward of Grace, and a Reward of Debt. And therefore we may as well fay, that becaufe the word to bay does commonly fuppofe a price either given or to be given, therefore it is fb to be interpreted in that palTage of lfaiah, chap. 55. 1. Come, buy Wine and Milk without money, or without price : or that Nebuchadnezzar that wicked King did really merit fbme- thing from God, becaufe it is faid, Ezek. 29. 19. That he gave him Egypt as Wages for his Army : as that where-ever the word Reward or Wages is found, there muft neceffarily be an equality betwixt it,and thofe good Actions of which by the Grace and Favour of God, it is made the Confequent, when otherwife it would not . at all have belonged to them. 2. As to the Parable of the Labourers, it is fb far from countenancing the Doctrine of Merit, that it di- rectly tends to overthrow it. For, (1.) if 8 ^4 The Texts examined which Tapijls cite (i.) If the Hire, here fpoken of, was beftowed in proportion to the Labourers Work, how came it to pafs that lie who came early into the Vineyard received no greater Wages than he who worked but one hour ? (2.) The defign of the Parable is ( as Janfenim a Po- jar.fcn.conc. pifli Writer has obferved) to fhew that in the la ft D.iy Kvang. thofe who were here laft fhould be accounted firft, /'. e. That the Apoftles and others who feemed Men of mean condition fliall be preferred even before the Scribes and Pharifees ; and that the Gentiles who were laft convert- ed fliall be made equal to the Jews who were firft called to work in the Vineyard of the Lord, and had the Go- fpel firft preached to them. All which tends tofet forth the Goodnefs and Liberality of God, and at the fame time to fupprefs the vain Conceits of fuch who might be apt to rely too much upon their own Merits. ' 3. It is fit that we here obferve, that an eternal Re- ward is in Scripture ftiled an Inheritance ; Col. 3. 24. Kjiowing that of the Lord ye jhall receive the Reward of the Inheritance ', for we ferve the Lord Chrift. Now as it is an Inheritance,it depends upon the free Gift of God, whofe Children we are by Adoption, and confequently it cannot be reckoned as a Debt that is properly due un- to Us upon the account of our Works. Bell'armine i.n- Eeit. tie juft. deed will needs have it both to be an Inheritance, and a Debt due to us upon the account of our Works, becaufe it is more honourable for us, he faith, to receive fome- thing upon the account of pur Works, than wholly to depend upon the Promife of God for it. In anfwer to whorr\ it may be returned, that we ought not to confider what would be moft honourable for us, as how things in their own nature, or according to God's Appointment, are. We find it impoflible that our beft Deeds fhould be truly meritorious of an eternal Reward, and then we muft. Jo.c. 3. for their DoElrim of Merits. %£* rauft not go about to afTert that they are meritorious, becaufe it would be more honourable for us if they were. It is honour enough for us that God is plea- fed to take pity of us when we don't deferve it, and to . make us Partakers of an ineftimable Reward which we have no pretence to. And therefore we ought to give him the Glory thereof, to whom it is due, and as long as we are happy, not be fo ar- rogant as to pretend that our own Works are the meritorious caufe thereof. Another Head is of fuch Scriptures, wherein the Heavenly Reward is faid to be given to Men ac- cording to the meafure and proportion of their Works and Labour. Pfal. 62. 12. — -For thou rendrejl to every Man accord- ing to his Work. Matth. 16. 27. for the Son of Man ffjall come in the Glory of his Father with his Angels ; and then he JbaH reward every Man according to his Works. Luke 6. 38. With the fame meafure that ye meet with- M, it Jhall be meafured to you again. Rom. 2. 6. — Who will render to every Man accord- ing to his Deeds. 1 Cor. 3.8. And every Man Jhall receive his own Re- ward according to his own Labour. Gal. 6.8. For he that foweth to his Flejh, (hall of the ' tlefh reap Corruption ', but he that foweth to the Spirit , Jhall of the Spirit reap Life cverlafiing. Revel. 22. 12. Jlnd behold, I come quickly, and my Reward is with me, to give every Man as his Work Jhall be. 6 C V-c %66 Tlie Texts examined which fafifts cite From which Scriptures it is inferred that fince they affert a Reward to be given according to the meafure of every ones Work, therefore in the giving the Reward refpecT is had not only to the Promife, or Liberality, or Indulgence of God, but likewife to the.Dignity and Efficacy of the Works themfelves. I anfwer; i. That Bellarmine does in this Inference fuppofe that in giving a Reward refpeft is had to the Pro- mife as well as to die Efficacy of the Works. Now if he meant thereby that the Reward does at all de- pend upon God's Fromile, and that without a Pro- mife no Claim could have been made to it, then does he at the fame time, as he would eftabliilrthe Merit of good Works, deftroy it. . For where there is true Merit, there he who gives it, was bound to have given it, whether he had promifed it before or no. 2. That if all the fore-mentioned Places could be interpreted (as all they cannot, although fome of them may ) with refpedt only to good Works, zz\d not to bad ones alio ; then might the Reward faid to be given to every one according to his Works be confidered with refpecl: to thofe, feveral degrees of Glory., which good Men fhall be made partakers of in another Life. As God has, out of his infinite Liberality, been pleafed to promife an eternal Re- ward, fo has he likewife taken care that they who make the greater! improvement in Vertue and Good- eels fhall be received into a more happy Eftate than they who have made left. [Thus the Apoftle, i Cor. for their DoElrine of Merits. 8 67 -1 Cor. ?. 8. difcourfing of the feveral ways by which the firft Preachers of the Gofpel had been ufeful, faith, that one planteth, and another watcretbt but both thefe were one ; i. e. had the fame excellent de- fign in hand , viz. to make Men Converts unto Chriftianity, and to eftablifh them in the moil ho- ly Faith ; and then adds, ^fnd every Man {ball receive his own Reward according to bis own la- bour \ i. e. As every one has been more ferviceable in the Mini dry , fo fhall his Reward be greater.] But then here is nothing of Merit in the cafe: for both the leflTer Degrees of Glory , as well as the greater, depend upon God's Eftablifhment ; and al- though this be an excellent Motive to make us more induftrious to ferve and pleafe God, yet we have no reafon to value our felves upon any fuch account.. For although he fhould be pleafed for. fuch our Induftry to beftow fome of the higher de- grees of Glory upon us, yet we did not deferve even the lefTer at his hands. 3. That although feme of the forementioned Pa£ fages, having regard only to Mens good Works, may be interpreted with refpe£t to the different degrees of Glory in another World ; yet there are other which have refpe£r. to Mens bad Deeds as well as. to their good ones: Such is that in Matthew 16. 27. • '^nd then he (ball reward every man according to his Work. For our Saviour having in the fore- part of the Verfe declared his coming to Judgment,, For the Son of Man {hall come in the Glory of his father with his Angels, he immediately adds, — And then he {ball reward every Man according to his works ; 4. i. e. as it is exprefTed, John 5. 29. Then jball come 6 C 2 forth 8 6$ The Texts examined which faflfts cite forth they that have done good unto the RefurreBionof Life, and they that have done evil unto the Refurreffion of Dam* nation. Now if the fore-mentioned Paffages are confider- ed with refpeft to evil, as well as good Deeds, then they do only denote that different Succefs which good and bad Men will have in the other Life ; the former of which will be eternally happy, the latter eternally miferable. But this wholly depends upon God's Decrees ; and however Sinners may be fa id to merit Damnation, there is nothing here im- plied to be in Man, which can any ways be faid truly to merit fb ineftimable a Reward as is prepa- red forfuch as live holy Lives. Good Deeds it's true may be compared with their own Reward, as well as with bad Deeds. But thefe places of Scripture do not fb much confider them as compared with their own Reward, as with bad Deeds ; and therefore all that they intimate, is, that in the other World the Event will not be a- like to the Good and to the Bad, but that as has been every ones Behaviour here, lb fihall he be ei- ther punifhed or rewarded hereafter. And there- fore that Was a good Diitin&ion of Pope Gregory, — That it is one thing to reward a Man according to his Works, and another to reward him according ti> the Merit of his Works, or for the fake of his Works. To reward one according to the Merit of Works, or for the fake of Works, denotes feme Proportion betwixt the Reward and Works: but to reward ac- cording to Works, fignifies no more tfian that things will not happen out alike to all, that all will not befaved, nor all damned, but that all good Men will' be for their Dottrine of Merits. 869 be faved, and all wicked and impenitent Sinners damned. A third Argument fetched from Scripture for the Proof of gocd Works being meritorious-, is de- duced from fuch places as do declare an eternal Re- ward to be fo bellowed upon good Works, that they place the very reafon why eternal Life is beftow ed in die good Works themfelves. Mat Ph. 25. 54, 55, &c. Come ye bleffed of my Father*, inherit the Kjngdom prepared for you from the Founda- tion of the World. For I was hungred, and ye gave me Meat, I woe thirfly, and ye gave me Drink, I, was a, Stranger, &c. ' .And in the fame Chapter, ver.21. Becaufe thou- haft been faithful over a few things, I will make thee Rit- ler over many things, enter thou into the Joy of thy Lord. Rev. 7. 14. Thefe are they which came out of great Tri- bulation, and have wajhed their Robes, and made them-- white in the Blood of the Lamb. Ver. 1 5 . Therefore are they before the Throne of God, and ferve him Day and Night in his Temple ; and he that fitteth on the Throne /hall dwell amongft them. In thefe places, faith Bellarmine, the reafon of the Reward is declared to be the doing of good Works, therefore they are meritorious. I anfwer, Fir fi> That in the firft Paffage, Come ye Ble {fed,. &c the Reward fpokea of is called m ) hfhtritanse^ fog it $70 Tfce Texts examined which Waft/Is cite it is faid, Come and inherit the Kjngdom. Now, as I be- fore obferved, good Men being Chrift's Children by- Adoption, and their Reward being their Inheritance, it depends upon God's Bounty towards them, and not their own Merit. And this the Elect thernfelves are fb fenfible of, that even in this Chapter they feem to be amazed at God7s loving-kindnefs towards them, as knowing that all the Good which they could do, bore no Proportion to that immenfe Re- ward which was promiied to be bellowed upon them. Secondly \ That although Bellarminc in that other PafTage of St. Matthew inferts the Word, Becaufe; Becaufe thou haft been faithful over a few things, I wiU make thee Ruler, &c. Yet is not any fuch Word to be found in the Greek Text, nor in our Translation. And therefore the reafon for his grounding his Ar- gument for Merit upon that PafTage, is wholly taken away. Thirdly, That in the PafTage quoted out of the Revelations , Thefe are they which came out of great Tribulation, therefore are they before the Throne of God, &C. Bellarmine leaves out \have wafoed their Robes, and made them white in the Blood of the Lamb.'] Which Words do plainly denote Chrifrs Merits to be necefTa- ry for the rendring their .good Actions acceptable to God, and confequently that they were not meritorious in thernfelves. Fourthly, That thefe.Partides, for, Becaufe, do not always denote* one thing to be the true and proper caufe for their T)oftrine of SWerits. 87 a caufe of another, but only the Connexion that is betwixt one thing and another. Thus 1 Tim. 1. ij. But I ob- tained Mercy , becatife 1 did it ignorantly in Unbelief. Now no Man can afTert the Faults of Infidels, com- mitted through Ignorance, to be the immediate caufe of God's Mercy towards them. No more from thefe PafTages, where there is only declared a Connexion be- twixt good Deeds and an eternal Reward, ought it to be concluded that the former are the meritorious caufe of the latter. They are fuch things as mud precede an eternal Reward. They are the Conditions upo* which it is promifed to be beftovved, and fb far forth they may be reckoned the caufe thereof, that it can^ notbe obtained without them. But they cannot truly be faid to be the caufe thereof, fo as that it does depend upon them as a neceflary Effect. Neither do the fore- mentioned Particles which do only connect good Deeds, and an eternal Reward together, and flhew one to be the Confequent of the other, at all denote any fuch thing. The fourth Argument for the Proof ^>f our good Deeds being meritorious, is fetched from fuch Scrip- tures, as do declare that a Reward in Juftice ought to be given to Mens good Deeds. 2 ThefT. 1. 4. So that vee our [elves glory in you in the Churches of God, for your Patience and Faith in all your Perfections and Tribulations that ye- en?- dure. Ver. 5. Which is a manifest Token of the righte- ous, judgment of God) that ye may be accounted wor- thy of the 'Kjngdom of God, for which ye alfo f;f- fer: Ver. 6. Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompenfe Tribulation to them that trouble you ; VeHe \fL The Texts examined which Tapijls cite Verfe 7. And to you who are troubled, rett with us. 2 Tim. 4. 7. I have fought a good Fight, I have fni- nijhed my Courfe, I have kept the Faith. Ver. 8. Henceforth there is laid up for me a Crown of Righteoufnefs which the Lord the righteom Judg Jhall give me at that day. Heb. 6. 10. For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of Love. Now as to thefe and the like places, where menti- on is made of God's Righteoufnefs, and that as a juft: Judg, he will reward the Actions of righteous Perfons, it may be replied, That God may be faid as a juft Judg, to reward fuch Actions, not becaufe fuch Actions do in them- felves deferve any fuch Reward, but, _ . Fir It, . Becaufe our Saviour has merited it for us. Al- though there are no. Merits in us, yet there are in our Saviour. He by his Death and Paflion has made an Atonement for our Tranfgreftions, and has eftablifhed in his Blood a new Covenant betwixt God and us ; and therefore eternal Life being the purchafe of his Suiferings for us, God may in Juftice be (aid to give us it, although what we do our feives be no ways deferving of it. Secondly, Becaufe God has promifed to beftow an eternal Reward upon fuch good Actions. He is faid to be juft and righteous who keeps his Promi- fes. Now God has folemnly promifed that he will beftow an everlafting Reward upon all fuch as be- for their Doflrine of Merits". g-. have themfelves dutifully towards him, and live up to the Conditions of the Gofpel ; and thereby, as A . Saint Augufiin fpeaks, has made himfelf their Deb- iKiSn**' tor, not by receiving any things but by promijtng. And D°minos ipfe therefore they who do behave themfelves as they ^Sis^ccd ought to do, have a Right and Title to fuch a Re- promircendo. ward, but it is only upon the account of God's Pro- mife, and not upon the account of their own good Deeds. For fhould God even after he had promifed a Reward, refufe to beftow it, he would indeed (what it is impcflible to fuppofe of him) acl: contrary to his moft excellent Nature, and muft needs be thought to want much of that Perfection which is al- ways inherent in him, and Men could not any longer entertain thofe worthy apprehenfions of him as they did formerly, but at the fame time they could not complain of any Injury done them , becaufe fince they did not deferve to have any fuch Promife made to them, neither could they merit to have it obferved after it was made. In this therefore confifts God's Juftice in giving us a Reward , not in that we could oblige him to it by our belt Performances, but in that he has obliged himfelf to it by Promife, which it would be contrary to his Divine Perfections not to make good. The fifth Argument to prove good Works to be me- ritorious, is -fetched from thofe Scriptures where eter- nal Life is promifed to good Works. Mat. 19. 17. If thou wilt enter into Life, keep the Commandments. Ver. 29. And every one that hath for faken Houfes, or Brethren, or Sifters, or Mother, or Wife, or Children, or Lands for my Names fake, jh all receive an hundred 6 D fa'd %ja 7be Texts examined which fiafifls cite fold , and /ball inherit everlafiing Life. l Tim. 4. 8. Godlinefs is profitable unto ail thing?, having the Promife of the Life that now isy and of that which is to come. James 1. 12. Bleffed is the Man that endurcth Tempta- tion ; for when he is tried, he (ball receive the Crown of Life which the L*rd hath promt fed to them that love him. In thefe Places, faith Bellarmine, * Promife being made with the condition of doing fomething, does not only, make the thing protnifed to he due upon- the account of fuch a Ptomife, hut likewife that he who performs the Work, may he [Aid to have merited the thing promife d^ and to havejuft reafon to demand it, as what does of right belong to him. I anfwer \ 1. That Bellarmine himfelf in this place is fb modeft as not pofitively to affirm, that where there is a Promife there can be any true Merit. All that he here alTerts, is, that he who performs the Work may he [aid to have me- rited the thing promifed. Now we think it very im- proper to affirm that any one can be laid truly to merit what without a Promife he could never have obtained. 2. Altho in thefe places a Promife is made to feveral Performances, yet whoever fulfilled the conditions to which they are made? who ever has kept \he Command- ments ? who ever has been godly .? who ever has endured Temptation after that manner, and to that degree, as to dare to affirm the Reward, even upon the account of God's Promife, to be his due ? After we have done the beft we can, we fhall find our Performances to be very weak and imperfect, and that we have reafbn daily to put up that Petition to God Almighty, Forgive us our Tre/paffes. And if fb, how kind fb ever God may have jaeetiin promising us* an ineftimable Reward, yet fince upon the account of our many failings we cannot come for their Doflrine of SWerits. 87 j up to the conditions upon which he has promifed it, we have but little reafba to pretend to merit it, efpecialljr flnce, $. All our beft Actions, altho performed by God's Afliftance, bear no proportion to what he has been plea- fed to promife us. Had God made us no promife of a Reward, we were bound upon the account of our Cre- ation, and thofe Mercies which we daily receive from him, to have ferved him according to the beft of our power ; fhould then our good Deeds be never fb perfect, they would be abundantly recompenfed even in this Life. What equality then betwixt the Actions of finite Crea- • tures, and the eternal Kindnefs of an infinite God in the World to come ? To promife us any thing, deftroys the nature of true Merit ; but to promife fb vaft a Reward, and to fuch who cannot exactly perform the conditions upon which it is promifed, fets us at a greater diftance from it. The fixth Argument to prove good Works to be me- ritorious, is fetched from thofe Scriptures where mention 'is made of good Men being worthy of a Reward. Luke 10. 7. The Labourer is worthy of his Hire. 2 ThefT. 1.5. ■ — That ye may be counted worthy of the Kjngdom of God for which ye alfo fujfer. Re v. 3 . 4. Thou hall a few Names eve/i in Sard is, which have not defiled their Garment s> and they /ball walk with me in white, for they are worthy. In thefe and the like places, faith Bellarmine, to be worthy of a Reward fignifies to merit it. I anfwer, That to be worthy is of a much larger Signification than to merit. For to merit a Reward, fignifies (as has been fhewn) to do fbmethjng betwixt which and 6 D 2 the 8 ; 6 The Texts examined which Tapifts cite "the Reward there may be fbme equality or proportion. But to be -worthy of it, may denote no more than the Performance of fuch Conditions, unto which by the "kind Acceptation of the Donor, it is made to belong, although there be no Equality betwixt it, and the Per- formance of fuch Conditions. When God is plcafed fo to aflift us with his Grace, as that we perform what is acceptable in his Sight, and what he has thought fit to reward: then may webefaidto be worthy of fuch a Bern, de ded. Reward, becaufe he has made us to be fo. Hence St, ^liiiusdigna- Bernard, {We are worthy by his Dignation, not by our oven tione nonnoftra. Dignity. ~] But could we have been laid truly to have, dignitau, merited it, what we had done, muft have been of our own Strength and Power, and we muft have done it in that Degree of Perfection, as that without any Promife from God, we might have juftly challenged it as our due from him. The feventh andlaft Argument mentioned by Beltar- mine for the Proof of Merit is fetched from fuch Scrip- tures where God is faid to be a juft Judg, and no Accep- ter of Perfbns. Rev. 2. ii. There is no r effect of Persons with God. Gal. 2.6. God accept eth no Mans Perfon. i Pet. i . 1 7. And if ye call on the Father, who without re- fpecl of PerfonsjjUdgeth according to every Mans Work, &c. Aftsio. 34. Then Peter opened his Mouth, and faid, Of a truth, I perceive that God is no Refpecter ofPerfons. For then, faith Bellarmine, there is refpeft had to Perfons when a Judg gives a Reward without e/%rtf j-,or a greater Reward where there are few Merits, and there- fore God in the Retribution of Rewards yconf\devs Mens Merits, and according to the Diverfity of their Merits, afligns the Manfions of eternal Glory. I for their DeBrine of Merits, %J7 I anfwer, i. That as to the Diftribution of Rewards no Judg can properly be faid to be an Accepter of Perfons, who gives any one more than he deferves, unlefs he were obliged to the contrary, x>r did another an' Injury by defrauding him that had more Merits.o£ what was his due, to give to him that had iefs. Now if in the fore- mentioned PaiTages, God be confidered with Refpecl: to the final Diftribution of Rewards according to Mens Works, if he fhall beftow a Reward far furpaflingali their beft A£tions,how was he* obliged to the contrary? He would indeed adl: contrary to his own Truth and Faitbfulnefs, fhould he not beftow fuch a Reward be- caufehe has promifed it. But what can forbid him to diftribute his own Gifts as he pleafeth ? And as for his doing another an Injury by beftowing upon any one more than he deferves, this cannot be ; be- caufe he has an eternal Reward in ftore for all fuch (how many fbever they be) who perform the Conditions up- on which out of meet Grace and Favour he has made it to become due. 2. That in moft of the forementioned Paffages, if not in all, where God is faid to be no Accepter of Per- fons, refpecl: is had not fo much to the final Diftributi- on of Rewards according to Mens Works,asto his calling the Gentiles to be made Partakers of the Benefits of the Gofpel. The Jems knew themfelves to have been God's pecu- liar People ; they believed the Promife of the Meffiaa. to belong only to them, and therefore were wont to defpife others who were not of the Stock of Abraham as well as themfelves. But at our Saviour's coming the partition Wall was broken down, and God declared to be no Accepter of Perfons, in that all Perfons of what Qua- I78 The Texts exanmed whkh f^fifts cite Quality or Nation foever were alike capable of being made Members of the new Covenant in Chrift. Having thus explained thofe Texts which are brought by Bellarmine and others to prove good Works to be tru- ly meritorious, and fhown that they give no Counte- nance to any fuch Doctrine, it were as eafie to fbow that they have as much abufed Antiquity in this matter, as they have the Scriptures ; but my tfufinefs being only to vindicate the Scripture from their falfe Interpretati- ons, I fhall conclude this Diicourle with thefe follow- ing Obfervations. i. That this Doctrine has fb little Foundation in the Scripture, that the Word Merit is not lb much as to be found there. Bellarmine indeed pretends to fhow us the . Word in two places, but he quotes them both accord- cordia feciec" mg t0 tn€ Latin Tranflation which we do Hot allow of. locum unicui-. Thefirftis Ecclef. \6. 14. The Englifh whereof ac- quc fecundum C0rc|ing to the Latin Tranflation is, All Mercy (hall make meruum ope- . P ,. , ' , , . /; f. TZr, rum fuorum. place for every one according to the Merit of hu Works. nd?inr&'J* accordinZ t0 hu Works. Now we have already fhown T»Sfj* dvnv the great Difference betwixt receiving according to the *?w* -MMt of our Works : and receivingtfeording to our Works. The firff denotes an Equality betwixt the Reward and good Works, the fecond only fignifies the Reward to Taiibus hoHiis *>e thf consequent of them. .;:. . x promerctur The other railage is Heb. 13. 16. which according Deus. -tQ tne Interpretation of bad Latin, denotes Gad to be ob- „ , , lived by fuch Sacrifices ; but according to the Interpre- •nuitui iva^c- ration or the Greek, no more is meant than that, with s-eJV* 6 Qzoi.fuch Sacrifices God is mil p leafed ; which he may be when there is nothing of Merit in the cafe. Pfal.38. 4. 2. That there are a great many placesof Scripture Match, d. 1 2. which do dire&iy contradicl: fhis.A)o£tnne of Merit. For fer their DoBrlne of Merits'. 87c/ For befides fuch as fet forth our many Sins and Infirmi- phiL a - ties, and declare the Neceflity of God's Forgivenefs ; John 15. s'. fuch as alfert our good Works to be done by the Affi- 2Cor- 3-s« ftance of God's Grace. That we were obliged to have Luke 17. 10. done them although we had had no Profpeft of a Re- Rom. 8. itf, ward ; That an eternal Reward is our Inheritance, and 17> l8, that there is no Poportion betwixt it and the beft of our Actions. There are other places which exprefly R0m,$, a. affirm eternal Life to be the Gift of God : other which declare Justification to be of Grace, and confequently Glorification to be fb too ; for whom be has juftified, thofe he has glorified, Other which teach us the Ne- ceflity of daily praying to God for a Supply of things neceflary for our prefent Subfiftence , and confe- Matth.$. «; quently that if we do not merit our daily Bread, much lefs can we merit eternal Life. Other which bid us, af- ter we have done our beft, to own our feives to be un- Luke 17.10, profitable Servants. Other that will not allow even our Sufferings for the fake of Religion to be worthy to be com- Rom. 8. 18. pare d with the Glory which /ball be revealed in ta. Lafily, There are feveral other which do in fo ample a manner fet forth the Meritsof our Saviour's undertaking for us, as they do wholly take us off from placing any Truft or Confidence in any of our beft Performances. THE END. LO N J> 0 Ny Printed by J. P- for Richard Chiftoel at the Rofe and Crown \& St. PmWs Church- Yard, 1689. ■ w A A TABLE OF THE Several TEXTS,' Which are made ufe of by the Romanifts, for the proof of their federal Doctrines. I. Concerning the Obfcurity of Scripture. PSAL. up. 34. 18. 73- *35- Matth. 13. 11. Luke 8. 10. Luke 24.27. 45- f. 40. >/>. 24. p. 36. f.38. p. 2 5. f- 37- John 5. 35. A&>8. 31. 1 Cor. 12. 10. 2 Tim. 3. 7. 2 Pet. 3. id. 1. 20. 1 John 4. 6. Rev. 5. 4. f. 16. />-37- P-39 f.27' P-3P' — „ 11. .hi i Concerning the Infufflciency of Scripture, and the Neceflity of Tradition. 1 /^HRON.2p. 29. p. 55.J1 Kings 4.32. V-* 2 Chron. 9.29. p. 55.IGen. 18. ip. t\ 6 E ' ^ f-55- f- 58. Exod. hxod. t J. v. Dcut. 32.7. Judges 6. 13. Pfal. 44. 1. Tohn 16.12.. John 21 25. i Cor 11. 2., 16. 23. 24. i-Cor. 7. 1. At Me of theTexts., I f.6&. t Got. 5. f* M7- p. 60. 2Thcff. 2. 15. F57- p-60. 1 Tim. 6. 20. p.70. p. 60. 2. Tim. 1. 13, 14. p. 70. h 6z- 2 Tim. 2. i>2. p.70. p. 62. 2 Ep. John. »2. />• 7*. M4- 3 fp.John 13 c i4v p. 7*« p. 64. Gol. 4. 1 6, £•57. P-57- HI. M Concerning the Supremacy of St. Peter.. Atth, 16. 18, ip. p. 7&. i Jofin 2 1 . 1 j, 16* 17. p. 106. MAtth. 23. 2. Matth. 1 4. 2p. Eukc 5. 3,7, 10. P A R T 2. p. 139. John 22. 1 j, 16, 17. p. 127 p. 128 p. 105. Cjen. 1. 1. T'li9' Deut. 1 7. 8,9, 1 o, 1 r , 1 2. p. 1 34* V. Concerning Infallibility. ■pSal. 132. 13, 14* A Cant. 4.7. p. 145. 1 8. 20. 23- 1, 2. frVFfi h » 54. I'Jaiah 1. 26. p. 145-. 28. 20. P 1 57- 2.3,4. J p. 1 82. Luke 10. 16. /M59- 35-5- Jpl 1S4. 22. 32. f ♦ 1 6 1 . 52. 1. ?• '45- John 14. itf. p. 164. 5$>. 21. #• i§4 14- 2d. p. 1 66. Matth. 1 6. 18. /!• 146. 16.13. p. 168. 18'. 17. p. 150. Acts 15.28, h >73- Enhef. A Table of the Twcfcr . Ephef. 4. 14. /. 1 74-1 Heb. 1 3. 7. 1 Tint. 3. 15. ?. i7j».j Revel, r. 13, 15. 2 Tim. 2. 19. f. 177.I f. \$Q° p. 17S VI. Coteermrtg the Worfoif of Angels and Saints departed. PART 1. 2T7'ings2. 11. IN* Jerem. t$. 1. f.itu 1 Matth. 27. 52. f.223. p. 196. Luke 16. 19, to 31. f.20?. Zech. 1. 12. p. 200. 15.7, 10. f. 201. Pfal.9*. 11. p. 220. John 5. 45. p. 205. Dan. 10. 13. p. 2 20. Afts 12. 13. p. 201. Dan. io. 20,21. Deut. 32. 8. },.22«. Hebrews 1. 14. 2 Peter 1. 15. />. 220. p. 198. Baruch. 3. 4. p. 199. Revel. 2.26,27. f- 224. iMaccab. 15. i2,to 15. p. \pp. 3. 12. p. 227. Matth. 17.3. p. 223. 3. 21. p. 228. 18. to. p. 221. 6. 10. ?• 1 97* 22. 30. p. 204.I t2, I0* f . 206. VII. PART 2. pEN. 2. 18. Vj Gen. 18.2. p. 270. J 2 Chron. <5. 16. p. 234. (Job 5. 1. p. 235. 'Job 19.21. p. 263. p. 255. Geh. 1. p. 1, 19, 20. p. 255. Gen 48. 1 6. p. 252. Job 4>. 8. p.256. Exod. 32. 13. p. 263. Pial. 132. 1. 10. p. 263. Numb. 22. 31. p. 236. Dan. 2.46. p. 23?. Jofli.5. 13, 14. •p. 237. 'Rom. 15.30. p. 256. 1 Sain 28. 14. p. 238. 'Eph. <5. 18,19. p. 2 5<5. 1 Sam. 7.g. p. 256. JEph. 3. \6. p.2<7. 1 Kings 15.4- p. 263. 'Gal. 3.9. p. 267. 2 Kings 19.24. p. 263. * iTheff. 2.25. p. 257. tfE 2 2 Theft 2 Thcff.3- i. p. 2 57. Col. 4. 3. p. 257 Heb.13. 8. p. 2 57 A Table of 'the texts. Rev. 8. 3. Rev. 5. 8. j>.2*8. P. 2 da. VIII. Concerning the Worjhip of Images and Reliqties, EXod. 28. 2. 12. 16, Exod. 3. 15. . Exod 13. ipi • Txod. 25. 18. Numb. 21. 8, p. Deut. 34. 6. 2 Kings 13.21 p. 29 1 .-j Pfal. pp. 5. lfai. 11. 10. Match. 5.34,35, Matth.24. 30. Matth. 11. 20, 21,22, Ads 5. 12, 15. p. 2pl. p. 2 8p. p. 2pd. p. 279. p. 282. p. 297. p. 2p8. 2 Kings 2 3. id, 17, 18. p. 299 Ads ip. II, 12. Phil. 2. 10. f. 285. p. 300. p. 287. p. 292. p. 366. p. 301. p.302. IX. Concerning Seven Sacraments, and the Efficacy of them. P A R T i. P A R T 2. Of Confirmation LUke 24. p. John id. 8. John 1 5. 2d. John 14. id. Ads 1. 8. Ads. 8. 17. 2 Cor. 1. 21,22. Heb. d. 1. 1 John 2. 27, Of Vennance iMatth. 4. 17. Mark 1. 15. John. 20. 22, 23. \ p.312. p. 312. p.315. p. 318. p. 320. p. 31P. J-P'323 Of Orders. Ads d. d. Ads 13.3. Ads 14. 23. Ads 13. 2. Ads 20. 2 8. Eph. 4, 1 1 . 1 Tim. 4. 14. 2 Tim. i.d; 1 Tim. 4. 14. Of Matrimony, 1 Cox. j j. Eph. 5. 32. P- 33$. i»-33P- f- 339- P-33P. P-335- \ fnffli P-344- f. 342. 1 Thcff. I Theft 4. 4. 1 Tim. 2. 15. Of Extreme VnElion. Mark 6. 13. p. 345. Mark 16. 18. ./>«350, James 5.14, 15. p. 347. 0/rfy? Efficacy of the Sacraments, Matth. 3. 11. p- 352. Mark 1. 8. f. 352. jTaUe of the texts. }M m d Mark i5. id. f- 34+* Luke 3, id. John 1 2(5. 1 £&& Ads 22. 16. EPh. 5. 26. iPct.3.21.-- A&s'B. 18. 1 CoK 10. 17. ;.35J. P-352- ?• 352- P-J53- : P-354- 354- 355- X. Concerning the Sacrifice of the Mafs. PART i. Gf,N. 14. 18,'ip.' p. 3^5! Ifai. ip. 19, 1. Exodi2.3. p. 382 Ifai. 66. 21. compar'd Exod; 24. 8. p. 387 with iSam.235. />. 390 Jer. 33. 18. Prov. p. 1. p. 3pi; Dan. 8. 11, 12. P-3P4 LEV. 1. p. Mai. 1. 11. 1 Sam. 7. p. Matth. 26.28. Lube 22. 1 p. 20. XL PAR T 2. f. 42P f-397 f 42p John 4. 21, 23. Acts 13. 2. 1 Cor. 10. 14,-21. £.410 1 Cor. 11. 24. f. 410 p. 4°* P-4'9. P-42 4 p. 4 10. XlL A TdU tf tht iVfcte. XII. Concerning the DoBrbnt of Tr/tnfubfiantUtwH. MAuh. 26.26,27, 2$. .p. 455 John 6. 6u John 6. 5 1 . p. 43 7 1 John 6. 61, John 6. 52. John 6. 53. p. 440 J 1 Cor 10. rtf. p. 441; Xlli. Concerning AuricularConfcflion. NUM. 5.6,7. Gen. 3. Gen. 4. Lev. It. 14. Matth. 3. 5, 6. Matth. 16. 19. Matth. 18. 18. } p. 483 p. 481 p. 482 p. 482; p. 484 p. 360 John 1 1. 44. John 20. 23. Ms .19. 18. 2 Cor. 5. 18, i$>. James 5. 16. 1 John 1.$. }M4< p. 485 p. 460 P-473 f.474 P-477 p. 480 XIV. Concerning S&tisfdlions PART 1. GEN. 2.17. Exod.32. i,&c. Numb. 12. 15. Numb. 14. 2, &c. Numb. 20.28. P- 5 '7 h 523; p. 522 P- 525 J>-527 Deut. 32. 50. 2 Sam. 12. 13. to 17. 2 Sam. 24. 1. 1 Kings 13. 1. 1 Cor. 1 1. 29. P- 527 P. 5*9 p. 522 P, 529 p. 53° XV. ATdU&f tkiteMf. LEV. 4.5-,*. Pfal. 1 19. 61. 2 Chron. 7. 1 4.. f,r. 18.7. &. iPuw. I <5. 6. Dan. 4-27. Jonah 3. 4. Matth. 3. 8. XV. PART a p. 547 [Luke 11. 41. f-534 * 53« P-53? P- 534 F- 543 1 Cor. 1 1. 3 1, 2 Cor. 2. 10. 2 Cor* 7. 11. 2 Cor. 8. 14. 1 Col. 24. Eph. 5. ij2. Gal. 6. 2. f-54i f.546 f.553 M45 /». 550 M5* ?* 557 7.558 rurab. 14- 32. ver.33. Exodus 1.15. James 2. 25. Matth. $. 22. 1 Cor. 15.29. 1 John 5. 16. Zech. 9. 11. PCalm 66. 12. 1 Sam. 3.. 2 Kings !. XVI. Concerning Purgatory. PART 1. } } t 5*3 f-587 7-588 ?• 597 f. 6qi p. 606 p. 608 p. 610 p. 610 Mich. 7. 8, 9v. ifaial*9. 18. Malachi 3.3. Matth. 12. 32. 1 Cor. j. 1 5. Matth. 5. 25, 26. 1 Pet. 3. 19. Ads 2. 24. Luke 32. 42. Phil. 2. 10. p. 6\z p. 614 p. 61 5 f. 616 p. 623 p. 628 P- 933 p. 636 p. 637 p. ibid. XVIII. Concerning Prayers in an Vn known Tongue'; PART 17?. & 2d. Evit. 1 6. 1 7. j Luke 1. 8. }?-^3 Matth. 2 r . 16. h <*75 XIX AT Mc of the. Texts, . •» Mm. 3. 2. Titus 1 . 8. « 2, Tim. 2.4. „V Cor. 7. 32,33, .,' 1 Cor. 7. 5. XIX. Concerning the Celibacy vf Priefts. PART 1, 2. p. 745! Luke 1.23. p.754 1 Sam. 21. 4, v. 756 Luke 1. 34. p. 757|Matth. 19. 12. p. 761 1 1 Tim. 5-ju, 12. p. 765 P- 778 p. 780 P.7S2 XX. Concerning the Viability of the Church. I p. 832 p. 837 p. 836 p. 838 NUmb. 24. 4. 1 Kings 8. 14. 2 Sam 7. 16. Ffal. 19. 4. Pfal.72. 5. Pfal. 89.3,4. I fa. 49. 14. to 17. Ifa.^4. 9. to 12. I fa. 60. 1 5. to 20. i Ifa. 6i. 8,9. Ifa. <52. 3. to 12. Ifa. 66. 21. Jerefrii 30. 2. 3T. 35-)t03> 32.38,1041. 33. 14, to 20. Ezek. 34. 22, to 25. 37. 23, to 27. 48.35. p. 825,Matth. 16. 18. p. 825 Matth. 18. 17. p. 837 | Matth. 28. 20. John 14. 16. Afts 20. 28. 15. 3. 15.4. 18. 22. 2 Cor. 4. 3. T P'°3° Eph.4. 1 1, to \ I Cor. 1 5. y. p. 840 p. 841 Gal. 1. Phil. 3. 1 Tim. 13- 6. 3. I4it0 16. ) 1 i p. 826 p. 829 p. 845 p. 846 p. 83 1 p. 831 p. 832 p. 842 p. 843 p. 832 XXI ATMe of the Texts. Film 52. 12. Matth. 5. 12. Mattfa.20. 8. 1 6. 27. 25. 34, &c. 25. 21. 19. 17, 2* Luke 6. 38. io. 7. Aits 10.34. Rom. 2. 6. i Cor. 3. 8. XXI; Concerning Merits. p. 26$ p. 852 p. 853 p.8<55 p. 859 p. 869 p. 873 p. 865 p. 875 p. 876 p. 865 p. 865 Gal. 2. 5. Gal. 6. 8. 2 Theff. 1. 2 Their. 1. 5. 2 Tim. 4. 7, 8. 1 Tim. 4- 8. Hebr.6. 10. James 1. 12. 1 Pet. 1. 17. Revel. 3- 4- 2. 11. 7- 14,15- 22. 12. p. 87* p. 856 p. 871 p. 875 p. 871 p. 873 p. 87 1 p. 873 p. 875 p. 875 p.876 p.85p p. 869 6F A TABLE of TABLE O F T H E Principal Matters Contained in this Volume. The INTRODUCTION. Page ^HE Faith of the Re- formed called by the Church of Rome Bib- lifra, and they themfelves Bib- lifts, 5 The fmcere Chrifiians of all Ages governed themfelves by the Word of God, ibid. The Hereticks of the fir ft A- ges appealed from the Bible to Tra- dition ; fome invented new Go- fpels, and others raz.ed feveral Places out of the True G off el, 6 As the Papacy encreafed, the %fe of the Scriptures decreafed, ibid. Page Where the Canon Law and School Divinity obtained, thefe were confulted more in all cafes of Centroverfy and Difpute than the Bible, 7 Pious Tales and Legends injoi- nea to be read by the People, ibid. The Apocryphal Books made a part of the Chriftian Rule, and the Bible prohibited, by a Synod of Tholoufe in the 13 th Century, itaek Cajetan applied his Mind to the ftudy of the Scriptures, and wri- ting Comments upon them, upon the Difpute he had with Luther, 8 if the Principal Matters. Page /* wis dangerom in England for a Lay-m>in to have a Bible, for fame years After the Refor- mation wm begun by Luther, 9 In after "time, nhcn the People had the tfe of the Bible, and no- thing left than the Word of God rtoutJ, content the in, the Papifls then appealed to the Bible for the confirmation of their new Do- ttrines, ibid. This method of theirs improper for thfe two Reafons : Firlt, Becaufe they declare, that feveral Articles of Popery are not contained in the Scripture, hut muft be taken from Church- Authority, I o This confeffed to be true as to Invocation of Saints, by Cardi- Page nal Perron, Card. Bellarmine, Salraeron, Father Coton, 1 o, 1 1 Secondly, Becaufe they declare the Scriptures are obfeure, even in matters of Faith, fo as that the People , without an Infallible Guide, cannot find out the true fenfe of them^ 12, Notwtthfianding this the Ro- manifts, where the Per fan is weak and ignorant, boast of Scri- pture-Proofs for their Religion^ md againfi ours. ibid. Inflances of this kind from Bel- larmine, Card. Perron, Father Coton, and amongfi the Englijh Writers, from the Author of the Touchftone of the Reformed Gofpel, ^^/^CatholickScri- pturilt, 13, to \6 I. Concerning the Obfcurity of the holy Scriptures. Page THE Plainnefs and Perfpicu- ity of the Scriptures oppofed by C. Bellarmin, by Scriptures, by Sayings of the feveral Fa- thers^ and by anfwer'wg Objecti- ons, 1 8 What the Protefiants believe touching the Perfpicuity o/Scrip- ture. Several things herein pre- mifed. I. Protefiants are far from- Page thinking the Scriptures to be throughout plain and eafy to be underload, 1 8 2. That all Per fans are not in a capacity of underfianding all Scripture, but according to their Educations, Parts , and other Circumftances, they are capable of knowing the true meaning of more cr lefs of it, 1 9 6F2 ?; A TABLE of Page 3. That fom f laces are fo ob- fcure and difficult, that the moft Learned cannot be certain of their having attained to the true fenfe of them, 1 9 4. That agr eat part of Scrip- ture is now very eafy, which was ence difficult, and that many things are novo extreamly difficult, which Time will make as eafy, ibid. 5. That all things necejfary to be rightly rinderfiood in order to Salvation, are in the holy Scrip- tures delivered with great Perfpi- cuity, 20 The Objection anfwered, viz. That it is not plain in Scripture, what Points are necejfary, and what not, 2 1 6. That thofe Matters, the knowing of which is only profita- ble, and of life to our greater growth in Fertuefoc. moft of them are very plainly delivered in Scrip- ture, ibid. 7. lhat the Scriptures, though fo plain in the moft neceffary Points, may yet by bad Men be mifunderflood and perverted to an ill Senfe, 22 8. That when we affirm aH things neceffary to Salvation, to be perfpicmufy contained in Scrip- ture, we mean all fuch things, of which the Spirit U defigned to be the Inftrument of Conveyance to cur under ft andtngs, 23 Several places of Scripture al- ledged by the Cardinal for the Page proof of its Obfcurity, against r^Proteftant Vollrine touching its Perftkuity, confidered and ex- amined, 24 Pfal. 119. 73,18, 135. Luke 24. 7. examined, 25 Afts 8. 31. confidered and an- frvered, 26 2 Pet. 3. 16. five things re- turned in anfwerto the Cardinal's Interpretation of this Place , 27, to 32 Several Citations of Scripture confidred, that are made ttfe of upon tbts Argument by the Au- thor of the Touchftone of the Re- formed Gofpel. Rev. 2. 5. 9 both thefe ffoO i> ces mifcjuoted^^z Luk.2.50. J by that Author j Rev. 5. 4. anfwered in four Particulars. Four Reafons laid down to vin- dicate 2 Pet. 1 . 20. from their falfe Interpretation, 3 £ Luk. 24. 45. This place cant be under ft 00 d of the Scriptures in general, but only of the Prophe- cies concerning Chrifl in the Law of Mofes, and in the Prophets and Pf alms, 37 1 Cor. 12. 10. doth no ways prove the Obfcurity of the Scrip- tures ; but that for the fake of which our Adverfaries are fo zealous to have them obfeure, ib. Luke 8. 10. only proves our Saviour made choice of a Parabo- lical way of Speech fir feme time to the Principal Matters. 2 Cor. 4. 2, 3, 4. 44 CW. BcUarmine's Expojition ofthefe two Places examined, ib. Whether a Writing be obfeure or plain is not a gueftion to be de- Page to his Hearers, confidering how they watch' d all Advantages from his Difcoitrfes to do him a Mif- chief, 38 The Doctrine of the Obfcurity of the Scriptures in matters ne- eejfary is as great an Imposition upon Experience, as it that of Tranfubftantiation upon our Senfes, 41 Several places of Scripture pro- pofed to the Romanifts, which more clearly affert the Perfpicuity of the Scriptures, than theirs do its Obfcurity ■-, fuch as thefe, Deut. 30. 1 r. 42 Page cided by Teftimony, bat Experi- ence, 45 The Cardinal's Jnftanccs for a Specimen of the Obfcurity of the Scripture, examined, 47 No Scripture obfeure, except- ing thofe particular Texts, wherein the Myfteries of ottr Religion are contained, 48 The Obfcurity of the Myfteries may make them incomprehenfi- ble, but not unintelligible, ibid. Thofe Jnftances of Card. Bel- larmine to prove the obfeure man- ner of exprefling things in Scrip- ture, have nothing in them, that a Man, who hath but one good Commentator, will call Obfcu- rity 49 This Argument concluded with the Words of Mr. Chillingworth on this Subjetly cq II. Concerning the Infufficiency of Scripture, and Ne- ceffity of Tradition. Page THree things here examined, which, are held by the Church of Rome, and endeavoured by them to be proved from Scripture. I. That the Scripture doth not contain all things necejfary to Sal- vation, or is not a Rule fufficient to guide Hi therein* This anfwer- ed, 54 The lofs of many Book* menti- Page oned in Scripture, doth not make it an unfuffictent Rule to hs^ This proved by four Reafons ; 1 . Every thing wrote by in(pired Perfons was not Canonical, or in» dted of Divine Jnfpiration, 55 This Infpiration was not a pow- er at all tunes refident in all thofe Perfons, ibid. 2. Thofe A TABLE of Page 2. Thofe Books that are not now extant) mentioned in Scrip- ture, were not Canonical, btcaufe they are loft. 56 3. TboHgb fome fart of the Scripture is lost , yet it follows not that what was lost did contain things neceffary to Salvation, and that what remains is not now a fufficient Rule, ibid. 4. That which was once writ- ten, and' is now no where extant) hath not been preferred to its by Tradition) ibid. Whether St. Paul writ an Epi- ftle to the Laodiceans, confider- ed) 57 II. What is to be under flood by Tradition in a Theological fenfe, and whether a necejjity of fuch a Tradition can be proved from Scripture, 58 Card Bellarmine'j Proof from Scripture (Gen. t 8. 15?.) for the neceffity of Tradition examined and anfwered in four T articular S) 59 Exod. 13. 8. confidered and anfwered in five particular '5,60,6 1 777. Whether there be any ne- ceffity of a Tradition, where then is a written Word? or whether there be indeed any fuch traditi- on ? This examined as to thofe places of Scripture a/ledge d by the Cardinal for it, 62 John 21.25. four Reafons af- figned why this place of the Evan- gelist can make nothing for that Page end it is produced by him, 62,63 John 16. 20. The Cardinal's Obfervation from it) and an An- fwer returned in three particulars, 64 1 Cor. 1 1 . 2. no neceffity of interpreting this of any other Tra- dition, than of what is contained in Scripture, viz. the great Do- ctrines and Rules of it, which the Apoflle delivered to thtm when prefent, and which hi. wrote to them when abfent) ibid. 1 Cor. 11. 23. this, makes di- rectly contrary to the DoUrwe of Tradition) £ c Three things alleclged in anfwer to C. Bell arming Inference from the 34th Verj'e of the forememi- oned Chapter, 66 2 ThefC 2. 1 5. examined in four particulars, ' 67, 68 C. Bellarmin'j Reply to it con- fidered and anfwered, 69 Belhrmine proceeds to prove this point of Tradition the fame way, and from the fame places of Scripture, with fome Her eticks in the time of Tertullian, viz. 1 Tim. 6.20. 2 Tim. 1. 13,14- Chap. 2. 1,2. 70 Thefe places confifkred in two particulars, 71, 72 2 John 12. *? cited to little pur- > pofe by the (. ard. 3 Joh. 1 3 . 1 4. J in this Arg ument 73 Several Texts brought by the Authors of the Touchftone of the the Principal Matters. Page I Page t he Reformed,^ (.and of the Ca- 2. That what was fpobgn by in- tholick Script urift, to prove, fpired Perfons wot of at good Au- 1. That the World was for ' thority, and equally received, as feme time if* hout a written Word, what was written by fitch, 74 and had nothing but Tradition and i Both thefe Particulars briefly verbal Teaching, 7 3 confidered and anfwered. III. Concerning the Supremacy of St. Peter and of the Pope over the whole Church. PART 1. Page THree ways made u fe of by the Cardinal to prove the Supre- macy :, Firit, By fome places of Scri- pture. Secondly, BymanyPri- viledjes and Prerogatives of St. Pe:er. Thirdly, ByTeftimonies. The firft of thefe only concerned in this Defign, 78 Mat. 16. 18, 19. largely con- fidered and examined, ibid. I. Two things implied in the former part of this Promife ; Firft, That there is no certain- ty that St. Peter is meant by the Rock, upon which Chrisl faith, he will build his Church, 79 By Rock, according to the befl fenfe of the antient Interpreters, is underfiood the Faith concerning Chrisl, which St. Peter had new- ly confejfed, ibid. ^ Page This the plain fenfe of St. Au- ftin, 80 The notorious falfoood of their Interpretation and Translation of this Place examined, 8 1 The Chrifiian Church was not built by St. Peter\r Hands alone, but by them all, and efpeeially by St. Paul J which (hews this Pro- mife to have a refpetl to all, who had the Office of Apoftles, 8 Z Jefm Chrisl the only Founda- tion that can be laid, and there' fore St. Peter cannot be the Foun- dation, but only as a Minifler of Jefm Chrift, who helped to lay the Foundation, which is Chrifl him- felf and his Faith, 83 The diftinttion of a Firft and Secondary Foundation over- thrown by that place of St. Paul, Rom. 15.20. ibid. Faith A TABLE of Page Faith in Chrifi may be called a Foundation ^CoL 1.23.3 and the Apoftles (as Preachers of this Faith) are called a Foundation, Eph. 2. 20. ibid. "the Apoftles underftoodnojuch Prehemincnce from thefe Words, nor did St. Peter himfelf fo in- terpret them, when the Holy Ghoft came upon them to lead them into all Truth, 83,84 Secondly, There is nothing in the word Rock, which implies any Superiority of Power and Autho- rity over the refi of his Brethren and the whole Churchy ( if we jhould fuppofe 1 his Promt fe made to him alone) but only hath a re- fpett to the fupport and ft ability of that Structure that is laid upon it, 84 Card. Bellarmine'* Explana- tion of this Word very improper, if not downright nonfenfe, 8 5 C. BellarmineV Reply to this, viz. the Apoftles we re all Foun- dations as well as St. Peter, ex- amined and anfwered, i bid . Impoffible for the Popes of Rome to wake out their Claim to which they pretend from him, that they fucceed him in this Authori- ty, 86 No Evidence that St. Peter was Bifrop of Rome, but only that he founded that Church, and f ctled a Bifiop there, ibid. BellarmineV Ajfertion, that the Jpofiles being dead, the Apo- Page ftolical Authority remained in \>z- ttv^sSucceffors alone, examined^ The Popes Priviledg of Infalli- bility as well as fupreme Domini - I on, ajfertedby the Cardinal from this place of Scripture, confider- \ ed, 88, 89 II. The latter part of this Pro- mife confidered, And I will give J thee the Keys of the Kingdom I of Heaven, &c. 90 What is here meant by the Kingdom of Heaven, by bind- ing and loofing ? pi The fame with the Potver of the Keys, which was not here promifed to him alone, but equal- ly to them all, ibid. Thus the Antients interpreted this place, St. Auftin particular- ly, a remarkable Quotation of whom is at large confider'd, 92,9 3 Thisjufiificd by three other paf- fages in the holy G of pels, viz: Matth. 18. 18. & 19.28. John 20. 21, 22, 23. all of which do demonflrate that the Keys were not given to him alone, 9 4, 9 5 The Opinion of thofe confuted who affirm that Chrifi gave the Power of remitting and re- taining Sins to all the Apoftles, but the Power of the Keys to St. Peter alone, 96 As the Keys were not promifed to St. Peter alone , fo not to him more than any other Apoftle, but only the hfe of them firft, before any other Apoftle, 97, 98 Con- the Principal Matters. Page Cte/Sfr, ty A recapitulation of the "thole cf this Argument In eight par tic li- ters, p8, 99 Mat. 23,8, 9, 10. overturns the Pretentions of Superiority in St. Peter and his Succejfors, 9 9 That St. Peter had no power to make, but only to declare the Laws of our Saviour Jefus Chrifl, U evident from thofe words, One Shepherd, one Lord, one Lavy- giver, who is able to fave and r to deftroy, ico The word [_Bind~] imports not ■a power to impofe Laws, but on- ly to tie Men to thofe Laws which are already made, 1 o 1 A Citation tut of St. Hierom, alledged by the Romanics for the proving a Supremacy of Power pi St. Peter over the reft of the A- poflles^confidered, 102 This Dtfcourfe concluded with the Obfervation of Dr. Ham- mond on this Argument, 1 03 , 144 IV. To prove the 'Supremacy of St. Peter and of the Pope over the whole Church. PART 2. Page St. John ch.2 1 .v. 1 5 , 1 6, 1 7 . 'ki- te feed by the Romanics to prove fomewhat granted to St. Pe- ter, which was conferred on none of the Apofiles, that of a Pallor of the whole Church, with a fit- preme power over it, 1 06 Two Anfwtrs returned to this ; 1 . That thefe words contain on- ly a plain Charge or Command to do his Office, 1 07 2. That this Duty, upn this Precept, belongs not to htm alone, but to every one of them as much ** him, ibid. Page This appears plainly from St. Peter himfelf 1 Pet. 5. 1. from St. Paul, Ails 20. 28. from our Saviour himfelf, John 20. 21. from the Expofition of the antient Fathers, from the pr ail ice of the Church of Rome at thus day tin the Feftivals of all the other Apo- files and Evangelists (excepting St. John) 108,109 This threefold repetition of the Queftion, Loveft thou me ? &c, andh'A command^ 'eed my Sheep, the antient Chriftians underfiood no more by them, than that by a 6Q three A TABLE of Page threefold Confeffwn be might obli- terate his threefold Denial of our Saviour, 1 1 o IhUisSt. Cyril of Alexandria (tilth others) Interpretation, ill, 112 I. By the word^tz&fhe Church of Rome underftands the higheft Tower to be committed to St. Pe- ter, 113 This word imports nothing of Ruling or Governing, but only refers to feeding the Flocks by Word and Doftrine, 114 Thefe words made ufe of by BcWarm'me to ajfert the power of the Bijhop of Rome, which ex- tends to fiveThirgs. 1 . He is hereby made the Su- preme Judg in Controverfies of Faith, 1 1 5 2. That He is an infallible Judg, ibid. 3. That He hatha power to make Laws for the whole Church, l\6 4. That He U abfolutely above the whole Church,even above a Ge- neral Council, ibid. 5. That He hath a Temporal power over Princes, ibid. Thefe Inferences confuted, even by their own Writ its, 117 II. The CardtnaPs Obfervati- «n from the word MY Sheep, for tfiabhjhing St. Peter'* univerfal Paftorjliip confidered and refuted, 118 III The Romifi Interpretation Page of the words [Tambs and Sheep] confuted by the whole Hiftory of the Gofpel, and by ah Antiquity, lip Bellarmine'j threefold Myfte- ry in thefe Words examined, 120, 121 And difowned by the greater Writers of that Church, 122 All the Apoftles of Chrift had the fame power of Feeding the Sheep given to them as St. Peter, , who were to take the fame care of all Chrift's Flock^ that he did, ib. They were to teach All indefi- nitely, fo that among them none Jhould be neglecled, but inftrutted by fome or other of them, \ 23 Iheir Objection, that though Feeding mufi be allowed to the 0- ther Apoftles, yet St. Peter alone was to feed by Authority and Power over all, whereby he was to prefcribe what was to be taught and believed: this anfwered, 123, 124 Pope Boniface the Flllth Ex- travagant averting from theft words the fame Authority that St. Peter had, to be inherent to the See of Rome, looks rather like a Pafquil, than an Interpretation of the holy Scriptures, 125 The whole of this Difcourfc concluded with three Obfervati- ons 1 . That the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome is built barely on three metaphorical Speeches of our Saviour the Principal Matters. Page Saviour unto St. Peter, without one word or fy liable concerning the Bijhop o/Rome, w any other Suc- cejfor, I x6 The Rhemilh Annotation on Mat. 14. 29. examined, 127 As likewife that upon Luke 5. 3. 128, 129 2. If the danger of wrefting the Scriptures be a good reafon why the common People Jhould not read them, then no body at all fjould look into them ; for their mofi learned Priefis have wrefted them more than the common Peo- ple, 130 3. The great dij agreement of that Church about the Interpreta- tion of thefe three places of Scrip- ture, which have been the fubjett Page of this Difcoarfe, 1 3 1 , to 134 This no great Argument ofthetr Unity they fo much boift of, nor of that Certainty they pretend t9 in this main point of their Faith, 134 Two places of Scripture cited by the Catholick Scripturifl ex- amined, 135,135 Pope Boniface the Vlllth In- terpretation of Gen. 1. 1. 137 Innocent the I lids remarkable proof of the Temporal Jurifdi- ttion as well as Jpiritual, not only in the Churches Patrimony, but in other Countries alfo, in cer~ tain caufes, from Deut. 17. 8. U8 The Conclufion- V. Concerning the proof of their Do&rine of Infallibility. Page INfaflibility in the Notion of the prtfent Church of Rome is the Principle into which Jhe ul- timately refolves her Faith, and the very Foundation of the Papal SuperflruElure^ 141 What the Romanifts under- ft and by it, 142 Thx Dottrine as it is (iated by them, vacates the Vfefulnefs Page and Necejfity of any Scripture of written Word, 143 That it is a notorious begging of the Queftion in them, to prove their Infallibility /row the Scrip- tures, 144 That it is a prepofterous Me- thod for Men, ultimately to re- folve their Faith into that, rather than into the Scripture which they 6 O 2 them- A TABLE of Page ! themfelves are farced to fetch from the fret ended Teflimony of Scripture, ibid. The Teftimonies attedged by them for the Proof of this Do- ctrine of theirs confidered, and firfi'thofe out of the Old{fefia- ment, l 45 Ifai. i. 26. ch. 52. 1. Cant. 4. 7. infiancedinbythemfor the Confirmation of it, 1 45 Out of the New Tefiament, Matth. 16. 18. confidered, 146 {In an fiver to this 6 things offer- ed to their Confideration] 147, 148, 149, I5°- Matth. 18. 17- examined, 150 This place refers only to the Difcipline and not the Do- ttrine which is to be obfierved, particular Churches , and in that only at to private Injuries and Offences, and not to any Er- ror or Herefy amongft Chrifii- ans, ibid. Their Interpretation of Matth. 18.20. confidered, and refuted in two Particulars. 1 52 The Mifreprefenters Argu- ment from Matth. 23. i, 2> ex amined, I 54 Three Things offered in Reply to it, 155 1 . Words of an Vnivcrfal Ex- tent are to be limited and bound up, according to the Nature and Subject matter to which they re - late, ibid. Page 2. Their, own And other Wri- ters, whofg Expofitions they are obliged to receive, have according- ly interpreted them, ibid. 3. This jufiified from our Sa- viours own-re afoning againft the Jewifl) Dottors. 156" A brief Anfwer [returned to- their Expofition of Matth. 28.16. upon this Argument. 157 The Words only are a Promife of general Affiance to the A- poftles under the Difficulties and Dangers they were to ftruggle with in the Dtfcharge of their Mmifierial Office, !$8 St. Luke 10. 16. anfwer c din four Particulars, 1 59 Chapk 22. 32. The former and latter parts of the Words throughly confidered and anfwer - ed, 161 John 1 4. 1 6. The Occafion and Coherence of the Words confidered, 154 The Promife here made relates not to the Truth of Doftrine, but to the Holy Spirit's being a Comforter or Advocate, one who fhould ftrengthen^ and fupport them in their Ajjliuions, &c. , ' 165 St. Peter'j Succtffors no way interefied in this Promife exclu- fively to the Succejfors of any of the other Apofiles, to whom it wai joyntly and equally made- with St. Peter, ibid That the Principal Matters. Page That John 14.26. refpctts on- ly thofe to whom it was addreffed, doth app ear (1.) from the Occa- fton and meaning of the Words, \66 (2.) from the reafon of the thing, 1 67 John \6. 13. examined) and an An fixer returned to the Infe- rences from it of the Author of the Guide of Consroverfiy, 168 2 Pec 3 . 1 6. no- no ays fir vice able to the Purpofe, asaHedgedby that Author ; this largely proved in five Particulars, 170 to 1 73 The Vafifls infer from Af Nature, 204 John 5. 45. explained, and therein fhewed that by Mo fes (e- ven in the Interpretation of their own Writers) mufi be underfiood the ihe Writing tr Books of Mofes, 205 Two things returned in anfwer to their Inference from Rev. 1 2. 10. 206 The Parable of Dives and La- Zanw {Luke \6. 1 9 to 31.) im- pertinently urged by the Cardinal on this Argument, 207 // taken for a real Hiftory, it proves too much upon them, more than they would have it, and fo nothing at all. This jhewed in five particulars, 208 2 Kings 2. 1 1.( 'which tht Cath. Scripturift calls a Referve} con- fidered and examined, 211 Four Ways ajferted by the Ro- manifls to pew the Saints may come to the knowledg of Men and their Conditions •" 1* By Information front the Angels. Four things returned in anfwer to this, 214 2. By a kind of unconceivable fwiftnejs of motion, wherewith Angels may be endowed^and glori- fied Saints alfo, they being made equal to them. Two Anfwer s re- turned to this, 215 3. By the Glafs of the Deity, wherein all things are reprefented to their view that are in God. This anfwer ed, 2 1 6 4. By Revelation from God. This anfwer ed likewife, ibid. As God no where hath told tu that he doth make known to Ble fi- fed Spirits the Hearts and Re- %*efts of Ment fo he hath in effect the Principal Matters. Page Page told us that he doth not, 218 III. There U no proof from Scripture that Angels and Saints departed are entrufted with the Care and Government of the World under God, 219 Heb. 1. 14. & Pfal. 91. 11. only Jhew us that the Angels in general do by the Command and Direction of God minifier to good Men in times of Danger and Difirefs, 220 IV. Anfwer s returned to thofe Texts the Cardinal makes ufe of to prove there are Guardian An- gels over particular Perfons, 221 A Reply to thofe places of Scripture urged to prove that God fets particular Angels over par- ticular Countries and Princes to govern and defend them, 222 Thofe Texts they alledg to fliew Saints departed have afterwards appeared on the Earth, considered and anfwer ed, 223 Somewhat offered in Anfwer to thofe Texts, from whence they infer the Glory and Happinefs of the Apoftles and other eminent Saints at the Day of Judgment, 224 Bellarmine^ Interpretation of the Iron Rod, in Rev. 2.26, 27. and in Pfal. 2. 9. examined and refuted, 225 An Explication of Rev. 3. 12, 21. and Matth. 24. 45, 46, 47. Matth. 25. 14. Luke 19. 12. 227,228,229 from A TABLE of Page I Page From all which pi Aces it is evi- \ Infirutnents of his Providence, jo dent, that as God" makes life of he'makejnot ufe of Saints depart- Angels not as governing Spirits, ed at all, 230 but as Mwifters of his Will, and — VII. Concerning the Worfliip of Angels,and Saints departed. PART 2. IV, T Page Hat there is no Proof from Scripture for the tons Adoration of An- gels and Saints departed, 233 Their Inftancefrom Gen. 18.2. •was only a civil Refpell or Reve- rence in Abraham/^ was cujio- marily paid in that CountYy from Man to Man, he hiking upon them to be no more than Men, 234 Tho fome Interpreters have thought one of the fe three Angels to be the Son of God, ibid. the fame Anfwer fervesfor the ether Proof of Lot' J worjlnping the two Angels, and [npplicating them in the Behalf of Zoar, from Gen. 19. 1,19, 20. 235 Three Reafons alledged in An- fwer to their Inftance e/Balaam'j worfhtping the Angel, (Numb. 22. 31O 236 The Religions Worfotp, which Joihuap^W to the Angel that ap- Page pearedtohim (Jolh. 5. 13.) was paid to the Son of God, the fe- cond Perfon of the Trinity, as is apparent from the 1 4th verfe, and other places of Script ure9 237 The cafe of 'SaulV worjhiping of Samuel, raifed by the Witch o/Endor, confidered 1 Sam. 28. 14. 238 An account given of Nebu- chadnezzar'f wwjhipitig Daniel, (Dan. 2. 46.) contrary to the Card. Interpretation, in two Par- ticulars, 239 Several places of Scripture largely confidered, which exprefiy forbid and condemn this PraUice in the Church of Rome, 24 1 to 249 V. There is no Proof from Scripture for the folemn Invocati- of Angels and Saints departed. Of this there are three Bran- ches, viz. Firft, the Principal Matters. Page Firft, There is no Proof from Script uie fr fraying to them to beftow, or fray to God for Blef- fngsfor us, 250 No lnfiance of any exprefs Command in the Old Teflament, neither in th New Tefl anient, according to the Opinion of many Learned Writers of their Church, 251 That place out of Gen. 48. 1 6. tdledged by them for the Invocati- on of Angels, anfwered, 252 Job 5. 1, no Precept to pray to Angels, nor implying any Cu- jlom of that Age , to implore the Aid and Protection of An- g'b, 255 7 heir chief Proof for Invoca- tion of Saints, are from fucb Texts of Scripture, wherein good Men on Earth are commanded to .fray for one another, and from Examples of that kind, 256 But from hence no Argument can be drawn fr it ; 1 . Becaufe Chnftians on Earth are emf offered only by them to de- ft e others to pray for them, [but Romanics pray to Saints and An- gels, not only to pray for them, but to beftow Blejfmgs upon t he n>, &c. which fippofes a certain Page but a friendly reqiieft, {but the Church of Rome enjoins to call upon the Saints d -farted, if* a most devout manner, after the manner of S'jpplicant^ 258 3. Thefe Texts require us to deftre our fcllov Chri/rians to be only mere Petitioners for us , as they do for themfeives ■ but the Church o/Rome teaches us to pray to them as Advocates and Media- tors in Heaven wi'.h God, ibid. 4. They require us to dejire the Prayers of good Men on Earth, who hear us and know our Condition : but the Church of Rome require Men to pray to Saints in Heaven, who cannot hear us, and for ought we know are ignorant of our State, 259 5 . When we defire our fellow- Chrtjlittns to pray for us, it is a vocal Defire, but the Roma- nics with mental and vocal Prayers apply themfeives to Saints departed, 260 Several places of Scripture, by way of Conclufion to this Argu- ment, produced to prove that God is the only O'jjetl of Prayer, as well as of the other parts of Re- ligious \ Vor\\np , 2 6 o Secondly, There is no Proof Power in them to helf them, and from Scripture that we may pray to terminate the Worfnip on them, to God to be heard fr the fake 257 2. When we defire our fellow- Chriflians to pray for us, that defire is not a trayer to them, of the Saints, in favour of them and their Mer 'its, 262 The Text* made ufe of to de- fend this, conf.dtred, icy 6 H Thirdly, A TABLE of Page Thirdly, There is no Proof from Scripture for fraying to Saints and Angels, as Inter- ceffors and Mediators in the Pre- fence of God, 266 Gal. 3.9. explained, and flaw- ed wherein Mofes was a Media- tor, as he was an Internuncio, a Perfon that went between God and the People, relating the Covenants and Agreements made betwixt them, 267 Oar blejfed Saviour generally underftood by the Angel in Rev. Page 8. 3. who is there [aid to offer up the Prayers of the Saints to God, 268 Rev. 5 . 8. cited by the Rom*. nifis to no purpofe, 269 The Office of a Mediator is every where appropriated in Scrip- ture to our Lord Chrift; thisprovd by many places of Script ure,2jo Their DiftinUion of a Media- tor of Redemption, and a Me- diator of Interceffion, examined in five Particulars, 271 The Conclufion of the whole. VIII. Concerning the Worfhip of Images and Reliques. Page THE Tefiimonies alledged from Scripture by the Ro- manics in defence of their pre- fcnt Practice of worshipping of Images, reduced under three Heads. 278 I. Thofe which fpeak exprefly of Images ; two inftanced in and anfwered : \. Exod. 25. 18. doth not forbid the making of Images for the purpofes mentioned there, this being no part of the Controversy, nor doth it in the le aft enjoin the wor (hipping 0/ them, 279 Card. Bellarmin'j interpreta- tion, that the Cherubims are ne- Fage ceffarily adored by thofe that ado- red the Ark, anfwered, ibid. The Affertixm of Dr. Parker, late Bifh op of Oxon (z'tf/wRea- 1 fons for abrogating the Tefr) j that an outward Worship was, gi- ven to the Cherubims, configu- red and anfwered, 281 2. Numb. 28. 8, 9. doth not command or mention in the leaf;, that the Children of Ifraelww to pay any Worfhip to the Brazen Serpent, though creeled for fitch great Bleffmgs to them, 282 The weaknefs of the Cardinals Inference from hence fljewn, viz. that the Brazen Serpent mutt needs the Principal Matters. Page needs be worshipped by the lira- elites, becaufe God had ordered it to be placed aloft, and it gave Re- lief to thofe that looked of on it, 283 The Author of the Touch- ftone of the Reformed Gofpel his Interpretation of this place ex- amined, 284 This Paffage of the Brazen Serpent no ground in the leaft for Image- worjhip, i bid . II. Thofe which {hew that fome Creatures are to be religiocfy ho- noured for their bare relation to God, 285 Pfal. 95. 4. examined, and therein fliewn that by FootftooJ teas not meant the Ark, but Mount Zion, the holy Hill, on which the Temple flood, 286 That no Adoration was paid to the Footftool, evident from the Original Hebrew , from the Vulgar Translation, and from the Chaldee Faraphraft, ibid. Mat. 5. 34> 3 5- confidered, and the Car dinars wild Conclufion from it refuted, 287 III. Thofe which fiew fome Creatures are called J acred or ho- ly, becaufe of therr relation to ho- ly Things, 289 Exod. 3. 5. very imperti- nently urged by the Cardinal and the Author of tht Touchitone of the Reformed Gofpel, to prove and defend the wvrfiupping of Images, 290 Page The Feat? of the Faffover, Ex- od. 12. 16. the Priefts Garments Exod. 28. 2. Chaffs Sepulchre, Ifa. 11. 10. and the Scriptures, 2 Tim. 3. 15. most unreafona- bly urged by Bellarmine for the proof of Image- worjhip, 2 p 1 The Cardinal's Interpretation of the Sign of the Son of Man, (Mat.24.30.) urged by him for to prove the Worjhip of it fi'om Scrip- tare, confidered and refuted, 292 The Name of Jefus in the O- pinion of the Catholick Scriptu- rift, is a kind of Reprefentation of Christ, at which we are com- manded to bow the Knee This nothing to the purpofe, 293 We are commanded f_Phil. 2. 9,10.3 to bow At the Name of Jefus, but not To it, 294 Worfhipping of Reliques. By Reliques the Church of Rome underfiands not only the Bodies of the Saints, but any of thofe Things which did belong to them, and were bleffed fo far as to touch their fanctified, and C which is more) fanttifying Bo- dies, fuch as St. Francis'.* Gir- dle, &c. 295 No Foundation for this Pra- ctice in the holy Scriptures, though eftablifredby the Council of 'Trent ibid. Jofeph'.* Injunction to the Chil- dren of Ifrael (Exod. 13. 19.) 6 H 2 con- A TABLE of Page terning the removal of his Bones, r.o ways ferviceable to their fur f°fc 296 Deut. 34. 6. is fo far from countenancing this practice of the Church of Rome, that it is fa- vourable to Us againfl Relique- Worfrip, 29? 7 he Miracle that was wrought by Elifha'/ Bones (contrary to BeliarmiflV Interpretation from 2 Kings 13. 21.) doth not prove that God either gives or intends fuch Honour to the dead Bodies of other of his Saints, 298 The Cardinal s gustation from 2 Kings 23. ltf,>7, 18. infers a contrary PraElice to that of the Roman Church, 299 What to be under food by ChriFs Sepulchre being glorious (ac- cording to the vulgar TrMnMittn) moretheWor^p0fRell ^ U doth for tie wor}htppi„g ef lm^ %i t /- 3oo Jheweaknefs of the Cardinal's proof fir this Doclrine of Theirs from Mat. 1 1. 20, 21, 22. dif- >'?# ibid. Acts 5. 12, 15. ailed* ed by r£fn mtktnS t0 & vith Re- hque-lVorjhip, from defending or proving the *«fi>f * felf, thai it doth not Jo much at prove that there are a- nyjuch things as Relives, I he Conclufion* IX. Concerning Seven Sacraments, and the Efficacr of them, ? PART 1. Page CHritt only inftituted Two Sa- craments, as only necejfary for his Church, 30e, The fphitual Sacr- ces of Chrifiians are in the r, ophzt r de- fer ibed in terms '.>)at ure con- formable to what was ufdandpra- Ciifed in 'hat time in the Nation of the Jews, 400 The Chnfiian Services u. \ cx- prejfed by the Prophet under the Page character of Incenfe and a pure Offering, of which the Mofaical Incenfe was a Type or Figure, 40 1 John 4. 20. a good Interpre- tation of this place in Malachi, ibid. Thefe fpiritual Serviced called Sacrifices both in the Old and New Tefiament, 402 The antient Chrifiians (Juftin Martyr, Tertullian, Eufebius, Theodoret ) nnderftood thefe words in Malachi of a (piritual Sacrifice, 405 7 his place therefore not to be underfiood of the Sacrifice of the Mafs, ibid. The Car dual's Affertion falfe-f that the Fat . rs have always in- terpreted this place of the Sacri- fice of the E . harift, ibid. John 4.21,22. confide? ed and examined, 404 Tho the I'jord Worfhip ( in this place iothfometimes, yet it doth not always denote Sacri fee, the wr: d being to be interpreted, according to the fubjetr Matter, 405 61 2 ■ Our A TABLE of Page Our Saviour** words many times are to he inter preted in a different fenfe from the Queftion put to him, and the occafion of his words-, ibid. The Argument of the Cardinal from this place, if admitted, will prove too much upon him, 406 The CardinaPs Interpretation of the 23d verfe of that Chap- ter very abfurd and groundless, 407 Our Saviour in this place doth not fpeak^ of the Quality of the Sacrifice, but of the Difpoiition ef the Worfinppers, 408 The ^Cardinal's Difcourfe on thife words, The Hour cometh, and now is, very inconfcquent, ibid. Beflhrmin'j proof of the Sacri- fice of the Mafs from the lnflitu- tion and fir (I Celebration of the Sacrament, examined, 409 "three Anfwers returned to his Argument concerning the Prefent Tenfe in the words of Infiituti* 9ft, is given, is broken, is foed, 410 T. Nothing more common in Scripture, than to put the pre- fect Tenfe for the future, efpe- daily where the Thing fpoken of is certainly and fuddainly to come to pafs, ibid. 2. The Vulgar Latin, and their Canon of the Ma&readthe Words in the future Tenfe, which takes off' the whole force of his Ar- gument•, 41 1 Page 3. The Death of Chris! im- mediately following upon his Sap- per, wholly removes the difficulty, 412 The CardinaPs Argument to prove that Chrifi in his loft Sup- per offered himftlf a Sacrifice, is from the true Pre fence of the Bo- dy and Blood of Chrift in that Supper, which are received as the Flejh and Blood of a Victim of- fered for us. This examined, 413 An Anftver returned to hit Charge againft the Lutherans dw^Calvinifts, ibid. The Infiitution of the Lord*f Supper , as delivered to tain the Evartgelifls and St. Paul, is fo far from proving the Romifh Do~ Urine of the Sacrifice of the Mafs, that it overthrows it. This large* ly fiiewn, 414*0419 Acts 13. 2. made ufe of by the Cardinal to prove the Sacri- fice of the MafS) '■'■•■ 4 1 9 The Rhemtjh Annotation of this Place examined, 420 The Cardinal's Inference from this place is, that the Miniftry or Service exhibited to the Lord here, doth not feem poflibte to be any thing elfe than a Sacrifice, and the Sacrifice of the Mafs, 421 Two things pre mi fed, before the Anfwer to it, which confifts of fom Particulars-, 421/0424 . Three Three Arguments for the Sa crifice of the Mafs colleUcd from i Cor. 10. 14 to 2r. 425 The Anfwers to thcfe are, 1. St. Paul doth not compare the Lord's Table with the Altars, but with the Tables of the Jews, and of the Heathens, where they did eat the rem.imder of the Sa- crifices, which were offered at the Altar, 425 2. The corner if on between the Eucharifi, with the Sacrifices of the Jews and Gentiles, doth no ways ferve the Cardinafs Pur- pofe, 426 3. Allowing St. Paul to com- pare the Communion we have with Chrifl by the Eucharifi, with the Communion the Heathens had with Devils by eating the Idolothyta, it doth not follow that the Eucha- rift is a Sacrifice in that fenfe, which the Romanifts contend for, 427 the Principal Matters. Page J Page Thefe forementioned Words of St. Paul afford rather three good Arguments againfi their DoUrine of the Sacrifice of the Mafs, 428 Three forts of Sacrifices among the Jews. 1. Some which no Man wot permitted to eat any part of finch were the Holocauft, and thofe Sin- offerings, &c 429 2. Some the Priefis did only eat of and that they were not per- mitted to do every where, but in an holy Place ; thefe Sacrifices were called molt Holy, 43° 3. Some were left holy, of which the Priefis, their Children, their Servants, and the Offerers were permitted to eat of; fuchwere the Peace-offerings, 43 r Each of thefe applied to the prefent Argument, and no ways favouring the DoUrine of the Sa- crifice of the Mafs, ibk}. XIII. Concerning the Do6Hr.e of Tratifubfianttitio*. Page WHat Tranfubflantiation tf, 06 defined by the Coun- cil of Xrent, 43 3 From hence Bellarmine Under* takes to f>ove thefe two things ; . Page I. That the Eucharifi is not na-> t ural Bread and Wine,' butts the- very Body and Bksd of Chrifi re- ally and fubfiant tally, under the ■ forms of Bread and Wine. ft That A TABLE of Page II. That there U a Iranfubfian- nation or Converfion of the Sub- fiance of the Bread and Wine into Chrifi^s very Body and Blood. Both thefe P articular s inquired in- to^ 434 I. The Cardinal proves that the Eucharifi is the very natural Body and Blood of Chrifi by four forts of Arguments, ibid. Firft, From the Figures of it in Scripture ; this anfwered, 43 5 Secondly, From what Bellar- raine calls a Promife contained in John 6. 5 r . The Bread that I will give is my Flefh', this anfwered, 437 The Eucharifi not the proper fubjecl of ihU Difcourfe ; but the Flejh and Blood of Chrifi is here to be under fiood the fame as the Bread in ver. 35, 48, 51. and by both Chrift himfelf, who was to die for the Worlds ibid. By eating his Flefh, and drinking his Blood in this place, are the fame with coming to him, or believing in him> ver. 35,45, 47JS1- 438 Bellarmine'j firft Argument from the above-cited Ver fits exa- mined, and an Anfwer returned in three Particulars, 43 8, 4 3 9 His fecond Argument to prove this Difcourfe in St. John belongs to the Eucharifi is from the words of the lafi Supper , which bears' a correfpondence with it. ; This an- fwered, 439 His third Argument examined, and anfwered in fever al Particu- lars, 440 His fourth Argument from the Diftinttion, ver. 53. of that Chapter, between Eating and Drinking, betwixt Flefli and Blood, confidered and Anfwered, 442 His fifth Argument from ver. 49. anfwered, 443 His fixth Argument from the words [eating the Fleft} ofChrifi~\ anfwered^ ibid. His fevtnth Argument from John 3. 3. anfwered, 445 His double Expofition from ver. 6 \,6 2. confidered and anfwered, 446 Thirdly, His third Argument is taken from the very words of the Infiitution r_This is my Bo- dy] and he re the Cardinal ailed- ges two Arguments for proving that the very Body and Blood of Chrifi are fubfiantially in the Eu- charifi, 448 1 . That it is not probable our Lord jhould /peak, figuratively, whether we corifider the Matter, a Sacrament-, the Per font to whom \se fpake, the Apofiks ; or the Place and Time : This anfwered^ ibid. 2. That it is evidtpt from the very words themfelves, This is my Body. This examined as to each word in this Exprejfion.and, difiinfi Anfwers return d to them, 449 Fourthly, the Principal Matters. Page ' Page Fourthly, His fourth Argu- II. Tranfubftantiation, or the ment to prove the Truth ofChrifPs , Converfion of the Bread and Wine Body to be truly in the Eucharift,\ into the proper fub fiance of Chris's is taken from the Vfe of it : and \ Body and Bloody very weakly pro- here he argues from the FratHon, vedfrom the Script fire by the Car- Confecration, the Communication, i dmal, 4 55 and the Guilt by unworthy Partici- j Ihe only Place inffted on by him pation. An Anfwer returned to is from Mat> 2.6. 26. This an' each ofthefe Particulars-, 453 J fwered^ 456 Xtv: Concerning Auricular Confeflion. Page TO prevent Miftakes in exa- mining this Dotlrine by Scripture, it is fliewn wherein the Church of England agrees with the Church of Rome in it, and wherein it difagrees, 453 1 . We agree that all ought to confefs their Sins to Almighty God, 454 This Confeffion which is made to God u either in the Publicly Offices of the Church, or in pri- vate, 455 2. We agree that in cafe of Vublick Scandal given to the Church by any notorious Crime, a piiblick^ConfeJfion thereof ought to be made before the Churchy 456 3. We agree that private Con' fejfion of Sin may be made to all forts of People, whither of the Laity or the Clergy, and that not Page only when any Injury hath been done to another, or in cafe of any Doubt or Scruple, but in all Vafes whatfoever, 457 4. We agree that Confeffion of Sin ought more efpecially to be made to the Priefl, and that in all cafes whatfoever, 458 The two things wherein the Church of England difagrees with the Church of Rome are, 1 . lhat fecret Confeffion is of Divine Inftitution ; and 2. That in Confeffion it is ne- ■ ceffary to enumerate all our Sins, together with the Circumftances ■■ of what kindfoever, 459 This endeavoured, but not pro- ved by Scriptur-e, 460 7he chief places infijled on by the Council of Trent and other Writers of that Church examined, fab A TABLE of Page fuch as John 20. 23. Matth. 1 5. 1 p. Chap. 18. 18. ibid. Matth. 18. 18. is by fome made to have refpebt not only to the Priefi, but to every particular Chrifiian, ibid. This place, and Matth 16. 19. may be interpreted of that gene- ral Power and Authority, which j was given by our Saviour to the Afoftles of determining in all matters concerning the Chrtfiian Religion, and of declaring what was right and fit to be done, and what was This whole Argument conclud- ed, wihh four Observations, 486 6K XV. A TABLE of XV. Concerning the Do&rine of Satisfactions, PART i. Page THE whole of this Argu- ment managed under five Particulars, 490 I. What the Doctrine of Sa- tisfaction is as ajferted in the Roman CWd>, 491 Their different Notions and Definitions concerning the tempo- ral and Eternal Punifhment of Sin, ibid. Three things fuppofed in this Dottrine of their Church, viz. I . That Sin is not wholly far- doned altogether as to both Guilt and Pumjhment ; hutfome part of the Penalty due thereto, ftill re- mains after the Pardon or Remiffi- mofit,^ 493 Three Anfwers returned to this, 494 (1.) This is contrary to the Gojpd-C oven ant in the Sacrifice of our Saviour, ibid. This apparent from feveral places of Scripture, 495 (2O This is contrary to the Divine Jufiice to demand a Debt wife over,, that in our own All and Performance which was al- ready fatisfied for, by tfre Obla- Page lation of Chrifi Jefttt for the Stnsof the whole World, 499 (3.) It depreciates the Value of Chrifi 's Satisfaction, when it is not allowed to extend to the whole Demerit of our Sins, but we muft atone for one fart of it our f elves, 500 Several Abfurdities contained in this DoUrine, 502 2. This DoUrine fuppofes we can fupererrogate with God, i. e. arrive at a ft ate of Vertue above the Precept, or perform undue Works, and fuffer more than the , Demerit of our former Sins, 504 This quite impoffible both in re- fpett of A&ion and Sufferings, 505. Several places of Scripture ex- plained upon this Argument, 506 to 5 op 3. Whether Afflictions may be f aid to be Satis fall ions to Godys Juftice, or a Revenge upon Sin as to certain Remains of ?u- nifhmnt, fliS left undifcharged in the Sufferings of our Saviour, 5" The tht Principal Mattel's. Page The Intention and Defign of -Cod in them, averted in four Par- ticulars, 512 The Nature ofthofe Penances •that were tifually infliUed in the Difcipline of the Church upon notorious Sinners, confidered, to- gether with the fever al Ends and Purpofts of them, 5U4 BellarmineV Inflante of the Cafe of Adam (Gen. 2. 17.) con* fidered, 517 Death no Punifhment to good Mtn, hut of great Advantage to them, 518 The Cafe of the Death 0/ Da- Page vidV Child (2 Sam. 12. 13.) examined, 5 19 That of numbering the People* 2 Sam. 24. nothing to the Cardi- nal's Purpofe, 522 The Inftance of Miriam* ('Numb. 12.) and of the Gol- den Calf, (Exod. 32.) of tho Murmurers in the Wildernefs^ CNumb. 14.) of the Death of Mofes and Aaron in the Wilder- nefsi confidered, and Anfwert returned to each of them, 523 f*53© The Conclufion. **- XVI/ Concerning the Doftrine of S/tthfatffam. PART 2. Page IV. +T H E Cafe of tho Nini- 1 vites confidcred, (Jon. J-4-) _ . S34 Several Texts of Scripture out of the Old and New Teftament, as brought by the Romanics for their Satisfa&ions examined, and Anfwers returned to the Inter- pretations of them, 5 35 to 550 No one can fatisfy for the Penalties of other People, or ac- quit and reUafe them \ which muft be done by an overplus of Page Satisfaclions, or a Performance of more than is reqmfite upon their Account, as is ajfertedin the Church of Rome, 552 Thofe places of Scripture con- fidered, which that Church doth inftance in, for their founding this Treafure of the Church, (jv they call it) and which the Go- vernours thereof, efpecially the Pope, hath the Power to apply a* they pleafe, ibid. 6K 2 Two A TABLE of , Page ( Two forts of Sufferings ex- preffed in Scripture, one Perfonal, which he fubmitted to on the Crofs for the Redemption of his Church, and which was there compleated ■' others which he fill fufkains in his faithful Members, whence he hath a Sympathy and fellow- feeling with, and which he fhall always be concerned with to the end of the World, 554 This account of the two farts of Sufferings of Chrifi explains Col. 1.24. which plainly refers to the latter of them, ibid. Eph. 5. I, 2. explained, and the Imptrtinency of their Inter- pretations of it, fliewn, 557 Gal. 5. 1,2. doth not prove any thing for their vicarious Sa- tisfactions, 51^ The Article of the Communion of Saints no ways proves that the Ejfeft of any ones Sufferings can redound to others, - ibid . 2 Cor. 8. 14. alledged by the Romanifts upon this Head of the Communion of Saints, and an Anfwtr returned to their Infe- rence from it, 560 • The Originals of thefe Satis- factions (hewn, how they began, andwereejlabtifhedin the Church, It vat the ancient Difcipline ef the Church, that thvfe who were guilty of any notorious Of- fences, were always removed from the Communion of it^ and were Page to undergo a long Exclufio* and State of Penance, before they were admitted into it again, ibid. St. Bafil in his Canons of Ec- clefiajiical Cenfures prefcribes a Penance of fifteen Tears to the Sin of Adultery, before they were to be admitted into the Commu- nion of faithful People, as to all the Advantages of it, Prayer andshe Holy gucharift, 565 Thefe Penances in the Primi- tive Church conjiftcd of fever al Stfps and gradual Advances' a- bove one another, viz. 1 . The Station of Weepingr what this was, and in what part of the Church to be performed^ 2. The place of Hearing, to whom this belonged, ibid. 3 . The Place o/Subjetftion.w* Subftration,fo which were appro- priated the Penitentiary Ails, V7 4. The Station wherein the Penitents joined with the Affcm- bly of the Faithful^ and were employed with them, ibid. Two Canons of St. Bafil the iyh Epift. ad Amphilium,, and the 81 Can. at large recited 568 The Penances both as to the meafure or continuance of them were generally relaxed by the Bifhop, orbyfome Presbyter au- thorised by him, upon the Evi- dence Page Aence of the true Repentance •/ the Per/on, $70 The Vfefulnefs and Advan- the Principal Matters. Page tage of fitch Church-Difciplino* 57* The Conclufion of the whole. XVII. Concerning Purgatory. PART i. Page THE ancient Writers tend a general Notion of a pur- ging Fire, but this, was widely Afferent from the Papiltical Purgatory, 578 The Council of Trent gives no Defer iption of it, but leaves it to her Prelates^ and Priefts, to teS what it is, and in what ex- tent to be believed, c7q Not a Text in the Old or Nero Teftamtnt) where we meet the Word Fire, but what nith fome Fetch or other their Arguers ap- fly to, and interpret of their Pur- gatory, 5g0 What the Popi(h Article in this point is. jbid The Dottrine of the Church of England, as to this pom, 581 The Cathoiick Scripturift particularly examined on this Ar- gument under two Heads I. The Impertinence of his pretended Principles of Scrip. t*re, ntcefanly inferring fHch a Page Purgatory, 582 (x.) His fir ft Principle exa- mined; viz. that there are Scrip- tures y which teach that after the Sm it felf is forgiven, there re- mains fbme Pains fill due to that Sin, and therefore cenfe- quently infer a Purgatory, be- cattfe that Man to whom the Sin is forgiven may dye before he hath paidthofe Pains in this Life, 582 (2.) His fecond Principle is taken from the Scriptures teaching that there are Venial Sins : this*- refuted, j8 797 2. Whether it be not lawful for thofe to marry, who have not this Gift of Contmency, notwith- Page ftanding any Vow or Church- Law to the contrary, 707 An Anfwer returned to their Clamours concerning thofe Perfons who in the Beginning of the Re- formation, married after they had been in Orders m the Roman Church, and fo taken this Vow of Continence upon them, 798 There are no fuch things as Vows to be found in the New Teftament, they- feeming for fome particular Reasons to be pe- culiar to a former more imperfect Difpenfation, 199 However it may be lawful un- der the Gofpel in fome Cafes to make Vows, g0o Bellarmine'-f three Affertiont, in Oppofition to the Scriptural Di- rections in this Argument, exa- mined and confuted, 80 1 1 . That in none of thofe places of Scripture, thofe are called to Marriage, who are tempted by the Sting of the Flefh, but only thofe who live incontinently, ft as to pollute themfelves with Lewd- ness : this anfwered, 802 2. That thofe who do live in- continently, are not called to Mar- riage by an abfolute Command ; but the Principal Matters. Page | Page but only an eafy Remedy is fimvn their Ritual or Ordinal, nor any, them, into which they may betake] fitch thing put to the Clergy, or them/elves, and that it is flill'. made by them in any of their Forms 0/ Ordination, ibid . 7 'hey made this Voxo only m\r plied ^^interpretative at their Ordination, and fupyofe it to be annexed to Orders by Divine free to them to afpire to greater things : this anfvocrcd, 803 3 . That this Counfel or Ver- milion or Remedy is not given by the Apofrle to thofe who have vowed Continence, but only to thofe Right ; though fever al among, who are loofe and free : this an- them annex it only by an Eccle- fweredj 805 j ftaflical Law, 808 The Church of Rome after I This Law not a Law of the all doth not impnfe any ftchVow j whole Churchy but only of their of Continence upon its, Priejis : own, 810 or Clergy, 807 No mention of this Vow in The Conclu/on. ■ XXIII. Concerning the Visibility of the Church. Page ALL Proofs of Scripture that are brought to argue the Diffttfivenefs and rr.ofl glorious Figure the Church hath made in the World, are impertinent to the Purpofe, as to- its Vifibility, 814 The Church, as to the general Notion of it, u Invilible, 8 1 5 That part of the Church, which we exprefs by the Name militant, ts only concerned in this Controverjy, ibid. In what fenfe the Church may be allowed to be viiible^y Vro- tefianti, 817 The Quefion concerning the Vifibility of the Chunh truly Page flated betwixt us and the Church of Rome, 8 1 9 Bellarmine'j Definition of the Church examined as to this Ar- gument, 820 Two things propofed hereupon^ viz. 1. That it is not the (J He er ufual manner of the Scriptures , efpecially the Books of the New Teftament , in de/cribing the Church, to i/ifift much it} on Numbers, or outward Fomp and Splendor of the Church, but r*- ther to the contrary, 82 r 2. That none of thefe places of Scripture which are cited by the Cardinal and other Papijl-s, do A TABLE of Page do prove any thing of the Vifibi- lity of the Church, as it is de- fined by Bellaimine, 824 Numb. 20. 4. very imperti- nently cited by the Cardinal in this Argument \ 825 Matth. 1 6. 1 8. alledged to this purpofe, explained and vindica- ted from ferving of this Caufe, 826 Matth. 18. 17. examined and found only to be a Rule that re- fpefts the Church, when jhe is in that Condition, as makes her ca- pable of awing of Criminals by the b/fitblions of fuch Punijh- mentsas are neceffary thereunto, 830 This Rule contains nothing in it from whence can be picked out [uch a vifible Church as the Car- dinal defines^ 831 Pfal. 18. 19. examined, and three Anfwers returned to their Interpretation of it, 852 An Examination of fever al places of Scripture out of the Old Teftament, mifnterpreted and mif applied by the Catholick Scriptural, for the Continuance of this vifible. Church from one Age to another, under the Go- vernment of one great Pafior and Vicar of Chrift the Bifrep of Rome, 834 to 842 His Quotations out of the New Teftament for this perpetual Vifibility of the Church under lawful Papers, examined, 842, The Catholick Scripturift's blafphemous Suggeftion, as if the Pope of Rome was intimated by the Paraclete or Holy Spirit of God, which Chrift promifed ft) all come and abide in his Church, 846 The Conclufton. XXIV. Concerning the Doctrine of Merits. Page THE Cafe ftated between the Church of Rome and Us concerning this Argument^ and jhewn wherein we agree with them, and difagree from them, 850 I . We agree with them in this, that an Eternal Reward becomes due upon the Performance of fuch Conditions, for which God hath Page been pleafed to promife to beftow it, ibid. 2. We agree that good Works are the Condition, without which an Eternal Reward can never be obtained, ibid. 3. We agets Gods Grace to be neceffary to enable w to do any goodWork^, 851 4. We are ready to affirm it to bt the Principal Matters Page be agreeable to God?s Wifdom and Goodnefs, to beftow a Reward upon good Works, although he had never promt fed it, 852 5. We allow that the word Merit may be fifed in an improper fenfe, foastofignify, to procure or obt lin, without ever csnftder- %ng the Worth of the P erf on, or the Work.it felf, ibid. Thus far we agree with them, but then that whtch hath occaji- onedthc Vifpute betwixt Us and them of the Church of Rome, is that, 6. Merit in the more proper Signification imports Atlion or Actions, to which there is a Re- ward in Jitftice due, viz. when it doth not flow merely from the kindnefs of the Giver, but from refpeel to the Worthincfs of the jLJion, fo as that the Doer hath reafon to complain of Injuftice done him, if it be not beftowed upon him, 8 <; 3 There hith been at all times in that Church fuch as have with Us difclainied all kind of Merit in this laft fenfe, fuch as Pope Gregory the Great, Urban IV. and Adi ian VI. ibid. There have been ethers, who though they feem to make a Re- ward to depend wholly upzn GocPs Pronnfe in Chrifl,yet at the fame time will needs have tt. that good Works may be truly faid to be me- ritoricus of tt, 854 Others amonq] them go further, and dffsrt that God?; Pio/rif :■ Page indeed annexed to the Wotks of juft Men, but yet that belongs no way to the Reafon of the Merit, but cometh rather to the Works, whieh are already not worthy only, but aljo meritorious, 855 This Voclrine found Fault with by Proteftants fr thefe following Reafons ■' 1 . Becaufe we are bound to pay all manner of Obedience, although we were not fure of any Reward hereafter, 856 2. Becaufe though many of our Works are good, yet many of them are evil too, and if God fliould deal frilly with m, mftead of re- warding our good Deeds, he might if he plea fed, punijh our evil ones, ibid. 3. Becaufe even our be ft Alii- ens are imperfect, and ft and in need of God s Forgivcnefs to cover their Defects, ibid. 4. Becaufe what ever is Praife- worthy in us, is not performed by our own Power and Skill, but by the yJJfiftance of Gods Grace 856" 5. Becaufe there is no Equality or Proportion betwixt the beft Ac- tions of in finite and imperfect Creatures and the eternal Favour of God, 857 The Council ofTrznt,ifit hath not taught this Dottrme of Merit in exprefs terms, yetthere is great reafon 10 believe that it did at leaft intend to give Countenance: to it, ibid. This made good even from the Jndjmcnt of ftvtral Divines if the A TABLEof Page the Church of Rome, from the Index Expurgatorius, and from ■ the Rhjmifh Annotations, and from fever al of their Writers of late Tears, when they give us the fenfc of the Council about thu matter, 858) &c. An Anfwer in five P 'articular s given to the Biftiop of Condom's .Defence of the Council in this Page point, 860 flie fever al Texts produced by the Cardinal ranked under feve- ral Heads ; 1 . Such as mention eternal .Life to be a Reward or Wagti , Matth. 5. 12. Matth. 20. 8. Thefe examined, 862 2. Such wherein the Heavenly Reward is faid to be given to Men according to the meafure And Proportion of their Works and Labour, viz. Pfal. 62. 1 2. Matth. 1 6. 27. Rom. 1.6. 1 Cor. 3. 8. Rev. 22. 12. Thefe tonfidered, and three Anfwers re- turned to the Car dinalys Inference from them, 865 3. Such Scriptures as do -de- clare an eternal Reward to be fo -beftowed upon good Worlds , that they place the very reafon why eternal Life is beftowed in the good Works thcmfclves, Matth. 2%. 34, &c. Rev. 7. 14. fur Anfwers returned to thefe, 8 6 9 4. Such Scriptures as da de- clare that a Reward in Juftice cucrht to be given to Mens good Deeds, 2 ThefT. 1. 4, &c. 2 Tim. 4. 7. Keb. 6. 10. Two Anfwers returned to this, 871 5. Such Scriptures wherein eternal Life is promfcd to good Works, Matth. 19. 17, &c. 1 Tim. 4. 8. James 1. 12. Ihree Anfwers returned to the Cardi- naD Inference from thefe places, , , 873 6. Such wherein mention is made of good Men being worthy of a Reward, Luke 10. 7. 2 Theft 1. 5. Rev. 3. 4. The Cardinal's Inference from hence examined and anfwer e^, 875 7. Such Scriptures where God is faid to be a juftjudg and no- Accepter of Perfons, Rev. 2. 1 r. Gal. 2. 6. 1 Pet.t. 17. Ads 10. 34. Two Anfwers returned to this, 876 The whole of this Argument concludtdwith three Obfervations, 1 . That thii Dottrine hath fo little Found it ion in the Scripture, that the word Merit ts not fo much ai to be found there, 878 2 . That there are a great many places of Scripture which d) di- rectly contradict this Dotlrine of Merit, ibid. 3. That there are fever al others which do info ample a manner fet forth the Merits of our Saviour s undertaking for us, as they do wholly take m off from placing any Truft or Confidence in any of our be ft Performances, 879 The Conclufion. FINIS.