SECT. I. Of the Church, and Rule of Faith.

R. 1. VVE read of Christ the Head, from whom the whole Body is fitly joyned together, Ephes. 4. 16. And the holding and adhering to that head [Coloss. 2. 19.] is the one great Note of the Church, given by S. Austin de unit. Eccles. c. 3 &. 4. But there is neither in Scripture, nor Antiquity any evidence for a visible Head, and much less for the visible Head the Pope, and least of all that it's necessary to Salvation to be subject to him.

If it's necessary to Salvation to be subject to him, it's as necessary to know who is the Pope; but that the World hath often been divided about, when there were sometimes three, and for about 40 Years together two Popes equally pretending to the Chair. Vid. Theod. Niem. de Schism. uni­vers.

R. 2. IF Christ gave no such power to S. Peter, or the Pope be not S. Peter's Successor, then the Pope has no pretence to this Power. And if we consult Scripture, we read that Christ gave some Apostles, and some Prophets, &c. for the work of the Ministry, and the edifying the Body, Ephes. 4. 11, 12. but that he gave one Apostle preheminence above the rest, and much less absolute power over them, we read not. This Sovereign power they were forbidden to attempt or desire, Matth. 20. 26. and S. Paul was so far from ac­knowledging it, that he challenged an equality with the rest of the Apostles, Gal. 1. 15, 17. and upon occasion withstood S. Peter, Gal. 2. 11.

To this we may add the judgment of S. Cyprian. The other Apostles are the same S. Peter was, endowed with an equal fellowship of honour and power. Epist. de unit. Eccles.

R. 3. AS it was foretold (Isaiah 2. 3) so it was ful­fill'd, Out of Zion shall go forth the Law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. There the Church be­gan, and therefore in the Synodical Epistle of the second General Council of Constantinople, Jerusalem is called the Mother of all Churches. Baron. A. D. 382. p. 461.

If the Church of Rome is the Mistress, because she is the Mother (as Pope Innocent the first would have it, Epist. 1. Concil. Tom. 4. p. 5.) then Jerusalem should have been the Mistress as well as Mother. If the Mistress, because she was once the Imperial City, then Constantinople was so like­wise; and accordingly it was Decreed in the 4th General Council, that of Chalcedon, Can. 28. That the Church of Con­stantinople should have equal priviledges with that of Rome, because she is the Imperial Seat.

And if she claims this Sovereign Authority upon any other reason, she never had, nor can ever prove a right to it.

This is confirm'd by Pope Pius 2. (when a Cardinal) Epist. 288. p. 802. who saith, That before the time of the Ni­cene Council, little regard was had to the Church of Rome.

R. 4. GAL. 1. 11, 12. The Gospel which was Preached of me is not after man; for I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Vers. 8. 9. Though we or an Angel from Heaven preach any other Gospel unto you, than that which we have preached, let him be accursed, or be under an Anathema.

The Church of Rome expresly professes not to receive her Doctrine by special Revelation: or if she did so pretend, she cannot avoid S. Paul's Anathema, when, for instance, she requires to bow down before an Image, which the Scri­pture forbids; and forbids to read the Scripture, which is required.

And without doubt the Text of the Apostle holds as much against any other, as against himself or an Angel from Heaven; and it would have been true if he had ad­ded, If we or an Angel, or the Church of Rome preach any other Gospel, &c.

R. 5. WE read in Scripture of the Faith once delive­red to the Saints; Jude 3. & 2 Tim. 3. 16, 17. All [or the whole] Scripture is profitable for Doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

The Scripture is a rule sufficient in it self, and was by Men divinely inspired, fully delivered to the World; and so neither needs, nor is capable of any further addition.

So Tertullian saith, Let the Shop of Hermogenes shew that this thing is written. If it be not written, let him fear the wo pronounced against them that add to or take from Scripture. Contr. Hermog. c. 22.

R. 6. S. Augustin on the contrary determines, lib. contr. Petil. l. 3. c. 6. If any one concerning Christ and his Church, or concerning any other things which belong to Faith or Life, I will not say if we, but (which S. Paul haeth added) if an Angel from Heaven, preach unto you besides what ye have received in the Law and Evangelical writings, let him be accursed. For as all Faith is founded upon divine Authority, so there is now no divine Authority but the Scri­ptures; [Page 7] and therefore no one can make that to be of divine Authority, which is not contained in them. And if Tran­substantiation and Purgatory, &c. are not delivered in Scripture, they cannot be Doctrines of Faith. Therefore S. Basil (when about to sum up a confession of Faith) saith, it's as well an evident defection from the Faith, to in­troduce any thing that is not written, as it is to reject any thing that is. Homil. de fide.

R. 7. 8. MAtth. 15. 9. Our Saviour saith of the Phari­sees; In vain do they worship me, teaching for Doctrine the Commandments of Men; forbidding that as un­lawful which God hath not forbidden, and requiring that as a necessary duty which God hath not required.

Tradition. is but another word for delivering to another; which may either be by word or writing; and thus the Faith and Doctrine contained in the Gospel, is called Tradition by the Apostle. 2 Thes. 2. 15. And so Irenaeus calls the chief Articles of our Faith Apostolical Tradition. lib. 3. c. 4. But in the Ecclesiastical sence, Tradition is ordinarily taken for what is not written in Scripture, and in this sence we deny that there are any other Apostolical Traditions concerning Faith and Manners, than what are contained in Scripture; and that (whatever the Church of Rome pretends) no such are to be received with the like regard as the Scriptures, or are necessary to Salvation.

So S. Hierom in cap. 1. Aggaei, the Sword of God [his word] doth smite those other things, which they do find and hold of their own accord, as by Apostolical Tradition, without the Authority and testimony of Scripture.

[Page 9] S. Cyril Hierosol. doth affirm, that it behoveth us not to deliver, no not so much as the least thing of the Holy mysteries of Faith, without the Holy Scripture, &c. that is the secu­rity of our Faith, not which is from our own inventions, but from the demonstration of the holy Scriptures. Cateches. 5.

R. 9. MArk 7. 8. Laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the Tradition of Men, as the washing of Pots and Cups: and many other such like things ye do.

The Church of Rome hath no more to shew for their holy Water and Incensings, and Salt and Spittle, &c. than the Pharisees for their Traditions: and since they no less impose and set them up as Divine, than the other, they are alike guilty with them.

S. Basil saith in Reg. brev. Reg. 95. It's necessary even for No­vices to learn the Scriptures, that the mind may be well con­firmed in piety, and that they may not be accustomed to humane Traditions. For otherwise in tract of time, a fondness for such Traditions may raise them to an equal authority, and they may be thought of as much necessity as what is con­tained in the Scriptures themselves; as experience hath fully shewed.

R. 10. 2 TIm. 3. 16. All Scripture is given iy inspira­tion of God.

2 Pet. 1. 21. Holy Men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

The Apocryphal Books were wrote after Prophecy and Divine Inspiration ceased, and so as they could not be of Divine Authority, so were not received by the Jewish Church (to which were committed the Oracles of God. Rom. 2. 2.) nor by the Christian Church, as the 60th Canon of the Council of Laodicea doth shew, where there is a Catalogue of the Canonical Books, without any mention of these.

[Page 11] So S. Jerom also declares, As therefore the Church doth read Tobias, Judith, and the Books of the Maccabees, but doth not receive them into the Canonical Scriptures: So it doth read the two Volumes of Wisdom and Eccl siasticus for the edifi­cation of the people, not to establish the Authority of Eccle­siastical Principles, in prologo Proverb. See Bellarm. de verbo, l. 1. c. 10. init. The ancient Church allowed those Books to be read in the Church for their usefulness (as we do) but did not esteem them to be Canonical, that is, to be written by persons divinely inspired (as doth the Church of of Rome).

R. 11. UNder the Law, the people had the Scriptures in a Tongue vulgarly known.

Luk. 16. 29. They have Moses and the Prophets; and they were required to read the Law, and to be conversant in it, Deut. 6. 6. These words which I command thee this shall be in thine heart, &c. and accordingly our Saviour sends them thither, Joh. 5. 39. Search the Scriptures. So it was under the Gospel, S. Paul requires and advises that his Epistle be read to all the Brethren; 1 Thes. 5. 27. and if so, it was wrote in a language they understood. And so it was in the Primitive Church, therefore S. Chrysostom exhorts his Auditors that were secular Men, to provide themselves Bibles, the Medicines of their Souls, to be their perpe­tual instructors, Comment. in Colos. 3. 16. And to serve this end the holy Scriptures were very soon translated into many vulgar tongues by learned men.

R. 12. IN the Apostles times there were some that wre­sted the Scriptures unto their own destruction, and yet the Apostle S. Peter thought of no other expedient than to give the Christians a caution, that they were not also led away with the errours of the wicked, and to advise them, that they should grow in knowledge. 2 Pet. 3. 16, 17, 18. The way to prevent this therefore is not to keep the [Page 13] Scriptures from the people (which were written for our Learning, Rom. 15. 4. and that we might believe, Joh. 20. 31.) but to exhort them to a diligent perusal of them. Math. 22. 29. Ye err, not knowing the Scriptures.

The Sheep should not cast away their skin, because Wolves sometimes hide themselves under it, saith S. Austin de Serm. Dom. in monte.

R. 13. WHile the Apostles were alive, the Churches of Christ in matters of Dispute applied themselves to them, as in the point of Circumcision, Acts 15. 2. but since they of the Church of Rome can neither prove the like Infallibility in their Church, nor direct us where it is, we think our selves as well in our Church, as they can be in theirs; and that as long as we have the Scri­pture for a Rule, the Church is to be referr'd to the Scri­pture, and not the Scripture to the Church; and that as Scripture is the best expounder of it self, so the best way to know whether any thing be of Divine Authori­ty, is to apply our selves to the Scripture.

If I would have the Church demonstrated, it is not by humane teachings, but by the Divine Oracles, saith S. Au­gustin, de enit. Eccles. cap. 3.

The way for understanding the Scriptures is to demonstrate out of themselves concerning themselves, saith Clemens Alex. Strom. l. 7. p. 757. The sum of all is this, the Scripture is the only rule of Faith; the way to judge aright of that rule, is by the sober and modest use of our own reason; a help to judge of that rule, is the sence especially of the primitive Church: but to make the Church the sole judge of Scripture, and to obli [...]e [...]us to follow that, with­out attending to Scripture as the rule, or our own reason as the judge, is to leave us without Scripture or reason.

SECT. II. Of Repentance and Obedience.

R. 14. COntrition is but another word for Repentance, and Repentance is a qualification for Pardon and Reconciliation. A broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise. Psal. 51. 17. Ezek. 18. 31, 32. Cast away from you all your transgressions, &c. and make you a new heart, and a new spirit, for why will ye die, &c.

Ezek. 18. 30. Repent and turn your selves from all your transgressions, so iniquity shall not be your ruin.

Acts 3. 19. Repent and be converted that your sins may be blotted out.

The same Texts which make Contrition sufficient with­out Confession to the Priest, make Attrition insufficient without there be Contrition. And as the former Doctrine of the insufficiency of Contrition without confession, makes that necessary which God hath not made necessary: so this latter of the sufficiency of Attrition upon Confession to the Priest, without Contrition, makes that unnecessary which God hath made necessary. And what can be a bolder in­vasion upon the divine Authority, than either to require other conditions of Salvation than God hath required (as is done by making confession to a Priest necessary to Salva­tion) or to dissolve the obligation of those conditions which he hath required (as doth their Doctrine of Attri­tion with Confession)?

R. 15. TRuly to deserve, is to make God our debtor; to him that worketh [i. e. that meriteth] is the reward not reckoned of Grace but of Debt: Rom. 4. 4. But can a Man be profitable to God? Job 22. 2. Our Savi­our teaches us that we cannot, Luk. 17. 10. when ye shall have done all these things which are commanded you, say, we are unprofitable Servants: we have done that which was our duty to do. A Command to do it, and Grace to obey that Command, and a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory as a reward. [2 Cor. 4. 17.] will shame the pre­tence of real merit, and turn the Anathema upon them­selves. And they may as soon reconcile light and darkness, as the grace of God, and merit of Christ, to this Doctrine; although for a cover they have confounded them together in the same Canon.

R. 16. TO pardon sin and remit the punishment, only belong to God, according to Psalm 32. 5. I said I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord, and thou for­gavest the iniquity of my sin. What God binds, no person can unty, and what he unties no man can bind. But this course of Indulgence for a long time practised, and still upheld in the Church of Rome, doth unty what God doth bind; and remits where God doth not remit. It makes sin easie and cheap, and prostitutes the strict rules of Chri­stianity to the basest purposes. So Polyd. Virgil saith, when Indulgences were grown common, many men did less abstain from doing evil actions. De invent. l. 8. c. 1. For when persons, for example, can have a plenary Indulgence for so trivial a satisfaction as the standing before the doors of S. Peter's Church at Rome, when the Pope blesses the people at Easter, it makes sin as easie to be committed as pardoned. It may be for the honour of the Apostolical [Page 19] Chair, (which Bellarmin saith was the reason of it Bellarm. de Indulg. l. 1. c. 12. ss. Observ. 2 ^c. but is a great dishonour to God. So that who can now wonder that there was no use of Indulgences in the Primitive Church, as their Bishop of Rochester saith ^b?

R. 17, 18. THE Scandal given by Indulgences was so notorious, that they endeavoured to soften them; and Order was given by the Council of Trent for reforming the Abuses of them; but when the Fathers there thought not fit to discover those Abuses, and did only for­bid wicked Gain, ^a they left a large scope for the ma­king a Gain of them. And besides as formerly, so two of the Popes under whom that Council sat, [viz. Paul 3. and Julius 3. ^b] proceeded in much the same course as their Predecessors, if they did not exceed them: for by their Bulls, there is granted to all such of the Fraternity of the Holy Altar, that visit the Church of S. Hilary of Char­tres, during the six Weeks of Lent, 800700 Years of Par­don, besides 13 or 14 Plenary Indulgences. And since that Ʋrban the 8th ^c, and Clement the 10th ^d, have granted by their Indulgence a Plenary Remission of Sins, and the last of them at point of Death.

[Page 21] S. Austin had no such Opinion of Pilgrimages, for he saith, Tom. 10. de Sanctis, Serm. 47. He hath not said, Go unto the East and seek Righteousness; sail to the West, and receive Indulgence. For give, and it shall be forgiven thee; Indulge, and it shall be indulged to thee.

R. 19. ROmans 8. 18. I reckon that the Sufferings of this present Time, are not worthy to be compared with the Glory that shall be revealed in us: So, 2 Cor. 4. 17. Rom. 14. 12. Every one of us shall give an account of himself to God. If there be no comparison betwixt the Reward and our Sufferings for it, then no one has Merit or satisfactions to transfer to another: And if every Man must give an ac­count of himself, then no Man can be benefited by the Merits and Satisfactions of another. But supposing there is a superabundance of satisfactions in the Saints; yet what need is there of them, when there is such an infinite value in the Sufferings of Christ, who by one Offering hath for ever perfected them that are sanctified, Heb. 10. 14. Or who gave the Church the Power so to apply them?

R. 20, 21. THat those that die in a state of Grace, are yet in a state of Torment, and are to be purged in the other World, is contrary to Scripture and Antiquity. Rom. 8. 1. There is no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus. Vers. 30. Whom he justified, them he also glorified. Vers. 33. 34. Who shall lay ary thing to the Charge of God's Elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? As Justification and Condemnation are here opposed by the Apostle, so are Condemnation and Glori­fication; and he that is justified upon the same reason that he cannot be condemned, shall be glorified. Now the Elect are justified before, and when they go out of this World; and consequently shall have nothing laid to their Charge in the next; for that were to condemn them after they are acquitted, and to punish them after they are pardoned.

[Page 23] The Servants of God then have peace, then enjoy quiet rest and security; when being drawn from these storms of the World, we arrive at the Haven of our everlasting Habitation and secu­rity; when this Death being ended, we enter into Immortali­ty; saith S. Cypr. de Mortal. SS. 2.

Luke 23. 43. Our Saviour saith to the penitent Thief, To day shalt thou be with me in Paradise. Paradise is acknow­ledged to be the Seat of the Blessed ^a; and if there was a Purgation necessary for Sinners, he that believed and repented not till the last moment of his Life, might be well supposed to need it; and should have been sent ra­ther to Purgatory than Paradise.

Gregor. Naz. saith, That after the Night of this Life there is no Purgation; and that it is better to be corrected and pur­ged now, than to be sent to the Torment there, where the time of punishing is, and not of purging. Orat. 15. in plag. grand.

R. 22. THE State that Believers immediately enter upon after Death, is said to be Life for the Comfort, and everlasting for the continuance of it.

Joh. 5. 24. He that believeth on him that sent me, hath ever­lasting Life, and shall not come into Condemnation; but is passed from Death unto Life.

So S. Cypri in; The End of this Life being compleated, we are divided into the Habitations of Everlasting, either Death or Immortality. Ad Demetr. §. 16.

R. 23. LUK. 16. 26. Betwixt us and you there is a great Gulph fixed, so that they which would pass from hence to you [to relieve you] cannot, &c.

As the State in which Abraham and Lazarus were, need­ed no relief; so that in which the Rich Man was, could not obtain it. For saith Epiphanius, After Death is no help to be gotten by Godliness or Repentance. For Lazarus doth not there go to the Rich Man, nor the Rich Man unto Lazarus, &c. For the Garners are sealed up, and the Time is fulfilled. Contr. Cathar. Haer. 59.

[Page 25] And if a Man's own Repentance cannot help him, much less can another's good Works profit him.

So saith S. Jerom; While we are in this present World, we may be able to help one another, either by our Prayers, or by our Counsels: but when we shall come before the Judgment Seat of Christ, neither Job, nor Daniel, nor Noah, can intreat for any one, but every one must bear his own Burden ^a. And he elsewhere saith, That what shall be to all in the Day of Judgement, this is accomplished to every one at the Day of Death ^b.

R. 24. BIshop Fisher an Author of theirs saith, That there is no or very little mention of Purgato­ry among the Antients ^a. And it's then no little in­croachment upon the Christian World, to make that now a Doctrine of Faith, and to require it upon pain of Dam­nation to be believed.

R. 25. WE read that Elias was taken up into Hea­ven, 2 Kings 2. 11. and he and Moses appeared in Glory, Luk. 9. 31. Mat. 17. 2. after the man­ner of that State in which they were. For whereas the Fashion of our Saviour's Countenance was altered, and his Face shone as the Sun, and his Raiment was white and glistering as the Light, it's said of them, that they appea­red in Glory. And so the Condition Abraham was in is represented (as Heaven it self is in Scripture, Luk. 14. 15.) after the manner of a Festival Entertainment: Thus Lazarus is said to be in his Bosom, Luke 16. 22. (as S. John lay in our Saviour's, Joh. 13. 23.) and others are said to sit down with Abraham, &c. Matth. 8. 11. The Bosom of Abraham is therefore no other than the Heavenly Paradise, the blessed Abode of good Men in the other World.

So S August. expounds it; The Bosom of Abraham is the Rest of the blessed Poor, whose is the Kingdom of Heaven, in­to which after this Life they are received. Quaest. Evangel. l. 2. c. 38.

R. 26. THey are not agreed in the Nature and Conditi­on of the Place; for the Catechism saith, N. 3. They were sustained by Hope, and were without any sense of Grief. And presently, N. 4. That although they were without other sense of Grief, yet being kept in suspence, were tormented with the hope of that blessed Glory which they did expect.

But the Scripture tells us, that the State where Abraham was, was not only a State of Rest, but also of Comfort, Luke 16. 25.

R. 27. IT was at our Saviour's Ascension, that he led Cap­tivity captive, Ephes. 4, 8.

So Tertullian; He ascended into the Heighth, that is, Heaven. He led Captivity captive, that is, Death, or human Servitude. Contra Marcion. l. 5. c. 8.

R. 28. THere is neither Precept nor Example for the In­vocation of Saints in the New Testament; and if that be the Reason for the Project of a Limbus before Christ, it may be a reason for a Limbus still; and they may as well exclude the Saints from Heaven now as then, if [Page 29] there be no more for their Invocation in the New Testa­ment, than was in the Old. And so much is also acknowledged. Thus Salmero (a Learned Disputant in the Council of Trent); Such Invocations of Saints, have no express Ground in all the Scriptures ^a. And Faber positively affirms, The Primitive Church never look'd but on one Christ; and never worshipp'd any other than the Holy Trinity ^b.

SECT. III. Of Divine Worship.

R. 29. THere was a time when Cardinal Quignonius at the Instance of Pope Paul the 3d, reformed the Breviary; and instead of Legends, had set Scriptures for the Lessons; but Pope Pius Quintus, who afterward under­took to reform it also, prohibited that of Quignonius ^a, and instead of the Scriptures, placed Legends again, and so it continues.

R. 30, 31. IN Divine Worship (as in all other Actions) the first thing to be considered is the End, and the next thing is the Means conducing to that End. The End is the Honour of God, and the Edification of the Church; and then God is honoured, when the Church is edified. The Means conducing to that End, are to have the Service so administred, as may inform the Mind, engage the Affecti­ons, and increase Devotion. But that cannot be done, where the Tongue it's celebrated in is not understood, since we are informed, affected, and edified only as we do understand.

[Page 31] Thus we are taught by the Apostle, 1 Cor. 14. 2. He that speaketh in an unknown Tongue, speaketh not unto Men. Vers. 11. If I know not the meaning of the Voice, he that speaketh shall be a Barbarian unto me. Vers. 16. If thou shalt bless with the Spirit, [by the Gift of an unknown Tongue] how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say, Amen, at the giving of Thanks? How can the People be attentive to the Lessons, answer at the Responses, be devout in the Prayers, profess their Faith in the recital of the Creeds, when they do not understand what is read, pray'd, or professed? Thus doth St. Ambrose comment on 1 Cor. 14. It is evident that the Mind is ignorant, where the Tongue is not understood, &c. The unskil­ful Person hearing what he doth not understand, knows not the Conclusion of the Prayer, and doth not answer, Amen; that is, that it is true, that the Blessing may be confirmed. For by those is the Confirmation of the Prayer performed that answer, Amen. So that where the Prayer is not consented to, it is not our Prayer; and where it's not understood, it cannot be con­sented to.

R. 32. MAT. 4. 10. Our Saviour answers the Devil, It is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him [...]ly shalt thou serve. As Divine Worship is due to God; so it's not lawful to give it to any other, it being his peculiar Prerogative.

The Church of Rome doth acknowledg this; but says, That the Worship they give to Saints and Angels, is not of that kind. Catech. Rom. Part 3. c. 2. n. 8. Par. 4. c. 6. n. 3.

And therefore we must consider what that Worship is which is peculiar to God, and what can be thus peculiar, if Prayer is not? So thought St. Ambrose, Thou only art to be in­vocated. De obitu Theodos.

For God alone can receive our Prayer, or can give what we pray for, or be the Object of our Faith and Trust. So the Apostle, How shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed? Rom. 10. 14. So that to invocate any other than God, is to transfer that Honour to them which is peculiar to God.

R. 33. WE do honour the Holy Angels, as they are God's Ministers, and are sent forth to minister unto them who shall be Heirs of Salvation, Heb. 1. 14. But to worship or pray to them▪ we dare not, as it's what they themselves do refuse and abhor, Rev. 19. 10. and the Scripture doth condemn as a sign of a Fleshly Mind, vainly intruding into those things which we have not seen, Col. 2. 18. Theodoret upon this Text saith, That the practice of worshipping Angels obtained a long time in Phrygia and Pisidia; and was therefore forbid by the Synod of Laodicea, as appears by the following words; For Christians ought not to forsake the Church of God, and depart aside and invocate An­gels, and hold Meetings, which are things forbidden. Conc. [...]aod. Can. 35. And he adds, That in his time Oratories of St. Michael were there to be seen: All which they were induced to, upon a pretence of Humility, that since God is not to be seen, ap­proached to, or comprehended, therefore it's sit to sue for his Fa­vour by Angels: But, saith the same Father, this is so far from Humility, that it's in truth a [...] Insolence. For it is found­ed upon a presumption of knowing that which they nei­ther do, nor can understand; and whilst they would be wise above what is written, do effectually overthrow that which is written: by not holding the Head, and forsaking the only Mediator betwixt God and Man, Christ Jesus.

Q. 36. AFter what manner do they pray to Saints?

A. They pray to them as Favorites with God, that they would take them into their pro­tection, and would obtain those things of God for them which they do want. Therefore they plead, that they have two different Forms of Prayer; for to God they properly say, Have Mercy upon us, hear us: To a Saint, Pray for us.

Catech. Rom. par. 4. c. 6. n. 3.

R. 34, 35, 36, 37. THere is one God, and one Mediator between God and Men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave him­self a Reason for all, 1 Tim. 2. 5, 6.

Rom. 8. 34. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the Right-Hand of God, who also maketh Intercession for us.

The Scripture knows no difference, nor doth teach us to distinguish (as they do) between a Mediator of Inter­cession and Redemption; but on the contrary teaches, that [Page 35] he alone makes Intercession for us, who died and rose, and is at the Right-Hand of God, and he alone has a right to our Prayers, and to him alone may we address them.

So Origen: All Prayers, and Supplications, and Thanks­givings, are to be sent up to God the Lord of all, by that High Priest who is above all Angels, being the iiving Word of God. L. 5. cont. Cels. p. 233, 239.

So again; We ought to pray only to the God over all, and his only Son the first born of every Creature, who, as our High Priest, offers his Prayers to his God, and our God. Lib. 8. p. 395, 402.

To have other Mediators and Intercessors, is not to hold the Head, in the Judgment of the Apostle, Colos. 2. 19. and so the Council of Laodicea determines, where it's said, Christians ought not to forsake the Church, and invocate Angels.—If any Man therefore be found to give himself to this privy Idola­try, let him be Anathema; because he hath forsaken our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and betaken himself to Idolatry.

By which we are taught what to conceive of the Do­ctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome, which hath innumerable Mediators besides Christ, and by whose Me­rits and Intercession they promise themselves the more effectual Audience and Success in the Court of Heaven. For if there be but one Mediator betwixt God and Man, then that one Mediator doth exclude any other Mediators, as well as one God doth exclude other Gods. A plurality of Mediators being no more consistent with one Mediator, than a plurality of Gods is with one God. And we may as well conclude, that though there be that are called Me­diators, yet to us Christians there is but one Mediator; as though there be that are called Gods, yet to us there is but one God: 1 Cor. 8. 5, 6. Such a Mediator as is able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make Intercession for them. Heb. 7. 25. And as we can need no other Mediator (when he is a Mediator for us) so it's to undervalue his Mediation to seek else­where for it.

R. 38. WE do honour the blessed Virgin as the Mo­ther of the Holy Jesus, and as she was a Person of eminent Piety while on Earth, and a glorious Saint now in Heaven; but we do not think it lawful to give that Honour to Her, which belongs not to a Creature, and doth equalize Her with her Redeemer, as they do in the Church of Rome. For, is Christ an Advo­cate? She is an Advocatrix. Is he a merciful High-Priest? She is the Mother of Mercy. Has he Merits? so has she, &c. These and the like Phrases are usual in their Offices.

R. 39, 40. WE cannot but wonder at the Applications made to the blessed Virgin in the Church of Rome, whose Acts on Earth, and whose Power in Hea­ven, the Scripture doth very sparingly relate, or is altoge­ther silent in. We read nothing there of her bodily As­sumption into Heaven, nor of her Exaltation to a Throne above Angels and Arch-Angels ^a. We read nothing there of her being the Mother of Grace and Mercy ^b, the Queen and Gate of Heaven, the Advocatrix of Sinners ^c, and of her Power in destroying all Heresies in the World ^d, and being all things to all ^e.

[Page 39] When we read so much of the Blessed Virgin in Books of this kind, and so little of her in the Divine Writings, we cannot but reflect upon what is said by Epiphanius, of a certain Sect of Women that in his Time offered Cakes to the Virgin Mary, which he calls an Impious Thing, and saith is altogether contrary to the Doctrine of the Holy Ghost ^a. And he further adds; This the Holy Ghost doth warn us of, in which Christ saith, Woman, What have I to do with thee? &c. Where he calls her Woman, and as it were prophesying, to refute those Schisms and Heresies which he knew would arise in the World; and that no one being moved by a certain admiration of the Blessed Virgin, might turn himself to those dotages of Heresies, &c. And he adds; Let the Virgin Mary be honoured, but the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost be adored ^b. And much more hath that Father there to this purpose.

But what would this good Father have said, if instead of a Chair adorned and set forth in honour of the Virgin Mary, (as those Women did) he had found her advanced to a Throne of a Mediatrix in Heaven? What if instead of Cakes, there had been Litanies and Prayers offered to her, and that in more abundance than to Christ himself? What if he had found them praying, O holy Mother, succour the Miserable, help the Weak, comfort those that mourn? (Bre­viar. Rom. Aestiv. Suffragia.) I doubt not but he would have said of this, what he doth of the other, That they would obtrude her upon us for God, and have call'd it Heresy and Idolatry.

R. 41, 42. DEut 34. 6. He [God by Michael] buried Mo­ses, &c. but no Man knoweth of his Sepulchre un­to this day. S. Barradas the Jesuit upon the place saith, It is the common Opinion of Lyra, Abulensis, Cajetan, and others, that the Sepulchre was hid, lest the Israelites, who were inclin'd to the worship of Idols, should worship Moses as God. For they say, that when the Devil would for that reason have shewed the Grave and the Body of Moses to the Israelites, S. Michael hinder'd; and this was the Contention spoken of Jude 9. Seb. Barrad. Itinerar. Fil. Israel.

But the Jews could give no greater Honour to the Body of Moses, than is given to Relicks in the Church of Rome; and if that was Idolatry, and Moses's Body was concealed to prevent it, then there is as much reason to think it un­lawful now in this case, as it was then in that.

R. 43. WE read of Hezekiah, 2 Kings 18 4. that he brake in pieces the Brazen Serpent that Moses had made: and the reason was, because the Children of Israel did burn Incense to it. The Brazen Serpent was of God's own Institution, Numb. 21. 8. by looking up to which, the People were formerly cured. And tho it was preserved among them as a Memorial of that Divine Operation; yet when abus'd to Idolatry, he cut it in pieces: It then lost its Honour, and was but a Ne­hushtan, a piece of Brass. And were these (which are so called) truly Relicks of Saints, and did work those Mira­cles they pretend, it would be no reason for that Reverence and Worship they give to them; but the Reverence and Worship given to them should, according to good King He­zekiah's practice, be rather a reason to give them a decent Interment, than to enshrine them

[Page 43] Of this Opinion is the Modest and Judicious ^a Cas­sander, (an Author of their own) who saith, That if these things were look'd into, there would be found abominable Cheats; as St. Martin found the Monument of a Thief worshipped instead of a Martyr; and that since they serve for Gain and Superstiti­on, it's fit that there should be none of them exposed to view.

R. 44. THE Second Commandment doth teach us the contrary, Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven Image, or any likeness of any thing that is in Heaven above, &c. Thou shalt not bow down thy self to them, nor serve them. In which there are two words to be considered, the one Pesel, which we rightly translate Graven-Image, for it properly sig­nifies any thing carved and cut out of Wood or Stone, and so it is about fourty times rendred in the Greek Translation [ [...]] a graven thing. So that an Idol and an Image are there fobidden, and an Idol because its an Image. The next word is Themunah, which doth properly signify a si­militude or likeness (as is confess'd) and is always so transla­ted. And thus it was understood by the Fathers. So Ju­stin Martyr when he recites this Law, saith, God forbad every Image and Similitude [ [...].] And therefore Cassander grants that the Ancient Christians abhor'd all Vene­ration of Images. Consult. Art. 21. de Imagin. Indeed the Command is so express and full against this Practice, that there has been a kind of Self-condemnation in the Church of Rome; whilst they commonly either altogether leave out this Second Commandment ^a, or render it imperfect­ly and by haives, Thou shalt not make to thee an Idol ^b

R. 45. IF an Image be a representation of a Divine Per­son, and Worship be due to the Image for the sake of the Person represented in it; then such as the Person is, such must the Worship be that is due to his Image; and what is due to the Person if present, is due to the Image in his absence. For to give one Honour to the Person, [Page 45] and another to the Image, a superior to the Person, and an inferior to the Image, is to terminate the Worship in the Image, and not pass it from thence to the Person, as Gretser the Jesuit argues ^a: But if it be to pass from the Image unto the Person, then we know what they do when they kiss and uncover their Heads, and bow down to, and wor­ship an Image; and have reason to remember the Apostle's advice, 1 Joh. 5. 21. Keep your selves from Idols.

R. 46. THE Church of Rome, tho without any authori­ty from Scripture (which uses the words pro­miscuously ^a, makes a distinction betwixt Latria and Dulia; the former is the Worship they give to God, the latter the Worship they give to Saints. Now they grant, that to give Latria, or Soveraign Worship, to any besides God, is Idolatry; and, that were not the Host the very Bo­dy and Blood of Christ, it would be no less than Idolatry to give that Honour to the Host, which they give to Christ: And then we understand how to call that Worship which they give to the Cross: they call it Latria, and we may by their leave then, call it Idolatry. For whatever the Host is, the Cross to be sure is but a Representation, and not the Person worshipped.

R. 47. THere is nothing more expresly forbidden in Scripture, than the making any Image or Re­presentation of God, Deut. 4. 15. Take ye good heed unto your selves (for ye saw no manner of similitude, &c.) lest ye corrupt your selves; and make you a Graven Image, the similitude of any Figure. If it had not been derogatory, or had been acceptable to God, he would have chosen a similitude to have appear'd in; but being he did not, they were not [Page 47] to presume to make one for him. This is to change his Glo­ry, Rom. 1. 23, &c. And to place such an Image in a Christi­an Temple, is abominable, saith St. Austin ^a. And thus to de­scribe the Trinity, is a deformation of it, saith Cassander ^b.

R. 48. BUT what is this to those Images and Pictures, equally used by them, and which are taken from no resemblance in Scripture; such are their descrip­tions of the Trinity in Unity, as of God the Father like an old Man, having the Son lying in his Bosom, and the Holy Ghost over his Head like a Dove? &c.

2. God himself never appear'd in any Form; and so the resemblance in Daniel was only a Prophetical Scheme, and did no more belong to God, than the Eyes and Ears that are ascribed to him in Scripture.

3. God cannot be represented at all but by such Pro­perties and Effects; and if an Image of God be forbidden to be worshipped, then the Image, even of such Proper­ties and Effects, is forbidden to be worshipped.

R. 49. CAssander, an Author of theirs, saith, I wish those from whom this Information is to be received were not the Authors of these Superstitions; and he adds, That the teaching is not enough, without the occasions be removed. This he saith of all Images, but more especially of such as are made to represent God ^a So much did he differ from the Trent Catechism, which saith, No one is so ignorant, as to believe the Divinity to be express'd by an Image ^b.

SECT. IV. Of the Sacraments.

R. 50, 51, 52. CAssander saith, that we shall not likely find any before Pet. Lombard [who lived about 1139.] that did define the Number of the Sacraments ^a. And St. Austin is very positive that there are but two of Divine Institution ^b. Now, that there should be Sacraments of Divine Institution, that are neither instituted in the Gospel, nor were known to be so till 1100 years after our Saviour, nor be made a matter of Faith till 1500, may be a Doctrine received in the Church of Rome, but will not easily be believed by any out of it. By a Sacra­ment we mean (as our Church doth) an outward sign of an inward Spiritual Grace, given unto us, ordained by Christ, as a means whereby we receive the same, and as a pledge to assure us thereof. And in this sense we deny that there are any other Sacraments truly and properly so, besides Baptism and the Lord's-Supper.

R. 53. THat a Sacrament should consist of Matter and Form, and yet either have no Form, as Con­firmation and Extreme Unction; or have neither Matter nor Form of Divine Institution, as Penance and Matrimo­ny, is to make them Sacraments, and to be none. Our Church rightly saith of the Additional Sacraments, they have not any visible Sign ordained of God, Article 25.

R. 55. FRom hence it follows, that if there be no inten­tion, the Sacraments are none. And so there is no certainty whether the Priest be a Christian, or a Priest, or whether in the Eucharist, the Elements continue not Elements after Consecration, and what is taken for the Host be no more than Bread. For without the Inten­tion, neither is the Priest Baptized nor Ordained, nor are the Elements Consecrated. This Bellarmine confesses, No one, saith he, can be certain with a certainty of Faith, that he receives a true Sacrament; seeing a Sacrament is not made without the intention of the Priest, and that none can know. l. 3. c. 8. §. dicent.

Of Baptism.

R. 56. OUR Saviour gave Commission to the Apostles, and their Successors in the Office of the Mini­stry, To teach all Nations, baptizing them, Mat. 28. 19, 20. So that Women, Jews and Infidels have no more a power to administer Baptism, than they have to teach, or to be Priests. It was by virtue of a Commission that the Apo­stles, &c. were to baptize▪ and consequently those that have no Commission, are not to baptize.

R. 57. IT is pleaded for the Rites and Ceremonies used in the Church of Rome, that they are appoin­ted for the Sanctity and Majesty of Divine Worship; and that the Gifts and Benefits contained in the Sacraments, [Page 53] may be the better imprinted on the Mind ^a.

But can we think it for the Majesty of the Sacrament of Baptism, to have it dressed up like a form of Conjura­tion, that the Child must be supposed to be possessed with the Devil, and the Priest must blow in his Face, three times after the manner of a Cross, with a Get thee out, Sa­tan, before he can say, Peace be with thee: And that he must cross him half a score times or more, from part to part, in preparation to Baptism?

Can we think it for the Majesty of it, to have Salt exor­cised in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and to put it into the Mouth of the Child, for a Propiti­ation unto Eternal Life? Can we think it for the Majesty of this Ordinance, that the Priest should, how modestly soe­ver, put some of his own Spittle in his left Hand, and then taking it thence with the Thumb and Fore-finger of his right Hand, touch both Ears of the Infant, and say, Ephe­ta, be thou opened, and then his Nostrils, and say, For the odour Sweetness; but thou, O Devil, fly, &c. and then on his right Hand, after the manner of a Cross, saying, N. I deli­ver unto thee, the Mark of our Lord Jesus Christ ✚, that thou mayest drive the Adversary from thee on every side, and have Life Eternal? &c.

And what are the Benefits imprinted on the Mind by these, and the like fantastical Ceremonies? Or where is it that such Benefits are promised, as these are said to sig­nifie? Is it not rather a debasing of it, to have such Rites and Prayers introduced into it, which are said to signifie and contain that which Baptism was never intended and appointed for? As to give an instance in the Salt used in it.

And in the Prayer, it is said, That thou wilt favourably re­gard this thy Servant, and that taking this first food of Salt, thou wouldst not suffer him any longer to hunger; so that he may be filled with Heavenly Food, &c. All this and much more may be read in the Pastorale, ibid.

Of Confirmation.

R. 58. THE Roman Catechism saith, That Sacraments cannot be instituted by any but God ^a. And yet the great Schoolman Alex. Ales saith, Christ did not in­stitute nor declare Confirmation to be a Sacrament ^b. And then by their own Confession it is none.

R. 59. CHrism was anciently used in Confirmation; but that it was either of Divine Institution, or the Matter of a Sacrament, is not said, nor can be said with any truth or certainty. For if we look for it (where things of Divine Institution are to be sought for) in Scripture, there is not the least Syllable for it.

R. 60. IT is said, from the authority of Pope Fabian ^a, that Christ instituted the Matter and Form of Confirmation, but Alex. Ales saith, it was ordained by the Meldensian Council ^b. And indeed the Roman Cate­chism, after some pretence to Divine Institution, thinks it safest to resolve it into the authority of the Church.

R. 61. VVHether we consider the far-fetch'd signifi­cations of the Ceremonies in the Church of Rome, or the Virtue they put in them; the abuse in them is intolerable: As for instance, That in Consecration of the Chrism for Confirmation, the Bishop blows upon it, to signifie the descent of the Holy Ghost for the Sancti­cation of it ^a. That it hath a power of Sanctification as the Instrument of God ^b. So the Bishop prays in the Consecration of it, That God in bestowing Spiritual Grace upon this Ointment, would pour out the fulness of Sanctification, and that it may be to all that are to be anointed with it, for the Adoption of Sons by the Holy Spirit. Amen. ^c. But where is there any Promise of God for the Sanctification of this Chrism; or where the Institution for its being an instrument of Sanctification to us?

Of the Eucharist.

R. 62, 63, 64. NO such change of the substance of the Bread, Into the substance of Christ's Body, &c. can be inferr'd from our Saviour's Words, This is my Body, Mat. 26. 26. for, it is not said this is turn [...]d into my Body, but, this is my Body; which if to be taken literally, would rather prove the substance of the Bread to be his Body. Therefore Cardinal Cajetan acknowledges that it's no where said in the Gospel, that the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ; but that they have it from the autho­rity of the Church. Cajet. in Aquin. 3. par. q. [...]5. art. 1.

2. It's further evident that the words are not to be taken [Page 59] in their proper sence, when it's as well call'd Bread af­ter Consecration as before it, 1 Cor. 10. 17. c. 11. 26, 27, 28. So that as the Bread was his Body, so what was call'd his Body was also Bread at the same time it was his Body; signifying that in its natural substance it was Bread, and in a mystical relation his Body.

3. It's to be observed, that the mystical relation which the Bread by Consecration has to Christ's Body, is suffici­ent to give it the name of his Body. For it is the usual way of Scripture, to call things of a Sacramental nature, by the names of those things they are the figure of ^a. So Circumcision is call'd the Covenant, Gen. 17. 13. And the killing, dressing, and eating the Lamb is call'd the Passover, Ex. 12. 11. And after the same manner is the Bread in the Sacrament Christ's Body; That is, as Cir­cumcision was the Covenant, and the Lamb the Passover, by signification and representation, by type and figure, And so the Elements are call'd by the Fathers, The Signs ^b, the Symbols ^c, the Figure ^d of Christ's Body and Blood.

R. 65. OUR Saviour appealed to the senses of his Dis­ciples, Luke 24. 39. Handle and see me, for a Spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see me have. Take away the certainty of sense, and there is no discerning a a Body from a Spirit: And grant Transubstantiation, and we take away the certainty of sense. For there are all the Accidents, the Savour, the Colour, &c. of Bread and Wine, without Bread and Wine which they are the Ac­cidents of: And there is the Body of Christ, without any of the Accidents belonging to that Body, without quanti­ty, figure, parts or place, as is acknowledged, Catech. Rom. ibid. n. 43.

R. 66. IF every particle of the Host is as much the whole Body of Christ, as the whole Host is before it be divided, then a whole may be divided into wholes; for [Page 61] divide it and subdivide it, it is still whole. Whole it is be­fore the division, whole it is in the division, and whole it is after it. Thus unreasonable, as well as false, is the Do­ctrine of Transubstantiation, which yet they profess no person can be saved without the belief of. Conc. Trid. ibid. Can. 1, 2, 3, 4. Bulla Pii. 4.

R. 67. IT is acknowledged, that our Saviour instituted and delivered the Sacrament in both kinds ^a And that it so continued even in the Church of Rome for above 1000 years after ^b And yet with a non ob­stante to both, they forbid the people to drink of the Cup; and declare, Whoever thinks it necessary to receive in both kinds, is accursed ^c.

R 68. THese are the just and weighty causes for their overruling the plain precept of our Saviour, Matt. 26. 27. Drink ye all of it: And yet whosoever shall say they are not just and sufficient reasons, is ac­cursed ^a. As if it was sufficient to forbid Wine in the Sacrament to all, because some few cannot bear the tast or smell of it: And it was a just cause to deprive all Countries of it, because some have not Wine, or cannot obtain it without difficulty. And how can they by this half-communion disprove those that deny whole Christ to be contained under each species; when it's given as a Rea­son in their Canon Law, why the officiating Priests must not receive the Body without the Blood, because the di­vision of one and the same mystery cannot be without Sacrilege ^b Which surely is an Argument, That whole Christ is not contained under each Species.

R. 69, 70, 71. THE Scripture when it extols the perfection and infinite value of Christ's Sacrifice, doth infer from it, that there needed not therefore any repeti­tion of it. Heb. 7. 27. He needed not daily, as those high Priests, to offer up sacrifice, &c. for this he did once, when he offered up himself. But if the same Christ is of­fered in the Mass as was on the Cross, and that unbloody sacrifice is alike propitiatory as the bloody, there is then a repetition of the same sacrifice, and he is daily offered. And what is it to say the one was bloody and the other is unbloody, when the unbloody is of the same virtue, and is applied to the same end as the bloody? So that as if Christ had again been bloodily offer'd up, there had been a repetition of that Sacrifice; so there is a repe­tition of it when he is offered up unbloodily. To have then a perfect Sacrifice daily repeated, and a sacrifice without suffering, and a propitiation and remission with­out Blood, are alike irreconcilable to the Apostle, Heb. 9. 22, 25. Who saith, Without shedding of Blood, is no remission; and that once in the end of the World hath Christ appeared to put away sin, by the Sacrifice of him­self.

R. 72. THE Apostle calls the Lord's Supper a Com­munion, and saith, all are partakers of that one bread, 1 Cor. 10. 16, 17. And Cassander saith, It cannot be properly a Communion unless many do partake of it; and adds from the Council of Nants, That it's absurd to say, Lift up your hearts, &c. when there is none communicates with the Priest ^a. And yet the Council of Trent declares, Whosoever shall say such Masses are unlawful, and to be abrogated, is accursed ^b.

R. 73. WE do freely own that Christ is to be a­dored in the Lord's Supper; but that the Consecrated Elements are to be adored, we deny. If [Page 65] Christ is not corporally present in the Host, they grant their Adoration to be Idolatry ^a. And that he is not corporally present any where but in Heaven, we are taught, Acts 1. 11. and 3. 21. whither he went, and where he is to continue till his second coming to judg­ment.

R. 74. 75. THE Council of Trent saith, That the Ceremo­nies of the Mass, such as Mystical Benedicti­ons, Lights, Incensings, Garments, &c. are from Apo­stolical Tradition ^a, or as others, were instituted by the Holy-Ghost ^b: And that as they serve for the ma­jesty of that Sacrifice, and to raise the mind to the con­templation of the Divine things conceal'd in it: So none of them are superfluous and vain ^c

Which how to reconcile to the numerous Crossings and Sprinklings, &c. used in the Celebration of the Mass, will be as difficult for them to undertake, as it is at the present for others to conceive. As for Example,

When the Priest is clothed with the Garments, re­hearsed before, he comes to the Altar, and standing on the lowest step just against the middle of it, he makes a profound Reverence to the Altar and Crucifix. Then he ascends, and having placed the Books, &c. in order, he descends to the lowest step, and turning himself to it, with his hands joyned before his Breast, and making a reverence to the Altar or Crucifix, he begins the Mass standing upright, and drawing with his right hand (his left hand laid on his Breast) the sign of the Cross from his fore-head to his breast, he saith with an audible voice, In nomine Patris, &c. Then he joyns his hands before his breast, saying with a loud voice, Introibo, &c. The Minister standing on his left hand behind him bow­ing, saith, Ad Deum, &c. Then the Priest with the [Page 67] Minister say the Psalm, Iudica me, with Gloria Patri, at which he is to bow his Head to the Cross. Then he re­peats the Introibo, making with his Right hand the sign of the Cross, from the Forehead to the Breast. Then he bows his Head and Body to the Altar, and saith, Con­fiteor Deo, and there he stands bowing till the Mini­ster saith Misereatur: And when the Minister begins Confiteor, he lifts up himself. When he saith Mea Culpa, he smites thrice upon his Breast with the Right hand. The Confession ended, the Priest standing doth Answer, Misereatur Vestri. Then drawing the Sign of the Cross with his Right hand from the Fore­head to the Breast, he saith Indulgentiam, and stand­ing with his Head bowing, he proceedeth to Deus te Conversus, &c. with a loud Voice to the Prayer, Aufer a nobis, which he is to say secretly.

I should tire the Reader to go on; for thus the Missal proceeds in its Ceremonies in all the remaining parts of the Service. Ritus Celebr. Miss. [See Reply 57.]

Of Penance.

R. 76. WE are told, that the Matter of a Sacra­ment is some what sensible ^a, usually cal­led the Element: But then how is Penance a Sacrament which has no such Matter? For where is the Matter that is sensible, in Contrition, &c? The Fathers in the Coun­cil of Trent to avoid this, call it Quasi materia, a matter after a sort ^b

R. 77. WE grant Confession to men to be in many Cases of good and excellent use, publick in case of publick scandal; private to a spiritual Guide for disburthening of the Conscience, and as an help to Repentance, according to the advice of the Apostle, Jam. [Page 69] 5. 16. Confess your faults one to another. But to make Auricular Confession, or particular confession to a Priest, necessary to forgiveness and salvation, when God has not so made it, is apparently to teach for Doctrine the com­mandment of men: And to make it necessary in all Ca­ses, is to make of what may be a useful means a dange­rous snare, both to the Confessor, and those that con­fess.

R. 78. TO pardon sin, and absolve the sinner judicial­ly, so as the Conscience may rest firmly up­on it, is a Power reserved by God to himself. So David, Psal. 32. 5. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord, and thou forgavest. So 1 John 1. 9. If we con­fess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. And therefore the Authority of the Priest is only ministerial, and declara­tive, and conditional. Men do shew a Ministery in the for­giveness of sins, but do not exercise a right of power. They pray, but it's God forgives, saith St. Ambrose, de Spir. l. 3. c. 19.

R. 79 THE grief which is sufficient to obtain par­don, is contrition; and so the grief which is not sufficient to obtain pardon, must be Attrition: And the meaning then is, That Attrition with Absolution, is as effectual as Contrition. [See Reply 14.] This is con­firmed by many of their Authors. So Gul. de Rubeo, He that confesses his sins, grieving a little, obtains remissi­on of them by the Sacrament of Penance ministred to him by the Priest in Absolution. In 4. Sentent. dist. 18. q. 1. A Doctrine, that if made a Rule for strict Pra­ctice, will set men free from all obligation to the Duties of Repentance, and Gospel Obedience.

R. 80. 81. THE giving satisfaction to the Church in case of Scandal, and the imposing Penances up­on notorious offenders, is a necessary and useful part of Ecclesiastical Discipline. But to make that a satisfaction to God which is given to the Church; and to make our works to satisfy, tho' but as an appendant to the satis­faction [Page 71] of Christ, we can by no means allow: not the former, because it's derogatory to the Justice of God; not the latter, because it's derogatory to the merits of our Saviour. For what can make a satisfaction to God, but the Obedience and Suffering of our Saviour? Or what need is there of another satisfaction after that of our Saviour? Heb. 10. 14. By one offering he hath per­fected for ever them that are sanctified. And therefore to ascribe a Satisfaction to our own Works (tho in Con­junction with his) is to take the Sufficiency and Virtue from his, and to give it to our own. And indeed, Bel­larmine doth not scruple to say, That there is but one actual Satisfaction, and that is ours, tho it's by his, ours doth prevail. De Purg. l. 1. c. 14. Ingolst. 1605. ss. Ter­tius tamen modus.

Of Extreme Ʋnction.

R. 82. &c. WE read, Mark 6. 13. when the Twelve Apostles were sent forth, they anointed with Oil many that were sick, and healed them; making use of that anointing, not as a natural or necessary means, but as a mystical sign of the miraculous cure to be wrought by the power, and in the Name of Christ: And as long as this power continued in the Church, so long there might be a reason for continuing and using this Rite. And so accordingly the Apostle directs, Jam. 5. 14. Is any sick, 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 shall save the sick, &c. But as this then was not necessary, so when the power ceased, there was no reason for the continuance of this sign. And yet this Ceremony of A­nointing is not only continued in the Church of Rome without any pretence to the power, but the nature and the use of it is wholly perverted from what it was in A­postolical [Page 73] times. For 1. This Rite was then used [...] ring of the infirm and sick, but was not necessary [...] for we find them also cur'd by imposition of hands, [...] 16. 18. Acts. 9. 17. by a Word, Acts 9. 34. by taking by the hand, Acts 3. 7, &c. But in the Church of Rome it's made absolutely necessary. 2. In Apostolical times it was a mere significant Rite, but in the Church of Rome it is made properly and truly a Sacrament, and whosoe­ver saith it is a mere Rite, is accursed ^a. 3. It was used in Apostolical times properly for corporal maladies; but in the Church of Rome it's properly for the Soul, and ac­cidentally for the Body ^b. 4. It was used then for the recovery of the sick and infirm; but here it's to be ap­plied only to those that are judged to be past it.

Of the Sacrament of Orders. Q. 86. IS Ordination a Sacrament?

A. It's truly and properly a Sacra­ment, and doth confer Grace; and whoso de­nies this, is accursed. Concil. Trid. Sess. 7. Can. 1. and 23. cap. 3. and Can. 3.

R. 86. WE account Ordination to be of Divine In­stitution, and that by it a Ministerial au­thority and commission is conveyed, and question not but a blessing doth accompany the Commission; but how necessary soever this Office is to the Church, and grace for the exercise of it, yet as that grace is neither annexed to the New Covenant, nor is promised to it, we cannot admit it to be properly and truly a Sacrament.

Of Orders.

R. 87. WE know of no authority there is for any Order under a Deacon; so as to anathe­matise them that do not receive them (a). We know of no authority for the Forms used in the ordination of those lower Orders; as, when the Bishop admits any to that of Exorcists, he reaches to them a Book in which the [Page 75] Exorcisms are contained, and saith, Receive, and com­mit to memory, and take the Power of Laying on of Hands upon the Possessed, or Baptized, or Catechumens ^{192 b}.

We know of no authority for this kind of procedure; for those forms of conjuration contained in those Books, or for the use of those Rites therein prescribed, for Ex­orcising Persons, Houses, Cattel, Milk, Butter, Fruits, &c. infested with the Devil. See the Pastorale Mechlin, and the Manual of Exorcisms, Antiverp 1626. Bp. Taylor's Disswas. Sess. 10.

Of Marriage.

R. 88. ST. Austin saith, That signs when applied to Re­ligious things, are called Sacraments ^a. And in this large sence he calls the sign of the Cross a Sacra­ment ^b; and others give the same name to washing the Feet ^c and many other mystical rites. And so we may allow the Translation of the Vulgar Latin, which reads Sacramentum for what the Apostle calls a Mystery, Ephes. 5. 32. But then Matrimony doth no more confer grace, nor doth nor is, what a Sacrament doth or is, than Washing the Feet, or using the sign of the Cross; which Bellarmin, after all the Virtue he ascribes to it, will not allow to be properly and truly a Sacrament ^d.

R. 89. 90. THE Apostle on the contrary, saith, Marri­age is honourable in all, Hebr. 13. 4. and gives an hard Character of that Doctrine which forbids it, 1 Tim. 4. 1, 3. And how lawful it was, the direction of the Apostle about it, 1 Tim. 3. 2. doth shew. And how convenient it is, is manifest from the disorders and [Page 77] mischiefs attending the prohibition of it in the Romish Church (which wise men among themselves have lament­ed) and have thought it would be for the Honour of Christian Religion, and the Priesthood it self, that this Right and Privilege be restored to the Clergy ^a.