SECT. I.
The best deserving persons, are oft under obloquy and unde­served Censure.

Sect. I THese things being premised, I shall now come to dis­course

1. Of the great disorder of an ill-governed tongue, in cen­suring and reproaching. 2. Of the sinfulness of this pra­ctice, and the great guilt thereof.

2. First, The tongue is such an unruly evil, as S. James calls it, Jam. 3.8. that when men indulge themselves in uncharitableness, and censoriousness, it puts them upon the contriving, Censoriousness is unruly, and wonderfully extravagant, or pursuing the most unaccountable, and unreasonable calumnies and slanders. Good Hezekiah shall fall under the lavish revilings of a Rabshakeh; and his reformation excellently and piously performed, will be con­demned as impious. And Christianity it self was made a matter of reproach by Saul, whilst he was a blasphemer, a persecuter, and injurious, and by many others who professed themselves enemies unto it: and the Christians in general were spoken of as evil doers, 1 Pet. 2.12. But we cannot better discern how ungovernable and extravagant the cen­sorious [Page 13]and uncharitable tongue is, than by considering the instances of our blessed Saviour, and other excellent men. Even the Holy Jesus when he conversed upon Earth, esca­ped not the sharp and bitter reproaches of reviling tongues, though he deserved no censure, nor gave any just occasion for any. The persons con­sidered who bear reproach. And therefore what he and other good men met with, will abundantly manifest the strange unruliness of a defaming temper, which is contained under no bounds, and limits of truth, justice or charity.

3. This may especially appear by our enquiring into three things: 1. What the great excellencies were, not­withstanding which he and the best of men have suffered reproach? 2. Who those persons were by whom they were reviled and evil spoken of? 3. What some part of the accusation and charge was, which they drew up against him; and other pious men?

4. Qu. 1. What were the great excellencies of our Lord, Christ himself, and the most worthy persons not secure from it. and other good men, notwithstanding which they under­went reproach? And these were so exceeding eminent in him, and manifested by such full and undeniable evidence; that it may be just matter of wonder, that they should not be generally admired, and that all who conversed with him, should not mightily reverence him. Hence Orig. cont. Cels. l. 1. [...]. Origen was of opinion, that even on this account our Lord might forbear to answer any thing before Pilate, to the false Witnesses who appeared against him, because his pure and innocent life was a sufficient confutation of their false testi­mony. It must indeed be acknowledged, that no other person upon Earth, ever was so excellent as he was. But hereupon the considering how he was treated among men, is so much the more convictive evidence, that it may be the lot of the most worthy men, to be traduced and defamed in the World. And if this was the Masters portion; it is the less to be wondred, if any of his Servants meet with the same; and as himself had said, if they call the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more will they call them of his household? Mat. 10.25.

For,

5. First, He was the most holy person. He did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth, 1. Persons sig­nally pious and good, are oft evil spoken of. and yet he was reviled, 1 Pet. 2.22, 23. Innocency and purity in the highest mea­sure, (yea even in him above all measure) are no sufficient security, for the avoiding censures. But if the best and most holy men, will not seek to comply with the humours of them, who are eagerly bent to serve their errors, even this their firm and stedfast uprightness and integrity, shall turn to their reproach. And there is so much hurry and fury in disordered passions, that it is as reasonable to expect, that a storm and tempest should avoid every fruitful tree, as that uncharitable and undeserved censures, should not be fixed upon any good men, Satan will find some matter of reflexion to cast upon Job, though God himself gives him this character, that he was a perfect and upright man, one that feared God, and eschewed evil. Even while the Scribes and Pharisees were in great vogue, with the people, and highly admired by them; the blessed Jesus, whose holy life and doctrine might recommend him, to every mans consci­ence, was despised and rejected. And the true Prophets who were sent before our Lord, were hated, reproached, and their name cast out as evil, Luk. 6.22, 23. whilst the false Prophets, who complyed with the disordered inclinations of the people, were so acceptable to them, that all men spake well of them, v. 26. The best and most faithful and sincere men, deserve a general applause; but they so rarely meet with any thing like it, that our Saviour declared, wo be to you when all men speak well of you, Luk. 6.26.

6. And since the progress of Christianity, the most ex­cellent persons have in the several ages of the Church, oft un­dergone the most undeserved calumnies, from other professed Christians. Thus Athan. Ap. ad Constant. & alib. Athanasius was falsly charged by his adversaries, with disloyalty, with sacrilegious irreverence, to the most holy Mysteries of Christianity, with uncleanness, cruel acts of violence, and other such like heinous crimes; from all which, he cleared himself to the shame and confu­sion [Page 15]of his accusers. S. Basil in several of his Basil. Ep. 33, 75, 79, 86, &c. Epistles, takes notice of the various and injurious aspersions, which were cast upon him, even of so high a nature, that he was re­ported to be a blasphemer and a mad-man. And the like might be observed concerning Gr. Nazianzen, S. Austin, and divers other persons of incomparable worth, and sin­gular eminency in the Christian Church. And it is a thing too frequent and obvious, that when the Professors of Christianity, are divided into different parties and interests, they who are the worst spirited men, are forward to act, as enemies do in war; if they know any man of the greatest worth, who is of the opposite side, if he be within their reach, they will especially endeavour to wound and strike at him. But such things shew how far they are gone a­side from true Christianity, while they pretend to be zealous for it.

7. But the truly pious man, though so far as concerns his detractors, and those who are misguided by them, he is grieved, and affected with tender pity and compassion, to see how Satan beguiles and ensnares them, to their own hurt; yet so far as concerns himself, he can bear the unde­served censures of his integrity with inward comfort and peace, and an indisturbed mind. Yea he can, as S. Paul did, take pleasure in reproaches, 2 Cor. 12.10. upon the great en­couragement given by our Saviour himself, Mat. 5.11, 12. Blessed are ye when men shall revile, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsly for my sake. Rejoice and be exceeding glad, for great is your reward in heaven. Thus Aug. cont. Jul. l. 1. c. 1. S. Austin begins his Book against Julian the Pelagian, in telling him, that he should not speak the truth, if he should say he did contemn and not regard the slanders and reviling words, which Julian had uttered against him; for they were matter of joy to him, so far as concerned himself; but they administred occasions of sorrow so far as concerned Ju­lian, who wrote them, and those who were seduced and de­ceived by him. But they who allow themselves to desame the best men, will be far from finding comfort at last in [Page 16]these practices; since he that justifies the wicked, and he that condemns the just; even they both are an abomination to the Lord, Prov. 17.15.

8. Secondly, 2. Men who are most ser­viceable to the world, and do most good in it, are oft mis­represented. The Holy Jesus was one, whose business and care it was, wholly to do good, and yet met with much contumelious reproach. He came to make all eternally hap­py, who would be guided by him; and took the most effe­ctual course, for the compleat accomplishing the true ad­vancement of man, and managed the designs of goodness to the best and highest purposes. He came to recover man from a sad and dangerous estate; and his promoting the great welfare of men was manifest, from the holiness of his doctrine, which wonderfully purified the minds of men; and from the outward acts of his power being employed for good, in casting out Devils, healing all that were diseased, and such like excellent works. And he was as Cl. Alex. Strom. l. 1. [...]. Clemens Alexandrinus speaks (with some allusion to the name Je­sus, as if it had been from [...], to heal) one that heals and cures both the bodies, and the souls of men. Yet he who went up and down doing good, was evil spoken of. Such were the unkind returns, which his greatest kindness and care met with! And this is frequently the fate of the most useful and serviceable men in their generations.

9. Evil and mischievous men deserve to be accounted infamous by all, and to be severely punished also. But they are under gross mistakes, who set themselves against their most faithful friends, as if they were their chiefest enemies; and yet this is very common among men When the Apo­stles of our Lord, used their utmost endeavours and dili­gence, to acquaint men with the truth of Religion, to turn them from Satan to God, and to make them happy; and to that end had undergone many dangers, necessities, diffi­culties and sufferings; they were still so far defamed and reproached, as to be accounted as the filth of the world, and the off scowring of all things. And when David's ruling Isra­el, was managed with that faithfulness and prudence, that the Holy Ghost testified, that he fed them according to the in­tegrity [Page 17]of his heart, and guided them by the skilfulness of his hands, Psal. 78.72. Yet by the smooth tongue, and sub­tle insinuations of Absolom, his government was wholly misrepresented, as if he had taken no care of justice and righ­teousness, 2 Sam. 15.3, 4. And the people hereby became so deluded, that Absolom stole the hearts of the men of Isra­el, v. 6.

10. And besides many other instances, And so hath the infinitely good God been spoken against. which might ea­sily be given in the History of the World; it is remarkable that when God himself had framed man after his own Image, given him the Dominion of other Creatures, and planted him in a Paradise and place of delight and pleasure; there wanted not an accusation against him, and his govern­ment, as if he intended to keep man in an unreasonable sub­jection, and to debar him of that perfection of state which he might otherwise have obtained, Gen. 3.5. And when he had given that admirable instance of his care, and favour towards Israel, in bringing them out of Egypt, with a migh­ty hand, and guiding and feeding them miraculously in the Wilderness, by his wonderful power; yet how oft did they speak against God in the desart, even whilst he was fol­lowing them with his goodness: Wherefore there is much of truth, in what was observed by de bene­ficiis l. 1. c. 1, &c. Seneca, that among all the great vices, which prevail in the world, there is none more frequent, than to want a grateful sense of the receiv­ing of good. And though as he observes, the fierce wild beasts, as the Lion and the Elephant express a kind appre­hension of the benefits and good, which they receive from those who take care of them, yet even among men there are those, qui pessime loquuntur de optime meritis, who defame that which deserves the highest commendation.

11. From these instances I have given, it may appear, what an unaccountable thing it is, to be led by, or even to give heed unto, This unreasona­ble sin is perni­cious to the practisers. the aspersions and defaming expressions of unruly tongues, which oft-times speak licentiously against the Heavens, and against the most deserving men upon Earth. But the evil and danger of these practices, is as con­siderable, [Page 18]as the disorder, folly and unreasonableness, of them. In every one of the instances I mentioned, it went very ill with the evil-speaker. They who spake against God in the wilderness, were smitten with various dreadful judgments, and they perished in the Desart. Our first Pa­rents who were beguiled, to hearken to suggestions, against the Laws and Precepts of their Maker in Paradise, were dispossessed of their Eden, and brought great calami­ties on themselves, and upon all their posterity to this day. Absolom and they who were perswaded by him into an un­deserved ill opinion of David, and were drawn in to oppose his government, were destroyed; and a very great slaugh­ter followed of the men of Israel. And all those who despi­sed our Saviour and his Apostles, and their Doctrine, depri­ved themselves thereby, of the admirable benefits of that great salvation.

12. Thirdly, 3. The defa­ming tongue gives not due reverence to those who have divine autho­rity, Our Lord was one, who came invested with the highest authority, which was fully attested; and yet he was disrespected and dishonoured. He was sent from God, and what he spake and acted was in his name. The authority of God deserves, and commands reverence from men, and it is a presumptuous boldness, to treat such persons without due honourable respect, whose office and business is appointed and ordained of God, and where them­selves bring sufficient evidence of this Divine Authority. He who honoureth a Prince, will express a reverent demea­nour to all those, who act in managing any high office, in his name, and by his special commission. And where there is a true honour and fear of God, it will engage an hearty respect, for all those who are established by him. But such is the wild extravagancy of a disorderly tongue, led by the heat and violence of passion, that it so far casts off the sense of God and his fear, as to dare rashly to vent it self, a­gainst those persons, towards whom God himself hath par­ticularly enjoyned, and required an honourable esteem, and awful reverence.

13. The blessed Jesus was the only Son of God, and his mission from God was sufficiently evidenced, by the Pro­phecies, which were accomplished in him; by the testimo­ny of S. John Baptist, of the Angels, and of the voice from Heaven; by the heavenliness and Divine Character of his Doctrine, and by all the mighty miracles, which he wrought. From hence even Josephus (whose words have been observ­ed, by divers very ancient Christian Writers) spake of him with that honour and esteem, that he calls him Joseph. Ant. Jud. l. 18. c. 4. [...]. a wise man, if it be fit to call him a man. Yet he who came in his Fathers name, was rejected and reviled; and they resolv­edly despised him, and censured his person, and the mira­cles which they beheld, and the power by which he wrought them; while they might plainly enough discern, that he was sent from God, and that his Miracles were Divine. And this strange refractory perverseness in their deportment against him and his works, and the testimony of the Holy Spirit in them hath been Amb. de poenit. l. 2. c. 4. Athanas. in illud, Qui­cun (que) dixerit verbum con­tra filium ho­minis, &c. justly esteemed, to be the main thing contained in the sin against the Holy Ghost. And that behaviour must needs contain in it a very high guilt, which excludeth so much obstinacy against God. And his Apo­stles were not only defamed by the false Apostles, but Di­otrophes also prateth against them with malicious words, 3 Joh. 10.

14. Now both Ministers in the Church, and Governours in the Kingdom, are also established by Gods Authority, and an honourable deportment towards them is strictly enjoyn­ed by the Sanctions of his Law. neither to Se­cular, nor Ec­clesiastical Go­vernours. When our Saviour sent forth not only the Apostles, but even the Seventy Disciples, he declared unto them, Luk. 10.16. He that heareth you, hear­eth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that de­spiseth me, despiseth him that sent me. And the authority of secular Governours is so great, that the powers that be, are ordained of God: whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resi­steth the ordinance of God, and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. And so far as the laws of God pre­vail on the minds and tongues of men, they will check [Page 20]and silence rash and defaming expressions against them. S. Paul mentions this, as one of those precepts of the law, which lay a strict obligation upon Christians, under the Gospel, Act. 23.5. Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people. Yea, the commands of God will not allow so much, as an uncharitable thought, Eccl. 10.20. Curse not the King, no not in thy thought.

15. Tertullian gave a true account, of the rules of Chri­stianity, and of the temper and spirit, of the ancient primi­tive Christians of his age, who endured heavy sufferings; when he declares, that Apol. c. 36. & ad Scap. c. 2. our Religion allows not us, to desire, act, speak, or think evil toward any, much less to­wards Governours, This contrary to the primi­tive Christian simplicity, whom we must honour and reverence, as appointed by God. But it is a just matter of lamentati­on, that the divine authority of Governours, is little regard­ed among many men, who profess Christianity; which is a great testimony, that true Religion and a sense of God is not duly entertained. That in our age, a very great part of men are forward, rashly to censure and speak dishonou­rably, both against secular rulers, and the Bishops and Mini­sters of the Church, is a thing so plain and obvious, that observing men cannot but take notice of it, and pious and good men are heartily grieved at it. And this misbeha­viour towards the pious Bishops of the Church, was also ma­ny ages since observed, and complained of; and the ill ef­fects thereof were in some measure provided against, by the Canon of a Concil. Constant. c. 6. General Council, when discords and divisions prevailed in the Church. And such calumnies, as Balsamon there observeth, Satan doth much endeavour to soment and cherish.

16. Thus Corah and his company, were forward with presumptuous confidence, but agreeable to the presum­ption of Core. to speak against Moses their chief Ruler, and Aaron the Priest, slandering and opposing them; and this pleased the Congregation of Israel, who were too ready to comply with them. But this was so provoking to God, and so pernicious to the Israelites, that there were ma­ny exceeding severe punishments, inflicted by God upon [Page 21]the Israelites for these offences. For, Numb. 16. the earth opened its mouth, and swallowed up Corah and his company; the fire from the Lord, consumed those men, who intruded themselves into the office of the Priest, to offer Incense; and a dreadful plague brake out upon the Congregation, and destroyed suddenly fourteen thousand and seven hun­dred; but was stayed by Aarons making atonement. And these things are so far written for our examples, that where-ever the like sins are committed, under the time of Christianity, they are as evil and destructive, as they were under the law of Moses; since the Gospel gives particular precepts, for the honouring Superiours, and threats upon the neglect of them; and S. Jude declares, concerning such disobedient persons, who swerved from the true Spirit of Christianity, and despise dominion, that they perished in the gainsaying of Core, Jude 11.

17. Fourthly, 4. Men of the sweetest and meekest beha­viour, are roughly dealt with by viru­lent tongues. Our Saviour was a person of admirable meekness, but neither did this preserve him from detraction and calumny. He had no proud and haughty carriage, he injured no man, by word or deed, nor gave them any just provocation. It is frequent in the world, that words and actions of strife and contention, do kindle more strife, though they ought not so to do. If a storm be begun, one wave will raise another; but in a perfect calm, to see the Sea grow boisterous of it self, is somewhat unusual. And whereas a fiery fierceness of temper, is apt to kindle heats and disturbances, it was observed in the writings of the Jewish Authors, that the result or end of meekness [...] is welfare, peace and quiet; and so it frequently is, both to mans self, and to them with whom he converseth: but it was much otherwise in the practice of the Jewish Nation, towards him who was the great pattern of meekness, gentleness and patience.

18. Indeed it is sinful for any Christians, Licentious ex­pressions not ju­stified when oc­casioned by pro­vocations; to give way to their passions, and unbecoming expressions, though they meet with provocations. These provocations are temptati­ons laid before them, but their Religion teacheth them, to [Page 22]beware of and reject temptations, and not to yield to them, and suffer themselves to be overcome, and prevailed up­on by them. Even when the Israelites provoked Moses, so that he spake unadvisedly with his lips it went ill with him, Psal. 106.32, 33. And when S. Paul was smitten, con­trary to the law, Act. 23. he in that case, acknowledgeth the obligation of this duty, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people. And the Doctrine of Christianity obligeth its Professors, to love their enemies, to bless them which curse them, and to pray for them who despitefully use them, and persecute them. The precepts of some of the Plat. in Crit. Maxim. Tyr. Diss. 2. Eth­nick Philosophers went so far, as to condemn the returning in­juries to them, from whom we receive wrong: and some rare instances there are among Pagans, of some who decla­red they would, and others who actually did, treat them with much kindness, who had greatly injured them. But the doctrine of our Saviour, appeareth to have gone higher, than the rules which their wisest men prescribed, in enjoin­ing as a necessary duty the exercise of love, kindness, doing good unto, and praying for our enemies.

19. But that Religion which will not allow of passion, and reviling, where there may be some considerable occasi­on given; will much more detest it, in such cases, where there is truly no such occasion. but are more unreasonable when without any occasion gi­ven. For this most clearly shews such men, to be much more hurried and command­ed, by a swelling rage and tumult of disorderly affections; than by the Christian temper, the precepts of our Lord, and the Spirit of God, who is a Spirit of meekness and peace. But though meekness, which is calm and inoffensive, be far from deserving any censure or ill will; yet where men give the reins to their tongues, even the eminent practices thereof, though never so undeservedly, will be ill treated and defamed. Our Saviour was of that mild behaviour, that he was not for calling for fire from Heaven, to consume such as would not receive him; nor was he pleased with those his chief Apostles, who were enclined to such fierce­ness. And when the Jews who would not be perswaded [Page 23]by him, brought misery upon themselves, he was so far from being pleased with the thoughts of their calamity, that notwithstanding all their opposition against him, when he foretold and denounced their destruction, he did this with tender bowels of pity and compassion, and with in­ward grief and sorrow for them. He then wept over the ci­ty, and said, Oh that thou hadst known, even thou, in this thy day, the things that belong unto thy peace. Indeed he as a faith­ful teacher reproved their sins, but he herein acted the part of a friend, as a good governour also doth, in putting a stop to evil by his Authority. Even Rulers prudent executing wrath on them that do evil, and a smart rebuke of offenders, is very agreeable to true meekness, and a well-governed measure of anger is here, as Naz. Carm. Iamb. [...]. Nazianzen calls it, a com­mendable passion, and none ought to please others in evil, and to their hurt. Our Lord so observed the regular measures of meekness and gentleness, that he would not allow his fa­thers name to be dishonoured, his house and worship to be prophaned, and his laws to be violated; but this was that the Jews would not bear. And Moses also the meekest man upon Earth, was divers times complained of, and the Isra­elites murmured against him. And it is easie to give other instances, without looking far into History, of them whose innocent behaviour and kind temper, hath not kept them off, from being exposed to censure: and they who could say with Samuel, whose oxe, or ass have I taken? have been so dealt with and aspersed, as if they had been the greatest contrivers of ruine in the world.

20. Now if all this be duly considered, it will shew the strange exorbitancy of the passionate expressions, and censo­rious tongues of men, and what great advantage Satan gains thereby, and into what unreasonable practices, many men are blindfoldly carried away by this method. For they oft reproach the best and most upright among men; and those who do the most faithful service to God, and are most useful to the good of mankind; and them who are indued with the highest authority; and adorned and furnished with the [Page 24]greatest innocency. Sect. II. All which is manifest, in the great ex­ample of the blessed Jesus, and of many others the most de­serving persons.

21. The Moralists Counsel is here of great and necessary use, to every good man, that he who will resolve to be honest and upright Senec. Ep. 77. Ad hone­sta vadenti, contemnen­dus est ipse contemptus. must despise contempt and reproach. And there is the greater reason for this under Christianity, be­cause we therein have a clear prospect of eternal happiness, which we must pursue; and are to be followers of our Lord, who in a greater case than that of reproach, for the joy that was set before him despised the shame. A good man must be a resol­ved man. No other man ever was so pure and excellent as he was, who both by his life and practice, and by his Doctrine and instruction was, as Naz Orat. 1. [...]. Nazianzene stiles him, he who gave the compleat perfection to the spiritual law, and rule of life. But every Christian must so far follow him, and take up his Cross, as to be willing and resolved to bear such difficulties as these, or whatsoever else he may meet with, in the pra­ctice of his Christian duty: And if any other men be never so unreasonable in their clamorous censures against him, he must go on steadily in his pious exercises.

SECT. II.
Who are apt to be prevailed with to be guilty of the sinful re­proaching others, and how far this sin becomes spreading and contagious.

1. The sin of rash evil-speaking, takes great place among the generality of men; THe proneness of persons to defame and speak evil of others is such, that it greatly prevails among multi­tudes of men; and though it be a very unworthy and unchri­stian thing, it takes up very much of the discourse, and con­verse of a great part of mankind. Many there are, who be­ing conscious to themselves, that they deserve censure, are [Page 25]the more ready to blame, and find fault with others, that themselves may not be thought worse than other men. Some who have little of real worth, to commend themselves, are the more apt to speak evil of others, that they may gain to themselves so much respect, as to be preferred before those whom they defame: but they usually fail in this design, since hereby those whose reputation they reflect upon, are oft provoked to discredit them; and also they are the more condemned, and the worse thought of by wise and good men, for this temper of uncharitableness: it being observed by de Offic. lib. 1. Tully that this manner of discourse, gives the most manifest indication of viciousness and corruption of manners, in him who utters it, whether it be done in a way of seem­ing gravity and severity, or by open scurrilousness, or by jo­cular and pleasant facetiousness. And some are so proud and self-conceited, (though they have little reason for it) that they are not pleased to hear any man well spoken of but themselves, and think every commendation misplaced, that is not bestowed upon themselves, and this puts them into a great forwardness of disparaging others; and this mixt with uncharitableness is the parent of envy, from whence (as also from all hatred and malice, from whatso­ever occasion they arise) proceedeth evil-speaking. And some serve secular interests, by discrediting others to advance themselves.

2. And others observing how frequent this behaviour is among men, comply with it as a thing in fashion; and for society sake, joyn in passing the same censures that others do, merely to gratifie the humours, and avoid the cen­sures of some hot and eager men. And some again have such undeserved hard thoughts of others, through suspicious misapprehensions, and false constructions of their words or actions, that they think it just to disparage them. And o­thers, meerly from observing the prevalency of censorious reproaches, and outcries against some sorts of men; are hereupon apt to conclude, that there is some considerable reason for all this, and that they ought to do the like, [Page 26]though they know no evil concerning these persons, nor can lay any thing to their charge. And these several sorts of men, make up so great a number, that it was the com­plaint of an ancient and pious Bishop, of considerable note, Paulin ad Celant. inter Epist. Hiero­nymi 14. that there were very few men who had forsaken this vice: and concerning those from whom better might be ex­pected, he adds that even they who had gone far off from o­ther vices, fall into this as into the last snare of the De­vil.

3. But since this hath respect to the actions and practices of men, we may best discover how largely this evil is propaga­ted, by observing particular instances of fact; and none can be given more considerable, than that which concern­eth our blessed Saviour. Wherefore I shall now enquire, Who they were by whom he, and other worthy men were reviled?

4. Yet, 1. It is odious to the best of men. Now First, He was not reviled but reverenced by the best and most holy men, who observed and obeyed the true rules of Religion. These rendred unto him that honour and glory which was due to the Son of God, the Messias and Me­diator of the New Testament, and the Saviour of the World. And indeed all rash evil speaking and reproaching, especi­ally against those who deserve to be highly esteemed and honoured, is much opposite to the reason and conscience of man, and more especially to the true Christian temper, and both that charity, and that honesty and integrity, which it so much requires. It is also greatly contrary to the moti­ons of the Holy Spirit of God, who disposeth good men to the performance of these Christian duties. Hence the A­postle, having commanded that men grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, Eph. 4.30, 31. adds, Let all bitterness and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil-speaking, be put away from a­mong you, with all malice. Slandering and reproaching are of the evil one, and it is part of the character of those worst sort of men, described by S. Jude, that they are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts, and their mouth speaketh great swelling words. But meekness, patience, hu­mility [Page 27]and charity, are such great and necessary duties, that those who are sincerely good, apply themselves to the pra­ctice of them. And uncharitable speaking, hath such a contradiction to these and such like duties, that it is very distastful, and odious to the spirits of such pious men, who have duly considered the evil of it. S. Austin professed such an earnest and constant dislike hereof, that as Pos d. de Vit. Aug c. 22. Po­sidonius relates, he had, contra pestilentiam humanae consuetu­dinis, against the plague or pest of the custome of men in their converse, these two Verses inscribed upon his table,

That is, Whosoever pleaseth himself, to use biting words, against the lives of absent persons, let him know, that this table is no fit place for his society. And the same Writer tells us, that he would not with patience, hear any man speak contrary to this rule of free and familiar conversation. The best men are not only perfect strangers from, but enemies to this vici­ous practice; and every Christian man ought watchfully to take heed of it: and if at any time he be surprized and overtaken thereby, he so far departs from the rules of his Religion, and makes himself work for a future repentance.

6. But Secondly, 2. It is fre­quently enter­tained by the publick vogue of the multi­tude. The common vogue may frequently pass severe censures, upon the best of men. Even the Holy Jesus was reviled and evil spoken of, by the generality of the Jewish Nation. It is true, that manifest and open vice, is a thing so shameful, and so contrary to the common senti­ments of reason and conscience, that it is in all places a blemish to any mans reputation, and a just matter of general censure. And vertue and goodness considered in the notion of it, and in the practice also, when rightly understood, go un­der a general commendation and applause. But yet such are oft-times the common mistakes of the multitude, concerning per­sons, that the best men fall under a suspicion amongst them, of harbouring some secret evil design; and men of the greatest [Page 28]integrity and simplicity, are charged with being the con­trivers of danger and mischief, by the publick voice and cla­mour of the people. And it is no hard thing for subtil ill-designing men, or for those who are themselves jealous, to promote these misapprehensions amongst others. Even the useful undertakings, which wise and good men prudently manage, with the greatest integrity, are oft-times strange­ly misunderstood, and the intent of them strangely misrepre­sented, to the common esteem of men. This was so much observed by Socrates, that he declared, as Xenophon tells us, Xenoph. 2. Memor. that it is no easie thing, to undertake any work (to wit of a publick and useful concern) without undergoing blame; be­cause it is no easie thing to be every where free from real fault; or to meet with equal judges where they are so.

7. it is the more mischievous by reason of its spreading infe­ction. And there are very many instances, wherein the grea­ter part of the people have been guilty, in this particular of judging, speaking and acting against their duty, and in divers of them Gods displeasure was remarkably manifest. Thus did the Jews with united votes and clamour, engage against our Lord. Nor was this only the carriage of the meanest sort of men, who might be thought more rash and inconsi­derate, but even their Elders and chief rulers, and the whole Jewish Sanhedrin, was of this temper and spirit. And though this gave encouragement unto others, it was not the better for them but the worse, that this sin prevailed so universally; for hence proceeded the ruine and misery of the Jewish Nation to this day, and the forfeiture also of their relation Cypr. Ep. 69. to God, to Christ, and to his Church. And when after the death of Corah, even all the Congregation of Israel murmured against Moses and against Aaron, Numb. 16.41. this occasioned a dreadful Plague. And before this the general discontent against the Conduct of Moses, which appeared in all the Children of Israel, who resolved to chuse themselves a new Governour, and to return back to Egypt, Numb. 14.4. at the time when they who searched the land of Canaan, brought an evil report upon it, did pro­voke [Page 29]God to resolve, that they should all die in the Wil­derness.

8. But in such cases as these, every good man ought to have that generous and couragious spirit, as not to be daunted or moved, even with publick censure. And he must esteem his approving himself to God, and having the testimony of his own conscience to his integrity, to be of more value, than the flattering applauses, of the greatest numbers of men. It was excellently spoken by Chrys. Hom. in Ps. 44. S. Chrysostome, there is nothing shameful but sin; and if all the world shall re­proach thee, and thou not reproach thy self, there is no shame in all this. But it is never safe to join with a multitude, either in the doing or speaking evil. And the state of every of­fender, when the sin grows common, is upon this account the more dangerous, because he is hereby the more like to be encouraged in his sin, and the more unlike to repent of it: and sometimes he may be by this means so emboldned in e­vil, as to think it strange that others run not to the same ex­cess, speaking evil of them. And thus his case is like that of a man, who is carried away with a fierce and violent stream, which leaves but little hopes of his escaping drowning. Wherefore it is as reasonable, that men be careful to avoid spreading vices, as that they should be cautious and fearful of infectious diseases.

9. Thirdly, This disorder is prone to prevail, 3 It is a sin earnestly pursu­ed, by many who appear strict and zea­lous about Re­ligion. not only among men of careless and negligent tempers; but also a­mong them who are strict, scrupulous and conscientious in matters of Religion. Thus was our Master treated with infamous reproaches, by them who were zealous for the honour of God Such were the Pharisees, and the devout­er sort of the Jewish Nation: such was S. Paul himself be­fore his conversion, being exceeding zealous for the law, and yet a blasphemer, and injurious. And such were those un­believing Jews, to whom S. Paul bears record, that they had a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge, Rom. 10.2. These were members of the Jewish Church, were strict in many things, both of practice and opinion, and were very [Page 30]earnest to make Proselytes. And besides the other Sects of the Jews, who all joyned together against our Lord, the ho­ly Scriptures represent none more vehement, in their op­positions, and reproaches, than the Pharisees, who as S. Paul declares, were of the exactest and straitest Sect of the Jewish Religion, Acts 26.5. And though Josephus some­times prefer the Essens before them, yet he also tells us, that Joseph. de Bel. Jud. l. 1. c. 4. the Pharisees were reputed to be more Religious than other men, and more strict in their interpretation of the laws. But there was so much pride and passion, mixed with their zeal, that they were vehement against those, who did not comply with them, in laying a great stress upon such things, wherein Religion was not concerned, yea and upon those things al o, which really tended to the undermining of true piety; and they were eager against them who would in­form them better; and hence they set themselves in opposi­tion against Christ and his Apostles.

10. Misguided zeal inflameth passi­ons, and sharp­neth tongues. There is nothing that more sharpens the tongues of men against others, than the mistaken principles of a mis­guided conscience, which was that, by which the Jews acted against the Saviour of the World, both reviling, and cruci­fying him. Hence also before the great Apostle was a con­vert, he thought he ought to do many things against the name of Jesus, Act. 26.9. And hence the Apostles and other Chri­stians, were upbraided, and ill intreated in that high de­gree, that they that killed them thought they did God service, Joh. 16.2. And hence divers Hereticks, and those who were engaged in Errors and Schisms and divisions, vented many contumelious and reproachful censures, against the true Church, and its members. So did the Gnosticks, Mon­tanists, Novatians, Donatists and others anciently, and all dividing Sects of later times.

11. For instance, the Donatists raised such high accusations, against the true Christian Church, as Aug. Ep. 50. & Ep. 162. & passim. to reject it from being a true Church, and not to own any but themselves to be the Church of Christ, and thereupon not only rebaptized all others who came to them, but by savage cruelty and vi­olence, [Page 31]forced divers to be rebaptized. Sect. III. And other re­proachers but not in the like degree were embraced by the other Sects. For all men who have pretended to Christia­nity (till some late unreasonable notions in our present age, which discard all obligation to visible and external Unity, and publick communion in the offices of the Church) have been sensible, that they could never justifie their own de­parture from the Church, unless they could lay some such thing to her charge, as made their secession necessary. A­mong these some were more fierce and furious, who yielded their conscience to the service of their affections and passi­ons, as too many of late have done both in the Church of Rome, and of other parties in our late unhappy times. And when S. Austin with lamentations spake of the incursions of the Barbarous Nations into France, Italy, Spain and Egypt, he thought the inhumane cruelties (some of which he par­ticularly mentions) of the Aug. Ep. 122. Sic va­stant Ecclesi­as, ut Barba­rorum fortasse facta mitlora sunt. Donatists, and especially the Circumcelliones, towards them who held communion with the Church, were rather more savage, than what was com­mited by those barbarous people. And indeed, no rage is fiercer, than that which is enflamed by an irregular and disordered zeal. And others who continue in a milder tem­per, though they abstain from outrages; yet by their mis­apprehensions, are engaged in unreasonable censures of the Church, and publick order, and of the Rulers who appoint and establish it.

12. But zeal when not governed by piety, prudence, truth and goodness, and not allayed with meekness, is like a fire violently breaking out in any part of a building, which threatens the wasting and ruine of the whole. And it is never safe to promote or entertain unjust reproaches raised even by zealous men, when these very things, though they may be popularly taking to engage a party, yet are they a great blemish to their profession; uncharitableness and rash censoriousness, being a manifest evidence, of the want of a true Religious temper, wheresoever it prevails. To this purpose, S. James speaking of that man, who is wise [Page 32]by the wisdom which descends from above, or who is truly pi­ous and Religious, directs this wise and good man, Jam. 3.13. to shew out of a good conversation, his works with meekness of wisdom. And he then assures us, that where there is bit­ter zeal or envying and strife, this wisdom discendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual and devilish, v. 14, 15. But the wisdom that is from above, is first pure, and then peaceable, gen­tle, and easie to be intreated, or perswaded, viz. to what is good, just or reasonable.

SECT. III.
The monstrous and unreasonable strangeness of those censures, which have been unjustly charged on the most innocent and ex­cellent men, and particularly on our blessed Lord and Saviour himself.

1. The most infa­mous calumny, sometimes rais­ed against well deserving men. IN sensible things with which we converse in the world, few men, if any, have the confidence to lay down asser­tions, directly contrary to what may be made manifest and plain, (as to affirm the Sun to send forth darkness, and not light; or the strait line to be crooked; or the pleasant and delightful Fountain to be bitter) and if they should, they would find no men of common understanding so weak as thereby to be imposed upon. But it oft happeneth far o­therwise, in the character which many give of the best men, who are oft-times not only so far misunderstood, that their excellencies are clouded, and pass undiscerned to general view; but their pious lives fall under severe censures, and are represented as ugly and deformed. Thus it hapned with many vertuous Moralists, yea, with Christ himself, and many of his Disciples. And our holy Religion it self, as well as its author, was on this wise pierced, spit on, and reviled.

2. This was that, which Xenoph. l. 1. Memorab. primo. Xenophon could not observe concerning Socrates, without admiration. He sayes, he much wondred, that Socrates, who never spake, or did any thing irreligious, who had an high reverence for the Gods, and owned them to know all that was spoken or done, or se­cretly consulted among men; and so behaved himself, that if another man shall speak and act as he did, [...], he would both be, and be accounted, a most devout and Religious person; that he should be so far misunder­stood, that the Athenians should be perswaded, that he had no sober or worthy thoughts of the Deity. And ibidem. he ac­counted it to be a strange and wonderful thing, that when this excellent man, was even above all other men strictly temperate and continent, [...], and one who had reduced many others from their lusts and vicious­ness, he should yet be misreported, as if he were guilty of the most impure and filthy lusts. And this instance seemed so strange to Xenophon, that he begins that Book with de­claring, that he had oft wondred, how the Athenians could be perswaded, into this misapprehension. And so might any man do in the like case, when he only considers what other men ought to do, and will do when they act suitably to their reason; but the wonder ceaseth, when we observe the strange disorders of licentious passions, ill designs, and an uncharitable temper; and how apt they are to impose up­on an easie credulity.

3. That the greatest censures, and heaviest reproaches, This carrieth on the design of Satan. should befall the best deserving men, is indeed very unsuita­ble to them, but it exceeding well agrees with the designs of the evil one, who promotes these practices. It was asser­ted by the ancient Author of the Metaphrasis upon Ecclesia­stes, (whether it be Gr. Nazianzen, or rather Gregorius Thaumaturgus, to whom Hier. de Scriptor. Ec­cles. in Theo­doro. S. Hierome, and other an­cient Writers, ascribe that Metaphrasis) that calumny [...], attempts to corrupt and pervert, the generous firmness and constancy of good men. And this very well agrees with the sense of the Septuagint, [Page 34]in that place, Eccl. 7.8. to which those words of this Me­taphrase had respect. But if calumny cannot effect this end, the evil one aims at some thing else, which by this means he more easily obtains, to hinder the success of wor­thy men, in the service of God, and Religion, and doing good in the World, and to keep off others, from piety and vertue.

4. The innocent-primitive Christianity was highly traduced, as if it had been the most horrid-impiety. For these ends and purposes, the holy Christian Reli­gion it self, and the Assembly of its followers, were charged by the Gentiles, with the most horrid, unnatural, and unrea­sonable villany, and impiety. This gave occasion to the wri­ting sundry excellent Apologetical discourses, on the behalf of Christianity; as those of Justine Martyr, Athenagoras, Tertulli­an, Arnobius, Origen against Celsus, and many others. Di­vers of these horrid calumnies are collected by In Octav. à p. 23. ad 30. Ed. Ox. Minuti­us Felix, and of them he saith, passim omnes loquuntur, that they were the general vogue of the Pagan World. And the wicked and false accusations, then drawn up against the Christians, are comprized and summed up, in these com­prehensive words of Tertul. Apol. c. 2. Tertullian, Christianum hominem omnium scelerum reum, Deorum, Imperatorum, legum, morum, naturae totius inimicum existimans; that they accounted the Christian to be a person guilty of all villany, and to be an ene­my to the Deity, to the Emperour, to the law, to morality, and to the whole course of nature. And what worse can be said of the most wretched, debauched and flagitious person! and what an unruly thing is passionate reproaching, when there­by the whole body of the best Society in the world, was so monstrously misrepresented!

5. And the same measure was meted, to the head and Lord of that body also. And therefore I shall here par­ticularly take notice of several considerable things in the behaviour of the Jews towards our Saviour, where the strangeness of their accusations, may well amaze and asto­nish an unprejudiced person.

6. How many actions of reproach and contumely did they use towards him; when they spitted in his face, and smote him with the palms of their hands? which defamatory acts to a Jew had Tr. Bava. Kam. c. 8. §. 6. & Commen­tar. L'Em­pereur. ibid. great penalties; and these were done in their open Consistory, with many other expressions of contempt. Their procuring the scourging him, was a publick declaring that he was so great an offender, that he deserved to be put to open shame: which is manifest from the nature of that punishment, from the expressions of the Scripture concerning it, and even from the Tr. Mae­coth. c. 3. Christ himself was treated with many actions of re­proach, Talmud, which makes it a note of infamy, inflicted upon them, who were guilty of shameful transgressions. The like especially ap­pears in their desiring him to be Crucified, which was a kind of death attended with that infamy, as well as accute pain, that the worst of men, and most abject persons in the Ro­man Empire were Sentenced to this death. But none of their Free men might be condemned to so vile a death, which was by Lact. de Ver. Sap. c. 18. Lactantius from Cicero noted to be, the punish­ment for vassals, and not Free men. And the Jews in after-ages, have used this as an expression of ignominy, concern­ing our blessed Saviour, when they call him by the name of [...] or he who was hanged or crucified.

7. And it is probable, that their putting him to death, at the time of their great and solemn feast, was not only done to expose him to the greater shame, at so great a solemnity, and publick concourse, but that this also might have some respect to their treating him as a false Prophet. For their Talmud declares, that a false Prophet was not to be put to death in any other City but in Jerusalem; and there he must die Tr. San­hedr. c. 10. at the time of their solemn Feasts, that all Israel may hear and fear.

8. And after all these things suffered by our Lord among the Jews, it might be easie to shew, that the Gentiles besides their persecutions and verbal slanders against Christianity, used various real expressions, of great disrespect and disho­nour, towards the Author of our holy Religion, and our Religion which was established by him. Thus in the time [Page 36]of the Emperour Adrian, the Temple of Adonis, the Image of Jupiter, and the Statue of Venus, were erected in the pla­ces of our Lords birth, his passion, and resurrection, as An. Eccl. An. 137. n. 5, 6, 7. & An. 326. n. 28. Baronius hath observed from S. Hierome, and Paulinus. But these and such other things, are much less to be won­dred at, among the Ethnicks and Pagans; and therefore I shall wave any further prosecution of them, and return to the consideration of the Jews behaviour, toward the holy Jesus.

9. and with va­rious insulting words of fury. Besides such actions of the Jews, as I above mention­ed, there were some verbal expressions, whereby they revi­led him, which spake their mere fury. Such was their opprobrious insulting over him, in his bitter sufferings. In yielding themselves to the rage of their passions, they came to that high degree of expressing their enmity against him, and contempt of him, that they were not satisfied with his suffering a cruel death; but beyond all that bloody hands could act against him, they endeavour that their keen tongues might pierce him to the heart. Hence they reviled this great Prophet, requiring him when they smote him, to prophesie who it was that smote him. They derided the King of Kings, when they arrayed him in a scarlet robe, putting a crown of thorns on his head, and a reed in his right hand, bowing the knee in mockery, and saying, Hail King of the Jews. And they despised, the Saviour of the World, and the great high Priest, when in derision towards him upon the Cross, they cryed out, Save thy self and us. Here we may stand amazed to observe, how when great uncharita­bleness hath possessed the heart, and is let loose in the re­proaches of the tongue, it becomes cruel and fierce, and con­trary to God and goodness, and is apt to be carried on to acts, even of savageness and inhumanity. But because these things may seem to be done, in a time when they were in a paroxysm of fury, when they vented an unusual in­ordinate heat of rage, I shall consider what accusations, their reproachful tongues laid to the charge of our Saviour, for the most part, when they were in somewhat a cooler [Page 37]temper, and concerning which they offered some things as a popular proof or at least a specious pretence, plausibly to insinuate into the vulgar, that there was somewhat of truth in what they said.

10. First, He was accused, Our Lord and the best men have been ac­cused, 1. Of want of piety and Religion. of not having any true piety towards God. He came into the world to do the will of his Father, and was a perfect example of all holy obedience. He sought not his own glory, but the glory of him that sent him, and God himself owned him to be his well beloved Son, in whom he was well pleased. And yet so maliciously unreasona­ble was their censoriousness, that the Jews charged him with being so much an enemy to God, as to debase his honour, un­dermine his authority, and speak unworthily of his Majesty. To this purpose, that they might render him particularly hateful to the Jewish Nation, they decipher him as an ene­my to the divine law. The Jews had deservedly an high ho­nour for Moses, and the law which was delivered by him, and had a mighty zeal to preserve the reputation of them. They honoured Moses as the most excellent person, who was in an eminent manner Phil. de Vit. Mosis. l. 3. a King, a Law-giver, a Priest and a Prophet, and most excellently discharged all those Offices. And they had so great a reverence and veneration for their law, that Philo the Jew (as his words are produced by Eus. praep. Ev. l. 8. c. 6. Eusebius, out of a Book of his which he Entituled, his Hypotheticks) declares that the Jews would rather chuse to die a thousand times, than to admit of any thing contrary to the law; and the same Phil. de le­gat. ad Caium p. 1022. Author speaks to the same purpose elsewhere. But the holy Jesus who gave the highest honour to the law, by fulfilling it; and to Moses by accomplishing his Prophecies, was accused as an opposer of Moses and the law; and to this purpose was at several times charged with breaking the Sabbath; and the Pharisees decla­red, that he was not of God because he kept not the Sabbath day, Joh. 9.16. And he who had that great regard to the Wor­ship of God, and honour for his Temple, that the zeal of Gods house did eat him up, was reported to be so averse from [Page 38]the worship of God and Religion, that he was for destroying the place of Gods Worship and Service, even before he had put an end to the legal Sacrifices by his perfect ob­lation.

11. And he was oft times accused, of that impious crime of Blasphemy, even by those very men, who were themselves guilty of Blasphemy, against God, and the Holy Ghost. This is esteemed an execrable offence among all men, who have any veneration for the Divine Majesty of God. And among the Jews, it was accounted so abominable, that the blasphemer must die, and be stoned by all the people; and the Tr. Sanh. c. 7. §. 5. judge who gave Sentence against him was to rend his cloaths; and the same was to be done also by the witness, who heard the words of blasphemy, as a testimony of indignation. And this the High Priest did, at the words of the blessed Jesus, Mat. 26.65. he rent his cloaths, saying he hath spoken blasphemy. Yea, even among the Gen­tiles, a blasphemer of the Deity was thought worthy of death, and at Ephesus according to the observation of An. Eccles. an. 254. n. 24, 25. Baronius out of Philostratus, was to be stoned. But the im­puting such a thing as this to the holy Jesus; whose Life and Doctrine was wholly ordered, to promote his Fathers honour, is as if a Prince's best and most faithful Subjects, should be so misrepresented, as to be accounted the most disloyal villanous and treacherous rebels, and the people there­upon should be stirred up, to set themselves against them, who are their strength and upholders.

12. Non-compli­ance with ri­gid mistaken notions, doth sometimes oc­casion the charge of impi­ety. And though the purity of his life, did infinitely outdo a­ny of theirs, and was without any stain of Sin, yet he must not be owned as a good man, because he was not in all things so strict, as some of their errours directed them to be. While they were more severe and rigid, he shewed himself more mild and gentle, even towards Publicans and Sinners, and hence was reviled as their friend. He had not that reve­rence for the vow of Corban which the Pharisees had, but declared against the evil of it, as making void the Command­ment of God, which required a due honour to Father and [Page 39]Mother. Nor had he that opinion of the rest of the Sabbath day, as to think it not lawful for himself to heal, or for his Disciples to pluck ears of corn; and he was therefore cen­sured and condemned of the Jews. And thus it fares in part with others also who are his followers, and so it frequently hath done in the best times of Christianity. Many men have had such a zeal for their own errors, that if others live the most holy and angelical lives, in conscientious obedi­ence to the moral laws of God, and in a pious reverence to all the Christian institutions, and precepts of our Saviour, they will not acknowledge these to be good men, or such as have any true care of Religion or piety, if they do not join with them in their mistaken notions, and their practices founded upon those mistakes.

13. On this account the Catholick Church, On this account the Catholick Church was defamed, as impure and carnal. and the true members thereof, have oft-times fallen under unjust cen­sures. When the abetters of the Novatian Schism, decla­red against second Marriages, and the admitting those to repentance in the Church, who were lapsed after Baptism, they so far judged the Catholick Church impure, for pra­ctising contrary to their errors, that avoiding its communi­on, they gave themselves the name of the Cathari, or the persons who were pure. And that themselves were the authors of this name, whereby they were afterwards known, and that they called themselves thereby, in a way of distinction from the Catholick Christians; hath not only been declared by Dionysius, Alexandrinus, and Theophilus Alexandrinus, and other private Authors; but it is also af­firmed by the Conc. Nic. c. 8. Conc. Const. c. 7. two first general Councils. And after Ter­tullian declined to Montanism; though that Sect impiously owned Montanus to be the Paraclete, and this Author of them was guilty of very great impurities of conversation; he defamed the Catholick Church, and its members, as being Tert. de Monogam & adv. Psychi­cos. carnal, because it allowed of second Marriages, and did not prolong its Fasts, and stationary abstinence to such late hours of the day, as the Disciples of Montanus did. And the Donatists in the vehemency of their Schism, upon the like [Page 40]pretence of greater strictness and rigidness, towards them who had offended, ran to that height of censure, against those pious Bishops and Christians, who kept communion with the Church, as to call them Baron. An. 348. n. 38. Pagans. And the like might be noted concerning others.

14. Zeal when well guided, very useful; but partial or mis­placed, hurtful. Zeal and the greatest strictness of life and conversati­on, when it is well ordered and directed, is of excellent use; but a pretending hereto is really hurtful, when it acts by a mistaken rule. It was the miscarriage of the Pharisees, that they were earnest and strict about their Corban, but loose and negligent concerning the fifth Commandment; and shewed a great respect to the Sabbath, but gave not due allowance to works of mercy and charity. Let every man be as conscientious and strict as he can be, in entertain­ing all needful truth, in practising all the great duties of Re­ligion, and avoiding all evil. But let not zeal be spent a­bout such lesser things, as are in truth of no concernment in Religion; nor let any make such measures the standard, to judge of the piety, either of themselves or others, for then they must miscarry. This is to act like a man who hath some mistaken fancies of the best road, and will allow none to be skilful travellers, but them who wander with him out of the right way. The Kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost, Rom. 14.17. It is not concerned so much about such les­ser things, of which many men are fond; as about practi­sing all righteousness, minding the wayes of peace and u­nity, and being greatly delighted in the exercises and re­wards of the Christian hope and obedience.

15. But that I may prevent the misapprehending what I mentioned, concerning some of the Jewish errors, above mentioned, I shall here add by way of caution, that though they were too nice, and vainly strict concerning their Sabbath; it is a fault amongst us much to be lament­ed, and needful to be amended, that very many in our age are too loose, in neglecting a due reverence for the time of Worship, and the Worship of God it self, as I shall hereaf­ter [Page 41]further note. And they who neglect the worship of God, whatever party they are of, cannot approve themselves the faithful Servants of God.

16. Secondly, Our Holy Saviour was accused, 2. The worthi­est persons have been oft charg­ed with promo­ting the Devils work, and de­praving Reli­gion. of comply­ing with the Devil, and carrying on his work, and corrupt­ing Religion. The Devil is so bad, that whatsoever pro­ceeds from him, and whosoever join themselves to him to serve him, are deservedly hateful. Now our Saviour was manifested to destroy the works of the Devil, and he actually overthrew his Kingdom. He cast out Devils, and dispos­sessed them of that outward dominion, they had over the bo­dies of many men; and he so vanquished the evil Spirit, and that Idolatry, sin, and wickedness, which he set for­ward in the world, that he gained the victory over the De­vil, with respect to that inward dominion, whereby he had governed the hearts and lives of the children of disobedi­ence. He also silenced his oracles, whereby he had obtain­ed a great veneration among the Gentiles. And so admi­rably did our Lord prevail, against all the power of Sa­tan, that even Porphyry, an Apostate from Christianity, and Patron of Gentilism confesseth, that from the time that Jesus was honoured in the world, the Gentile Gods (who were no other than evil Spirits) lost their power. As Euseb. Pr. Evang. l. 5. c. 1. Eusebius relates, these are his very words, even in that Book which he wrote against Christianity, [...], after Jesus was worshipped, none had any sence of the manifest help of the (Pagan) gods.

17. And yet notwithstanding all this, so unreasonably spiteful were the reviling tongues of his adversaries, that against all the evidence in the world, he was charged with acting from the Devil, and promoting his interest. And when he cast-out Devils, they would not allow this to be otherwise done, than by Beelzebub the Prince of the Devils. The Holy Jesus defamed as acting by Beel­zebub, Nor was this wicked and blasphemous slander, only some rash, sudden unadvised words, of some inconsiderable per­sons; [Page 42]but the Pharisees, saith S. Matthew, Mat. 9.34. and the Scribes, saith S. Mark, Mar. 3.22. passed this cen­sure upon him; and what was thus spoken at one time, was repeated and declared again at another, Mat. 12.24. And we may discern by this instance, how easily the grea­test calumnies may be propagated, by a zealous and eager party, from one age to another, and from one place to ano­ther. For the Jews in after ages, still embraced for truth this impudent falshood, which is taken into their v. Hor. Hebr. in Mat. 12.24. Tal­mud, which contains a collection of the main body of their Traditions and Opinions. And this wicked and contume­lious aspersion of our Lord, though contrary to the highest evidence, was also endeavoured to be spread abroad among the Pagan Gentiles, insomuch that Orig. cont. Cels. l. 1. Eus. Dem. Ev. l. 3. c. 6. divers Christian Writers thought fit to refell the same; and to shew the manifest contradiction, which this carried to the piety of our Saviours Religion, to the nature of his precepts, to the works which he did, and to the Spirit and practice of his followers, all which include a manifest opposition to the e­vil one.

18. At other times they charged him with being a Sama­ritan and having a Devil, and being a Samaritan: Joh. 8.48. The name of Samari­tan was fixed on him, to promote a popular hatred. The Samaritans rejected the true worship of God at Jerusalem, and depraved and corrupted Religion, and oft manifested a great hatred towards the Jews. They frequented Mount Joseph. Ant. l. 13. c. 6. Gerazim as the place of their Worship, in opposition to Jerusalem: and their despising the true Worship of God at Jerusalem, is observed in the Hor. Heb. in Joh. 4.20. Talmud, and suffi­ciently in the holy Scripture it self. And for the counte­nancing their depraved worship, the Samaritan version of the Pentateuch, as it is now extant, hath corrupted the law, and hath put in the word Gerazim, in the place of E­bal, where God commanded an Altar to be made, and Sa­crifice to be offered, Deut. 27.4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Now the name of a Samaritan being odious to the Jews, they call our Saviour a Samaritan, not as if they thought he was so by his [Page 43]birth, for they admitted him to the Jewish worship as a Jew, and knew his nearest relations to be Jews: but they would hereby declare, that he had equally corrupted Religi­on, and deserved to be as much hated, as the Samaritans were. And to this purpose was he thus aspersed, though his custome was, to attend the Jewish Synagogues, Luk. 4.16. and he carefully served God according to the precepts of his Law. But as if this foul calumny was not sufficient, they further added, that he had a Devil, or that he in whom alone the Godhead dwelt bodily, was possessed by the evil one. And this wicked slander was intended, to raise the highest prejudice of the people against him, and to keep them far enough from being directed by him. And therefore they said, Joh. 10.20. he hath a Devil, and is mad, why hear ye him?

19. And it may be observed, And in like manner our Re­formation, Bi­shops, and Mi­nistry have been aspersed with Popery, how the carriage of many men among us towards his Ministers, the Bishops and Clergy of the Church of England, doth too nearly resemble this be­haviour, which I have mentioned of the Jews, towards our Lord himself. Certainly one of the great works, the Devil contrives to uphold in this last Age of the World, is the gross corruption of Popery. Our Clergy and Bishops, were very instrumental in the Reformation, and casting out of Popery: those of our Church Preach and Write against Popery, so as to make the clearest discovery of the false­ness of their doctrine, and the sin of their practices. These have confuted and baffled them the most effectually, and with most convictive evidence. These have plainly laid open in the face of the world, the folly, evil and mischief, of many considerable things, asserted, and maintained by the Church of Rome, and have thereby raised the indignati­on of the Romanists themselves, who look upon these men to be their most formidable adversaries: and they are indeed the great bulwark against Popery. And yet because these men are not so weak and rash, as to run beyond the bounds of truth, and sobriety, into other unreasonable errors, they must needs be clamoured on, as friends to Popery. And o­ther [Page 44]men who talk indeed against Popery with great noise, and are real and earnest in what they say, and some few of them have done useful service herein; by many who are indeed ea­ger against it: but most of them speak with much weakness, and many mistakes; whereby they give great advantage to their adversaries; these must be accounted the chief and main enemies to Popery, when for the generality of them, the Romanists themselves have no great fear of the Writings and Arguments of such opposers. And from these our excellent Reformation meets with vi­rulent censures.

20. I doubt not, as many Jews were against the Devil. but among the Jews in our Saviours time, there were many besides him, and his Disciples, who talked much against the Devil, and did indeed hate him, though in many things through their misguided zeal, they greatly served his interest. And that the Jews had some among them, who sometimes cast out Devils, is not to be doubted, from what we read in the Scripture of the Jewish Exorcists, and of our Saviours appeal to the Pharisees, Mat. 12.27. By whom do your children cast them out? Antiq. l. 8. c. 2. & de bel. l. 7. c. 25. Jose­phus takes some notice of their Exorcisms; but what he writes is of such a nature, concerning the driving away Devils by some Herbs and charms, that they who pretend­ed to act against the evil one by these methods, did seem rather to comply with him. But that some of the Jews, both before and after the coming of our Lord, did cast out evil Spirits, by the power and in the name of the God of Abraham, and the God of Israel, is asserted and acknow­ledged, by Justin. adv Tryph. Iren. adv. Haeres. l. 2. c. 5. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and other ancient Christian Writers. But their undertaking was far from being sufficient, to the overthrow of the Kingdom of Sa­tan, nor were they always successful and effectual in les­ser cases. When the Sons of Sceva a Jew, and chief of the Priests, undertook to cast out a Devil, the evil Spirit pre­vailed against them, and they were not able to stand before him. But it was he whom the Jews aspersed, as complying with the Devil, who did abundantly more against, him than they all were able to do; and he spoiled principalities and pow­ers.

21. And besides all this, though the singular and sinless purity of his life was admirable, the censorious lips of his opposers, will even upon this be spitting out Adders poy­son, Our Lord was accused of en­couraging lo [...]s­ness of life: as if his Religion and life, had not advanced, but de­bauched the practice of vertue and morality. It is indeed observed by Cont. Cell. l. 3. p. 132. Origen, that even those who falsly accused him of many things, never charged him with any unclean­ness of life; and that though Celsus, and some others, would in general speak against the life of Christ, Ibid. l. 7. p. 369. they gave not instance of any particular things, which they could blame in him. But the Jews were so audacious, that though they could not convince him of any sin; yet by reason of his free, but innocent converse, they condemn him, Mat. 11.19. as a man gluttonous, and a wine-bibber, and as one who gave encouragement to viciousness and sin, being a friend of publicans and sinners.

22. Now the managing such opprobrious calumnies as these, is not only an unreasonable thing; but is wicked and sinful, and is mighty mischievous and of very ill conse­quence to the world, and much serves the ends of the evil one, by alienating the affections of men, from them who are their best and surest guides in Religion. I could not but pity the delusions of such a man, Such false as­persions of per­nicious conse­quence to man­kind. who should be perswa­ded, that they who would give him the most wholesom diet, intend to poyson him; and therefore he refuseth that, and feedeth on such things as are less wholsom, and oft on trash, and what is noxious and hurtful. And he is strange­ly imposed upon, who is made to believe that those who are his wisest and faithfullest friends, and really give him the best advice and counsel, in his affairs and concerns in the world, are persons who design to cheat him, and to make their own advantages of him; and therefore he casts them off, and betakes himself to the direction and guidance of o­thers to his real prejudice. But yet the damage that men may by such means sustain, as to their bodily health, or the interest of their estate, is not of so much weight and mo­ment, as those things are which concern them with respect to their souls and consciences.

23. Thirdly, Our Saviour himself (as other innocent persons also) was charged with acting against the common good, 3. The most ser­viceable men have oft been esteemed ene­mies to publick welfare. and the general interest of the Nation; as if he had had so little respect to the welfare of the Jews, as to intend nothing but ill towards them. And therefore many of the people in his life time, Joh. 7.12. and the chief Priests and Pharisees after his death, Mat. 27.63. account­ed him a deceiver. And they spake of him, as if they could have no due care of themselves, and their own publick wel­fare, if they did not set themselves against him. And therefore as a publick enemy, he must die that the whole Nation perish not. Hence Joh. 11.48. If we let this man alone, the Romans shall come, and will take away both our place and Nation. And these words were the determination of the whole Council of the chief Priests and Pharisees which were gathered together, v. 47.

24. And there might be some appearance of pretence, for their fear of this danger, from those known notions which commonly prevailed among the carnal Jews, concerning the time of their Messias. For they generally expected, and promised themselves at his coming, the enjoyment of great delights, and pleasures in their own land, with a fulness of outward prosperity; and that he should be a mighty tem­poral Prince, and all their enemies even the greatest, should be overcome by him; and should submit themselves to them, and serve them. And of these apprehensions and ex­pectations of theirs, which are intimated in the Scripture, a sufficient account hath been given out of the Jewish Wri­ters by Schic­kard. de Jur. Reg. Heb. c. 6. Th. 20. & Carpzov. ibid. p. 454, &c Eu [...]t. Syn. Jud. c. 36. Lex. Rab in [...]. learned men. And it is not improbable that hereupon the High Priests and Pharisees might suspect, that the Romans, hearing there was now one in Judea, whom many of them owned to be (what he really was) the true Messias, and whom divers of the people were for­ward to make their King, and who himself declared the Kingdom of God to be now nigh at hand; that the Romans, I say, might hereupon fear a defection, and rebellion of the [Page 47] Jewish Nation against their Government, and therefore might forcibly come upon them and destroy them, unless they by opposing and cestroying him, gave publick testi­mony of their fidelity to the Roman power. But all this was their fond mistake; for his Kingdom was not of this World; he did nothing to injure their safety, or to oppose the Roman power, nor did they truly consult their own good, when they set themselves against him.

25. That which is really the common good, and the true interest and welfare of a People or Kingdom, is a thing of very great concernment, and so very desirable, that where this publick temporal good can be had without a greater loss, he who advanceth it is a person who deserves to be ho­noured and renowned; but he is a common enemy to mankind, who acts against it. To promote a common ruine and de­struction, is a thing so inhuman, that the Cicer. Philip. 3. Roman Ora­tor judged him, who could be pleased and satisfied there­with, to have degenerated from his nature, and to be be­reft of humanity, and that he did not deserve to be reckoned among mankind. Quem discordiae, Really to pro­mote the com­mon good, is a great part of goodness, and doing good; (saith he) quem caedes civium, quem bellum civile delectat, eum ex numero hominum ejiciendum, ex finibus. humanae naturae exterminandum puto. But yet this was much more contrary to the design of our Saviour, who came not to destroy mens lives but to save them; and to the principles, practice and nature of Chri­stianity, which obligeth all not only to be harmless and in­nocent, yea, and to be meek and peaceable; but also to under­take actions of kindness, and charity, and doing good to all. And it may as soon be expected, that an innocent Sheep should act the part of a wild Beast, in savageness and fury, and that the Dove should become a Bird of prey, as that he who is truly a good man, should be (however he may be represented) a contriver of publick hurt, evil and mischief. Whosoever acts any thing, which is against the publick in­terest and welfare, if he understand the tendency of his own actions, must be a person of no goodness; but if he under­stand it not, he must be a person of great imprudence, being [Page 48]deceived and imposed on, in a business of so weighty a nature, which a common understanding would easily discern.

26. Yet where there is only a bare pretence and noise, about the common good, without the reall thing, this is oft a popular artifice to raise a clamour and odium, against such persons, towards whom the contrivers of this pretence have disrespect. but an outward pretence of com­mon good, will sute ill designs. And thus it hath happened in very many cases. This was the method and artifice, that Corah made use of against Moses, who charged him with having alrea­dy done much hurt and mischief to Israel, and being far from doing them that good he pretended; and that he in­tended to tyrannize and lord it over them, thereby to exalt himself; and that this was so evident a thing, their eyes must be put out if they did not see it, Numb. 16.13, 14. Now nothing could be more unreasonable, than to imagine such things as these, to be true concerning Moses, who had brought them out of bondage, under whose conduct they had passed through the red Sea, had received the law spoken by a voice from Heaven on Mount Sinai, and writ­ten by God himself on the two tables of Stone, and were con­stantly fed with Manna from Heaven in the Wilderness. And yet this strange accusation being a popular thing, and seeming to espouse the interest of the whole Congregation, greatly prevailed amongst them against Moses.

27. The like calumny was in the first ages of Christiani­ty, The primitive Christians were accounted pub­lick enemies. charged upon all Christians in general, that they were the cause of all the publick troubles that befel the World. And though this was so exceeding manifestly contrary to their Religion, yet because this charge was apt to provoke the rage of the people against them, it was oft insisted upon, and much urged by the enemies of Christianity, for many Ages. When the Goths under Alaricus, had sacked and wasted Rome, the Pagans charged the Christian Religion, to be the occasion of that calamity: whereupon S. Austin be­ing inflamed with a zeal for God, wrote his Books de Civi­tate Dei, as a defence and vindication of Christianity, from [Page 49]that calumny, as Aug. Re­trac. l. 2. de Civ. Dei. l. 1. c. 1. himself testifieth. And to confute the like general slander, upon all occasions prevailing a­mong the Gentiles, Orosius wrote his Books of History, by the perswasion of S. Austin, designing therein especially Oros. Hi­stor. Praef. ad Aug. to give an account of the various calamities which had befallen the World, in those ages and parts thereof, where Christianity had not prevailed, and been received. And Tertullian acquaints us, that in his time, if any thing what­soever happened in the World, contrary to its general wel­fare, flourishing and prosperity, the general cry among the Pagans presently was, Tert. Apol. c. 4. Christianos ad leonem, that the Christians should be devoured, by being exposed to the Lion, that thereby the cause of common miseries might be re­moved by their destruction. And Cont. Cels. l. 3. p. 120. Origen speaks much to the same purpose.

28. And such have frequently been the unaccountable cen­sures, and outcries, against the most excellent and deserv­ing persons, as if they were the enemies to the general welfare of the people, among whom they lived. But no­thing could be more unjust and unreasonable, than to ima­gine any such thing as this, in the case of our blessed Saviour. If instructing men in the truth, and the right ways of Reli­gion, and the will of God; if promoting well-doing, and the practice of piety; if the taking care of the things that please God, and make him their friend; and if the exercises of humility, meekness, peace and love, be the way to ruin and destroy a Nation, then might our Saviour and his Reli­gion, be the occasion of the ruin of Kingdoms; and so may also his Ministers and the Clergy that follow his steps. But in truth it was the Jews opposing him and his Doctrine, which was the cause of their ruine. Our Lord with tears and compassion foretold their misery, because they knew not the time of their visitation, Luk. 19.43, 44. And after they had rejected the counsel of God, and bid defiance to his Anointed, and gratified their malice, in Crucifying the Lord of life; that God who according to his especial pro­mise, had whilst they served him, kept their enemies from [Page 50] desiring their land at the time when all their Males went up to serve him, Exod. 34.24. which might seem to leave all the other parts of Judea destitute of any defence; he now suffered the Romans to invade them, and shut them up Eus. Hist. Eccl. l. 3. c. 5. at the time of the Pass-over (at which time they Crucified our Lord) and to destroy them. But had they hearkened to our Saviour, they had thereby every way taken care of their common good: he would not only have saved their souls from destruction, but also have preserved their City, and would have gathered Jerusalem, as an hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, but they would not: and therefore their house was left desolate, Mat. 23.37, 38. And in other cases, it is easie to apprehend, how much they act against the true publick interest, The promoters of this censure, are really ene­mies to the com­mon good. who are the fomenters of such re­proaches, against them who are faithful in the land, as if they were the chief opposers of its good. It is obvious to e­very eye, that if an enemy can prevail so far by his subtilty as to persuade a people, that those men who truly are the best and wisest Commanders, are persons who resolve to destroy their Army, and comply with their enemies; and hereupon they are laid aside, upon presumption that it is not safe to trust them; he hath done much of his work, and gone a great way towards the obtaining a conquest over them, by first prevailing upon their indiscretion, and unjust jealou­sie and suspicion.

29. Fourthly, 4. The best men are also accu­sed of ill de­signs against Governours. They accused our Saviour, that he was no friend to Caesar, but one who stood up against him. And therefore they told Pilate, Joh. 19.12. If thou let this man go thou art not Caesars friend: whosoever maketh himself a King, speaketh against Caesar. Now to oppose Government, is a great Crime; and the nature of the Rulers authority, and the commands of God, require honour, reverence, and obedience to be yielded thereto. Princes and Magistrates are sometimes in Scripture called Gods: and that precept of the Law, Exod, 22.28. Thou shalt not revile the Gods; is in the Margent of our Translation referred to rulers and [Page 51]Judges, and so it is expressed in Vers. Syr. Arab. Pers. ch. paraphr. Nothing is more unreaso­nable, than this charge was, a­gainst our Sa­viour. many other Transla­tions: nor can it well be understood, as some would have it, of the Gentile Deities, which ought to be de­tested!

30. But though this charge was openly pleaded, at his arraignment, it was as notoriously false, as any of the other things above-mentioned. It was not possible that he who was King of Kings, and by whom Kings reign, should be an enemy to that Authority, which he himself upheld; or that he who came into the World, to advance the honour and dignity of his Father, should set himself against those Powers, which were his Ordinance, and Established by him. It could not be supposed, that a person of that singu­lar integrity, which every where appeared in him, who had sharply reproved the Pharisees, for asserting such Do­ctrines as made void the fifth Commandment, should himself be guilty, of giving an example of the same fault, and in an higher degree. Nor could there be any reasonable pre­tence, that he who was so great a friend to all mankind, whose life practised, and whose openly declared Doctrine enjoined, an universal love even to enemies; that he should be an enemy to Caesar, who was the Minister of God for the good of men, and under whose Government peace, and pro­perty and order, was in some considerable measure establish­ed in the World. Upon such considerations as these, the ancient Tertul. Apol. c. 28, 29, 30, 31, 32. ad Scap. c. 4. Apologists for Christians, under Pagan Em­perors, declared it impossible, for him who was a Christi­an, to be an enemy to the Emperour, when he might not be an enemy to any man upon Earth, and was particularly ob­liged, to reverence him whom God had constituted. And the same consideration will shew, that they who are ene­mies to their Princes and Superiours, and are opposers of Government, cannot be truly Christians.

31. But it is here observable, that this accusation was only a crafty fetch, intended wholly to serve a present turn, that by pleading this, they might possess Pilate, with a prejudice against him, and make it appear necessary that [Page 52]he should condemn him, or else not shew himself faithful to Caesar, in that Office which was committed to him. And that upon this accusation, On this accusa­tion our Lord was condemn­ed, as an enemy to Caesar. and for this cause, Pilate Senten­ced him to be Crucified, is evinced from the Title written upon his Cross, Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews, which both S. Matthew, and S. Mark call his accusation, Mat. 27.37. Mar. 16.26. And that for this thing, he was con­demned to die, was noted by S. Hierome, Hier in Mat. 27. who yet declares, that he could not sufficiently admire, that when they had suborned false Witnesses, nullam aliam causam inveni­rent interfectionis ejus, quam quod rex erat Judaeorum, they could find no other cause to put him to death, than his being the King of the Jews. And for a further confirmation that this was the ground on which he was Crucified, it is observed and sufficiently cleared by Annot. on Mar. 15. b. Dr. Hammond, that it was the usual custom of the Romans, on this manner, to give a publick signification of the crime, for which any man was punished. And it may be noted from S. John, that till it was urged, that Pilate could not be Caesars friend if he let Jesus go; and that whosoever makes himself a King speaks a­gainst Caesar, Pilate was desirous to have released him, Joh. 19.12. But when he heard this saying, he sat down in the Judgment-Seat, and delivered him to be Crucified, v. 13, — 16.

32. But yet this accusation was not charged upon him by the Jews, out of any true kindness they had for Caesar, but only out of malice and enmity against the blessed Jesus. The name of Caesar, as was noted by Tertullian, Tert. Apol. c. 28. was more sacred and inviolable amongst the Romans, than any of their Gods, and therefore to charge him with opposing Caesar, was the most likely way for them to obtain their end; and therefore when they brought him before Pilate, this was the accusation which they then urged against him, Luk. 23.1, 2. But though at this time they pretended themselves well affected to Caesar, This was ma­naged by those [...] who were no friends to Cae­sar. and concerned for the se­curing his Authority; yet in truth neither the Pharisees, nor the other Jews, had any real kindness for him, and were [Page 53]desirous if they knew how, to shake off his authority. And at this very time, they could shew themselves friends to Barabbas who had made insurrection against the peace of the Government, and had committed murder in the Insurrecti­on. And they knew well enough that Jesus had enjoined men their duty to Caesar.

33. The Governours and Clergy of our Church, have in some things met with a kind of proceedings, somewhat like this. There are persons, who are not very eminent for loyalty themselves, The like accu­sation against other innocent persons. who know our Clergy to be faith­ful Subjects, and friends to the King, and to teach others the same; and yet they will endeavour to charge them, with undermining the Kings Authority, and encroaching upon the Rights and Royalties of the Crown. But let such persons consider, what sincerity they use in such things as this, and whether besides the uncharitableness, which ap­pears in these actings towards others; they do not offer vi­olence to themselves, and act against the inward sense of their own consciences. Thus were the primitive Christi­ans defamed as if they opposed the Majesty of the Empe­ror, Tertul. ad Scap. c. 2. Circà Majestatem Caesaris infamamur; though the Christians of that age had never been guilty of any acts of rebellion, and neither thought nor spake unworthily of their Rulers. And S. Paul was called a pestilent fellow, and a mover of Sedition, Act. 24.5.

34. And now I have thus far discoursed, of the exorbi­tant extravagancies of a reproaching tongue, I here declare, that it is not my design in this Chapter, Hence we are watchfully to take heed of joining in re­proaching o­thers; to charge even such men, who are too much overtaken with some degree of this sin, as if they were arrived to that height and excess, which I have here described. But the things I aim at are, First, To warn all men, against giving the reins to uncharitable censure and reproach; since this evil practice is that, which Satan hath made great use of in all the Ages of the World, as the first and chief means, to oppose all the ways of true piety and goodness. And hereby he hath done great mischief in the World: the oppositions which both [Page 54]Christ, and Christianity, and all good men met with in the world, have proceeded very much from this cause; and the violence and persecutions which the primitive Chri­stians underwent, was the consequent hereupon. And we may hence discern also, into what strange exorbitancies men may be led, though they come not up to the highest extravagancy, if they yield their tongues to be governed by their own passions, or by the unjust clamours of other men, against them who should govern, and the being influenced by such passio­nate censures. guide, lead and direct them; since our Saviour who was the most excellent guide that ever the World had, and the most innocent person, was so highly defamed, and so injuriously aspersed with unreaso­nable calumny.

35. Secondly, I intend hereby to manifest, how much courage, stedfastness and constancy, is necessary for the sin­cerely pious man. It may be the portion of any such per­son whomsoever, Unreasonable censures are to be couragiously undergone, in his speaking and doing well, to be mis­represented, and exposed to calumny and slander. Our great Master hath foretold, that his servants must in this particu­lar expect the same measure, which himself received. But let no good man be dismayed, if he be thus treated in the World, but let him be stedfastly resolved to pursue his duty, and to be unmoveably upright and conscientious, whatsoever respect or disrespect, he may meet with among men. Whoever is made more remiss in well-doing, or whose spirit is royled and discomposed by undeserved censures, doth hereby fall into temptation, and the snare of the evil one: but he that resolvedly holds fast his integrity, and runs with patience his Christian race, amidst all these oppositi­ons, this is the man who rightly dischargeth the duty of a Christian, and taketh up his Cross and followeth his Lord.

36. And it is infinitely better for any man, being the pious mans advan­tage. to fear the censure of the greatest part of the World, in well-doing, than to neglect what may please God, and do good to men; since hereby he gains the blessing of Christ. Our Saviour declared, Luk. 6.22. Blessed are ye, when men shall reproach [Page 55]you, and cast out your name as evil for the Son of mans sake. Rejoice ye in that day and leap for joy; for behold your reward is great in Heaven. Wherefore though a clear and good reputation and general esteem, is useful and desirable to a good man, because it gives him many advantages of doing good in his generation, yet if in the faithful and prudent management of his duty, he meeteth with hard measures, from the uncharitable expressions of other men; it may justly so far as concerns himself, rather affect him with joy than disturbance. Yea, with respect to these words of Christ, which I have now mentioned, the Author under Epist. ad Oceanum. S. Hierom's name, thinks it a thing desirable, to be re­proached and evil spoken of, Quis non maledici desideret, (saith he) ut mereatur Christi nomine laudari, & coelesti copi­osa (que) mercede munerari? This also was a mighty satisfaction to S. Austin, who declared that whilst he opposed the Dona­tists, Aug. cont. lit. Petil. l. 3. c. 7. he underwent sharp and opprobrious reproaches, from the enemies of the glory of Christ, but then reflecting upon the blessing, in this case pronounced by our Lord, he adds, Quisquis volens detrahit famae meae, nolens addit mercedi meae; he that willingly lessens my reputation, doth unwillingly add to my reward. But he who is turned aside from the paths of goodness, by the slander of men, is guilty of greater rash­ness and imprudence, than that traveller, who takes a jour­ney of great concernment to his life and estate, and yet will stop his course, or go out of his way, if he discerns the wind to blow upon him.

SECT. I.
The Romish Church and its Doctrines, and the putting them in practice, is chargeable with great disturbances, mischievous to the peace and order of the World.

Sect. I 1. IN this Chapter I shall enquire, The bad Prin­ciples and pra­ctices owned in the Church of Rome. whether the Church of Rome and the Members thereof, who practise upon the Principles they are there taught, be not chargeable with things really very evil, and infamous, and which de­serve to be greatly condemned. In this discourse I shall not intend to take notice of all the considerable errors in doctrine and practice, which are owned and espoused in that Church. But I shall instance in so many, as may be suffi­cient to satisfie any unprejudiced and impartial Reader, of the great corruption of that Church, and how hurtful and dangerous it is to be guided by it. I acknowledge there hath been so much said already, and so largely and plainly proved, by divers Protestant Writers, and by many of our own Church, and particularly by many learned and wor­thy Discourses of Dr. Stillingfleet, in this Controversie of late years, that I do not pretend (nor need I) to add much that is material and considerable, to what they have writ­ten, nor indeed to say so much as they have done, upon [Page 142]those Arguments of which I shall discourse. But yet I think, such Remarks as I shall make, may be of so much use to some persons, as to give them a satisfactory ac­count, how necessary it is to avoid the Romish gross Errors.

2. Several Heads of these propo­sed. And what I shall here consider I shall reduce unto five-Heads. First, to give some instances of the principles and allowed practices of sedition, and disturbance, against the peace and good order of the Church, and of the world; and the violation of the rights both of secular Rulers, and of other Churches and Bishops. Secondly, Of such things as are plain obstacles, and hindrances to an holy life. Third­ly, Of those practices and opinions, which derogate from the dignity, and authority of our Saviour. Fourthly, of some things which debase the Majesty of God, and deprive him of that glory and worship, which is due unto him. Fifthly, Of such things as represent Religion, and the Do­ctrines thereof, as a thing contrived or ordered, to serve the interests of worldly designs or human Policy. And in treating of the several instances I shall give, I desire my Reader to observe, that since I use these Heads in part for Method and Order sake, that which is to be considered in them, is not only, how aptly they are digested, under these several heads (though I think that is sufficiently clear) but especially, whether they do not manifestly contain, what is false, evil and opposite to Christianity. And therefore it may be further noted, that several things which I shall treat of, are upon other accounts also evil and blamea­ble, besides the respect they bear to those particular Heads under which I do digest them.

3. Observ. 1. Popish Prin­ciples opposite to peace and due order. First, I shall enquire into the principles, and allowed practices of sedition and disturbance, against peace and good order of the Church and the world. Here I shall not need to prove, that true Religion and the Christian temper, greatly promotes peaceableness, and establisheth justice and righteousness in the earth. And that the doing wrong and [Page 143]injury, the prosecuting unjust claims, and invading the rights and properties of others; as also the embroiling any part of the World in discord and confusion, in wars and tu­mults, and in Sedition and Rebellion, is exceeding contrary to our holy Religion. For the true principles of Morality, and the light of nature, will direct men who are not influ­enced by interest and passion, to condemn and detest such things as these. Wherefore taking this for granted, I shall in the first place reflect on the injurious demeanour of them at Rome towards secular Princes, in claiming to the Ro­mish Bishop, an universal Soveraignty over Kings and Prin­ces, with a Power to depose them, and dispose of their Kingdoms. That the Pope makes, (and hath oft acted upon) this claim of Sovereign Supremacy, I have shewed Christ. Loyalty. B. 1. ch. 6. Sec. 2. in another Treatise. And that the power of deposing Kings, is owned as a Doctrine of the Romish Church, I have given also B. 2. ch. 1. Sec. 1. n. 4, &c. sufficient evidence; and the same hath been done at large by others. The Romish claim is like that of the Tempter, who, concerning the Kingdoms of the World, and the glory of them, said, Luk. 4.5, 6. All this is delivered unto me, and to whomsoever I will, I give it; and it hath also a parallel title, which bears it self up, upon confident usur­pation, vain boasting, and false pretences: Yet they who are thorough Papists must acknowledge this.

4. Some Writers indeed of that Communion, deny the Pope any power over Princes in things temporal: but be­sides the Censure they generally undergo, from their own party, they are put to hard shifts, when they undertake to reconcile their Assertions, with the publickly received Con­stitutions of that Church. For instance sake, I shall take notice of the Council of Concil Lateran. c. de haeset. Laterane (concerning which they have as fair and plausible a plea, as for any other thing) which declares, that the Pope may give the Country of a temporal Lord to Catholicks, if he neglect to purge his Country of Hereticks. Here it is first pretended, Of the C [...]uncil at the Late­ran. that this was not declared by that General Council, but only by Pope Innocent III. after it was broken up, and that there [Page 144]were no Constitutions or Canons, made in that Council. And yet in the Decretalia of Gregory the Ninth, who was Pope about twelve years after that Council, this very Con­stitution is inserted into the Decret. l. 5. Tit. 7. c. 13. Excommuni­camus. Canon Law as being esta­blished by Innocentius in a General Council. And from the Authority of that Council, Transubstantiation hath been ever since acknowledged, to be a declared Doctrine of the Roman Church. And what goes under the name of this Council, is acknowledged to have the Authority of a Gene­ral Council, both by the Council of Constance and by that of Trent, as hath been observed by the Of Popery p. 48-51. Bishop of Lin­coln.

5. But it is further said by them, that the Canon of La­teran, concerneth Shel. l dons Reasons for Allegi­ance, p. 41. not Sovereign Princes, but only some feudatory Lords, in Italy, and some parts of the Empire. And whereas this sense seems plainly contradicted, by the last clause of that Constitution, eadem servata lege circa eos qui non habent dominos principales, that the same Law should be observed concerning them who have no Chief Lords over them; they note, that there is an Constit. Frederic [...], n. 7 Imperial Law, esta­blished by Frederick the Second, much to the same pur­pose with this Canon, to make void the rights of such Lords, as purge not their Lands from Hereticks, and that therein this clause is annexed, that this same Law shall be observed a­gainst them who have-no Chief Lords. But say they, it cannot be supposed, that the Emperour would enact a Law, which might make void his own Imperial Dignity, and forfeit his Empire. Now in this Constitution of Frederick, there is no express mention, of any right of disposing Dominions, devolving it self upon the Bishop of Rome; but it may be considered, how much this Emperours interest, and that of the Church and See of Rome, were at this time linked together. For his possession of the Empire, much depend­ed on the Popes authority; for Mar. Po­lon in Oth. p. 394, 395. Ur­sperg. p. 326, 327. Ave. t [...]. Ann. Boio. [...], p. 519. Innocent the Third, ha­ving excommunicated and deposed Otho the Emperour, some of the Princes fix their thoughts upon Frederick, to advance him to the Empire; and the Pope closeth with [Page 145]this design, and encourageth both him and them. And therefore this clause, concerning the advancing the interest of the Church, and the forfeiture of Sovereign Dominion (of what force or validity soever it be) both tended to assert Fredericks own right, and jointly to gratifie the Romish See. And this Law was confirmed by him, in compliance with the Pope Constit. Fred. in Praef. on that very day, in which he received his Imperial Diadem, from Honorius the Third, who suc­ceeded Innocentius. And this Law was highly applauded by Honorius, and ratified ibid. in fin. by him with a severe Curse, against them who should act any thing against it, and was again confirmed by Boniface the Eighth, and seems to be framed by the Popes order, from this clause in the Preface, Cum nihil velit Ecclesia quod nobis eâdem non placeat vo­luntate.

6. And yet if this were true, that the Doctrine of their Church gives the Pope power of disposing, only, Emperours and Kings must be submissive to the Pope. of such Principalities which belong to inferiour and dependent Lords; this would afford but little security to the greatest Princes, if the Romish Bishop be still allowed to judge in this case. For the most imperious Popes have oft very plainly declared the Secular authority of the highest Prin­ces, to be derived from them, and to depend upon them. And the collection of Sacred Ceremonies, contains such things concerning Emperours and Kings, as when occasion serves, may be made use of to infer subjection and depen­dance. Thus we are told Sacr. Cerem. l. 1. Sect. 5. c. 1. that the elected Em­perour must implore the favour of the Apostolical See, and offer himself, ad quaecunque fidelitatis juramenta Roma­nae Ecclesiae praestanda, to take any Oaths of Fealty to the Church of Rome: and must humbly desire Unction, Consecration, and the Imperial Diadem. And the Pope after examina­tion of the Election, and considering the fitness of the Per­son, doth grant him his grace and favour, and doth eum nominare, denunciare, assumere & declarare Regem Romano­rum, Nominate, authoritatively pronounce, receive and de­clare him to be King of the Romans, and to be fit and suffici­ent [Page 146]to receive the Imperial Dignity. And in this manner it is there said, that divers Emperours have addressed them­selves to the Pope, some of which are there particularly na­med. And if any King shall come to Rome, l. 1. Sect. [...]3. c. 2. f. 132. after the first day of his being there, he is to carry the Popes train, and to pour out water for his hands, and to carry up the first Dish to his Table, and serve the first Cup in other Collati­ons: which things, with others mentioned in the same Book, carry in them fair appearances of doing homage. And some of the Romish Bishops, which have somewhat more than others, complemented Secular Authority, in some of their notions, have yet in their practice acted as much a­gainst them, as any others. So did Innocent the Third, who acknowledged, Decretal. l. 4. Tit. 17. c. 13 Pervene­gabil [...]m. Rex superiorem in temporalibus minime recognoscit, that a King is to own no Superiour in temporals; and therefore speaking of his own Authority, besides what he had within the Patrimony of the Church, he saith, In other Regions, upon the inspection into some cer­tain causes, temporalem jurisdictionem casualiter exercemus, we casually exercise temporal jurisdiction. And yet this is he, who declared that Canon above mentioned, in the Council of Lateran; and practised the power of deposing, in Germany, and in other places, even in England against King John.

7. Papal claims have been mis­chievous: Concerning this claim of Papal Soveraignty, and the deposing power, I shall observe three things. First, That it hath been very mischievous to the Christian World, and hath been the cause of many Wars and intestine broils, espe­cially in Germany and Italy: and hence hath proceeded ve­ry much blood-shed, and very many rebellions. When Mar. Pol. in Hen. p. 358. Gregory the Seventh, and then Ursperg. ad an. 1102. Ʋrbane the Second, and Paschalis the Second, had undertaken to excommunicate Henry the Fourth the Emperour, and to depose him, and declare against his Subjects paying him any allegeance, first Rodolphus of Saxony was set up against him, who pe­rished in his undertaking: after which Henry the Fifth [Page 147]his own Son, engages in that U [...]sp. p. 257, 261. Parricidale bellum, as Ʋrsper­gensis calls it, to fight against his own Father and Soveraign. And in the time of divers succeeding Emperours, there were frequent deposings, and thereupon Civil Wars, and almost continual broils; hence arose the long remain­ing high animosities, and fierce contests, in Italy, and some adjacent parts of the Empire, between the faction of the Guelphs, who adhered to the Pope; and the Gibelines, who closed with the Emperour. In this period of time, for many ages, sometimes the Emperour, and sometimes the Pope, were taken Prisoners, or forced to escape by flight, and reduced to great extremities; and the Coun­tries in the mean time were miserably harrassed, which were the Seat of these Wars. And in these, foreign Prin­ces were frequently engaged, some on the one side, and some on the other, even so far, as sometimes to take in, both the English and French. The particulars of these things, or the effects of the like proceedings in some other Kingdoms, would be too large to be here inserted. And besides these things, divers secret Conspiracies, of Subjects, against the lives of their Princes, have been the effect of these Romish Principles, in contradiction to that honour and reverence, which Christianity requireth to be given to them. Nor have such evil attempts been made, only, up­on the lives of Protestant Princes, but of such also, who have adhered to the Romish profession, both before and since the Reformation.

8. But I shall here take notice, that even those persons who were set up, in prosecuting this deposing power, the promoters of them have smarted by them. where it did take effect (as very often even before the Reforma­tion it was of no force) besides other troubles, they were engaged in, they oft fell themselves, under the like Sen­tence of the Bishop of Rome, and sometimes into great cala­mities thereby. Here I might instance, in those two I lately mentioned. The Emperour Henry the Fifth, who rose up against his Father (against whom the Bishop of Rome had declared his Sentence of deposition did prevail a­gainst [Page 148]him, and took him Prisoner; but behaved himself very unworthily towards him, and kept him in Prison till he died, and Reigned after him. But he himself fell under the sentence of Paschalis the Second, and was involved in War thereby, but he overcame the Pope, and took him prisoner: But he died Childless, having no Issue to succeed him in the Empire, which was then Hereditary; M. Pol. p. 367, 368. and this was by many in that age, accounted Gods just judge­ment upon him, who had acted so unchristianly and undu­tifully against his Father. And after his death the Empire came to the Saxon line.

9. But I shall particularly take notice of Frederick the Second, who was substituted Emperour, in the place of O­tho, who was deposed. He made many Laws in favour of the Church, and encreased its wealth and revenue, and was, Avent. l. 7. p. 525, 535. Nic. de Cusa. as Historians relate concerning him, an excellent, most wise and flourishing Prince. Yet he was both excom­municated and M. Pol. in Honor. & in Fred. deposed, by Honorius who had Crown­ed him. And this Sentence was again renewed by Gregory the Ninth, who succeeded Honorius, in three several Bulls of deposition: Avent. P. 537, 538. In the first of these, in the courtship of Rome, he declared the Emperour to be a Beast, and in the last of them to be an Heretick: but whatever great words were used, Chron. Ursperg. p. 337. Ʋrspergensis, who was an Abbot at that very time, declared that it was, pro frivolis causis & falsis, upon trifling and untrue grounds and occasions. And against this Frederick did Innocent the Fourth erect the Banner of the Cross as against the Turk, and denounce the Sentence of deposition in the Council of Lions, to the astonishing ter­ror of them who heard it. Amidst these Circumstances, his own Son Henry, whom he had designed his Successor, and had declared him so, rose up in rebellion against his Father, and being condemned of parricide, by Avent. p. 533. the Sentence of seventy Princes, was imprisoned, and not long after died in Sicily. And when Frederick had encountred with various difficulties, after his flight into M. Pol. p. 399. in Fred. Apulia, he there died in distress and misery. And this was the [Page 149] kind requital he met with, for his affection to the Pope, and interesting himself in his quarrel, against the preceding Emperour.

10. Secondly, I observe that the pretended pleas for this Papal power, are very vain. Many of these, and the most considerable I have examined Christ. Loyalty, B. 1. ch. 6. & B. 2. ch. 1. Sect. 1. Observ. 2. The vain pleas for Papal pow­er. otherwhere. But here I shall take notice of some things, urged by Innocent the Third, in a decretal Epistle, which hath been confirmed by Gregory the Ninth, and other Romish Bishops since. And it is strange to see, how extravagantly impertinent these proofs are. For an evidence of the Popes chief decisive power, in the highest matters of right, he reserreth to Deut. 17.8, 9, 10, 11, 12. If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgement,— thou shalt get thee to the place, which the Lord thy God shall chuse. And thou shalt come unto the Priests the Levites, and unto the Judge,—And thou shalt do accord­ing to the Sentence, which they of that place shall shew thee. And then he tells us, 3. Decre­tal. l. 4. Tit. 17. c. 13. quia Deuteronomium lex secunda interpretetur, that because the word Deuteronomy, signifieth a Second Law, it is thence proved, that what is there de­termined, must be observed in the time of the New Testa­ment; and the Apostolical See, is the place which God chùseth. Now the proof is much alike, that Rome is the place which God chuseth under the New Testament; What is urged by Innocenti­us the Third, hath no infal­lible evidence. as he chose Jerusalem under a great part of the Old Testa­ment; and that all that is in the Book of Deuteronomy, con­tinues established under the Gospel. And it may be won­dered, that such a thing should be affirmed, if it were not to impose on others; when the Book of Deuteronomy con­tains many things, concerning the Aaronical Sacrifices, and other Jewish Feasts: and in that, is that particular per­mission of divorce, which our Saviour will not allow of under the Gospel. Deut. 24.1. Mat. 19.8, 9. and a repetition of many Mosaical Laws, whence it was called by the Greek Translators Deuteronomy.

11. In the same Epistle, as a proof of this plenary and supreme power seated in the Pope, he produceth what S. Paul writeth to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 6.3. and tells us that Paul, that he might expound the plenitude of power, writing to the Corinthians, saith, Nescitis quoniam Angelos ju­dicabitis, quanto magis secularia? Know ye not that ye shall judge Angels, how much more the things of this life, or things secular? But what the Apostle wrote in that Epistle to the Corinthians, bid directly concern the Church of Corinth. And therefore if he had discoursed of a plenitude of power, (or the highest universal Authority over all the parts of the World, or the Church) as he did not, it would appear from this place, to be as much, if not more fixed in S. Paul, and the Church of Corinth, as any where else; and it must needs be hard to prove, that S. Paul in these words, declared a plenitude of power in the Bishop of Rome, both over Corinth and all the World, when he said, Know ye not that we shall judge, &c.

12. What light the two great Lu­minaries give to the Popes power. But that proof which passeth all the rest, which is urged in the same decretal Epistle, is, from Gods making two great Luminaries, the greater to rule the day, and the lesser to rule the night; from whence it is there inferred, that the power of the Bishop of Rome, is as much above all Secular power, as the Sun is above the Moon. And it may be also hence collected, that the Imperial power is derived from the Papal, as was declared hence by v. Addit. ad P [...]de Marc. de Couc. S. & s [...]p. l. 2. c. 3. Boniface the Eighth. Now from hence it may appear, that a pretended testimony from the first Chapter of Genesis, may be as effectual (though it be nothing to the purpose) as if it had been taken out of the Book of Deuteronomy. And this is such a wonderful Argument, that so far as the strength of it will reach, it will not only prove the highest power of the Bishop of Rome, to be ordained of God, before the coming uf Christ, and even before any promise made con­cerning the Messias, and before the fall of man, but that this was established before Adam was created, and was one of the principal things done in the framing and making of [Page 151]the World. And therefore if this authority be rightly ap­plied, it is indeed an early testimony of the greatest anti­quity of this power in the Church of Rome, and deriveth its original much higher, than most men have been aware of, and it confutes the great mistake of those Novelists, who pretend it to be founded in any eminency of authority, conveyed unto S. Peter, when it was so clearly ingraved upon the brightness of the Sun beams (but not to be seen by mens eyes) in the first springing forth of their light.

13. Such things as these are so trifling and frivolous, that they deserve not any serious consideration or answer. And it can scarce be imagined, that they who laid down these testimonies, as a foundation to support the Papal pow­er, could have any other design, than to delude, and im­pose upon the great ignorance of the World. And if it be a wicked and abominable thing, for any private man to forge an evidence for an Estate, or to counterfeit the Kings broad Seal, to serve his interest; it is far worse to design to deal falsly in that which hath respect to the authority of the sacred Majesty of God, and to the greatest rights of men, and the publick interest and peace of the World. And I think no men ever spake more wildly about these things, than the Popes themselves have done, the extravagancy of their pleas, bearing an equal proportion to that of their claims.

14. Thirdly, I observe, Observ. 3. The high Papal power was un­known to the ancient Ro­man Bishops; that the pretence of this high Papal power, which for some hundred years hath been of ill consequence to Christian Kingdoms, hath this manifest mark of an encroachment, usurpation and innovation, in that the more ancient Bishops of Rome, never knew any thing thereof, but did profess, and own their subjection to Empe­rours, and their Authority. The testimonies of divers of them have been to this purpose produced by Protestant Writers: And it may be sufficient here to note, that I have Christ. loyalty, B. 1. ch. 5. Sect. 3. To Leo the Great, in another place shewed, that Leo the Great sub­missively [Page 152]owned his subjection to the Imperial Authority, and that with respect to the external administration of mat­ters Ecclesiastical. And it is manifest, from the Writings of Gregory the Great, that he both submissively behaved him­self towards Mauritius the Emperour, as a subject towards his Sovereign Lord, and that he thought he ought so to do. When Mauritius declared his desire, that there might be a good accord between S. Gregory, and John Patriarch of Constantinople, Gr. Ep. l. 4. Ep. 76. Gregory writes to Mauritius giving him the title of Dominus noster à Deo constitutus, his Lord whom God had constituted, and owns himself to be his Servant, (and such language is very frequent in his Epistles) and lets the Emperour know, that in that matter, in which the cause of God was also concerned, he would do what on his part could be done, To Gregory the Great, Dominorum jussionibus obedientiam praebens, yielding obedience to the commands of his Lord; and in this case he saith, Serenissimis jussionibus obedientiam prae­beo. Which words shew sufficiently, that he claimed not any Sovereignty over the Emperour, but acknowledged his owing subjection to him. And when Mauritius had made a Law, that no person in any publick Secular Office, should be received into Ecclesiastical Orders, and that no Souldiers might be admitted into Monasteries, Gregory writes a Letter to the Emperour concerning this Law, ex­pressing his good liking and approbation of the former part, but with much Gr. Ep. l. a. Ep. 100. earnestness declaring his dislike of the latter part, as being contrary to God and Religion. And in the close of that Epistle, he acquaints the Empe­rour, that in subjection to his commands, he had caused that Law to be transmitted to several parts of the Empire, but yet had plainly written to him how much it was against God. And then adds, utrobique ergo quod debui exolvi, qui & Im­peratori obedientiam praebui, & pro Deo quod sensi minime ta­cui; On both hands therefore I have performed what I ought, I have yielded obedience to the Emperour, and I have not forborn to speak what was my judgement on the behalf of God. And in this Epistle also (and in others frequently) [Page 153]he owns Mauritius to be his Lord, and himself to be his Servant. And the usual subterfuge of Romish Writers, that what the Popes have spoken in such a respect to Em­perours, was from humility, and gracious condescension on­ly, can have no place here. For he went as far as any Sub­ject in his capacity might do, in what he was perswaded was unlawful; and further than he might do, who was no Subject. In humility he might dispense with his own right, but not with what concerns God and Religion.

15. These things do so plainly shew, that those ancient Bishops acknowledged the Emperour to be their Superi­our, even in constituting Laws, and doing other acts, which had respect to the state of Religion, that I think it unnecessary to add other instances, which might be gi­ven for many Centuries. The known expression of Otho Frisingensis declares Gregory the Seventh, to be the first of the Roman Bishops who usurped the deposing power. But Conradus Ursp. p. 336. Ʋrspergensis differing herein from Otho, whom he mentions, seems to fix the first Original of these Papal proceedings upon Gregory the Third, who above se­ven hundred years after Christ, in the contest concerning Images (where it might have been expected that he who was so earnest for the adoration of Images, should have high­ly honoured the Emperour, who bare the impress of Divine authority) did ibid. p. 286. forbid Italy to pay any tribute to Leo Isaurus the Emperour, and deprived him of his rights there. But it is manifest that all the Roman Bishops who succeeded him, were not of the like spirit and temper. Above an hundred years after him, Leo the Fourth Gratian. Dist. 10. de capitulis. and to Leo the Fourth. assures Lotharius the Emperour, that he would as much as he was able, irrefragably keep and observe his imperial pre­cepts, and that they were lyars who should suggest the contrary concerning him; and c. 2. qu. 7. Nos si incom­petenter. he likewise submits his actions, to be examined by the Emperour, or such as he should commissionate, and to be corrected or amended, if he had done amiss, and not kept to the right rule of the Law.

16. But the main hurt of this pretended Papal power, so much contended for at Rome, is not only the disturbing peace, Such Princi­ples of Rebelli­on lead men to damnation. fomenting Wars, and unjust invading the right of Princes: but besides the ambition therein contained; by stirring up Subjects in rebellion against their Soveraigns, it puts them according to S. Paul's Doctrine into a state of damnation, Rom. 13.2. And such rebellious practices are the more promoted, by those frantick principles, of many of the Church of Rome, which have spread themselves also amongst other Sects, which give liberty to Subjects (without respect to the Popes Sentence) to take away the lives of Princes. It is too clear to be denied, that such Po­sitions are maintained by divers of the Jesuits, and it must be granted also, that there is truth in what some of the Je­suits have observed, that the like was asserted by other Writers in the Church of Rome, before the first institution of that Order.

17. The Pope's u­surped claim o­ver other Churches and Bishops There is also great disorder and evil, unduly occa­sioned in the Church, by the claim the Roman See pretends to, over all other Bishops and Churches. To this authority she hath no just title; but the exercise of this power did ob­tain and prevail in many Churches, by various methods and degrees of encroachment. And by this means both rights and also purity and due order are jointly violated. Hence this Church obtrudes on others, her pernicious Do­ctrines and practices, under a pretence of authority. And by the same means, it hinders the necessary reformation of great and spreading corruptions, and thunders out Censures against such Churches as reform themselves according to Primitive and Apostolical rules.

18. Now such an Authority over all other Bishops and Churches, could never be founded in any actual possession, or in any human or Ecclesiastical constitution, of what na­ture soever. For an incroaching authority is void, by the ancient Canons, especially that of Ephesus, and being an unjust possession, ought to return to him, who hath the true right. And where there hath been any consent given [Page 155]to an unjust claim, by misunderstanding, or upon any o­ther account; or where any other act whatsoever hath been done by Princes, falsty pretend­ed to be of Di­vine Authori­ty: or by Bishops in any part of the Church, to yield or convey any Superiour Authority to the Roman Bishop, they cannot by any act of their own ex­clude themselves and their Successors from the obligation, to perform their duty, in duly guiding, governing and re­forming their people. And therefore so far as the authori­ty, which Princes and Bishops have received from God and Christ, doth oblige them to the performance of this work, no pretended power of the Bishop of Rome, nor any act done by any others, or even by themselves, can set them free from it. But this universal Superiority is claimed by the Pope, as not derived from any human Constitution, but from the authority of Christ. To which purpose the Cate­chism according to the Decree of the Council of Trent declares, That the Catholick Church Catech. ad Paroch. c. de Ordinis Sacramento. Summum in eo dignitatis gradum, & jurisdictionis amplitudinem; non qui­dem ullis Synodicis aut aliis humanis constitutionibus, sed di­vinitus datam agnoscit: quamobrem omnium fidelium, & epis­coporum, caeterorumque antistitum, quocunque illi munere, & potestate praediti sint, pater, ac moderator, universali Ecclesiae, ut Petri Successor, Christique Domini verus & legitimus vi­carius praesidet; doth acknowledge in him (the Pope) the highest degree of dignity and amplitude of Jurisdiction, not gi­ven him by any Synodical, or other human Constitutions, but by Divine Authority: wherefore he the Father and Gover­nour of all the Faithful, and of the Bishops, and the rest who are in chief Authority, whatsoever Office or Power they are in­dued with; doth preside over the the Ʋniversal Church, as the Successor of Peter, and the true and lawful Vicar of Christ the Lord.

19. But notwithstanding this great noise, it was un­known to the ancient Church; no such Di­vine institution hath been or can be produced; and pasce oves, and tu es Petrus have been oft scanned, and no such thing can be found in them. And it is considerable, that the ancient Bishops of Rome owned not, nor claimed any [Page 156]such Authority, nor was any such given to them, by the Primitive Church. To this purpose it may be observed from Epiph. Her. 42. Epiphanius, that when Marcion being excommunica­ted by his own Father a pious Bishop, for his debauchery, went to Rome, and desired there to be received into Com­munion, he was told there, by those Elders yet alive who were the Disciples of the Apostles, that they could not receive him without the permission of his Reverend Father: there be­ing one Faith, and one Concord, they could not act contrary to their Fellow Ministers. And this was agreeable to the Rules and Canons of the ancient Church, whereby it was ordain­ed. Can. Ap. 12. that if any excommunicate person should be re­ceived in another City, whither he should come, not ha­ving commendatory Letters, he who received him, should be himself also under excommunication. And the novel Romish Notion, of all other Bishops so depending on the Roman, as to derive their power and authority from him, is so con­trary to the sense of the ancient Church, that Hieron. Ep. ad Eva­grium. S. Hie­rome declares ubicunque fuerit Episcopus, five Romae, five Eu­gubii—ejusdem meriti, ejusdem est & sacerdotii—omnes Apostolorum successores sunt; wheresoever there was a Bishop; whether at Rome or at Gubio— he is of the same worth, and the same Priesthood,—they are all Successors of the Apo­stles.

20. and prejudici­al to other Churches, and to Religion it self. However the Romish Church upon this encroach­ment and false pretence, claims a power to receive appeals from any other Churches. And this oft proves a great obstacle to the Government, and discipline of those Church­es; and an heavy and burdensome molestation to particu­lar persons, by chargeable tedious and dilatory prosecuti­ons: and is a method also of exhausting the treasures of o­ther Churches and Kingdoms, to gratifie ambitious avarice. But even the c. 6. qu. 3. scitote. Canon Law declares the great reasonable­ness, that every Province, where there is ten or eleven Cities, and a King, should have a Metropolitan and other Bishops, and that all causes should be judged and determined by them a­mong themselves; and that no Province ought to be so [Page 157]much debased and degraded, as to be deprived of such a Judi­cature. Indeed the Canon Law doth here for the sake of the Roman See, exempt such cases from this judgement, where those who are to be judged enter an appeal, which is much different from the appeal the ancient Church allowed Conc. Constant. c. 6. to a more General Council after the insufficient hear­ing of a Provincial one. But in truth this right of order­ing and judging what is fit in every Province, is not only the right of that particular Church, or Country or Kingdom; but where they proceed according to truth and goodness, it is the right of God, and the Christian Religion, which is above all contrary authority of any other, and ought not to be violated thereby. And appeals from hence Cod. ean. Eccl. Afr. c. 28. The Roma­nists Schisma­tical. even to Rome were anciently prohibited in Africa.

21. And the Schismatical uncharitableness of them at Rome, towards other Churches, deserves here to be men­tioned. This widens divisions and discords, and perpetu­ates them by declaring an irreconcileable opposition to peace and truth. They excommunicate them as Hereticks, who discerning their right, and their duty, will not submit themselves to their usurpations, and embrace their errors, and to them they hereupon deny the hopes of Salvation. Thus they deal with them, who stedfastly hold to the Ca­tholick faith, and to all the holy rules of the Christian life and practice, delivered by the Apostles, and received by the Primitive Church; and who also embrace that Ca­tholick charity and Unity, that they own Communion with all the true and regular members of the Christian Church; and would with as much joy, communicate with the Roman Church her self, if she would make her Wor­ship and Communion, and the terms of it free from sin, as the Father in the Gospel embraced his returning Son. But this is the crime of such Churches, that while they hold fast the Apostolical Faith and Order, they reject the novel additional doctrines, introduced by the Church of Rome, and they submit not to her usurped authority, in not doing [Page 158]what in duty to God they ought to do, in imbracing the right wayes of truth.

22. Their unjust excommunications hurt not others, But the excommunicating such persons and Churches, doth no hurt to them, who undeservedly lie under this unjust censure, but the effect of the censure may fall on them who thus excommunicate. For they who reject the Commu­nion of them, who are true and orderly Members of the Church Catholick, do divide themselves from that Com­munion. To this sense is that received rule, c. 24. qu. 3. c. si habes; &c. certum. illicita excommunicatio non laedit eum qui notatur, sed eum à quo no­tatur: and this was declared by in Balsa­mon. p. 1096. Nicon, to be agreeable to the Canons. And the excellency and power of the true Catholick Doctrine, and the purity thereof, is so much to be preferred, before the authority of any persons whom­soever who oppose it, that that which the ancient Canons Conc. Sardic. c. 17. established was very fit and just, that if any Bishops (and consequently any other persons) were ejected from their own Churches, or suffered any censures unjustly, for their ad­hering to the Catholick Faith and profession, they ought still to be received in other Churches and Cities, with kindness and love. And whereas there were Canons of the Church, which allowed not Bishops to reside in other Churches and Dioceses; these Fathers at Sardica dispense with that Rule, in such a case as this, and thereby declare their fense to be, That the observation of Canonical establishments, must give place, where the higher duties of respect to the Christian Faith and Charity were concerned.

23. but only them­selves. When the Scribes and Pharisees condemned the Do­ctrine of Christ and his Apostles for Heresie, and cast them, who received it, out of the Church; the Christians were nevertheless the true members of the Church, but they who rejected them were not so. And when the Donatists would allow none but their own party to belong to the Church, they thereby cast themselves out of the Catholick Communion, as Schismaticks. And when they at Rome so far follow their steps, as to confine the Christian Communion to themselves; or to a particular Church, espe­cially [Page 159]such an one, as so greatly swerves from the truth and purity of the Christian Religion; Sect. II. this is in effect to deny that Article of our Creed, concerning the Holy Catholick Church. And since Charity and Ʋnity are of so great con­cernment in Christianity, on that account also they are none of the best members of the Church, who are so far from them, as all of the Romish Communion are obliged to be; and are thereby guilty of heinous sin, and of that which is greatly scandalous to Christianity.

SECT. II.
The Doctrines maintained in the Church of Rome, and the Constitutions therein established, are great hindrances to ho­liness of life, and true devotion in Religion, and comply very far with Wickedness and Debauchery.

1. I Shall now come to consider, that there are such do­ctrines asserted by the Church of Rome, and such pra­ctices established therein, as are plain obstacles and hin­drances to a holy life. Holiness and purity are suitable to the nature of God, and agreeable to the end of Christ's co­ming into the World, to redeem us from all iniquity, and to purifie to himself a peculiar people zealous of good works, Obstacles in the Roman Church to an holy life, Tit. 2.14. This is a compliance with his Gospel, which is a doctrine according to Godliness, and his Church which he founded, is an holy Catholick Church. And therefore no­thing can be of God and Christ, which is not agreeable to true goodness and piety, but that must be contrary to God and Christianity, which is opposite to holiness and a god­ly life. But that the Church of Rome doth declare such Doctrines, as undermine piety and holiness, and establishes [Page 160]such constitutions and practices, as are highly prejudicial thereunto, I shall manifest by some particular instances.

And here I shall consider,

2. 1. In their Doctrine of Attrition and Absolution: First, Their Doctrine of Absolution. This is such that it sooths men in their sins, and thereby takes away the weighty Motive and Argument to holiness of life, which is from the necessity thereof, to avoid the wrath of God, and endless perdition, and to obtain the favour of God and ever­lasting salvation. For this Church and the Writers there­of, do generally teach that attrition though without con­trition, is a sufficient disposition or qualification for the re­ceiving Priestly absolution, and that persons so qualifi­ed, and thereupon absolved, are in a safe state, as to the avoiding eternal damnation, and the future enterance into everlasting happiness. Now contrition includes a grief for, and hatred of sin, as it is an offence of God, with a purpose and resolution not to go on in the practice of evil, and this is conjoined with a chief love to God. But attrition is a grief for sin, in such a manner that it is not produced from, nor containeth in it the chief love of God and goodness. And when divers wayes are either asserted, or disputed of by many Casuists, concerning the difference between Attri­tion and Contrition, Mart. Becanus speaks with much plainness, and I think with truth, when he tells us Part. 3. Tr. 2. c. 35. Qu. 1. that contrition includes aversion from sin, and conversion to God, which is in loving him above all; and that this principle of the love of God (which includes consequently hatred of sin, and turning from it) is that thing in which contrition es­sentially differs from attrition, and that all other differen­ces or wayes of distinguishing them are either to be reje­cted as false, or may be spared as being of little or no use.

3. Now some Writers of the Romish Communion, espe­cially in former Ages, have been of opinion, that contrition is necessary to justification. But this assertion is declared by Tom. 4. Disp. 3. Qu. 8. Punct. 3. Gr. de Valentia, to be sententia his presertim temporibus [Page 161]vix tolerabilis, such an one as especially in these times is scarce fit to be tolerated And he calls the other the com­mon opinion. This Bell. de poenit. l. 2. c. 18. Bellarmine takes for granted and Becanus declares ubi sup. Qu. 6. omnes fatentur contritionem non esse ne­cessariam in Sacramento Poenitentiae, that all acknowledge that Contrition is not necessary in the Sacrament of Penance. And these Writers, and many others, affirm the Council of Trent to have declared thus much. And that Council plainly enough determines, that Contrition Sess. 13 de poenitentia cap. 4. is a grief of mind for sin already committed, with a purpose to do so no more; and that this which encludes a hatred of the past evil life, and the beginning of a new life, when it hath Charity joined with it, doth reconcile man to God before the actual re­ceiving the Sacrament of Penance, if there be a desire to par­take thereof. But then it adds, concerning another sort of sorrow, from the foulness of the sin or the fear of punishment, ex peccati turpitudine, vel ex supplicii metu, and of this that Council determines, that it cannot bring a sinner to justifi­cation, without the Sacrament of Penance, but it doth dispose him to obtain the favour of God in the Sacrament of Penance. A bad life en­couraged here­by. Now the result of all this according to the plainest sense their own Authours give, is, that if a wicked man ready to go out of the world, shall be troubled when he appre­hends the foulness of his sins, lest he should go to Hell, which is attrition, and shall then send to the Priest and re­ceive Absolution; this man though his beart be not turned from sin to God, and to a love of him, and of goodness, will according to this loose Doctrine, go out of the world in the favour of God and in a justified state. And thus much is pre­tended to be effected, by vertue of the Sacrament of Pe­nance and Priestly Absolution.

4. Now it is to be acknowledged, that the true Ministe­rial Absolution is very profitable (being in an eminent man­ner contained in dispensing the holy Sacraments) and is of much greater weight than many men account it to be, to them that believe and truly repent, or to them who sin­cerely perform the conditions of the Gospel Covenant: but [Page 162]no pretence of Absolution must be admitted, to make void these conditions. And it may be granted, that in the Ro­man Church, in some Societies, there are rules of severity directed to them who are disposed to seriousness: but this their Doctrine of Absolution takes off all necessity of observ­ing any such rules, (or any vows whereby they obliged themselves to any duties or exercises of perfection) so far as concerns the fear of God, as to the interest of an eternal state. And this Doctrine opens a gap, to all licentiousness of life, contrary to the rules of Christianity, and all good con­science; by the security it pretends to give of eternal happi­ness to wicked and debauched men, who amend not their lives, nor forsake their sins. If this be truth, then are all the promises and threatnings of the Gospel made void; as they are Motives to the necessary duties of holiness and piety.

5. Holiness of Christianity undermined hereby. By such arts as this, all the great precepts of Religion are made of none effect, in order to salvation. For if a­gainst this impure Doctrine, all those Texts of Scripture be urged, which require the wicked man to repent, and turn from all his iniquities that he may live, and other such like; we are told by Gr. de Valent. ubi sup. Gr. de Valentia, that this is the general rule, extra sacramentum neminem posse justificari sine contriti­one, that excepting the use of the Sacrament; none can be justi­fied without contrition. But then he tells us, casus quo Sa­cramentum poenitentiae usurpaetur, plane ab illa lege universali exceptus est, that case in which the Sacrament of Penance is u­sed, is clearly excepted from that universal Law. And this exception, he sayes, is made in Christs instituting the power of the Keys, and of remitting and retaining sins. As if the power of the keys, and the ministerial Authority, (which rightly understood is great and excellent, though it be grossly perverted and abused by the Romanists, and sleight­ed and undervalued by others) was an underhand contri­vance, to frustrate and defeat all the great precepts of God, and the Laws of Christianity. And these precepts are so far made void thereby, that Melch. Can. Relect. 4. de Poenit. Canus confidently affirms, [Page 163]that he who with attrition receives the Sacrament of Pe­nance, is not only in a safe state, but doth as much as the precepts of God require from him. Whereas (saith he) Baptism and the Sacrament of Absolution, confer grace to him that is attrite, and these two Sacraments were directly instituted for the remission of all sins; qui suscipit alterum ex his sive con­tritus sive attritus, vere implet praeceptum de poenitentia, quo­niam Deus nihil amplius exigit in compensationem delicti com­missi, quam vel contritionem sine sacramento, vel attritio­nem cum sacramento; He who receives either of these, either with Contrition or with Attrition, doth really fulfil the precept of Repentance; because God doth require nothing further, in compensation for the fault committed, than either Contrition without the Sacrament, or Attrition with the Sacrament. And thus the illustrious and substantial precepts of purity, and newness of life, are by these men made to dwindle into the shades of darkness.

6 And as this Doctrine of Attrition is improved by them, it tends to eat out all true devotion: This renders pious devotion unnecessary. since we are told by the Romish Casuists, and Controversial Writers, that this disposition is sufficient for performing the highest acts of Religion, even the receiving the holy Eucharist. In­deed they ordinarily grant, that the precept of Contrition be­ing an affirmative precept, doth oblige at some special times; though they are very sparing in fixing these times: but many particularly mention the case of being in danger of death, and some add the receiving or dispensing a Sacra­ment, which ought to be handled reverently, and some may assign some other special cases. But others can tell us, how that which is thus granted in words, shall contain nothing of reality under it. For if the Question be propo­sed, whether when the precept of Contrition doth bind, Attriti­on with the Sacrament of Penance be not still in that case suffi­cient; (h) Becanus declares, M. Bec. ubi sup. Qu. 7. that though some be of the other opinion, they are most in the right who affirm this: because the precept of Contrition is obligatory, only on them who have mortal sin, and therefore if a man may be [Page 164]freed from mortal sin by Attrition, non amplius obligatur praecepto contritionis, he is no further bound by the precept of Contrition. Such strange methods are made use of to eva­cuate the Divine precepts. And they tell us that Attrition with Absolution makes up Contrition.

7. Hereby sinners are deluded by false hopes. By these artifices repentance is misrepresented, as if it could be sufficiently performed without amendment of life; and the way to Heaven is so described, as to be so far from requiring a patient continuance in well doing, that there is no necessity of well doing at all. This is to encourage men in such a wicked and evil life, against which Christ the righteous judge, will pronounce an heavy Sentence. And thus they deal with the souls of men, as a flattering Moun­tebank may do with the Body, if he should pretend, that he can cure the most dangerous diseases, without carrying off the matter and cause of the distemper, and without his Patient's taking so much care, as to observe the rules of tem­perance and sobriety: but that man who is wise will not give heed to such deceitful boastings, nor venture his life upon confidence of the truth of them, when there are other rules and directions to be observed for his cure, from whence he may rationally and upon sure grounds expect a good effect. These Pontifician devices carry in them a perfect estrangement from the true Christian rules; and since Christianity consists in life and practice, more than in words and profession; that man who practiseth on this Doctrine, may be a Papist, and do all that the Church of Rome requireth; but he cannot be a true Christian, to do all that the Gospel of our Saviour makes necessary to salvation.

8. I confess a bad man according to the Romish Doctrine will fail of salvation; if he miss the opportunity, or neglect the care of Absolution. But wicked men who hazard their fouls and eternal happiness, that they may gratifie their lusts, where they have no encouragements of hope propo­sed to them, will much more do so where they have such great encouragements. And according to this Doctrine, this hazard doth not seem exceeding great, when they may [Page 165] frequently confess and be absolved, and especially after they have committed any mortal sin, and thereby set all things again even and strait, between God and themselves, so far as concerns their being in a justified state. And what may be pretended to remain as an obligation upon them to bear temporal pains and satisfactions, this also may be v. Sect. 9. n. 14, &c. other­wise provided for.

9. And we may further consider, how little goes to the making up of Contrition according to the Romish Casuists, Of Contrition. or such a repentance as availeth to justification, without the Sacrament of Penance. Of this I shall give an account from Father Theol. Mor. l. 5. Tract. 6. c. 4. n. 1. Layman. He declares that the substance of Contrition consists in detesting sin above all evil: but ib. n. 2. any continuance of time is not necessary to that contrition, by which a sinner is justified, but one simple act of grief is suffi­cient: and it is most probable, that without calling his sins to remembrance he may be perfectly converted, and justified by contrition, temporis momento, in a moment of time. And he farther saith ib. n. 3. that any express purpose, of keep­ing Gods Commands, or abstaining from sin is not necessary, further than it is vertually included in an act of detestation of sin, in which he hath no thought of his future course of life. But this notion of Contrition I shall not pursue; nor yet those others in their Casuistical Writers, whereby they very rarely allow such affirmative precepts, as that great one of loving God, to oblige us to exercise any act of love to him: which is much consequent upon their usual assertions concerning Attrition. For my intention is to wave many things declared by considerable Doctors, and mainly to insist on those, which have the publick allowance and establishment of the Church.

10. Secondly, Another obstacle to a pious life, 2. Of their prohibiting the common use of the Scriptures. which I shall consider is, the debarring the people of the best guide and help to piety, which is the use of the Holy Scriptures. The Divine Scriptures are by the Fathers oft called the Let­ters, and Messages which God sends to men, to invite them [Page 166]to him, and guide them in their way: and then surely they to whom, and for whom they are sent, ought to know and read them, both out of Reverence to God, and out of respect to themselves. de Tem­pore Serm. 112. S. Austin observes this double benefit in reading the holy Scriptures, that they teach us knowledge, and right understanding, and that they carry men off from the vanities of the world, unto the love of God; and observes how greatly efficacious they are, to the pro­moting piety in very great numbers, and that they were de­signed for our Salvation.

11. The Scriptures greatly pro­mote piety. These Scriptures were written by the inspiration of God, and contain the sure rule for Faith and Life, and were so accounted of in the ancient Church. Herein is compri­zed the Will and Counsel of God, declared by the Holy Ghost himself. And the precepts and holy rules there pro­posed, the promises declared, the threatnings denounced, the judgements executed on the disobedient, and the blessings bestowed on the obedient, are great incitements to piety; and are of the greater force and weight, as they are con­tained in the Scriptures, because the Divine Authority goes along with every one of them. And the end for which they were written, is for our learning, that we through pati­ence and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope, Rom. 15.4. And the punishments there recorded, which were in­flicted on evil doers, were for ensamples, and written for our admonition, 1 Cor. 10.11. These holy Books, the Primitive Christians were not denied the use of, and they so highly esteemed this priviledge, that rather than they would de­liver up these Books to their persecutors, the best Christi­ans chose to undergo the utmost torments and sufferings; and of such Baron. Annal. Ecc. An. 302. n. 22. Baronius observes, that there was numerus prope infinitus eorum qui ne codices sacros traderent, lubentissi­mo animo mortem oppetiverunt; almost an infinite number of those, who with the greatest readiness of mind, chose death ra­ther than to deliver up the Holy Books. And they who did deliver them, were accounted grievous offenders, and cal­led Traditores (the name given to Judas who betrayed our [Page 167]Lord) and of these, as Advers. Parm. l. 1. Optatus saith, there were many of all ranks both Laicks and Clergy.

12. The use of the Scriptures is of such excellent ad­vantage, to promote piety and the happiness of men, that the Psalmist under the infallible guidance of the Holy Spi­rit, declares the blessed and good man, to delight himself in the law of the Lord, and to meditate therein day and night, Psal. 1.2. And this makes him so to increase, and be fruitful in good works, that v. 3. he is resembled to a tree planted by the rivers of water, which brings forth his fruit in due sea­son. And the excellent use of this Divine Law is descri­bed, Psal. 19.7-11. in converting the soul, making wise the simple, and other great benefits. Yea they are of such ma­nifold and compleat use for the good of man, that the Apo­stle declares them able to make one wise unto Salvation, and to be profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished to every good work, 2 Tim. 3.15, 16, 17. And they have that mighty efficacy, to prevail on the hearts and consciences of men, that our Lord acquaints us, that they who would not hear Moses and the Prophets, would not be perswaded though one arose from the dead, Luke 16.31.

13. But the Romish Church prohibits the use of the Scri­pture to the generality of their Communion; as is manifest from the Index of prohibited Books, Conc. Tri­dent. Sess. ult. prope sin. which was ordered by the Council of Trent, and was compleated about the end of that Council; but the confirmation thereof, was re­ferred to the Pope, by the Decree of that Council; and it was approved by the Authority of Pius the Fourth. In this Indic. Reg. 4. How far vul­gar Translati­ons are prohi­bited in the Roman Church. Index it is declared, That since it is manifest by ex­perience, that if the Holy Bible in the Vulgar Tongue, be per­mitted generally without distinction, there would thence from the rashness of men, more hurt arise than advantage; in this matter it must be left to the judgement of the Bishop or Inqui­sitor, that with the advice of the Parish Priest or Confessor, he may grant to them the reading of the Bible, in the Vulgar [Page 168]Tongue, translated by Catholick Authors, whom they shall understand may receive by such reading not hurt, but increase of faith and piety; which faculty they should have in writing. But whosoever without such a faculty shall presume to read or to have them, may not obtain the absolution of their sins, unless they first deliver their Bibles to the Ordinary. And then follows the penalty of the Bookseller, who shall sell, or o­therwise procure such Bibles, to them who have not a fa­culty. And from this Index, the substantial part of this rule is expressed in Panstrat. Cath. Tom. 1. l. 10. c. 1. Chamier, and somewhat more at large in the Book of (t) Jacobus Ledesima the Jesuit, Ledes. c. 15. De scripturis divinis quavis lingua non legendis, and is mention­ed in some English Writers. It is therefore condemned, as a very heinous and mortal crime, without all these cau­tions, to have or read a Bible in the Vulgar tongue, though it be in a version of their own. And if it be considered how liable to censure and dislike, the use of such Bibles are, in the Romish Communion, as their own Writers declare; it may thence be concluded, that many zealous Papists will be backward to desire any such thing, which others must not expect to obtain. And upon further consideration, of what difficulties may be expected, in the gaining this fa­culty, and the procuring the consent of those by whose au­thority and with whose advice it must be obtained; any reasonable man will discern, that such faculties are not like to be very common.

14. This prohibiti­on is many wayes evil. But such a prohibition is upon many accounts evil. First, It being a duty and pious practice for men to acquaint themselves with the Holy Scriptures, Psal. 1.2. Psal. 78.5, 6. Jo. 5.39. Act. 17.11. it is an opposition to God and goodness to deny them the liberty, to do that, which pleaseth him, and is their duty. Secondly, Since God gave this as one great gift to his Church, that they should have the Sacred Oracles of the Holy Scriptures, which they might all acquaint themselves with, (as our Lord said, they have Moses and the Prophets, Luk. 16.29.) and it is one of the advantages Christ hath bestowed on his Church, [Page 169]that they may have the knowledge of the Doctrine of the Gospel, as it was dictated by the infallible inspiration of the Holy Ghost, as will appear from n. 17. it is high injustice and sacrilegious fraud, to deprive the Members of the Chri­stian Church, of that excellent good, which the will of Christ bequeathed to them, and is their right. Thirdly, The reading the Holy Scriptures being of such excellent usefulness to men, (as was observed n. 10, 11, 12.) this prohibition is a thing very uncharitable to men. Fourthly, The ground on which they proceed, that the use of the Scriptures, if generally permitted, is more to the preju­dice, than advantage and benefit of men, when the Holy Spirit himself declares them to be greatly profitable, as was observed n. 12. this is to charge the wisdom of God with folly, as if in his great acts of favour and kindness, he had not wisely consulted the good of man; but had by the inspi­ration of the Holy Ghost made such Books publick, which if the Church of Rome did not take care, that they might not come into the hands of the greatest part of men, would do a great deal of hurt to the World. And now I need not make remarks to shew how little there is of piety in such things as these.

15. The Churches of God of old, steered another course, The Scriptures were generally allowed to be read by the Jews and an­cient Christi­ans, from this of the Romanists. That amongst the Jews at the time of our Saviours coming, and his Apostles preaching, the people were not debarred the use of the Holy Scri­ptures, though they were clearly opposite to the Traditi­ons and corrupt Doctrines of the Scribes and Pharisees, may appear from our Saviours putting them upon searching the Scriptures, Jo. 5.39. from S. Peter's commending their ta­king heed to the sure word of prophecy, 2 Pet. 1.19. as also from the Bereans searching the Scriptures daily, Act. 17.11. and Timothy's having known them from a child, 2 Tim. 3.16.

16. That the ancient Christians had the Scriptures transla­ted into the several languages of the Countreys, in which there were any Christian Churches founded, is manifest [Page 170]from the testimonies of S. Hierome, S. Chrysostome and The­oderet, which have been produced In their Epistle pre­fixed to the Bible. by the Authors of our last English translation. In which they particularly mention the Egyptians, Indians, Persians, Armenians, Scy­thians, Aethiopians, Romans, Goths, and some others. And Ep. ad Phil. p. 23. ed. Usser. Polycarp declares to the Church of the Philippians, to whom he writes, that he trusts they were exercised in the holy Scriptures. And de Lazaro. Chrysostome exhorts his Audi­tors, that they would diligently read the holy Scriptures at home in their houses: and the like is frequently done by S. Austin, and divers other the most eminent ancient Wri­ters. Nor was the Scripture then forbidden to be read e­ven by children: but Eusebius Eus. Hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. [...]. tells us how usefully, and to what good purpose, for the guiding and establishing of [...]any Christians in the time of Persecution, Origen had been exercised in the holy Scriptures in his very child­hood.

17. and were so de­signed of God. But we need go no further in this case than to the Holy Scriptures themselves. S. Paul directs his Epistle to the Church of Rome, Rom. 1.7. To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be Saints; and his first Epistle to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 1.2. To the Church at Corinth, called to be Saints, with all that in every place call on the name of Christ; and his second Epistle to the Church of God which is at Corinth, with all the Saints which are in all Achaia, 2 Cor. 1.1. Now it is plain from hence, that he intended they might all know and read the matter of his Epistles; and that these (and consequently other) parts of the Canon of the holy Scripture, were not under a prohibition, that they might not be read by the major part of Christians. And when the hearers of S. Peter at Rome, as Hist. Eccl. l. 2. c. 14. Eusebius re­lates, were not satisfied with hearing, [...], and Doctrine of the Divine declaration with­out writing, they prevailed with S. Mark, to write for them the summ of the Christian Doctrine, and leave it with them, and this their desire was very well approved by S. Peter. But let him who can conceive such strange things, suppose [Page 171]that to gratifie their desire, of being rightly guided in the Christian Doctrine, and for their future instruction, when these teachers should remove to another place, the Gospel of S. Mark was left with them, but under such a prohibi­tion, that none might read it, or know the particular con­tents thereof, unless he should obtain a particular faculty in writing from S. Peter, or S. Mark, to that purpose. And when S. Peter wrote his Epistles, that the Christians even after his decease, might have those things always in remem­brance, 2 Pet. 1.12, 13, 15. and chap. 3.1, 2. it is some­thing hard to imagine, how they should be able to make such use of these Epistles, as to keep in memory the Christi­an truth and precepts, if they were not permitted to read them, or to know the contents thereof. And when Saint John's Gospel was written, Joh. 20.31. that men might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that believing they may have life through his name; surely no man can think, that what was written for this purpose, might not be read for the same purpose, by those who were concerned to be­lieve and obtain life.

18. Some of the Church of Rome have pretended, Pretended re­verence re­flected on. that they shew reverence to the holy Scriptures, and treat them as Sacred things with veneration, when they take care, they may not come into the hands of every common per­son. But a due reverence to any Divine institution, is not to forbid it to the generality of Christians, but to take care that there be a diligent and pious use thereof. Thus a right veneration to the solemn worship of God, and the holy Sacra­ments, is not performed in prohibiting Christians to attend thereupon, and partake thereof, but in their devout commu­nicating in these duties of Religion.

19. But the chief thing objected is, that by the use of the Scriptures, many are led into errors and vain opinions: and the danger of heresie by the Scriptures being translated, is insisted on by de Div. Script. quavis lingua non legendis. Ledesima, and other Writers of the Papists; and they take care to provide against this miscar­riage. To this I answer. 1. The plea of avoiding error, [Page 172]is ill made in this case, by them who keep all of their com­munion who read not the Scriptures, blindfold under so many and great errors. The Objection from the abuse of the Scri­ptures by some men to promote Heresies, consi­dered. 2. The Scriptures are indeed ve­ry proper to lead men into that truth, which they unjust­ly call heresie, in that as an excellent rule, they discover to diligent, pious and unpiejudiced enquirers, what is straight and what is crooked. And Ledesima the Jesuit acknow­ledgeth, that when the Protestants took counsel for the translating the Scriptures, and the dispersing them abroad, this was a most apt and fit means to promote their interest; ibid. c. 1. de sacrorum librorum versione, consilio ad eam rem apposi­tissimo, omnibus promulganda, inter ipsos haereticos agitari est coeptum. Now it is some honour to the Protestant cause, that the Scriptures do so much favour them, that the having them made known to all men, is so apt a means to promote their interest. And when for this cause the Romanists de­sign to keep them secret, the politickness of this contrivance may be some advantage to their cause, as to Us interest a­mongst men, but it is withal a great disparagement to it with respect to its truth and goodness.

20. Thirdly, If some men do miscarry by their vanity, in wresting the Scriptures to serve their errors, this is no just reason to prohibit the general use of a thing so excellent. If some men eat to surfet themselves, or use their under­standings to abett error, and to cheat others by over-reaching them; or shall yield their eyes to behold vanity, their ears to be pleased with lewd discourse, or their wills to chuse evil; must the greater part of men be forbidden to eat, to consider, or to chuse any thing at all, and must their eyes be blindfolded, and their ears stopped, lest they should a­buse them to evil? And the like might be urged concern­ing the use of mens hands, tongues, and almost of all natu­ral and acquired perfections, and also of the profession of Chri­stianity and the means of grace. And since the right know­ledge of God and Religion, are things of so great excellen­cy and high benefit; there is the less reason why the best [Page 173]means to obtain them should be rejected, because they may possibly be abused.

21. Fourthly, The Scriptures read with piety and humili­ty, are excellently fitted to improve those who read them, in wisdom and goodness. And the goodness and purity which they recommend, and the eternal interests they propose, and the authority of God they bring along with them, have a great influence, through the grace of God there tendred, to work these humble and pious dispositions. And there­fore though some men may err and miscarry, and be bad by abusing them; it is far more probable that they should do amiss, who either want, or neglect the diligent and fre­quent use, of such an excellent help. Praef. in Epist. ad Rom. S. Chrysostome observes that a vast multitude of evils proceed from the ig­norance of the Scriptures, and amongst others, he mentions the pest of Heresie and a bad life. And S. Austin, while he was speaking of the excellency of the holy Scriptures, and the great benefit of the use of them, saith de Tem­pore Serm. 112. saepius caecus offendit quam videns; the blind man, or he who wants the ad­vantage of seeing by the light, more frequently stumbles than he who can see.

22. Fifthly, The wisdom of God hath thought fit, to place man in such a condition in this world, even under the Covenant of grace, that he is not out of all capacity of offending, in any case or circumstances. They had a great priviledge who heard the words of the Gospel, from the mouth of the holy Jesus himself, or his Apostles; but this great blessing might be ill used by bad men, who were far from being benefitted thereby, if they were perverse and obstinate. And they who enjoyed these great advantages, if they were not careful and diligent to make a good im­provement of them, were the more highly guilty, and under the more heavy condemnation. And so all ministerial helps; and even various and frequent influences and aids of divine grace, may be abused by ill disposed men, and so [Page 174]may be also the Holy Scriptures, by man who is a creature indued with liberty and choice. And it hath pleased God thus to order the state of man in the world, that the per­formance of his duty, by the Divine assistance, may be an act of his care and choice. Hereby his obedience becomes a vertue, and himself capable of reward or punishment in the performing or neglecting it. But there are no means or motives which men do enjoy, which more usefully con­duce, to the promoting goodness, holiness and piety, than the holy Scriptures do. And there is no more reason to re­ject the use of them from any persons, because they may by some be wrested and used amiss, than there is to con­demn the use of any other excellent means of piety, for the like reason; and to disapprove of the circumstances under which God hath placed man under the Gos­pel.

23. Amongst the Papists, Vulgar Translations have been very sparing. But besides what respects the rule above mentioned, in the Index of Books prohibited, the Church of Rome hath used another way of debarring the people from the use of the Holy Scriptures; in being very sparing, of having any al­lowed translation into vulgar languages, composed by men of their own Communion. They take care that even Breviar. Rom. passim. such lessons as are read out of any part of Scripture, in their pub­lick Service, may not be read in the Common or Vulgar tongue of the Country. This Bellarmine acknowledgeth and asserteth to be prohibited, Bell. de Verb. Dei. l. 2. c. 15. Prohibetur ne in publico & communi usu Ecclesiae, Scripturae legantur vel canantur vul­garibus linguis. And in this he referreth to the Conc. Trid. Sess. 22. c. 8. Coun­cil of Trent, which declares that it is not fit, ut (Missa) vul­gari passim lingua celebraretur. And the word Missa here, (as very frequently) is not confined solely, to that which is peculiar to the Eucharist, but it takes in the whole publick Service. To this purpose De Eucha­rist. l. 5. c. 1. Bellarmine observes, Missa accipitur pro tota celebratione divini officii, in quo Eucharistia consecrabatur, ut comprehendit simul Missam Catechumenorum, & haec est communissima acceptio. And hence such portions of Scripture as are parts of the publick service, are included in [Page 175]that rule and Constitution, which relates to the whole. And the de Verbo Del, c. 15. Cardinal declares, that what is done by the Protestants, is a real and practical asserting their heretical opinion against the Church, whilst they ordinarily translate the Scriptures into the German, French and English tongues, and publickly read and sing them in the same tongues. In Eng­land before the Reformation, I know of no allowed transla­tion into English, made by any whom they own to be of their Communion. That of Wiclef though out of the Vul­gar Latin, must not be owned as such. Since the Refor­mation, the Romanists have translated the Testament into English: but though these Books may be procured by some few persons, they are not easily had by very many. And it is probable that in some Popish Countries they may have no translation of the Scriptures into their Vulgar tongue to this time, which carryeth any publick approbation or allow­ance with it.

24. A third impediment of piety in the Romish Church, 3. Of their publick Ser­vice and Pray­ers, in a tongue not understood by the people. which I shall instance in, is their having the publick Prayers, and the administration of the Offices of the Church, in a language not understood by the people, which is a great hin­drance to their devotion. That this practice is generally used, and is established and appointed in the Church of Rome, is sufficiently known, and is manifest from the fore­going Section. But that the Primitive Church did gene­rally own the fitness and usefulness, of having the publick service and Prayers of the Church, in a language under­stood by the common people, is evident enough, from what was then practised and established. Publick Offices in the Primi­tive Church were performed in a tongue commonly un­derstood. In a great part of the Eastern Church, where the Greek language was then the common speech of the Country, as is well known, and doth appear from the popular Homilies of the Greek Fathers, which they spake in that language: they had their pub­lick prayers and service of the Church in the Greek tongue, and not in the Latin; and some of the ancient Liturgies, then used in that tongue, are still extant. And in that part [Page 176]of the Western Church in which the Latin was then the Vul­gar or commonly known language, as in Italy and many o­ther parts, the publick prayers and service were performed in that tongue, and not in the Greek, or any other not commonly known in that Country. And this is proved from those parts of the ancient Latin Offices which are still preserved.

25. But in such other Countries, where neither of these languages were commonly known, there are sufficient in­stances of the use of other languages which were known. In those Eastern parts where the Syriack language obtained, they had their publick Offices in that language. And a Collection of sixteen Syriack Offices, are declared by Gabr. Sio­nit. de Ritib. Maronit. in init. Ga­briel Sionita to be in a Manuscript in his possession, many of which were used together in the same Church; and others probably in other Churches and in other Ages. And af­ter the first Centuries, when the Arabick and the Coptick or Aegyptian language prevailed much in Egypt, and the Pa­triarchate of Alexandria, they had also the Coptick Litur­gies as In Epist. ad Nihusium praef. Rituali Cophticarum. Athanasius Kircherus testifies. And that part which might seem least needful to be in the Vulgar tongue, which concerns the Ordination of their Ecclesiastical Offi­cers, who might be presumed to understand other tongues, was translated by Kircher into Latin, out of a very ancient Manuscript, in which all the Ritual was in the Coptick tongue, except the exhortations which were in the Arabick. This translation was by Kircher sent to Nihusius 1647, and by him published five or six years after. And several other Liturgical forms, both in Syriack and other languages u­sed in those Eastern Churches, are mentioned by Ecchel­lensis, in the account he gives of several Authours and Books, written in those languages, in the end of his Euty­chius vindicatus. And I doubt not but further proof may be given of this matter, That the peo­ple might un­derstand the Service. care was taken by the Imperial Law. by them who have the opportunity of seeing and consulting such Writers.

26. To this general and practical testimony of the Church, in former ages, I shall add three particular testi­monies, [Page 177]but all of them of a publick nature, all which acknowledged the usefulness, of the people understanding the publick Offices of the Church; and in the two former there was care taken thereof. The first is out of the Impe­rial Law: in Justin. Novel. 137. c. 6. which it is enacted, that the Bishops and Priests should express the Prayers at the holy Communion and at Baptism, with a voice that might be heard by the faith­ful people; for the raising the souls of the hearers into a greater devotion, and affectionate giving glory to God. And then that Law citeth the words of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 14.16. Else when thou shalt bless with the Spirit, how shall he that oc­cupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen, at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understands not what thou saist? Which im­perial Law takes care, that the Prayers of the Church may be understood by the people for their profit, provi­ding that the words thereof should be audibly pronounced, and supposing these Prayers to be expressed (as they then were) in a language commonly understood. A second testimony is from the Roman Pontifical, in which was con­tinued down to the Council of Trent, by the Roman Pontifical. a direction at the Or­dination of Lectors, as is noted in Hist. Con c. Trid. l. 6. p. 470. the History of that Council, ut studeant distincte & articulate legere, ut à populo intelligantur. From whence it is easily collected, that when that Pontifical was composed, the service of the Ro­man Church was then in that language, which was under­stood by the people; and the sense of the Roman Church then was that it was requisite it should be understood: and by its authority it took care that it might be so expressed as to be understood. But when after some time, the Latin tongue by degrees grew out of vulgar use, espe­cially under the various Mutations in the Empire, there was then want of care to order the expressions of the pub­lick service to be such, as would suit the capacities of the people.

27. The third testimony is, from the Council of Trent: which declares, Sess. 22. cap. 8. Etsi Missa contineat magnam populi e­ruditionem, Patribus tamen visum non expedire, ut vulgari passim lingua celebraretur. Quamobrem retento Ecclesiae Ro­manae [Page 178]ritu, ne oves Christi esuriant, mandant Pastoribus, ut, in­ter Missarum celebrationem, aliquid ex iis quae in Missa legun­tur exponant, What the Council of Trent ac­knowledge. praesertim festis diebus. Though the publick Ser­vice or Mass contains much instruction for the people, it doth not seem fit to the Fathers that it should be usually celebrated in the Vulgar tongue. Wherefore retaining the rites of the Church of Rome, they command the Pastors, that, in the time of its ce­lebration, they expound somewhat of those things which are read in the Mass, especially upon Festival days. Now here is an acknowledgment, that it is for the benefit of the people to understand the Service for their instruction, and yet a course is taken, that a main part thereof should not be un­derstood, that they may still keep up the Romish usage, which hath for many ages thus practised. Only they shall be suffered to understand so much of what is contained therein, as may keep them from famishing.

28. But these words seem to carry along with them, some intimation of guilty consciences in this decision. As if a Physician should declare, that he knows such a Medicine to be mighty useful, to recover his Patient to his health, but however he doth not intend he shall have it, but he may apply to him such a part of the ingredients, as will keep him alive (and yet possibly he may be mistaken here­in). Or this is something like, as if a Judge when he had considered a Case of right, concerning a temporal estate, should declare that there is a very fair and ample Patrimo­ny, that belongs to Sempronius, and he ought to have the profit thereof: but nevertheless it seems fit to him, that Sempronius should not enjoy this Estate, that so no alterati­ons may be made in present possessions. However he ad­judgeth them who keep him out of his Patrimony, and de­bar him of his right, at some times, and especially upon festival days, to give Sempronius some such relief, as them­selves shall think fit, for the satisfying his hunger, lest he should be famished for want of all supply of food. Now if such a Physician's practice be honest dealing, and the deter­mination of such a Judge be doing justice in secular inter­ests; then hath this Council done right to the members of [Page 179]the Church, and determined this case according to the rules of Christian integrity. For as it is the duty of the Pa­stors to feed the sheep of Christ, so it is the right of the sheep or people, to receive this food, and therefore to deny them much of that, which is acknowledged proper for them, is to defraud them of that, which justly belongs unto them.

29. But that the publick Prayers of the Church, Publick Ser­vice in a known lan­guage greatly useful. should be in a language commonly understood by the people, is both reasonable and sutable to the publick Service, and greatly useful and profitable to promote piety and edification. For the publick Worship of God rightly performed, is a great part of practical Religion. And devoutness therein, is both an eminent exercise of piety, and hath a great influence upon the minds of men to fix in them pious dispositions for the right ordering the whole course of life. This devoutness is a vigorous, lively and holy exercise of the mind and affecti­ons, and the whole man towards God, and in his service: and whilst fit and proper words would tend much to excite the people hereunto, this advantage is lost in the use of an unknown tongue, which is to no more purpose to him that understands it not, than if nothing at all was spoken. And what is here said by the defenders of the Romish pra­ctice, doth generally confute it self. Sometimes it is said, Coster. Enchir. c. 17. p. 496, 497. Nonest necessum à vulgo intelligi, &c. that it is not need­ful the people should understand the Prayers and Hymns of the Church, because they are not intended to instruct the people by understanding the words, but suavi melodia, majestate­que actionis, by the sweet melody and majesty of the action, The plea, that Prayers are not to instruct the people, conside­red, to dispose them to Religious reverence towards God. But if words in the worship of God be not needful to be understood, what need is there of any words at all, when grave actions and melodious sounds are sufficient? But if it be said, that words being understood by the Priests and learned men, are useful to quicken their devotion, and to fix and unite their minds, in joyning together in the same supplications and praises in publick Service; it is easie to observe, that this might have the same effect upon the devoutly disposed peo­ple, [Page 180]if the Prayers and other parts of the Service, were in a language which they understood. And therefore it must either be granted, that it is unnecessary that any should understand the particular expressions of the Service, and then it is to no purpose to use any language at all; or else that it is desirable that all should understand it.

30. Sometimes we are told that it is requisite the publick Service should be in Latin, Coster. Enchir. ubi sup. because otherwise Priests; who come out of other Countreys, could not celebrate the Offices, neque promiscue laudes Dei decantare, nor jointly with others sing the praises of God. But surely such Priests though they should not understand the language, may as well join in the praises of God, as the people at home can do in the language they understand not. And this charitable consideration towards foreign Priests, might be extended so far, and the care concerning fo­reign Priests. as to prove (if it had any weight in it) that the ser­vice of the Romish Church, ought to be in Arabick, that if any Priests should come from those Eastern parts, where that language is understood, and the Latin is not; they might bear a part in the service. But if this would be ridi­culous, when by this method the generality even of the Priests at home would not understand it, let it be considered what tolerable account can be given, why they should hin­der the generality of the people from understanding it; espe­cially when the Apostle himself hath so plainly determi­ned, that when prayers or praises are in an unknown tongue, The Apostoli­cal precept ob­served. the unlearned Auditor cannot so well join therein, and his edification is thereby prejudiced, 1 Cor. 14.16, 17. And what the Apostle speaks in that Chapter, doth plainly dis­allow the use of an unknown tongue in the publick worship of God, though they who spake, spake by the extraordina­ry gift of tongues; which thing was apt to excite the Chri­stian Auditory, to a particular admiration of the Divine gifts, and so might well be esteemed an extraordinary ge­neral help to devotion, and adoration. And the particular exceptions, against this plain and full Apostolical testimo­ny, [Page 181]are so inconsiderable, and have been so oft refuted, that I think them not worthy to be named.

31. But Ledesim. de Scrip. qu. Ling. non le­gendis. c. 13. Coster. Ench. c. 17. several Writers of the Romish Church tell us, that it is not necessary, the people should understand the expressions of the publick prayers and praises (and conse­quently not say Amen to them) because these services are not directed to them, but to God: and they may partake of the be­nefit of these services, though they do not understand them, Bellarm de Verb. Dei, l. 2. c. 16. as an ignorant Country man may have received advantage from a Latin Speech spoken on his behalf to a Prince, Of the pretence that prayers are directed to God, and not to the people. by whom it is well understood; or as absent persons may be advanta­ged by the prayers, which others put up for them, though themselves do not hear them. But that this is an insuffici­ent defence may appear, 1. Because though the Lessons are directed to the people, yet these also are read in a tongue they understand not. 2. Because the thing here to be considered, is not whether one may not be benefitted by anothers prayers and Religious addresses to God; which is supposed to be true, when we pray for one another: but we are here to take notice, whether the people ought notto bear a part, and to join in those great exercises of Religious piety, of prayers, thanksgiving and glorifying God, in the right performance of his publick worship and service. For the whole exercise of Divine worship, is not only to seek for blessings from God, but also to praise him and glorifie him, which the people cannot particularly join in, and go along with, unless they understand what is expressed in the ser­vice. And therefore if they ought to join therein; by be­ing debarred from understanding it, they are hindred from these acts of piety, which they ought to perform, and God is deprived of a great part of that glory that is due to him; and consequently Religion and piety are much preju­diced thereby.

32. Now it may be reasonably presumed, The people are concerned to-worship God. that if the people have such beings and souls, as are indued with capa­cities of worshipping and glorifying God, they ought to be employed to this purpose: but if they have none such [Page 182](which would be to suppose them not to be Christians or men, and to be uncapable of doing acts of duty and Religi­on, and of receiving rewards) then will they not be con­cerned to attend Gods publick worship. And these pleas used by these Writers, are as plausible, to excuse their absence from the publick Assemblies, as their not understanding the publick Service. But that the people are to join in the du­ties of Religious worship, is not only supposed by S. Paul, in that discourse upon this subject, 1 Cor. 14. but may be proved from the Psalms, and many other Scriptures, calling upon all people, to praise, and laud and glorifie God, and from S. John's Visions of the Gospel-Church, where some­times the 144000, sometimes so great a multitude as no man could number, are represented joyning together in the worship of God.

33. But a thing so manifest as this is, stands in need of no further proof, siince there are such frequent precepts for prayer, thanksgiving, and giving glory to God, directed to all Christians. And the Christian Church from the be­ginning acknowledged the people to be much concerned, in the performing the publick worship of God. Just. A­pol. 2. Justin Martyr declares, how in the prayers before the Eucharist, all the Christians together rose up, and presented those pray­ers, and in those at the Eucharist they joined their consent by answering, Amen. Tertullian declaring the Christi­an practice, saith, Tert. A­pol. c. 39. we go together to the Assembly and Congregation, ut ad Deum quasi manu facta precationi­bus ambiamus orantes, that we may earnestly call on God by prayers as with a joint strength; and this force (saith he) is acceptable to God. And before both these Ignatius urging and commending the publick service, said, Ign. Ep. ad Eph. if the prayer of one or two hath so great a force, [...], how much greater is that of the Bishop and the whole Church? And in the Primitive times sometimes an Amen, and sometimes other responsals, were directed to the people, in the ancient Liturgies. The result of all this is, that whereas the peoples actual join­ing [Page 183]in the several parts of Gods worship is a great part of their duty, and the pious and devout performance of it, both tends to the honour of God, and to their edification; the present Church of Rome by establishing their service in a tongue not understood by the people, both unjustly and im­piously hinders the due worship of God, and that piety of men which is conjoined with it; and derived from it.

34. I might give a fourth instance, Immoral Do­ctrines hinted at. of the hindrances to an holy life, in the Church of Rome, from those loose rules of practice delivered by divers of their Doctors and Casuists, and the allowance their rules give, to those gross enor­mities and heinous vices, which the Philosophers and ver­tuous Pagans would abhor, being opposite to the laws of nature, and that honesty which prevailed amongst the better part of the Gentiles. Of such things as these a large account hath been given, in the Mystery of Jesuitism, and several other Books: as their giving allowance to perjury, Murder, and other such heinous sins, upon sleight occasi­ons, as to preserve ones reputation, and the like. And what endeavours have been used by the doctrine of proba­bility, and other methods, to uphold those positions which debauch Morality, hath been manifested from the Books of Father Bauny, Caramouel, Estrix, and divers others. It is acknowledged that vigorous endeavours were used by some of their Bishops, to suppress these wretched Principles of immorality, but there was as earnest and vigorous diligence used to uphold the same by many Casuists and Divines, especially in Flanders, and France. I do not therefore charge these Principles upon the Church of Rome in general, but upon many Doctors therein. Some of these abominable and immoral positions were condemned by Pope Alexander the Seventh, and many were Sentenced by Pope Innocent the Eleventh, and the Inquisition at Rome: of the latter of which I shall take some particular notice.

35. Amongst sixty five Propositions, condemned in the Vatican Decree of Innoc. 11. March. 2. 1679. by the Pope and the Cardinals, the general Inquisitors, these were some, Prop. 5. That we dare not condemn him of mortal sin, who should but once in his whole life, put forth an act of the love of God, Prop. 10, 11. We are not bound to love our Neighbour with an internal and formal act; We may satis­fie the precept of loving our Neighbour by only external acts. Prop. 15. It is lawful for a Son to rejoice at his having murdered his Father when he was drunk, because of the great riches thence accrewing to him by Inheritance. Prop. 17. It is sufficient to have an act of faith once in the life time; Prop. 24. To call God to wit­ness to a light lie, is not so great irreverence, that for it he ei­ther will or can damn a man. Now such horrid Positions as these, and many others in the same Decree, deserve the severest Censure, and it may amaze any one, that such things should be asserted, by those who take upon them to instruct others, in the Principles and Practices of Christi­anity. And what wretched lives may they lead, whose practices are directed by such Guides?

36. Now though these Positions are condemned to be at least scandalous and pernicious in practice, and therefore all persons are in that Decree strictly forbidden to practise upon them, and all who shall maintain them are declared to be under the Sentence of Excommunication: Yet this very Sen­tence is too kind and favourable to the Authors of these Positions upon a threefold account. First, In that such impious and irreligious Doctrines were not condemned as false, wicked, blasphemous or heretical, but only as at least scandalous and pernicious in practice, which is but a very mild Censure of these Doctrines themselves; and speaks no more against them, than is declared against some other positions contained in the same Decree, which are not so abomina­ble. For instance, Prop. 19. That the will cannot effect; that the assent of faith should be more firm in it self, than the weight of the reasons which move to that assent do deserve: and Prop. 42. That it is not usury to require something besides the Principal, as being due out of benevolence and gratitude, but only when it is [Page 185]demanded as due out of justice. For whatsoever may be said against these Positions, it is a gentle and easie Censure of the other, to put them in the same rank with these, and under no heavier condemnation. Secondly, In that the au­thours of these unchristian Doctrines, and those who till the time of this Decree, have taught them and maintained them, are not by this, nor so far as I can learn, by any other Decree brought under any publick censure which may em­bolden and encourage others, to vent other wicked Princi­ples against common morality in time to come, though but with a little variation from the same. Thirdly, In that the Books in which these wicked Principles are contained, and owned, are not by this Decree, and I think by no o­ther, prohibited to be read; no not so far as the holy Scri­ptures themselves are under a prohibition.

SECT. III.
Those Doctrines and Practices are publickly declared and asser­ted in the Church of Rome, and are by the Authority there­of established, which are highly derogatory to the just honour and dignity of our Saviour.

Sect. III 1. Dishonour done to Christ THose practices and opinions which vilifie the dig­nity, and authority of Christ are infamous, and bring a deserved dishonour upon the authours of them, and on them who embrace them. And as he is worthy of all glory, so his Church and the members thereof, are deserv­edly zealous of his honour. But herein the Romanists miscar­ry, which I shall manifest in some particulars.

2. by Invocating Saints, First, In their prayers and supplications to Saints and Angels: their practice herein, being not consistent with the honour due to our Lord, as our Advocate and Interces­sor. This invocation of Saints, is declared by Sess. ult. the Council of Trent to be good and profitable. And in the Oath enjoined by Pius the Fourth, in Bull. Pli 4. to be taken of all the Clergy, a profession is required, that the Saints are to be worshipped and invocated: and in the publick Offices of the Romish Church, both in their prayers, and more especially and fully in their hymns, supplications for all manner of Heavenly blessings, are put up unto them. Cassand. Consult. de Cult. Sanct. Cassander indeed tells us, that these things are not done for any such intent, as if praying to them, should be thought simply neces­sary to salvation. And in the same discourse he declares, that they did not adjoin the Saints, as if God either could not or would not hearken, and shew mercy, unless they be intercessors for it. But it is well known, that his mild and moderate expressions, are displeasing to the greater part of that Church. And however, though the error in Doctrine [Page 187]is the greater, when that is declared necessary which is not so; the error in practice is not the less, if in doing that which is on other accounts blameable, it be declared not necessa­ry to be done.

3. Now the blessed Jesus is constituted of God, and confidence in their inter­cession and me­rits. our Ad­vocate and Intercessor, that we may in his name, and through him, draw nigh to God: And it is part of his Kingly au­thority, and headship over his Church, to dispense those blessings for which we seek unto God in his name; and he is exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour to give repentance and remission of sins, Act. 5.31. But in many Books of Devo­tion, used and approved by the Church of Rome, their ad­dresses are much more frequent to Saints, and sometimes to Angels, and especially and most frequently to the Bles­sed Virgin, than to our Lord and Saviour himself; and to these they apply themselves, that by them they may find acceptance with God, and that by their merits they may obtain help, grace and blessing. And even the title of in­tercessor and advocate also, is oft-times given to them, both in the more ancient Offices, and in the present Roman Bre­viary, together with expressions of trust and confidence in their merits, frequently joined with them. On S. An­drew's day they in Missal. sec. us. Sarum & in Brev. pray with respect to him: Sit apud te pro nobis perpetuus intercessor; that he may be with thee for us a perpetual Intercessor. And the blessed Virgin is stiled Br. Rom. ad complet. a Vesp. Trin. our Advocate. And they some times with respect to a Saint use such expressions as these in their addresses to God, Ejus inter­cedentibus meritis, ab omnibus nos absolve peccatis, ibid. Com. Confess. Pont. Absolve us from all our sins, through the intercession of his merits. And with respect to Pope Nicholas, both in the present Roman Bre­viary, and in the Office secundum usum Sarum which was most in use in this Kingdom before the Reformation, is a prayer for the sixth of December, that by his merits and pray­ers we may be freed from the fire of Hell. And of this na­ture numerous instances may be given. And such like ex­pressions concerning the Saints, and applications to them, encroached so far upon our Saviours Intercession, and be­ing [Page 188]our Advocate, that with respect hereto, Cassander says of divers of the Romish Communion; Cassand. Consult. de mer. & inter­ces. Sancto­rum. They pretend that they only desire their prayers. But 1. It is unknown to us, that they know our desires. advocatio­nis Christi officio obscurato, Sanctos atque imprimis Virgi­nem Mariam in illius locum substituerunt, that the Office of Christs Advocateship being obscured by them, they substituted the Saints and principally the Virgin Mary in his place.

4. But the most considerable men who write in defence of this practice declare, that they only invocate the Saints to obtain the assistance of their prayers, but First, If this was true, and no more was either intended by the Church of Rome, or practised by its members, yet there is no assu­rance that particular Saints departed know our particular wants and supplications and desires; and much more may they be unacquainted with that inward devoutness, and pious temper of soul, which doth qualifie men for the obtain­ing the favour of God, and his heavenly blessings. And a wise man would not think it reasonable, to place any con­siderable dependance in a special case, upon the care and assistance of such a friend, who is at a distance from him, and of whom he hath no sufficient ground of confidence, that he knows any thing either of his need or of his special desire from him. The ways assigned by the Romanists, to declare how the Saints departed are acquainted with things here below, especially so far as to discern the special motions of the minds of all particular persons, are but expressions of great words without evidence: and the speculum Trinita­tis may as well serve to shew that the Angels in glory, were from the beginning of their confirmation in happi­ness acquainted with all things future, by seeing the face of our heavenly Father, (when yet our Lord declares, they knew not the time of the day of Judgement) as that the Saints in glory, have such a clear understanding of things and persons in this world. Now if they understand not our requests and desires, supplications directed to them, are not only imprudent, but an abuse of Religious Worship, by employing a considerable portion of it, and of our devo­tion therein, about that which at least signifies nothing, [Page 189]but is wholly useless, and to no purpose. And to perform acts of Religion upon the uncertain supposition of this being true, (of which we can have no certain knowledge, and there is much to be said against it) is to shew our selves too forward to run the hazard, of being guilty of this miscariage.

5. And whereas God and his Gospel doth instruct men, Our Religion gives no direction for such prayers. in the parts and duties of Religion, but hath given neither direction nor encouragement, to the invocation of Angels or Saints departed, or to perform any Religious Worship to them; it is no duty incumbent on men, to make such addresses to them; and in this case concerning the object of Religious worship, it is not their due to receive, what is not our duty to perform. And we may reasonably fear, lest God should account our giving such honour to those glo­rified creatures in Heaven, as to acknowledge them to know the desires of the hearts of men, and addressing our selves to them thereupon, to be a misplacing that honour, which is only due to himself, and our blessed Saviour; and this might bring us under his displeasure. And when I con­sider, how frequently the Apostle desires the prayers of the Christian Churches on earth, and directs them to pray for one another, and to send to the Elders of the Church, to obtain their prayers: I cannot but think, that he would have been as forward to have directed Christians, to seek for the prayers of Saints departed (of which he speaks no­thing) if he had accounted that to be lawful and useful; and from hence it may seem highly probable if not certain, that the Souls departed, do not understand, and are not par­ticularly affected, with the requests and desires of men here below. Besides this, though I conceive holy Angels may be frequently present in the Assemblies of the Christian Church, I cannot think it allowable, though I had special assurance of their presence at any particular time; to di­rect the acts of publick worship in that case sometimes to God and Christ and sometimes to them, in the same gesture of adoration, and especially in the use of such words of ad­dress to the Angels, (however they be understood) as may [Page 190]fitly be applied to Christ: For this would give too much of that homage to the Servant, which is due unto the Lord.

6. [...] greatly ho­nour the Saints departed. But we who do not direct our prayers and Religious supplications to Saints departed, have a high honour for them, endeavouring to follow their good examples, prais­ing God for them, and hoping to be hereafter with them in the mansions of glory. And since their goodness and love is not diminished, but increased by their departure, and they are still members of the same body, I esteem them to have affectionate desires of the good of men upon Earth, and especially of pious men, who are fellow-members with them. And I account it one great priviledge that I enjoy, from the Communion of Saints, that by reason of member­ship with the same body, I have an interest in the Religi­ous supplications of all the truly Catholick part, of the dif­fusive Church Militant upon Earth, and in the holy Servi­ces of the triumphant part thereof in Heaven. I can also willingly admit what Cyp. de Mortali­tate, Magnus illic nos cha­rorum nume­rus expectat, parentum, fratrum, filio­rum—co­piosa turba—adhuc de no­stra salute sol­licita. S. Cyprian sometimes expres­seth, that departed friends have a particular desire of the good of their surviving relations; and what in another place he recommends Epist. 57. ad Cornel. The Papists do directly pray for blessings to the Saints., that departing Christians continue their affectionate sense of, and prayers for, the distressed part of the Church on Earth. But upon the foregoing con­siderations, this will not warrant Religious addresses to be directed to these Saints.

7. Secondly, The petitions used in the Romish Church, in their supplications to the Saints, do plainly express more than their desiring them to pray for them. I shall not insist on the high extravagances, in divers Books of Devotions, and in the Offices formerly used in some particular Churches, as that in the Missale sec. usum Sarum to the Vir­gin Mary In Na­tivit. B. Ma­tiae., Potes enim cuncta, ut mundi Regina, & jura Cum nato omnia decernis in soecla, Thou canst do all things as the Queen of the World, and thou with thy Son determinest all rights for ever; which, with many expressions of as high a [Page 191]nature, place a further confidence in the Saints, and expe­ctation from them, than meerly to be helped by their prayers. But I shall instance in two or three expressions, in the present Roman Breviary. They apply themselves to S. Peter, Br. Rom. Jun. 29. in Hymn. Peccati vincula Resolve tibi potestate tradita, Qua cunctis coelum verbo claudis, aperis; Loose the bonds of our sins, by that power which is delivered to thee, whereby by thy word, thou shuttest and openest heavent to all men. And to all the Apostles, they direct their prayers on this manner Br. Rom. in Commun. Apost. & in Festo S. Andr. Qui coelum verbo clauditis, Serasque ejus solvitis, nos à peccatis omnibus Solvite jussu quaesumus, Quorum praecepto sub­ditur Salus & languor omnium, Sanate aegros moribus, nos red­dentes virtutibus; Ye who by your word do shut up Heaven, and loose the barrs thereof, we beseech you by your command loose us from all our sins, ye to whose command the health, and the weakness of all is subject, heal those who are sick in their life and practice, restoring us to vertue. I am apprehensive, that many may think these instances the less blameable, because the expressions of them have a manifest respect to the commission and authority, which Christ gave to his Apostles, in the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the power of remitting and retaining sin: and the other A­postles are here owned to have the power of the keys as well as S. Peter. But that our Saviours Commission to them, referred wholly to the Government of his Church upon Earth, is sufficiently manifest from those words both to S. Peter, and to all the Apostles, whatsoever thou, or ye shall bind on earth —and whatsoever ye shall loose on Earth. And though the Apostles are eminently exalted in the glo­ry of the other world; yet to acknowledge them in Hea­ven, to acquit or condemn all men, and to receive them in­to Heaven, or exclude them from it, by their command, and by that power, which is committed to them, must in­clude an owning them to be the full and compleat Judges of the quick and the dead.

8. And since the Romish Church asserts all their Bishops, to derive and enjoy the same authority which was commit­ted [Page 192]to S. Peter; and if this be not only an authority upon earth, but in the future state; then all their deceased Popes (and much to the same purpose may be urged con­cerning all Priests) must still enjoy the same heavenly pow­er, which they ascribe to S. Peter, though there is great reason to fear, that divers of themselves never entred in­to Heaven. To these, other numerous instances might be added, of their prayers to the Blessed Virgin, and to other Saints for grace, pardon, protection, and to be received by them at the hour of death: and such instances have been largely and fully produced, by some of the worthy Wri­ters of our own Church, and Chamier, and other Prote­stant Authors, and particularly by Chemnitius in his Exa­men Conc. Trid.

9. But when Cardinal Bellarmine discoursed of these supplications to the Saints, he particularly instanced in some, as that to the Virgin Mary, Tu nos ab hoste protege, & hora mortis suscipe; do thou defend us from the enemy, and re­ceive us at the hour of death; but will have them all to be understood, as desiring only the benefit of their prayers. But because the words they use, do not seem to favour this sense of his, he tells us Bellarm. de Sanct. Bea­titud. l. 1. c. 9. Notandum est nos non agere de verbis, sed de sensu verborum; It must be noted that we di­spute not about the words themselves, but about the sense and meaning of them. Now I acknowledge it fit, that words should be taken in their true sense, being interpreted also with as much candor as the case will admit. Yet I shall observe, 1. That it cannot well be imagined, that when they expresly declare their hopes, of obtaining their petiti­ons to the Saints, by their command, and by their power which is committed to them, which is owned sufficient for the performing these requests, as in the instances I menti­oned, no more should be intended, than to desire the assi­stance of their prayers; and this gives just reason to sus­pect, that more is also meant in other expressions and prayers, according to the most plain import of the words. 2. That though some of the Doctors of the Roman Church, [Page 193]would put this construction upon the words of their pray­ers; yet it is manifest the people understand them, in the most obvious sense, so as to repose their main confidence up­on the Saints themselves and their merits. This may ap­pear from the words I above cited, n. 3. from Cassander, who also tells us that Cass. Con­su t. de Mer. & Interc. Sanct. homines non mali; men who were none of the worser sort, did chuse to themselves certain Saints for their Patrons, and in eorum meritis atque intercessione, plus quam in Christi merito fiduciam posuerunt; they placed confi­dence in their merits and intercession, more than in the merits of Christ.

10. The invocation of Saints and Angels will appear the more unaccountable, No such pra­ctice in the Old Testament, by considering what is contain­ed in the holy Scriptures, and the ancient practice of the Church of God. In the Old Testament there is no worship­ing of Angels directed, though the Law was given by their ministration, and that state was more particularly subject to them, than the state of the Gospel is, as the Apostle de­clares, Heb. 2.5. In the Book of Psalms, which were the Praises and Hymns used in the publick Worship of the Jews, there is no address made to any departed Saint, or even to any Angel; though the Jewish Church had no advocate with the Father in our nature, which is a peculiar priviledge of the Christian Church, since the Ascension of our Saviour. That place in the Old Testament, which may seem to look most favourably towards the invocation of an Angel. Gen. 48.16. The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the Lads, is by many ancient Christian Writers not understood of a created Angel. But however it is to be observed that these words were part of the benedi­ction of Jacob to the Sons of Joseph. Now a benediction fre­quently doth not exclude a prayer to the thing or person spoken of, but a desire of the good expressed, with an impli­cite application to God, that he would grant it. Thus in the next words, Gen. 48.16. Let my name be named on them, and the name of my Fathers Abraham and Isaac; which con­tain no prayer to the names of his Fathers, or to his own. [Page 194]So Isaac blessed Jacob, Gen. 27.29. using these expressions, Let People serve thee and Nations bow down unto thee. And this Clause of Jacob's Benediction is well paraphrased by one of the Targ. Jo­nath. in Gen. 48.16. Chaldee Paraphrasts, Let it be well pleasing before him (God) that the Angel, &c. But the Holy An­gels themselves declared against the giving to them any acts of Worship, and refused to receive any such, both un­der the Old Testament, Judg. 13.16, 17, 18. and the New, Rev. 19.10. ch. 22.9. Yea the Apostle cautions against the worshipping of Angels, Col. 2.18. and the ancient Church prohibited it by her Conc. Laodic. c. 35. nor in the New, Canons.

11. And in the Gospel God himself whose right it is to direct and appoint in whose name we should approach unto him, hath directed us to come to him, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and hath encouraged us thereto, by pro­mising that what we so ask he will give, Joh. 16.23, and that our Lord himself will do what we so ask, Joh. 14.13, 14. And that Christ is able to save to the uttermost those that come unto God by him, and he ever lives to make intercession for them Heb. 7.25. And what further encouragement need be gi­ven or desired? But not a word is spoken, to direct us to any deceased Saint, or to any Angel, to make any of them our Intercessor. And this is the great encouragement propo­sed to us in approaching to God, that having a great High-Priest who is passed into the Heavens, Jesus the Son of God, and who can be touched with the feeling of our Infirmities, we may come boldly to the Throne of Grace, Hebr. 4.14, 15, 16, and that if any Man sin we have an Advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the Righteous 1 Joh. 2.1. And in the Precepts our Saviour gives, to guide our Prayer and Worship, he directs us to referr them only to God, Matt. 4.10. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve; and Luke 11.2. when ye pray, say, Our Father which art in Heaven.

12. And though S. Stephen suffered Martyrdom in a short time after our Saviour's Ascension; and S. James (whose Martyrdom Annal. Eccl. an. 44. n. 2. Baronius places in the forty fourth [Page 195]year of Christ) and the Blessed Virgin also in all probabi­lity, died before the writing of any part of the New Te­stament: nor in the Pri­mitive Church. Yet in all the New Testament where there are such frequent expressions of praying to and calling upon God, with Supplications to our Blessed Saviour, there is not the least intimation of any adoration, or invocation, to these eminent Saints or any others who were departed. And yet S. Paul assures us, that some of the Brethren who were Witnesses of our Saviour's Resurrection were fallen asleep before the time of his writing the first Epistle to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 15.6. And it hath been at large obser­ved, and proved by sufficient evidence, that no genuine Writer of the first Centuries hath any thing in him to express or favour invocation of Saints. This is shewed by in Letter of Invocation of Saints. the Bishop of Lincoln, for the first three hundred years, and Voss. Thes. Theol. Disp. 10. Vossius speaks of three hundred and seventy. Af­ter which time, some expressions were used, which made way for this practice; but yet no such thing was brought into any publick Liturgy, for some hundred years after.

13. It may be here added, that if we consider the Saints they invocate, Of the Canoni­zation of Saints. besides what Objections may be made a­gainst particular Persons, it may be noted, that the gene­ral Worship given to Saints, hath respect to all those who are Canonized by the Roman Bishop: And there is no suf­ficient reason to believe that all such are truly Saints. The form of Canonization declares the Person canonized Sacr. Ce­rem. ut Sanctum à Christi fidelibus venerandum, that he is to be worshipped of Christians as a Saint. That none may re­ceive publick adoration but they who are canonized by the Pope, is owned by De Sanct. Beat. c. 19. Bellarmine; who also declares, that ib. c. 9. it is to be believed, that the Pope doth not erre in Canonizing. But he who believes the truth of this, must frame an higher notion of the Papal Infallibility than that Cardinal hath given us. For he tells us de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 2. it is a thing agreed betwixt Catholicks and Hereticks, that the Pope as Pope [Page 196]and joined with all his Council, may err in matters of Fact, and such as depend on the information and testimony of men. He tells us indeed in the same place, that in propounding matters of Faith, or enjoyning rules of Duty and Practice, he cannot err. But since no matter of Fact is more lyable to mistake, than to discern whether a person be eminently and sincerely holy or no; especially as they proceed in the Church of Rome, where the Testimonies concerning their working Miracles are of great moment in this case; it may therefore according to the Cardinals own position, be thought at least doubtful, whether the Pope may not mi­stake in judging a Man to be truly a Saint, and then it may seem hard to believe, that all must needs be Saints whom he declares to be such by Canonization.

14. Of denying the Cup in the Eu­charist to the Laity, A Second Instance I shall here consider, is, That they at Rome debarr the people of the Cup in the Holy Com­munion, which was manifestly one part of that Holy Sa­crament, as it was instituted, and commanded to be recei­ved, by our Saviour. And therefore this contains an Op­position to what was established by Christ. In the Church of Rome, both the Laity and the Clergy (except in ordi­nary Communions, only the person consecrating or, as they speak the conficient Priest) receive only the one element in the Eucharist, and not the other of the Cup. And though the Council of Sess. 22. in fin. Trent wholly waved the determi­ning this Question, concerning the Cup, Whether it might be granted to any of the Laity? And referred this wholly to the prudence of the Pope, who hath still continued the former use in one kind; yet that Council freely declared their sense, concerning the Doctrines and Rules of Duty, referring to the Sacrament. Here it declares, that Sess. 21. c. 1. the Laity and the Clergy, who do not consecrate, are obli­ged by no Divine Precept to take the Eucharist in both kinds, and that it cannot be doubted salva fide, but that the Com­munion in one kind, is sufficient to Salvation; and that whole Christ and the true Sacrament is taken under either kind [Page 197]alone, and therefore they who so receive, are deprived of no grace necessary to Salvation. And they so declare these things, with others concerning the Sacrament, that if any person shall speak contrary thereto, even to say that the Catholick Church was not moved by just (or sufficient) reasons, in or­dering the Laity and Clergy who do not consecrate, to communicate only under the Species of bread, he shall be un­der an Anathema; and they also forbid all Christians for the future— ne de iis aliter credere audeant; that they do not dare to believe otherwise of these things. But that which is here to be enquired and examined is, Whether the Sacra­ment of the Eucharist ought not according to the institu­tion of Christ and by his authority, to be administred in both kinds?

15. That Christ did institute this Sacrament, against Christs Institution: in both kinds of Bread and Wine, is so plain from the words of its Institution, that this is acknowledged in the Ubi sup. c. 1. Council of Trent. And that he gave a particular command to all Communicants to receive the Cup, seems plainly owned in one of the Hymns of the Roman Church. Sacris, &c. in Brev. Ro. in festo Corp. Christ. Dedit fra­gilibus corporis ferculum, Dedit & tristibus sanguinis poculum, Dicens, Accipite quod trado vasoulum, Omnes ex eo bibite. Sic Sacrificium istud instituit. He gave the entertainment of his body to the Frail, to the Sad he gave the Cup of his blood, say­ing, Take this Cup which I deliver, drink ye all of it. Thus did he institute that Sacrifice. These expressions have a parti­cular respect to that Command concerning the Cup, Matt. 26, 27. Drink ye all of it. And it may be further observed, that those words in the Institution, Do this in remembrance of me, are a Precept, which hath special re­spect to the receiving both the kinds, both the Bread and the Cup. For though I acknowledge these words, Do this, to establish the whole Institution, that as Cyp. Ep. 63. S. Cyprian expres­seth their sense, ut hoc faciamus quod fecit & Dominus,— & ab eo quod Christus & docuit, & fecit, non recedatur; that we should do what our Lord did, and should not depart from what Christ taught and did: Yet these words have a [Page 198]more especial regard to the distribution or participation of the Sacrament. For Do this, &c. in S. Luke, and S. Paul, comes in the place of take, eat, &c. in S. Matt. and S. Mark: and in these words of S. Paul, Do this as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me; the words, as oft as ye drink it, do plainly import thus much, that the Command do this, in that place, doth peculiarly respect the receiving the Cup.

16. This Institution of Christ was anciently even in the Church of Rome, acknowledged to be so fair a Rule to all Christians, that from hence de Con­secrat. di. 2. c. 7. Cum omne. Pope Julius undertook to correct the various abuses, which had in some places been entertained: Insomuch that he declares against deli­vering the Bread dipt in the Cup; upon this reason, because it is contrary to what is testified in the Gospels, concerning the Master of truth, who when he commended to his A­postles, his Body and his Blood, Seorsum panis, seorsum & calicis commendatio memoratur; his Recommendation of the Bread and of the Cup is related to be each of them separate and distinct. And that the Apostolical Church did give the Cup to the Laity, is plain from the Apostles words to the Corinthians, where he useth this as an Argument, to all particular Christians, against communicating in any Ido­latrous Worship, 1 Cor. 10.21. ye cannot drink the Cup of the Lord and the Cup of Devils: And the same will appear manifest from other expressions hereafter mentioned. And the Council of Trent Sess. 21. c. 2. owns, that from the begin­ning of Christianity, the Sacrament was given in both kinds. But they following much the steps of the Council of Con­stance, account neither the Institution of Christ, nor the practice of the ancient Church, to be in this case any ne­cessary guide, but they declare, the custom then received, to be changed upon just reasons.

17. But that the Argument from the Institution and Command of Christ, might be eluded, and a Mist cast before the Sun, divers Romanists, and particularly de Eu­char. l. 4. c. 25. which binds all Communi­cants. Bellarmine, declare, that Christs command, drink ye all of it, was gi­ven to the Apostles only, and not to all Communicants. [Page 199]To which I answer 1. That the Apostles, at the time of the Institution of this Sacrament, were not consecrating, but communicating; and therefore the Command given to them, as receiving the Sacrament, is a rule for Communi­cants, Which binds all Communi­cants. and can by no reason be restrained to the consecrating Priest: And indeed the ancient Church made no such di­stinction in this case, between Priest and People, but ac­knowledged, as Chrys. Hom. 18. in 2 Epist. ad Corinth. S. Chrysostome expresseth it, that the same Body is appointed for all, and the same Cup: And agree­able hereunto are the Articles of the Church of England, which declare Art. 30. that both the parts of the Lord's Sacra­ment, by Christ's Ordinance and Commandment, ought to be ministred to all Christian men alike. 2. That this device would serve as effectually (if it were considerable) to take away the Bread, with the Cup, from the people, that so no part of Christ's Institution should belong to them. 3. The Command of Christ, with the reason annexed, Matt. 26.27, 28. Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins; doth give sufficient light to discern, to whom this Precept is design­ed; to wit, to all them, who desire to partake in the Com­munion of the blood of the New Testament, for the Re­mission of sins, and that is to all Communicants in that Sa­crament. 4. S. Paul 1 Cor. 11.25, 26. plainly applys Christ's Command, concerning the Cup, to all who come to the Holy Communion; in that after the rehearsal of that part of the Institution, concerning the Cup, he immedi­ately says to the Corinthians, For as oft as yet eat this Bread and drink this Cup, ye do shew the Lord's Death till he come. And he re-inforceth this Command of partaking of the Cup, indefinitely to all who are to Communicate, v. 28. Let a Man (not only the Priest) examine himself, and so let him eat of this Bread, and drink of this Cup.

18. But here, the Council of Trent acquaints us with a claim of the Churches authority and power in the Sacra­ment Ubi sup. c. 2. in dispensatione Sacramentorum, salva illorum substantia, statuere, vel mutare; to appoint and change things, [Page 200]in dispensing the Sacraments, still preserving their substance. And they seem to intimate, that the Communion in both kinds, No power of the Church can take away the Cup from the People. is not of the substance of the Sacrament, because whole Christ and all necessary grace is contained under one kind. But 1. If by being of the substance of the Sacra­ment, we mean all that is enjoined by Christ's Precept, and is necessary for the right administration of the Sacra­ment, according to his Institution: The use of both kinds is proved to be of this nature; and therefore to change this, is not within the Churches authority. 2. They may as well say, that whole Christ is in one kind, and therefore there needs no consecration of the Cup, as that therefore there needs no distribution: And so the Cup may be wholly rejected, with as much Piety, as the Laity are now deprived of it. 3. What is contained in the Sacrament, is contained in it according to the Will of Christ, and his Institution; and thereby the Bread is the Communion of the body of Christ, and the Cup is the Communion of the blood of Christ, 1 Cor. 10.16. And Ration. l. 4. c. 54. n. 13. Durandus did truly assert, that the blood of Christ is not Sacramentally in the Host; because the Bread signifies the Body, and not the Blood. So he with somewhat more to this purpose. And this is the more considerable, be­cause in the Holy Eucharist, the death of Christ is represen­ted, and in the Cup, his Blood, as shed. And Gelasius, who was once Bishop of Rome, when he heard that some recei­ved the Bread only and not the Cup, declared what then it seems was Catholick Doctrine at Rome, that they must either receive the whole Sacrament, or be rejected from the whole, because de Con­sec. Dist. c. 2. comperimus. divisio unius ejusdem mysterii sine grandi Sa­crilegio non potest provenire; the dividing one and the same Sacrament cannot be without grand Sacriledge. Which words contain a more full and plain censure of what since his time is practised in the Church of Rome, than can be eva­ded by the strained and frivolous Interpretations, either of Gratian, of Binius, or Baronius. And we have also much greater authority than his: For besides what I have above mentioned, this use of the Cup was part of what S. Paul [Page 201]received of the Lord, and delivered to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 11.23-25. and it was matter of praise in the Corinthians, that they kept the ordinances as he delivered them, v. 2.

19. And what is asserted in the Council of Trent, that the Church had just reason, to order the Communion in one kind; and what others say, that it is more profitable to Christians, and contains an honour and reverence to that Ordinance; must suppose that their wisdom is greater than our Saviour's, who did not know or consider, with so much prudence as they do, what is fit to be appointed, and esta­blished in his Ordinance. And since the Holy Ghost de­clared, both the Bread and the Cup to be appointed to shew forth Christs death till he come, 1 Cor. 11.26. they must therefore be both used to this purpose, until his second co­ming, and then no power was left to any Church, to alter and change this institution. And whilst some pretend re­verence to God, and this Sacrament, in taking away the Cup from the people, it would be considered, that there can be no honour to God in acts of disobedience. But if pre­tences of honouring God, in acts of disobedience, could ren­der actions commendable, Sauls Sacrificing must have pas­sed for a pious attempt, and the Doctrine of the Pharisees, for the observing their vow of Corban, must have been esteemed a Religious assertion.

20. A third Instance I shall consider; Of the propiti­atory Sacri­fice of the Mass. is their pretend­ing to offer a proper expiatory Sacrifice, of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Mass; which is derogatory to Christs own Priestly oblation, whereby he once offered himself a compleat Sacrifice of expiation. But the Sess 22. c. 2. Council of Trent declares, that in the Mass is Sacrificium verè propitiatorium, a truly propitiatory Sacrifice, and that it is offered both for the sins, punishments and other ne­cessities of the living Christians, and also for the dead in Christ, who are not fully purged. And it pronounced an Anathema against him, who shall say, in missa non offerri Deo verum [Page 202]& proprium sacrificium; that in the Mass is not offered to God a true and proper Sacrifice, or that it ought not to be offer­ed for the quick and the dead. And they declare it to be the very same Sacrifice which was offered upon the Cross. And the Catech. ad paroch. jux dec. Trid. p. 247. Roman Catechism saith, that this Sacrifice of the Mass, doth not only contain an efficacious meriting, but a sa­tisfying also; and even as Christ by his passion did both merit and satisfie. So they who offer this Sacrifice do sa­tisfie. And the Council of Anath. 3. Trent will have it offered for satisfactions.

21. Now it is acknowledged, that that perfect Sacrifice, which Christ himself once offered, is lively represented and eminently commemorated in the holy Communion, and the benefits thereof are there received by the worthy Commu­nicant: and on this account this Sacrament especially, is a Christian Sacrifice in a large sense; The Eucharist how a Christi­an Sacrifice. as that Jewish Feast was called the Passeover, as it was a memorial and represen­tation of the original Passeover, when the destroying Angel passed by the Houses of the Israelites. And it may be called a Sacrifice, as it contains the performance of such a chief part of service, and worship to God, as renders them who do it aright, pleasing and acceptable to God. And therein we present our selves to God, with our homage and oblations; and our praises, and supplications, that we and the whole Church may obtain remission of sins, and all other benefits of Christs passion. And such great actions of Religion, are in a more large sense, though not in a strict sense, frequently called Sacrifices, both in the holy Scriptures, as in Psal. 51.17. Rom. 12.1. Phil. 4.18. Heb. 13.15, 16. 1 Pet. 2.5. and frequently in the Fathers, as may be shewed from Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Clemens Alexandrinus and divers others. But this sense is so far from satisfying the Coun­cil of Trent, that it pronounceth ubi sup. an Anathema against him, who shall say, it is only a Sacrifice of praise and thanks­giving, or a commemoration of the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, and not a propitiatory Sacrifice.

22. Now that there is not, nor can be in the Sacrament, a proper Sacrificing Christ's Body and Blood, to make expi­ation for the sins of men, may appear from four Considera­tions.

Cons. 1. Christ's once offering himself a Sacrifice, Cons. 1. The Sacrifice of the Mass dero­gates from the death and pus­sion of Christ, was so compleat, that it neither needs, nor admits of any reite­rating, or that this or any other propitiatory, or expiato­ry Sacrifices, should be again offered. This is observed by the Apostle, to be one excellency of the Sacrifice of Christ once offered, above the legal Sacrifices; that whereas by reason of the imperfection of them, the Priests offered of­tentimes the same Sacrifices, Christ by one offering had fully perfected his work; and the Apostle therefore express­ly saith, he should not offer himself often, Heb. 9.25, 26, 27, 28. chap. 10.10-14. de Missa, l. 2. c. 4. Bellarmine was so appre­hensive, of the force and reasonableness of this considera­tion, with respect to the Mass, and the frequent repetition thereof, that he thought it necessary to assert, that the Sa­crifice of the Mass is not of infinite value; for saith he, si missae valor infinitus esset, frustra multae missae; if the value of the Sacrifice of the Mass was infinite, it would be in vain that there should be many Masses. But he might also have discerned, that upon the same reason, he would be obliged to acknowledge, in derogation from the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross, and in opposition to the testimony of the Scriptures, that that offering of the Sacrifice of Christ, which he himself made in our nature, was but of a finite value, and not compleat, so as thereby to perfect for ever them who are sanctified; because if this had been effected by that one offering, it would be in vain to have repeated offerings of that Sacrifice.

23. But others of their Writers, entertain different no­tions and opinions from this, and conclude Barrad. Concord. E­vangel. Tom. 4. l. 3. c. 16. that the merits of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist must be infinite, because they are the same merits, with those of the Sacrifice upon the Cross. And this must needs be so, according to the [Page 204]Council of Trent, which declares Sess. 22. c. 2. it to be the very same Sacrifice, which is now offered by the Priest, and which was then offered upon the Cross, and differeth only in the man­ner of offering, and then its merit and vertue must be the same. Now this conception of the value of the Sa­crifice of the Eucharist, in asserting it to be so compleatly propitiatory, doth not only derogate from the Sacrifice of Christ, which himself offered upon the Cross, but in truth it makes it so void, as to take away any necessity there­of. For since our Lord instituted, and makes them void. and consecrated the Eu­charist before his death; if he had therein offered himself a compleat expiatory Sacrifice, then the work of redemption and expiation, must have been fully performed, before that great work of his passion upon the Cross; and consequently his death upon the Cross, as a Sacrifice must be in vain. This was Hist. Conc. Trident. p. 443 & 451. again and again urged in the Council of Trent, by some whose apprehensions were not agreeable to what that Council determined. Nor can it be other­wise solidly answered, than by acknowledging, that our Lord when he instituted and celebrated the Eu­charist, did not in that action, properly offer himself a propitiatory Sacrifice. And whereas in the Instituti­on of the Eucharist, our Saviour spake of his blood which is shed, not only divers particular Writers of the Roma­nists own the expression of the present tense, to denote what was future, but soon to be accomplished; but even the Vulgar Latin, both in S. Matthew and S. Luke, expres­seth it effundetur, shall be shed, to which agreeth the expres­sing the same in the Canon of the Mass. The like may be observed concerning the phrase of his Body being given, or broken, which the Vulgar Latin also in the words of the institution, 1 Cor. 11.24. renders tradetur, shall be gi­ven. Nor is it either pious or reasonable to think, that the Eucharist celebrated by an ordinary Priest, must be more properly and fully an expiatory and propitiatory Sacrifice, than that which was celebrated by Christ him­self, in the first institution of it; when his act then was [Page 205]made the Rule to guide theirs, by his giving this command­ment, Do this in remembrance of me.

24. Cons. 2. Cons. 2. The body of Christ is not now capable of being Sacrifi­ced. A proper Sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood, is not now capable of being offered, in the Eucharist. Indeed that Sacrament beareth a particular respect to the death of Christ, to his Body as broken, and his Blood as shed; and therein his death is shewed forth, 1 Cor. 11.26. But after his resurrection, he dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him, Rom. 6.9. And therefore his Body as having been once really dead, and his Blood as once shed, may be commemorated, and represented in the Eu­charist. But there is now no exhibiting his Body and Blood in that Sacrament really dead (which cannot be) and so properly offered a Sacrifice to God. And the defen­ders of the Romish Sacrifice, seem here to be put to a great loss.

25. In de Missa. l. 1. c. 2. Bellarmin's definition of a Sacrifice, the last clause thereof declares that the thing sacrificed, ritu mysti­co consecratur & transmutatur; is by a mystical right conse­crated and changed. And explaining the former of these, he saith, it must ex prophana fieri sacra; of a prophane thing be made sacred, and that Sacrificare is Sacrum facere. But though the elements of the Eucharist, before the consecra­tion may be called profane things, or not sacred, and so may be consecrated by the Priest; the glorious body of Christ is capable of no such thing. And explaining the latter clause, he saith it must be changed, so, ut destruatur, that it may be destroyed, or that desinat esse quod ante erat, that it may cease to be what it was before: and this is as far from a­greeing with the uncorruptible body of Christ as the o­ther; and therefore the Cardinal, in making and ex­plicating this definition, seems to have laid aside, or else to have forgotten the interest he was to main­tain.

26. And Conc. Evang. To [...]. l. 3. c. 6. Barradius acutely tells us, that immola­tio, oblatio, and consumptio; staying, offering and consuming, [Page 206]are the things essential to a Sacrifice; and he undertakes so great an adventure, as to shew, how all of them, even the first, and the last, may be affirmed concerning the body of Christ in the Sacrifice of the Mass. He saith, that as a lamb is slain, when the blood is separated from the body by a knife: Christ is here slain, when vi consecration is sanguis Christi à Corpore Christi separatur; by force of the Consecration, the blood of Christ is separated from the body of Christ. Now it is a thing very hard to be conceived, how such a real division, and actual shedding of blood, should be suffered by the incorrup­tible and glorious body of Christ; and it is yet more difficult to conceive, how this can be reconciled with the Council of Trent, which declares that after the Consecration Sess. 21. c. 3. in the Sacrament of the Eucharist sub singulis speciebus totum atque integrum Christum sumi, all and whole Christ is by the Communicants received under each of the species, (which could not be done unless whole Christ was there) and they anathematize him who shall say the contrary, which I suppose this Author was not aware of.

27. With like nicety and trifling, he further says Barrad. ibid. the Body and Blood of Christ are consumed by the Priest on the Altar, under the species of Bread and Wine, because those species are consumed. Now it is strange enough, to speak of the glorified body of Christ being consumed, which is capable of no corruption: and it is yet more strange, that it should be consumed by consuming the species, when it is not the subject of those species. Surely it would be more rational to assert the mortality of the soul, and to think it suf­ficiently proved, by the death of the body.

28. To avoid this difficulty, some steer another course, Coster Enchir. c. 9. de Sacrificio Missae. Costerus a third Jesuit, in a manner deserts the cause. He first gives such a large description of a Sacrifice, as may a­gree to other acts of Divine worship. But when he speaks of the nature of this Sacrifice, he declares it to be represen­tative of the passion and Sacrifice of Christ. He saith in­deed that Christ is here offered, but then he saith, Christ upon the Cross was truly slain, by the real shedding his blood; but [Page 207]here is tantum illius mortis repraesentatio, sub speciebus panis & vini, only a representation of his death, under the species of Bread and Wine. Now though repraesentare be some­times observed to signifie rem praesentem facere, to make the thing present, as some learned men have observed, the sense of Costerus must be, what we generally understand by representing; because he sometimes speaks of the species representing the dead body of Christ, which cannot be by ma­king it so; and sometimes he declares, the Sacrifices of the Law to represent the death of Christ, but not so excellently as the Eucharist. And concerning the effect of this Sacrifice, ibid. p. 324, & 334. he declares this difference, between that Sacrifice on the Cross, and this of the Mass, that the former was offered to satisfie God, and pay the price for the sins of the world, and all other needful gifts; but the latter is for the applying those things, which Christ merited and procured by his death on the Cross. And to this purpose again, Hoc efficitur per Missae Sacrificium, ut quod perfecit Christus in cruce, id nobis singulis applicetur: illic pretium est solutum pro peccatis omni­bus, hic nobis impetratur hujus pretii applicatio. Quod orati­onibus quoque in Ecclesia praestatur, quibus rogatur Deus, ut efficiamur participes passionis Christi. This indeed, if it were the true Doctrine of the Romish Church in this parti­cular, would be a fairer account of it, than either it self or others give. But in truth, this is so different from the sense of the Council of Trent above expressed, that it seems to import, that this Writer thought it hard to clear and de­fend the true sense of that Church, and therefore chose to represent it under a disguise; and in this Controversie in most things he comes nearer to the Protestant Doctrine, than the Romish. We own such a representation of Christs death in this Sacrament, as consists with his real presence, in a Spiritual and Sacramental manner. We acknowledge such a Relation between the Passion of Christ on the Cross, and the Memorial of it, in this Sacrament, that the Com­munion of the body and blood of Christ, and the benefits procu­red by his passion, are exhibited in this Sacrament, and are [Page 208]therein by the faithful received. And we account the elements of Bread and Wine, to be offered to God in this Sacrament, as an oblation according to the ancient Church; since the setting apart and consecrating the elements, is a separating them to God, and to his service; but we do not look upon them, to make way for a proper propitiatory Sacrifice, in the Eucharist. But I now pass from the consideration of the Sacrifice to consider the Priest who is to offer it.

29. Cons. 3. The Sacrifice of Christ pecu­liar to his in­communicable Priesthood. Cons. 3. It is peculiar to the Office of Christs high Priesthood, after the order of Melchisedec, to offer up him­self to be a propitiatory Sacrifice: and this high Priest­hood is communicated to no other person besides himself. The Sacrifice of our Saviour, as Athan. cout. Arian. Orat. 3. Athanasius saith, hath compleated all, [...], being once made; and he adds, Aaron had those who succeeded him— [...], but our Lord having an high Priesthood, which is not successive, nor passeth from one to another, is a faithful High Priest. And this was the Apo­stles Doctrine, Heb. 7. Now Bellarmine saith, de Mis. l. 1. c. 24. no Catholicks affirm, other Priests to succeed to Christ, but they are his Vicars or suffragans in the Melchisedecian Priesthood, or ra­ther his Ministers. But here it must be considered, 1. That if they be Priests of such an order, as can offer Christ him­self, or the Sacrifice of his Body and Blood, to be a Sacri­fice of atonement and propitiation, they must be capable of performing all the necessary rites of that Sacrifice. And one great rite thereof is, that as the legal High Priest, in making an atonement, was to enter into the holy of holies, with the blood thereof, so he who offers the great Sacri­fice of atonement, which is the Body and Blood of Christ, must enter into Heaven it self, and there appear in the pre­sence of God for us, presenting his Sacrifice to God in that Holy place, Heb. 9.11, 12, 24. but this none but Christ himself can do. 2. He who is a Priest, after the order of Melchisedec, must be a Priest for ever, since the order of the Melchisedecian Priesthood doth not admit succession, [Page 209]as that of the Aaronical did, Heb. 7.3, 8, 17, 23, 24, 28. And therefore such persons as succeed one another in their Office, cannot be of the Melchisedecian Priesthood. 3. Since an High Priest is chiefly appointed, to offer gifts or Sacri­fices for sins, Heb. 5.1. chap. 8.3. and thereby to make recon­ciliation, and execute other acts of his Office, in pursuance of his Sacrifice; the offering that Sacrifice of reconciliation, for which he is appointed, is a main part of his Office, and therefore not to be performed by him, who hath not the same Office. Wherefore since no man hath that Office of High Priesthood, which Christ himself hath, none can make the same reconciliation, by offering the same Sacrifice of a­tonement or propitiatory Sacrifice.

30. But we are told in Catech. ad Paroch. de Euch. Sac. p. 249. the Roman Catechism, that there being one Sacrifice on the Cross and in the Mass, there is also one and the same Priest Christ, the Lord, and the Ministers who sacrifice non suam sed Christi personam susci­piunt, they take upon them the person of Christ, and they say not this is Christs body, but this is my body. Now if these words should intend more, than that the Minister acts by Christs authority (who hath given to none, authority to be High Priests, or Priests, of that order which himself is) and that it is the person of Christ who offers, and not of the Minister, then indeed there is a fit Priest for the Sacrifice. But then it must be proved, which can never be, that Christ in his own person undertakes this Office in every Mass; and then it must also be granted, that no man in the Church of Rome can pretend any more to offer this Sacrifice, than he can pretend to be the person of Christ.

31. Wherefore de Mis. l. 2. c. 4. Bellarmine gives us their sense, to this purpose: The Sacrifice of the Mass is offered by Christ, by the Church, and by the Minister, but in a different manner; Christ offers it by a Priest, a man, as his proper Minister; the Church offer, as the people offer by their Priest; so Christ offers by an inferior, the Church by a superior; the Minister offers as a true, but ministerial Priest. Now this pretends an au­thority from Christ, but the Office of performing this Sa­crifice [Page 210]to be in the Priest. And to this purpose the Coun­cil of Trent, Sess. 22. both declares Christ to have commanded his Apostles, and their successors in the Priesthood, that they should offer this Sacrifice; and also bestow one of their rash Ana­thema's on him who shall say, that Christ did not make his Apo­stles Priests, or did not ordain, that they should offer his Body and Blood, when he said, Do this in remembrance of me. But as there is no expression in these words of Christ, or any o­ther, to shew that he instituted his Apostles and their Suc­cessors to be such Priests, as to offer a proper propitiatory Sacri­fice; so it appears, that the state of the Gospel doth not admit of any person, but only Christ himself, to offer his own Body and Blood, as a proper and compleat propitiatory Sa­crifice; since none else are or can be of that Office of Priest­hood, to which it belongs to offer this Sacrifice, nor is any other capable of performing the necessary Rites thereof.

32. Cons. 4. The great ef­fects of Christs Sacrifice can­not be attribu­ted to any re­peated Sacri­fice. Cons. 4. The great benefits from the merits of Christs Sacrifice, are wholly procured by that one offering of himself, when he died and gave himself a Sacrifice of a sweet smelling savour, and now lives for ever to pursue the ends thereof. And therefore there neither can, nor need be any other propitiatory Sacrifice of Christs Body and Blood. For that Sacrifice of Christ which was offered by himself, and made satisfaction for sin, did thereby obtain the grace, and gave a compleat and abiding sanction to the terms of the Gospel Covenant, that through his name, all who believe, and obey, may through his mediation receive remission of sins, and all other blessings of the Covenant. Now the Eucharist as a Sacrament confirms the benefits of this Co­venant, and exhibits the blessings thereof. But the Eu­charist cannot now, since the death of Christ, give such a Sanction and establishment to the new Covenant, that from it that Covenant should receive its sureness and validity, as it did from Christ's real Sacrifice; nor are any new terms of grace, superadded to that. But the validity of the new Co­venant [Page 211]is supposed, in the administration of the Eucharist. And Christs own offering, obtained to himself that high exal­tation, whereby he can give repentance and remission of sins, and is a continual Intercessor and Advocate, and therefore lives to execute his own last Will and Testament, and to be­stow the benefits of that propitiatory Sacrifice, which he hath offered. Now these which were the great things procured by his Sacrifice, have such a peculiar respect to his own offering himself, that it is impossible they should have any dependance upon any after-celebration of the Eucharist; especially when this Sacrament must have its vertue from that new Covenant established, and from the ex­altation of Christ. And since by that Sacrifice, Christ is a propitiation for the sins of the whole World, there is need of no renewed expiatory Sacrifice, to extend or apply the be­nefits thereof to particular persons, which is sufficiently done in the Eucharist as a Sacrament, and in other Ministe­rial administrations, dispensing in Gods name and by his au­thority, the blessings of the new Covenant to pious peni­tent and believing persons.

33. I might here also observe, that Barrad. Conc. Evang. Tom. 4. l. 3. c. 16. some of the Ro­manists themselves declare, that Christ doth not merit in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, because the state of heavenly Glory in which he is, excludes merit; but here are presented to God, the infinite merits of his death on the Cross. Now if this be true, (and the reason given for it is not inconsiderable) it must needs exclude any propitiatory Sacrifice from the Eucha­rist. But I shall further observe, that those admirable acts of the obedience of Christ, in the wonderful humiliation of his life and death, and submitting himself according to his Fathers will, to suffer even the death of the Cross, were of high value, for the making his propitiatory Sacrifice, which him­self offered, available in the sight of God, to procure his blessing to man. But now since our Lord sits at Gods right hand, there is no such further humiliation (nor need there be, since what he once did, was of such unspeakable merit and worth) to give any new merits of like nature, to re­newed [Page 212]proper propitiatory Sacrifices. But the merits of his life and death are of infinite and sufficient vertue. And whereas Christ neither appointed that there should be, nor declared that there is, any proper propitiatory Sacrifice in the Eucharist, he who can think against plain evidence, that in the first celebration of the Eucharist, Christ offered himself a proper propitiatory Sacrifice; and consequently that he died really, the night before he was crucified, and was dead when his Disciples heard him speak, and conversed with him alive; hath a mind and belief, of a fit size to receive this and several other strange Doctrines of the Church of Rome. But besides what I have here said, if Transubstanti­ation be a Doctrine contrary to truth, of which I shall dis­course in the Sect. 4. n. 14-25. next Section, the foundation of the Pro­per Propitiatory Sacrifice is thereby removed.

34. Of additional Doctrines in the Church of Rome. To these Instances I may further add, that the Ro­mish Church superadding to the Christian Religion many new Doctrines, as necessary points of Faith, doth hereby also derogate from the authority of our Saviour. For this casts a disparagement upon his revelation. Christ and his Apo­stles made a full declaration of the Christian Doctrine, in­somuch that whosoever shall teach any other Doctrine, is under the Apostolical Anathema, Gal. 1.8, 9. which Cont. lit. Petil. l. 3. c. 6. S. Austin extends so far, as to apply that Anathema to him, whosoever he be, who shall teach any thing concerning Christ or his Church, or any matter of faith, or rule of Chri­stian life, which is not contained in the Scriptures. But there was nothing taught in the Apostolical Doctrine, to assert or give any countenance to the Popes infallibility, or his Universal Supremacy; to the propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass, to the Doctrine of Purgatory, Invocation of Saints, and many other things now delivered as points de fide in the Church of Rome, of which divers are mentioned in this Chapter. And these new matters of faith, have so altered and changed the ancient Christian Religion, that with these mixtures, it is very unlike what was declared by Christ and his Apostles.

35. The Council of Trent declares their Sess. 4. c. 1. All these under the name of Traditions made equal with the Scri­pture, receiving the holy Scripture, and their Traditions to be pari pietatis affectu & reverentia; with the like pious affection and reve­rence. Indeed it calls these Traditions, such as were from the mouth of Christ, or were dictated by the Holy Ghost, and received in the Catholick Church. But since after their decla­ring thus much, and expressing the Canon of the Scripture, with the additional Books received in the Romish Church, they tell us that this was done, that all men might know, what foundation they would proceed on, in their confirming Do­ctrines and reforming manners; it is manifest, that all Do­ctrines of Faith or practice, delivered in that Council, which are not contained in the Scriptures, are reputed to be such Traditions, as are of equal authority with the Scri­ptures. And in the Form. Ju­ram. an. 1564. Bull of Pius the Fourth, many of these Doctrines are particularly expressed, and in the end of it an hearty acceptance is declared, of all things defined in the Council of Trent, and it is added that this is the true Catholick faith, extra quam nemo salvus esse potest, out of which no man can be saved. And this all who have cure of souls, and preferments in the Church, must own by their solemn Oath and Vow. And yet how little that Council in its De­cisions, kept to the true Rules of Catholick Tradition, is sufficiently evident from what they at this very time de­clared, concerning the Canon of the Scripture: for their ta­king into the Canon several of those Books which we account Apocryphal, hath been plainly proved by Bishop Cosins, to be contrary to the Ʋniversal Tradition of the Church.

36. And if no man may with honesty, and above it. add any thing to a mans Deed or Covenant, as if it were contained therein, how great a crime is it to deal thus with Gods Covenant? But the Church of Rome not only equals her Traditions (containing many new points of Faith) with the Scri­ptures, and what is the true Christian Doctrine, but it really sets them above the Holy Scriptures, though they be in many things contrary thereunto. For they make Tra­dition [Page 214]such a Rule for the Scripture, that it must signifie no more than Tradition will allow. Sect. IV. And to this purpose their In Bull. pii 4. Clergy swear, to admit the Scriptures according to that sense, which the holy Mother the Church hath held, and doth hold; who is to judge of the true sense of Scripture. And hereby they mean the Church of Rome, there called the Mother of all Churches.

SECT. IV.
Of the publick allowance or injunction of such things amongst the Papists, as either debase the Majesty of God, or give divine honour to something else besides God.

THose things deserve to be condemned as greatly evil, which debase the Majesty of God, or deprive him of that peculiar Glory and Worship, which is due to him alone; and they who practise or uphold such things, ought to be esteemed as evil doers in an high degree. Honour, which, in a suitable measure, belongs to every Superior, as to a Father or a Prince, in the highest measure of it, is proper to God; and that reverence which is due to him, is necessary to be reserved solely for him, both from the rules of Justice and Piety, and also because God is in this respect a Jealous God.

2. 1. Images of the Deity are used by the Pa­pists But, First, It is an abasing the Majesty of God, to re­present the glorious, infinite, and invisible God, who is a pure Spirit, by a material Image. This is frequently and publickly practised in the Church of Rome, and is there allowed and defended by many of its Writers. De Eccl. Triumph. c. 8. Car­dinal [Page 215] Bellarmine hath one Chapter on purpose to prove, Non esse prohibitas-imagines Dei, that Images of God are not prohi­bited; and he cites Cajetan, Catharinus, and others, as de­fending the same; and one chief argument, which he useth to prove this, is Ex usu Ecclesiae, from the usage of the Church. And he there declares, jam receptae sunt fere ubique ejusmodi imagines, that now such Images are almost every where recei­ved; and that it is not credible, that the Church would univer­sally tolerate any unlawful thing: Where he also declares, that these were approved both in the second Council of Nice, and in the Council of Trent. But the making an Image of the true God, stands condemned in the holy Scrip­tures, even in the Second Commandment, against the Di­vine Law. Thou shalt not make to thy self any Graven Image—thou shalt not bow down to them nor worship them. And that the Divine Law doth not only forbid the Images of a false God, or an inferiour Deity, but such also as were intended to represent the true God, is manifest from Deut. 4.15, 16. Take good heed to your selves (for you saw no manner of similitude, in the day the Lord spake unto you in Horeb, out of the midst of the fire) lest ye corrupt your selves, and make you a Graven Image, the similitude of any figure, or the likeness of Male or Female. And this Command is the more to be considered, because of that emphatical caution, which is used by way of Preface thereto.

3. It was one of the hainous sins, which generally prevailed in the Pagan World, that they changed the Glory of the Incorruptible God, into an Image made like to corruptible Man, and to Birds, &c. Rom. 1.23. This is agree­able to the Pa­gan practice. And though I charge not the Roman Church, with running parallel to the Pagan Idolatry; yet this disparaging the Divine Being, by setting up visible Images and Representations thereof, and giving Worship to them under that relation, was one of the great Miscarriages of the Gentiles, and yet the chief part at least of the Gentiles, did not think these very Images to be the proper Beings of their Gods. For besides their acknow­ledgment of the Wisdom, Purity, Goodness, and Power of [Page 216]the Deity, which many Testimonies produced by Justin Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, Eusebius, and other Chri­stian Writers do express, there was also retained amongst them, such Notions concerning the Deity, as to acknow­ledge God to be incorporeal. It is observed by Cont. Cels. l. 1. p. 13. Origen, that Numenius, a Pythagorean Philosopher, had enumera­ted those Gentile Nations, who asserted God to be an Incor­poreal Being. And that great expression of Euripides is very plain, wherein he calls God, one who sees all things, but himself is invisible Cl. Alex. Adm. ad Gent. [...]. And agreeable to this, is the expression of Orpheus, that no Mortal sees God, but he sees all.

4. No such thing in the Primi­tive Church. The Primitive Christians not only had no Images of God, as appears from various expressions of Origen, Minu­tius Felix, and other Writers of those Ages; but they al­so greatly condemned any such thing. The ancient Council of Conc. Elib. c. 36. Elvira took care, ne quod colitur & adoratur, in pari­etibus depingatur, that that Being which is worshipped and adored should not be painted upon walls; which words must needs forbid and condemn the making Images of God. And Eusebius speaking of representing the Divine Being by dead matter, saith Praep. Evang. l. 3. c. 7., [...]; what can offer more violence to reason? And when he spake of the soul of man be­ing the Image of God, as being rational, immaterial, immor­tal, and not subject to hurt and force, and that no Figure or Image could be made of this, he adds, ibid. c. 10. [...]; who can be so mad as to think, that the most high God may be re­presented by an Image made like to a man?

5. Some Roma­nists are not willing to own this gene­ral practice. But in the Church of Rome, the Blessed Trinity is fre­quently pictured, and represented by an Image. And though this be a common and publick practice, yet some of the Romanists are so unwilling, either to defend, or to acknowledge it; that they deny their having any Images of the Trinity. To this purpose Enchir. c. 11. Nulla igi [...]ur ratione dicendum est Christ anos vel colere vel asservare Sanctae Trinitatis vel Patris vel Spiritus Sancti imagines. Costerus having shew­ed from the Scripture, that nothing can resemble God, adds, [Page 217] It must therefore upon no account be said, that Christians do either worship or keep the Images of the holy Trinity, or of the Father, or of the Holy Ghost. And, saith he, when the Father is painted, as the ancient of days, this is not the image of the Father, but a representation of the vision of Daniel, or of S. John; and the Dove that is painted, is not the image of the Holy Ghost; but of that Dove, in which at Jordan the Holy Ghost descended. And to the same purpose speaks an English Catechism, said to be Printed at Doway. But though these Writers are not willing to defend, but would rather conceal, what is allowed by their Church in this matter; the frequent use of the Pictures of the three persons of the Trinity all together, and where there is no decyphering of these visions, will not admit that account they give thereof.

6. Whereof De Eccles. Triumph. c. 8. Bellarmine, who as I above shewed, freely acknowledgeth the practice, of making Images of God, doth as plainly assert it to be allowable, Licet pingere imaginem Dei Patris, &c. It is lawful to paint the Image of God the Father in the form of an Old Man; and of the Holy Ghost in the form of a Dove. And the Council of Sess. 25. Images of God approved by the Council of Trent. Trent, which in its last Session coucheth several things under few words, expresseth its allowance of the picturing God, when it orders the people to be taught, that the Divinity is not to that purpose represented in a figure, as if it could be seen by bo­dily eyes, or could be expressed by colours and figures.

7. But such representations are wholly unlike to the infinite and immense Divine Nature, They are unsu­table to the Di­vine Nature, in which are the per­fections of wisdom, power, goodness, truth and purity, and other such like. And where these spiritual excellencies are in a considerable degree, there is indeed a true partaking of the Divine Image, and a likeness to God. But the resem­bling him by a corporeal Image is the making a false, and a low and mean representation of God, which abateth that high reverence, which is due to his Majesty. And what finite material thing can be thought like to him, who is so infinitely above all things, of whom the Prophet Esay [Page 218]saith, Isaiah 40.18. To whom will ye liken God, or what like­ness will ye compare unto him? And if a man would think himself injured, if he be represented in the shape or form of another Being, far inferiour to his nature; how great an offence may it well be to the Glorious God, to be pictu­red against his express command, in the shape of an old man?

8. The Catech. ad Paroch. de Decal. pr. Prae­cepto. Roman Catechism observes two ways, where­by the Majesty of God is greatly offended by Images; the one, if Idols and Images be worshipped as God, and the other, if any shall endeavour to make the form, or shape of the Di­vinity, as if it could be seen by bodily eyes; and proves by the Scripture, that such a figure of God neither can be made, nor may be lawfully attempted. And it further acknow­ledgeth, that God to the intent he might wholly take away Idolatry, imaginem divinitatis ex quavis materia fieri prohi­buit; did forbid the Image of the Deity to be made of any mat­ter whatsoever; and that the wise Lawgiver did enjoin, ne divinitatis imaginem fingerent, that they might not frame an Image of the Deity, and give the honour of God to a Crea­ture. But after all this it requires, that no man should think there is any offence against Religion, when any person of the most Holy Trinity, is expressed by certain signs or figures, under which they appeared in the Old Testament or in the New: and it is there said, that this is done to declare their proper­ties or actions; as according to the vision of Daniel, the repre­sentation of the ancient of days, with the Books open, shews the eternity and wisdom of God.

9. and unfit to represent the Attributes of God. But the Divine Attributes and perfections are so in­finite and spiritual, that they are as uncapable of being re­presented by an Image as his nature is. And the shape of an old man doth directly express nothing of Wisdom or E­ternity: and such conceptions as may be suggested, by the sight of such a Picture, are very imperfect and below the Divine excellency; since such a Being as is so represented, is infirm and decaying, and become unfit for action, and can see but a little way before him, and also is of such a na­ture, [Page 219]as is stained and infected with sin. And if such pretend­ed defective resemblances, of the properties of God, could be a sufficient defence, for the making Images of the Dei­ty, the Pagans might then be justified in many of their Images, who spake more on their behalf than all this comes to. For besides what perfections the figures of their Images might darkly express, it was pleaded by in Eus. pr. Evang. l. 3. c. 7. Porphyry on their behalf, that as to the matter of their Images, they fra­med them of Crystal, Marble, Gold, and such like pure Me­tals, because the Divine Being is not capable of being stain­ed, [...], Gold doth not admit of any defilement or corruption. And that which represents the purity, ex­cellency and incorruption of the Divine Nature (if it were done worthy of God) hath respect to none of the least Di­vine perfections.

10. And concerning the Argument, The forms un­der which God appeared in vi­sion, or other­wise, in the Old Testament or the New, were not resem­blances of his Being, but te­stimonies of his more special presence at that time and place. made use of from the visions in the Scriptures, or the appearances, under which God manifested his presence to men, as the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape, like a Dove, Luk. 3.22. and the ancient of days, is intended to signifie God, Dan. 7.9. it is to be considered, that these appearances (the one in vision, and the other in plain view) with others, were not repre­sentations of the Divine nature, as if that was like to these things, or might be pictured by them; but they were ex­traordinary testimonies, visibly evidencing a more emi­nent, and signal presence of God, at that time, and place. And of this nature was also the bush burning and not con­sumed, the pillar of cloud and fire, that led the Israelites; the darkness, blackness and tempest on Mount Sinai; the Cloud on the Mercy-seat; and that which sometimes filled the Ta­bernacle and the Temple, as at the first Consecration of each of them. Such also was the appearance of fiery cloven tongues, which sat on the Apostles, at the descent of the Holy Ghost, and the fire which oft came down from Heaven, upon the Sacrifices, in testimony of Gods acceptance. All these were manifestations of a more special presence of God, but none of them were intended to express any such likeness of the De­ity, [Page 220]that it should be lawful to picture it in that figure. And those words I above mentioned, Deut. 4.15. Ye saw no manner of similitude in the day the Lordspake unto you in Horeb, out of the midst of the fire, do sufficiently shew, that though there was an extraordinary, and particular pre­sence of God, manifested in the fire, upon Mount Sinai; the appearance of that fire, out of which the Lord spake, was far from being intended to be any similitude of God, or to give us a liberty to make any similitude of him whatsoe­ver. And if any Image of God should be pretended to be of like nature with those appearances now mentioned, so as to contain a peculiar testimony of the signal presence of God in them; this would render them the more manifestly Idolatrous.

11. But besides this, de Eccl. Triumph. l. 2. c. 8. Cardinal Bellarmine urgeth, for the lawfulness of resembling God in the figure of a man, that Angels are painted though they be incorporeal; and that the Scripture speaks of his hands, face, feet, and attributeth to him all the parts of a man, when it speaks of his standing, sitting and walking. Of the Pictu­ring of Angels, To which I Answer, 1. The pictu­ring of an Angel, if it be only done to suggest to our minds, some general notice of an Angel, or to put us upon framing a conception of that Being, is a thing which may be allow­ed. But if a glorious Angel should be purposely present­ed to us, as an object for our great honour, under such a re­presentation as is usual in the picturing an Angel, he would be much misrepresented thereby, to the disadvantage of the excellencies of his nature. But yet there would not that great injury be done to the Angel thereby, that is done to the Majesty of God, in debasing him, against the duty of a Creature, and also against his express Law and Command. 2. and the expres­sions of the face, and eyes of God. That the Scripture speaking of the face of God, and his hands and eyes, since these phrases are to be understood in a sigurative sense, doth give us no more allowance, to take them in a proper literal sense, and thereupon to picture God, with such a corporeal face, and hands, against his particular Command, and in derogation from his Majesty; [Page 221]than it gives countenance to our affirming that God hath a body, and such corporeal parts, which are contrary to his Spiritual nature. And it might be added, that the pictu­ring God, in such a bodily shape, may have an ill influ­ence, upon the gross conceptions of some men, concerning the Deity. And men are not so wholly out of danger of these misconceptions, when it was once so openly and hotly asserted Socr. Ecc. Hist. l. 6. c. 7. Soz. l. 8. c. 11, 12. by the Egyptian Monks, that God had a body, and an humane shape, and that Theophilus then Bishop of Alexandria complyed with this opinion, though that was probably done out of design: and even Epiphani­us is reported by Socr. ibid. c. 9. Soz. ibid. c. 14. Socrates, and Sozomen, to be more heartily a favourer of that Opinion. And this was also propagated by Audaeus, of whom Theoderet gives some ac­count, Hist. Eccles. l. 4. c. 9.

12. But ubi supra. Bellarmin 's distinction considered. Bellarmine further endeavours to evade, all that can be said against the Images of God, by distin­guishing between 1. An Image to express a perfect simili­tude of form, and this he grants is not to be admitted, con­cerning God. 2. To represent an History. And 3. with­out respect to History, in resembling the nature of a thing, not by proper similitude, but analogically, and by metaphori­cal significations, and he saith, thus they paint Angels as young men, & hoc modo pingimus Deum patrem, cum eum ex­tra historiam pingimus, humana forma; on this manner we paint God the Father, when out of History, we paint him in the shape of a man. But this distinction will not be to any great purpose, because, 1. Euen the Pagans did not think their Images to have a likeness of shape unto their Gods. 2. It seems to be no great commendation of any Image, that it is unlike the thing it represents, and doth not truly express it. 3. That all the Images of the Roman Church are also of this nature, even the Images of Saints departed. For the Roman Church worships only the Souls and Spirits of Saints deceased, as enjoying this beatifical vision, not their bodies, which till the Resurrection are dead in their graves. And therefore the Images of these Saints do not ex­press [Page 222]a likeness of shape to their souls, but referr to them, by expressing the resemblance of the bodies, in which they once dwelt, and to which they were, and shall be again united, though now separated from them. And therefore this notion allows the Images of God, in like manner as the Church of Rome sets up Images of Angels and Saints decea­sed; not making any considerable difference betwixt these, so far as concerns the representing every one of them by their Image; and consequently must allow the worshipping every one of these Images, with a proportionable honour in relation to the Beings represented by them. 4. If this no­tion were of any weight, the Jewish Church might then have been warranted, in setting up Images of God (and worship­ping them also with respect to God) provided they were not like him, nor esteemed so to be. And yet God plain­ly forbad their making any Image of him, in the likeness of male or female, or any other thing; though he had suf­ficiently taught them, and they well knew, that the Deity was not in shape like to any of these. And God declares his dislike, against any such Images; because they could frame nothing which they could liken to him: which being a rea­son of perpetual and abiding truth, doth concern the Chri­stian state as well as the Jewish; and the laying down this reason, doth sufficiently declare, against all such Images as are not like to him.

13. Secondly, Of the Roma­nists worship­ping the Eu­charist with Divine Wor­ship. I shall shew that the Romanists give proper Divine worship to that which is not God. And here I shall particularly instance in the Sacrament of the Eucha­rist, to which they profess to give that Latria, or high wor­ship, which is due to the true God alone. This is the plain Doctrine of the Council of Trent, Conc. Trid. Sess. 13. c. 5. fideles omnes Latriae cultum qui vero Deo debetur huic Sacramento deferre, that all good Christians do give to this Sacrament that properly Divine worship which is due to the true God. And in the beginning of that Session, they strictly forbid all Christians thence­forward to believe otherwise, and their sixth Anathema is [Page 223]against him, who shall say that Christ in the Eucharist is not to be adored with that which is the proper Divine worship. In like manner it is expressed in the Roman Catechism, publish­ed by the authority of Pius the Fifth Catech. ad par. de Euch. Sacr. in init., huic Sacramento divinos honores tribuendos esse, that Divine honour is to be given to this Sacrament. And the words of Adoration in the Missal, and the acts of adoration unto this Sacrament, are accordingly to be understood, to give Divine honour thereunto. And Azorius is for giving this Divine worship even to the Instit. Mor. part. 2. l. 5. c. 16. species, or appearances of Bread and Wine in this Sacrament. But the Council of Trent seem not to extend it so far, and the Roman Catechism declares, that when they affirm this Sacrament is to be worship­ped, they understand this of the Body and Blood of Christ therein.

14. We greatly reverence the holy Sacrament, as an ex­cellent institution of our Saviour, but reserve the Divine honour to God alone: for there is nothing which is not truly God (be it otherwise never so sacred) to which such worship may be given. S. Paul was an eminent Apostle, but, with detestation, disclaimed the receiving it, Act. 14.13, 14, 15. The brazen Serpent under the Law was of Gods institution, for the healing those Israelites, who look­ed upon it, but yet it was a great sin to worship it with Divine honour. If the homage peculiarly due to a Prince, be given to any other in his Dominions, though it be to one he hath highly advanced, he will account this a disparaging his dignity, and practising Treason and Rebellion: and God who is a jealous God, will not give his worship to ano­ther. But this practice of the Roman Church depends upon their Doctrine of Transubstantiation: This is grourd­ed upon tran­substantiation. for if that sub­stance which is in the Sacrament, be no longer Bread and Wine, but be changed into the substance of the very Bo­dy and Blood of Christ, in union with his Divinity, then and only then, may Divine honour be given unto it. And if it be in truth the very same glorified Christ, who is at Gods right hand, and nothing else, then is that worship which [Page 224]is due to Christ the Son of God, which is proper Divine Wor­ship, as much to be performed to this Sacrament, as to him in Heaven, since both is substantially one and the same thing, wholly and intirely. The Sess. 13. c. 1, 4, 5. & Anath. 1. & 2. Council of Trent declares, that by the consecration of the Bread and Wine, there is a conversion of their whole substance, into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ: And they say, the Body and Blood of Christ with his soul and Divinity, and therefore whole Christ, are contained in the Eucharist, but the substance of the Bread and Wine remains not, but only the species or appearance thereof, and that this the Church calls Transubstantiation. On this Doctrine it founds the Divine worship of the Sacrament, and it anathematizeth him, whosoever shall speak against this Transubstantiation, and forbids all Christians, that they shall not dare to believe or teach otherwise concerning the Eucharist, than as this Council hath determined. Now if this Doctrine of Tran­substantiation be true, the giving Divine worship to this Sa­crament is but just: but if this be false, as the Article 28. Church of England declares, then is the giving Divine honour there­to certainly and greatly sinful and evil.

15. It is acknowledged that this holy Sacrament, admi­nistred according to Christs institution, doth truly and really exhibite and communicate Christs Body and Blood, with the benefits of his Sacrifice, in an Heavenly, Mystical and Sacramental way: but the manner of this gracious pre­sence, it is needless curiously to enquire. And though the elements of Bread and Wine remain in their proper sub­stances; yet are they greatly changed, by their consecrati­on, from common Bread and Wine, to contain under them, such Spiritual and Divine Mysteries; which is the effect of Divine power and grace. Nor is it possible that these ele­ments should tender to us Christ, and the benefits of his Passion, if this work had not been ordered by the power and authority of God, in his Institutions, who hath the dis­posal of this grace. But that the elements of Bread and Wine, remain in their substance, and that they are not tran­substantiated [Page 225]into the Body and Blood of Christ, is generally asserted by all Protestants, whilst the contrary is universal­ly affirmed by the Romanists, and is made one great branch of the true Catholick Faith, and the new Roman Creed, ac­cording to the famous Bull of Pius the Fourth, which is so solemnly sworn unto. Indeed there are such expressi­ons frequently used in the Church of Rome as these, Conc. Trid. ubi sup. c. 1. that Christ who is present in Heaven by his natural presence, is present in other places in substance, by that way which we can more easily believe than express by words; and the Roman Ca­techism saith, de Euch. Sacr. post med. this change must not be curiously enquired into, for it cannot be perceived by us; and Baronius declares, that Baron. An. Eccl. an. 44. n. 49. modo ineffabili transubstantiatur, it is transubstantiated by an unspeakable manner. But it is manifest from their plain decisions, that these and such like expressions relate either to the manner of the Divine operation, or to the way of ex­plicating, how he can be substantially present, in every Sa­crament while he is ascended into Heaven, and sitteth at Gods right hand: for the manner of his presence it self, they have expressed to be by Transubstantiation, as above ex­plained.

16. But that the elements of Bread and Wine, No Transub­stantiation is proved from Scripture: have not their substance changed, into the proper substance of the Body and Blood of Christ may appear, First, Because there is nothing in the Institution of this Sacrament (from whence the nature of this Sacrament must be discerned) or any where else in the holy Scripture, which affords any proof for Transubstantlation. It is observed by Hist. Tran­subst. c. 5. n. 3. Bishop Cosins, that Scotus, Durandus, Biel, Occam, Ca­meraoensis, Bishop Eisher against Duther, and Cardinal Ca­jetan; did all acknowledge, that Tiansubstantiation could not be proved sufficiently from Scripture, and their words are by him produced; and that Bellarmine declared him­self doubtful thereof. Those words of our Saviour so much urged by the Romanists; This is my Body, do not determine the manner of his presence, or that he is Transubstantially [Page 226]there, and so carnally, that according to the Catech. ad Par. p. 223. Roman Ca­techism, his bones and nerves, and whole Christ is there sub­stantially contained. But this may well be so understood, that he spiritually and sacramentally, under visible elements, exhibits the Sacrifice of himself, so as to apply it to true Christians, and interest them in it, and the blessings and benefits thereof. Nor do the use of the like phrases in Scri­pture, import any substantial change of the things them­selves. When S. Paul speaks of the Israelites, 1 Cor. 10.4. that they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them, and that rock was Christ: it cannot be supposed, that the sub­stance of the Rock should be changed into the substance of Christ, who was not yet Incarnate. When S. John decla­reth, Joh. 1.14. The word was made flesh, it cannot be thence affirmed, without Heresie and Blasphemy, that his Divine Nature was changed into his Humane Nature. And when our Lord had spoken, Joh. 6. of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, and added upon his Disciples being offended at those sayings, v. 63. It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you are spirit, and they are life: he hereby (and also by what he speaks of be­lieving, both in the beginning and ending of that Discourse, and towards the middle of it, v. 35.47, 48, 64.) suffici­ently directs them to a Spiritual sense of those things which he had spoken. And a like interpretation of those words, Take, eat, this is my Body, is somewhat directed by the same expressions; and is also most suitable to the na­ture of the Sacrament: nor can those words mentioned both by S. Luke and S. Paul, Luk. 22.20. 1 Cor. 11.25. This Cup is the new Testament, be otherwise understood, than Sa­cramentally, and somewhat figuratively, and these also are expressed as part of the institution of the Eucha­rist.

17. It was not owned in the Primitive Church. Secondly, The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is in­consistent with the sense of the ancient Church. This is particularly and purposely manifested in that Book of [Page 227]the late Reverend Bishop of Durham, which I referred unto in the foregoing Paragraph; and therefore I shall on­ly mention some few Testimonies, Tertullian arguing a­gainst Marcion, who denied the reality of Christ's Body (as other ancient Hereticks asserted him to have had only the appearance of a Body) saith, Tertul. cont. Marc. l. 4. c. 40. Christ took Bread, and distributing it to his Disciples, made it his Body, saying this is my Body; that is, the figure of my Body: but there had been no figure, unless the Body had been in truth. Now the manner of his expression concerning the figure of Christs Body, shews him not to have accounted the Body of Christ to be sub­stantially, but representatively in the Sacrament. And his manner of arguing, shews him not to have understood, or owned the Romish Transubstantiation. For it might be said to one who should thus argue, and hold the Romish Principles, by one of the Disciples of Marcion, that there is in the figure the appearance of such a Body, which after con­secration is not real, viz. Bread and Wine; and therefore it is then fit to resemble what is of like nature. In the Dialogues of Theoderet, it was urged in the defence of the Heresie of Eutyches, that as the Symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ, after the invocation of the Priest, are made other things and changed; so the Body of Christ after its assumption, is changed into the divine substance and nature. But this is answered by the Orthodox person to the Here­tick Theod. Dial. 2., that he is here taken in the Nets which himself made; for the symbols or mystical signs, do not after their Sanctification depart from their own nature, but remain in their former substance, form and shape. And Prosper speaking of the Eucharist saith, this De Cons. Dist. 2. c. Hoc est. heavenly bread, after its man­ner, is called the Body of Christ, when it is indeed the Sacra­ment of his Body; and it is called the Sacrificing his Flesh, and the Passion, Death and Crucifixion of Christ, non rei veritate sed significante mysterio; not being so in the truth (or substance) of the thing, but in the Mystery which signifieth it. To these particular testimonies, I shall add two things. The one is, that it is attested by Hesych. Hesychius, to have [Page 228]been an ancient usage in the Christian Church, that after the Communion was ended, the remaining elements were burnt in the fire. But if Transubstantiation had been then believed; that what remained in these elements, was no other substance but the Body and Blood of Christ, which continued to be such, so long as the species of the elements remained; it must needs have been an horrid and prophane thing for Christians to cast their Saviour into the fire to be consumed there; and no such thing could certainly have en­tred into their hearts.

18. The other thing I shall add is, that when in the be­ginning of Christianity, the Pagans falsly aspersed the Chri­stians, with being so inhumanly savage, that in their pri­vate Religious Assemblies, they murdered an Infant, and sucked and drunk his blood: it was among other things answered by Tert. Apol. c. 9. Tertullian, In Octav. p. 100. Ed. Oxon. Minucius Felix, and Eus. Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 1. others, that the Gentiles might be ashamed to charge any such thing on Christians, who were so far from taking any human blood, that they carefully avoided all blood, even of Beasts. But this defence could not well have been made on this manner, if they had accounted themselves, to have taken the Blood of Christ substantially in the Eucharist, and not only such a mystical representation thereof, as is not void of efficacy and reality. And though I think it ma­nifest; that blood may lawfully be eaten, and that the Apo­stolical prohibition thereof, was but a provisional Decree for those times, from the general declaration in the New Testament, that nothing is unclean in it self; from the liber­ty which Christians were allowed to eat whatsoever was sold in the shambles, or was set before them when they were in­vited to eat with unbelievers, asking no question for conscience sake; and also because blood was for this reason forbidden to be eaten under the Law, because it was given upon the al­tar, to make an atonement for their souls, Lev. 17.10, 11, 12, 13, 14. Yet it may not be amiss observed, that according to the computation of time fixed by Rhenanus, as it is from him mentioned by Pamel in Apolog. Ter­tul. n. 138. Pamelius, it is now about five hun­dred [Page 229]years, since eating blood was generally allowed in the Western Church: and about that time the Doctrine of Transubstantiation had prevailed, which was publickly established under the time of Innocentius the Third, above four hundred and fifty years since. And that general prohi­bition of blood, so long continued, though upon mistake or more than necessary cautiousness, might well be accounted not consistent with the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, or not fairly reconcileable thereunto.

19. Thirdly, Transubstantiation doth plainly contradict the evidence of sense. Transubstanti­ation is con­trary to the testimony of sense, Now the testimony of our senses is so considerable, that this is that which assured and mani­fested, the certainty of the mighty Miracles, wrought by Christ and his Apostles; yea of the birth of Christ, of his converse with men in the world, and of his being crucified, risen again, and ascended into Heaven. Upon the evidence of sense, Thomas was convincingly perswaded of Christs resurrection; and the other Apostles had such an esteem for this testimony, that they could not but Preach the things which they had seen and heard, Act. 4.20. And the certain­ty of what they taught concerning Christ and Christiani­ty, they founded upon the evidence of their senses, in that it was what they had seen with their eyes, and what they had heard, and their hands had handled of the word of life, 2 Pet. 1.16, 17, 18. 1 Joh. 1.1. And therefore the denying the evidence of sense, would undermine Christianity, and with­al take away all possibility of certainty, concerning the plain matters of fact in the world. And there could be no assurance given, that Christ taught any Doctrine, nor could what he did teach, be otherwise conveyed to us, than by our eyes and ears, unless men pretend to Enthusiasm. And as that pretence is vain, so if it were not, no other men could be taught by such Enthusiasticks, but by the exercise and use of their senses, and upon supposition of the certainty thereof.

20. But our eyes, our taste, our feeling, and the inward sense of nourishment received from the consecrated ele­ments, do all of them testifie, that the Bread and Wine re­main in their proper substances after their consecration. But here the Church of Rome thinks it her interest to Catech. a [...] arochos. p. 218. Cu­randum est ut fidelium mentes, quam maxime fieri potest, à sen­suum judicio abstrahantur. take care, that the minds of Christians, should as much as is possible, be drawn off from the judgement of their senses. And yet they who do lay aside the judgement of their senses, must not believe, that they do truly either read or see any such instruction, as this, directed to them. And if the evidence of sense in the Sacrament be denied; there will then be no certainty to the Communicants, whether there be any Priest present to consecrate, and consequently whe­ther there be any words of consecration spoken, or whether there be any elements to receive consecration. And the senses of the Communicants, do give a more joint testimo­ny, to the elements remaining in their proper substances, than to these other instances.

21. and is also opposite to rea­son. Fourthly, Transubstantiation is opposite to the prin­ciples of reason and understanding, and includes manifold gross absurdities and contradictions. 1. That the whole substance of the Body of Christ should be in many thou­sand, yea many millions of places at the same time, is suffi­ciently inconsistent with the nature of a body. And as there are consecrated Hosts in many thousand places at once, the Catechism framed according to the Decree of the Council of Trent, agreeably to that Council declares, that Ibid. p. 223, 225. In­quavis urri­us (que) speciei par [...]icula to­tum Christum contineri. un­der every least part either of the Bread or Wine, whole Christ is contained (even with his bones, sinews and whatsoever belongs to the true state of his body, as I above observed from the same Catechism). 2. And in purfuance of this Doctrine of Transubstantiation, the Romish Doctors do assert if a Mouse, or any other brutish Animal or Insect, do eat any part of the consecrated Host, they do eat what is truly and substantially the Body of Christ. This is acknowledged by Part. 3 q. 80. a. 3. Aquinas; and though the Sent. l. 4. dist. 13. A. Master of the Sen­tences [Page 231]would not admit this for truth, but declared him­self of the contrary opinion: yet his Authority is here re­jected; and by the Censure of Lib. 4. Art. 9. the Divines of Paris, this is reckoned among one of his errors. But it is a thing dishonou­rable to the glorious Body of Christ, to be eaten of Brutes, and to pass into the draught, and to be substantially pre­sent there where even the Romanists, who assert that pre­sence, do not require Divine Worship to be given to it. 3. And it is contradictory to assert, that the substance of Bread and Wine being gone, the accidents thereof do re­main, without any subject or matter, being, as the Roman Catechism saith, Catech. p. 219. & 230. Edi. Lovan. 1567. accidentia quae nulli substantiae inhaerent, and species sine aliqua re subjecta. Thus for instance, the ex­tension that was in the Bread, is supposed to remain, when the substance of the Bread is gone; and that extension which can be measured and felt, is in its own nature an ex­tension of matter, and of that which hath parts added to one another; and yet here is extension, and consequently several parts distant from one another, but still there is no­thing extended, nor any matter, nor any thing that hath parts. And the like may be said of other accidents. 4. If it could be imagined, that the substance of the Bread and Wine was abolished by consecration (though it is not usual for the blessing of God to destroy, but preserve the thing he blesseth) the accidents, or appearances thereof only remaining; and that the substance of Christs Body and Blood should be there substituted, without any cor­poreal accidents, even this could not be Transubstantiation, according to the Romish description thereof. For if a cor­poreal substance should cease to be, its accidents or modi­fications remaining, this must be by annihilation; and if there be a new substance, this must be by a new production, not a changing the former substance into a latter; since cor­poreal substances are not capable of being changed, but by the difference of their modifications or accidents: but the ceasing or abolishing of the substance it self, which is the be­ing [Page 232]of a thing, the subject matter which must be supposed in the changing things is wholly removed.

22. And 5. That there must be new matter continually prepared, in the Sacramental elements, out of which the true substance of the Body and Blood of Christ is to be pro­duced, this also includes manifest contradiction. For then the Body and Blood of Christ, must be supposed to be pro­duced, out of a different matter, at a different time, and in a different manner from that Body, which was born of the Blessed Virgin, and in which he assumed our nature; and yet this Body which is so many ways differing, from that substantial Body, which is ascended into Heaven, must be acknowledged to be substantially the same. When I con­sider such things as these, with which this Romish Doctrine is full fraught, I must acknowledge that the belief of Tran­substantiation includes so much of self-denial, that it is a be­lieving against Reason. But there is one thing wanting which hinders it from being an act of Christian self-denial, or of true Religion; and that is that it is not a believing God or Christ, who never declared any such Doctrine; but must resolve it self into the believing the declaration of the Roman Church, which both Scotus and Cajetan cited by the Reverend Hist. Tran­subst. c. 5. n. 3. Bishop Cosins, make the necessary ground and support for this Doctrine.

23. What account may be given, that so many knowing men in the Church of Rome should own such unreasona­ble and unac­countable Doctrines. And I have sometimes set my self to consider, hour it should come to pass that so many understanding and learned men, as are in the Church of Rome, should re­ceive such monstrous Doctrines, as this and some others are; and I have given my self some satisfaction, by ob­serving; 1. That education, and Principles once imbibed and professed; have a mighty force upon many mens minds, insomuch that bad notions embraced do almost pervent their very capacities of understanding, as appears in the fol­lowers of many Sects, and in the Pagan Philosophers, who set them selves against Christianity: and these things especi­ally when linked with interest, have such a commanding [Page 233]influence upon many men of understanding, that they hin­der them from attending to the clearest evidences, against their assertions; as was manifest from the Scribes and Phari­sees, in our Saviours time, who generally stood up for their Traditions, against his Doctrine and Miracles also. And they of the Church of Rome are politickly careful in the training up and principling the more knowing part of their youth in their Doctrines. 2. That when gross corrup­tions formerly prevailed in that Church, through the blindness and superstition of ignorant and degenerate ages, the politick governing part think it not expedient now, to acknowledge those things for errors, lest they thereby lose that reverence, they claim to their Church, when they have once acknowledged it to have erred and not to be infal­lible. And therefore all these things must be owned as points of faith, and such other things added as are requisite to support them. 3. Many more modest and well disposed persons, acquiesce in the determination of the Church, and its pretence to infallibility; and by this they filence all ob­jections, and suffer not any doubtful enquiry, since whatso­ever the Doctrine be, no evidence can outweigh that which is infallible. And these also are the less inquisitive, from the odious reprensentations which are made of them who depart from the Romish Doctrine; and from their being prohibited the use of such Books, which might help to inform them better. 4. Others are deterred from ma­king impartial search into truth, by the severity of that Church, against them who question its received Doctrines, both in the tortures of the Inquisition, and in the loud thun­drings of its Anathemas. 5. The specious and pompous names of the Churches Tradition, Antiquity, Ʋniversality and uninterrupted succession, have a great influence upon them, who have not discovered the great falshood of these pretences. And very many knowing men have not made such things the business of their search: and others who have made search, are willing to take things, according to the sense and interpretation, the favourers of that Church [Page 234]impose upon them, and they are herein influenced by some of the things above mentioned. 6. The just judgment of God may blind them who shut their eyes against the light, that through strong delusions they should believe a lye.

24. Fifthly, This Romish Doctrine is contrary to the holy Scriptures. The Scripture declareth, the Body of Christ to be in the Sacrament, and our Church acknow­ledgeth that Art. of Relig. Art. 28. this Body is given, taken, and eaten, in the Sacrament; but then it tells us that this is only after an hea­venly and spiritual manner; Transubstanti­ation is against the Scripture, and this is according to the sense of the Scriptures, as I noted, n. 16. But the Scripture is so far from owning Transubstantiation, to be the manner of Christs presence, that it plainly declares, the elements to re­main after the consecration, and at the distribution of them: S. Paul therefore mentions not only the Bread which we break, 1 Cor. 10, 16. but speaking also of receiving the Eucharist, thrice in three verses together, he expresseth it by eating that Bread, and drinking that Cup, 1 Cor. 11.26, 27, 28. and this must suppose the element of Bread to be remain­ing, when the Sacrament was administred to the Commu­nicants. But Coster. Enchir. some object that Bread here is not to be understood of that which is properly and substantially Bread, but of Christ who is called the bread of life. But 1. The Apostle having spoken before of Bread and the Cup, 1 Cor. 11.24, 25. where he understood thereby, that which was properly and substantially Bread and Wine: and continuing his discourse upon the same subject, concerning the Eu­charist, and in the three verses immediately following, u­sing the same expressions of the Bread and the Cup, cannot from the order of his discourse, be otherwise properly un­derstood, than to have respect to the same things; though by consecration advanced to a more excellent mystery. 2. When the Apostle declares the eating this Bread, and drinking this Cup, to shew forth the Lords death till he come: He both declares this action to be commemorative of [Page 235]Christs death, by somewhat which represents the death of him who can die no more; and by those words till he come, he shews the proper substantial presence of Christs Body, not to be in that Bread. But the Catech. ad Par. p. 128. Roman Catechism says, the Apostle after consecration calls the Eucharist Bread, because it had the appearance of bread, and a power to nourish the body. Now (to pass by the strangeness of the bo­dy being nourished, by that which is no substance) it may be considered, 1. That if the Romish Doctrine had been true, it cannot be conceived, that the Apostle purposely discoursing of the Eucharist, and laying down the Christi­an Doctrine concerning it; should so often call it what it was not, and not what it was. 2. Especially when this must have been a truth greatly necessary to be known. And 3. Since it still continued in appearance Bread, the A­postle would not have complied with those errors, which the reason and senses of men were apt to lead them to, if these had been truly errors, but would have been the more forward to have acquainted them with the truth.

25. Sixthly, and is not fa­voured, by some Traditions of the Romish Church. I shall add (though I lay no further stress on this, than as it may speak something ad homines) that if we may give credit, to the approved Ritualists of the Ro­mish Church, there are ancient usages in that Church, which bear some opposition to Transubstantiation. It was a cu­stom received and constantly observed in the Roman Church, that the Eucharist must never be consecrated on Good Friday. Div. Offic. Explic. c. 97. Johannes Beleth, an ancient Ritualist, undertaking to give an account of this, saith there are four reasons hereof, his first is, because Christ on this day was in reality and truth sacrificed for us, and when the truth cometh, the figure ought to cease and give place unto it. And his other three reasons have all respect to this first. And Rational. l. 6. c. 77. n. 34, Durandus in his Rationale, undertaking to give an account of the same cu­stom, makes the same thing to be his second reason there­of, and useth these very words also, that the truth coming, [Page 236]the figure ought to cease. The intent of which is to declare, that the Eucharist is a figurative representation of Christs Pas­sion: and therefore on Good Friday, when the Church had their thoughts of Christ, and eye to him, as upon that day really suffering, they thought fit to forbear the representati­on of his Passion in the Eucharist. But this notion of the Eucharist is not consonant to Transubstantiation.

26. What guilt there may be in worshipping what is not God, though the belief of the true God be retained? Having now discharged Transubstantiation, as being neither founded in the Scripture, nor consonant thereto, as being opposite to the Doctrine and usages of the Primitive Church, and as contradictory to sense, and the principles of reason; I shall upon this foundation proceed to add something concerning the dishonour done to God, in giving Divine Worship to that which is not God; and the great guilt thereby derived upon man. Now it is confessed gene­rally, that the giving Divine honour intentionally to a Creature, is Idolatry and an heinous transgression. But it may be worthy our enquiry to consider how far guilt can be charged upon such persons, who profess the only true God to be God, and that there is none other but he, and de­sign to give the proper and peculiar Divine honour to him a­alone, (for such we may suppose the case of the Romanists, in this Controversie, waving here their exorbitant adoration of Saints, the relative Divine Worship to Images, and somewhat higher yet, to the Cross) but actually through mistake and delusion, do conferr this Divine honour upon that which in truth is not God, in confidence and presum­ption that it is, what it is not; and that it is an object to which Divine honour is due, when in truth it is not so. Now in what I shall discourse of this case in general, the instances I shall first mention of some bad men, are only pro­posed to give some light to the general resolution of this en­quiry, and therefore are by no means mentioned to any such purpose, as if I intended to write or think, any thing disho­nourably of the Holy Sacrament, which I would not think of but with a pious Christian reverence and due veneration.

27. Wherefore I shall here lay down three Assertions. Assert. 1. The misplacing Divine Worship upon an undue object, may be a very gross and heinous sin of Idolatry, Assert. 1. There may be an Idolatrous misplacing Di­vine worship consistent with believing one only and the true God. though the profession of one only God, and of him who is the true God be still retained, with an acknowledgement that none other ought to be worshipped. This with re­spect to outward acts of worship, was the case of divers lap­sed Christians, who being prevailed upon, by the terrors of persecution, did sometimes either offer Sacrifice, or in­cense to Pagan Deities, or otherwise communicated in their Worship, or did swear by them, or the Genius of Caesar, or did make profession of such things being God, which they were sufficiently convinced were not God. And the like miscarriages concerning outward acts of worship, may a­rise from an evil compliance with others, or from the great vanity and evil dispositions of mens own minds. And con­cerning inward worship, it is easie to apprehend, that such acts as proceed from the heart and affections, as the highest practical esteem, love, reverence and fear, may be mispla­ced upon that, which men in their judgements do not e­steem to be God, whilst they either do not consider these things, to be acts of worship; or else are more governed by their affections, than their judgments. But concerning such inward acts of worship as proceed from the mind and understanding, such as to acknowledge in ones mind such a Being to be God, and that Divine honour is due unto it, and all Divine excellencies are inherent in it, these cannot be performed to any Being, but to that only which is thought, judged and believed to be God. But notwithstanding this, even these acts may by delusions be Idolatrously misplaced, whilst there is still continued this general acknowledge­ment, and profession of one only God, who is the true God.

28. Simon Magus, as de Prae­scrip. c. 46. Tertullian declares, did own himself to be the most high God; and as Irenaeus relates, Iren. adv. Haeres. l. 1. c. 20. that it was he, who appeared as the Son amongst the Jews, [Page 238] and descended as the Father in Samaria, and came as the Holy Spirit in other Nations: and they who were his followers both in Samaria, Rome, and other Nations did worship him, [...], as the chief God, as Justin. Apol. 1. Justin Martyr affirms, and Eus. Hist. Eccl. l. 2. c. 13. gr. Eusebius from him. Now if it should be supposed, that the Gnosticks should own the true God, and that there is no other God besides him, and should therefore design to give Divine honour to him alone; but should be perswaded, that he was incarnate in Simon Ma­gus, and thereupon should worship him with Divine ho­nour, this could not excuse them herein from being Idola­ters. And whereas Montanus, and the propagators of his Heresie, did declare him to be the Paraclete, as is oft expres­sed in Tertullian; and is affirmed also by divers Catholick Writers, as Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 14. Eusebius, Basil ad Amphil. c. 1. Basil, and others, or as de Con­sec. dist. 4. c. Hi vero. Gregory expresseth it, that he was the Holy Ghost: if any of his followers, professing Divine Worship to be due only to the True God, and the three persons of the glorious Trinity, should upon a presumptive delusion, believe that the Ho­ly Ghost was imbodied in Montanus, and thereupon yield to him that Divine Worship, which is due to the Holy Ghost, this could not excuse them from Idolatry.

29. Assert. 2. All Idolatry is not equally heinous. Assert. 2. In Idolatry, which is in its nature a great and grievous sin, all the acts and kinds thereof, in mispla­cing proper Divine Worship, are not equally heinous and abominable. There is a great difference from the temper of the persons, whence acts proceding from sudden surprize, from weakness of understanding, or from great fear, are not of so high a guilt, as those which proceed from care­lesness of duty, neglect of instruction or contempt of God, or wilful enmity against the true Religion. There is also difference in the acts of worship, which I mentioned n. 27. as also from the plyableness of temper to be drawn from them, and the resolved obstinacy of persisting in them. And there is a difference also, with respect to the object, to which Divine Worship is given: whence the worshipping of [Page 239] Baal, or the Gods of other Nations, in opposition to the God of Israel, was more heinous than the Idolatry of Jero­boams Calves, because it included a professed departing from the true God: and the worshipping of Simon Magus, was the more abominable, as including a following him, and consequently rejecting the fundamental Articles of the Chri­stian Religion. But the Idolatry of the Calves was not of so high a nature, nor did it utterly exclude the ten Tribes from all relation to the Church of God: though even this would exclude those persons, who designedly espoused it, or who per­versely or negligently joined in it, from the blessing of God.

30. Assert. 3. All misplacing Divine honour upon an undue object (which is Idolatry) is a very great sin. Assert. 3. All sorts there­of are greatly evil. To suppose that ignorance and mistake, should be any sufficient plea or excuse; is to reflect upon the goodness and wisdom of God, as if even under the Christian revelation, he had not sufficiently directed men, in so important a duty, as to know the object of Divine adoration, or whom we are to worship. And how little any misunderstanding, upon the grounds laid down by the Romanists, is like in this case to be available for their excuse, I shall manifest by pro­posing another case, which may well be esteemed parallel hereunto. As our Saviour said concerning the Euchari­stical Bread, This is my Body; so there is a greater plenty of expressions in the Scriptures, which are as plausible to confer Divine honour upon pious Christians. They are said to be partakers of the Divine Nature, to be born of God, The Remish Adoration of the Host paral­lel'd. to be renewed after the Image of God, and that God dwelleth in them; and that Christ is formed in them, and is in them, and that they are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones, and with respect to them he said to Saul, why perse­cutest thou me? and he will say to others, I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat, &c. and the Spirit of God dwells in them. Now if from such expressions as these, any sort of men should give Divine Worship to every Saint (in pursu­ance of that fond notion of some Fanatick heads, that they [Page 240]are Godded with God, and Christed with Christ) and con­sequently to those in Heaven, as well as to those on Earth, and thereby multiply the objects of Divine Adoration, really beyond all the Polytheism of the Gentiles, I doubt not, but they of the Church of Rome would account this abominable Idolatry. Nor would they think it sufficient here to be pre­tended, that these worshippers own only one true God, and give Divine Worship to the Saints, only because they be­lieve them to receive a new Divine Nature in becoming Saints, and to put on Christ, and to be changed into the na­ture and substance of that one God; and though this may seem as contrary to sense and reason as Transubstantiation doth, they therefore believe it, because God hath said it, (if their manifestly mistaken sense of Scripture be allow­ed) and they can confidently rely on his word. And if we compare these two together, the grace of the Sacrament is very excellent, but it is that which is to be communicated to the communion of Saints, and conferred upon them. But the nature of the pious Christian, is so much advanced above that of the Sacramental elements, that that must be confessed to be true, which was affirmed by Bishop Bilson, Differ. of Christ. Sub­ject. & Un­chr. Rebel. Part. 4. p. 713. that Christian men are members of Christ, the Bread is not; Christ abideth in them and they in him, in the Bread he doth not; he will raise them at the last day, the Bread he will not; they shall reign with him for ever, the Bread shall not. But these and such like words we mention not, as having any low thoughts of the Holy Sacrament; but as owning the truth of the Sacramental elements, remaining in their created substances, and even these we duly reverence as set apart to an holy use and purpose; but we most highly value the great blessings of the Gospel, and the spiritual presence of Christ, which though it be tendred in the Sacramental ele­ments, yet being the invisible grace of the Sacrament, is to be distinguished from the visible sign thereof. To this we have our eye chiefly in the Sacrament, according to that an­cient admonition Cyp. de Orat. Dom. sursum corda, lift up your hearts unto the Lord. And we glorifie the grace of God, who bestows [Page 241]upon them who truly repent and believe, such unspeaka­ble benefits in the use of those means or signs, which are otherwise mean, than as they are sanctified to an holy and excellent use, by the Institution of God, and the right celebration of his Ordinance.

SECT. V.
Integrity too much neglected, and Religion so ordered and modelled, by many Doctrines and Practices in the Church of Rome, as to represent a contrivance of deceit, Interest and Policy.

1. IN this last Section, Of the Politick interests dri­ven on in the Roman Church. I shall consider some such things in the Church of Rome, which represent Religion as it is by them professed to be a crafty contrivance of human policy; or a cunning method, to serve the particular inte­rests of some men in the world. True Religion which hath respect to the chief good and happiness of men, doth indeed bring the greatest satisfaction to men in this world; but this is not done by gratifying their inordinate affections, but by commanding and subduing them. But this being from God, and having to do with him, is a thing of the greatest simplicity and sincerity in the world; and there­fore proposeth nothing, but what is true and good, and suitable to God and his Honour. And when things mani­festly false or evil, which are fitted to advance the outward interest of the proposers, are obtruded under the disguise of Religion, and required as things sacred, to be received with the greatest veneration; this gives too much appearance, that under the name of Religion, politick designs, and frau­dulent ends and purposes of men, are managed. And where [Page 242]such things are done, Sect. V. it may tempt many of those who dis­cover and understand them, to cast off the serious sense of Religion it self. Now very many things in the Romish Church, appear designed to impose on, and delude the peo­ple; and by false pretences, to advance the honour of the Pope especially, and of their Clergy also, and to gratifie the avarice of the Romish Court, and enervate piety.

2. Their Doctrine of Attrition and Absolution, Divers of their errors carry on some interests. seems contrived, to make loose men, who have little regard to God, to have a mighty veneration for their Priest, who, notwithstanding their wicked life, both can and will (if they be taught right) secure them in the other world, upon such terms as Christ and his Gospel will not admit. Their Service in a tongue not understood by the people, is fitted to uphold the reputation of the Clergy, among the Igno­rant Vulgar, as doth also the prohibiting the Scriptures in the vulgar tongue, as is observed by de Scr. q. l. non legendis c. 21. Ledesima. Their Doctrine of Transubstantiation, propitiatory Sacrifice, and the conficient Priest alone receiving the Eucharist in one kind, tend much to extol the dignity and greatness of their Cler­gy: but the falseness of all these I have above discovered. Their exempting their Clergy, that as M. Bec. Part. 2. Tr. 3. c. 6. Q. 11. Becanus saith, they are not subject to Secular Princes, nor can be punished by them, nor are bound to observe their Laws out of obedience, doth jointly tend to the advancement both of the Pope, and the Clergy, but is contrary to the true rules of Chri­stianity, as I have in another Discourse shewed. And though amongst us the true honour of the Ministry, which our Lord conferred upon it, be by many too much neg­lected and disregarded, we make not use of false methods for its support. Besides these, their feigned revelations and visions, concerning matters of truth and Doctrine; their many counterfeited Relicks, as objects of veneration; and their falsly pretended Miracles for the confirmation of their Doctrine, are manifestly designed delusions, to impose upon others, that they may be admired by them.

3. But because this Chapter hath been already very large, I shall wave many things which might have been insisted on, and shall only consider a few things, which have a chief respect unto the Pope himself. That the claim of the Papal Supremacy is in all the branches thereof groundless, I have somewhat declared in the first Section of this Chapter, and more fully in another Discourse there referred unto. And that this is adapted to exalt the Papal dignity, grandure and Soveraignty, and to bring in vast re­venues for its support, needs not be suggested to any considering men. And the Popes pretence to be S. Peter's Successor, seems not to be ordered with plain and honest sincerity, in his first entrance thereupon. For at the time of his Coronation, among other Rites one of the last is, that Sacr. Cerem. l. 1. Sect. 2. c. 3. fol. 40. the Pope must take his handful of money from his Chamberlain (in which he must be sure to have neither sil­ver nor gold) and scattering it among the people, must use those words of S. Peter, Silver and Gold have I none, Some things in the form of the Papal Corona­tion observed. but what I have, that give I you. Now it seems not very fair and upright dealing, that the Pope by being advanced to his See, should pretend himself to be a Successor of S. Peters po­verty; especially when in order to his expressing thus much, there is care taken before-hand, that he must cau­tiously avoid, the having all silver or gold in his hand. If S. Peter himself had been known to have done thus, when he used those words, this would have been looked up­on in him, as a cheat and imposture; which is one of the first things declared by his pretended Successor, in such a case where he might uprightly and infallibly have spoken truth. And a like abuse of holy Scripture is in that other Rite at his Coronation, which goes immediately before this; when the Pope is sat down, or almost lies along, upon a Mar­ble Seat at the Lateran Church at Rome, which Seat is cal­led Stercoraria, and one of the Cardinals lifts him up ibid. using those words in Psal. 113.7, 8. Suscitat de pulvere egenum, & de stercore erigit pauperem, ut sedeat cum principi­bus, & solium gloriae teneat. Where what the Psalmist cal­leth [Page 244]a dunghill, the Roman Church who would be accoun­ted the faithful Interpreter of Scripture, interpreteth con­cerning a stately Marble Seat. But waving such things as these, I shall enquire into two other things of greater mo­ment and concern; the one of Infallibility, the second of delivering Souls from Purgatory by Indulgences, and ap­plying to them a fit proportion of the Churches Trea­sury.

4. Concerning Infallibility. Infallibility calculated for design. This is a strange claim, in such a Church, where there are so many palpable errors, contrary to the Doctrine of the Scriptures, and the ancient Church. But this pretence mightily serves their interest: for if this be once believed and received, all their other er­rors must thereupon be received with great veneration, as being founded upon the highest evidence; since no evidence can be above infallible certainty; and there can be no evi­dence against it, but what appears to be such is a mistaken fallacy; and therefore no doubts ought to be admitted: for there cannot be any need of reforming the Doctrine of such a Church. By this method also, so far as men be­lieve this, they are kept in a peaceable subjection, but in a way of fraud, and neglect of truth. We account all ho­nest and prudent ways, to promote peace with truth, to be desireable. But if stedfastness in errors, such as those of the Scribes and Pharisees, or of any Hereticks or Schisma­ticks, be more desirable than to understand or embrace the truth, then may the devices of the Roman Church be ap­plauded, which have any tendency to promote peace. And yet indeed all their other projects would signifie little, if it were not for the great strictness and severity of their Govern­ment. This pretence to Infallibility, is in the consequence of it blasphemous, because as it pretends to be derived from God, it makes him to approve, and patronize all their gross errors, and Heretical Doctrines. And if any other persons should have the confidence, to require all they say to be re­ceived upon their authority, as unquestionable and infalli­bly [Page 245]true; though it appear never so unlikely to the hearers, or be known by them to be false; such a temper would not be thought tolerable for converse, but it is only admired in those of Rome, where there is as little reason to admit it as any where else, and no proof at all thereof, but very much to be said to confute it. For,

5. First, It is hard to believe, The asserters of Infallibility are not agreed who is the keeper thereof. that that Church should have been possessed of Infallibility for above 1600 years, which doth not yet agree where to fix this Infallibility. It is great pity that if they have Infallibility, they should not know where it is: And it is strange, it should be ac­companied with so much uncertainty, that those of the Romish Communion should still disagree and be to seek who the person or persons is or are, that are Infallible, and whether any be such or not. Many of the Romish Church claim Infallibility, to belong to the Pope. This way goes Bellarmine, and many others; who assert the judgment of Councils, Whether the Pope, whether General or Provincial, to receive their firmness from the Pope's Confirmation, and then de Pont. Rom. l. 4. c. 1, 2, 3. as­serts, that he cannot err in what he delivers to the Church as a matter of Faith. And yet de Pont. Rom. l. 2. c. 30. he grants that the Pope himself may be a Heretick, and may be known to be such, and by falling into Heresie, may fall from being Head or Member of the Church, and may be judged and punished by the Church: And this is to give up his Infallibility, since he who may fall into Heresie, and declare it, may err in what he declares. And Theol. Mor. l. 2. Tr. 1. c. 7. n. 1, 2. Layman who asserts that the Pope in his own Person may fall into notorious Heresie, and yet that in what he proposeth to the whole Church, he is by Divine Providence infallible, still acknowledgeth, that this latter assertion is not so certain, that the contrary should be an error in Faith: Yea he admits it possible, and to be owned by grave Authors (such as Gerson, Turrecremata, Sylvester, Corduba, and Gr. de Valentia) that the Pope may propose things against the Faith. And this is to profess his Infallibility to be uncertain, and indeed to be none at all. [Page 246]And some of the Popes have been so unwary, as in their Publick Rescripts, to let fall such expressions, which be­trayed themselves, to have no confidence of their own Infal­libility. Pope Martin the fifth determined a case propo­sed, concerning the Extrav. Com. l. 3. Tit. 5. c. 1. sale of a yearly Revenue to be no Ʋsury, because one of the Cardinals had given him an ac­count, that such parts were allowed to be lawful by the Doctors: Now it is not like, that if that Pope thought his own judg­ment to be Infallible, that he would profess himself to pro­ceed in his Declaration, upon the judgment of others. And Pope Innocent the third, considering those words of S. Peter, Submit your selves therefore, to every Ordinance of Man for the Lord's sake, whether to the King as Supreme, &c. would have it observed, that the King is not expresly called Su­preme, Decretal. l. 1. Tit. 33. c. 6. Solite. sed interpositum, for sitan non sine causa, tanquam, but this word [as] is interposed perhaps not without cause: but for sitan, and perhaps, are not a stile becoming the pretence to Infallibility, since the one acknowledgeth and the other disclaims the doubtfulness of the thing declared: But so much modesty was very needful in this Epistle, when both this Observation it self, and many other things in that Epistle were far enough from being infallibly true; as the founding the Pope's authority upon Jer. 1.10. and on God's creating two great Luminaries and such like things, of which above.

6. But others of the Romish Church, or a General Council, own the infallible judgment in matters of Faith, to be only fixed in a general Council. That Adrian the sixth was of this Opinion, is owned by de Pont. Rom. l. 4. c. 2. Bellarmine, to whom L [...]ym. ubi sup. Layman adds Gerson, and others of the French Church. Now there is much more to be said for this, than for the former Notion. And though a General Council cannot claim absolute infalli­bility of judgment in all cases, because it is possible, the er­ring Party may happen in some cases, to be the greater number; as appeared in some of the Arian Councils, which so far as concerned the greatness of them, bad fair for the Title of General ones. Yet if a General Council be regu­larly [Page 247]convened, and proceed orderly, with a pious intention to declare truth, and without design of serving interests and Parties, there is so much evidence concerning Matters of Faith, that it may be justly concluded, that such a Coun­cil will not err in them, but that its Determinations in this case, are infallibly true. But the admitting the Infallible Decision of such a General Council in points of Faith, is so far from the interest of the Church of Rome, that the ea­ger promoters of the Popish interest, will by no means close with this. For a General Council having respect to the whole Catholick Church, and not being confined to the particular Roman limits: The Church of Rome can upon this principle, plead no more for any Infallibility resident in it, than the Church of Constantinople or the Church of Eng­land may do. To this purpose the General of the Jesuits, Lainezius Hist. Conc Trid. l. 7. p. 497. at the Council of Trent, declared against the Infallible judgment of Councils, and thought he had proved that sufficiently, by observing that all the particular Bishops there assembled were fallible; and that therefore the firmness of its Constitutions and Anathemas, must depend on the Popes Confirmation. And yet it might be thought that the Providence of God, may as well order the decisions of General Councils to be infallibly true in points of Faith for the guidance of his Church; as that it should infallibly guide the Bishop of Rome, whenever he teacheth Doctrines of Faith, who in other cases, and in his own person, is ac­knowledged by his chief Advocates to be fallible, even concerning Matters of Faith.

7. But there are others, or Oral Tra­dition. who call themselves Members of that Church, but are in no great favour and esteem at Rome, who lay no stress upon the unerring judgments of either Pope, or Council, more than of other men; but place a kind of Infallibility upon the certainty of Oral Tradition, and thence conclude, that whatsoever is delivered down in a Church by way of Tradition, must be infallibly true; be­cause no Age could make any change therein: This is Mr. White's way, and particularly asserted in J. S. h. sure footing, the Dis­courses [Page 248]of Mr. Serjeant. But what is said in defence of this way, is pure Sophistry. And if such persons, furnished with these Notions or Fancies, had lived in the beginning of Christianity, they might have been Advocates either for Paganism, or the Traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees, on whose behalf the indefectiveness of Tradition, might have been urged, as well as for the Church of Rome, and almost in a persect Parallel.

8. Secondly, Infallibility is not owned by the chief of the Romanists, who neither own the Pope's judgment nor the Councils, in deciding con­troversies. There is good reason to think, that the chief men of the Church of Rome, give little credit themselves to the pretence of Infallibility. For in such great Contro­versies, wherein considerable numbers of that Church are ingaged on both sides; these have some of them for many Ages continued without any satisfactory decision, from their Infallibility; even in such cases, where such a decision would contribute much to truth, would end quarrels, and be greatly useful for the guiding all mens Consciences. And therefore the determining such things, would be an excel­lent work of charity, but the leaving them undetermined, or at least the allowing the liberty of rejecting any preten­ded or real determination, may be politick, lest they should disoblige the contrary party. I shall instance in that Que­stion, which is at some times of concernment, to all Mens Consciences of their Communion, whether the authority of the Pope, or a General Council, be the greater? Which hath never yet been decided, by the consent of a Pope, and a General Council. Indeed in some smaller Councils 70 De­cret. l. 3. Tit. 7. c. 1. Leo the tenth did at the Lateran assert the Authority of the Pope above a Council: And Pius the second, in a Provin­cial Council at Mantua, declared Ibid. l. 2. Tit. 9. c. 1. appeals from a Pope, to a future Council to be void and Schismatical: which was also confirmed Ibid. c. 2. by Julius the second. But this way of decision, is so little satisfactory among themselves, that the Cardinal of Lorrain did in the Council of Trent open­ly declare, Hist. Conc. Trid. l. 8. p. 580. that the Council was above the Pope, and that this was the general sense of the French Church. And di­vers [Page 249]other Bishops spake their judgments there, to the same purpose.

9. And the General Councils of Basil and Constance assert­ed the authority of the Council above the Pope; and yet this is no satisfactory decision, to them of the contrary opinion. So that here we have the pretence to Infallibility, whether in the Pope, or in a General Council, slighted by themselves as they think fit. And this is a thing of such concern, that if the highest authority be in the Council, this must fix the Infallibility there also (if there be any such thing) because infallible determination must be by a Divine guidance, and so must include God's Authority in that Determination, to which none can be Superior. If this be seated in the Coun­cil, it would take down the Pope's Plumes: If in the Pope, the World might be spared the trouble of General Coun­cils, as a needless thing, and then all those Christian Churches, Emperors and Bishops (which will take in di­vers Bishops of Rome) were very imprudent, who either laboured much for them, or took any great satisfaction in them. Wherefore it must needs be a business of design, and not of integrity, to make a loud noise about Infallibility, to prevail thereby upon the Consciences of other men, when they have so low an esteem of it themselves.

10. Thirdly, No Infallibility of the Roman Church, Romish Infalli­bility unknown to Primitive Christianity. was ever known or owned in the Primitive Church; and there­fore was never delivered by Christ or his Apostles; but the pretence thereof is an Innovation of later date. And whereas the Pope unjustly pretends to a singular right of Succession, to the Authority and Prerogatives of S. Peter; it is observable, that S. Peter himself, though an eminent and prime Apostle, even in a Council, had no peculiar gift of Infallibility or judgment of decision above other Apo­stles. For in the Council of Jerusalem, Acts 15. when af­ter much disputation, S. Peter had declared his sense, v. 7, 11. and after him S. James expressed his judgment, v. 13, 21. the final determination of that Council, did much more [Page 250]follow the words of S. James, than of S. Peter, v. 19, 20. with 28, 29. Wherefore the claim of Hist. Conc Trid. l. 7. p. 552. Pius the fourth, in his Epistle to the Emperor, must have an higher Plea, than that of Succession to S. Peter, that if the Bishop of Rome be present in a Council, he doth not only alone propose, but he also alone decrees, and the Council adds nothing but Appro­bation.

11. Nor can it be imagined, that if the Primitive Church had owned any Infallibility in the Pope, or Romish Church, that so Pious and good a Bishop as Cyprian would so ear­nestly have opposed the declaration of Stephen, Bishop of Rome, concerning the Baptism of Hereticks. But he not only declares Stephen to Cyp. Ep. 74. be in an error, but declares him to have written proudly, impertinently, ignorantly and impru­dently; which sufficiently shews him to have known no­thing of his Infallibility. And Inter Ep. Cyp. Ep. 75. Firmilianus a renown­ed Bishop of Cappadocia, declares his sense against the Epistle and Judgment of Stephen also, approving S. Cyprian's an­swer to it, and using severe expressions against the behavi­our and determination of Stephen, as bold, insolent, and evil, improbè gesta. And Sent. E­piscop. Conc. Carth. in Cypr. a Carthaginian Council of eighty seven Bishops, did unanimously declare their judg­ment, for the baptizing Hereticks who returned to the Church; which was contrary to what the Bishop of Rome had determined. And that this Council did sit, after Cy­prian had received the Epistle, and Judgment of Stephen. Bishop of Rome, is observed by Argum. Ep. Cyp. 73. Pamelius. Now though all these Bishops were in an error, in accounting the Baptism of all Hereticks to be null, and that they ought ge­nerally to be Baptized, when they returned to the Church; yet it cannot be supposed, that they were so obstinately re­solved in their error, as to reject the infallible evidence of truth: When many of these very Bishops, who lived to understand their error did, as Dial adv. Lucifer. S. Hierome testifies, disclaim and reject it; and that Cyprian himself did so (as did also those parts of the Eastern Church who adhered to Firmi­lian) is judged not improbable by S. Aug. Ep. 48. Austin, though it [Page 251]was not certain. But hence it appears, that since Stephen's determination was slighted, and opposed by such eminent Bishops, both of the Carthaginian and Eastern Church, who sincerely designed to embrace the truth, no such thing was then owned as the Infallibility of the Romish Bishop. And if Stephen did so generally declare, against the Baptizing any who returned from any Heresie whatsoever, as he seems to do in the words of his Epistle, cited by Ep. 74. S. Cyprian, si quis à quacunque Haeresi venerit ad nos, &c. he erred on the one hand, as they did on the other; and the determination of the general Conc. Nic. c. 19. Council of Nice and of Conc. Const. c. 7. Constantinople takes the middle way, requiring some sort of Hereticks, who kept the substantial form of Baptism, to be received upon their former Baptism; and that others should be bap­tized, when they returned to the Church.

12. And the Practical judgment of the ancient Church, is concerning this case sufficiently manifest in that when Heresies arose, and their errors and impieties appeared ne­cessary to be condemned, and the Catholick Doctrine was necessary to be declared and confirmed by the greatest and fullest judgment which could be made in the Church; this was not done by application to the particular Church of Rome only, but by the summoning General Councils; which, with all the troublesome Journeys and expences attending them, had been a very needless and vain thing, if the Romish In­fallibility had then been owned. And in the four first Ge­neral Councils, the Bishop of Rome was personally present in none of them, nor was his particular Sanction thought necessary to confirm them: but they were all held in the Eastern parts of the Church, and all of them desired, and obtained the Imperial Confirmation with respect to their external force and effect. And the v Cracken­thorp's Vigi­lius Dormi­tans. None infallible who oppose the Doctrine of Christ, and contradict themselves. fifth General Coun­cil was managed, perfectly contrary to the mind and sense of Vigilius then Bishop of Rome.

13. Fourthly, Since so many Doctrines and Practices are asserted in the Church of Rome, which are plainly contra­ry [Page 252]to the Doctrine of Christ, and his Apostles (of which se­veral instances are given in this Chapter) that Church ought not, nor cannot be owned infallible, by those who own the Holy Scriptures and Christ and his Apostles to be so. Besides this, I might add that the Romish Bishops them­selves have oft some of them at one time contradicted, what others of them at other times have affirmed. The Con­stitution of Boniface the Eighth, was revoked by Clement. in l 3. Tit. 17. c. 1. Cle­mens the Fifth, as scandalous and dangerous. And I above observed that regal Supremacy in temporals, is owned by In­nocentius the Third, but is disowned in the stile of many Bulls of Deposition by other Popes. But there needs no o­ther testimony against any pretended Infallibility, than its be­ing contradicted in what it delivers, by that evidence which is certainly infallible. And there can scarce be a greater im­posture and delusion, than such a false pretence as this; which is designed both as a prop to uphold the whole bulk and fabrick of Popery, and a contrivance, to raise a very high veneration thereof.

14. Secondly, Of Indulgences, and the pre­tence of free­ing souls from Purgatory thereby. I shall consider the pretended power, of securing offenders from Purgatory, or releasing their souls out of it, partly by the Priests Masses, and chiefly by the Popes Indulgences, and being interested thereby in that treasure of the Church, which he hath power to dis­pense. For the Romanists tell us, that as there is in sin a fault, and in mortal sins an obligation to eternal punishment, which is discharged in the Sacrament of Penance and Absolution; so there is an obligation to tem­poral punishment even in venial sins, and if this be not suffi­ciently undergone in this life, by way of satisfaction, it must be made up by the sufferings of Purgatory. And thus a model is contrived and drawn up, to shew how sinners may escape these evils of sin, without amendment. Now sin indeed is of that pernicious and hurtful nature in every respect, that by reason of it, God sometimes punisheth per­sons and Families, even after true repentance, and receiving [Page 253]the person into his particular favour; and such were the judgements on Davids House, after his Murther and Adul­tery. And I esteem the practices of sin and vice, to be so hurtful, that though they be sincerely repented of, if that repentance and the fruits of it be not very exemplary, they will make abatements in the high degrees of the future re­ward. And strict penitential exercises ought to be underta­ken by all Penitents for greater offences, according to the quality of their transgressions. This in the ordinary disci­pline of the ancient Church, was performed before the Church gave Absolution, which oft included the severe ex­ercises of divers years; and this was the Exomologesis oft mentioned in Tertullian and Cyprian. And if in danger of death, such penitents were reconciled, who had not com­pleated their penitential exercises, Conc. Nic. c. 13.4. Conc. Carth. c. 76. the Canons requi­red that if they recovered, these must afterwards be per­formed. And these things were testimonies of their ab­horrence of the sin, their high value for the favour of God, and the priviledges and Communion of the Church, and that they had exercised themselves to undergo difficulties and severities, rather than to forfeit them.

15. But concerning the Romish Purgatory; though God never revealed any such thing, nor did the ancient Church believe it, I shall not here engage in that dispute; but shall only observe, that this fiction of temperal punishment of sin in Purgatory is somewhat unequal, since the body which is so great a partaker in, and promoter of the sin, is whol­ly freed from all these punishments, and rests quietly in its grave, whilst the soul is left alone to undergo all those pains. And if the pretence of freeing offenders from great suf­ferings in Purgatory be a fictitious thing; it serves the ill de­signs of undermining holiness and true Christianity, and tends to raise a great admiration of the Popes power in them that believe it, and to engage those to the Romish. Church, who can please and satisfie themselves with the thoughts of such Indulgences.

16. Now for the right understanding this, I shall take notice of so much as is needful to be considered, out of their own approved Authors. Layman saith, Theol. Mor. l. 5. Tr. 7. c. 1. n. 1. this indul­gence is a remitting temporal punishment, which is due to God, out of the Sacrament, by the application of the satisfaction of Christ and the Saints: and is ibid. n. 4. a free forgiving the punish­ment to be undergone in Purgatory, for sins committed; or a commutation thereof into some light thing, by the mercy of God. And ibid. c. 3. n. 1. that a plenary Indulgence doth dismiss all the pains, for sins which are to be punished in Purgatory. And M. Beca­nus saith, Sum. Th. Part. 3. Tr. 2. c. 28. q. 2. Defunctis indulgentiae conceduntur, &c. In­dulgences are granted to those who have depaerted this life, in that the Pope applies to them so much of the Churches treasury, as is sufficient to compensate the punishment, they should undergo in Purgatory. And this Treasury consists of the Sufferings of Christ which are infinite, and the sufferings of the Blessed Virgin, Apostles and Saints, which was more than was need­ful for their own sins. And Bellarmine having laid this as a foundation, on which Indulgences depend, de Indulg. l. 1. c. 2. that there is a treasure in the Church; and ibid. c. 3. that the Church can apply this treasure, further declares, that such Indulgen­ces do set men free, ibid. c. 7. à reatu poenae, non solum coram Ec­clesia, sed coram Deo; from the guilt of punishment, not only before the Church, but also before God: and that the plenary and most full Indulgences do extend ibid. c. 9. ad remissionem to­tius poenitentiae quae à Deo exigipossit, to the remitting all that penance which can be required by God. Nor do these Indul­gences avail only according to their Doctrine to remit Pe­nances, which are injoined in Confession or other wise, but Laym. ubi supr. c. 3. n. 2. ad omnes poenas etiam non injunctas se extendunt, they reach to all Penances or punishments, even to such as are not enjoined: and that an Indulgence ibid. n. 1. Bell. ubi sup. c. 9. for one year, or for seven years, is a remitting so much punishment, as would be taken off by the Penitential exercises of one year, or of se­ven years.

17. Now First, I shall observe, how this by rendring a holy life unnecessary, tends to oppose the great design of the Gospel, and to render it ineffectual. These under mine true piety of life. For the precepts of the Gospel are the indispensable Laws of Christs King­dom, which he will have observed, or else will say to such workers of iniquity as will not obey his Gospel, depart from me, I never knew you. And the judgment to come, the punishments of another world, and the manifold promises of the Gospel, are all laid down as powerful Motives in the Religion of our Saviour, that men may be holy here, that so they may be happy hereafter. But how is all this enervated and made void, if Attrition with Absolution will v. Sest. 3. n. 1. &c. free sinners from the stain and fault of their sin, and from eternal punish­ment: and when no further danger or evil can remain but some temporal pains, these may be discharged (either by the exercises of some injoined penances, or without them) by the kindness and favour of an Indulgence? and all this may be done without any real exercises of mortification or an holy life. Indeed the Romish Writers require, that the person who receives the benefit of an Indulgence, should be in a state of grace: but then they also assert that Absolution with the Sacrament of Penance, is sufficiect for this. And some of the forms of Indulgences express this condition, si cordis & oris egerint poenitentiam; if they shall practice re­pentance in heart and word: but then their Doctors acknow­ledge this done by Attrition in the Sacrament of Penance, and Confession.

18. There is indeed some act of Obedience required to be performed by the person, who will interest himself in the benefit of these discharges from punishment, but they usu­ally are of little or no concern at all, with respect to true inward and serious piety. Sometimes indeed the saying over some particular prayer is enjoined; but even the bare visiting some place is also sufficient to obtain plenary Indul­gence; of which nature I shall mention two instances. The one is that mentioned by Boil. de Indulg. l. 1. c. 12. Bellarmine, that whosoever shall stand before the doors of S. Peters Church at Rome, [Page 256]when the Pope pronounceth his solemn blessing at Easter, doth receive a plenary Indulgence: but this as the Cardinal there tells us, is no light thing, being useful to profess the Faith, concerning the Head of the Church, & ad ho­norem sedis Apostolicae, qui est finis illius Indulgentiae; and to promote the honour of the Apostolical See, which is the end of that Indulgence. Which last words are somewhat un­warily plain. The other Instance I shall mention is, the visiting the Church of the Lady at Laureto, to which after some Indulgences had been granted, by Benedict XII. Mar­tin V. and Nicholas V. and some other Popes, Horat. Tursellin. Lauretan. Hist. l. 5 c. 20. Cle­mens VIII. so far enlarged these Indulgences, that he bountifully granted the pardon of all their sins, to all persons who at any time of the year shall orderly go to visit the Cell of the Virgin at Laureto. Now if any man can truly think, that such acts as these, can so reconcile God to man, as to take off all his displeasure to offenders, he must be a man so far of no Religion, as to have no serious sense of the nature of God: and this is that state to which such methods tend to bring men.

19. Secondly, Indulgences are a contrivance of gain, It may be observed, that this contrivance includes in it a design of Covetousness, and loving the wages of Unrighteousness, and cannot be excused from being Si­moniacal: and the feigned imparting to others an interest, in the pretended treasury of satisfactions in the Church, is really made use of as a colour, whereby they increase their own treasuries of wealth. Indeed 70 De­cret. l. 3. Tit. 14. c. 1. the selling Indul­gences, or any Spiritual thing, is declared against, but the inriching themselves by them is not; and how far the me­thods they use can be called selling, I shall not be curious to dispute. Their Authors grant, that a Priest is bound M. Bec. Sum. Th. P. 3. Tr. 2. c. 25. p. a. qu. 10, & 12. ratione stipendii, upon account of his stipend, specially to offer and apply the Sacrifice to him that gave the stipend, apply­ing to him also illam portionem satisfactionis, that portion of sa­tisfaction, which that Priest hath a power to distribute. And in their Indulgences, there hath been oft expressed the Con­dition [Page 257]of raising moneys, if that were to be imployed in the re­gaining the Holy Land, or the subduing Hereticks, or ene­mies of the Roman Church. To which purpose in the Bull of Innocentius the Third, to promote an expedition into the Holy Land, to those who should give moneys according to their ability, Ursper­gens. Chr. p. 329. he grants full pardon of all their sins, and to them who would also go in person, over and above, in retributione justorum, aeternae salutis pollicemur augmentum, he promiseth an increase of eternal happiness, in the reward of the just. And these are very great and liberal proposals, especially being assured upon such terms, as may be per­formed by men destitute of true and serious piety. But that which is most to be considered, is what is ordinarily practised, and generally known to be intended, and de­signed, in the grants of these Indulgences, especially when they are annexed to certain places as to the Lateran, and Laureto, and many others. For those persons are not ac­counted to come regularly, and in such a manner as is pro­per for such as expect to receive such great benefits, unless they bring along with them such oblations as are suitable to their state. Of this nature Horatius Tursellinus through­out his five Books of the History of the Cell. and Church of Laureto, takes notice of divers instances, of Princes, Cardi­nals, Noble men, and Women, Cities, and divers persons of great fame, who when they came in peregrination thi­ther, some of them offered golden Crosses and Crowns, rich Rings and Shrines bedecked with costly Jewel, and o­ther things of great worth and value, of which by reason of the high worth and value of them, he gives at least two hundred particular instances: when others also offered ac­cording to their ability, coming thither in a daily concourse. The like kind of devotions are upon the same account paid at Rome upon the like occasion, especially every twenty fifth year, being the year of Jubilee: and in other places al­so, though not in so high a degree.