First Point.

As it is clear that Heaven is of more value than a piece of the Earth, Everlasting Glory, than a short joy of this Miserable mortal Life, the Favour and Grace of God than that of Men: so clear (and not needing tedious proofs) is the First Point proposed of our discourse; that if we should see a Church in­fected with corruptions inconsi­stent with the true worship and service of God, we are to quit it with all speed and diligence, not heeding mens discontents, nor any earthly interest. But why was our Saviour so earnest with his own Dis­ciples that they should quit the Plea­sures of Jerusalem and the Fertil Fields of Judea upon such an emer­gencie, and flee to barren moun­tains? might it not be expected from their constant Faith and fervent Piety, improved in the School of Christ, enriched with the Heavenly dew of healthful Doctrine dayly [Page 7]dropping upon them from his Divine lips, that in midst of the Idolatry and Prophaness of the Romans they would preserve themselves pure and unspotted as the Fish in the Sea with­out relishing the salt of it? Nay further, may it not be expected that by their Doctrine and example of their Holy Life, the sores of Je­rusalem may be healed and the inha­bitants of it reduced to a better Life? No; of their amendment there was no hope, because their hearts were hardened as that of Pharao, and their disease incurable, which did encrease with the very remedies of it; their Stomacks so corrupt, that they turned the most healthful food into Poyson: their minds were so perverse, that they abhorred their Cure and killed their Physitians: so our Saviour declared of them in the Chapter precedent to that of our Text, the 23 of St. Mathew put­ting them in mind that their Fathers before them did so, themselves did [Page 8]so at present, and would do the same in the future. The doleful words of our Saviour to this pur­pose are much to be remarked. St. Math. 23 v. 29 31.32.39. Wo to you Scribes and Pharisees Hypo­crites. Ye be witnesses unto your selves that ye are the children of them which killed the Prophets. Fill up then the measure of your Fathers. Behold I send unto you Prophets and wise men and Scribes and some of them ye shall kill and crucifie, and some of them shall ye scourge in your Synagogues, and persecute them from City to City: That upon you may come all the right­eous Bloud shed upon the Earth &c. The People of Jerusalem being thus given over to a reprobate obstinacie, what hopes could our Saviours Dis­ciples entertain of healing them?

Neither could they prudently hope to be safe themselves in so great and general corruption. Isaiah thought it one and the same thing to live in a corrupted company and be cor­rupted himself: Wo is me, said he, [Page 9] For I am undone, because I am a man of unclean Lips, and I dwell in the midst of a People of unclean lips. Whereupon St. Jerome saith that the former part of the Text was a declaration of the later; and to say he lived with a people of unclean lips was as much as to say he was himself of unclean lips: St. Hier­on. ep. 1. ad Da­mascum. hoc in Peca­ti ac miseriae parte ducit Propheta ha­bitans in medio populi polluta labia habentis. So powerful is the influ­ence of bad company that the best of men are apt to be spotted if not corrupted with it! Even Angels it seems may not be safe from the con­tagions of such neighbourhood. In the first Chapter of Genesis is relat­ed that God divided the light from the darkness. Gen. 1. Rupert. li. 1. in Genes. c. 13. By which words Ru­pert understands how God separated the good Angels from the Bad; and inquiring further what may be the motive of this seperation, he an­swereth, it was, that the Good Angels may not be perverted by [Page 10]the company of the Bad. How? are Angels Subject to such mutabi­lities? Is it not their nature to have liberty in their first election, but that once made, to stick immove­ably to the side they adhered to? St. Tho­mas 1. p. q. 64. art. 2. So Divines do teach commonly in Schools. But such is the Power of bad company, that it will make e­ven Angels to forget their nature and be perverted with the per­verse.

We have another fair shew of this verity in the 10th. Chapter of St. Luke, V. 18. where our Saviour, in testimony of his Divine power, Luke 10.18. tel­leth, that he beheld Sathan as light­ning fall from Heaven. And what singularity appears in that? did not the Angels, and all the world, see the same? Rupent. l 1 de victoria Verbi Dei. c. 13. yea, saith Rupert; but with fear and danger; only Christ the Son of God, could behold that spe­ctacle with security. Solus iste vi­debat securus sui; Angeli autem vide­tunt in magno terrore positi. So strong [Page 11]and active is the venom of a bad ex­ample, and scandalous company, that even those pure Angelical spirits could not be secure from the conta­gion of it, in the opinion of this lear­ned Father; only Christ could be­hold with vafety the dismal fall of Sathan; solus iste videbat securus sui. Trust not in your virtue, build no confidence upon your good nature; bad company will corrupt virtue, and pervert nature.

This fatal contagious influence of companies, justifieth the practice I find in nations of censuring every ones temper by the company he fancies. A Spanish proverb reduced to English, says, Tell me with whom thou walkest, and I will tell thee who thou art. Noble men who tender your repute, Christians who regard your welfare and salvation, take heed to what company you adhere. And this doctrine being so impor­tant for all; I will confirm it fur­ther, with the famous case of that [Page 12]prodigal son, set down in the 15th. chapter of St. Luke; who having la­vished away his substance, with rio­tous living in a forreign countrey, Luke 15.15. he joyned himself to a Citizen, who employed him in feeding his swine; and he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat. How so? that delicate youth, who loathed the plentiful fare of his Fa­thers house, now fancy the husks that swine did eat? Is that a proper food for a man, and such a man? no; but the company of swine made him put off his own nature, and wear theirs. And when he came to himself, so followeth the Text. What? did he leave himself? yes, saith ingenious Peter Chrysologus, à se migrat & transit in bestiam; Chrysol. Ser. 2. living with beasts, he left himself, and tur­ned beast. That is the ordinary ef­fect of bad company, to turn into its own condition, the nature of such as adhere to it. To presume the con­trary, is to pretend to a miracle, and [Page 13]tempt God. It were indeed a mi­racle, and a singular one, that a per­son living in a bad company, should not conform to it. Our Saviour, to confirm his Doctrine with an uncon­trolable miracle against the obsti­nate Jews, who condemned, as Sor­ceries, his other miraculous works; got innocent children to blaze his glory in the Temple of Jerusalem; according to the Prophet David, Mat. 21.16. in the eighth Psalm: Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings thou hast perfe­cted praise. This miracle wrought deeply upon the Jews, and confirmed them in the belief of the others pre­ceding; as St. Matthew relates. St. Mat. [...]. 19. And when the chief Priests and Scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying in the Temple, say­ing, Hosanna to the Son of David, they were sore displeased. What made them take more notice of these inno­cent Elegies of the children, than of the other wonders he wrought? [...]. Euthymius gl [...]ssing upon this passage, [Page 14]answers, that in other occasions they suspected Christ might have delu­ded their eyes with appearances of things not really existing; but that their own children, bred by them­selves, and living among them, should break out into Elogies of one they saw ever contemned and revi­led by them; was a miracle they knew not how to controll: That ears continually beaten with calum­nies and opprebries against Christ, should entertain any favourable opi­nion of him, was a wonder, which malice and envy it self could not su­spect. So strange it is, that any should not act according to the tem­per of the company he lives in! A wonder passing all wonders! Such is the influence, bad company hath over minds adhering to it! And herewith I conclude the first Point of my Discourse; how justly our Saviour, in the words of our Text, was so earnest in exhorting his Dis­ciples to shun the Abominations of [Page 15] Jerusalem, given over to corruption and reprobate obstinacy, that they might not be perverted by them; and that if we should see any of those three Abominations declared by the three Opinions of Interpre­ters, related in the opening of our Text, that is to say, Idolatry, Cruel­ty, or Impiety, or all three, practi­sed in a Church or Congregation, we are to shun it with all speed and diligence.

Now I will proceed to the Se­cond Point proposed of my dis­course; which is, to declare how I saw, and by what means God was pleased to let me see, that all these three abominations are generally practised in the Roman Church, as it stands at present; to wit Idola­trie in their Manner of Worship. Cruelty in their conduct of Souls and Antichristian Impiety in extolling men above God: That so my rece­ding from the Communion of It, may be justified as no more, nor o­ther, [Page 16]than a dutiful obedience to the Councel of Christ, declared in our Text. But before I enter into this Point, I desire my judicious hearers not to conceive I come here to scold or Insult upon my former Brethren of the Roman Communi­on. I may not hate Them without hating my self; my flesh and blood and dearest friends being among them; with tender compassion I lament their Errour. I could not in piety abandon the Mother at whose brest I sucked the Belief of a Chri­stian; if with tears or sweat I could hope to wash away the stains, which corruption of time has cast upon her face, once fair and glorious: but seeing her disease appears both in­curable and contagious, I was for­ced to a divorce. Mean faults could not give a just cause to it; they must be grievous ones, which I can­not declare without giving them their own names; the same our Text and declaration of it puts into [Page 17]my mouth, for just cause of the like seperation, Idolatrie, Cruelty, Impie­ty. How I came to perceive the pre­sent Practise of the Roman Church to be guilty of these faults I will endea­vour to declare with the brevity and sincerity duty requires, being to speak in so Illustrious an Auditory.

Gods Providence leading me in my younger years to the Schools of greatest credit in Spain; and dispo­sing so that having compleated in them my courses of Philosophy and Divinity, I should be imployed ma­ny years in teaching the same Facul­ties; The exercise of those Reason­ing Sciences joyned with my own Genius not fit for Pythagoras his School (where ipse dixit was the rule, and knowledge must be taken upon credit of the Master) got me a habit of demanding reason for the belief of Doctrines proposed. This, assisted by frequent reading of Holy Scriptures, Fathers, Councels and Histories of the Church made me [Page 18]doubt of the Truth of several Te­nents introduced by the use or Au­thority of the Roman Church, repug­nant (in my esteem) to common reason, and not warranted by Di­vine testimony to captivate my un­derstanding to the belief of them. Of the Truth of Holy Scriptures, of the Apostles Creed, of that of Nice and Athanasius I never doubted. Therein I acknowledged the Heaven­ly gift of Faith received in the Holy Sacrament of Baptism; and lifting my heart and eyes to Heaven, gave thanks to God for this Soveraign be­nefit in those words of the Psalm: Psal. 4. v. 6. Signatum est super nos lumen vultûs tui Domine: Thou hast lifted upon us, O Lord, and printed in our hearts the light of thy countenance. With­out which, certainly an understand­ing accustomed to search exactly into the nature of things, their Essential constitutes, the proportion of causes with effects, and to measure by these rules the credibility of them, would [Page 19]never give so free and easie assent to the ineffable mysteries of Trinity and Unity in the Divine nature, of the Incarnation, Resurrection, Ascen­tion of Christ our Saviour, of the Descent of the Holy Ghost in tongues of fire upon the Apostles, and other mysteries contained in Holy Scripture and the Creeds.

On the other side the reluctancy I found in assenting to those Te­nents of the Roman Church, as oppo­site to other Christian Congregations, was to me an occasion of suspecting they might not be grounded upon Di­vine institution: all my understand­ing was turmoiled reflecting upon the prodigious Doctrine of Transub­stantiation; alone sufficient to fright rational believers from the Ro­mish Communion. By it we are required to believe that when the Priest pronounces those few Latin words: Hoc est Corpus me­um, This is my Body, minding what he says, the substance of all [Page 20]the bread he lays before him, is de­stroyed in a moment, and instead of it, our Saviour Jesus is placed under that figure of bread personally and corporally: A wonder, though a dayly one, yet far surpassing that other which once happened in the world, when God hearkning to the voice of Joshua; made the Sun and Moon stand, till he compleated his Victory against the Enemy invading Gibeon. Josh. 10.12. And to support this won­der, a great number of others most stupendious, are chained to it. As First, that those accidents of white and round remaining, do subsist without any substance to rest upon; a thing repugnant to their nature, and to all humane understanding. Secondly, that the same accidents being converted either into vermin by corruption, or into flesh and bloud by nutrition, in him that eats them, should produce a substance; which is, to give what they have not; a thing surpassing all kind of [Page 21]power. Thirdly, that a proper well proportion'd body, as that of our Saviour, glorious in Heaven, must come down and be fitted to every Wafer, and to every the least crumb of them. Fourthly, that the same Body must lye, sit, or stand, or however, be, in a hundred thousand places at the same time. All these monstrous miracles, and more, we must swallow, to support that mystery, in spight of all reason to the contrary, without any perti­nent Text of Scripture to ground it upon, (nay, many Texts opposing it, as we shall hereafter declare) and no necessity urging to it, either for ve­rifying the words of our Saviour in the institution of this blessed Sacra­ment, or for the effects of it: St. 1 [...].15. Not for verifying the words; seeing our Saviour in the same tenor said, I am the true vine, without any alteration, either in his Person, or in the Vine. And St. Paul saith of his Corinthians, 2 Cor. 12 27.ye are the Body of Christ, yet mean­ing [Page 22]no conversion of substances. Nor for the effects of the Sacra­ment; Christ being able to convey, with the worthy receiving of Bread and Wine, what spiritual graces he pleaseth, without any substantial al­teration in the Elements; as in the Waters of Baptism, he affordeth the soveraign grace of Regeneration without any alteration in the sub­stance of the Water.

The like repugnance I felt, in be­lieving their prodigious Doctrine of Indulgences, Purgatory, Worship of Saints and Images, and other Points controverted with them; but smo­ther'd my doubts while in Spain; partly fearing the severity of that Countrey, in proceeding against Opposers of their Doctrine; partly amused with the supposition, that the Church and Pope of Rome were Infallible in their Decrees, touching matters of Faith, and so might stand with security to their Declara­tions. And finally perswaded by [Page 23]my Catechists, that it was a mortal Sin to admit willingly even a doubt in Matters of Faith. A terrible yoke, reaching to the thoughts of the heart; but conducent to their purpose of keeping in their people by right or wrong. With these Generalities, I quieted in some sort my mind, while I could see none that would seriously oppose those Tenents, nor know the Arguments against them, but by relation of Ro­mish Writers, fashioning them so as they might better receive their stroke. For though by occasion of my Employment of teaching con­troversies in the University of Sala­manca some years, I had a Licence from the Inquisitor General of Spain, to read prohibited Books, yet the Prohibition was so severe, that I could never come by any Book of their Opposers.

But Divine Providence leading me to this Countrey, I met with persons of excellent wisedom, and [Page 24]great integrity; who in close and serious Disputes, gave me a different light and help to find out the truth. The chiefest of all was, the Most Reverend Father in God, Thomas Lord Archbishop of Cashell, who at his coming to that See, having no­tice of me, and pittying I should con­tinue in errours, sought carefully af­ter me; and finding me out, with admirable zeal and great dexte­rity, dictated by Christian cha­rity, set upon me with solid Arguments of Holy Scripture, Councels, Fathers and Histories; and gave me to view several learned Au­thors representing the Errours of the Roman Church in all the points controverted; to which I listened the more willingly because I saw a vein of Charity and Zeal of Union among Christians run through all his discourses, acknowledging the Church of Rome to be a part of the Catholick Church, though not the Catholick Church, (as they speak, [Page 25]excluding other Christian Congre­gations from that honourable Title) reverencing what in them was good, as the belief of Scripture, and Chri­stian Creeds, the Practice of Devo­tion and Piety, and onely reprov­ing the Superstructures of Erroneous Practises introduced contrary to the Institution of Christ and Stile of the Primitive Church: entertaining a charitable hope of the Salvation of many of them that went on with simplicity of heart and blameless ignorance of the Errours they were bred in.

All which sympathizing with my own temper and dictates, in relation to all Christian Congregations, got in my mind a special respect and re­gard to his reasons. I replied to them with sincerity and liberty, ac­cording to the principles I was in­structed in: Where a clear Text or pressing reason was deficient, I ap­pealed, as to a Sanctuary, to the Infal­libility of the Church; that in [Page 26]things surpassing our comprehension we were to captivate our under­standing to the obedience of Faith proposed to us by the Church of God.

To secure this refuge and have it in a readiness, I framed to my self, and proposed to his Grace, this kind of Demonstration: That by natural evidences, I was convinced there was a God of infinite Good­ness, wisedom and power; That to these attributes it belonged, he should provide for Man-kind means for obtaining their end of everlasting bliss. That by revealed Oracles common to all Christians I believed he sent down his Son Jesus Christ for this purpose in humane nature, and to shew by his Example and Doctrine a sure way to eternal hap­piness. And providing not only for the age he lived in, but for all times to come; he left upon earth a Church furnished with convenient Laws for the foresaid end. And whereas he [Page 27]foretold himself, that in future times there should arise Heresies and Controversies, (as it is the nature of men) it became his wisedom and goodness to appoint a visible Judge, with infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost, to determine all Controver­sies emergent; which Judge was no other than the Pope of Rome, Suc­cessor of St. Peter; to whose defini­tions therefore we ought to stand, and so quiet our minds.

The former part of this Demon­stration had a grateful acceptance with his Grace, as being rationally and Christianly principled, and no­thing averse to Piety; till coming to the later Proposition, That it be­came the wisedom and goodness of Christ to appoint a visible Judge In­fallible upon Earth, to determine Con­troversies: He replied mildly, we had reason to go warily in censuring the wisedom and goodness of God, if this or that thing seeming to us ex­pedient, were not done in the govern­ment [Page 28]of the World: for who can pretend to know the depth of the wisedom and knowledg of God; Rom. 11.33. to search into his judgments, and find out his ways?

This most rational advertisement took deep root in my heart, ever thirsty of reason, and open to re­ceive it: Neither did the modesty of the Proposer diminish, but rather augment the weight of it. It was in truth the first shock that touched me to the quick, striking upon the very root of that Engine of Infallibi­lity I leaned upon. Reflecting up­on the matter in my solitudes, I per­ceived the weakness of the ground I built upon; I saw, that in like manner we may say, it belongeth to the goodness, wisedom, and power of God, not to permit that his Holy Law should be transgressed by vile creatures, and his supreme dread Majesty offended by despicable ver­mine; Nor that Pastors of Souls, (es­pecially the Roman Pope, deemed a [Page 29]Vice-God upon Earth) should fall into errours, and scandalize, with wicked life, the people: And, alas! it is but too well known, he per­mits this. Shall we therefore wa­ver in the Opinion of his goodness, power, and wisedom? God forbid. Why then should we think it a fail­ure in his providence, or goodness, if, besides Holy Scriptures, abound­ing in all light and Heavenly Do­ctrine, to such as are not wilfully blind, he did not appoint some visi­ble Judge universal for our directi­on? St. Paul saying, 2 Tim. 3.16.17. that Holy Scri­ptures are able to make us wise unto salvation, that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

That Foundation alledging the necessity of a Judge visible, univer­sal, and Infallible, being thus weak­ned, I proceeded to examine what right the Pope or Church of Rome could pretend to such infallibility, the support of all their Incredible [Page 30]Doctrine. And, first, the very in­constancy of their pretence to this priviledge, and great dissention of their Authors in asserting it, was to me a main reason of suspecting the truth of all, and a concluding argu­ment that they cannot be certain of having it. Vide Bel l. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 2. For some will have the Pope himself alone, as Pope, or as teaching from his chair, to have this Infallibility of Doctrine. Others will not allow it him, but in conjun­ction with a Council, either general, or particular of Cardinals and Di­vines. Others only attribute it to him in a General Council. Others neither separately nor conjunctly, and will only allow the Church Uni­versal to be Infallible. And finally, others of the most Learned affirm even the Church Universal, S. Tho. Turre [...]mata. Alphon­ [...]us a Ca­ct [...]o apud Candi 4 [...] c. 4 concl. 2. to be capable of a Material Errour by Probable Ignorance, though not of a Formal and Heretical one: which in substance is to allow the Church no more Infallibility than Origen, [Page 31]Tertullian, or any other particular true Christian Believer hath, though subject to errors; (which Opinion if extended to make the Universal Church fallible even in Points Es­sential to saluation, is false). And upon so great an uncertainty of their Infallibility, they will have us to build a certain Infallible Belief of all they please to teach us; which is, to build a house incapable of falling, upon a sandy and ruinous Founda­tion.

Now for their grounds for this pretended Infallibility; what is their warrant for it? Divine Scripture they say, for who but God could give such a Priviledge? and what warrant have they for believing he Scripture saying so to be Divine and Infallible? The Infallible Testimo­ny of the Church, say they again; their own Roman Church they mean. So they believe the Scri­pture is Infallible, because the Roman Church doth testifie it; and this [Page 32]Church to be Infallible, because the Scriptures Testimony is for it. A circle in reasoning, which Logicians would hiss out of their Schools. Neither may Becan's escape avail him, that they deal with Christians who believe the Scripture: for no Christian, but such as they will make blind, can believe that there is any Scripture favouring their case in this particular, without clipping or corrupting it to serve their pur­pose. For example, Their main pil­lar for this Infallibility, fetcht out of the 24th. chapter of St. John, John 14.16. I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth. Their own Disciples, who ordinarily know no more of Scri­ptures, than what they are pleased to shew to them for their several purposes; may think that Text to be pertinent for their pretentions. But who will take the liberty to read the Context before and after, [Page 33]will clearly find out, that the very same Text destroyeth their whole design, and taketh away all certain­ty of the Holy Ghost his assistance, for rendring their Decrees Infallible. The Text restored to its integrity saith thus in their own Bible: If ye love me keep my commandments, Mundus, id est, re­manens amator mundi, cum quo nurquam est amor Dei. Gloss. in­terlin. Non ha­bent spi­rituales oculos quibus Spiritum sanctum videant mu [...]i ama [...] res, Gloss. ordina­ria.and I will ask my Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever, even the Spi­rit of Truth, whom the World cannot receive. By the first words you may see this to be a conditional promise, limited to such as love God, and keep his Commandments: by the later words you see worldly and sin­ful men expresly excluded from re­ceiving that gracious assistance of the Spirit of Truth; therefore to be sure that the Pope and his Coun­cil have the assistance of the Spirit of Truth, we must be sure that they love God, and keep his Command­ments; but of this we cannot have se­curity, their own Histories relating, [Page 34]and the world knowing enormous vices in them.

What they alledge out of St. Paul writing to Timothy, Tim. 3.15. that the Church is the pillar and ground of Truth: we freely admit it as due to the Univer­sal Church, not to any particular; but less to one found guilty of so many and great errours, such as the Romish is; whose ambition in claim­ing and appropriating to it self all the commendations delivered of the Church Universal, is no less repre­hensible, than as if the Scribes and Pharisees persecuting our Saviour, should appropriate to their Syna­gogue all the praises given to Moses and Aaron. Would not you won­der, that their chief Champion Cardinal Bellarmine, Bellar de sum P [...]n l. 4 c 2. should bring for proof of the Pope's Infallibili­ty, that in the Old Law God com­manded Two Hebrew words, Exod. 20. or Two stones, signifying Doctrine and Truth, to be put in the breast plate of the High Priest? And what [Page 35]then? will you infer thence more Infallibility in the Pope, than in those High Priests you bring for ex­ample? Will you make them all In­fallible, even Caiphas? If we will speak in earnest, I would suppose these words so inserted, were an ad­vertisement to the High Priest, that he was to exercise Doctrine and Truth, as becoming his place. The same advertisement I allow the Pope should have; and I wish he did always do accordingly. This is the utmost That Text can afford. And of this weight are the other Texts they bring, to assure us of the Infallibility, pretended to build all our Belief on.

This main Foundation of the Ro­mish Church being thus weakned; I began with more liberty to pry in­to, and examine exactly, the Myste­ries and Tenents of both parties, Pro­testant and Romish. To which pur­pose, if I had no other notice of the Protestant cause than that afforded [Page 36]by Popish Writers and Informers (as long time I had not) I should have been for ever kept from adhering to it. Here I perceived a great Insin­cerity of dealing in the proceeding of Romanists; who to make odious their Adversaries, gathered up out of the Writings of some particular persons, a heap of some extravagant doctrines; adding thereto humane frailties of their private lives, (whe­ther true or false, I will not debate now) but certainly such, as any wise and modest Protestant would ab­hor no less than any of themselves; And if he were to repay them in the like coyn, he may by their own mouth do it superabundantly. For Two certain Families or Orders of them, reputed the most learned and grave of all, (but very oppo­site in doctrine) passing from the Gravity of Scholastick Disputes to the Scurrility of Infamatory Libels, have published of late such damna­ble doctrines, and hideous vices, [Page 37]the one of the other, as any humane, and more a Christian heart, would tremble to hear. Which, lest I should defile this sacred place, or your ears, or my own mouth, I will not relate now. But I thought it fit to insinuate to them, that this foul and killing Armour of their own against themselves is in a readi­ness, if our necessary defence would require to draw it; but such a ne­cessity not intervening, I think it unbecoming an Evangelical Preach­er to stir that dung; and indeed no effective way to conclude with seri­ous minds upon so weighty a matter; being certain, that in all Congrega­tions of men there are defects in par­ticulars. The true and proper way (being to deal as becomes men of solid and serious temper) is, to exa­mine these Tenents wherein each party doth generally agree with publick Uniform consent: which I have done:

And beginning with the Church [Page 38]of England, I find the eminent per­sons of it, by Uniform consent of word and writing, Article 20. assert the summe of their Faith and Religion to be the Word of God, contained in the undoubted Canonical Scripture; be­sides which, & the plain indubitable consequence of it, they require no­thing to be believed as matter of Faith. What rule could be imagi­ned more sacred and excellent than this, for the instruction of men in Faith, and good manners? if you fancy Infallibility or Antiquity, what more Infallible or Ancient than the eternal Word of God? if Sanctity and W [...]sedom, what can be imagined more holy and wise, than the councels of Christ our Saviour, the sentences of holy Prophets and Apostles? if the Lustre of Miracles, what more admirable and certain than those wrought by our Saviour, and his Prophets, and Apostles, in confirmation of their doctrine? if Universality, all true Christians [Page 39]do agree in embracing and honour­ing Canonical Scripture.

Now as to the Roman Church; the Tenents of it, as opposite to the Pro­testant, shall be considered for the present to be reducible to these se­ven heads. First, the Infallibility and Supremacy of the Pope. Secondly, the Mystery of Transubstantiation. Thirdly, the Worship of Images. Fourthly, the Praying to Saints and Angels. Fifthly, the Half Commu­nion denied to the Laity. Sixthly, the use of Indulgences, and doctrine of Purgatory. Seventhly, the cele­brating of publick Divine Worship in a Language generally unknown to the people, and prohibiting the generality the reading of the Holy Scriptures.

Pope's Infallibility.

As to the First, we have already declared how ill grounded their [Page 40]pretence to Infallibility is. St. Tho. 22. q. 13. Art. 3. [...]iman. [...]. 4. tr [...]0. c. 6. Now it remaineth to shew how heinous a crime it is to attribute it to the Pope or his Council. Their own Divines with St. Thomas Aquinas do agree, in asserting, that of all sins Blasphemy is the greatest. 1 p q 16 ar. 18 30. The same Divines do accord in saying, it is Blasphemy to attribute to any crea­ture what is proper to God; where­as God's Attributes are indistinct from himself, and so to ascribe any of them to a creature, is to make such a creature God. Now, that Infallibility is one of Gods chief Attributes, incommunicable to any creature, 1 p. q 16. ar. 8. the same St. Thomas teach­eth expresly; grounding his Opini­on upon these words of the Ele­venth Psalm, Psal. 11.1. according to the La­tine Translation; Quoniam diminu­tae sunt veritates à filiis hominum, that verities are maimed among the children of men. To which is con­sonant the English Translation of the same Text, that the faithful [Page 41]fail from among the children of men: Psal. 115. v. 11. but more resolutely the hundred and fifteenth Psalm declareth that all men are lyars. Therefore the Ro­manists Attributing Infallibility of Doctrine to their Pope, are guilty of Blasphemy, the most hainous of all crimes; which is evidently de­duced from premisses of their own Theologie.

This hainous Blasphemy of paral­lelling the Pope with God in the At­tribute of Infallibility, is raised to a higher degree in their practice of making him Supreme and Absolute Judge and Arbiter of the Law of God and his Holy Scripture. So as for the belief and practice of all, we must stand to his Declaration; in such degree, Bellar­min. li 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 5. that Bellarmine stick­eth not to say, if the Pope did command Vices and prohibit Virtues, the Church would be obliged to believe Vice to be good and Virtue bad. Nay the Council of Constance professedly commandeth the Popes [Page 42]Decrees to be preferred to the Insti­tutions of Christ. Whereas confes­sing that our Saviour did ordain the giving of the Sacred Communion under both kinds to the Faithful people; and that the Apostles and Primitive Church did practise it so: notwithstanding they command, Concil. Constan. Sess. 13. that for the future it be not given to the Laity, but under one kind. Pro­posing no other reason for it, than that the precedent Popes and Church govern'd by them, practised it so; though contrary to the practice of Christ and His Apostles. Whereby they extol the Pope to a degree Su­periour to God himself in the Go­vernment of humane kind. If the Laws of England were not to be un­derstood or practised in Ireland, but according to the will and declaration of the King of France; certainly the King of France would be deemed of more Power and Authority in the Government of Ireland, and the people more Subject to him than to [Page 43]the King of England: So if the Law of God is to be measured by the Popes will and declaration: cer­tainly the Pope is above God in the Government of man kind.

Who would believe that any Christian would presume to say, that it should be a greater sin to transgress an Ecclesiastick Law of the Pope, than to break the Law of God? Costerus c. 15. en­chiridii. propos. 9. yet Costerus one of the chief de­fenders of the Romish Doctrine, sti­cketh not to say so much; resolutely asserting that it is a greater sin in a Priest to Marry, than to commit Fornication or keep a Concubine in his house: That Greater sin, in his opinion, being but a transgression of a Papal Law; and the other reputed by him for Lighter, a trespass a­gainst the Law of God expressed in his Divine Decalogue. What Chri­stian ears can abide to hear such ex­ecrable Blasphemies? will they won­der now that the Pope should be taxed with that Antichristian Impi­ety [Page 44]declared by Daniel the Prophet, Dan. 11.36. 2. Thessa. 2.4. and by St. Paul, who opposeth and ex­alteth himself above all that is called God? Here you see the Romish Church guilty of that Abomination mentioned in our text▪ of extolling man above God.

Pope's Supremacy.

To this enormity of robbing God of his prerogatives, is joyned ano­ther of making the Pope Supreme Head, and Master of all Christians; not only in spiritual matters, but al­so in their temporal interests, with power to depose Kings, and move their Subjects to Rebellion against them, when they do not obey his will; as it was declared in the Lateran Council under Innocent the Third by these terrible words: If a temporal Lord warned by the Church doth neglect to purge his Land of He­resie,Concil Laterar. c. 3.let him be excommunicated by [Page 45]the Metropolitan; and if within a year he gives no satisfaction, let that be signified to the Pope, that from thence­forth he may declare his Subjects ab­solved from their obedience to him, and expose his lands to be occupied by Catholicks. And so was done to King John of England by the same Pope Innocent the Third as it is re­corded by Polidor Virgil; Polidor. lib. 15. Suar. li. 3. defens. c. 23. to the Emperour Henry the Fourth by Gregory the Fourth; To Frederick the 2d. by Innocent the 4th. and to several other Christian Princes, as Suarez relates; making the Practice of Popes herein an Argument of their Power for doing so. Which kind of arguing as I was admiring in so exact a Schoolman, and refle­cting upon the power of prejudice, and education even over the most sublime wits; an ingenious Divine of the University of Dublin reply'd fa­cetiously, it was a very concluding argument, that proceedeth ab actu ad potentiam, being he did so, it's [Page 46]sign he could do it; that was good for a jest: But Suarez to be in earn­est, and give consistence to his argu­ment, subsumed, that the Church Universal did see and approve of this proceeding; and the Church being Infallible, could not approve it if not Lawful. Many other contro­versies would have a quick decision, if this discourse were Legal. That all saw it, is allowed; but that all approved of it freely, is denyed. Force and fear made them suffer, what they would have resisted if they knew how.

I remit enlarging upon the inju­stice of the Pope's pretensions here­in, to another occasion; and their unreasonable exclamations against the claim of our Princes to Suprema­cy of power over their subjects; be­ing they pretend no other, than such as the godly Kings of Israel had in their time over the Jews, and the Christian Emperors in the primitive Church over their respective sub­jects; [Page 47]as it is declared in the 37. Article and 2. Canon of the Church of England.

Only I will reflect at present up­on the cruelty the Pope has practi­sed of late towards the unhappy Irish his Followers, in pursuit of his pretended power of deposing Kings; That being no matter of Faith, nor passing a probable Opinion, as Azor, Peron, Azor to. 2 li. 11. c. 5. q. 8. Peronus in replica sua typis data an­no 1620. and other very learned Authors of his own party do declare: If we may call proba­ble a doctrine so damnable, that the great Parliament of France, (where­in, of 200. Votes, only 6. were Pro­testants, in the year 1604.) comman­ded Suarez his Book containing this doctrine, to be burned by the hands of the publick Executioner; and or­dered the Jesuits to have their prea­chers exhort the people to the con­trary doctrine; or otherwise they should be proceeded against as Tray­tors and Disturbers of the publick peace: Besides, all their own Di­vines [Page 48]generally asserting, that in a probable controversie, one may with safety of conscience follow the side he pleaseth: Yet the Pope prohibi­ted severely the Irish to disclaim that seditious doctrine, let them suf­fer never so many penalties and sus­picions for it. So zealous is his Ho­liness, not of the salvation of souls, but of the conservation of his own Grandeur; in having all power up­on Earth at his will, and the Crowns of Kings to stand or fall at his beck! is not this to exercise tyranny and cruelty in the conduct of souls?

Transubstantiation.

Touching the second Point pro­posed, of Transubstantiation, I signi­fied before how prodigious that en­gagement was, and what weak Foundation they had for it in Scri­pture. Now I will declare how di­rectly contrary to Scripture it is, [Page 49]and to the doctrine of the Fathers of the Primitive Church. The Council of Trent accurseth such as af­firm Bread and Wine to remain in this Sacrament after Consecration. Trident. Sess. 13. can. 2. And yet St. Paul teacheth us expresly, and repeateth the same doctrine some five times over; that after Consecration it is Bread which is broken and eaten. 1 Cor. 11.23, 24. The Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betray­ed, took Bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat, this is my Body, which is broken for you; this do, in remembrance of me. Of the Bread he took in his hand, all that followeth is affirmed, to wit, that he brake it, and that it was his Body. And whereas in a literal sense it could not be said with truth or propriety, that the Bread was his Body, as you may not say with sense, that a stick is a stone, he declareth immediately, that he spoke in a figurative sense, willing it to be a commemoration [Page 50]or remembrance of him; the Bread still remaining in the nature of Bread, though elevated by Christ's Institution to a supernatural and spi­ritual power of giving grace to well disposed Receivers. And so S. Paul in several verses after, making men­tion of that Consecrated Element, calls it still Bread; as often as you eat this Bread; Whosoever shall eat this Bread, &c.

In all which St. Paul doth but conform himself to the words of our Saviour, which he relateth exa­ctly, as set down by St. Luke in the 22th chapter of his Gospel, v. 19. And he took Bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my Body, which is gi­ven for you: this do in remembrance of me. And when our Saviour him­self thus declareth his words to be in a figurative sense, after an usual and plain manner of speaking; it is a dis­order to run to a violent explicati­on of them, containing wonders sur­passing [Page 51]humane understanding, with­out any probable ground in the ho­ly Text; as the Papists do to main­tain their doctrine, with this or the like gloss: This is my Body, that is, the thing contained under those Forms, is, by conversion and substan­tial transmutation, my Body. So as pretending to stick to the letter, they only keep the sound of the words; and to give them sense for their purpose, they unaware pro­duce a trope, or something darker, a paradox, repugnant to all humane reasoning, and nothing coherent with the context.

We agree all in calling the holy Eucharist a Sacrament; why should we not then agree in taking the ex­pressions touching it in a Sacramen­tal way? A Sacrament, in common, is a sign of a sacred thing: Signum rei sacrae, as Divines do ordinarily define it. Why may not the Sacra­ment of Christ's Body be called a sign of his Body: Why may not [Page 52]we understand that to be the mean­ing of Christ's words, when taking the Bread, he said, This is my Body? to wit, this is the sign of my Body. It being usual to call Sacramental signs by the name of the things sig­nified by them. As St. Augustine testifyeth, Sicut er­go secun­dum quendam modum Sacra­mentum Corporis Christi, Corpus Christi est, Aug. to. 2 ep. 23. ad Bonifac saying, Sacraments are signs, which often do take the name of those things which they do signifie and represent. And to our purpose ad­deth, that after a certain manner, the Sacrament of the Body of Christ is the Body of Christ. So the Lamb being a sign of the Passover, is cal­led the Passover, Mat. 26.17. Exo. 12.11. The Rock being a sign of Christ suffering for us, is called Christ; Ʋt Ba­ptismus dicitur Sepul­chrum: sic hoc est Corpus meum, Aug. con. Faust. li 20. c. 21 and the Rock was Christ, 1 Cor. 10.4. and Baptism the sign of Christ's Burial, is called Christ's Burial, which St. Augustine applyeth to our purpose, saying, As Baptism is called Christ's Burial, so is the Sa­crament of the Body of Christ called his Body.

Besides Bellarmine, Non e­nim Do­minus dubita­vit dice­re, hoc est corpus meum, cum sig­num da­ret cor­poris sui, Aug. to. 6. cont. Adaman. cap. 12. and all other Romish Writers do confess, being not able to deny it, that the words of our Saviour, touching the second part of this Sacrament, to wit, the Cup, are sigurative: This Cup is the New Testament of my Bloud; Where they acknowledge a Trope in the word Cup or Calice, taking it for that which is in the Cup. Why will not they likewise admit the former words relating to the Bread to be fi­gurative? Non ne­gamus in verbo ca­lix tro­pum esse. Bellarm. de Euch. l. 1. c. 11. such pressing reasons mo­ving to it, and such terrible incon­veniences attending their constructi­on, as hereto has been, and after shall be further declared.

Now that the most Reverend Fa­thers of that happier Age taught by Christ and his Apostles were of our Opinion, taking the words of our Saviour in a Figurative sense, and the Eucharistical Bread a Type, or Sign of his sacred Body, is clearly seen by their Writings, such as could escape the blots of the Roman Ex­purgatory. [Page 54]Vererable Denis A­reopagita was ignorant of Transub­stantiation; and so distinguished be­tween the substantial signs and Christ signified by them, saying: By those Reverend signs and Symboles Christ is signified, Dionis. Areopa­gita Ec­cles. hie­rar c. 2. I no & Di­onisiq. cap hier. 3 Eucha­ristiam. vocat an­t typon Belar. li. 2. de Eu char. c. 15. n. sed hoc.and the faithful made par­takes of him. He calleth the Sacra­ment a Type, even after Consecra­tion, as Bellarmin himself confesseth. So that according to St. Denis, the Elements of Bread and Wine in this Sacrament are Types and Sym­boles; which is to say, figures and signs of the Body and Blood of Christ; though not bare signs, but really exhibiting Christ and his Spi­ritual grace to the faithful, duly di­sposed: which being St. Denis his expression, fully agreeth with the belief of the Church of England in this particular.

St. Chrisostom delivereth clearly the same Doctrine, Chrisest epist. ad. ad Caesar. co [...]tr. haeres. A­pollinar. saying that before the Pread is sanctified we name it Bread, but the Divine Grace sanctify­ing [Page 55]it, by the means of the Priest, it is freed from the name of Bread; but it is esteemed worthy to be called the Lords Body although the nature of Bread remains in it. But St. Austin is most eminent in clearing this point, where he bringeth in Christ thus speaking to his disciples: Aug [...] in Psa. 98. you are not to eat this Body which you see, or to Drink that Bloud which my crucifi­ers shall powr forth. I have com­mended to you a Sacrament, which be­ing spiritually understood shall quicken you. Contra Adaman­tium. cap 12. And again he saith that Christ brought them to a banket in which he commended to his Disciples the figure of his Body and lood. For he did not doubt to say This is my Body, Contra [...]austum Mani­chaeum.when he gave the sign of his Body. And in another place he saith; that which by all men is called a Sacrifice is the sign of the true Sacrafice, in which the flesh of Christ after his assumption is celebra­ted by the Sacrament of remembrance.

Theodoret is more emphatical upon this subject, saying; Theodo­reus Dialog 2 c. 24. Christ honoured [Page 56]the Symboles and the Signs which are seen, with the title of his Body and Blood; not changing the nature, but to nature adding grace. For neither do the mistical signs recede from their nature; for they abide in their proper substance, figure and form, and may be seen and touched &c.

I will conclude these testimonies with one that haply may carry more weight, if not deemed Infallible, I mean of Pope Pelagius, speaking thus: Pelagius Papa de duabus naturis contra Euri­chem & Nestori um. vide Picherel in dissert de missa & expositione verborum institutio­nis caenae Domini. Pag. 14. Truly the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ which we receive is a Divine thing; for that by it we are made partakers of the Divine nature; and yet it ceases not to be the substance or nature of Bread and Wine. And truly an Image and similitude of the Body and Bloud of Christ is celebrated in the Action of the mysteries.

I am to suppose it will be replyed (for some exception must be con­ceived against evidences so clear and executive) that these testimonies of [Page 57]the Fathers are not to be seen thus in their more corrected editions; which I have reason to believe, ha­ving seen the venerable writings of the most ancient and grave Fa­thers of the Church, both Greek and Latine, defaced with large blots, wheresoever they were found op­posite to the present Tenents and practice of the Roman Church, ac­cording to the direction of the Ro­man Expurgatory. They pretend that Protestants have inserted into the Books of the Fathers, those clauses favouring their own Doctrine. But who can believe, that so many weighty Volumes making up great Libraries, should be newly printed to receive those supplies? that so many clear sentences concording with the context, should be so arti­ficially conveyed into the very heart and marrow of the Homilies of the Fathers? The contrary is the more credible to me, I having seen very ancient Libraries, which never came [Page 58]under the hands of a Protestant, ex­purged of such clauses and sentences according to the Rule of the Roman Expurgatory.

Besides this, Scot. in 4. dis 11. q. 3. Ocham ib. q. 6. Biel lect. 40 in Canon. Missae. R [...]ffens c. 1. o. 1. controv. captiv. Balil. Scotus, Ocham, Biel, Fisher Bishop of Rochester, Bassolis, Caietan, Melchior Canus, and others, many eminent Schoolmen have affir­med, that the doctrine of Transub­stantiation is not expressed in the Canon of the Bible. And certainly it was no Article of Faith, before the Lateran Council declared it for such, 1200. years after Christ, as Scotus and others do affirm. And even after this declaration, several of their chief Teachers continued affir­ming that Article not to be contain­ed in Scripture; Bassolis, Cai [...]tan, ap [...]d Suar. to 3 Disp. 46. sec. 3. Ca [...]us lo [...] com. l. 3. sun. 2. especially [...]assolis, Caietan, Melchior Canus; and so they coined it of their own heads: for they could not declare it to be revealed, if it was not in Scri­pture.

Their doctrine of Transubstantia­tion and Corporal Presence of our [Page 59]Saviour in the Sacrament of the Al­tar being thus ill grounded; consi­der how desperate is their resoluti­on, in giving to the consecrated wa­fer the Worship of Divinity; nay greater than ever they give to the true undoubted God; as is well known to such as have seen the sum­ptuous pomp of Spain, and other Popish Countries, in adoring the Consecrated Host. Even standing to their own principles, they can ne­ver be absolutely certain of Christ's Corporal Presence under those Forms of Bread; That depending, as themselves teach, from the inten­tion of the Priest consecrating, and his due Ordination; and this later again depending from the intention of the Bishop that ordained him, and his legal Ordination, and so upward, of endless requisites impossible to be known certainly upon any occasion, as Bellarmine, Vega, and all their Writers commonly do confess. Bellar. li. 3. de ju­stif. c. 8. What blindness therefore is it to give Di­vine [Page 60]Worship to a thing they know not certainly to be more than a piece of bread? Vega lib. 9. de ju­stif. c. 17.

Some, pressed with this Argu­ment, did answer that they were free from Idolatry in their practice herein, because they believe that host to be God. But upon this ac­count, the Egyptians worshipping the Sun for God, and the Israelites ado­ring the Golden Calf, believing it was the true God that brought them out of Egypt, and the grossest Idola­ters that ever were, may plead for excuse from Idolatry, alledging un­wilful mistake. To this again some of them reply, that they do not barely suppose Christ to be really present under the Form of bread; but that they know and believe it upon the same ground and motives, upon which they believe that Christ is God, and consequently to be ad­ored. Whereby certainly they give great advantage to the enemies of Christ's Divinity; seeing they make [Page 61]the truth of these two things equal, that is, Bellar. de Christo, l. 1. c. 4. the Divinity of Christ and Transubstantiation. And of the un­truth of this bold Assertion, I will take learned Bellarmine for judge; who when he proves the Divinity of Christ, goes through nine several classes of Arguments (of which six are wholly out of Scripture) with uncontrollable strength and ad­mirable clearness. But being to prove Transubstantiation out of Scripture, his only argument is from those words of our Saviour, Matth. De Sacr. Euchar. l. 3. c. 19. 26. Take, eat, this is my body. And finding that proof not clear enough, appeals to the Authority of Councils and Fathers, concluding the chapter thus: Though in the words of the Lord there may be some obscurity, or ambiguity, that is taken away by the Councils and Fathers of the Church; and so passes to that kind of proof.

But whatsoever be of Scripture for Transubstantiation, it is intolera­ble [Page 62]boldness to say, there is the same reason for the adoration of the Host, as for Christ's Divinity it self; where­as for the one we have a plain com­mand in Scripture, and for the other nothing like it. St. Paul tells, that all the Angels are commanded to wor­ship the Son of God;Heb. 1.6.and that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, of things in Heaven, Phi. 2.10.in Earth, and un­der the Earth. And St. John telleth from his Master's mouth, that the Heavenly Father commanded that all men should honour the Son, even as they do the Father. Jo. 5.23. But where is the least intimation given, that we are to worship Christ in the Sacramental Bread, supposing him present there? If you answer, the general command extendeth to him where ever he is present; I say you may upon that account, as well worship him in the Sun, and in the Moon, and in any other bread, for in all he is present as God.

I will conclude this Point with an­swering [Page 63]the argument I saw, taken for the most weighty against our Doctrine hitherto declared, of taking the Sacrament of the Altar for a com­memoration of our Saviour, and spi­ritual partaking of his blessed Body and Bloud, for the food of our souls to life everlasting, without any real transmutation of the substances. That if the Jews did take his words in this sense, they could not in reason strive among themselves, saying, John 5.52. How can this man give us his flesh to eat? nor his Disciples say, This is an hard saying, who can hear it? And Christ replying, did not reprehend their misunderstanding his words, but re­peated his former doctrine, saying, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, ye have no life in you.

This argument I once over-valu­ed; but considering it better, I look upon it as a tacit censure of Christ's reply for non pertinent, to satisfie the Objection of his Hearers. Shall we pretend to understand their mea­ning [Page 64]better than Christ, to whom they spake? or is it impossible that the malice of the Jews would not, or the simplicity of the Disciples could notunderstand the heighth and mysterious sense of the words of our Lord? viz. that the Elements of Bread and Wine, consecrated and taken in a Sacramental way in remembrance of his Death and Passion, should feed to life everlasting the Faithful, taking them with due preparation, as Pro­testants do understand in conformity with the Fathers of the Primitive Church before related: but that rather they understood them of a corporal and fleshy eating of his Bo­dy as Papists do; and so represented Difficulties which reason dictated against the like expression, such as we did in the beginning of this Di­scourse. You say he did not correct such understanding; but he did ap­parently, replying to the Objection of his Disciples; so. 6.63. It is the spirit that quickneth, the flesh profiteth nothing: [Page 65]The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. Where­with he draweth them from an ap­prehension of a corporal eating, to that of spiritual feeding, conducing to the everlasting life of their souls. His reply to the Jews, signifies, they understood him, as we do of a spiri­tual eating, and miraculous operati­on, which they would not believe: and so he repeateth the same do­ctrine to them, with the comminati­on annexed, that if they did not eat his flesh, they should not have life in them.

Worship of Images.

As to the third point, of worship­ing Images, it is clearly prohibited by God in the second precept of the Decalogue; Exod. 20.4.5. Thou shalt not make un­to thee any graven Image, thou shalt not bow down thy self to them. This Precept they have put out of their [Page 66]Catechism, to give place to their own of worshipping of Images, with the same honour due to the persons represented by them; and conse­quently the Image of God, and Christ, with latria; of the Virgin Mary with hyperdulia; of Saints with dulia, according to the gradua­tion they express. This to be the general Tenent with them, Azor declareth in these words, Constans est Theo­logorum sententia imagines eodem [...]nore, & [...] ho­norari & c [...]li. quo colitu [...]. id cujus est image, Az [...]r in­stit mor. [...] 1. l 9 c. 6. It is the constant judgment of Divines, that the Image is to be honoured and wor­shipped with the same honour and wor­ship, wherewith that is worshipped whereof it is an Image. Nay, they will have us believe, that God did ordain so much in the first command­ment, and so contradicted himself, prohibiting in the second command­ment, what he commanded in the first. Lau: Vaux in his Catechism to to this Question; Who breaketh the first commandment of God, by irreve­rence of God? giveth this Answer; they that do not give due reverence to [Page 67]God and his Saints, or their reliques and Images? What reverence they pretend due to Images, Decissio­ne casu­um con­scientiae, p 1. l. 2. c. 2. sect. t [...]nult. Vet. d [...] ­gma The­to. 5. l 15. c. 3. s 1 [...]. c. 14 s 8. Jacobus de Graffijs declares fully, according to what has been said before.

But Dionysius Petavius, one of their most warrantable Antiquaries, tel­leth us, that for the four first Centu­ries, and farther, there was little or no use of Images in the Temples or Orato­ries of Christians; and such as was, Pope Gregory declareth, it was only for Historical use, for information of the unlearned, not to worship them, and so writing to Serenus Bishop of Marsile, who brake down the Images that were in his Church, Gre. re­gist li 7. Ep [...]s 2 [...]9. ad Sere­num. seeing the people worshipping them, saith thus; We commend you, that you have that zeal, that nothing made with hands should be worshipped; but yet we judge that you should not have broken those Images; for Painting is therefore used in Churches, that they which are un­learned, may yet by sight read these things upon the walls, which they can­not [Page 68]read in books; therefore your bro­therhood ought both to preserve the Images, and restrain the people from worshipping them.

This difference betwixt making an Image, and worshipping of it, is confirmed by the example of the brazen Serpent, Num. 21.9. 2 Kin. 18.4. which God himself ordered to be made; which when onely made and looked upon, was a Medicine; but when worshipped, it became Poison, and was destroy­ed.

Learned Vasques acknowledgeth, that the worship of God by an Image is clearly prohibited in the second Commandment; and not only the worship of an Idol, saying, that it is plain in Scripture, Vasq in 3. p. dis 94. c. 3that God did not only forbid that in the second Com­mandment which was unlawful by the Law of Nature, as the worship of an Image for God, but the worshipping of the true God by any similitude. Nic. ph. l. 8. c 53

Nicephorus Calixtus relating the Heresie of the Armenians and Jaco­bits, [Page 69]says, they made Images of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, which he censures as a most absurd thing? quod perquam absurdum est, yet they do it in the Roman Church. But S. Clement of Alexandria, of Images in general, declareth thus: Li. 7. Hom. & in paraen. We have no Images in the world, it is apparently forbidden to us to exercise that deceit­ful art: for it is written, thou shalt not make any similitude of any thing in Heaven above, &c.

They confess it is sinful to worship an Image terminativè, or in it self; but pretend it lawful to worship it relative, or for God or the Saints sake, who is represented. A strange way of serving God! to transgress his Commandment to please him.

Saul was reprehended, and severe­ly punished, for this kind of offici­ousness; when being commanded to destroy all that Amalek had, he spa­red sheep and oxen to sacrifice to the Lord. But that fair pretext could not excuse his disobedience; and [Page 70]what he thought religious devotion, was declared to be no better than Idolatry. Samuel intimating to him this fearful Verdict; 1 Sam. 15.22, 23. Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? behold, to obey is better than sacrifice; and to hearken, than the fat of rams: for Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubborness is as iniquity and Idolatry. This be­ing so, when God is so clear and ab­solute in commanding not to bow down to Images, adding to this Pre­cept, (beyond others) special ex­pressions of jealousie, and commina­tion of severity against infringers of it; how can bowing down to them be justified with colours of devoti­on? or excused from rebellion or stubborness which is censured to be Idolatry?

Besides, the worship of an Image terminativè, and not relativè, includes a contradiction; the very essence of an Image including relation to ano­ther; [Page 71]whereas nothing can be an Image of it self. Wherefore the same precept that prohibits a termi­native worship, excludes a relative. But whatsoever may be intended by these expressions, how many of the commonalty take notice of that di­stinction? very few certainly. When they bow down to an Image, the Image it self down-right they wor­ship. Then generally they commit Idolatry in this practice, or at least a sin, in exposing themselves to a dan­ger of committing it.

But what of the inconveniences of this practice? one comes to a Church or Chappel loaden with Images, and before he can recollect himself and think of God, his imagination and eyes run upon those pictures, and he returns home more full of Figures than of Spirit.

Inveration of Saints.

Now to the Fourth; Their invo­cation of Saints, is contrary to God's Ordinance, Rom 8.34. who hath appointed his Son Jesus to make intercession for us; who is more compassionate, better able, and more willing than any of the Saints or Angels to help us: Joh. [...] 16. And himself assureth us, that whatsoever we ask the Heavenly Fa­ther in his Name,Acts 4. [...]2.he will give it us. Contrary to this and the declaration of St. Peter, that there is not salvati­on in any other? and that there is no other name under Heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. The Romish Church teacheth her chil­dren, to call the blessed Virgin Mary their life and hope, vita, dulcedo, & spes nostra, their Redeemer and Sa­vioress; Reparatrix & Salvatrix de­sperantis animae: their comfort and giver of spiritual grace, irroratrix & [Page 73]largitrix spiritualis gratiae; with other extravagancies, certainly un­welcome to that glorious Mother of Christ, and true humble soul, who in that her famous canticle acknowledg­eth her very lowliness to be the mo­tive of God's high favours to her, Luke 1.46. for he hath regarded the lowliness of his Hand-maiden. The like exorbi­tancies they preach and teach of other Saints. As I was considering this Point, came to my hands a paper of my own, censuring the doctrine I heard in a Sermon preached where I was present, in the City of Palencia in Spain, the year 1661. by a Fryer of a certain Order, upon the Festivity of one of their Saints, saying of him, that he was incapable of erring in his doctrine; that his doctrine was of equal authority with the Bible; that whatsoever such a Saint did say, (though false in it self) he saying it, must be true. The proofs he brought for these desperate positi­ons, were as mad as the positions [Page 74]themselves, and so ridiculous, that dare not relate them in this grav Auditory, though I have them in writing. Let not malice gather by this discourse that I revile the Saints, or repine at their glory; I rejoyce at it, and bless God for so rewarding his Servants. What I reprehend, is, the blasphemous abuses committed in the worship of them, unpleasing certainly to the Saints.

A facetious expression of a Spa­nish Preacher, may be a serious proof of this being so. Preaching upon the Festivity of a Saint, Founder of a certain Order, he feigned, that stu­dying his Sermon, he had an extasie or dream, wherein finding himself in Heaven, he saw that Saint he preach­ed of behind the door, hiding him­self; and being questioned why he did so? answered, He came there, being ashamed to hear the mad ex­pressions of his Fryer's, in praising and extolling him upon such days.

And certainly, if the Saints living [Page 75]in glory were capable of shame and sorrow, they would grieve and be asham'd at the proceedings of their wild worshippers. Of this I made grievous complaints to the Inquisitor General of Spain, crying against ex­orbitancies of that kind, repugnant to all Christianity; being commissi­oned by himself to give him ac­count of what doctrine I found cen­surable. Even then, and in that Countrey, I cried against these exor­bitancies: but how succesful my good intention to that purpose was, I do not know; for this malady groweth still: The way of getting the credit of a sound Catholick with the blind Vulgar, is, to exceed in this Practice: as to spight the Jews, and seem true Christians, they will eat more Pork than their stomach can bear: so to spight Protestants, they will run beyond all measure, even of their own principles, in ad­vancing Saints: For one Church de­dicated to our Saviour, you will see [Page 76]an hundred dedicated to divers Saints; for one Pater noster, ten Ave Maries; for one discourse or praise of God, a thousand of their respective Saints. Whereof I often saw, to my deep grief, sad experiences. A person of Quality lyes dying; in comes a Fryar of this Order, and falls with all his Rhetorick to exhort him to devoti­on towards the Saints of his own Or­der; to take the habit, scapulary or cord of it. Then comes one of ano­ther Order, and falls likewise a com­mending the Saints and habit of his Order, and so each one as they come. Among them all, little or no menti­on of our Saviour Jesus his Passion to rely upon. Would you think it is the good of that soul, or the ho­nour of the Saint, they are zealous for; or rather the interest of the Con­vent? judge it you, and let others of more liberty speak it. Have pity O good God, of souls left to such In­struction.

Half Communion.

Touching the fifth point, of deny­ing the Chalice to the Laity; I think it an injury to our cause to seek after any farther proof of it, than their own Confession; that our Saviour Jesus did institute, and the Primitive Church did practise the administrati­on of the blessed Sacrament under both kinds to the people, as it is used in the Church of England. But the Roman Church thought fit to do o­therwise. This confession is their greatest confusion, and too too suffi­cient confutation. It was to me a horror to see the boldness of the Council of Constance, confessing the foresaid, and coming down with a non obstante; That, Concil. Const [...]n. l [...]ss. 13. notwithstanding Christ's institution, and the practice of the Primitive Church therein; the Council prohibited all Priests, under pain of Excommunication, to admini­ster [Page 78]the Communion under both kinds to the Laity: For causes they do not express, neither do we need to labour in searching after them, it being sufficient for our purpose to know, that they can find or pretend causes to alter Christ's institutions, and introduce others contrary to them. The onely reason they give for their Decree herein, is, the Au­thority of the Church, and some pre­ceding Popes or Fathers, and yet acknowledging that Christ ordained the contrary. Is not this to trans­gress the commandment of God by your tradition? Ma [...]: 15: 3. is not this to agree with that attribute of Antichrist; who op­poseth and exalteth himself over all that is called God. The Pope would seem to clear himself from that im­putation, bearing for title, Servant of the Servants of God. Gen: 27: 22: The voice is Jacob's voice, but the hands are the hands of Esau. The Pope's speech in calling himself Servant of the Ser­vants of God, is Christian; but his [Page 79]Deed in preferring his own Law and Institution, to the Institution of Christ, is Antichristian.

They cry Antiquity and Authori­ty of the Church for this practice; and in the same breath they disclaim greater Antiquity, and more warran­table Authority of the Church, ac­knowledging, that Christ did insti­tute, and the Primitive Church did practise the giving of the Sacrament under both kinds to all the people. How inconsequent is errour? This onely instance may assure us, that the Romish Religion, as it stands now, did not proceed intirely from Christ and his Apostles.

If we object, that the detracting of the Cup, is the bereaving the faithful people of their spiritual food to life everlasting, by not permitting them to partake of the bloud of Christ, he affirming, Jo: 6.5 3. that except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his bloud, ye have no life in you. The Council tells us, We must firmly [Page 80]believe, and no way doubt, that the en­tire body and bloud of our Saviour, is contained as well under the Form of bread, as under the Form of wine. But we have shewed before, how little ground we have for a firm belief of their doctrine in this point. How great reason to doubt it, nay, to be assured of the contrary; and that Christ is present and taken in the Eucharist, onely in a spiritual and Sa­cramental way: that being so, in be­reaving the Faithful of the Cup, they bereave them of the whole Sacra­ment. For their own Divines do a­gree in affirming, that the consecra­ted Forms of Bread and Wine are essential Constitutes of this Sacra­ment; Suar. in 3 p: disp: 42: sec. 1 conc: 3: any, they alone are the Sacra­ment properly, as Suarez declares, re­lating a great number of other Di­vines for the same doctrine. There­fore taking no Wine, they take no Sacrament; taking no Sacrament, they have no life in them, as our Sa­viour declared; and so bereaving [Page 81]them of the Sacramental wine, they bereave them of the life of their souls; and is not this to use cruelty to souls?

Purgatory and Indul. gences.

As for the sixth Article, concern­ing Purgatory, I do not find their Learned men so confident as the Vulgar, in fixing a determinate place for it in the bowels of the Earth; with those frightful qualities, their Legends do specifie. Being conten­ted to conclude from some places of Scripture, and by conjecture, that after this Life there must be some place to expiate or purge souls from Venial fins, or satisfie for the Tem­poral penalty due to Great ones, without determining whether that place be over, or under, or in the Earth; or whether the pain be heat, or cold, or darkness, or tempest, &c.

And as the Conclusion is obscure, so is the inference of it from the premisses laid. The chief place out of the Old Testament, is the case of Judas Macchabeus, send­ing money to Jerusalem, that sacrifi­ces should be made for his souldiers defunct, and the gloss annexed, that therefore it is a holy consideration to pray for the dead, &c. But though the Book relating thiscase were cano­nical, and of certain authority, (which is not allowed) yet the conclusion pretended from it, for the doctrine of Purgatory, is not of force. For, Prayers for the dead may be made, and were made, to different purposes, 2 Mach. 12.43. than that of drawing them out of Purgatory. First, Suar: to. 1. in 3. P. disp. 10. Sec. 4. because many learned Writers of the Romish party do teach, that God, as a good Paymaster, doth of­tentimes give before-hand, the re­ward of services to be done in the future; and therefore being long­sighted, and always present to all [Page 83]the spaces of Eternity, may see now and listen to prayers, that will be made in any Age after. And fore-seeing, that godly persons shall pray in the future, for the assistance of his Grace, to one dying now, may yield it accordingly. This doctrine I have seen practised in a Letter, written to my self, by one of the learnedest men in Spain, wherein speaking of the death of his Mother, he prayed to God that he might have assisted her in the later hour for dying penitent. If this go well, Prayers may be commendable for the Dead to different purposes, from that of drawing them out of Purga­tory. And if the case related of the Macchabees be true, it is more likely the prayers made for the slain should have proceeded in the manner fore-said, than for bringing them out of Purgatory. Whereas in the same place is related, that those men were found to have committed a mortal sin, (which is not pretended to be [Page 84]pardoned in Purgatory) under the coats of every one that was slain, 2 Mac. 12 V. 40they found things consecrated to the Idols of the Jamnites, which is forbidden to the Jews by the Law. And though Bellarmine pretends the sin of those men should be venial through igno­rance, it is but a bare conjecture, and not agreeable to the context, shewing that deed to have drawn upon them God's vengeance: then every man saw that this was the cause wherefore they were slain. Their death might have been their tempo­ral punishment; and final penitence might have freed them from the eternal, as Bellarmine confesseth, re­lating for it the Psalm 78. Ps. 78.34. Cùm occi­deret eos, quaerebant eum, & reverte­bantur; when he slew them, then they sought him, and they returned and en­quired early after God.

But not to rely upon the fore-mentioned consideration of some particular Writers, if we find in some of the Ancients, prayers to be [Page 85]made for the dead, it was to other ends than to draw them out of this supposed Purgatory. First, to praise God for giving them a happy end in his holy Faith, and rest from their labours, as appeareth by those words of the Revelations used by the An­cient Church in the Office of the dead: Rev 14 13. Blessed are the dead which dye in the Lord, from henceforth, yea, saith the spirit, that they may rest from their labours. Secondly, that we should comfort each other in the death of our Friends, reflecting upon the hope of meeting them in Heavenly glory, according to those comforta­ble words of St. Paul, in his first E­pistle to the Thessalonians, 1 Thss, 4.13. accusto­med to be read in the same Office of the dead; I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which areasleep, that ye sorrow not even as others which have no hope, &c. third ly, for our spiritual instruction whe­ther considering the good example of our faithful Brethren preceding; [Page 86]whether reflecting upon our mortali­ty at the sight of death.

All this may be seen by the pra­ctice of the primitive Christians, as it is declared by the Authour of the Commentaries upon Job, inserted among the Works of Origen, li. 3 comment. in Job. by these words: We observe the memorials of the Saints, and devoutly keep the re­membrance of our parents or friends which dye in the Faith, as well rejoy­cing for their refreshing, as requesting also for our selves a godly consumma­tion of the Faith. Thus therefore do we celebrate the death, not the day of the birth, because they which dye shall live for ever: and we celebrate it, cal­ling together religious persons with the Priests, the Faithful with the Clergy; inviting moreover the needy and the poor feeding the Orphans and Widows, that our festivity may be for a memo­rial of rest to the souls departed, whose remembrance we celebrate, and to us may become a sweet savour in sight of the eternal God. Whereby you see, [Page 87]prayers and deeds of charity used in exequies of the dead, without men­tion of Purgatory.

This same Answer may serve for what Bellarmine relateth out of the fourth Chapter of Tobias, Tob. 4. touching Bread and Wine to be brought to Funerals, and the custom of inviting Friends, and feeding the poor. What he alledgeth of passing by fire, Psal. 66.12. out of the 66. Psalm, We went through fire, and through water, but thou broughtest us out into a wealthy place; is as little effective to the purpose; for by fire, as well as by water, are understood tribulations and crosses of this life.

What they alledge out of Math. 22. where our Saviour saith, that some sins shall not be pardoned, nei­ther in this world, nor in the world to come; therefore some sins are par­doned after this life, is no good con­sequence; for from a negative, follows not a positive: as from saying the Duke of Venice is not Earl of Dublin, [Page 88]it follows not therefore, [...] c. 4. some other is Earl of Dublin. Bellarmine says, the former consequence ought to be held for good, according to the laws of prudence, if not according to the rules of Logick; lest Christ should be thought to speak improperly, if no sin were to be pardoned in the o­ther world. But upon this account you are to admit for lawful, accord­ing to the rules of prudence, this o­ther consequence; Mat. 1.25. Joseph knew not his wife, till she had brought forth her first-born Son; therefore he knew her after, lest the Evangelist should be found improper in his delivery. And as Bellarmine, or any other Christian will not think himself obli­ged to admit this later consequence, so neither do we think it just to ad­mit the former.

The Doctrine of Purgatory being so weakly grounded, the inconveni­ences of it are very great, making people negligent of true repentance and satisfaction for their sins in this [Page 89]life in hopes of Remission in Purga­tory. Besides the occasion it gives to piniful abuses in the valuation of Masses for stipend, wherein Simony would appear if that great skill of Casuists did not prevent it where­with any sale of Sacred things is sanctified and freed from Simony by some dress of intention. What of the cheats used in receiving ma­ny stipends from several persons for one Mass? Of the cruelty used with widdows, children and sometimes with creditors of the person dying bequeathing what is their right up­on Clergy sometimes not in any great need of it. Wherewith un­der the shape of piety great impiety is often practised. But the vast lu­cre accruing to the Clergy from this Doctrine, (more than any text they have for it) does engage them for the maintaining of it.

The Doctrine of Indulgences ser­ving that of Purgatory hath the same obscurity in the assertion and uncer­tainty in the foundation of it as the [Page 90]former. Suar. lib [...] de fens fid. c. 15.23. Suarez declareth that In­dulgence is nothing else but a re­mission of the pains of Purgatory which God of his infinite goodness through the Excellent merits of Christ (to which he addeth the satisfaction of Saints) hath granted to his Church together with the power of absolving. Of the infinite goodness of God, and infinite merit of Christ, no Christian may doubt, as neither of the power of absolving given to his Church. But whether this power extendeth to the profuse grant of Indulgences practised at present by the Roman Church, Suarez is not so certain of, giving onely for ground thereof Ecclesiastical tradi­tion and ancient custome generally approved.

But neither is the tradition so cer­tain, nor the custome so ancient or generally approved, as is pretend­ed. The First we meet is that of Gregory the seventh given to those of his party who would fight against the Emperour Henry the fourth [Page 91]which Baronius relates from his pe­nitentiary, Baron. ad An. D. 1084. n. 15. in which was promised remission of all their sins to such as would venture their lives in that holy war. The like Indulgence with remission of all their sins was grant­ed to those who would fight against the Sarazens in Affrica by Victor succeeding Gregory the seventh. O­ther Popes following continued the same practice. Then private Bishops began to publish Indulgences to those that would give money to­wards the building or repairing of Churches or other publick works promising pardon of the seventh or Fourth or third part of their sins according as their bounty deser­ved. Vide Morin. de Paenit, lib. 10. cap. 20. So as Mauritius Bishop of Paris is said to have built the great Church of Nostredame there in this manner.

But the Bishops of Rome abridged other Bishops of this power, and made great complaints that by the in­discreet use of Indulgences by the Bi­shops, the keys of the Church were [Page 92]contemned and the discipline lost, Council. Laetera­nens. sub Innoc. 3. can. 92. so Innocent the third in the Lateran Council. I wish the present Popes had regard to the like inconvenien­ces still following their great pro­fuseness in granting indulgences cen­sured not onely by their adversaries, but by the more sober of their own party, seeing clearly sordid lucre to have a great share in the conduct of them, and loose livers give reins to their vices in expectation of those boundless pardons, whose excesses I leave for others to relate, and to be considered by such as see them. Aquin. supl sum. q. 25. art. 20. Bonavent in 4. sent. dist. 20 q. 6.

Aquinas & Bonaventure do tell that there were some in the Church who said the invention of Indulgences was onely by a Pious fraud to draw men to charitable Acts, which otherwise they would not have done; as a Mother that promiseth her child an aple to run a­broad, which she never gives him, when she hath brought him to it. Dur. in 4. dist. 20 q 3.

Durandus a learned and sincere writer confesseth that very little can [Page 93]be affirmed with any certainty concer­ning Indulgences because neither the Scriptures speak expresly of them, and the Fathers Ambrose, Hillary, Augu­stine, Hierom speak not at all of them. Major ibi. John Mayor adds that though it be a negative argument yet it is of force be­cause in the time of those Fathers they were very much skilled in Scriptures, and it were very strange if Indulgen­ces were to be found there, that they did not find them. Bellar de amiss. gratia li. 6. c. 3. resp: ad object. 6. Add to this what Bellarmin saith excellently that in things which depend on the will of God nothing ought to be affirmed unless God hath revealed it in the Holy Scri­pture. And conclude that the Do­ctrine of Indulgences being not found in the Holy Scripture as now declared, you ought not to build up­on it the hopes of your Salvation: but endeavour with fear and trem­bling to secure it by exact keeping of the Commandements of God, and following the Councels of Christ towards a perfect life and true repentance of your sins.

Publick Prayer in an un­known Language.

I will conclude this survey of Ro­mish Tenents with the seventh and last point proposed of their Latin Mass, and prohibiting their flock the reading of Holy Scripture. And as to the former, of having publick prayers in a Language generally un­known to the people, certainly the whole 14th. Chapter of St. Paul in his first Epistle to the Corinthians is clearly against it. For whatsoever may be cavilled touching the Object of his discourse, his reasons do evi­dently conclude our purpose, shewing with admirable arguments, and very apposite examples, how improper and absurd an undertaking it is to speak to a people in a Language they un­derstand not, pretending to teach or edifie them. The purpose of nature by speaking is to communi­cate [Page 95]the sense of him that speaketh to the hearer: But how can that be if the hearer perceiveth not the mean­ing of the words he speaketh. 1. Cor. 14. v. 17. E­ven things without Life (saith the great Apostle) giving sound, whither pipe or harp, except they give a disti­ction in the sound, how shall it be known what is piped or what is harped? For if the Trumpet give an uncertain sound who shall prepare himself for the bat­tle? so likewise you, except ye utter by the tongue words easie to be under­stood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak unto the air. If we were to frame our selves a reason to make out our Doctrine to the full, what other could we de­vise more apt and suitable to our pretention than this? Is not prayer ordained to raise up our minds to God? that is wont to be given for the definition of it, elevatio mentis in Deum, a raising up of our minds to God, to praise him or ask favours of him? will it not be conducent [Page 96]and necessary for this purpose to un­derstand the signification of the Psalms and prayers wisely ordered to this end? to say Amen to a pray­er you do not understand, may seem like the setting of your hand to a writing without knowing what it contains. What if a Jewish or other impious Minister did say a prayer containing Blasphemies against Christ or curses of the Christian people present? must they say Amen to all?

If a Persian or some other that never heard of such proceedings, did come into a Church and hear a congregation speak loud and see them make gestures, and should be told that none of them knew what the o­ther said; would not he justly think them to be mad, and that the buil­ders of the Tower of Babel were there revived? St. Paul calleth such a practice madness, laying for foun­dation, 1. Cor. 14. v. 26. that in the Church all things ought to be done to edification. And what edification can sovls receiue by [Page 97]the noise of words they understand not, more than by the ring of Bells. St. Augustine declareth how absurd a thing it is to speak in a Language the Hearer does not understand, Aug. de doctrin. Christ. li. 4. c. 10. in these terms: Quid prodest locutio­num integritas, quam non sequitur in­tellectus audientis? cùm loquendi nul­la sit causa, si quod loquimur non in­telligunt, propter quos, ut intelligant, loquimur; What profiteth any ex­cellency of speech, if not understood by the Hearer? no cause being for speaking, if what we speak be not understood by them, for whose sake we speak, that they may understand. And to our purpose, we may in like manner ask, what profiteth the ad­mirable providence and good Order of the Church, in distributing the select part and choice substance of Holy Scripture upon the Offices to be read in Churches throughout the year; if the people, whose edifi­cation is pretended by such Offices, do not understand the contents of them?

I shall desire such as are not resol­ved to be blind and to shut their eyes against light, and stop their ears to reason, that they consider what advantage the Protestant peo­ple have for improving their souls in this particular. They have the word of God clearly and intelligibly beaten into their ears dayly in their Liturgy. The Psalms, Prayers, Epi­stles, Gospels, and lessons of the old and new Testament, most exactly di­stributed upon respective days and Festivities, contain so much of Heavenly wisdom and piety, as a­lone may suffice to make a well di­sposed soul both Holy and wise: and very hard must the heart be, that with such continual showers of Hea­venly doctrine, will not be mollified to piety and the fear of God. When the poor simple flock following the Romish Priest, wanteth all these pow­erful helps of piety & vertue; Their whole exercise of Religion (speak­ing of the vulgar which is the far [Page 99]greater part) being to hear a Mass now and then, and not understand­ing a word of it (and very sel­dom hearing any declaration of it) do return home as wise as they went. I saw often some of their pious people extol the happiness of some few among them, that had knowledg of Latin to understand the word of God read before them, for more elevating of their minds. Why will they not reflect upon the happiness of the children of the Protestant Church in this particular, as in ma­ny others, and open their eyes to see their delusion?

Their leaders alledge Antiquity for the practice of Divine Service in Latin. But Antiquity goes thus. In the Eastern Empire, the Liturgy was in Greek, because that was the mother tongue in Constantinople, the Court and head City of that Empire. And inferiour Provinces must endea­vour to conform in publick exercise both of Church and State, with the [Page 100]Court Language. In the Western Empire, the Liturgy was in Latin, be­cause it was the mother Tongue in Rome, that was Court and Head of this Western part. And Rome, under Popes pretending no less command in the Provinces of Europe, than it had under Emperours, must force all to conformity of Language with it self in the publick worship of God; and will exact more obedience in that point than the Emperours did: For it was not for any priviledge or sanctity conceived in the Greek and Latin Tongue, that Liturgies were ordered in them; but because they were the Languages more generally understood in both Empires. And therefore exceptions from that rule, were granted to Provinces that could not conveniently observe it. So Pope John the eighth allowed to the Prince of Moravia, to have their Liturgy in the Sclavonian Tongue, because St. Paul saith: Let every Tongue praise the Lord, which was the [Page 101]reason given by the Pope in his Let­ter, related by Baronius. Baron. to. 10. Anno 880 n. 16. Strabo de re ec­cles. c. 7. And Wale­fridus Strabo tells, that in his time the Divine Office was performed a­mong the Scythians in the German Tongue, Origen cont. Cess. li. 8. p. 402. which was common to them and the Germans. Nay, Ori­gen affirmeth, that in the primitive Churches, all publick Offices of Reli­gion were performed in the proper Language of every Countrey.

Scripture prohibited.

And lest they should learn in their Houses, what they cannot in their Churches, they are prohibited to read Scripture in their own Tongues, without licence under the hand of the Bishop or Inquisitor, by the ad­vice of the Priest or Confessor, tou­ching the person's fitness for it; and who presumes to do otherwise, is to be denied absolution. This is com­manded in the Fourth Rule of the [Page 102] Index, Index li. prohib. Alex 7. Rom. An. 665. published by Order of the Council of Trent, and set forth by the Authority of Pius the Fourth, and since by Clement the Eighth, and lately enlarged by Alexander the Se­venth. Mat. 4.4. This is cruelty to souls; Christ declaring the Word of God to be their food. And Scripture it self so often inviting us to the read­ing of it: St. Peter thus exhorteth to it, 2 Pet. 1.19: We have also a more sure Word of prophecy, whereunto ye do well, that ye take heed, as to a light that shineth in a dark place till the day dawn. St. Paul commendeth to us the reading of Scripture, as written for our in­struction and comfort,Ro. 15 4. 2 Tim. 3.15. Act. 17.11.and as able to make us wise unto salvation. St. Luke praiseth the Inhabitants of Berea, in that they received the Word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily.

The Holy Fathers of the Primi­tive Church, were of the same spi­rit of exhorting the Faithful, to the reading of Scripture for their com­fort [Page 103]and direction. St. Clement, Clement. Epist. ad Corin. p: 58. for remedying a dissention happened among the Corinthians, writes thus to them: p: 61. Look diligently unto the Scriptures, which are the true Oracles of the Holy Ghost. He addeth after, Take St. Paul's Epistles into your hands, p. 68.and consider what he saith, and prai­ses them for being skilled in the Scri­ptures; Beloved, says he, ye have known, and very well known, the Holy Scriptures; and ye have throughly look­ed into the Oracles of God;Ignatius epist. ad Philad. Policar. Epist. ad Philip. Clem. Alexand. Strom. 7. p 72.therefore call them to mind. Of the same mind was Policarp, Ignatius, and the other Ancient Fathers. Clemens of Alex­andria mentioneth the reading of Scriptures among Christians before their Meals, and Psalms, and Hymns at them.

What makes the present Church of Rome so vigilant to the contrary, in keeping their Flock from reading Scripture? One reason they give, and another they keep to themselves: the reason they give, is, that Here­sies [Page 104]did arise from the abuse of Scri­ptures. Be it so, but who were the abusers? certainly Priests, Monks, and Fryars more frequently; and of them the most Learned. Turn to Records, and you shall find it to be so. Then if this Argument proves any thing, it will obtain the banish­ing of Scripture from among the Learned, and out of all the world. Proving so much, (which is too much) it proveth nothing. Meat and drink is the ruine of many, shall they be ba­nished therefore out of the World? No, let the creatures of God serve his servants, and let the abusers of them have their punishment in the very abuse they commit. Let this Heavenly Lanthorn, which God set up in his House, the Holy Church, to guide us in the dark ways of this life, shine to all Christians.

And, that weak eyes may not be dazled by the brightness of it; let this be the general rule for all to read Scripture: Where they find it [Page 105]clear, let them embrace it devoutly, and frame their lives accordingly: where it appears obscure, let them humbly pray the Lord, he may help them with light to understand it, and wait patiently upon his pleasure for doing so. In the mean time, they may be assured, that all neces­sary knowledge for Faith in God; to serve and praise him is fully con­tained in what is clear of Scripture. So St. Augustine affirmeth; Aug. de Doctrin. Christ. l. 2. c. 9. In iis quae apertè in Scripturâ posita sunt, in­veniuntur illa omnia quae continent fi­dem moresque vivendi. Whereof St. Paul giveth an ample testimony, say­ing, 2 Tim. 3.15. The holy Scriptures are able to make thee wise unto salvation: through Faith which is in Christ Jesus: and are profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righ­teousness. That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

The Holy Fathers do agree with St. Paul, in this his Opinion of the [Page 106]profit of Scripture, for our spiritua [...] instruction. St. Basil commends them as the best remedy for all the passions of the mind. Basil. in Psal 1. St. Chrysostome reflect­ing upon that great meekness of Da­vid, in letting Saul go free, when he had him at his will in the Den, com­mends to all the memory of that ex­ample, Chrysost. Homil. 1. de Davi­de & Saule. saying, It is impossible, that a mind conversant with this kind of Hi­stories, should be overcome with passi­ons. St. Jerome saith, that infinite evils do arise from ignorance of Scri­ptures. From hence most part of He­resies have come; from hence a negli­gent and careless life, and unfruitful labours.

The reason given by Papists against reading of Scripture being thus con­futed; would you know what reason it is that they have, and keep to themselves? Very many say it is, for keeping the people blind-folded, that they may not see the Ignorance of their Ministers, nor the Corrupti­on of their Mysteries It seems they [Page 107]have declared so much themselves, in a Council of Bishops met at Bono­nia, for restoring the dignity of the Roman See, Conc. de stabilien. Rom. fid. p. 6, apud Stilling-fleet ope­re de Ido­lolatria, Rom. ecc. pag. 201. by Order of Pope Ju­lius the Third: the chief advice they gave, was, that by all means, as little of the Gospel as might be, (espe­cially in the vulgar Tongue) should be read in the Cities under his jurisdicti­on. Adding that Book to have been the cause of that great decay of their former lustre, and concluding thus; And in truth if any one diligently con­sider it, and compare it with what is done in our Churches, will find them very contrary to each other; and our very doctrine not onely to be different from it, but repugnant to it. Thus God was pleased they should disco­ver their intention, & that it should be published for undeceiving the misled by them, as written by seve­ral grave Authors; who, I suppose, would not publish it, but upon suffi­cient ground. And is not this to use Tyranny over souls?

Third Point.

Now I will come to the third and last Point proposed of my Discourse, which is, to conclude from what is said hitherto, that the resolution I took of withdrawing from the Com­munion of the Roman Church, was just and necessary. My whole Dis­course upon the Text prefixed, is but one Syllogism, whereof the ma­jor Proposition is this; That if we should find a Church or Congregati­on convinced of Idolatry, Impiety, and Cruelty, in the publick establi­shed practice of it; we are to for­sake the Communion of it. This is the doctrine of our Saviour, contain­ed in the words of our Text, as ap­peared by the declaration and proof of it in the first Point. The minor is, That I found the present general practice of the Roman Church, con­vinced of Idolatry, Impiety, and Cru­elty: The Conclusion is, that the Resolution I took of forsaking it, was just and necessary. No Chri­stian [Page 109]may deny the major, it being Christ's doctrine, as appeareth by our Text. If the minor be true, no good Logician may deny the conclu­sion. The truth of the minor, touching Idolatry, seems to be sufficiently proved by what is said concerning the Worship of of the Eucharistical bread, and of Images. And touching Antichri­stian Impiety by what is declared of their opposing, and preferring the Popes Laws to the Law of God; making the Pope Sole and Supreme Arbiter of Gods Law, giving him the Attribute of Infallibility proper to God alone; abrogating Christs Institution in the Administration of the Eucharist or Communion, and E­stablishing another contrary to it. Bereaving Christ of the title of sole Saviour and hope of human kind, by calling the Virgin Mary their Savi­ouress and hope. Advancing the honour and worship of Saints be­yond that of God, by dedicating [Page 110]more Churches, and saying more prayers to them than to God

Their Cruelty in the conduct of souls appeareth too much in what we have said of bereaving the Christi­an people of the Fruit of the blessed Sacrament of the Altar, in their pra­ctice of half Communion: in de­priving them of the benefit of their soul, having publick Divineservice in a Language not intelligible to them, & of the liberty of reading the word of God in his Holy Scriptures. Their Tyranny over Princes, in deposing them from their Crowns and digni­ties, and moving subjects to bear arms against them. Their severity used with the Irish in pursuance of their pretention herein.

To this may be added their Ty­ranny over consciences in forcing them to the belief and defence of Doctrines repugnant to their judge­ment, and not established by Catho­lick Faith; as may appear in their violence about forcing all to believe [Page 111]and declare for the conception of the virgin Mary without original sin; so many clear testimonies of Scripture being against it as affirm, that all men did sin in Adam; that Christ was universal redeemer from sin, and Saviour of all mankind. And not one word to be found in favour of the Exception they pre­tend for the Virgin Mary, besides their voluntary, and very often fri­volous applications of Texts, never intended by the Author of them for their purpose. So whatsoever is said by Solomon of the Spouse in his Can­ticles, of wisedom in his Proverbs, &c. that may seem to have some sound or cadency, suiting with their intenti­on, is taken up for a sure Oracle, de­claring the immaculate conception of the blessed Virgin. But what strength is wanting to their Texts, is supplied by Force and Art; two Orders being engaged in that quar­rel, for the immaculate conception; the one numerous among the peo­ple, [Page 112]and violent in stirring them to abuse the Houses and persons of their Opposers: the other prevalent with the Peers and Prelates, and with the Popes, to engage all in their Quarrel; obtaining fearful Ex­communications against Opposers of their doctrine by word or writing; ordering that in Universities none may have Degrees, in Churches none may preach, but such as will protest publickly for the immaculate con­ception, with other many violences used to extort such protestations. Of which Protestants how many do Protest against, what in their mind they judge to be truth, God know­eth. For my part, I am slow in judging of mens thoughts; but I dare judge, that if their Definitions tou­ching other Points controverted did proceed after this manner, I am not obliged to take them for Infallible.

What of their cruel censures of their Fellow Christians, not subject to the Pope of Rome, excluding [Page 113]them, and the rest of human kind, not living in that Communion, from all hopes of Salvation; wherein they not onely oppose Truth, but bely their own Principles, as was clearly made out, in a Treatise I was forced to pen some years ago: When being questioned by some of the Nobility, whether one baptized, knowing the Lords Prayer, the Ten Command­ments, and the Creed, and endea­vouring to live according to them, ready to believe what he under­stands to be true Catholick Faith, guilty of no obstinacy in misbelie­ving any Article of it: Whether such an one may be saved, though he be not of the Communion of the Roman Church. I answered, he may; and was truly a Member of the Ca­tholick Church, notwithstanding any calling the Vulgar gave him. And having understood I was censu­red for this Doctrine in absence; (though none opposed me in pre­sence) I penned a Treatise in La­tine, [Page 114]wherein I demonstrated by evi­dent Testimonies of Scripture, Coun­cils, Fathers, Authority of Divines, and Declarations of Popes, that the Doctrine I delivered was Catholick Faith, and the contrary of it was Heresie and Blasphemy. Coppies of this Treatise were given to them of more Authority and Learning, of the Romish Clergy in the Kingdom, and are among them these 3. or 4. years, and none yet could shew in it any thing untrue, or ill grounded; yet all conspired against the publish­ing of this said Doctrine, as being prejudicial to the Romish Cause; be­cause thence followed, that Prote­stants may be saved, and that many called Hereticks, would not be such indeed. To which I answered, that I found great conveniences in those things they represented to me for inconveniences; being heartily de­sirous that all men should be saved, and that of them called Hereticks, none of all should be such in truth. [Page 115]And come what will of my Answer, I cannot but answer truth when I am questioned.

I replied to their complaints of that, with the words of Job, Jo. 13.7.Will you speak wickedly for God, and talk de­ceitfully for him? Or as the Latine Text hath; Num quid Deus indiget vestro mendacio, ut pro illo loquamini dolos? Does God need your lyes, and that you should use cheats in his cause? surely he does not. And so I concluded, it was not the cause of God, or good of souls, they zealed, but the Grandeur of the Roman Court, and their own pretentions with it; which I would not advance with telling lyes, or concealing truth. Let them sooth one another with those compliances, as those Owls and Syrens Isaiah represents, answer­ing one another in the ruinous Hou­ses of Babilon; Respondebant ibi ulu­lae in aedibus ejus,Is. 13.22.& Syrenes in delu­bris voluptatis. Odious Night-birds, & leud Syrens keep correspondence [Page 116]in Babilon. But the children of Light, and Lovers of Truth, will not listen to their charms, nor yield to their cheats.

They deceive the simple with say­ing, that Protestants do allow Pa­pists may be saved; but Papists do not allow that Protestants may be saved; and thence conclude, that both parties approving of the Popish Religion for a sure way to salvation; it is to be reputed for the most se­cure but in neither do they say truth; for no learned Protestant does allow the Popish Religion in general, and absolutely speaking to be a secure way to Salvation. For all do agree in affirming, that many of their Te­nents and practices are inconsistent with Salvation; though ignorance may haply excuse many of the sim­ple sort; but not such as know, or with due care and inquiry, may know their errour.

On the other side, all learned men of the Roman Church do teach, that [Page 117]all Protestants baptized, Laiman: l. 2. tr. l. c. 13. Vasq. q. 1. disp. 126. Castropal. p. 1. tr. 4. disp. 1. q. 11. p. 1. diffic. 4. aetatis a­pud ipsos. and belie­ving the common principles of Chri­stian Religion, not convinced of any errour against the Catholick Faith, but conceiving they follow the truth of it, are not Hereticks, but Mem­bers of the Catholick Church; and so endeavouring to serve God accord­ing to the rules of their Belief, may be saved, as formerly declared. And it is a high point of rashness, and want of Christian charity, to judge of any particular, without special ground that he does not live with that sincerity of mind and belief, that he is in the right. Such pre­sumptuous censures are injurious to the goodness of God, and Disturbers of human quiet. For truly, if by reason of the diversity of tempers, abilities, educations, and unavoidable prejudices, whereby mens understan­dings are variously formed and fashi­oned, they embrace several opinions, whereof some must be erroneous; to say that God will damn them for such [Page 118]errours, they being lovers of Truth, and desirous to serve him; is to rob man of his comfort, and God of his goodness. In which rash proceed­ing, the commonalty of the Romish party are beyond all men presumptu­ous and malignant; and their learned men that do favour, and not rebuke their malignity therein, may justly fear God's displeasure, & that Christ will disown them for followers of him, as void of charity, the chief mark he gives of his Disciples, say­ing; by this shall all men know, that ye are my Disciples, Jo. 13.3.if ye have love one to another.

Hereunto I may add the great ty­ranny and cruelty they use to souls in the practice of Confession. On the one side, they encrease the rigour of it with additions of severity, obliging to such minute expressions of the most loathsom circumstances of secret thoughts and deeds, as render it the most heavy of Christian Duties. And on the other side, they put so many [Page 119]stops to the execution of it, by reser­vation of cases not to be absolved, but by determinate persons; that it occasions lamentable perplexities of souls, and proceedings against the di­ctates of their Conscience. Which cruelty is farther encreased in many places, by the sordid avarice of their Pastors, making poor souls believe they may not confess but to their own Curats, and refusing to hear their Confessions, without receiving Money for it. I will not be so unjust to the Roman Church, as to fasten this later abuse upon the whole body of it, it being but the fault of some corrupt members. I am not so malig­nant towards her, as to throw the dirt of her feet in her face; whereas I would, if I could, wash away all her stains with the bloud of my heart. But even her feet are so haughty, and ill sufferers of correction, that endea­vouring to reform this abuse, with in­timating Decrees of Councils and Popes against it, and representing the [Page 120]miscarriage of souls by it; I had no o­ther fruit of my labour, but spight & hatred, for pretending to cure this malady; which joyned to many other experiences of their distemper, to be both incurable and contagious, I re­solved upon this conclusion: Jerem 51.9. We would have healed Babilon, but she is not hea­led, for sake her.

But thou, O Father of mercy, Lord Omnipotent, to whose power all crea­tures are subject, who canst hold in with bit and bridle, such as will not approach to thee; forsake not that Church, nor any other Congregati­on of men redeemed by the precious bloud of thy Son Jesus. Illuminate them all with the glorious beams of thy Heavenly Light: Reduce them by the powerful tyes of thy grace, to perfect Union in Truth and Chari­ty, to serve and praise thee duly in this life, and joyn together in thy Glory, in Life everlasting. Amen.