these things But that which is here to be enquired and examined is Whether the Sacrament of the Eucharist ought not according to the institution of Christ and by his authority to be administred in both kinds 15. That Christ did institute this Sacrament against Christs Institution in both kinds of Bread and Wine is so plain from the words of its Institution that this is acknowledged in the (d) Ubi sup c. 1. Council of Trent And that he gave a particular command to all Communicants to receive the Cup seems plainly owned in one of the Hymns of the Roman Church (e) Sacris c. in Brev. Ro. in festo Corp. Christ Dedit fragilibus corporis ferculum Dedit tristibus sanguinis poculum Dicens Accipite quod trado vasoulum Omnes ex eo bibite Sic Sacrificium istud instituit He gave the entertainment of his body to the Frail to the Sad he gave the Cup of his blood saying Take this Cup which I deliver drink ye all of it Thus did he institute that Sacrifice These expressions have a particular respect to that Command concerning the Cup Matt. 26 27. Drink ye all of it And it may be further observed that those words in the Institution Do this in remembrance of me are a Precept which hath special respect to the receiving both the kinds both the Bread and the Cup. For though I acknowledge these words Do this to establish the whole Institution that as (f) Cyp. Ep. 63. S. Cyprian expresseth their sense ut hoc faciamus quod fecit Dominus ab eo quod Christus docuit fecit non recedatur that we should do what our Lord did and should not depart from what Christ taught and did Yet these words have a more especial regard to the distribution or participation of the Sacrament For Do this c. in S. Luke and S. Paul comes in the place of take eat c. in S. Matt. and S. Mark and in these words of S. Paul Do this as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me the words as oft as ye drink it do plainly import thus much that the Command do this in that place doth peculiarly respect the receiving the Cup. 16. This Institution of Christ was anciently even in the Church of Rome acknowledged to be so fair a Rule to all Christians that from hence (g) de Consecrat di 2. c. 7. Cum omne Pope Julius undertook to correct the various abuses which had in some places been entertained Insomuch that he declares against delivering the Bread dipt in the Cup upon this reason because it is contrary to what is testified in the Gospels concerning the Master of truth who when he commended to his Apostles his Body and his Blood Seorsum panis seorsum calicis commendatio memoratur his Recommendation of the Bread and of the Cup is related to be each of them separate and distinct And that the Apostolical Church did give the Cup to the Laity is plain from the Apostles words to the Corinthians where he useth this as an Argument to all particular Christians against communicating in any Idolatrous Worship 1 Cor. 10.21 ye cannot drink the Cup of the Lord and the Cup of Devils And the same will appear manifest from other expressions hereafter mentioned And the Council of Trent (h) Sess 21. c. 2. owns that from the beginning of Christianity the Sacrament was given in both kinds But they following much the steps of the Council of Constance account neither the Institution of Christ nor the practice of the ancient Church to be in this case any necessary guide but they declare the custom then received to be changed upon just reasons 17. But that the Argument from the Institution and Command of Christ might be eluded and a Mist cast before the Sun divers Romanists and particularly (i) de Euchar l. 4. c. 25. which binds all Communicants Bellarmine declare that Christs command drink ye all of it was given to the Apostles only and not to all Communicants To which I answer 1. That the Apostles at the time of the Institution of this Sacrament were not consecrating but communicating and therefore the Command given to them as receiving the Sacrament is a rule for Communicants Which binds all Communicants and can by no reason be restrained to the consecrating Priest And indeed the ancient Church made no such distinction in this case between Priest and People but acknowledged as (k) Chrys Hom. 18. in 2 Epist ad Corinth S. Chrysostome expresseth it that the same Body is appointed for all and the same Cup And agreeable hereunto are the Articles of the Church of England which declare (l) Art 30. that both the parts of the Lord's Sacrament by Christ's Ordinance and Commandment ought to be ministred to all Christian men alike 2. That this device would serve as effectually if it were considerable to take away the Bread with the Cup from the people that so no part of Christ's Institution should belong to them 3. The Command of Christ with the reason annexed Matt. 26.27 28. Drink ye all of it for this is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins doth give sufficient light to discern to whom this Precept is designed to wit to all them who desire to partake in the Communion of the blood of the New Testament for the Remission of sins and that is to all Communicants in that Sacrament 4. S. Paul 1 Cor. 11.25 26. plainly applys Christ's Command concerning the Cup to all who come to the Holy Communion in that after the rehearsal of that part of the Institution concerning the Cup he immediately says to the Corinthians For as oft as yet eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lord's Death till he come And he re-inforceth this Command of partaking of the Cup indefinitely to all who are to Communicate v. 28. Let a Man not only the Priest examine himself and so let him eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup. 18. But here the Council of Trent acquaints us with a claim of the Churches authority and power in the Sacrament (m) Ubi sup c. 2. in dispensatione Sacramentorum salva illorum substantia statuere vel mutare to appoint and change things in dispensing the Sacraments still preserving their substance And they seem to intimate that the Communion in both kinds No power of the Church can take away the Cup from the People is not of the substance of the Sacrament because whole Christ and all necessary grace is contained under one kind But 1. If by being of the substance of the Sacrament we mean all that is enjoined by Christ's Precept and is necessary for the right administration of the Sacrament according to his Institution The use of both kinds is proved to be of this nature and therefore to change this
to be High Priests or Priests of that order which himself is and that it is the person of Christ who offers and not of the Minister then indeed there is a fit Priest for the Sacrifice But then it must be proved which can never be that Christ in his own person undertakes this Office in every Mass and then it must also be granted that no man in the Church of Rome can pretend any more to offer this Sacrifice than he can pretend to be the person of Christ 31. Wherefore (h) de Mis l. 2. c. 4. Bellarmine gives us their sense to this purpose The Sacrifice of the Mass is offered by Christ by the Church and by the Minister but in a different manner Christ offers it by a Priest a man as his proper Minister the Church offer as the people offer by their Priest so Christ offers by an inferior the Church by a superior the Minister offers as a true but ministerial Priest Now this pretends an authority from Christ but the Office of performing this Sacrifice to be in the Priest And to this purpose the Council of Trent (i) Sess 22. both declares Christ to have commanded his Apostles and their successors in the Priesthood that they should offer this Sacrifice and also bestow one of their rash Anathema's on him who shall say that Christ did not make his Apostles Priests or did not ordain that they should offer his Body and Blood when he said Do this in remembrance of me But as there is no expression in these words of Christ or any other to shew that he instituted his Apostles and their Successors to be such Priests as to offer a proper propitiatory Sacrifice so it appears that the state of the Gospel doth not admit of any person but only Christ himself to offer his own Body and Blood as a proper and compleat propitiatory Sacrifice since none else are or can be of that Office of Priesthood to which it belongs to offer this Sacrifice nor is any other capable of performing the necessary Rites thereof 32. Cons 4. The great effects of Christs Sacrifice cannot be attributed to any repeated Sacrifice Cons 4. The great benefits from the merits of Christs Sacrifice are wholly procured by that one offering of himself when he died and gave himself a Sacrifice of a sweet smelling savour and now lives for ever to pursue the ends thereof And therefore there neither can nor need be any other propitiatory Sacrifice of Christs Body and Blood For that Sacrifice of Christ which was offered by himself and made satisfaction for sin did thereby obtain the grace and gave a compleat and abiding sanction to the terms of the Gospel Covenant that through his name all who believe and obey may through his mediation receive remission of sins and all other blessings of the Covenant Now the Eucharist as a Sacrament confirms the benefits of this Covenant and exhibits the blessings thereof But the Eucharist cannot now since the death of Christ give such a Sanction and establishment to the new Covenant that from it that Covenant should receive its sureness and validity as it did from Christ's real Sacrifice nor are any new terms of grace superadded to that But the validity of the new Covenant is supposed in the administration of the Eucharist And Christs own offering obtained to himself that high exaltation whereby he can give repentance and remission of sins and is a continual Intercessor and Advocate and therefore lives to execute his own last Will and Testament and to bestow the benefits of that propitiatory Sacrifice which he hath offered Now these which were the great things procured by his Sacrifice have such a peculiar respect to his own offering himself that it is impossible they should have any dependance upon any after-celebration of the Eucharist especially when this Sacrament must have its vertue from that new Covenant established and from the exaltation of Christ And since by that Sacrifice Christ is a propitiation for the sins of the whole World there is need of no renewed expiatory Sacrifice to extend or apply the benefits thereof to particular persons which is sufficiently done in the Eucharist as a Sacrament and in other Ministerial administrations dispensing in Gods name and by his authority the blessings of the new Covenant to pious penitent and believing persons 33. I might here also observe that (k) Barrad Conc. Evang. Tom. 4. l. 3. c. 16. some of the Romanists themselves declare that Christ doth not merit in the Sacrament of the Eucharist because the state of heavenly Glory in which he is excludes merit but here are presented to God the infinite merits of his death on the Cross Now if this be true and the reason given for it is not inconsiderable it must needs exclude any propitiatory Sacrifice from the Eucharist But I shall further observe that those admirable acts of the obedience of Christ in the wonderful humiliation of his life and death and submitting himself according to his Fathers will to suffer even the death of the Cross were of high value for the making his propitiatory Sacrifice which himself offered available in the sight of God to procure his blessing to man But now since our Lord sits at Gods right hand there is no such further humiliation nor need there be since what he once did was of such unspeakable merit and worth to give any new merits of like nature to renewed proper propitiatory Sacrifices But the merits of his life and death are of infinite and sufficient vertue And whereas Christ neither appointed that there should be nor declared that there is any proper propitiatory Sacrifice in the Eucharist he who can think against plain evidence that in the first celebration of the Eucharist Christ offered himself a proper propitiatory Sacrifice and consequently that he died really the night before he was crucified and was dead when his Disciples heard him speak and conversed with him alive hath a mind and belief of a fit size to receive this and several other strange Doctrines of the Church of Rome But besides what I have here said if Transubstantiation be a Doctrine contrary to truth of which I shall discourse in the (l) Sect. 4. n. 14-25 next Section the foundation of the Proper Propitiatory Sacrifice is thereby removed 34. Of additional Doctrines in the Church of Rome To these Instances I may further add that the Romish Church superadding to the Christian Religion many new Doctrines as necessary points of Faith doth hereby also derogate from the authority of our Saviour For this casts a disparagement upon his revelation Christ and his Apostles made a full declaration of the Christian Doctrine insomuch that whosoever shall teach any other Doctrine is under the Apostolical Anathema Gal. 1.8 9. which (m) Cont. lit Petil. l. 3. c. 6. S. Austin extends so far as to apply that Anathema to him whosoever he be who shall teach any
and its freedom from sin And the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers give large and high commendations thereof Polycarp saith (n) Ep. ad Philip. p. 16. that he who hath charity is free from all sin which hath some affinity with those words of the Apostle Rom. 13.8 he that loveth another hath fulfilled the Law And Origen speaks of the Christian man as being pure from sin (o) Cont. Cels l. 3. p. 148 149. and having left off to sin which is of like nature with not continuing any longer therein Rom. 6.2 as having departed from a vicious wicked and impure life And the Christian life is a perfect life as it greatly outdoth the practice of evil men and is in it self excellent and contains a resemblance of God Mat. 5 44-48 and as it is guided by the fear of God and directed to the eschewing evil and doing what is just and good Job 1.1 Psal 37.37 11. And every true Christian doth and must perform all the necessary conditions in the Gospel-Covenant for acceptance with God and obtaining Salvation or otherwise he can never be saved And the practice of Faith and true holiness the subduing lusts and evil affections and being renewed after God is included in these conditions But the terms and conditions of the Gospel-Covenant are not the same thing but must be differently considered from the rules of duty which the Gospel injoins For a constant practice of every duty towards God and man and a careful performance of every moral precept without any transgression thereof is injoined more highly under the Gospel than ever it was before But the conditions of the Gospel-Covenant are upon more mild and gentle terms of grace than were contained under the foregoing Dispensations for they admit and approve true uprightness and sincerity of obedience though there may some failings and imperfections attend it and they allow of repentance and promise mercy and pardon to those offenders who are truly penitent So that the rules of duty considered in their large extent do so far shew what we are obliged to perform that whensoever we fail in the least part thereof we thereupon need the benefit of the pardoning mercy of God and the atonement and expiation of our Saviour to which when we discern our failing in the exercise of self-reflexion we are to apply our selves according to the directions of the Gospel with a pious and penitent behaviour But the great and necessary conditions of the Gospel and the Covenant of grace contain those things which are of such indispensable necessity to be performed and observed by us that the mercy of God will never accept of those who neglect them nor will it pardon the omission thereof Such conditions under the Gospel Revelation are the embracing the Christian Faith the diligent exercise of a holy life and under the sense of our failings an humble address to God through Christ for his mercy pardon and supplies of further grace with penitential exercises 12. And in the best of men who exercise themselves diligently in piety and the discharge of a good conscience there may be many things wherein they fail and come short of the exact performance of what they ought to do And therefore our Saviour taught his Disciples ordinarily to pray forgive us our Trespasses and appointed that petition to be part of that prayer which he directed and commanded them to use Upon which words of the Lords Prayer (p) Cyp. de Orat. Dom. S. Cyprian observes how every one is hereby taught and instructed that he offends every day when he is commanded daily to pray for the pardon of his sins And he observes also how constant a need every person hath of seeking for and obtaining pardon for his failings in that upon this account our Lord urgeth the necessity of our constant care of forgiving others because otherwise our heavenly Father will not forgive us and therefore he gives this as a rule to be always practised whensoever we pray Mark 11.25 When ye stand praying forgive if ye have ought against any that your Father also which is in Heaven may forgive you your trespasses And from the consideration of the Lords Prayer (q) Aug. Ep. 89. S. Austin well observes that if the Christian state here were so far perfect as to be free from all offences our Saviour would never have taught such a Prayer to his Church to be constantly used by his Disciples when they pray and even by the Apostles themselves And in the Institution of the Lords Supper our Saviour tendred the Sacrifice of his Body and Blood to be received by Christians in the continued administration of that Ordinance for the remission of sins All which doth manifest that Christian life and Gospel-obedience which is accepted upon the conditions of the Covenant of grace is not an absolute sinless obedience though it doth include a real purity of heart and integrity of conversation And the pious Christian is sometimes called perfect with respect to that excellency to which he hath attained Phil. 3.15 16. and yet at the said time in a different sense is not acknowledged to be perfect Phil. 3.12 by reason of the defects which are still remaining Hence the Holy Scriptures oft speak to this purpose that in many things we offend all and that there is no man that lives and sins not and that if we say we have no sin we deceive our selves and the truth is not in us 13. And we further assert and acknowledge that in the Christian state there is also a perfection by way of comparison in them who have arrived to greater degrees and a more eminent height and growth in Christian graces and vertues than others and this excellent state is very desirable and ought to be diligently endeavoured by every pious man But no such persons either will or can truly say that henceforth they have no need of any interest in the mercy of God for the forgiving their failings or in the benefits of Christ's Merits and Sacrifice for obtaining thereby pardon and remission But (r) Ep. ad Eph. p. 18. Philad p. 41. Ed. Vos Ignatius when ready to lay down his life by Martyrdom acknowledged his imperfection And (Å¿) Paed. l. 1. c. 2. Clemens Alexandrinus describes the Christian that his failings must be as little as is possible and he must strive against all disorders of affections and disown all customs of sin and it is an excellent thing to be free from all fault but this is the state of God The imperfections of such men as Asa and Job and others who are called perfect are noted in the Scripture And that same Epistle in which S. John speaks so much of him that is born of God that he sins not as having rejected a vicious and evil life and being set free from the service thereof he also declares against him who saith he hath no sin 1 Joh. 1.8 directs confession of sin v. 9. and speaking concerning
Offices it is the Ministry of Reconciliation II. The Persons to whom this Ministry is committed that is to Vs III. The Divine Authority by which it is founded I. The Nature and Excellency of this Ministry And because it is an holy Function committed to some particular Persons by God himself the main Business thereof cannot consist in speaking or doing such Things as may be said or done by other Men but in the discharge of a special Office And an Office tho it requireth Abilities in them who undertake it yet is chiefly conveyed by Commission and Authority It is possible that Corah or some other of his Company might be as well acquainted with the Rites of Sacrificing and the way of ordering the Incense as Aaron and his Sons were but if they not being called of God thereto will invade the Priesthood they must bear their Sin Wherefore I design to discourse here of the chief and proper Charge and Business of the Gospel-Ministry which must include the Dignity thereof And here I shall shew 1. What is contained in it in four Heads 2. What must be rejected from it 1. As God's Officers they are to prepare Persons for receiving the Blessings of the Gospel And because the Wrath of God will come on the Children of Disobedience and the way to be happy is by the Faith of Christ and becoming holy and good the Officers of the Christian Church by a peculiar Authority are publickly to declare the Doctrines of Faith and the great Certainty and Evidence thereof to make Men well-grounded Christians and the Directions and Rules of holy Life together with the great Motives which tend to persuade the practice of them They are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Teachers and the Instruction of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appears as anciently as from Justin Martyr to be one part of their publick Performances in the Church Just Mart. Apol. 2. And the Practice hereof is commended in the Scriptures and the ancient Writers as early as Ignatius exhorting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ignat. Epist ad Polycarp to exhort and persuade all Men for their Salvation And these Instructions are to be accounted of greater moment because delivered by those to whom God hath granted his Commission as the declaring the Law or giving a Charge by a Judg or particular Officer is more than the Discourse of a private Person The Flock of Christ ought to have such a respect to the Shepherds he hath appointed as to think it their Duty to be taught and guided by them Since our Saviour declared not only concerning his Apostles but even of the Seventy Mat. 10.40 He who heareth you heareth me and more generally with a Note of Remark concerning all those who are sent by him Luke 16.16 Joh. 13.20 that he who receiveth them receiveth him To this Head also belongeth another part of Ministerial Power in preparing Men for God's Blessing which was more remarkably exercised under the vigour of Primitive Discipline in enjoining particular Rules for and examining the Probation-State of the Catechumeni who from Paganism embraced Christianity and of them who for their Offences came under the then severe Discipline of Penitents This Authority the Apostle made use of in this Epistle concerning the Incestuous Corinthian 2 Cor. 2.6 7. declaring his Grief and Punishment to have been sufficient and this was Baron an 57.1 58.36 Illyr Praefat. ad Ep. Pauli as both Baronius and Illyricus think in the next Year after the Sentence of his Excommunication was inflicted And besides the present Interest of Ministerial Power with respect to Rules of open Discipline it is of great use for them who have exposed their Souls to great Dangers and also for disquieted Minds in such Cases as press their Consciences to take the particular Counsel of their Guides whom God hath appointed to watch for their Souls Heb. 13.17 Which might be a great Help to secure some from their growing Perplexities and others from running on in Viciousness or turning aside unto Delusions 2. This Function contains an Authority from God to receive Persons under the Terms of Reconciliation and to bless them in God's Name As they are Stewards of the Mysteries of God they have a peculiar Right to dispense to his People his holy Sacraments as signal Pledges of his Grace and Favour Hereupon they who receive Baptism at their hands being duly qualified for it receive thereby Remission of Sins become Members of Christ and Heirs of Salvation And as St. Paul was directed to be baptized and wash away his Sins so the Christian Church hath generally acknowledged Baptism to be Acts 22.16 Clem. Alex. Paed. l. 1. c. 6. as Clemens Alexandrinus expresseth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Laver to make us clean from our Sins And the ordinary dispensing Baptism is a proper Act of the Ministerial Power both in that Christ gave commission to his Apostles to baptize and especially because this is a particular Exercise of the Keys in receiving Members into the Church of Christ and is also the dispensing the Symbol of Remission of Sins which is included under that Commission of Christ Whose soever Sins ye remit they are remitted unto them John 20.23 In the Holy Communion also the pious and penitent Christian receiveth at the hands of him who by his Office dispenseth it the Mystical Body and Blood of Christ and a Testimony of God's Favour and Blessing And because this Sacrament is the Application of Christ's Sacrifice offered for the Remission of Sins a devout humble and penitent Person doth hereby receive Pardon to which purpose St. Ambrose Qui manducaverit hoc corpus De Sacrament l. 4. c. 5 6. fiet ei remissio peccatorum And again Debeo illum Sanguinem semper accipere ut semper mihi peceata dimittantur Which Words speak the receiving the Body and Blood of Christ in this Sacrament to include Remission of Sins And the dispensing and consecrating this holy Sacrament must needs be proper to the special Officers of the Christian Church since no Man without God's particular Authority can dispense and consecrate the Pledges of his Grace and of Remission of Sins as tendred from him The pronouncing Absolution by them to whom the Gospel giveth this Authority doth also from God tender and apply Remission of Sins to the Pious and Contrite by virtue of our Saviour's Words Whose Sins ye remit they are remitted but by no means to the Disobedient and Neglectful The Augustine Confession declareth Absolution to be highly esteemed quia est Vox Dei mandato Dei pronunciatur Conf. August cap. de Confes as being the Voice of God and pronounced by his Command In like manner the giving a Benediction or Blessing by them whether generally in the Publick Service or more particularly in some special Offices is an Application of the Blessing of God by his Authority unto the pious Christian Numb 6.27 but not to
his heart bringeth forth evil things And this is that which the usual observation of the world hath testified as (f) Hierocl in Pyth. Carm. p. 140. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hierocles declared men speak either good or evil sutably to the contrary inclinations of their minds There is indeed some difference here between the evil and the good heart The man of a malicious spirit may sometimes speak fair and smoothly even unto flattery and a wicked man may speak good words and act the hypocrite and the reason of this is because an evil heart may incline the man to dissemble and speak falsly but such words though they carry a fair appearance are evil words because full of fraud unfaithfulness and dissimulation But where the heart is good and upright there true integrity prevails and though an evil man may in many outward things speak and do as the good man doth out of hypocrisie and still continue wicked no good man can speak and do evil things according to the practice of the sinful and vicious person and whosoever doth so must be really wicked because goodness and uprightness both hate all counterfeiting and dissembling and all other compliances with sin and evil 7. and speaks a prevalency of sin But there is so much evil and wickedness contained under this sin of defaming others that a great part of the testimony which the Apostle gave of the Jews being estranged from true goodness and piety and being under sin is included herein He declares from the writings of the Old Testament Rom. 3.13 14 15. Their throat is an open Sepulchre with their tongues they have used deceit the poyson of asps is under their lips Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness Their feet are swift to shed blood c. Now the sense of most part of these words is plainly contained in this sin I am declaring against And when the Apostle mentions their mouth being full of cursing it may be worthy our observation that contumelious speaking against and reproaching others doth in some degree really include in it the true and proper nature of cursing it being a plain declaration of the persons wishing and desiring evil to him of whom he speaks And what S. Paul adds that their feet are swift to shed blood even this is frequently the natural effect of the same sin For when men by evil speaking especially of their Superiours have wrought themselves and others into a greater dislike of them and hatred towards them how oft this hath fomented fierce passions and wrought dispositions to cruelty and put men upon insurrections and forwardness of shedding blood the Histories of all times and the remembrance of this last Age in our own Nation will give undeniable evidence Now such a temper which gives an apparent indication that they who practised such things were turned aside from God and the ways of piety cannot be thought reconcileable with the holiness and purity of the Christian Religion 8. Thirdly This practice is mighty dangerous 3. It exposeth the offender to condemnation with respect to mens great and eternal interests Many are too neglectful in calling themselves to an account for their words but God hath assured us that at the great day he will take an account of them and will not then allow that liberty that men now give themselves in evil speaking but even this sin may be sufficient to bring upon them eternal condemnation Our Lord hath declared Matt. 12.36 37. That of every idle word men shall give an account in the day of Judgment For by their words they shall be justified and by their words they shall be condemned And these words of our Saviour are so solemn and weighty as laying down a rule of proceeding in the future judgment and condemnation that they ought not to be slighted and disregarded but to be seriously pondered and considered Many of the ancient Writers interpret this Text concerning such words as were not useful and profitable to edification Thus S. Basil S. Hierom Greg. Magnus and others And (g) Iren. adâ—â— Haeres l. 4. c. 31. Irenaeus mentions them as such a Doctrine of our Saviour whereby he advanceth and exalteth the Christian Religion and the rules and precepts thereof And it is thence inferred that if such words which are not of use to good shall be under the heavy condemnation of the great Day much more those which are contumelious and include evil 9. But this strict interpretation Mat. 12.36 Concerning every idle word explained would deny Christians the liberty of ordinary conversation and that freedom of familiar speaking concerning common affairs which is necessary thereunto and it cannot well be thought that our Saviour whose yoke is easie would lay such a severe restraint upon his Disciples under pain of eternal damnation And therefore the notion entertained by Grotius and Dr. Hammond that by every idle word is understood every false and evil word including what is unseemly and unbecoming Sobriety is the much more probable sense of our Saviours speech and the account they give of it is very reasonable and considerable And this is a sense that wants not the authority of some of the Ancients Thus Theophylact expounds these words and so doth also S. Chrysostome both upon S. Matthew and (h) Chrys Serm. 62. in Paralyt elsewhere And (i) Eus praep Ev. l. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eusebius declares that upon account of these words of our Saviour the Christians would not admit either any lye or any reproach nor any filthy nor any unseemly word 10. This sense is also agreeable to the manner of the Scripture expression in divers other places where it speaks of things and words hurtful and evil under such phrases as most directly signifie their being not useful Thus S. Paul calls such words as turn men from piety 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 empty or vain words Ephes 5.6 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 empty or vain babling 1 Tim. 6.20 2 Tim. 2.16 and the expressions of an empty word and an idle word are not much unlike but under that phrase the Apostle evidently intends wicked and sinful words So when the Idols of the Gentiles are oft called vanities as Act. 14.15 and the adhering to them a becoming vain in their imaginations Rom. 1.21 it is not only intended that these things are void of goodness but that they are things abominable So the Apostle intends that it will be of pernicious consequence to men when those who watch for their souls give up their account with grief when he only expresseth it to be unprofitable Heb. 13.17 And the Holy Scripture calls the works of darkness unfruitful when it designs them to be accounted hurtful Ephes 5.11 11. And this interpretation of these words of our Lord accords very well with the truth delivered in other Scriptures that revilers and lyars shall not inherit the Kingdom of God and that his Religion is vain who bridleth not
the sixth Commandment Thou shalt not kill For the performing the duty which relates to this precept according to the extent which the Doctrine of our Saviour gives it requires an innocent calm and meek temper and behaviour towards all men so as not to admit any causless anger nor any passionate and contumelious expressions Mat. 5.21 22. But to all this this sin is directly opposite And besides this we may further discover how much this command is transgressed by rash censures and calumnies if we either consider the effects they produce or the cause from whence they proceed 10. The effects of reproach Calumny is cruel are frequently of different kinds If we reflect upon the more immediate result thereof the Sword of the tongue oft wounds deep and keen words pierce even to the inward part of man and his very heart The sence of which made (f) Naz. Ep. 191. Nazianzen perswade them who reproach others to lay down their arms their slings and spears even their tongues by which they do mischief to one another and are applauded and these are more ready at hand than other weapons And there is indeed so much of cruelty and real hurt in calumny and reproach that our Saviour accounts this a way of persecution and observes that thereby the Prophets were persecuted for righteousness sake Mat. 5.10 11 12. 11. But when evil speaking is directed against Governours Contumelious expressions against Governours oft beget tumults and blood-shed it too often becomes the parent of violence cruelty and inhumanity by giving birth to tumults and Seditions They who reflect upon the last Age may discern how by this method we became engaged in such a bloody Civil War as cut off and destroyed many thousands of men Thus as S. James observes Chap. 3.6 The tongue defiles the whole body and sets on fire the course of nature It puts mens heads and hearts upon contriving and acting fierce and furious enterprises it makes their hands forward and their feet swift to shed blood and if not timely prevented it kindleth those heats which bring all things into a flame And I heartily wish it were an hard and difficult task to find out instances to verifie the complaints of Lipsius concerning calumny He declares (g) Lipsius in Orat. de Calumnia Doletis haerere in Reip. visceribus discordiarum tela calumnia injecit ardere tot annos facem bellorum civilium calumnia accendit c. that it divides intimate friends and sets them at distance Are any grieved to see feuds and discords and weapons of death stick fast in the bowels of the Common-wealth it is calumny darted them thither and fixed them there Do any reflect with sadness upon the flames of Civil Wars continuing to burn for so many years it is calumny that kindled them And as he goes on this is that which sets Princes and people at distance from each other and engageth one man against another And indeed almost all the tumults Seditions and Rebellions which have been so destructive and pernicious to the World have had their original from hence 12. How he that hates his Brother is a murderer And if we reflect on the cause from whence evil speaking and reproaching doth arise this is a want of love as I above noted and a prevalency of ill will and hatred But S. John assures us 1 Joh. 3.15 he that hateth his Brother is a murderer And in truth though there may be several reasons which may restrain him from any such acts of violence as to commit murder yet he harbours much of the same inward temper with an open murderer For he that hates his Brother so far as concerns his Brother himself and unless he thinks he may make use of him to serve some other ends wisheth him out of the way and would chuse and be pleased to have him out of the world And this is that very same wicked temper of mind which spirits a murderer Wherefore this sin which so defiles the heart and stains the World with blood is a sin of a scarlet dye 13. Fourthly This sin offends against those precepts which forbid bearing false witness slandering and speaking evil all which enjoin the right government of the tongue in what it speaks of others (h) Phil. de Decal p. 768. Philo observes that under the ninth Commandment is included 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 4. It ordinarily transgresseth the bounds of truth not to calumniate or defame which is to be extended not only to matters of publick justice but even to rules of private conversation But a reproachful tongue both offends against charity and is generally further guilty of not making conscience to keep to the strict rules of truth And as Tertullian speaks in refelling the slanders spread abroad among the Pagans against the Christians report and fame thus raised and divulged is (i) Tertul. Apol. c. 7. plurimùm mendax quae nè tunc quidem quando aliquid veri affert sine mendacii vitio est detrahens adjiciens demutans de veritate for the most part false and is not even then when it contains somewhat of truth free from the fault of lying taking something from or adding to or making some alteration concerning the truth And this sin of lying deserves to be accounted the more hateful and evil and to be abhorred as abominable because it is part of the character of the wicked one that he is a lyar from the beginning and a deceiver whereas it is one of the excellent titles of our Saviour that he is the faithful witness and also he is the Amen and the truth And this sin hath much of the Diabolical nature and practice in it the evil one doing much mischief by false suggestions 14. Fifthly 5. It offendeth against justice Reproaching others is a great violation of Justice He that speaketh evil of dignities is ranked among the unjust by S. Peter 2 Pet. 2.9 10. And calumny in general is very injurious both to the person reproached and to those also to whom such reproaches are uttered To wrong a man in his reputation and good name is an injury in several respects much worse than the wronging him in his goods and possessions and hath been so esteemed amongst men Partly on this account it was the (k) Saâ—â— c. â—â— n. 1. general determination of the Jewish Rabbins that though actions of trespass or violence against the estates of men might be heard and punished by their lesser consistory of three yet matters of slander and defamation came not under their cognisance but were to be determined by a greater Consistory of twenty three being things of an higher nature which required a more weighty consideration and sometimes a capital punishment 15. For a mans reputation hath a more immediate respect to his person and the true worth of the man than his possessions have and to have his good name impaired deprives him of a great part of
is not within the Churches authority 2. They may as well say that whole Christ is in one kind and therefore there needs no consecration of the Cup as that therefore there needs no distribution And so the Cup may be wholly rejected with as much Piety as the Laity are now deprived of it 3. What is contained in the Sacrament is contained in it according to the Will of Christ and his Institution and thereby the Bread is the Communion of the body of Christ and the Cup is the Communion of the blood of Christ 1 Cor. 10.16 And (n) Ration l. 4. c. 54. n. 13. Durandus did truly assert that the blood of Christ is not Sacramentally in the Host because the Bread signifies the Body and not the Blood So he with somewhat more to this purpose And this is the more considerable because in the Holy Eucharist the death of Christ is represented and in the Cup his Blood as shed And Gelasius who was once Bishop of Rome when he heard that some received the Bread only and not the Cup declared what then it seems was Catholick Doctrine at Rome that they must either receive the whole Sacrament or be rejected from the whole because (o) de Consec Dist c. 2. comperimus divisio unius ejusdem mysterii sine grandi Sacrilegio non potest provenire the dividing one and the same Sacrament cannot be without grand Sacriledge Which words contain a more full and plain censure of what since his time is practised in the Church of Rome than can be evaded by the strained and frivolous Interpretations either of Gratian of Binius or Baronius And we have also much greater authority than his For besides what I have above mentioned this use of the Cup was part of what S. Paul received of the Lord and delivered to the Corinthians 1 Cor. 11 23-25 and it was matter of praise in the Corinthians that they kept the ordinances as he delivered them v. 2. 19. And what is asserted in the Council of Trent that the Church had just reason to order the Communion in one kind and what others say that it is more profitable to Christians and contains an honour and reverence to that Ordinance must suppose that their wisdom is greater than our Saviour's who did not know or consider with so much prudence as they do what is fit to be appointed and established in his Ordinance And since the Holy Ghost declared both the Bread and the Cup to be appointed to shew forth Christs death till he come 1 Cor. 11.26 they must therefore be both used to this purpose until his second coming and then no power was left to any Church to alter and change this institution And whilst some pretend reverence to God and this Sacrament in taking away the Cup from the people it would be considered that there can be no honour to God in acts of disobedience But if pretences of honouring God in acts of disobedience could render actions commendable Sauls Sacrificing must have passed for a pious attempt and the Doctrine of the Pharisees for the observing their vow of Corban must have been esteemed a Religious assertion 20. A third Instance I shall consider Of the propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass is their pretending to offer a proper expiatory Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Mass which is derogatory to Christs own Priestly oblation whereby he once offered himself a compleat Sacrifice of expiation But the (p) Sess 22. c. 2. Council of Trent declares that in the Mass is Sacrificium verè propitiatorium a truly propitiatory Sacrifice and that it is offered both for the sins punishments and other necessities of the living Christians and also for the dead in Christ who are not fully purged And it pronounced an Anathema against him who shall say in missa non offerri Deo verum proprium sacrificium that in the Mass is not offered to God a true and proper Sacrifice or that it ought not to be offered for the quick and the dead And they declare it to be the very same Sacrifice which was offered upon the Cross And the (q) Catech. ad paroch jux dec Trid. p. 247. Roman Catechism saith that this Sacrifice of the Mass doth not only contain an efficacious meriting but a satisfying also and even as Christ by his passion did both merit and satisfie So they who offer this Sacrifice do satisfie And the Council of (r) Anath 3. Trent will have it offered for satisfactions 21. Now it is acknowledged that that perfect Sacrifice which Christ himself once offered is lively represented and eminently commemorated in the holy Communion and the benefits thereof are there received by the worthy Communicant and on this account this Sacrament especially is a Christian Sacrifice in a large sense The Eucharist how a Christian Sacrifice as that Jewish Feast was called the Passeover as it was a memorial and representation of the original Passeover when the destroying Angel passed by the Houses of the Israelites And it may be called a Sacrifice as it contains the performance of such a chief part of service and worship to God as renders them who do it aright pleasing and acceptable to God And therein we present our selves to God with our homage and oblations and our praises and supplications that we and the whole Church may obtain remission of sins and all other benefits of Christs passion And such great actions of Religion are in a more large sense though not in a strict sense frequently called Sacrifices both in the holy Scriptures as in Psal 51.17 Rom. 12.1 Phil. 4.18 Heb. 13.15 16. 1 Pet. 2.5 and frequently in the Fathers as may be shewed from Justin Martyr Tertullian Clemens Alexandrinus and divers others But this sense is so far from satisfying the Council of Trent that it pronounceth (ſ) ubi sup an Anathema against him who shall say it is only a Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving or a commemoration of the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross and not a propitiatory Sacrifice 22. Now that there is not nor can be in the Sacrament a proper Sacrificing Christ's Body and Blood to make expiation for the sins of men may appear from four Considerations Cons 1. Christ's once offering himself a Sacrifice Cons 1. The Sacrifice of the Mass derogates from the death and pussion of Christ was so compleat that it neither needs nor admits of any reiterating or that this or any other propitiatory or expiatory Sacrifices should be again offered This is observed by the Apostle to be one excellency of the Sacrifice of Christ once offered above the legal Sacrifices that whereas by reason of the imperfection of them the Priests offered oftentimes the same Sacrifices Christ by one offering had fully perfected his work and the Apostle therefore expressly saith he should not offer himself often Heb. 9.25 26 27 28. chap. 10 10-14 (t) de Missa l.
being so inhumanly savage that in their private Religious Assemblies they murdered an Infant and sucked and drunk his blood it was among other things answered by (f) Tert. Apol. c. 9. Tertullian (g) In Octav. p. 100. Ed. Oxon. Minucius Felix and (h) Eus Hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 1. others that the Gentiles might be ashamed to charge any such thing on Christians who were so far from taking any human blood that they carefully avoided all blood even of Beasts But this defence could not well have been made on this manner if they had accounted themselves to have taken the Blood of Christ substantially in the Eucharist and not only such a mystical representation thereof as is not void of efficacy and reality And though I think it manifest that blood may lawfully be eaten and that the Apostolical prohibition thereof was but a provisional Decree for those times from the general declaration in the New Testament that nothing is unclean in it self from the liberty which Christians were allowed to eat whatsoever was sold in the shambles or was set before them when they were invited to eat with unbelievers asking no question for conscience sake and also because blood was for this reason forbidden to be eaten under the Law because it was given upon the altar to make an atonement for their souls Lev. 17.10 11 12 13 14. Yet it may not be amiss observed that according to the computation of time fixed by Rhenanus as it is from him mentioned by (i) Pamel in Apolog. Tertul n. 138. Pamelius it is now about five hundred years since eating blood was generally allowed in the Western Church and about that time the Doctrine of Transubstantiation had prevailed which was publickly established under the time of Innocentius the Third above four hundred and fifty years since And that general prohibition of blood so long continued though upon mistake or more than necessary cautiousness might well be accounted not consistent with the Doctrine of Transubstantiation or not fairly reconcileable thereunto 19. Thirdly Transubstantiation doth plainly contradict the evidence of sense Transubstantiation is contrary to the testimony of sense Now the testimony of our senses is so considerable that this is that which assured and manifested the certainty of the mighty Miracles wrought by Christ and his Apostles yea of the birth of Christ of his converse with men in the world and of his being crucified risen again and ascended into Heaven Upon the evidence of sense Thomas was convincingly perswaded of Christs resurrection and the other Apostles had such an esteem for this testimony that they could not but Preach the things which they had seen and heard Act. 4.20 And the certainty of what they taught concerning Christ and Christianity they founded upon the evidence of their senses in that it was what they had seen with their eyes and what they had heard and their hands had handled of the word of life 2 Pet. 1.16 17 18. 1 Joh. 1.1 And therefore the denying the evidence of sense would undermine Christianity and withal take away all possibility of certainty concerning the plain matters of fact in the world And there could be no assurance given that Christ taught any Doctrine nor could what he did teach be otherwise conveyed to us than by our eyes and ears unless men pretend to Enthusiasm And as that pretence is vain so if it were not no other men could be taught by such Enthusiasticks but by the exercise and use of their senses and upon supposition of the certainty thereof 20. But our eyes our taste our feeling and the inward sense of nourishment received from the consecrated elements do all of them testifie that the Bread and Wine remain in their proper substances after their consecration But here the Church of Rome thinks it her interest to (k) Catech. aâ—â— arochos p. 218. Curandum est ut fidelium mentes quam maxime fieri potest à sensuum judicio abstrahantur take care that the minds of Christians should as much as is possible be drawn off from the judgement of their senses And yet they who do lay aside the judgement of their senses must not believe that they do truly either read or see any such instruction as this directed to them And if the evidence of sense in the Sacrament be denied there will then be no certainty to the Communicants whether there be any Priest present to consecrate and consequently whether there be any words of consecration spoken or whether there be any elements to receive consecration And the senses of the Communicants do give a more joint testimony to the elements remaining in their proper substances than to these other instances 21. and is also opposite to reason Fourthly Transubstantiation is opposite to the principles of reason and understanding and includes manifold gross absurdities and contradictions 1. That the whole substance of the Body of Christ should be in many thousand yea many millions of places at the same time is sufficiently inconsistent with the nature of a body And as there are consecrated Hosts in many thousand places at once the Catechism framed according to the Decree of the Council of Trent agreeably to that Council declares that (l) Ibid. p. 223 225. Inquavis urriusque speciei parâ—icula totum Christum contineri under every least part either of the Bread or Wine whole Christ is contained even with his bones sinews and whatsoever belongs to the true state of his body as I above observed from the same Catechism 2. And in purfuance of this Doctrine of Transubstantiation the Romish Doctors do assert if a Mouse or any other brutish Animal or Insect do eat any part of the consecrated Host they do eat what is truly and substantially the Body of Christ This is acknowledged by (m) Part. 3 q. 80. a. 3. Aquinas and though the (n) Sent. l. 4. dist 13. A. Master of the Sentences would not admit this for truth but declared himself of the contrary opinion yet his Authority is here rejected and by the Censure of (o) Lib. 4. Art 9. the Divines of Paris this is reckoned among one of his errors But it is a thing dishonourable to the glorious Body of Christ to be eaten of Brutes and to pass into the draught and to be substantially present there where even the Romanists who assert that presence do not require Divine Worship to be given to it 3. And it is contradictory to assert that the substance of Bread and Wine being gone the accidents thereof do remain without any subject or matter being as the Roman Catechism saith (p) Catech. p. 219. 230. Edi. Lovan 1567. accidentia quae nulli substantiae inhaerent and species sine aliqua re subjecta Thus for instance the extension that was in the Bread is supposed to remain when the substance of the Bread is gone and that extension which can be measured and felt is in its own
nature an extension of matter and of that which hath parts added to one another and yet here is extension and consequently several parts distant from one another but still there is nothing extended nor any matter nor any thing that hath parts And the like may be said of other accidents 4. If it could be imagined that the substance of the Bread and Wine was abolished by consecration though it is not usual for the blessing of God to destroy but preserve the thing he blesseth the accidents or appearances thereof only remaining and that the substance of Christs Body and Blood should be there substituted without any corporeal accidents even this could not be Transubstantiation according to the Romish description thereof For if a corporeal substance should cease to be its accidents or modifications remaining this must be by annihilation and if there be a new substance this must be by a new production not a changing the former substance into a latter since corporeal substances are not capable of being changed but by the difference of their modifications or accidents but the ceasing or abolishing of the substance it self which is the being of a thing the subject matter which must be supposed in the changing things is wholly removed 22. And 5. That there must be new matter continually prepared in the Sacramental elements out of which the true substance of the Body and Blood of Christ is to be produced this also includes manifest contradiction For then the Body and Blood of Christ must be supposed to be produced out of a different matter at a different time and in a different manner from that Body which was born of the Blessed Virgin and in which he assumed our nature and yet this Body which is so many ways differing from that substantial Body which is ascended into Heaven must be acknowledged to be substantially the same When I consider such things as these with which this Romish Doctrine is full fraught I must acknowledge that the belief of Transubstantiation includes so much of self-denial that it is a believing against Reason But there is one thing wanting which hinders it from being an act of Christian self-denial or of true Religion and that is that it is not a believing God or Christ who never declared any such Doctrine but must resolve it self into the believing the declaration of the Roman Church which both Scotus and Cajetan cited by the Reverend (q) Hist Transubst c. 5. n. 3. Bishop Cosins make the necessary ground and support for this Doctrine 23. What account may be given that so many knowing men in the Church of Rome should own such unreasonable and unaccountable Doctrines And I have sometimes set my self to consider hour it should come to pass that so many understanding and learned men as are in the Church of Rome should receive such monstrous Doctrines as this and some others are and I have given my self some satisfaction by observing 1. That education and Principles once imbibed and professed have a mighty force upon many mens minds insomuch that bad notions embraced do almost pervent their very capacities of understanding as appears in the followers of many Sects and in the Pagan Philosophers who set them selves against Christianity and these things especially when linked with interest have such a commanding influence upon many men of understanding that they hinder them from attending to the clearest evidences against their assertions as was manifest from the Scribes and Pharisees in our Saviours time who generally stood up for their Traditions against his Doctrine and Miracles also And they of the Church of Rome are politickly careful in the training up and principling the more knowing part of their youth in their Doctrines 2. That when gross corruptions formerly prevailed in that Church through the blindness and superstition of ignorant and degenerate ages the politick governing part think it not expedient now to acknowledge those things for errors lest they thereby lose that reverence they claim to their Church when they have once acknowledged it to have erred and not to be infallible And therefore all these things must be owned as points of faith and such other things added as are requisite to support them 3. Many more modest and well disposed persons acquiesce in the determination of the Church and its pretence to infallibility and by this they filence all objections and suffer not any doubtful enquiry since whatsoever the Doctrine be no evidence can outweigh that which is infallible And these also are the less inquisitive from the odious reprensentations which are made of them who depart from the Romish Doctrine and from their being prohibited the use of such Books which might help to inform them better 4. Others are deterred from making impartial search into truth by the severity of that Church against them who question its received Doctrines both in the tortures of the Inquisition and in the loud thundrings of its Anathemas 5. The specious and pompous names of the Churches Tradition Antiquity Vniversality and uninterrupted succession have a great influence upon them who have not discovered the great falshood of these pretences And very many knowing men have not made such things the business of their search and others who have made search are willing to take things according to the sense and interpretation the favourers of that Church impose upon them and they are herein influenced by some of the things above mentioned 6. The just judgment of God may blind them who shut their eyes against the light that through strong delusions they should believe a lye 24. Fifthly This Romish Doctrine is contrary to the holy Scriptures The Scripture declareth the Body of Christ to be in the Sacrament and our Church acknowledgeth that (r) Art of Relig. Art 28. this Body is given taken and eaten in the Sacrament but then it tells us that this is only after an heavenly and spiritual manner Transubstantiation is against the Scripture and this is according to the sense of the Scriptures as I noted n. 16. But the Scripture is so far from owning Transubstantiation to be the manner of Christs presence that it plainly declares the elements to remain after the consecration and at the distribution of them S. Paul therefore mentions not only the Bread which we break 1 Cor. 10 16. but speaking also of receiving the Eucharist thrice in three verses together he expresseth it by eating that Bread and drinking that Cup 1 Cor. 11.26 27 28. and this must suppose the element of Bread to be remaining when the Sacrament was administred to the Communicants But (Å¿) Coster Enchir. some object that Bread here is not to be understood of that which is properly and substantially Bread but of Christ who is called the bread of life But 1. The Apostle having spoken before of Bread and the Cup 1 Cor. 11.24 25. where he understood thereby that which was properly and substantially Bread and Wine and
Elements for the Communion were usually offered to God to be set apart for a sacred Use and that all Christian Worship being in a large sence the offering spiritual Sacrifices to God so is especially the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper because therein is eminently a Commemoration of the only Sacrifice of Christ with a peculiar Address unto God thereby and it and the Benefits thereof are mystically represented and exhibited therein And in this sence it is ordinarily called a Sacrifice and a commemorating Sacrifice in ancient Writers and Liturgies But the Romish Church not satisfied herewith in the Trent-Assembly thundreth an Anathema against them who deny their Mass to be verum proprium Sacrificium Concil Trid. Seff 22. Can. 1 3. a true and proper Sacrifice and to be a Propitiatory Sacrifice for the Quick and the Dead for Sins Punishments c. And they assert that the Elements being properly transubstantiated Christ doth in this sence yield himself to be sacrificed per Sacerdotes sub signis immolandum Ibid. cap. 1 2. and that this is as compleatly a Sacrifice for Sin as that he himself once offered and the very same solâ offerendi ratione diversa And Bellarmine dares to say of this Sacrifice of the Mass Bellarm. in Expos Doctr. Christ de Poenitent Mundum Deo reconciliat it reconciles the World to God But this their Sacrifice is contrary to the Doctrine of the Scripture and derogatory to the Honour of Christ's Oblation in that it was the Excellency of his Sacrifice above the Aaronical Ones that there is no place for the daily Offering and Repetition thereof Heb. 7.27 Chap. 10.10 11 12 14.18 Chap. 9.25 26 28. since by one Offering once made he hath perfectly accomplished the End of Sacrificing as the Apostle largely asserteth nor can he die any more And their Transubstantiation on which this is founded carrieth so plain Contradictions to the Evidence of Sense the Principles of Reason and the plain Assertions of Scripture and is attended with such numerous and palpable Absurdities that the general Belief of such a thing by those of the Romish Communion may be placed among the chief Miracles really wrought in that Church And the Sacrifice of Christ was on this account expiatory in that by the Satisfaction he made to his Father he so far appeased his Wrath and procured his Favour towards Man as to obtain the Terms Grace and Blessings of the New Covenant Wherefore if the very same Sacrifice be really offered in every Mass it must be to the same end and then not only the Redemption of Man must be there made but the original Sanction of the Gospel-Covenant must be then and not before established Besides this as the High-Priest who offered the Expiatory Sacrifice under the Law must enter with the Blood thereof into the Holy of Holies So the Apostle acquaints us that Christ who is an High-Priest and an High-Priest after the Order of Melchisedec offering himself as an Expiation for Sin must by his Blood-enter into the holy Place not made with hands even into Heaven it self Wherefore no Man can undertake properly to offer this Sacrifice but such an High-Priest who with the Blood thereof doth enter into Heaven it self Heb. 9.11 12 23 24 and not still abide upon Earth 2. We must reject all Power of reconciling any adult Persons unto God who do not perform the other Conditions of the Gospel-Covenant If Simon Magus receive Baptism in Hypocrisy he doth not receive Remission of Sins but is in the Bond of Iniquity and the Devil may enter into him who taketh the holy Communion unworthily as he entred into Judas He that comes to receive Reconciliation without pious care of serious Repentance is as the Man under the Law who came to be purified but brings an unclean thing with him before the Lord which is a kind of bidding Defiance to the Holiness of God and the Purity of his Worship Now the Church of England declares in her Liturgy that Christ hath left a Power to his Church to absolve all Sinners who truly repent and believe in him And that he is the merciful Receiver of all true penitent Sinners and most willing to pardon us if we come unto him with faithful Repentance if we will submit our selves to him and from henceforth walk in his Ways with much more to that purpose But in the Romish Church where they make such a distinction between Contrition and Attrition as that the latter is an imperfect Grief which doth not include the Love of God above all nor doth always take in with it a Detestation of Sin as the former doth their Doctors out of a strange Looseness of Principles assert the Duty of Contrition very rarely to oblige any Man And even the Council of Trent favoureth that Position Sess 14. cap. 4. That Attrition with the Sacrament of Penance and Absolution is sufficient to please God concerning which the Generality of their Authors speak much more plain and many of them urge the Authority of this Council This is called by Valentia receptissimum Axioma a most received Maxim and tho there are some Doctors Greg. de Val. Tom. 4. Disp 7. Qu. 8. Punct 3. who require Contrition as needful with that Sacrament he saith this is Sententia vix tolerabilis an Assertion that may hardly be tolerated Filiucius who was Professor in the Jesuits College at Rome and the Pope's Penitentiary asserteth Filiuc Tr. 6. c. 8. n. 197. Ex vi justitiae ad Deum c. That upon account of doing what in Justice we owe to God he that hath Attrition with the Sacrament is not bound in Duty to be contrite no not in the hour of Death Indeed he there saith that upon account of Charity to God or themselves Men may be bound to be contrite viz. if they would secure themselves tho they should miss the Sacrament of Penance or would do more for God than he requireth Filiuc Tr. 7. c. 6. n. 14. M. Canus de Poenit. Relect. 4. But in another place he tells us That enough is done to satisfy the Duty of Repentance by Attrition with the Sacrament And Canus asserteth Deus nihil amplius exigit God requires no more than either Contrition without the Sacrament or Attrition with the Sacrament To the same purpose also speaketh Becanus and Greg. de Valentia denieth it to be needful with the Sacrament Becan Schol. Th. part 3. c. 35. qu. 6. to have any such Disposition which is putata Contritio or which they suppose to be Contrition But is this a Doctrine suitable to the Purity of God and the holy Jesus that Men may all their Life-time be so like to Devils as not to have any single Act of Hatred against Sin or of Love of God above all things and yet by a few Words of the Priest as strange a thing as the Power of Transubstantiating be transformed into Saints but without any
real Holiness at all Is this a Representation of Religion like that made in the Scripture The Doctrine according to Godliness which requires the doing the Will of our Father which is in Heaven and declares that without Holiness no Man shall see God Or is this like the Primitive Spirit of Christianity where serious diligence in the Exercises of Contrition and Piety was thought requisite for receiving Absolution Shall these Men be accounted the Patrons of Good Works who against the Doctrine of St. James assert that Men may be saved without Works or any holy Action and who run up to the highest and most absurd Positions of Solifidianism even the Belief of the Non-necessity of holy Actions and Dispositions They have found a way if it be a safe one how Works of Iniquity tho they stand condemned by our Saviour may have an entrance into Heaven without true Conversion But such will find that De Poen c. 5. as Tertullian spake in a like Case Salvâ veniâ in Gehennam detrudentur notwithstanding their Pardon they will be cast down to Hell For if we say we have fellowship with him and walk in Darkness we lie and do not the Truth These Doctrines of Rome are fit for the Synagogue of Satan but no such unclean thing may enter into the Congregation of the Lord. But whomsoever they follow let us follow St. Peter to be diligent that we may be found of him in Peace without spot and blameless I now come to discourse of the Persons to whom this Ministration is committed which I shall speak to in a fourfold Consideration 1. To us the Officers of the Gospel-Dispensation not to the false Apostles nor yet to the Jewish Priesthood The Ministry of the New Testament excelleth that of the Old even as the New Covenant and the Grace of the Gospel goeth beyond the Law as the Apostle discourseth largely in the third Chapter of this second Epistle to the Corinthians The Legal Dispensation in general was a Dispensation of Condemnation which pronounced a Curse upon Offenders but gave not Power and Grace to perform Obedience and the external Observations therein enjoined were a heavy Yoke And that Acceptance which holy Men had with God under the Law was not from the particular Jewish Covenant as such but chiefly from the Terms of Grace declared to Abraham who is called the Father of the Circumcision to them who are not of the Circumcision only but who walk in the Steps of the Faith of Abraham Rom. 4.11 Indeed they had then Sacrifices for Sin and a Way of Atonement but these things as they were strictly legal did only tend to obtain the Favour of God that the Offenders should not be cut off or be exposed to Temporal Judgments But it was not possible that the Blood of Bulls and Goats should purge away Sins the Guilt of which their repeated Oblations did declare to continue And the Reverence to God and Obedience was in these Observations chiefly valuable But these Sacrifices as they fell under a more large Consideration were also Evidences of the Mercy of God in receiving Sinners and were Testimonies of God's particular Favour in being willing to bless that People if they would hear his Voice and obey him and did also adumbrate the Grace of the New Testament Rom. 3.21 which the Apostle tells us was witnessed by the Law and the Prophets But the Gospel-Ministration declareth Christ by his Mediation to have actually obtained and effected a compleat Way of Reconciliation and confirmed that Covenant which is established upon better Promises and is properly and eminently the Ministration of Righteousness proposing most excellent Blessings with a sure and plain way to obtain them and affording such Assistances as are needful And this Gospel-Reconciliation is so committed to the Ministry that they ministerially dispense the Blessings thereof by declaring its Doctrine by Benedictions and Absolutions and by dispensing the Sacramental Symbols of Divine Grace 2. To us with primary respect to St. Paul who wrote this Epistle and the other Apostles They were in a peculiar manner intrusted with the Ministry of Reconciliation for they were the chief Witnesses of Christ's Resurrection and the principal Testifiers of the Christian Faith and received their Doctrine and Office immediatly from Christ They were the Foundations next to Christ himself of the Christian Church and the infallible Guides thereof and were furnished with singular Assistances and the Power of the Holy-Ghost And the Extent of their Authority was in some parts thereof unconfined and unlimited even St. Paul saith he received Grace and Apostleship for Obedience to the Faith Rom. 1.5 among all Nations including Rome also divers Years after St. Peter was said to be Bishop there The Apostles were the highest Officers of the Christian Church 1 Cor. 12.28 Eph. 4.11 under Christ himself and the Scriptures tell us God set therein first Apostles and therefore none above them Indeed St. Peter whom we highly honour as an eminent Apostle had a kind of Primacy of Order yielded to him but with no design to depress the other Apostles above whom he had no distinction of Office The Power of binding and loosing promised to St. Peter Mat. 16.19 was on like manner given to them all Mat. 18.18 And that ample Commission John 20.21 23. As my Father sent me so send I you Whos 's soever Sins ye remit c. doth give them all an equal Authority And tho St. Paul was last called we read that St. Peter gave to him the right-hand of Fellowship Gal. 2.9 2. Cor. 11.5 Chap. 12.11 and in two several places of this second Epistle to the Corinthians the Holy-Ghost tells us he was in nothing behind the very chiefest Apostles And tho there are many Privileges and Prerogatives reckoned up to St. Peter in which Subject many Romish Writers are very diligent the Prerogatives of St. Paul upon due consideration will either equal them or not be much inferior to them It was St. Paul not St. Peter who was taken up into the third Heaven who saw our Saviour after his Ascension into Glory who laboured more abundantly than they all who was miraculously called and was in a peculiar manner the Apostle of the Gentiles and who wrote a much greater part of the New Testament than any other of the Apostles did And for that late Notion That the Power of the Keys was given only to St. Peter in that he was appointed by Christ singly to declare the Gospel first to the Gentiles both this confined sense of the Power of the Keys and of its being peculiar to S. Peter is against the sense of Antiquity and also that which is particularly insisted on is a mistake For though God by a Vision directed St. Peter to open the Door to the Gentiles yet all the Apostles had before that time the Commission which he first made use of to go and teach all Nations Mat. 28.19 Mar. 16.16 and