It might suffice to say, there is not one word of all this in Scripture. But there is much against it. We read that Elijah was taken up into heaven, 2 Kings ii. 11. And he and Moses appeared in glory, Matt. xvii. 2. And Abraham is represented as in Paradise, Luke xvi. 22, the blessed abode of good men in the other world. Therefore none of these were in the Limbus Patrum. Consequently, if the Bible is true, there is no such place.

SECTION III.-Of Divine Worship.

1. The service of the Roman church consists of prayers to God, angels, and saints, of lessons and of confessions of faith.

All their service is every where performed in the Latin tongue, which is no where vulgarly understood.. Yea, it is required, and a curse is denounced against all those who say it ought to be performed in the vulgar tongue.

This irrational and unscriptural practice destroys the great end of public worship. The end of this is, the honour of God in the edification of the church. The means to this end is, to have the service so performed, as may inform the mind and increase devotion. But this cannot be done by that service which is performed in an unknown tongue. "If

What St. Paul judged of this, is clear from his own words. I know not the meaning of the voice, (of him that speaks in a public assembly,) he that speaketh shall be a barbarian to me," 1 Cor. xiv. 11. Again, "If thou shalt bless by the Spirit, (by the gift of an unknown tongue,) how shall the unlearned say, Amen ?" ver. 16. How can the people be profited by the lessons, answer at the responses, be devout in their prayers, confess their faith in the creeds, when they do not understand what is read, prayed, and confessed? It is manifest then, that the having any part of divine worship in an unknown tongue, is as flatly contrary to the Word of God, as it is to

reason.

2. From the manner of worship in the church of Rome, proceed we to the objects of it. Now the Romanists worship, besides angels, the Virgin Mary, and other saints. They teach, that angels, in particular, are to be "worshipped, invoked, and prayed to.". And they have litanies and other prayers composed for that purpose.

In flat opposition to all this, the words of our Saviour are, “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." To evade this, they say, "The worship we give to angels is not of the same kind with that which we give to God." Vain words! What kind of worship is peculiar to God, if prayer is not? Surely God alone can receive all our prayers, and give what we pray for. We honour the angels, as they are God's ministers; but we dare not worship or pray to them. It is what they themselves refuse and abhor. So, when "St. John fell down at the feet of the angel to wor ship him, he said, See thou do it not. I am thy fellow-servant: worship God!" Rev. xix. 10.

3. The Romanists also worship saints. They pray to them as their intercessors. They confess their sins to them: they offer incense and make vows to them. Yea, they venerate their very images

and relics.

Now all this is directly contrary to Scripture. And, first, the worshipping them as intercessors. For as "there is but one God to us, though there are gods many, and lords many :" so, according to Scripture, there is but one Intercessor or Mediator to us. (1 Cor. viii. 5.) And suppose the angels or saints intercede for us in heaven, yet may we no more worship them, than because there are gods many on earth, we may worship them as we do the true God.

The Romanists allow, "there is only one Mediator of Redemption:" but say, "there are many mediators of intercession." We answer, The Scripture knows no difference between a Mediator of Intercession and of Redemption. He alone who died and rose again for us, makes intercession for us at the right hand of God. And he alone has a right to our prayers, nor dare we address them to any other.

4. The worship which the Romanists give to the Virgin Mary, is beyond what they give either to angels or other saints. In one of their public offices, they say, "Command thy son by the right of a mother." They pray to her, to "loose the bands of the guilty, to bring light to the blind, to make them mild and chaste, and to cause their hearts to burn in love to Christ."

Such worship as this cannot be given to any creature, without gross, palpable idolatry. We honour the blessed Virgin, as the mother of the Holy Jesus, and as a person of eminent piety. But we dare not give worship to her; for it belongs to God alone.

Meantime we cannot but wonder at the application which the church of Rome continually makes to her, of whose acts on earth the Scripture so sparingly speaks. And it says nothing of, (what they so pompously celebrate,) her assumption into heaven, or of her exaltation to a throne above angels or archangels. It says nothing of her being "the mother of Grace and Mercy, the Queen of the gate of heaven," or of her "power to destroy all heresies," and being "all things to all."

5. The Romanists pay a regard to the relics of the saints also, which is a kind of worship. By relics they mean the bodies of the saints, or any remains of them, or particular things belonging or relating to them when they were alive; as an arm or thigh, bones or ashes; or the place where, or the things by which they suffered. They venerate these, in order to obtain the help of the saints. And they believe "by these, many benefits are conferred on mankind : that by these relics of the saints, the sick have been cured, the dead raised, and devils cast out."

We read of good king Hezekiah, that "he brake in pieces the brazen serpent which Moses had made." 2 Kings xviii. 4. And the reason was, because the children of Israel burnt incense to it. looking up to this, the people bitten by the fiery serpents had been

By

healed. And it was preserved from generation to generation, as a memorial of that divine operation. Yet when it was abused to idolatry, he ordered it to be broken in pieces. And were these true relics of the saints, and did they truly work these miracles, yet that would be no sufficient cause for the worship that is given them. Rather this worship would be a good reason, according to Hezekiah's practice, for giving them a decent interment.

6. Let us next consider, what reverence the church of Rome requires to be given to images and pictures. She requires "to kiss them; to uncover the head; to fall down before them, and use all such postures of worship as they would to the persons represented if present." And accordingly "the priest is to direct the people to them, that they may be worshipped.' They say, indeed, that "in falling down before the image, they worship the saint or angel whom it represents." We answer, 1. We are absolutely forbidden in Scripture, to worship saints or angels themselves: Secondly, We are expressly forbidden "to fall down and worship any image, or likeness, of any thing in heaven or earth," whomsoever it may represent. This, therefore, is flat idolatry, directly contrary to the commandment of God.

7. Such likewise, without all possibility of evasion, is the worship they pay to the cross. They pray, that God may make the wood of the cross, to "be the stability of faith, an increase of good works, the redemption of souls."

They use all expressions of outward adoration, as kissing and falling down before it. They pray directly to it, to "increase grace in the ungodly, and blot out the sins of the guilty." Yea, they give Latria to it. And this they themselves say, "is the sovereign worship that is due only to God."

But, indeed, they have no authority from Scripture, for their distinction between Latria and Dulia; the former of which they say, is due to God alone, the latter that which is due to saints. But here they have forgotten their own distinction. For although they own Latria is due only to God, yet they do in fact give it to the cross. This, then, by their own account, is flat idolatry.

8. And so it is to represent the blessed Trinity by pictures and images, and to worship them. Yet these are made in every Romish country, and recommended to the people to be worshipped: although there is nothing more expressly forbidden in Scripture, than to make any image or representation of God. God himself never appeared in any bodily shape. The representation of "the Ancient of Days," mentioned in Daniel, was a mere prophetical figure, and did no more literally belong to God, than the eyes or ears that are ascribed to him in Scripture.

SECTION IV. Of the Sacraments.

1. THE church of Rome says, "A sacrament is a sensible thing instituted by God himself, as a sign and a means of grace."

"The sacraments are seven, baptism, confirmation, the Lord's supper, penance, extreme unction, orders, and marriage."

"The parts of a sacrament are, the matter, and the form or words of consecration. So in baptism, the matter is water; the form, 'I baptize thee,' &c."

On this we remark, Peter Lombard lived about 1110 years after Christ. And he was the first that ever determined the sacraments

to be seven. St. Austin (a greater than he) positively affirms,

"that there are but two of Divine institution."

Again, To say, That a sacrament consists of matter and form, and yet either has no form, as confirmation and extreme unction, (neither of which is ever pretended to have any form of words, instituted by God himself,) or has neither matter nor form, as penance, or marriage, is to make them sacraments and no sacraments. For they do not answer that definition of a sacrament which themselves have given.

2. However, they teach, that "all these seven confer grace ex opere operato, by the work itself, on all such as do not put an obstruction." Nay, it is not enough, that we do not put an obstruction. In order to our receiving grace, there is also required previous instruction, true repentance, and a degree of faith. And even then, the grace does not spring merely ex opere operato: it does not proceed from the mere elements, or the words spoken: but from the blessing of God, in consequence of his promise to such as are qualified for it.

Equally erroneous is that doctrine of the church of Rome, that "in order to the validity of any sacrament, it is absolutely necessary the person who administers it, should do it with a holy intention." For it follows, that wherever there is not this intention, the sacrament is null and void. And so there is no certainty, whether the priest, so called, be a real priest? For who knows the intention of him that ordained him? And if he be not, all his ministrations are of course null and void. But if he be, can I be sure that his intention was holy in administering the baptism or the Lord's supper? And if it was not, they are no sacraments at all, and all our attendance on them is lost labour.

3. So much for the sacraments in general, let us now proceed to particulars.

"Baptism, say the Romanists, may, in case of necessity, be adininistered by women, yea, by Jews, infidels, or heretics." No: our Lord gave this commission only to the apostles, and their successors in the ministry.

The ceremonies which the Romanists use in baptism are these: Before baptism, 1. Chrism, that is, oil mixed with water is to be consecrated. 2. Exorcism, that is, the priest is to blow in the face of the child, saying, "Go out of him Satan!" 3. He crosses the VOL. 10.-F

forehead, eyes, breast, and several other parts of the body. 4. He puts exorcised salt into his mouth, saying, "Take the salt of wisdom." 5. He puts spittle into the palm of his left hand, puts the forefinger of his right hand into it, and anoints the child's nose and ears therewith, who is then brought to the water.

After baptism, first, he anoints the top of the child's head with chrism, as a token of salvation: secondly, he puts on him a white garment, in token of his innocence: and, thirdly, he puts a lighted candle into his hand, in token of the light of faith.

Now what can any man of understanding say, in defence of these idle ceremonies, utterly unknown in the primitive church, as well as unsupported by Scripture? Do they add dignity to the ordinance of God? Do they not rather make it contemptible?

4. The matter of confirmation is the chrism, which is an ointment consecrated by the bishop. The form is, the words he uses in crossing the forehead with the chrism, namely, "I sign thee with the sign of a cross, and confirm thee with the chrism of salvation, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost."

Then the person confirmed, setting his right foot on the right foot of his godfather, is to have his head bound with a clean headband: which, after some days, is to be taken off and reserved till the next Ash-Wednesday, to be then burnt to holy ashes.

The Roman Catechism says, "Sacraments cannot be instituted by any besides God." But it must be allowed, Christ did not institute confirmation, therefore it is no sacrament at all.

5. We come now to one of the grand doctrines of the church of Rome, that which regards the Lord's supper. This therefore we would wish to consider with the deepest attention. They say, "In the Lord's supper, whole Christ is really, truly, and substantially contained; God-man, body-and blood, bones and nerves, under the appearance of bread and wine."

They attempt to prove it thus: "Our Lord himself says, This is my body. Therefore, upon consecration, there is a conversion of the whole substance of the bread, into the whole substance of Christ's body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood and this is usually termed Transubstantiation.

"Yet we must not suppose, that Christ is broken, when the host (or consecrated bread) is broken; because there is whole and entire Christ, under the species of every particle of bread, and under the species of every drop of wine."

We answer, No such change of the bread into the body of Christ, can be inferred from his words, "This is my body." For it is not said, "This is changed into my body;" but, "This is my body :" which, if it were to be taken literally, would rather prove the substance of the bread to be his body. But that they are not to be taken literally is manifest from the words of St. Paul, who calls it bread, not only before but likewise after the consecration, 1 Cor. x. 17. chap. xi. ver. 26, 27, 28. Here we see, that what was called his body, was bread at the same time. And accordingly these