Christ, as all the Jewish worship was offered to God at the temple; for Christ is the only temple (in a strict and proper sense) of the Christian Church, and therefore he alone can render all our services acceptable to God. So that God, who is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is the only object of our worship; and Christ, considered as God incarnate, as God dwelling in human nature, is the only temple where all our worship must be offered to God, that is, we shall find acceptance with God only in his name and mediation. We must worship none other being but only the supreme God, and that only through Jesus Christ.

Thus under the law the priests were to intercede for the people, but not without sacrifice. Their intercession was founded in making atonement and expiation for sin; which plainly signified, that under the Gospel we can have no other mediator, but only him who expiates our sins, and intercedes in the merits of his sacrifice, who is our Priest and our Sacrifice, and therefore our Mediator, as St. John observes, 1 John ü. 1, 2, If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, and he is the propitiation for our sins." The law knew no such thing as a mediator of pure intercession, a mediator, who is no priest, and offers no sacrifice for us; and therefore the Gospel allows of no such mediators neither, who mediate only by their prayers, without a sacrifice, such mediators as the Church of Rome makes of saints and angels, and the Virgin Mary; but we have only one Mediator, a Mediator of Redemption, who has purchased us with his blood, of whom the priests under the law were types and figures.

Thus under the law, none but the high priest was to enter into the holy of holies with the blood of the sacrifice. Now the holy of holies was a type of heaven, and therefore this plainly signified, that under the Gospel there should be but one high priest and mediator, Heb. x. 12, to offer up our prayers and supplications in heaven, he, and he only, who enters into heaven with his own blood, as the high priest went into the holy of holies with the blood of the sacrifice. There may be a great many priests and advocates on earth to intercede for us, as there were under the law great numbers of priests, the sons of Aaron, to attend the service and ministry of the temple, but we have, and can have, but one priest and mediator in heaven.

Whoever acknowledges that the priesthood and ministry of

the law was typical of the Evangelical priesthood and worship, cannot avoid the force of this argument; and whoever will not acknowledge this must reject most of St. Paul's Epistles, especially the Epistle to the Hebrews, which proceeds wholly upon this way of reasoning: now this manifestly justifies the worship of the Church of England, as true Christian worship; for we worship one God through one Mediator, who offered himself a sacrifice for us, when he was on earth, and intercedes for us as our High Priest in heaven, which answers to the one temple, and the one high priest under the law: but though the Church of Rome does what we do, worship the supreme God through Jesus Christ, yet she spoils the analogy between the type and the antitype, the legal and evangelical worship, by doing more; when she sends us to the shrines and altars of so many several saints, surely this cannot answer to that one temple at Jerusalem, where God alone was to be worshipped; there are as many temples and mercy-seats now, as there are shrines and altars of saints and angels, by whose intercession we may obtain our requests of God. When she advances saints and angels to the office of mediators and intercessors in heaven, this contradicts the type of one high priest, who alone might enter into the holy of holies, which was a type of heaven; for there is some difference between having one mediator in heaven (and there can be no more under the Gospel to answer to the typical high priest under the law), and having a hundred mediators in heaven together with our typical High Priest. To have a mediator of pure intercession in heaven, who never offered any sacrifice for us, cannot answer to the high priest under the law, who could not enter into the holy of holies without the blood of the sacrifice. The high priest entering but once a year into the holy of holies, which was typical of Christ's entering once into heaven to intercede for us, cannot be reconciled with a new succession of mediators as often as the Pope of Rome pleases to canonize them. So that either the law was not typical of the state of the Gospel, or the worship of saints and angels, which is so contrary to all the types and figures of the law, cannot be true Christian worship.

Sixthly, I shall add but one thing more; that Christ and his Apostles have made no alteration in the object of worship, appears from hence, that de facto there is no such law in the Gospel for the worship of any other being besides the one supreme God. There is a great deal against it, as I have already shewn; but if there had been nothing against it, it had

been argument enough against any such alteration, that there is no express positive law for it. The force of which argument does not consist merely in the silence of the Gospel, that there is nothing said for it (which the most learned advocates of the Church of Rome readily grant, and give their reasons, such as they are, why this was not done, why we are not directed to pray to saints and angels, and images, &c.), but the argument lies in this, That there can be no alteration made in the object of worship without an express law; and therefore there is no alteration made, because there is no such law in the Gospel.

The Jews were expressly commanded to worship no other being but the Lord Jehovah, as I have proved, which law appropriates all the acts of religious worship to one God; and therefore all those who were under the obligation of this law (as to be sure all natural Jews were), could not, without the guilt of idolatry, give any religious worship to any other being, till this law were expressly repealed, and express leave given to worship some other divine being besides the supreme God; so that at least our Saviour himself, while he was on earth, and subject to the law, and his Apostles, and all believing Jews, were obliged by this law to worship none but God, unless we can shew where Christ by his legislative authority, or his Apostles by commission from him, have expressly repealed this law; nay indeed, unless we can shew that Christ himself repealed this law, and taught the worship of saints and angels, the Apostles themselves could have no authority to do it, for their commission was only to teach what Christ had commanded them, Matth. xxviii. 20; which though it does not extend to matters of order and discipline, and the external circumstances of worship, yet it does to all the essentials of faith and worship, and I think the right object of worship is the most essential thing in religious worship.

From hence it appears, that at least all the Jewish Christians in the Apostles' days, and all succeeding ages to this day, cannot worship saints and angels without idolatry, because the law, which was given to them, and never yet repealed, commands them to worship none but God; and if Gentile converts were received into the Jewish Christian Church (and Christ has but one Church of Jews and Gentiles), they must also be obliged by all those laws, which were then, and are still obligatory to all believing Jews; and therefore Gentile as well as Jewish Christians, are still bound to worship none but God.

Now I think I need not prove that an express law can be repealed only by an express law. That law which commands us to worship God, and him only, must continue in full force till God do as expressly declare, that he allows us to pay some degree of religious worship to other beings besides himself: when a lawgiver has declared his will and pleasure by a law, it is not fit that subjects should be allowed to guess at his mind, and dispute away an express law by some surmises and consequences, how probable soever they may appear; for at this rate a law signifies nothing, if we may guess at the will of our lawgiver, without and against an express law. And yet none of the advocates of the Church of Rome (though they are not usually guilty of too much modesty) ever had the confidence to pretend an express law for the worship of saints and angels, and images, &c. and though they sometimes allege Scripture to prove this by, yet they do not pretend that they are direct proofs, but only attempts to prove some other doctrines from Scripture, from which they think they may prove by some probable consequences, that which the Scripture nowhere plainly teaches; nay, the contrary to which is expressly taught in Scripture. And if this may be allowed, I know no law of God so plain and express, but a witty man may find ways to escape the obligation of it. This is a consideration of great moment, and therefore I shall discourse more particularly of it.

The law of Moses expressly commands us to worship God, and him only; our Saviour owns and confirms the authority of this law in the Gospel; the Church of Rome, notwithstanding this law, gives religious worship to creatures: the question then is, how she avoids the force of this law, since it is nowhere expressly repealed, and she does not pretend that it is. Now the patrons of creature-worship think to justify themselves from the breach of this law these three ways: 1. By consequences drawn, as they pretend, from other Scripture doctrines. 2. By distinctions. And, 3. By authority. Let us then examine, whether all this have any force against an express law, which was never expressly repealed.

1. By consequences drawn, as they pretend, from other Scripture doctrines. And I shall discourse this with a particular reference to the invocation of saints. For when they would prove the lawfulness of praying to saints, they allege no direct proof of this from Scripture; but because they must make a show of saying something from Scripture, when they

are to deal with such heretics as will be satisfied with no less authority, they endeavour to prove something else from Scripture, from whence they think by an easy consequence they can prove the lawfulness of praying to saints.

Thus they very easily prove, that we may and ought to pray for one another, and to desire each other's prayers while we are on earth: and from hence they presently conclude that we may as lawfully pray to saints in heaven to pray for us, as beg and desire their prayers while they are on earth.

And to confirm this, they endeavour to prove that some extraordinary saints, whose merits are very great, do directly ascend up into heaven into the immediate presence of God, and a participation of his glory; and hence they conclude, that they have authority and power to help us and to intercede for us, and that they are so far advanced above us in this mortal state that they deserve some kind of religious honour and worship from us, as being dii per participationem, gods by participation, that is, by partaking in the divine nature and glory by their advancement to heaven.

And if after all this they can prove, that the saints in heaven do pray and intercede for us on earth, they think the demonstration is complete and perfect, that therefore "It is good and profitable (as the Council of Trent words it) humbly to invoke the saints after the manner of supplicants, and to fly to their prayers and help and aid to obtain blessings of God by his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who is our only (not Intercessor and Advocate, but) Redeemer and Saviour."*

Now how they prove all this is not my business at present to inquire; but my inquiry is, whether such arguments as these be sufficient to oppose against the authority of an express law? And if they be, truly I think it a very vain thing either for God or men to make any laws. For,

1. I desire to know what these gentlemen would prove by such kind of arguments as these. Suppose we should grant them that the saints are received into heaven before the resurrection, and are actually possessed of all that glory and

* Bonum atque utile esse suppliciter Sanctos invocare, et ob beneficia impetranda a Deo per Filium ejus Jesum Christum Dominum nostrum, qui solus noster Redemptor et Salvator est, ad eorum Orationes opem auxiliumque confugere. Concil. Trid. 16. 25. De Invocat. [Sess. xxv.] [The decree adds, illos vero qui asserunt stultum esse in cœlo regnantibus (sanctis) voce vel mente supplicare, impie sentire.]