But this is only to understand the Actions and Ceremonies not the words and cannot answer the end of publick Prayer which is to offer up our common Petitions to God with one Heart and Mind The use of words in publick Prayer is to direct and determine our Thoughts and to excite our Affections for this Reason the Priest reads the Prayers with an audible Voice that all the People may joyn with him and these indeed are Publick and Common Prayers but now in the Church of Rome the Priest reads the Prayers but the People do not joyn with him because they do not understand him but the most they can do is by Actions and Ceremonies to guess at what part of the Service he is and either only look on or if they be very Devout entertain themselves with some good Pious Thoughts or put up some private Prayers to God or it may be to the Virgin Mary or some Saint while the Priest is saying Mass and thus the Priest prays by himself and the People if they do pray pray by themselves and have no other Benefit of the Publick Offices of the Church but only to see what the Priest does which at best can only fill them with some Religious Amusements or with confused and indistinct and Enthusiastick Devotions It is plain that in the Church of Rome the Devotions of the People are left to their own Extempore Conceits which is a thousand times worse than the Extempore Prayers of the Preachers who may be Men of Parts and Learning and able to suggest very Proper Petitions and very Pious Thoughts and to excite very Devout Passions in their Hearers and is it not very odd that the Church should have settled Forms of Divine Offices Composed Forms of Prayer and Praise and yet the People who will pray must be left to their Extempore Devotions is this also for the Edification of the Church Is not this Fanaticism with a Witness To conclude this Argument I know no practise in the World more directly contrary to the sense of all Mankind than Prayers in an unknown Tongue There was no Nation nor no Religion in the World ever professedly guilty of it but the Church of Rome and there can be no Reason imaginable why they should conceal their Worship unless they are ashamed of it or suspect that no disinterested Man can like it when he knows it and it is as odd a Task to prove that Men must understand their Prayers as it would be to prove that the use of Speech is to be understood 15. A Company of Christians voluntarily separating from all other Christian Societies condemning their Doctrines and Rites destitute also of any visible correspondence with them in the Eucharist in any Religious Assemblies or Solemn Devotions can notwithstanding this perverse intire and manifest Separation be a Mystical Member of Christ in Catholick Unity and a Charitable part of the Catholick Church In answer to this I told him that if he applies this to us it is manifestly false for though we do not Communicate with the Church of Rome in her corrupt Worship yet there are many Christian Churches with which we can and do Communicate and separate our selves no farther from any Society of Christians than they separate themselves from the Primitive and Apostolick Church that if the Church of England be a true Apostolick Church in Faith and Worship and Government and separates from other Churches only upon account of such Corruptions as will justifie a separation what should hinder her from being a Mystical Member of Christ in Catholick Unity and a Charitable part of the Catholick Church for a true Apostolick Faith and Worship does certainly make us the Mystical Members of Christs Body or else I desire to know what does That Catholick Unity is not violated by a just separation and dangerous Corruptions in Faith and Worship are a just cause of separation Come out from among them and be ye separate saith the Lord and touch not the unclean thing and I will receive you 2 Cor 6. 17. All that our Author replies to this is that This Proposition relates to matter of Fact which we affirm Protestants to have done and desire them to make out by Scripture the Lawfulness of it and its consistency with Catholick Unity and Charity But I denied that we had done this and gave him in short my Reasons why I denied it which methinks might have deserved some notice and as for our separation from the Corruptions of the Church of Rome that I gave him my Reasons for and such as it seems he had no mind to answer that separation might sometimes be lawful and necessary and therefore not chargeable with Schism nor a breach of Catholick Unity I proved from the Text now quoted Come out from among them c. to which he says If I intend this for a Proof then it must import that it is the Duty of one Christian or a Party pretending to be a National Church to come out of the Catholick Church and be separate from her less than this will not reach the Protestant Case and so much as this will by no means agree with one Holy Church wherein alone the Communion of Saints Remission of Sins and Life Everlasting are to be found But how is this the Protestant Case How does separation from the Church of Rome and that no farther neither than she is Corrupt come to be a separation from the Catholick Church He knows that we deny the Church of Rome to be the Catholick Church and we know that he can never prove it to be so and whatever Church or Churches have corrupted the Faith and Worship of Christ we shall make no scruple at all to separate from them in such Corruptions and have the whole Gospel to justifie us in it for in such Cases we are under the same obligation to separate that we are to profess the true Faith and practise the true Worship of Christ. All that can be charged upon the Church of England is that she renounced the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome and denied Obedience and Subjection to that See which never had any Divine Right to claim it and that she reformed those Errors in Doctrine and Corruptions in Worship which she formerly was guilty of This charge we readily own but deny that this is Schism of Separation from the Catholick Church For till our Author can prove that the Unity of the Catholick Church consists in subjection to the Bishop of Rome it is ridiculous to charge us with breaking Catholick Unity by denying that Obedience which we do not owe and when he can prove this essential to Catholick Unity to submit to the Bishop of Rome as the visible Head of the Church we will own our selves to be Schismaticks But then I must mind him what he is to prove viz. that by a Divine Institution the Bishop of Rome is the visible Head of Unity to whom all Churches must
to mend Christian Religion but to return to Primitive Christianity To cast such Doctrines out of our Creed as Christ never taught and to reject all new and suspected Worships And if it be always a Duty to profess what Christ and his Apostles have taught and to practise as they have commanded then if ever we believed or practised otherwise it is necessary to reform which is not in a proper sense to reform the Church or the Christian Faith and Worship but to reform our selves For the Christian Faith and Worship is always the same and if there be any thing to be reformed it must be our own Errors and Mistakes What then is the Fault of the Church of England Why cannot she be a mystical Member of Christ in Catholick Unity or a charitable part of the Catholick Church The Charge is drawn up against her under three Heads 1. That she voluntarily separates from all other Christian Societies 2. Condemns their Doctrines and Rights 3. Has no visible Correspondence with them in the Eucharist nor in any religious Assemblies nor solemn Devotions Let us consider these distinctly 1. The Church of England voluntarily separates from all other Christian Societies This I told him was false as to matter of Fact for there are a great many Christian Societies which we can and do hold Communion with as opportunity serves and he can never make good this Charge but by denying that there are any other Christian Societies besides the Church of Rome which I suppose is what he intends Well! we do separate he says and that voluntarily from the Church of Rome that is from all Christian Societies Now I grant we do separate from the Bishop and the Church of Rome considered as the Principle and Center of Catholick Unity as I observed before but considered as a Christian Church so I deny that we separate from the Church of Rome or any other Christian Church as far as they are Christian and we are bound to communicate with them no farther For I pray consider what Christian Communion is which certainly is nothing else but to communicate in the true Christian Faith and Worship for to communicate in Judaism Paganism Mahumatism or any unchristian Doctrines or Practices certainly is not Christian Communion And therefore every Church is more or less perfect in Christian Communion according to the Purity and Perfection of her Faith and Worship If then the Church of England professes the true Christian Faith and worships God according to the Gospel of his Son without any corrupt Mixtures and Innovations as far as true Faith and Worship reaches she is in Communion with all the Christian Churches in the World for she agrees with them in all that they believe or practise which is truly Christian and Christian Communion extends no farther Well but when the whole Church was agreed in Faith and Worship we broke this Bond of Unity by a pretended Reformation Suppose this the Question still is Whether this Unity of the Church was a Christian Communion for if it were not it is no Separation from the Christian Church to leave its Communion in those things which are not Christian And therefore the whole Controversie will still turn upon this Point whether the Reformation of the Church of England be a true Gospel Reformation for if we reformed nothing but what ought to be reformed then we separated no farther than we ought to separate and such a Separation if you will call it a Separation I hope is no Crime Did Elias separate from the Jewish Church because he broke their Unity in the Worship of Baal and reduced them to the Institutions of the Moisaick Law which was the Standard of their Religion and Communion Just so the Church of England separated from the Church of Rome by rejecting those Articles of Faith and Forms of Worship which are not Christian. Some kind of Separation indeed there must be between a pure and a corrupt Church but if you would know on which side the Separation is criminal you must consider on which side the corruption is for necessary Truths can never make a criminal Separation The Church which forsakes the Truth is always guilty of the Separation not the Church which forsakes Errors and therefore it is a ridiculous thing to charge those with the Schism who only forsake the Company when those are the Schismaticks who forsake the Truth And yet this is the only pretence for the Church of Rome to charge us with Schism That they did not leave us but we left them they kept where they were and we went out from among them and forsook their Communion but it was because they had first forsaken the Apostolick Communion by corrupting the Apostolick Faith and Worship They were the Deserters and Separatists we only returned to the true Christian Communion and were very sorry to leave them behind us The short of it is this if we cannot justifie our Reformation we are Schismaticks if we can we are none And I would desire all Protestants to take notice of this short Answer and stick to it for it is as certain as any Demonstration in Euolid that no man can be a Schismatick who forsakes no Society of Christians any farther than they forsake the Truth 2. The next charge is that we condemn their Doctrines and their Rights but do we condemn any thing which ought not to be condemned if we do it is indeed a fault but if we don't why are we blamed for it 3. We have no visible Correspondence with them in the Eucharist nor in any Religious Assemblies nor Solemn Devotions How so we visibly receive the Eucharist our selves and perform our Solemn Devotions in Publick Assemblies and this is to Communicate with the whole Christian Church in the same Sacraments and Worship and the only way that distant Churches have to Communicate with each other in Sacraments and Worship unless he thinks the Church of England must travel into France and Spain and Italy into Greece and AEgypt and all other remote Churches to Communicate with them No but when their Worship is brought home to us we refuse to joyn with them right for according to the Laws of Catholick Communion when they are in England they ought to Communicate with us not we with them according to St. Austins Rule to observe the Rights and Usages of the Church whither soever we come as far as they are Innocent if we denied to receive them to our Communion they might with better reason charge us with Schism but we are not bound to forsake the Communion of our own Church to follow Foreign Customs at home But when we do come where their Worship is the Established Religion we still refuse to Communicate with them we do so indeed with the Roman Church but not with all other Christian Societies and the Reason is because we believe their Worship is sinful and no Christian is bound to Communicate in a sinful Worship as they themselves
should incline Men to expound those words of our Saviour This is my Body of his Natural Body contrary to all the Sacramental forms of speech used in Scripture did they not think it meritorious to believe impossibilities and contradictions To return then a more direct Answer to our Author's question what there is besides Substance and Efficacy belonging to our Saviour's Body I answer by Nature there is nothing else but by Institution there is for there is the Sacrament of the Lord's Body which is neither the natural Substance nor the natural Efficacy of his Body but a Sacramental Communion in the merits and Efficacy of his Death and Passion which is a spiritual eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood of Christ. And since he wants Scripture for this I will give him a very piain Text 1 Cor. 10. 16. The cup of Blessing which we bless is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ the Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ. Thus S. Paul explains what our Saviour said This is my Body and This is my Blood by this is the Communion of Christ's Body and Blood That is that those who by Faith partake of the Sacramental Bread and Wine do communicate in the Body and Blood of Christ. This is a different thing from the mere influences of his Grace for it is our interest and Communion in his Sacrifice which is the meritorious cause and spring of all Divine Influences and Communications We must be mystically and spiritually united to Christ to have Communion in the Sacrifice of his Body and Blood and then we receive the fresh supplies of Grace from him which are the purchase of his Death and the effect of our Union to him and this Communion with the Body and Blood of Christ we receive in the Lord's Supper which is instituted by Christ for that very purpose and therefore it is called the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ because it is the Sacrament of our Union to him whereby we communicate in his Body and Blood and if this be Zuinglianism I see no help for it but we must be contented to be Zuinglians VI. Adoration of the Eucharist i. e. of our Saviour under the species of Bread and Wine is Idolatry I answered There was no such proposition as this taught in the Church of England We teach indeed that Bread and Wine in the Eucharist remains Bread and Wine after Consecration and that to adore Bread and Wine is Idolatry To adore our Saviour is no Idolatry but to adore Bread and Wine for our Saviour may be as much Idolatry as to worship the Sun for God. Instead of answering this he tells us This blasphemous Tenet is taught by our Church and which is a little worse is practised by theirs For the majority of our pretended Bishops did Vote for the Test and do all of them take it and I hope will keep it too That it is a Canon of our General Council the Parliament and therefore it is very good Law and that is all we desire for our Religion from Parliaments and thank God that we have it and since they are a General Council may they insist upon their Infallibility But what is the matter with the Test Why it declares our Adoration of the Eucharist which is the Adoration of nothing but Iesus Christ to be Idolatry Is the Eucharist then nothing but Jesus Christ does the Council of Trent say so Is this the Doctrine of any of their Schoolmen Canonists or Divines Nay will this Author venture to say that the Eucharist is nothing but Jesus Christ himself Which is speck and span New Popery if this be the Doctrine of the Church of Rome No! he does not dares not say that the Eucharist is nothing but Jesus Christ but he says that the Adoration of the Eucharist is the Adoration of nothing but Iesus Christ. But what palpable nonsence is this For if the Eucharist be something which is not Jesus Christ then the Adoration of the Eucharist must be the Adoration of something which is not Jesus Christ. And yet though we should suppose the Doctrine of Transubstantiation to be true yet the natural Flesh and Blood of Christ according to the Doctrine of the Council of Trent though it be present in the Sacrament is not the Sacrament For there can be no Sacrament of the Eucharist without the species of Bread and Wine and yet the Council of Trent decrees that the worship of Latria which is due to the true God be given to this most Holy Sacrament And that we might know what they meant by the Sacrament they tell us it is that which is instituted by Christ to be received or eaten which certainly is the species of Bread and Wine For they being sensible how absurd it is to worship what we eat to prevent this they tell us that it is nevertheless to be adored because it is instituted to be received or eaten The reason indeed they give for it is because Christ is present in this Sacrament but though the presence of Christ be the reason of this Adoration yet the whole Sacrament is the object which is not merely the natural Body and Blood of Christ but the species of Bread and Wine under which is contained the Body and Blood of Christ and therefore to adore the Sacrament is not to adore nothing but Iesus Christ for the Sacrament is somewhat more But then if the Doctrine of Transubstantiation be false they have no other object of their worship but Bread and Wine and thus the Church of England believes and thus our General Council the Parliament which made the Test believed and thus all Men who dare trust their own Senses and Reason believe and if it be blasphemy to teach that the worship of Bread and Wine is Idolatry some of the mâ—st Learned Divines of the Church of Rome have been guilty of this Blasphemy and I should be glad to hear what our Authors opinion is of it VII All Christians whenever they communicate are obliged to receive in both kinds For this I urged the express words of institution which do as expresly command us to drink of the Cup as to eat of the Bread so that if there be any command in Scripture to receive the Bread there is the same command to receive the Cup nay indeed as if our Saviour had purposely intended to prevent this Sacrilegious taking away of the Cup from the People whereas in delivering the Bread he only says Take Eat when he blessed and delivered the Cup he expresly commanded Drink ye all of it And I further argued from the nature of the Eucharist which as it was instituted in both kinds so it is not a compleat Sacrament without it and yet our Author rubs his forehead and confidently tells his Readers Nor for this point can a Scripture command be discovered in the Answer Though the thirtieth Article affirms that
Gold that must be burnt and dissolved before we can pass through this Fire into Heaven now though this be very unintelligible also how a material Fire can purge and refine a Soul yet it shows how much this differs from the Popish Purgatory which burns and torments indeed but does not purge and refine and therefore is very improperly called a Purgatory Fire Origen indeed whom Cardinal Bellarmine and others quote for this Purgatory Fire as they do also Plato and Virgil did believe a Purgatory Fire in a true and proper sense for he believed all punishments whether in this World or in the next were only Purgatory that is not meerly for punishment but for the correction and amendment of those who suffered And therefore he did also believe that the very worst of Men nay the Devils themselves should at last be purged and cleansed by Fire and restored to a state of happiness The summ of his Opinion in short was this That at the Day of Judgment Christ will destroy this World with Fire as he is said to come in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God. And this Fire which shall burn the World at the last Day seems to be that Purgatory Fire of which Origen and some other Fathers speak Though I know some thought this Fire to be in the upper Regions so as to intercept our ascent into Heaven without passing through it This will try all Men for all must pass through this Fire as the Ancients believed and those who had Hay or Stubble or any combustible matter about them who had any remains of corruption to be purged away must stay in it a longer or shorter time till they were thoroughly purged from their sins this as you have heard was the general opinion of the Fathers as well as of Origen and therefore Origen's Purgatory Fire is not the Popish Purgatory because that is not kindled till the Day of Judgment But then Origen thought that this purgation extended to the worst of Men and to Devils themselves that though they might lie many Ages in this Fire before they are perfectly purged yet they should be purged at last and restored to the favour and enjoyment of God. For which he was generally condemned by the Ancient Christians and principally by the Fifth general Council And yet there were other Fathers who were in some degree tainted with this opinion For there are plain marks of it in Gregory Nyssen if his works were not corrupted by the Origenists as some suspect and in S. Hierome himself For though some would not allow of the final Salvation of Devils yet they believed this of all Mankind though never so wicked others thought this must be confined to all Christians others to all those Christians who were not guilty of Heresie or Schism how wicked soever they were otherwise These opinions are rejected and condemned by the Romanists as well as by us and therefore they ought not to alledge such Authorities as these which are nothing to their purpose For that there will be such a fire at the day of Judgment does not prove that there is one already kindled and a Purgatory fire which cleanses and purges our sins does not prove that there is such a Purgatory Fire as is only to punish those whose sins are already pardoned and cleansed Fourthly There is another considerable difference between this Popish Purgatory and the fire at the day of Judgment that there is no redemption out of this by the Prayers and Alms and Masses of the living which is the most considerable thing in the Popish Purgatory and that for which I fear the Church of Rome does principally value it For this sets a good price upon Indulgences gives great Authority to their Priests inriches their Monasteries and is the great support of the Roman Hierarchy But as the Fathers say not one word about this so the account I have already given of their opinions is a demonstration that they could not think of any such thing because this fire is not till the day of Judgment and then I suppose when we all come to be judged you will grant it is too late to offer Prayers and Alms and Masses for the Redemption of our selves or others from these Purgatory flames The Fathers thought that we must all undergo this purgation by fire which would be longer or shorter as we had more or fewer sins to be purged away and therefore here can be no place for the suffrages and intercessions of the living According to the Popish Doctrine those Souls who are redeemed out of Purgatory must be redeemed before the day of Judgment and those who are not redeemed before are on course redeemed then for the Roman Purgatory must end at the day of Judgment though the Purgatory fire the Fathers speak of does but begin then Thirdly This gives occasion to another observation That the ancient practice of Praying for Souls departed does not prove that there is a Popish Purgatory or that those ancient Christians did believe that there was That this was a very ancient practice I readily grant as all Men must do who know any thing of these matters and yet from what I have discoursed it is evident that they never dreamt of such a Purgatory as the Church of Rome has now made an Article of Faith of and therefore they could have no regard to the Redemption of Souls out of Purgatory in their Prayers for the dead because they did not know of any such place But to what original then shall we attribute this custom of praying for the Dead Truly that is hard to say there is not the least footsteps of it in the Canonical Scripture neither of the Old nor New Testament as Tertullian and others acknowledge and when it first came into the Church we cannot tell that tender concern Men have for the memory of their dead Friends which the Heathens themselves showed in their Oblations and Sacrifices and funeral Rites for the Dead seem to have given occasion to it and those who were converted from Paganism to Christianity might still believe that the Dead challenged some part of our care and regard which at first was tempered with a due respect to the Laws of Christianity but soon encreased into greater excesses as it is the Nature of all Superstitions to do Prayers for the Dead seem at first to be used only at their Funerals in time grew Anniversary and were celebrated by their own Friends and Relations not with Propitiatory Sacrifices but with some offerings for the relief of the Poor and thus by degrees it crept into the service of the Church and at the Celebration of the Eucharist the Bishop or Priest made mention of the names of Martyrs and Confessors and Bishops and those who had deserved well of the Church and particular Christians in their private Devotions remembred their own Relations and Friends and thus it became a Custom without inquiring into the reasons of
very differently of these matters from those who went before them For in their days they began to call upon the Saints and to beg their help and then S. Austin thought it very improper to pray for those whose help they themselves expected According to that known saying of his That he is injurious to a Martyr who prays for him Hence he makes three distinctions of souls departed which the Church never heard of before From whence I doubt not but the Church of Rome learnt their distinctions and accordingly allotted three different States for these three sorts of Men Heaven Purgatory and Hell. For S. Austin taught that some were so perfectly good that there was no need of Prayers or Oblations for them others imperfectly good and for these prayers were profitable others very bad who cannot be redeemed by the suffrages of the living The first of these the Church of Rome place in Heaven the second in Purgatory the third in Hell and let us first see whether S. Austin were of that mind for if he were not they cannot prove a Purgatory from him whatever becomes of his prayers for the dead Now it is evident that Saint Austin was of the same mind with those Fathers who went before him concerning the state of souls departed viz that none were received into Heaven till the Resurrection as he expresly affirms of all souls that during the time between death and the last Resurrection they are kept in hidden receptacles He divides the Church into two parts that which is still on Earth or that which after death rests in the secret receptacles and seats of souls Which he calls Abraham's Bosom and teaches that all departed souls either rejoyce in Abraham's Bosom or are tormented in eternal Fire And that by Abraham's Bosom he does not mean Heaven is evident from what he elsewhere says that though after this life we shall not go to that place where the Saints shall be when it shall be said to them Come ye blessed of my Father receive the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundations of the world which he represents as the common belief of all Christians for he says quis nescit Who knows not this yet we may be there where Dives saw Lazarus at rest viz. in Abraham's Bosom in illâ requie certè securus expectabis judicii diem in that rest you will securely expect the day of Judgment So that though S. Austin thought that some souls were so good and perfect that there was no need to pray for them yet he did not think that the most perfect souls ascended immediately into Heaven as the Church of Rome now teaches but were happy and at rest in Paradise or Abraham's Bosom till the Resurrection Nor did he think that those for whom he says our prayers are available those who are imperfectly good did after this life go into Purgatory there to bear the punishment of their sins For what S. Austin thought of Purgatory you have already heard which has nothing like a Popish Purgatory in it He prayed for his Mother Monica that God would forgive her all her sins and show mercy to her did he believe then that his Mother was in Purgatory by no means for he expresly says credo jam feceris quod to rogo sed voluntaria oris mei approba domine I believe thou hast already done what I now pray for but accept O Lord the free-will offerings of my mouth He believed his Mother was in a state of rest but hoped that God would accept his pious affection for his Mother and that she was not yet so perfect but she might receive some benefit by it To be sure the Church of Rome can never reconcile this prayer with their Doctrine for they teach that sins are not pardoned in Purgatory but those who are pardoned before they die suffer the temporal punishment of their sins in Purgatory whereas S. Austin does not Pray that his Mother may be delivered from the pains of Purgatory but that God would forgive her sins The truth is S. Austin was at a great loss between vindicating the ancient practice of the Church in Praying for Souls departed and giving a reasonable and justifiable account of it the Church did pray for Souls departed and therefore there must be some reason given of it or else these Prayers are vain and hypocritical if they serve no good end And yet in his days they began to think and he himself was of that mind that there were a great many Saints and Martyrs who did not want their Prayers who were fitter to be Intercessors themselves for those on Earth than to receive any benefit from their Intercessions and yet the Church prayed for all for the most perfect Saints for the Apostles and Martyrs and the blessed Virgin her self This he knew not how to reconcile but by saying That when the Church prayed for Saints and Martyrs Prophets and Apostles the meaning of her Prayers was not to intercede with God for them but to praise God for their Graces and Vertues but when she prayed for meaner Christians her Prayers were Intercessions for Pardon and Rest to their Souls and yet they were all prayed for in the same form of words and the ancient Church made no such distinction between them and thus he reconciles the matter by expounding the same words to two different and contrary senses as they are applied to different subjects which has taught the Church of Rome when occasion serves to soften her Prayers by expounding them contrary to the plain and natural signification of the words that the most direct and formal Prayers to Saints and the Virgin for all Temporal and Spiritual Blessings when they please shall signifie no more than a bare Ora pro nobis Pray for us About this time S. Chrysostom also in the Greek Church defended this practice of Praying for the Dead and yet the Doctrine of Purgatory never was received in the Greek Church as appears from the Council of Florence which is a plain sign That though the Roman Doctors think they have proved Purgatory if they can but prove that the ancient Church used to Pray for the Dead which no Body denies yet the Greek Church did not and does not to this day think this a good consequence for they Pray for the Dead but deny a Popish Purgatory Which shows that though they prayed for the Dead they did it for other reasons than the Church of Rome now does And yet S. Chrysostom does not agree with S. Austin in that distinction he makes of Souls departed which shows that there was no certain tradition about this matter but Men of Wit and Learning framed different Hypotheses and Schemes of things to themselves as they thought they could best give an account of this practice For this was the thing both S. Austin and S. Chrysostom were intent on to justifie the practice of the Church so that their Prayers for the Dead might
Temple at Ierusalem but though he had his Temple yet he had no Image which the Heathen World thought essential to a Temple For though a symbolical Presence was no confinement of God nor injurious to his Majesty yet a material Image was And yet Solomon in his Prayer of Dedication took care to prevent the Heathen notion of a Temple as if Cod were confined to it for he owns his Omnipresence that he fills both Heaven and Earth only he prays that he would have a more particular regard to that place and to those Prayers which should be offered up there 1 Kings 8. 27 28 c. But will God indeed dwell on the earth Behold the Heaven and Heaven of Heavens cannot contain thee how much less this house that I have builded Yet have thou respect unto the Prayer of thy Servant and to his Supplication O Lord my God to hearken unto the cry and to the Prayer which thy Servant prayeth before thee this day That thine eyes may be open to this House night and day c. And therefore we may observe that the Temple was so contrived as to be a figure of the whole world For the Holy of Holies was a figure of Heaven into which the High Priest entered once a year Heb. 9. 24. and therefore the rest of the Temple signified this earth and the daily worship and Service of it which plainly signified to them that that God who dwelt in the Temple was not confined to that material Building but filled Heaven and Earth with his Presence though he was pleased to have a more peculiar regard to that place and to the Prayers and Sacrifices which were offered there And yet it seems that God would not so far have indulged them at that time as to confine his Worship and peculiar Presence to a certain place had it not been for the sake of some more Divine Mystery For Gods Symbolical and Figurative Presence in the Tabernacle and Temple was only a Type of the Incarnation of the Son of God of his dwelling among us in a humane Body or material Temple as St. Iohn plainly intimates 1 Iohn 14. The word was made flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld his Glory the Glory as of the only begotten of the Father full of Grace and Truth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he Tabernacled among us dwelt among us as God under the Law did in the Tabernacle or Temple and Christ expresly calls his Body the Temple 2. Iohn 19. Destroy this Temple and in three days I will raise it up which the Evangelist tells us he spake of the Temple of his Body 21. v. and he affirms himself to be greater than the Temple 12. Matth. 6. he being that in Truth of which the Temple was a Figure God dwelling among us God dwelling in human Nature For this Reason the Worship of God was confined to the Temple at Ierusalem to signifie to us that we can offer up no acceptable Worship to God but in the Name and Mediation of Christ. But now under the Gospel all these Types and Figures being accomplished in the Person of our Saviour as their Priesthood and Sacrifices so their Temple also had an end as Christ expresly tells the Woman of Samaria who disputed with him about the place of Worship whether it were the Temple at Ierusalem or Samaria Woman believe me the hour cometh when ye shall neither in this Mountain nor yet at Jerusalem Worship the Father John 4. 21. which cannot signifie that they should Worship God neither at Ierusalem nor Samaria for there were famous Churches planted by the Apostles at both these places where they Worshipped God in Spirit and in Truth but it signifies that there should be no material Temple that the Presence of God should not be confined to a certain place as then it was to the Temple which occasioned that Dispute between the Iews and Samaritanes in which Temple God was perculiarly present but wheresoever they Worshipped God in Spirit and in Truth the place should make no difference in their Acceptation as it did under the Law which is not opposed to the erecting of decent and separate places of Worship under the Gospel but only to the Notion of a Temple That this was the sense of the Primitive Christians that they had no material Temples as the Heathens had is evident from their Writings for the Heathens made this objection against them that they had no Temples nor Images which is owned and answered by Origen against Celsus lib. 8. Minutius Faelix Arnobius Lactantius The force then of the Argument is this If under the Gospel God does not allow of so much as a Temple or Symbolical Presence which he did allow of under the Law when he forbad Images much less certainly does he allow Images now which he forbad under the Law. But Protestants have another Argument to prove that the Worship of Images is forbid by the Gospel as well as by the Law and that is that the Primitive Church always understood it so as is evident from the Writings of the Ancient Fathers who condemned the Worship of Images and urged such Arguments against it in their Disputes with the Heathens as had easily been retorted upon themselves had they practised the same thing and yet this was never objected against them by their wittiest Adversaries in that Age though when Image Worship began to be introduced into the Church it was presently objected against the Christians both by Jews and Heathens and which is more than this besides all the other Arguments which they used they alleadged the Second Commandment as the Reason why they could not Worship Images which is a certain Proof that they then thought the Second Commandment was still in force But I shall not enlarge upon this because it is so well done in a late Discourse concerning the Antiquity of the Protestant Religion Part 2. concerning Images to which I refer my Reader 13. The Pope is Antichrist I answered This has been affirmed by some Protestants but is no Article of our Church and therefore we are not bound to prove it but when we have a mind to it No Man ever pretended that there is any such Proposition in Scripture as that the Pope is Antichrist but some think that the Characters of Antichrist and the Man of Sin are much more applicable to him than the Universal Headship and Infalibility To this our Author answers p. 8. Do only some Protestants and no Homily subscribed as containing a Godly and wholsom Doctrine necessary for these times Article the Fifty fifth though the Church of England owns but Thirty nine Articles affirm the Pope to be Antichrist Yet we meet with no Scripture brought to prove this Godly necessary Doctrine Now though I could tell him that every saying in an Homily has not the Authority of an Article yet I need not enter into that Dispute for I am pretty confident it is no where expresly asserted in any of