fundamental Article of the Christian Faith then Idolatry it self does not prove such an Apostacy from fundamental Truth And this is the opinion of those who own the Church of Rome a true though a corrupt Church notwithstanding they charge her with idolatrous Practices For they consider that the Jewish Church was guilty of Idolatry in the Worship of the Golden Calf and the Calves at Dan and Bethel and yet were a true Church still because they worshipped only the true God the God of Israel though in an idolatrous manner And I would advise our Author not to insist too peremptorily on this That Idolatry is an Apostacy from fundamental Truth till he is sure that he can clear himself and his Church from the charge of Idolatry I know very well what he aims at to disprove the charge of Idolatry because Idolatry is an Apostacy from fundamental Truth and Holiness and thus the Church cannot apostatize and therefore cannot commit Idolatry which is like their proving that the Church has not erred because it cannot err Whereas if de facto it appears that the Church has erred that is a Demonstration that it can err Thus if de facto it appears that the Church is guilty of Idolatry this is a Demonstration that either Idolatry is not such a fundamental Apostacy or that the Church may fall into such an Apostacy Those who say that Idolatry is not such an Apostacy are not bound to prove that the Church may fall into such an Apostacy from fundamental Truth to make good their charge of Idolatry Those who say that Idolatry is such an Apostacy are bound to prove either directly that the Church is not guilty of Idolatry or by consequence that she cannot be because she cannot apostatize from fundamental Truth so that the Proof lies on their side not on ours we are not bound to prove that the Church may apostatize from fundamental Truth and Holiness because we have no occasion to say it may but they are bound to prove that the Church cannot so apostatize because it is the best defence they have against the charge of Idolatry But I cannot pass on without briefly considering the nature of this Argument to prove that a thing is not upon a pretence that it cannot be when there is all other possible evidence to prove that it is which is now the modish and popular way of disputing and the very last refuge of the Church of Rome If you charge them with Errors and Corruptions in Faith and Worship and prove your charge beyond the possibility of a fair Reply they presently take sanctuary in the Indefectibility or Infallibility of their Church Their Church cannot err because the Council or Pope or at least both of them together are infallible Or as others say Tradition is infallible for the Church must believe to day as it did yesterday and to morrow as it does to day and so from one Generation to another and therefore it is impossible there ever should be any change in the Faith of the Church The Church cannot be guilty of Idolatry because it cannot apostatize from fundamental Truth and Holiness and so in other cases And therefore the way they take with their new Converts is not to dispute particular Controversies but instruct them well in this one Point which puts an end to all other Disputes That the Church cannot err and cannot apostatize from fundamental Truth and Holiness and then it is certain whatever she teaches she cannot err and whatever she does is not Apostacy Now not to show at present how vainly the Church of Rome challenges to her selfe the Title Priviledges and Prerogatives of the Catholick Church and appropriates all those Promises to her self which were made to the Church in general nor to examine the meaning of those Texts whereon she founds this pretence of Infallibility I shall only consider whether this Plea the Church cannot err therefore she has not erred the Church cannot apostatize from fundamental Truth and Holiness therefore she is not guilty of Idolatry which say they is such an Apostacy be sufficient to satisfie any honest inquisitive man who can read the Scriptures and compare what the Church now believes and practises with the Doctrines and Institutions of our Saviour For 1. When such Errors and Corruptions are notoriously evident though but in any one instance to argue that the Church has not erred because she cannot err is to dispute against matter of fact like the Philosophers disputing against the possibility of Motion and no Argument whatsoever is good against matter of fact True you 'l say if it were notoriously evident that the Church has erred there were an end of her Infallibility but this is matter of dispute whether she have erred or not and then if you can prove that she cannot err you effectually prove that she has not erred No such matter for if she be charged with Errors and plain evidence brought that she has actually erred unless you can as plainly take off this evidence it weakens and overthrows all the Proofs for Infallibility whatever they are and therefore the pretence of Infallibility is of no use in this dispute but to cheat the ignorant and unwary for if I can prove that such Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome are Errors and Corruptions till I am satisfied that they are not I can never believe that Church to be infallible which I can prove has erred and therefore while any charge against the Errors of the Church of Rome remains unanswered it is too soon to talk of her Infallibility for actual Error is a just confutation of Infallibility but the pretence of Infallibility is not a just Plea against the charge of actual Error because if I can prove my charge against them that they have erred that disproves their Infallibility and then nothing else can prove it So that this Infallibility can do them no service at all in this Dispute whether they have erred or not for if I can prove that they have erred I overthrow all their Proofs of Infallibility and whether they have erred or not is not to be tryed by their Infallibility but by the Rule of Truth and Error which are the Holy Scriptures so absurd it is to think to determine all the Controversies now in dispute among us by the Churches Infallibility It is indeed a most certain Truth that if the Church be infallible she cannot err and therefore she has not erred and it is as certainly true that if the Church has erred she can err and therefore is not infallible The Romanists assert the first the Protestants the second but there is this difference between these two Pleas That if we can make good our charge against them that they have actually erred this is a direct and positive Proof against their Infallibility but though it be as certainly true that an infallible Church cannot and has not erred yet whatever Proofs they bring of the Churches
Infallibility they are not a direct Answer to that charge That she has actually erred and can have no force to prove her Infallibility till that charged be answered because there can be no Proof against matter of fact And therefore when they begin with the Proof of Infallibility they begin at the wrong end for when the Church is charged with Error if they would not lose their labour they must prove that she has not erred before they prove her to be infallible for otherwise after all the pains they have taken to prove her Infallibility if they cannot deliver her from the charge of having erred their Labour is lost and therefore it is best to try that first which shows what a Sophistical Argument it is to prove that the Church has not erred because she is infallible and cannot err for they must first prove that she has not erred before they can prove her to be infallible for till this be removed it is an effectual Bar to all other Proofs of Infallibility And thus their compendious way of making Converts and confuting Hereticks is nothing but Sophistry and a Cheat and if men would be sincere and honest Converts they must not flatter themselves with an Opinion of the Churches Infallibility but must examine the particular Disputes between us and be thoroughly satisfied that the Church of Rome has not erred before they embrace her Communion 2. For if it appear that the Church of Rome has been guilty of Error or Apostacy this is a certain Demonstration that either those Scripture-promises which she alledges do not belong to her or do not signifie what she brings them for for whatever Christ promises he will certainly perform and therefore if the Church of Rome has erred he never promised she should be infallible To be sure when the Sense and Application of such Texts of Scripture are disputed as they are between Protestants and Papists that side must have the advantage which is confirmed by the Event and matter of Fact and therefore if it appear the Church of Rome has erred the Protestant Interpretations of those Texts Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church and such like are to be preferred before the Popish Interpretations which apply them to the Bishops of Rome as the Infallible Guides of the Church especially when that evidence we have that the Church has Erred is much more plain and notorious then that Christ has promised that she shall not Err when the Scripture Proofs that the Church of Rome has Erred in several Doctrines and Practices which she now teaches are much plainer than those Texts are by which they prove that she cannot Err if I can prove by plain Texts that she has Erred this shall teach me how to expound those obscure Texts from which some would prove that she cannot Err. Indeed it is very happy that no Man believes Christ has promised Infallibility to the Church of Rome but those who believe that she has not Erred for if they did it would be a very dangerous State of Temptation and a very ill Argument in the hands of an Infidel against Christianity for they would rather charge Christ with a breach of his Promise which would destroy his Authority than believe contrary to the plainest and most convincing Evidence that the Church of Rome has not erred and indeed it would stagger the Faith of a Christian if the pretended Promises of Infalibility to the Church of Rome were as plain as her Errors are for what should any Man do in that case believe that she has not erred because of the Promise of Infalibility or disbelieve the Promise because she has erred When both sides are equally plain and yet can never be reconciled it is a sore Temptation to believe neither when I know not which to choose and cannot possibly believe both So that to urge the Infallibility of the Church that she cannot err against the plainest evidence that she has erred may make some Men Infidels but can make no considering Man a Roman-Catholick But to return to our Author though I think I have not left him all this time I gave a fourth Answer to this Reqnest which he takes no notice of viz. If the first discovery of this Defection had been made by Lay-men and afterwards acknowledged by the Clergy who joyned in the Reformation I should not have thought the Reformation ever the worse for it For if the Clergy corrupt Religion we have reason to thank God if he opens the Eyes of honest and disinterested Lay-men For this is the great grievance that the Clergy should Apostatize and a National Laity discover the Clergies Defection and reform it This is now the fashionable way of Disputing against the Reformation of the Church of England that it was not regularly done by the consent of the Major part of the Clergy in a National Synod which first ought to have been obtained before the Queen and the Parliament had made any Laws about it which is the whole design of a late Oxford Book against the Reformation Now this I confess seems to me a very strange way of Reasoning unworthy of Christians especially of Christian Divines for not to enter now into the History of the Reformation which those who please may learn from Dr Burnet who has Published the Authentick Records of the most material Transactions in it yet I say 1. If the Reformation be good and necessary there can want no Authority to reform and my Reason is because it is Established by the Authority of Christ and his Apostles which is a good Authority to this day for to Reform Abuses and Corruptions signifies no more than to Profess the pure and uncorrupted Faith and Worship of Christ and I desire to know whether Christ have not given sufficient Authority to every Man to do this or whether there be any Authority in Church or State which can de jure forbid the doing it and make it unlawful and irregular to do so if there be truly Christ and his Apostles have preached the Gospel to very little purpose if we must not believe or practice as they teach unless our Superiors will give us leave How could the Gospel have been at first planted in the World upon these Principles Jews and Heathens had a regular Authority among them to determine matters of Religion and this Authority opposed and condemned the Faith of Christ and therefore unless particular Men had reformed for themselves and joyned themselves to the Fellowship of the Apostles they must have continued Jews or Pagans to this day For as for what our Author says that sueb a change in Religion ought to have some Scripture or because Extraordinary should have Miracles to countenance it I answer we have both we have reformed according to the Scriptures and can justifie our Faith and Worship by the Scriptures and a Scripture Reformation is confirmed by Miracles because the Doctrine of the Gospel is so
thereby is not to be required of any Man that it should be believed as an Article of Faith or be thought requisite or necessary to Salvation Where our Church distinguishes between what is read in the Scripture that is contained in express words there and what may be proved thereby that is by plain and necessary consequence from what is expresly taught in Scripture and yet confines such Proof as this only to Articles of Faith or what is thought requisite or necessary to Salvation And the true reason of this is that the Church of England teaches the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures to Salvation which is the very Title of this Article and therefore all things necessary to be believed to Salvation must be contained in express words in Scripture or be proved thence by plain and evident consequence which shows that we are not strictly obliged to prove any thing from Scripture but what we teach for an Article of Faith or as necessary to Salvation This is the reason why we demand a Scripture-proof from the Church of Rome for the new Articles of the Trent Faith for if the belief of them be necessary to Salvation as they say they are then either the Scriptures do not contain all things necessary to Salvation or they are bound to show where these Doctrines are contained in Scripture For this reason the Church of England which owns the sufficiency of the Scripture to Salvation rejects all those Doctrines which the Church of Rome without any Proof from Scripture teaches as necessary to Salvation and this we think reason enough to reject them that they are not contained in Scripture which contains all things necessary to Salvation Now our Author and some of his size who don 't see half a Consequence before them think they have a mighty advantage of us in demanding the same Proofs from us to justifie our rejecting their Doctrines which we demand of them to justifie their belief of them that is to say as we demand of them a Scripture-Proof that there is such a place as Purgatory they think they may as reasonably demand of us a Scripture-Proof that there is no such place as Purgatory just with as much reason as if one should tell me that by the Laws of England every Man is bound to Marry at twenty years old and when I desire him to show me the Law which makes this necessary he should answer though he cannot show such a Law yet it may be necessary unless I can show him a Law which expresly declares that it is not necessary whereas nothing is necessary but what the Law makes so and if the Law has not made it necessary there is no need of any Law to declare that it is not necessary Thus the Protestant Doctrine of the sufficiency of Scriptures to Salvation requires us to produce a plain Scripture-Proof for every thing which we believe necessary to Salvation but it does not require a Scripture-Proof that that is not necessary to Salvation which the Scripture has not revealed nor made necessary to Salvation for if the Scriptures contain all things necessary to Salvation it is a sufficient Proof that such Doctrines are not necessary to Salvation which are not contained in the Scriptures Unless we think that the Scripture must before-hand confute all possible Heresies which might arise in the Church and tell us particularly in all points what we must not believe as well as what we must This I observed was the case as to those Articles of the Church of England which are opposed to the Corruptions and Innovations of the Church of Rome that they are negative Articles and a negative Article only rejects such Doctrines from being Articles of Faith as are not contained in Scripture and it is ridiculous to demand a plain Scripture-Proof that such a Doctrine is not in Scripture We believe it is not there because we cannot find it there and those who pretend it is there cannot show it there which is proof enough and all that the Subject is capable of This is what our Author attempts an Answer to in the preceding Paragraph and first he says that those of the thirty nine Articles which are opposed to Catholick Religion so he calls the Popish Corruptions of Christianity contain Affirmative propositions or may be resolved into equivalent affirmatives What then Is the dispute about the terms wherein the Article is conceived whether they be Negative or Affirmative or about the reason why it is either affirmed or denied viz. that such a Doctrine is not taught in Scripture for this is all I meant by a negative Article that we deny such a Doctrine to be contained in Scripture Now suppose I should say There is no such place as Purgatory which is a negative Proposition or that Purgatory is a late and fond invention which is affirmative what difference is there between them when they both resolve into this that Purgatory is not taught in Scripture and therefore the question is still the same whether the Article be expressed affirmatively or negatively and no Man can be bound to prove by plain and express Scripture that Purgatory is not taught in Scripture Well! but though for a Negative or every non-assent or suspence of assent a reason may not be given or required yet for belief for a solemn profession subscription and swearing of that belief whether it be of negatives or affirmatives a reason may be assigned and required What glorious and triumphant Nonsence is here How does a negative Article and non-assent come to be the same thing For we Protestants use to give our assent to negative Articles And why are not Men bound to give a reason of their non-assent as well as of their assent And how are they more bound to give a reason of their profession and swearing their non-assent than they are of their bare non-assent And who ever dreamt that Men are not bound to give a reason of their non-assent and of their profession of non-assent and lastly what is all this to the purpose of demanding express Proofs of Scripture that such Doctrines as suppose Purgatory or the Invocation of Saints c. are not taught in Scripture And why is it not a sufficient reason of a non-assent or declared and professed denial of such Doctrines that it does not appear that they are taught in Scripture But the Request he says proposed only affirmatives and they have been considered and answered already and his Defence shall be considered again without any Fencing or Tergiversation But the Thirty nine Articles not only declare that the opposite affirmatives are not in Scripture for they may not be there and yet be true but if they be not there we cannot know they are true much less can they be Articles of Faith and necessary to Salvation but also that they are rather and plainly repugnant to Scripture this I confess does require a Scripture-Proof that a Doctrine is not only not in the Scripture
understand them and this is the use we make of our Guides not to submit our judgments to them without any understanding but to inform our judgments that we may be able to see and understand for our selves Thus our Saviour taught his Disciples he opened their understandings that they might understand the Scriptures Thus the Apostles and Primitive Doctors instructed the World by expounding the Scriptures to them which does not signifie merely to tell them what the sense of Scripture is and requiring them to believe it but showing them out of the Scriptures that this is and must be the true sense of it and we need not fear that Protestancy should suffer any thing from such Guides as these though the Church of Rome indeed has felt the ill effects of them II. The Secular Prince hath all spiritual jurisdiction and authority immediately from and under God. Here he says I behave my self as if I were under apprehensions and durst neither own nor reject this Tenet and yet in my Answer I expresly show what the Church of England means by the Kings Supremacy in Ecclesiastical Causes which signifies no more than that the King is Supreme in his own Dominions and therefore there is no Power neither Secular nor Ecclesiastick above him for if there were he were not Supreme And this I said might be proved from Rom. 13. 1. Let every Soul be subject to the higher powers to which he answers that this proves more than I grant It proves ministring the Word and Sacraments to belong to the Higher Powers How so Yes this it does unless ministring the Word and Sacraments be not a soul affair be no act of power Learnedly observed because every soul must be subject to the Higher Powers therefore the King has all Power in soul-affairs and therefore of ministring the Word and Sacraments But if every soul only signifie every Man without excepting the Pope himself then I suppose all Ecclesiasticks as well as Secular persons are included in it and if all must be subject to the King then the King is Supreme over all but things are at a low ebb in the Church of Rome when such silly Quibbles must pass for Arguments III. Iustification by Faith alone viz. a persuasion that we are justified is a wholsome Doctrine In answer to this I denied that our Church teaches that justifying Faith is a persuasion that we are justified He grants that some of the Church of England have condemned it p. 4. but yet he may as justly charge us with it as we charge the Church of Rome with Doctrines contrary to their General Councils and constant Profession and we grant he may for if such things be done they are very unjust both in him and us we deny that we do any such thing and have lately abundantly vindicated our selves from such an imputation let him do as much for himself if he can But Cranmer was of this mind by whom the Articles were devised But how does that appear and if he were what is that to us when there is no such thing in our Articles will he allow the Council of Trent to be expounded according to the Private opinions of every Bishop that was in it The Antinomians plead the Doctrine of the eleventh Article as the Parent of their irreligion and so they do the Scriptures And what then Will he hence infer that the Scriptures countenance Antinomianism because they alledge Scripture for it And why then must this be charged upon our Articles Though what some may have done I cannot tell but Antinomians don 't use to trouble themselves with our Articles But the strictest Adherers to the Primitive Reformers in Doctrine the Puritans assert this Solifidian Parenthesis as the genuine and literal sense of Iustification by Faith alone and of the eleventh Article Why the Puritans the strictest Adherers to the Primitive Reformers in Doctrine but we need not ask a reason of his sayings who understands nothing about what he speaks For the Puritans did not and do not believe That justifying Faith is a persuasion that we are justified but they place justifying Faith in an act of recumbency on Christ for Salvation and dispute vehemently against his Notion of it But he says I might have given them a Text asserting what I confess our Church teaches viz. that justification by Faith only is a wholesome Doctrine and very full of comfort which intimates no necessity of repentance to Iustification none of the Sacraments Yes it does and of good works too as the conditions of our Justification though not as the meritorious causes of it for all this our Church comprehends in the notion of a living Faith which alone justifies and then I suppose as many Texts as there are which attribute our Justification to Faith so many proofs there are that Justification by Faith alone as opposed to all Meritorious Works is a wholesome Doctrine and very full of comfort IV. The substance of Bread and Wine remains after what it was before sacerdotal Consecration Here he takes no notice of any one word which I returned in Answer The sum of which is that the material substance before and after Consecration is the same that is that they are Bread and Wine still but by vertue of Christ's Institution after Consecration they are not mere Bread and Wine but a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's Death and to such as rightly and worthily and by Faith receive the same the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ as our Church teaches And this I proved must be the sense of the words of Institution This is my Body and urged such arguments for it in short as he durst not name again much less pretend to Answer but instead of that he endeavours to prove p. 5. that the words of Institution This is my Body literally understood do expresly prove that the substance of Bread does not remain at all after Consecration For the Eucharist is Christ's Body and Blood which if substantially Bread and Wine it cannot really be A change less than that of the substance of the Elements is insufficient to render them really and truly what the Text says they are after Consecration But did not I give him my reasons why these words could not be understood literally of the natural Body and Blood of Christ And is it enough then for him to say that in a literal sense they must signifie a substantial change of the Bread and Wine into Christ's natural Body and Blood without answering what I urged against it and yet in a literal sense it cannot signifie so For if This refers to the Bread which our Saviour took and blessed and brake and it can refer to nothing else then the literal sense of the words is This Bread is my Body and if Bread be the Body of Christ then the substance of the Bread cannot be
the Church of Rome truly represented the Answer to Monsieur de Meaux or to Papists Protesting against Protestant Popery nor the Vindication of the Catechism truly representing the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome in answer to the first and second Sheets of the second Part of the Papist Misrepresented and Represented Is our Author then one of those who are employed some times to do a little job at Writing but are not permitted to read any of our Books but what and when their Superiors please This gives an account of that Mystery how they can so confidently urge such things as all the World now laughs at for poor Men they know no better and what some so uncharitably call impudence is only ignorance He proceeds Their Test and Homily call the honour we pay to sacred persons and things Idolatry We must either then challenge Protestants to prove this proposition or conclude them calumniators We know what we profess and practise to be as the Catholick Church teaches we hear our Doctrine and Practice confidently said and solemnly subscribed to be Idolatry Sure then we may conclude that Protestants believe the proposition and decent it is that they give a reason of a Faith so injurious to the Catholick Church or henceforward renounce it This still makes good my conjecture that he has only heard in general of such a charge as this but never read the Arguments whereby some Protestants make good this charge at least as they apprehend for me-thinks had he known these proofs he should first have answered them before he had called for more but I assure him it will be an easier task to conclude them Calumniators than to undertake to answer them and therefore if he be wise let him stick to that if they believe and practise as the Church of Rome teaches which in defiance of common sence he will call the Catholick Church I am sure they give another kind of honour to the Cross and Reliques and Images than to the Bible but if he thinks that the Catholick Church always taught what the Church of Rome now teaches I would desire him to read a late Discourse intituled The Antiquity of the Protestant Religion concerning Images which will better inform him But since he calls so importunately for proofs it may be thought very uncivil to deny him and therefore I shall briefly represent to him the reasons why some Protestants have charged the Church of Rome with Idolatry in worshipping the Cross and Images and shall be very glad for the sake of the Church of Rome to see them well answered They lay their charge in the second Commandment which forbids the worship of Images and all representative objects and say that the words are so large as to comprehend all manner of Images which are set up for worship that the Law expresly forbids without any distinction of the end and intention of doing it all external acts of adoration as bowing down to them or before them that it does not meerly forbid the worship of Images as Gods for the Heathens themselves were never so senseless as to believe that their Images of Wood or Stone or Silver or Gold were Gods but only visible representations of their invisible Deities That it does not only forbid the worship of the Images of Heathen Gods but of the Lord Iehovah for the reason whereby Moses enforces this commandment is that they saw no similitude on the day that the Lord spake to them in Horeb out of the midst of the fire Deut. 4. 15. and therefore they must take good heed unto themselves lest they corrupt themselves with Images that they saw no Image of God is a good argument against their making and worshipping the Image of the true God but it is no direct argument against the Images of Heathen Gods and therefore this must be a prohibition of worshipping the true God by Images Another Scripture argument against Image-worship is from the infinite perfections and excellency of the Divine Nature that no Image can be made of God but what must be a reproach and debasement of his Majesty To whom then will ye liken God or what likeness will ye compare to him c. Isaiah 40. 18 c. and this surely is an argument against making and worshipping any Image of the true God. They consider farther that Aaron's Calf was not an Image of a false God but a Symbolical representation of the Lord Iehovah For they expresly call it the God which brought them out of the Land of AEgypt and when Aaron himself appointed a Feast for the Worship of this Molten God He said toâ—morrow is a Feast to the Lord or to Iehovah Exod. 32. 4 5. and therefore these Israelites are charged with changing their glory i. e. the Lord Iehovah who was the Glory of Israel into the similitude of an oxe which eateth grass Psalm 106. 20. But how can this be true if they did not intend this Calf as a Representation of the Lord Iehovah And it is evident that they made this Calf only as a Divine presence to go before them in the absence of Moses For while Moses delayed to come down out of the mount the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron and said unto him Up make us gods which shall go before us for as for this Moses the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt we know not what is become of him Verse 1. So that they did not think of changing their God but only wanted a Visible and Symbolical presence of God with them instead of Moses who when he was with them was a kind of Divine presence God conversing familiarly with him and by him giving them directions and orders what to do and yet the worship of this Calf which was not worshipped as a God or the Image of a false God but as a Symbolical Representation of the Lord Iehovah was Idolatry The like may be said of the Calves at Dan and Bethel which Ieroboam set up in imitation of the golden Calf and for Symbolical representations of the God of Israel For so he himself tells them Behold thy Gods O Israel which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt that is the Lord Iehovah whom Ieroboam did still own and Worship For he had no intention to change their God but only to prevent their going up to Ierusalem three times in the Year to Worship there according to the Law which he feared might prove the destruction of his new Kingdom And therefore God himself makes a great difference between the sin of Ieroboam and the sin of Ahab who introduced the worship of Baal a false God. And therefore though Iehu still preserved the golden Calves which Ieroboam set up yet he calls his Zeal in destroying Baal his Zeal for the Lord Iehovah Which is another Scripture-example of Idolatry in worshipping the Image or Representation of the True God. Another instance is the
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
must grant So that still this whole Controversy issues in this whether the Terms of their Communion be not sinful if they be this will justifie our Non-communion with them if they be not we are Schismaticks and by this we are willing to stand or fall So that this charge of Schism upon the Church of England is very absurd and ridiculous unless they can charge us with Schismatical Doctrines and Practices if we separate for the sake of a Corrupt Faith or Worship we are Schismaticks indeed but if we separate only because we will not profess any Erroneous Doctrines nor Communicate in a corrupt Worship unless the true Faith and true Worship can make Men Schismaticks we may very securely scorn such an Accusation And it is as impertinent a Question to ask us what Church we joyned in Communion with when we forsook the Communion of the Church of Rome For if by joyning in Communion with other Churches they mean uniting our selves in one Ecclesiastical Body with them putting our selves under the Government of any other Patriarch so we joyned in Communion with no other Church and there was no reason we should for we were Originally a free independent Church which owed no Subjection to any other Church but had a plenary Power to decide all Controversies among our selves without appealing to any foreign Jurisdiction and when we had delivered our selves from one Usurper there was no reason to court a new one this not being necessary to Catholick Unity and Communion If by joyning in Communion with other Churches they mean what other Churches we made the Pattern of our Reformation we freely confess we made no Church of that Age our Pattern but I think we did much better for we made the Scriptures our Rule and the Primitive and Apostolick Churches our Pattern which we take to be a more Infallible direction than the Example of any Church then or now If we must have been confined to the Faith and Practise of other Churches then in being without regard to a more Infallible Rule and a more unquestionable Authority I confess I should have chose to have continued in the Church of Rome which had the most visible and flourishing Authority of any other Church at that time but our Reformers did believe and very rightly that no Church had any Authority against the Scriptures and Primitive Practise and then they were not concerned to enquire whether any other Church did in all things believe and practise as they taught but what the Faith and Practice of the Apostles and their immediate Successors was and yet they very well know that most of those Doctrines and Practises which they condemned in the Church of Rome were condemned by other Churches also though it may be those other Churches might have some less Errors and Corruptions of their own If the Scriptures and the Example of the Primitive Churches be a sufficient Authority to justifie a Reformation then the Church of England is blameless though no other Church in the World followed this Pattern but our selves for this is the Rule and Pattern which they ought all to follow and if they do not it is not we are to blame but themselves And yet what if I should say that our Reformers made the Church of Rome her self the Pattern of our Reformation and indeed this is the plain truth of the Case For we framed no new Creeds no new Articles of Faith no new Forms of Worship no new Models of Government but retained all that is Ancient and Apostolick in the Church of Rome and only rejected those Corruptions and Innovations which were introduced in several Ages and confirmed all together by the Council of Trent Our Faith is contained in the Apostles Nicene Athanasian Creeds which are all owned by the Church of Rome and were the Ancient Faith of the Catholick Church We own the two Christian Sacraments Baptism and the Lords Supper which were expresly Instituted by our Saviour himself and which the Church of Rome owns We Worship one God through Jesus Christ who is that one Mediator between God and Man as the Church of Rome confesses though she brings in a great many other Mediators by the help of a distinction Our publick Liturgie is so conformed to the Ancient Liturgies of the Roman Church that it has been often objected to us though very peevishly and absurdly by Dissenters that our Common Prayer is taken out of the Mass Book Our Litanies Collects Hymns are many of them taken out of the old Latin Liturgies only we have changed the Popish Legends into Lessons out of the Old and New Testaments and have left out Prayers to Saints and all the Corruptions of the Mass and other Superstitions So that in Truth the Church of England is the exact Resemblance of the Church of Rome in her state of Primitive Purity before her Faith and Worship were corrupted with new and superstitious Additions and it is plain that this was the Rule of our Reformation not to form and model a new Church but only to Purge the Church from all new Corruptions and to leave the old Foundations and Building as it was and if we have indeed retained all that is Ancient and Apostolick in the Church of Rome and rejected nothing but Innovations in Faith and Corruptions in Worship they need not enquire for a Church which believes all that we do for the Church of Rome her self does so and if they believe more than they should it is no fault that we do not believe all that they do and therefore we had no need to seek for any other Church to joyn with for we staid where we were and did not leave our Church but Reform it and a Man who does not pull down his House but only cleanses it and makes it a more wholsom Habitation needs not inquire for a new House to dwell in To conclude this Argument our positive Faith and Worship is the same still with the Church of Romes and therefore they cannot blame us for it and in those Doctrines and Practices wherein we have forsaken the Church of Rome we have the Authority and Practice of most other Churches to justifie us which do not own the Supremacy of the Pope nor Transubstantiation nor Purgatory nor Communion in one kind nor Latin Service nor the Worship of Images with several other of the Trent Innovations So that in truth we are so far from separating from all Christian Societies that there are few things in our Reformation but what are owned and justified either by the Church of Rome her self or by some other Churches not to take notice now that there are few things in our Reformation but what some Doctors of the Roman Communion have either justified or spoke modestly of 16. The whole Clergy of the Catholick Church may Apostatize from Fundamental Truth and Holiness whilst part of a National Laity may preserve both discover the Clergies defection and depriving them heap to themselves Teachers
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
Bosom and Paradise which they distinguish from Heaven Tertullian calls it a place of Divine pleasantness appointed for the Spirits of holy Mon. The Author of the Questions and Answers to the Orthodox in Iustin Martyr expresly tells us That when the Soul goes out of the Body there is a great difference made between the Righteous and the Wicked For they are carried by Angels to such places as are proper for them The Souls of just Men into Paradise where they have the conversation and sight of Angels and Archangels and the vision 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of our Saviour Christ as it is written being absent from the body we are present with the Lord. From hence Bellarmine concludes That by Paradise this Author understands Heaven because there we shall have the Vision of Christ and therefore that Paradise must signifie that place where Christ is present Which is directly contrary to the Doctrine of this Author who makes Paradise only a receptacle of separate souls till the Resurrection But though it be not Heaven there is he says a great communication between Heaven and Paradise for they have the frequent visits and conversation of Angels and Archangels whom they see and converse with as they do with one another but when he speaks of Christ he expresly makes a distinction between their sight of and conversation with Angels and Christ for this latter is only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of Vision as we see things which are absent and at a distance but yet this does so strongly affect them that he thinks that of S. Paul may be applied to it being absent from the Body we are present with the Lord. And certainly this is no Popish Purgatory but as they thought the very next degree of happiness to Heaven it self Thus S. Hilary expresly asserts that the state of Souls departed is a state of happiness and S. Ambrose tells us that while the fulness of time comes the Souls are in expectation of such a Resurrection as they deserve Punishment expects some and Glory others and yet neither bad Souls are in the mean time without punishment nor the good without reaping some fruits of their Vertue But I need not multiply Quotations to prove that which no modest Man who is acquainted with the Doctrine of the Fathers can deny Thirdly Another difference is That this is an unalterable State till the day of Judgment and therefore no Popish Purgatory out of which as the Church of Rome pretends Souls may be redeemed by the Prayers and Alms and Masses of the Living and ascend immediately into Heaven This is evident from what I have already said that this State is to last till the Resurrection according to the sense of the ancient Fathers as Tertullian expresly affirms that Heaven is open to none while this Earth lasts but the Kingdom of Heaven shall be opened with the end of the World And S. Chrysostom observes from the Parable of Dives and Lazarus that the Souls of Men after their depature out of these Bodies are carried to a certain place from whence they cannot go out when they will but there expect the terrible day of Judgment Which plainly shows what his belief was that they must continue in that State which they enter upon at Death till the Resurrection And this I think is sufficient to show the difference between a Popish Purgatory and that middle state between Death and Judgment which the ancient Fathers taught Secondly Nor is it sufficient to prove a Popish Purgatory that the Ancient Fathers did believe that all Men must pass through the Fire at the day of Judgment That those who were perfectly good should receive no hurt nor damage by it that those who had any remains of corruption about them should be detained a longer or shorter time in that last Fire till they were purged from their sins and that bad Men should irrecoverably sink down into endless burnings This was a received opinion among the Ancient Fathers that at the day of Judgment all Men should be tried by Fire which is so universally acknowledged that I need not prove it by particular Quotations But yet there is an irreconcileable difference between this opinion and the Popish Doctrine of Purgatory as will appear in these particulars 1. That the Popish Purgatory is now and has been in being at least since the time of our Saviour and that those who deserve the fire of Purgatory fall into it when they go out of these Bodies whereas the Fire which the Fathers speak of is not till the day of Judgment This was the opinion of Lactantius Hilary Ambrose and S. Augustin himself who expresly tells us that this Fire is at the end of the World in fine seculi and therefore not the Popish Purgatory which as they would perswade us is already kindled and has been for many hundred Years Indeed S. Augustin though he owns that fiery trial at the last Judgment as the Fathers before him did yet he has something peculiar in this matter which none of the Fathers before him ever taught and therefore having no Authority of Tradition it must rest wholly upon his own Authority who had no more Authority to invent any new Doctrine in his Age than we have in ours There are three or four places in S. Augustin which do speak of some Purgatory fires which some Men must undergo between Death and Judgment which looks most like the Popish Purgatory of any thing in the Ancient Fathers and I believe was the first occasion of it which may be the reason why this Doctrine has so much prevailed in the Latin Church which was acquainted with S. Austin's Writings when it has been always rejected by the Greeks as is evident from the Council of Florence But there are two things to be said to this First That St. Austin speaks very doubtfully about it That there may be such punishments after this life he says is not incredible and we may examine whether there be any such thing or not and it may either be found or may still continue a secret whether some Christians according to the degree of their love and affection for these perishing enjoyments be not sooner or later saved by a certain Purgatory fire and in another place he says he does not reprove this opinion for it may be it is true now redarguo quia forsitan verum est De C. D. l. 21. c. 25. And elsewhere he says That though such speculations may serve for his own or other Mens instruction yet he does not attribute any Canonical authority to them and therefore he was very far from making it an Article of Faith as the Church of Rome has done Secondly And yet though St. Austin speaks of a Purgatory fire after death and before the day of judgment he seems by his whole discourse never to have thought of such a Purgatory as the Church of Rome has invented The occasion
of what he says to this purpose is that noted place 1 Cor. 3. 11 12 13 14 15. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid which is Iesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold silver precious stones wood hay stubble Every Mans works shall be made manifest for the day shall declare it because it shall be revealed by fire and the fire shall try every Mans work of what sort it is if any Mans work abide which he built thereupon he shall receive a reward If any Mans work shall be burnt he shall suffer loss but he himself shall be saved but so as by fire Some there were who from this place concluded that those who held the foundation who believed in Christ and continued in the unity of the Church how wicked soever their lives were should at last be saved by fire This St. Austin vehemently opposed though it is very like the Doctrine or Practice of the Church of Rome which sends all good Catholick sinners how wicked soever their lives have been to Purgatory especially if they have had time to confess and receive Absolution They absolve all that confess and no Man who is absolved at the hour of death can go to Hell but how wicked soever he is he shall at last be saved by the fire of Purgatory In opposition to this St. Austin expounds wood and hay and stubble which some build upon the foundation not of such sins as the Scripture tells us will shut us out of the Kingdom of Heaven such as St. Paul mentions 1 Cor. 6. 9 10. Neither Fornicators nor Idolaters nor Adulterers c. shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven but of such a great passion for the present enjoyments of this World though lawful and innocent in themselves that we cannot lose them without great trouble and anxiety of mind for when such Men must suffer the loss of all these things for Christ if they hold the foundation if they prefer Christ before all other things they will suffer the loss of all things for him but then that fondness they have for this World will make the loss of these things very afflicting doler urit such sorrow burns their Souls and is a kind of Purgatory fire to them in this World which those good Men escape who sit loose from all present things and therefore are not so much affected with the loss of them but those who love this World too passionately if notwithstanding they can bear the loss of all for Christ shall be saved but so as by fire shall smart for their loving this World too well in those burning and Purgatory flames which an inordinate love and grief will kindle in their Souls This is what St. Austin understands by being saved by fire in this World that sorrow with which those are burnt when they lose these things who loved them too much while they had them but this Purgatory is in this life and St. Austin questions whether there may not be something like this aliquid tale in the next World that is that after death Men who loved this World too well may be greatly afflicted for the loss of it which is all the Purgatory fire before the day of judgment that St. Austin ever thought of and he was the first that ever thought of this and yet this is nothing at all to a Popish Purgatory as every body will grant So that though St. Austin was doubtful whether there may not be some Purgatory punishments after death for those who were too fond of this life that is whether their leaving this World and going into such a different state where they can enjoy nothing they were fond on here will not greatly afflict and burn and torment their minds either a longer or shorter time according to the degree of their love to this World yet neither St. Austin nor any of the Fathers thought that there was any material Purgatory fire such as the Popish Purgatory is till the end of the World. Secondly Another difference between that fire which the Fathers mention and the Popish Purgatory fire respects the persons who are to be tried in it For the Fathers taught that at the day of judgment all Men excepting Christ himself must pass through the fire not St. Peter nor St. Paul nay not the blessed Virgin herself excepted This is expresly asserted by Lactantius Hilary Ambrose and many others We must all be tried by Fire whoever desires to return into Paradise ideo unusignem illum sentire non potuit qui est justitia Dei Christus quia peccatum non fecit Christ only who is the righteousness of God and never committed any sin escapes that fire but they believed that all Mankind besides must pass through it that perfect good Men shall pass unhurt and untouched that those who are imperfectly good must be purged by fire and shall suffer by the flames of it a longer or shorter time as their purgation requires and that bad Men shall sink for ever into those bottomless Lakes of Fire and Brimstone But the Popish Purgatory is neither for very good nor very bad Men. Bad Men immediately go to Hell and perfect Saints ascend directly into Heaven without passing the fire of Purgatory which therefore cannot be that fire the Fathers speak of which the most perfect Saints must pass thorough into Heaven Thirdly Another difference is That the Popish Purgatory Fire is not for purgation but the Fire at the Day of Judgment according to the ancient Fathers is I observed before that the Popish Purgatory is not to make Men better for the Souls in Purgatory are perfect in all Graces and can neither merit nor sin All that they have to do in Purgatory is to make satisfaction for that temporal punishment which is due to their sins their sins are already pardoned and their Souls are purged they perfectly love God and are beloved by him and yet unless they be relieved by the Prayers and Alms and Masses of the living they may lie several Ages in Purgatory bearing the punishment of their sins when they are both pardoned and cleansed from sin which may seem a little odd to those Men who remember that Christ has born the punishment of our sins and who know no other end of punishments but either to reform the sinner or to take vengeance on their sins which there is no room for when the sin is pardoned But now though the ancient Fathers do deny that there is any purgation of sin between Death and Judgment but that every Soul continues in the same state wherein Death found it till the Day of Judgment yet they make the Fire at the Day of Judgment to be truly Purgatory to purge us from all the remains of Corruption just as Gold is purged and refined in the Fire and therefore they tell us that perfect Souls shall pass through the Fire unhurt but if there be any Lead mingled with our
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
not be thought vain and hypocritical But whereas S. Austin distinguishes Souls departed into three orders those who are so perfectly good that they need not our Prayers others less perfect to whom our Prayers are beneficial and a third sort so wicked that their estate is irrecoverable and so past the relief of our Prayers S. Chrysostom mentions but two sorts sincere good Christians and Infidels and such as die without Baptism and bad Christians whom he places in the same rank As for the first he expresly tells us that after Death they are in a state of Rest and Happiness and upon this very account condemns those extravagant expressions of sorrow at their Funerals and therefore he never thought of a Popish Purgatory for I think we have great reason to lament those who are in Purgatory a place of torment though not Hell. As for others he thinks they deserve our Sorrow and Compassion and Prayers and Alms not that this can deliver them out of the state of the damned but that he thought it gave some little ease and relief to their torments And this was not only the sense of S. Chrysostom that the damned themselves were eased by the Prayers of the living but S. Austin seems to be of the same mind when he says that the suffrages of the living are profitable either ut plena fiat remissio aut tolerabilior sit ipsa damnatio to obtain perfect forgiveness or to make damnation it self more tolerable And I think what Basil of Seleucia relates concerning Thecla That by her Prayers she obtained the Soul of Falconilla who died a Pagan signifies that he believed something more than this that the Prayers of the living may not only ease the torments of the damned but deliver them out of Hell it self Now this the Church of Rome believes no more than we do They reject all the reasons for which the Ancients prayed for the Dead and have invented some new reasons which the ancient Fathers never thought of viz. to Pray Men out of Purgatory and therefore though they still Pray for the Dead and we do not yet they no more Pray for the Dead in the sense of the ancient Church than we do however I think from hence it appears that they cannot prove a Popish Purgatory from the practice of the ancient Church in Praying for the Dead which is all I intended to prove at this time XI Desiring the Intercessions of the blessed is more superstitious and derogatory to our Lord's Mediatorship than intreating the Prayers of holy Men Militant This I answered Was as plain in Scripture as that Christ is our only Mediator in Heaven who alone like the high Priest under the Law who was his Type is admitted into the Holy of Holies to make expiation and to interceed for us The summ of what we teach about this matter is this That we must worship none but God and therefore must not Pray to Saints and Angels as our Saviour teaches Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve That there is but one Mediator between God and man the man Christ Jesus and therefore we must not make more Mediators to our selves nor put our trust in the Intercession of Saints and Angels Thus far we have plain Scripture proof and then we think common sense teaches us the rest That it is an injury to an Only Mediator to set up other Mediators with him That good Men on Earth are not Mediators but Supplicants which is no encroachment on Christ's Mediatorship and that Saints in Heaven according to the Church of Rome Pray as Mediators and Intercessors who appear in the presence of God for us and this is not reconcilable with Christ's Onely Mediatorship in Heaven To this our Author answers Page 7. It is not at all in Scripture that our Saviour is our only Mediator of Intercession therefore this proposition is not plain there If such an only Mediatorship of Intercession be plain in Scripture it had been easie and kind to have named such a plain Scripture Yet none is brought unless the Answerer meant Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God c. for such a one Truly I see not how he can deduce from it any thing to his purpose till it appear that all Prayer is Divine Worship or that we Pray to Saints just as we do to God. This is all his answer and I think I might trust every ordinary Reader with it without any reply but I must be civil to our Author and therefore will try if I can make him understand this matter The Reader will easily see That that Text Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and what he has concealed in an c. as if he were afraid to let his own People who possibly may read his Book know what follows and him only shalt thou serve was never intended to prove that Christ is our only Mediator of Intercession The proof I insist on is in 1 Timothy 2. 5. There is one God and one mediator between God and men the Man Christ Iesus But says our Author this does not prove that there is but one Mediator of Intercession But why does it not prove this Is a Mediator of Intercession a Mediator if he be and there be but one Mediator then there is but one Mediator of Intercession for there is but one Mediator in all As for his distinction between a Mediator of Redemption and Intercession there is no such distinction to be found in Scripture and therefore when S. Paul asserts without any distinction that there is but one Mediator I think we have reason to do so too for if we admit of unscriptural distinctions I know no Article of our Faith but what may be distinguished away When the Apostle says There is but one God why may not a Heathen distinguish upon this That it is very true there is but one Supreme and Sovereign God though there are many inferior Deities as well as a Papist say That there is but one Mediator indeed of Redemption but there may be many Mediators of Intercession For both here and in 1 Cor. 8. 5. The Apostle makes Christ the one Mediator just as God is the one God and that sure signifies the only God and the only Mediator For though there be that are called Gods whether in Heaven or in Earth as there be Gods many and Lords many but to us there is but one God the Father of whom are all things and we in him and one Lord Iesus Christ by whom are all things and we by him Where as one God is opposed to the multitude of Heathen Gods so one Lord or one Mediator as Baalim and Lords signified those mediating powers between the Gods and Men is opposed to the many Lords and Mediators among the Heathens Indeed as there is no foundation in Scripture for this distinction between a Mediator of Redemption and Intercession so there is no sense in it
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
PAPERS lately printed concerning the Authority of the Catholick Church in Matters of Faith and the Reformation of the Church of England Quarto A Vindication of the Answer to SOME LATE PAPERS concerning the Unity and Authority of the Catholick Church and Reformation of the Church of England Quarto An Historical Treatise written by an AUTHOR of the Communion of the CHURCH of ROME touching TRANSUBSTANTIATION Wherein is made appear That according to the Principles of THAT CHURCH This Doctrine cannot be an Article of Faith. Quarto A CATECHISM explaining the Doctrine and Practices of the Church of Rome with an Answer thereunto By a Protestant of the Church of England Octavo A Papist Represented and not Misrepresented Being an Answer to the First Second Fifth and Sixth Sheets of the Second Part of the Popish Representer and for a further Vindication of the CATECHISM truly representing the Doctrine and Practices of the Church of Rome Quarto In 3. Discourses The Lay-Christian's Obligations to read the Holy Scriptures Quarto The Plain Man's Reply to the Catholick Missionaries 24 o. The Protestant's Companion Or an Impartial Survey and Comparison of the Protestant Religion as by Law established with the main Doctrines of Popery Wherein is shewn that Popery is contrary to Scripture Primitive Fathers and Councils and that proved from Holy Writ the Writings of the Ancient Fathers for several hundred Years and the Confession of the most Learned Papists themselves Quarto Mr. Chillingworth's Book called The Religion of Protestants a safe way to Salvation made more generally useful by omitting Personal Contest but inserting whatsoever concerns the Common Cause of Protestants or defends the Church of England With an Addition of an Useful Table and also of some genuine Pieces of the same Author never before Printed viz. about Traditions against the Catholicism and Infallibility of the Roman Church And an Account of the Arguments which moved him to turn Papist with his Confutation of the said Arguments Quarto A Discourse of the Holy Eucharist in the two great points of the Real Presence and the Adoration of the Host. In Answer to the Two Discourses lately printed at Oxford on this Subject To which is prefixed a large Historical Preface relating to the same Argument Quarto The Pillar and Ground of Truth A Treatise shewing that the Roman Church falsly claims to be That Church and the Pillar of That Truth mentioned by S. Paul in his First Epistle to Timothy Chap. III. Vers. 15. Quarto A Brief Discourse concerning the Notes of the Church with some reflections on Cardinal Bellarmin's Fifteen Notes Quarto An Examination of the Cardinal's First Note concerning The Name of Catholick His Second Note Antiquity His Third Note Duration His Fourth Note Amplitude or Multitude and variety of Believers His Fifth Note The Succession of Bishops His Sixth Note Agreement in Doctrine with the Primitive Church His Seventh Note Union of the Members among themselves and with the Head His Eighth Note Sanctity of Doctrine The rest will be published Weekly in their Order A Defence of the Confuter of Bellarmin's Second Note of the Church Antiquitr against the Cavills of the Adviser Quarto The Peoples Right to read the Holy Scriptures asserted In Answer to the 6th 7th 8th 9th and 10th Chapters of the Popish Representer Second Part Two Discourses Of Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead Quarte A Short Summary of the Principal Controversies between the Church of England and the Church of Rome Being a Vindication of several Protestant Doctrines in Answer to a late Pamphlet intituled Protestancy destitute of Scripture-Proofs FINIS Ans. to request p. 1. Answer to Request p. 2. F Prot. Answer to Request p. 3. Answer to Request p. 5. Council Trid. Sess. 7. de Eucharistia cap. 5. Answer to Request p. 7. Concil Corstant Sess. 13. Purgatorium esse animasque ibi detentas fidelium suffragiis potissimum vero acceptabili altataris sacrificio juvari praecipit Sancta Synodus Episcopis ut sanam de purgatorio Doctrinam à sanctis patribâ—s sacris conciliis traditam Christi fidelibus credi teneri doceri ubique predicari diligenter studeant Concil Trid. Sess. 25. decret de purgat De purgat l. 1. cap. 5. cap. 10. l. 2. cap. 10 11 12. Cap. 11. Idem l. 2. cap. 3 4. Ibid. c. 14. Cap. 16. Irenaeus l. 5. contr haeres c. 31. Tert. de anima cap. 55. * Supergrediuntur ordinem promotionis justorum modos al. motus meditationis ad incorruptelam ignorant Ir. ibid. Qui ergo universam reprobant resurrectionem quantum in ipsis est auferunt eam de medio quid mirum est si nec ordinem resurrectionis sciunt Ibid. Quidam ex his qui putantur recâ—e credidisse baereticos sensus in se habentes Ibid. Dall de poenis satisf l. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Locum divinae amoenitatis recipiendis sanctorum spiritibus destinatâ—m Tert. Apol. cap. 47. Iustin Martyr l. resp ad Orth. quaest 75. Hilar. in Psal. 2. in Psal. 120. Ergo dum expectatur plenitudo temporis expectant animae Resurrectionem debitam Alias manet poena alias gloria Et tamen nec illae interim sine inâ—â—iâ nec istae sine fructu Ambr. de bono mortis cap. 10. Nulli patet coelum terra adhuc salva ne dixerim clausa cum transactione enim mundi reserabuntur regna coelorum Tert. Apol. cap. 47. Chrys. Hom. 29. in Matth. Aug. l. 16. de C. D. c. 24. Tale aliquid etiam post hanc vitam fieri incredibile non est utrum ita sit quaeri potest aut inveniri aut latere nonnullos fideles per ignem quendam Purgatorium quanto magis minusve bona pereuntia dilexerunt tanto tardius eitiusve salvari Aug. Enchirid. c. 69. Cum iis quae descripsimus ita nostra vel aliorum exerceatur vel erudiatur infirmitas ut tamen in eis nulla velut canonica constituatur authoritas Aug. de octo Quaest. Dulcilii Quaest. 3. Aug. Enchiridion ad Laurent cap. 67 68 69. Ambros. Serm 20. in Psal. 118. Cyrilli Hierosol liturgia Syr. orationes Bibl. patrum T. 6. Tertull. contra Marcion c. 24. Dall de poenis satisf l. 5. c. 9. Tert. de monog c. 10. Ambr. de obitu Val. Bibl. Patr. T. 6. Enchirid. ad Laurent De civit Dei l. 12. c. 9. Idem Tract 10. in Ep. Ioan. Chrys. Serm. 3. in Philip. ed. Savil. Tom 4. p. 20. in Hebr. Ser. 4. p. 453. Chrys. Homil. 21 in Act. T. 4. p. 734. Aug. Enchirid. ad Laurent Answer to Request p. 10 11. Genes 8. 20. Genes 12 7 8. Ch. 26. 25. 35. Act. 3. 1. Psal. 141. 1. Luke 1. 10. Revel 8. 3 4. Hebr. 7. 25. See Answer to Papists protesting against Protestant Popery See the Object of Religious worship Part 1. and the Answer to Papists Protesting against Protestant Popery Sect. 4. Protestancy destitute of Scripture-Proofs p. 8. 1 Kings 12. 28. 1 Kings 16 31. 32. 2 Kings 10. 16. Maximus Tyrius Dissert 38. Answer to Request p. 12. Prot. dest p. 9. 1 Cor. 14. 6. 19. Vers. 7 8 9 10 11. Vers. 14 15 16. Answer to Request p. 13. Protestancy destitute of Scripture Proofs p. 10. See Dr. Barrows Treatise of SuPremacy See Dr. Stilling fl Origines Britan. p. 106. c. Answer to Request Protestancy destitute of Scripture Proofs Church Government Part. 5. English Reformation ch 2. p. 21. Burnets History of the Reformation part 1. book 2. p. 137. Burnets Histo ry of the Reform part 2. l. 3. p. 401. Church Government Part. 5. concerning the English Reformation See the Authority of Councils with the Appendix in Answer to the eight Theses of the Oxford Writer And the Judge of Controversies