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
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
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
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
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
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
Western Patriarch and therefore ought not to have innovated without the Patriarchal Authority and a Patriarchal Council nor to have rejected the Patriarchal Authority which was confirmed by ancient Councils Now not to dispute this at present Whether England were subject to the Bishop of Rome as the Western Patriarch which it is certain our Brittish Bishops when Austin the Monk came into England would not own and which was never granted by any ancient General Council and the Submission of the English Bishops afterwards by Fear or Flattery could never give such a Right as should oblige all their Successours for future Ages yet I say this Patriarchal Authority is not the Dispute between the Church of England and the Church of Rome Our Reformers took no notice of the Patriarchal Authority but the Universal Headship and Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome as is evident from the Articles of our Church in which there is no mention of it And this was such an Usurpation as might be renounced without the Authority of any Council as I have already shown Indeed his Patriarchal Authority if he had any necessarily fell with it For when he challenges such an exorbitant Power so far exceeding the Bounds and Limits of a Patriarchal Authority and will exercise all if he exercise any and will hold Communion with none upon any other terms and will not be confined to a meer Patriarchal Jurisdiction we must necessarily renounce all Subjection to him to deliver our selves from his Usurpations when his pretended Patriarchate is swallowed up in his Universal Headship he may thank himself if he forfeits what he might with a better Appearance make some Pretence to by challenging so much more than ever was his right And the Patriarchal Authority it self could he have made any pretences to it which he never could over the Church of England which was originally a free and independent Church being but a human Constitution may be renounced without Schism when necessity requires it and certainly if ever there can be any necessity for such a Rupture it becomes necessary then when it swells into a boundless and unlimited Authority to the Oppression of the whole Christian Church in her essential Rights and Liberties 5ly There is one thing more I would have observed for the right stating of this Dispute about Schism viz. the difference between Schism from the Catholick Church and the Breach of Ecclesiastical Communion between different Churches In the first Sense Schism cuts us off from the Body of Christ and consequently puts us out of a state of Salvation and therefore it can be nothing less than a Separation from the Communion of the Church in things essential to Faith or Worship or Government for in this sense no man can be a Schismatick without in some Degree or other forfeiting his Christianity and his essential Right to Christian Communion Ecclesiastical Communion is the Union of several distinct Churches into one Ecclesiastical Body for mutual Advice and Counsel and the more pure Administration of Discipline When several Bishops who have originally all the same Authority in the Government of their several Churches bestow different Powers on some Bishops whom they advance above others with the Title and Authority of Metropolitans or Patriarchs with a Power of calling Synods and receiving Appeals and the principal Authority of Ordinations and govern their several Churches by such Ecclesiastical Laws as are agreed on by common Consent or the major Vote This is a very useful Constitution and of great Antiquity in the Church if it had not its beginning in the Apostles times and for any Bishop or Church causelessly to break such a Confederacy as this is a very great Evil and has the Guilt and Crime of Schism but yet it does not seem to be such a Schism as divides the intrinsick Unity of the Catholick Church and cuts off such a Church from the Body of Christ. For the Unity of the Catholick Church consists in one Faith and Worship and Charity and such an external Communion when occasion offers shows that we are all the Disciples of the same common Lord and Saviour and own each other for Brethren but the Church may be the one Body of Christ without being one Ecclesiastical Body under one governing Head which it is impossible the whole Christian Church should be and therefore a Church which divides it self from that Ecclesiastical Body to which it did once belong if it have just and necessary Reasons for what it does is wholly blameless nay commendable for it if it have not it sins according to the nature and aggravation of the Crime but still may be a Member of the Catholick Church and still enjoy all the Priviledges of a true Catholick Church the Communion of Saints the Forgiveness of Sins and the Promises of everlasting Life Which shows us how the holy Catholick Church in the Creed may be One notwithstanding all those Divisions of Christendom which are occasioned by the Quarrels of Bishops and the Disputes about Ecclesiastical Canons and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Those who are the Beginners or Fomentors of such Divisions shall answer it to their Lord and Judge as they shall all their other personal Miscarriages but it would be very hard if such a Church which in its Faith and Worship is truly Catholick should be cut off from the Body of Christ and all the Members of it put out of a State of Salvation because the Bishops and Pastors of such Churches think fit to divide themselves from that Ecclesiastical Body to which they were united by Custom or ancient Canons Now this is the most they can make of our forsaking the Ecclesiastical Communion of the Church of Rome That we have divided our selves from the Bishop of Rome to whom by Custom or some pretended Canons we owed Obedience and Subjection which I have proved to be very innocent in us because it was necessary But suppose it were a causeless and criminal Separation yet it is only an Ecclesiastical Schism which does not separate us from the Catholick Church though it does from that Ecclesiastical Body of which the Bishop of Rome makes himself the Head. This I think is a sufficient Justification of the Church of England in rejecting the Authority of the Church of Rome and her reforming the Errors and Corruptions of Faith and Worship needs no defence at all though there were never a pure and reformed Church in the World besides her self For I would desire our Author to tell me whether it be a fault to reform the Corruptions of Faith and Worship Can it be a fault then to believe as Christ has taught and to worship God as he has prescribed Is it possible that the true Catholick Faith and Worship should ever be a Crime if it be not then it can be no fault to make the Doctrines and Institutions of our Saviour the Rule of our Faith and Worship and that is all that we mean by reforming not