confirmed and we no more want new Miracles to confirm our Reformation than to confirm the Authority of the Christian Religion for Reformed Christianity is nothing else but the old Primitive Apostolick Christianity and therefore we have the same Authority to reform now which the Apostles at first had to preach the Gospel for their Authority to preach the Gospel is and will be to the end of the World a sufficient Authority to all Men to believe it and consequently to renounce all Errors and Corruptions in Faith and Worship which are contrary to it 2. As for the Authority of the Clergy whatever it be it is certain Christ gave them no Authority to preach any other Gospel than what he had taught them which is the express Commission which he gave to the Apostles themselves and therefore whatever Decrees and Definitions they have made contrary to the true Faith and Worship of Christ are void of themselves and want no Authority to repeal them As for that distinction between making and declaring new Articles of Faith it is a meer piece of Sophistry for if they have the power of declaring and no body must oppose them nor judg of their Declarations under the pretence of declaring they may make as many new Articles of Faith as they please as we see the Council of Trent has done This Extravagant Authority they give to the Clergy of making Decrees and Canons concerning Faith and Worship which shall oblige the Laity to a blind Obedience and implicit Faith is a most ridiculous pretence unless it be supported with Infallibility and yet you have already heard that the pretence of Infallibility it self though it may silence those Mens objections and stop their farther inquiries who do really believe it yet it is no defence against the charge of Errors nor a sufficient Answer to that charge and how vain the pretence it self is has been abundantly proved in some late Treatises This is enough to show how insignificant that charge is against the Reformation that those Bishops and Priests who were at that time in Power and were zealously addicted to the Interests of Rome would not concur in it though afterwards much the greater numbers submitted to it and thereby gave it an after confirmation which is as much as they can pretend for the confirmation of some of their General Councils I grant nothing can be looked on as the Act of the Clergy which is not done by a regular Authority according to the Rules of that Church nor do we pretend that the Reformation was perfected or finished by the regular Authority of the Popish Clergy though several of them were Zealous in it but we say it is never the worse for that if they can prove that what we call a Reformation is faulty upon other Accounts then we will grant that to reform against the consent of the Clergy did greatly aggravate the Crime but if the Reformation were just and necessary and a true Reformation of the Errors and Corruptions of Christianity the dissent of the Clergy could not and ought not to hinder it for they had no such Authority from Christ either to corrupt Religion or to hinder the Reformation of it 3. The Supreme Authority of any Nation has a regular Authority to declare what shall be the Established Religion of that Nation and therefore the Queen and the Parliament could make the Reformed Religion the National Religion Established by Law and this is all that we Attribute to Kings and Parliaments We do not justifie our Reformation because it was confirmed by the Authority of Parliament but because it is agreeable to Scripture But we Thank God that he then inclined the heart of the Queen and Parliament to Establish the Reformation and heartily pray that he would still continue it to us and to our Posterity for ever Amen The End. Books lately printed for Richard Chiswell THE History of the Reformation of the Church of England By GILBERT BURNET D. D. in two Volumes Folio The Moderation of the Church of England in her Reformation in avoiding all undue Compliances with Popery and other sorts of Phanaticism c. by TIMOTHY PULLER D. D. Octavo A Dissertation concerning the Government of the Ancient Church more particularly of the Encroachments of the Bishops of Rome upon other Sees By WILLIAM CAVE D. D. Octavo An Answer to Mr. Serjeant's Sure Footing in Christianity concerning the Rule of Faith With some other Discourses By WILLIAM FALKNER D. D. 4 o. A Vindication of the Ordinations of the Church of England in Answer to a Paper written by one of the Church of Rome to prove the Nullity of our Orders By GILBERT BURNET D. D. Octavo An Abridgment of the History of the Reformation of the Church of England By GILB BURNET D. D. Octavo A Collection of several Tracts and Discourses written in the years 1678 1679. c. by Gilbert Burnet D. D. To which are added 1 A Letter written to Dr. Burnet giving an Account of Cardinal Pool's secret Powers 2 The History of the Powder-Treason with a Vindication of the Proceedings thereupon 3. An Impartial Consideration of the Five Jesuits dying Speeches who were Executed for the Plot 1679. In Quarto The APOLOGY of the Church of England and an Epistle to one Signior Scipio a Venetian Gentleman concerning the Council of Trent Written both in Latin by the Right Reverend Father in God IOHN IEWEL Lord Bishop of Salisbury Made English by a Person of Quality To which is added The Life of the said Bishop Collected and written by the same Hand Octavo A LETTER writ by the last Assembly General of the Clergy of France to the Protestants inviting them to return to their Communion Together with the Methods proposed by them for their Conviction Translated into English and Examined by GILB BURNET D. D. Octavo The Life of WILLIAM BEDEL D. D. Bishop of Kilmore in Ireland Together with Certain Letters which passed betwixt him and Iames Waddesworth a late Pensioner of the Holy Inquisition of Sevil in Matter of Religion concerning the General Motives to the Roman Obedience Octavo The Decree made at ROME the Second of March 1679. condemning some Opinions of the Iesuits and other Casuists Quarto A Discourse concerning the Necessity of Reformation with respect to the Errors and Corruptions of the Church of Rome Quarto First and Second Parts A Discourse concerning the Celebration of Divine Service in an Unknown Tongue Quarto A Papist not Misrepresented by Protestants Being a Reply to the Reflections upon the Answer to A Papist Misrepresented and Represented Quarto An Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England in the several Articles proposed by the late BISHOP of CONDOM in his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholick Church Quarto A Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the CHURCH of ENGLAND against the EXCEPTIONS of Monsieur de MEAUX late Bishop of Condom and his VINDICATOR Quarto An Answer to THREE
Imprimatur Junii 4. 1687. Hen. Maurice RR mo in Christo P. D. Wilhelmo Archiep. Cant. à Sacris 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 LONDON Printed for Richard Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in S. Paul's Church-Yard MDCLXXXVII THE CONTENTS The State of the Controversie HOW far Protestants demand Scripture-proofs for all Doctrines of Religion Page 2 Protestants do not reject all Doctrines which are not contained in express words of Scripture 3 But yet require express Scripture-proofs for all necessary Articles of Faith and therefore demand a Scripture-proof for the new Trent-Articles the belief of which is made necessary to Salvation 4 The silence of Scripture sufficient to reject any Doctrine as unscriptural 5 Concerning Negative and Affirmative Articles and the Requester's blunder about them 6 A Review of the several Protestant Tenets for which He demands a Scripture-proof I. Whether the Scripture be clear in all necessaries to every sober Inquirer The Scripture proofs of it vindicated 8 Protestants do not reject the Authority of Church-Guides and the difference between a Protestant and a Popish Guide 10 II. Concerning the Spiritual Iurisdiction of the Secular Prince 11 III. Concerning Iustification by Faith alone That justifying Faith is a persuasion that we are justified is not the Doctrine of the Church of England 12 13 IV. Concerning the substance of Bread and Wine after Consecration Whether these words This is my Body can be literally understood 14 15 V. Concerning Christ's Presence in the Eucharist 16 What there is besides Substance and Efficacy belonging to our Saviour's Body and Blood. 17 The difference between the Vertues and Efficacy of an Institution and the Powers of Nature ibid. Sacramental Signs and Symbols as effectual to all the purposes of a Sacrament as Christ's Natural Flesh and Blood could be 18 19 What a Sacrament of the Lord's Body means and how distinguished from his Natural Flesh and Blood. 20 How the Communion of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist differs from the meer influences of his Grace ibid. VI. Concerning the Adoration of Christ in the Eucharist whether it be Idolatry To adore Christ is not Idolatry to adore Bread and Wine is 21 Whether the Eucharist be nothing else but Christ and to adore the Eucharist be only to adore Christ. 22 VII Concerning Communion in both kinds The words of Institution a plain Scripture-proof of the necessity of it 24 25 VIII Whether Chastity deliberately vowed may be inoffensively violated this proved not to be the Doctrine of the Church of England 26 The Article concerning the Marriage of Priests in Edw. VI. and Queen Elizabeths Reign considered 27 28 IX Whether all Christian Excellencies are commanded 29 That Gospel Exhortations include a Command ibid. That the heights and perfections of Vertue are commanded and in what sense 30 When you have done that is commanded you say we are unprofitable Servants proved to be a plain confutation of the Doctrine of Supererogation 33 The meaning of this Question Whether all Christian Excellencies are commanded in Scripture and to what purpose it serves in the Church of Rome 34 The meritorious works of the Church of Rome are not commanded by God nor are they any Christian Excellencies Such as the Monkish Vows of Poverty Coelibacy and absolute Obedience to Superiors 36 This showed particularly of the Vow of Poverty ibid. And Coelibacy 37 And Monkish Obedience ibid. 38 X. Whether every Seul as soon as expired is conveyed to Heavâ—n or Hell. 39 Concerning Dives and Lazarus and S. Paul's desire to be dissolved and to be with Christ. ibid. The Doctrine of the Council of Trent concerning Purgatory 42 This more particularly explained from Cardinal Bellarmine 43 44 The design of it to acquaint our People what proofs they must demand for Purgatory 45 A middle state between Death and Iudgment which is neither Heaven nor Hell does not prove a Popish Purgatory ibid. The Primitive Fathers did believe a middle state 46 The difference between this and a Popish Purgatory As 1. That this they affirmed of all separate Souls That none were received into Heaven before the Resurrection But Purgatory is not for all Souls but for these only who have not satisfied for their sins 47 2. They affirm this separate state not to be a state of Punishment as the Popish Purgatory is but of Ioy and Felicity 48 3. This is an unalterable state till the Day of Iudgment and therefore no Popish Purgatory out of which Souls may be redeemed with Prayers and Alms. 50 The Purgatory Fire which the Fathers speak of does not prove a Popish Purgatory 51 1. Because that is not till the Day of Iudgment S. Austin's Opinion of Purgatory Fire explained and proved very different from the Popish Purgatory 52 c. 2. All Men excepting Christ himself were to pass through the last Fire but the Popish Purgatory is not for all 56 3. The Popish Purgatory Fire is not for Purgation but the Fire at the Day of Iudgment according to the ancient Fathers is 57 Origen's notion of a Purgatory Fire 58 4. There is no Redemption out of this Fire by the Prayers and Alms of the living Which is upon all accounts the most comfortable thing in a Popish Purgatory 60 The ancient Practice of Praying for Souls departed does not prove a Popish Purgatory 61 The Original of this Practice of Praying for the Dead ibid. and 62 The state of the Controversies between Aërius and Epiphanius 63 c. For what reasons the ancient Christians prayed for the dead 64 c. S. Austin's account of the reasons of praying for the dead different from what the Fathers before him gave 67 The custom of praying to the Saints which was then introduced the occasion of this change ibid. S. Austin first made three distinctions of Souls departed ibid. And yet the Popish Purgatory cannot be proved from S. Austin 68 S. Chrysostom's opinion of this matter different from S. Austin's 71 c. XI Concerning the Intercessions of the Saints in Heaven for us 74 The distinction between a Mediator of Redemption and Intercession 75 No sense in that distinction between a Mediator of Redemption and Intercession 77 This distinction contrary to the Analogy both of the Old and New Testament 78 The difference between the vertue of the Sacrifice the Prayers of the People and the Intercession of the Priest. 79 The difference between the prayers of good Men for themselves and one another and the Intercession of a Mediator 81 To flie to the Aid of Saints in Heaven derogates from the Intercession of Christ. 83 Praying to Saints in Heaven more injurious to God than to a Mediator 84 XII Concerning the worship paid to the Cross and Images 86 Whether the worship they pay to the Cross and Images be no
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
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
But this is only to understand the Actions and Ceremonies not the words and cannot answer the end of publick Prayer which is to offer up our common Petitions to God with one Heart and Mind The use of words in publick Prayer is to direct and determine our Thoughts and to excite our Affections for this Reason the Priest reads the Prayers with an audible Voice that all the People may joyn with him and these indeed are Publick and Common Prayers but now in the Church of Rome the Priest reads the Prayers but the People do not joyn with him because they do not understand him but the most they can do is by Actions and Ceremonies to guess at what part of the Service he is and either only look on or if they be very Devout entertain themselves with some good Pious Thoughts or put up some private Prayers to God or it may be to the Virgin Mary or some Saint while the Priest is saying Mass and thus the Priest prays by himself and the People if they do pray pray by themselves and have no other Benefit of the Publick Offices of the Church but only to see what the Priest does which at best can only fill them with some Religious Amusements or with confused and indistinct and Enthusiastick Devotions It is plain that in the Church of Rome the Devotions of the People are left to their own Extempore Conceits which is a thousand times worse than the Extempore Prayers of the Preachers who may be Men of Parts and Learning and able to suggest very Proper Petitions and very Pious Thoughts and to excite very Devout Passions in their Hearers and is it not very odd that the Church should have settled Forms of Divine Offices Composed Forms of Prayer and Praise and yet the People who will pray must be left to their Extempore Devotions is this also for the Edification of the Church Is not this Fanaticism with a Witness To conclude this Argument I know no practise in the World more directly contrary to the sense of all Mankind than Prayers in an unknown Tongue There was no Nation nor no Religion in the World ever professedly guilty of it but the Church of Rome and there can be no Reason imaginable why they should conceal their Worship unless they are ashamed of it or suspect that no disinterested Man can like it when he knows it and it is as odd a Task to prove that Men must understand their Prayers as it would be to prove that the use of Speech is to be understood 15. A Company of Christians voluntarily separating from all other Christian Societies condemning their Doctrines and Rites destitute also of any visible correspondence with them in the Eucharist in any Religious Assemblies or Solemn Devotions can notwithstanding this perverse intire and manifest Separation be a Mystical Member of Christ in Catholick Unity and a Charitable part of the Catholick Church In answer to this I told him that if he applies this to us it is manifestly false for though we do not Communicate with the Church of Rome in her corrupt Worship yet there are many Christian Churches with which we can and do Communicate and separate our selves no farther from any Society of Christians than they separate themselves from the Primitive and Apostolick Church that if the Church of England be a true Apostolick Church in Faith and Worship and Government and separates from other Churches only upon account of such Corruptions as will justifie a separation what should hinder her from being a Mystical Member of Christ in Catholick Unity and a Charitable part of the Catholick Church for a true Apostolick Faith and Worship does certainly make us the Mystical Members of Christs Body or else I desire to know what does That Catholick Unity is not violated by a just separation and dangerous Corruptions in Faith and Worship are a just cause of separation Come out from among them and be ye separate saith the Lord and touch not the unclean thing and I will receive you 2 Cor 6. 17. All that our Author replies to this is that This Proposition relates to matter of Fact which we affirm Protestants to have done and desire them to make out by Scripture the Lawfulness of it and its consistency with Catholick Unity and Charity But I denied that we had done this and gave him in short my Reasons why I denied it which methinks might have deserved some notice and as for our separation from the Corruptions of the Church of Rome that I gave him my Reasons for and such as it seems he had no mind to answer that separation might sometimes be lawful and necessary and therefore not chargeable with Schism nor a breach of Catholick Unity I proved from the Text now quoted Come out from among them c. to which he says If I intend this for a Proof then it must import that it is the Duty of one Christian or a Party pretending to be a National Church to come out of the Catholick Church and be separate from her less than this will not reach the Protestant Case and so much as this will by no means agree with one Holy Church wherein alone the Communion of Saints Remission of Sins and Life Everlasting are to be found But how is this the Protestant Case How does separation from the Church of Rome and that no farther neither than she is Corrupt come to be a separation from the Catholick Church He knows that we deny the Church of Rome to be the Catholick Church and we know that he can never prove it to be so and whatever Church or Churches have corrupted the Faith and Worship of Christ we shall make no scruple at all to separate from them in such Corruptions and have the whole Gospel to justifie us in it for in such Cases we are under the same obligation to separate that we are to profess the true Faith and practise the true Worship of Christ. All that can be charged upon the Church of England is that she renounced the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome and denied Obedience and Subjection to that See which never had any Divine Right to claim it and that she reformed those Errors in Doctrine and Corruptions in Worship which she formerly was guilty of This charge we readily own but deny that this is Schism of Separation from the Catholick Church For till our Author can prove that the Unity of the Catholick Church consists in subjection to the Bishop of Rome it is ridiculous to charge us with breaking Catholick Unity by denying that Obedience which we do not owe and when he can prove this essential to Catholick Unity to submit to the Bishop of Rome as the visible Head of the Church we will own our selves to be Schismaticks But then I must mind him what he is to prove viz. that by a Divine Institution the Bishop of Rome is the visible Head of Unity to whom all Churches must
to mend Christian Religion but to return to Primitive Christianity To cast such Doctrines out of our Creed as Christ never taught and to reject all new and suspected Worships And if it be always a Duty to profess what Christ and his Apostles have taught and to practise as they have commanded then if ever we believed or practised otherwise it is necessary to reform which is not in a proper sense to reform the Church or the Christian Faith and Worship but to reform our selves For the Christian Faith and Worship is always the same and if there be any thing to be reformed it must be our own Errors and Mistakes What then is the Fault of the Church of England Why cannot she be a mystical Member of Christ in Catholick Unity or a charitable part of the Catholick Church The Charge is drawn up against her under three Heads 1. That she voluntarily separates from all other Christian Societies 2. Condemns their Doctrines and Rights 3. Has no visible Correspondence with them in the Eucharist nor in any religious Assemblies nor solemn Devotions Let us consider these distinctly 1. The Church of England voluntarily separates from all other Christian Societies This I told him was false as to matter of Fact for there are a great many Christian Societies which we can and do hold Communion with as opportunity serves and he can never make good this Charge but by denying that there are any other Christian Societies besides the Church of Rome which I suppose is what he intends Well! we do separate he says and that voluntarily from the Church of Rome that is from all Christian Societies Now I grant we do separate from the Bishop and the Church of Rome considered as the Principle and Center of Catholick Unity as I observed before but considered as a Christian Church so I deny that we separate from the Church of Rome or any other Christian Church as far as they are Christian and we are bound to communicate with them no farther For I pray consider what Christian Communion is which certainly is nothing else but to communicate in the true Christian Faith and Worship for to communicate in Judaism Paganism Mahumatism or any unchristian Doctrines or Practices certainly is not Christian Communion And therefore every Church is more or less perfect in Christian Communion according to the Purity and Perfection of her Faith and Worship If then the Church of England professes the true Christian Faith and worships God according to the Gospel of his Son without any corrupt Mixtures and Innovations as far as true Faith and Worship reaches she is in Communion with all the Christian Churches in the World for she agrees with them in all that they believe or practise which is truly Christian and Christian Communion extends no farther Well but when the whole Church was agreed in Faith and Worship we broke this Bond of Unity by a pretended Reformation Suppose this the Question still is Whether this Unity of the Church was a Christian Communion for if it were not it is no Separation from the Christian Church to leave its Communion in those things which are not Christian And therefore the whole Controversie will still turn upon this Point whether the Reformation of the Church of England be a true Gospel Reformation for if we reformed nothing but what ought to be reformed then we separated no farther than we ought to separate and such a Separation if you will call it a Separation I hope is no Crime Did Elias separate from the Jewish Church because he broke their Unity in the Worship of Baal and reduced them to the Institutions of the Moisaick Law which was the Standard of their Religion and Communion Just so the Church of England separated from the Church of Rome by rejecting those Articles of Faith and Forms of Worship which are not Christian. Some kind of Separation indeed there must be between a pure and a corrupt Church but if you would know on which side the Separation is criminal you must consider on which side the corruption is for necessary Truths can never make a criminal Separation The Church which forsakes the Truth is always guilty of the Separation not the Church which forsakes Errors and therefore it is a ridiculous thing to charge those with the Schism who only forsake the Company when those are the Schismaticks who forsake the Truth And yet this is the only pretence for the Church of Rome to charge us with Schism That they did not leave us but we left them they kept where they were and we went out from among them and forsook their Communion but it was because they had first forsaken the Apostolick Communion by corrupting the Apostolick Faith and Worship They were the Deserters and Separatists we only returned to the true Christian Communion and were very sorry to leave them behind us The short of it is this if we cannot justifie our Reformation we are Schismaticks if we can we are none And I would desire all Protestants to take notice of this short Answer and stick to it for it is as certain as any Demonstration in Euolid that no man can be a Schismatick who forsakes no Society of Christians any farther than they forsake the Truth 2. The next charge is that we condemn their Doctrines and their Rights but do we condemn any thing which ought not to be condemned if we do it is indeed a fault but if we don't why are we blamed for it 3. We have no visible Correspondence with them in the Eucharist nor in any Religious Assemblies nor Solemn Devotions How so we visibly receive the Eucharist our selves and perform our Solemn Devotions in Publick Assemblies and this is to Communicate with the whole Christian Church in the same Sacraments and Worship and the only way that distant Churches have to Communicate with each other in Sacraments and Worship unless he thinks the Church of England must travel into France and Spain and Italy into Greece and AEgypt and all other remote Churches to Communicate with them No but when their Worship is brought home to us we refuse to joyn with them right for according to the Laws of Catholick Communion when they are in England they ought to Communicate with us not we with them according to St. Austins Rule to observe the Rights and Usages of the Church whither soever we come as far as they are Innocent if we denied to receive them to our Communion they might with better reason charge us with Schism but we are not bound to forsake the Communion of our own Church to follow Foreign Customs at home But when we do come where their Worship is the Established Religion we still refuse to Communicate with them we do so indeed with the Roman Church but not with all other Christian Societies and the Reason is because we believe their Worship is sinful and no Christian is bound to Communicate in a sinful Worship as they themselves
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
of their own sending and instruction In Answer to this I told him that if by this he meant that the whole Clergy of the Christian World did at the time of the Reformation maintain the Doctrines of the Church of Rome which were rejected and condemned only by a Major Vote of a Parliament of Lay-men in England all the World knew how false it is For 1. There were many other Churches and better parts of the Catholick Church than the Church of Rome which did not own those Doctrines and Corruptions which we reject 2. Nay the whole Clergy of the Roman Church did not for many of our English Bishops and Clergy were as Zealous for the Reformation as any Lay-men so were the German Reformers who were Originally Popish Monks and Priests and yet did not follow the Laity but lead them way to the Reformation In reply to this he says I manifest my self meanly versed in the Story of my own Party or no friend to Ingenuity and Truth For it is certainly true and attested by Protestant Historians and Records that all the Bishops and the whole Convocation declared against Lay-supremacy and other Protestant Points and for Non-compliance therewith were almost all deprived the Queen and her Lay-Parliament enacting Supremacy whereby she imposed new Doctrines displaced the Catholick Clergy and created Prelatick Ministers And whether he or I be most in the right let the Reader Judg. For 1. It is plain I did not speak only of the Clergy of England but of the whole Clergy of the Catholick Church as he himself stated the Question and he answers only to the Clergy of England and with what Truth shall be examined presently For if the whole Clergy of the Catholick Church have not Apostatized whatever the Clergy of the Church of Rome has done he loses the very Foundation of his Request to us to prove that the whole Clergy of the Catholick Church have Apostatized from Fundamental Truth and Holiness for we are not bound to prove that which is false but he who allows no Catholick Church but the Church of Rome must consequently allow no Clergy of the Catholick Church but the Roman Clergy but we grant neither one nor t'other and yet as I showed the Roman Clergy themselves were the first Reformers and therefore what he insinuates cannot be true that the whole Roman Clergy opposed the Roman Laity in the Reformation 2. As for the English Reformation he confines it in his Answer only to the Story of Queen Elizabeth and what was done in her Reign but the Article he would have proved and the Answer I gave to it has no such limitation and I must still repeat that all the World knows and the Histories and Records of our Church assure us that the Popish Bishops and Convocation in Henry the Eight's days did acknowledg the Kings Supremacy and in higher Terms than Queen Elizabeth would challenge it Indeed the late Oxford Writer or rather Publisher of Books charges this upon that force they were under that is that the Clergy was taken in a Praemunire and the King would not compound the Business with them unless they acknowledged him to be the Head of the Church But does this prove that they did not make this Recognition if force or flattery can corrupt the whole Clergy then it seems the whole Clergy of the Roman Catholick Church may Apostatize from Fundamental Truth and Holiness if they fall first into a Praemunire and meet with a King who will take the Advantage of it and are not the Clergy then admirable Guides to follow especially if they can be so over-awed as not only to make such a Profession but to Write and Dispute for it and use all variety of Arguments to perswade People to believe it The Institution for the necessary Erudition of a Christian man was agreed on in Convocation and published by Authority Bishop Gardiner wrote a Book de vera Obedientia to which Bonner prefixed a Preface upon the same Argument Stokesly Bishop of London and Tonstal Bishop of Duresm wrote in defence of the Kings Proceedings to Cardinal Pool and many Sermons were preached by several Bishops to the same purpose out of which Dr. Burnet has collected the Arguments used by them both against the Power of the Pope and for the Supremacy of the King And during that Session of Parliament which took away the Power of the Pope in the year 1534. A Bishop preached every Sunday at St. Paul's Cross and taught the People that the Pope had no Authority in England Was all this matter of force too and fear of the Praemunire which was pardoned in Parliament Anno 1531. three years before Let us now consider what passed under Queen Elizabeth And methinks what was good Doctrine in King Henry's time should be good Doctrine still and yet it is true that many Bishops then did protest against the Act for Supremacy and refused the Oath when it was offered them and that many of those Bishops who had wrote or preached for it before such as Bonner Bishop of London and Tonstal of Duresm which seems to lessen their Authority in this matter and when the Nation had so lately had the sense of the whole English Roman Clergy in this Point their present obstinacy to confirm their former Opinions without answering their former Reasons was no sufficient cause why a Lay-Parliament should not renew such Laws without the consent of the Clergy which were at first made with it not a Bishop dissenting excepting Fisher Bishop of Rochester And whereas he talks in such a strain as if this were opposed by the whole Clergy and that they were almost all deprived for it the account which the Visiters gave the Queen is very different that of 9400 beneficed Men in England there were no more but fourteen Bishops six Abbots twelve Deans twelve Archdeacons fifteen Heads of Colledges fifty Prebendaries and eighty Rectors of Parishes that had left their Benefices upon account of Religion which is a very inconsiderable number to the whole 3. I answered farther That we do not say that the Roman Church her self has apostatized from fundamental Truth and Holiness We do grant that they have retained the true Faith and Worship of Christ though they have fatally corrupted both by Additions of their own And therefore we are not bound to prove that the whole Clergy of the Catholick Church may apostatize from fundamental Truth and Holiness for we do not say they did All that he replies to this is That this Apostacy at the least is taught in the 19 and 21 Articles and Homilies against the Peril of Idolatry That is to say for I suppose that is his meaning that the Church of England charges the Church of Rome with Idolatry and Idolatry is an Apostacy from fundamental Truth and Holiness But if men may be guilty of some kinds of Idolatry and of very great corruptions in Faith and Worship without denying any
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
both parts of the Lords Sacrament by Christ's ordinance and commandment ought to be ministred to all Christian Men alike what he means by this I cannot guess for if he will not allow an express institution to be a Scripture-Proof I despair of ever finding a Scripture-Proof for any thing unless he can tell me what proof there can be of an institution but the words of Institution does this Institution then contain a command to receive the Eucharist if it does not how does he prove that all Christians are bound to receive the Eucharist if it does then Take Eat is a command to receive the Bread and by the same reason Drink ye all of this is a command to all to receive the Cup and both these being a part of the same Feast and commanded at the same time our Church had reason to say that both parts of the Lord's Sacrament by Christ's ordinance and commandment ought to be administred to all Christian Men alike The Church of Rome thinks the words of Institution a plain and necessary command to consecrate in both kinds without which they grant it is not a Sacrament now what other command have they for consecrating than we have for receiving in both kinds the words of Institution are all that we have about this matter and let them give me reason how the same words come to signifie consecration but not receiving in both kinds nay they grant that the Priest who consecrates must receive as well as consecrate in both kinds and yet the Institution is in the same form of words without making any distinction between the Priest and the People and how the same words should command the Priest to receive in both kinds and not the People is somewhat mysterious I am apt to think that the Fathers of the Council of Constance who decreed the communion in one kind with a non obstante to our Saviour's Institution did suspect that there was a Scripture-Proof for communion in both kinds or there had been no need to have made an exception to our Saviour's Institution and to have set up the authority of the Church against it The Church of Rome allows that it is lawful for the People to communicate in both kinds and have reserved this authority of granting such a liberty to the Pope now how can it be lawful unless Christ has allowed it and where has he allowed it unless in the words of institution and they prove more than allowance even a command if Drink ye all of this be of the Imperative Mood VIII Chastity deliberately vowed may be inoffensively violated This I said is no Doctrine of our Church nor are Protestants now concerned in it though some of the Monks and Nuns at the beginning of the Reformation were and though I did not undertake a just defence of the Marriages of such devoted persons yet I offered several things in Apology for them and said so much that our Author did not think fit to make any reply to it but only answers to my denial that this is a Doctrine of our Church He says This proposition is a Doctrine of the Answerers Church except his be not the same Church with Edward the Sixths or the thirty second Article have another sense than when composed by Cranmer For all Bishops and Priests then in the Western Church had deliberately vowed chastity and the Article says It is lawful for them to marry which certainly violates their vow No Scripture is alledged justifying a Tenet so impure so persidious Thus by consequence he proves that it is the Doctrine of our Church that chastity deliberately vowed may be inoffensively violated because in K. Edward the Sixth and Archbishop Cranmer's days it was the Doctrine of this Church that the Bishops and Priests then in being who had deliberately vowed chastity might notwithstanding marry But suppose this was not the Doctrine in King Edward's days what becomes then of his consequence and yet this is the truth of the case For the Article then only taught that Bishops Priests and Deacons are not commanded to vow the state of single life without marriage neither by God's Law are they compelled to abstain from Matrimony but there is not one word whether those who were Bishops and Priests at that time and were under the vow of Coelibacy though every Priest as a Priest was not by the Laws of this Church bound to undertake such a vow though they were forbid by the Canons to marry might marry or not For though the Article asserts that they were not compelled by God's Law to abstain from Matrimony yet it does not say that they could not debar themselves this liberty by voluntary vows or that if they had done so they might inoffensively break those vows which is a very different question Indeed in Queen Elizabeths Reign in the Convocation held at London 1562. this Article is enlarged Bishops Priests and Deacons are not commanded by God's Law either to vow the estate of single life or to abstain from marriage Therefore it is lawful also for them as for all other Christian Men to marry at their own discretion as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness But this Article does not say that those Bishops and Priests who were entangled with a vow of Coelibacy might lawfully marry but only their being Bishops and Priests was no hindrance to their Marriage Whether there was any other impediment it concerned them to consider but these obligations of Vows which any of them were then under being a personal thing the present decision of that Controversie was not thought fit to be made an Article of Religion So that though some particular Persons were at that time concerned in this question yet the Doctrine of our Church never was concerned in it for there never was any Synodical definition of it and therefore there is no need of producing Scripture-Proofs for it But yet notwithstanding this I am far from condemning those Bishops and Priests and Nuns and Friers who did then marry for I am sure a chast Marriage is more acceptable to God than an impure Coelibacy and those Abominations which were discovered at the Dissolution of Monasteries were enough to make Men abhor such vows of Chastity as he calls them and I am very much of the opinion that it were still better for Priests to marry than to debauch their Penitents or Converts Thus much for his impure and perfidious Tenet IX All Christian excellencies are commanded This I told him I thought S. Paul had determined Philip. 4. 8. Whatsever things are true whatsoever things are honest c. think on these things For if these general expressions do not comprehend all Christian excellencies I know not what does To this he answers Unless besides comprehending it command them that Scripture will not prove the Tenet And the mode of expression that is its being in the Imperative Mood Think on these things does not prove it to be a command
because it is common to an exhortation as well as precept Suppose this then at least it may be a Command as well as an Exhortation and he can never prove that it is not a Command and therefore can never confute any Man who says it is a Command But suppose it be an Exhortation I thought that the Exhortations of the Gospel had always included a Command and I desire one instance of any Exhortation in Scripture which relates to things necessarily good or evil which does not include a Command Indeed the stile of the Gospel does not run in the form of Laws but of exhortatory Commands enforced with Reasons and Arguments to perswade and it is an effectual way to baffle all the Precepts of the Gospel if such Exhortations as are made in common to all Christians have not the force of a Command But I observed farther That whatever Virtues are commanded we must always reckon that the heights and perfections of those Virtues are commanded for God can command nothing less than a perfect Vertue and if this be true then all Christian Excellencies must be commanded unless they be such Excellencies as are no Vertues which I fear may be the case All Christian Virtues are commanded in Scripture without any bounds or limitations set to our duty and I always thought that Justice and Goodness and Charity Meekness and Humility Temperance and Chastity the Love of God and Men did signifie perfect Virtues and a perfect Virtue must be perfect in degrees as well as in its kind and the Gospel is so far from limiting our duty that it makes the Divine nature it self our pattern and example That we must be followers of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Imitators of God like dear Children And that we must be perfect as our Father which is in Heaven is perfect which advances our duty to the utmost possible attainments in Virtue But then I added that the attainment of the highest perfections in Virtue is not made the necessary condition of our Salvation Though a perfect Virtue be commanded yet for Christ's sake a sincere though imperfect obedience shall be accepted But the more perfect and excellent Virtue shall have the more perfect and excellent reward which is reason enough for us to aspire after the greatest perfections And yet those degrees of perfection which we are bound to attain to must bear some proportion to what we have received from God. For to whom much is given of them shall be much required Which shows that such attainments as bear proportion to our receipts shall be exacted from us as a just debt which may make different degrees of Virtue in different Men matter of strict duty This our Author says imports that proportion not equality must be in our accounts to our abilities This I do not well understand for an equal proportion is an equality But this he says does not agree with this Doctrine that we must always reckon the heights and perfections of Virtues are commanded His reason for it is this The Account corresponds to our Abilities so sure does the Command but all Abilities are not the same in all how then can God's Commands be so to all as they are if he always enjoyns the heights and perfections of Virtues The Account he says corresponds with our Abilities and therefore the Command must but how does he prove this God will accept of us according to our Abilities which is an act of Grace and Favour and owing to the Merits and Intercession of Christ and therefore his Commands too which are the Eternal and Unalterable Rules of Righteousness must be proportioned to our Abilities as if God might not in Grace and Mercy accept of less than in Justice he can require or as if it became a Holy and perfect Being to Command less than a perfect Virtue But all Abilities are not the same how then can God's Commands be so to all that is the same to all Men. And are not his Commands the same to all Men Do his Commands differ as Mens Abilities do How many several Gospels and several Laws then must we have And where do we find these several Commands proportioned to Mens several Abilities We have but one Gospel that I know of and the Laws of it are the same to all and it is necessary it should be so that all Men may know that they are bound to be as good as they can and not absolve themselves from any degrees of Virtue as above their Abilities and therefore not Commanded them by God This is what God will do himself when he comes to judge the World He will mercifully consider whether Men have done what they could and will accept of a little when it is their best but we must know that it is our duty to do all the good we can and therefore that the Law requires the most perfect Virtue which will engage us to do our best and use our utmost endeavours to please God and then depend on his Grace to accept our sincere endeavours instead of perfection Had I indeed said That God had made the heights and perfections of Virtue absolutely necessary to the Salvation of all Men then he might have confuted me from our Saviour's Rule of proportion To whom much is given of them shall be much required but this I expresly denied that every Man should be damned who does not attain to the highest perfections And expresly affirmed That a sincere Christian shall be saved notwithstanding his many defects but our reward shall be proportioned to our several degrees and attainments in Virtue That the most perfect Virtue shall have the most excellent reward And this is enough to confound the pretence of Merit and works of supererogation especially that sensless Doctrine of one Man's meriting for another which is the foundation of Popish Indulgences For if the most perfect Virtue be matter of Duty and under Command how is it possible that any Man can do more than his Duty unless he can do something better than the best And if our reward be proportioned to our best actions what redundancy of Merits can there be when all the good we do is so amply rewarded Thus I observed our Church confuted the Popish Doctrine of Supererogation from what our Saviour tells his Disciples When ye have done all that are commanded to you say we are unprofitable servants To this our Author answers If to supererogate did signifie with Catholicks to profit God then the fourteenth Article condemning the Teachers of works of Supererogation of Arrogance and Impiety had been solidly founded on When you have done all that are commanded to you say we are unprofitable servants But we meaning no such thing the Article perverts Scripture This is an admirable answer which does somewhat more than pervert for it ridicules the Text. For might not the Disciples have answered our Saviour as this Disputer does we are not so silly as to think we can profit God but
Confession and the Absolution of the Priest yet there remains a temporal punishment to be undergone by the penitent either in this World or in Purgatory So that if Men die under any venial sins or mortal sins whose guilt is remitted which they have not made compleat satisfaction for in this World they must bear the temporal punishments of these sins in Purgatory and therefore as very good Men who have neither any venial nor mortal sins to satisfie for go directly to Heaven when they die and bad Men who are under the guilt of mortal sins go directly to Hell so those who are indifferently good i. e. who have only venial sins or the temporal punishment of mortal sins to make satisfaction for what is wanting of a compleat satisfaction for these sins while they lived must be made up in Purgatory For we must not think that this fire of Purgatory is for the purging or reforming sinners that they may ascend more pure and refined into Heaven but only and meerly to bear that Temporal punishment which is due to sin For the Cardinal industriously proves That the Souls in Purgatory can neither merit nor sin that they are perfect in Charity and consequently in all other Graces and come no more perfect out of Purgatory than they went in but when they have paid the uttermost Farthing have undergone all that Temporal punishment which is due to their sins then they shall be released and received into Heaven But because this is a very uncomfortable Doctrine That Men must lie many Hundred or Thousand Years in Purgatory which differs from the torments of Hell only in the continuance of them for Purgatory is as hot as Hell but one is Temporal and the other Eternal which is a very terrible consideration that we must be tormented for many Hundred Years though not for ever therefore they tell us that the Souls in Purgatory may be relieved by the Prayers and Alms of the living and by the Sacrifice of the Mass and principally by Indulgences which the Pope dispenses and applies to particular Persons out of the Treasury of the Church which consists of the Merits of supererogating Saints This short account I have given of the Doctrine of Purgatory not that I intend to spend time to confute it now to show how groundless it is how injurious to the Goodness of God and to the Merits of Christ how contrary to the Sense of the Primitive Church and of most if not all Christian Churches at this day excepting the Church of Rome but to let our People see what kind of proofs they must demand for Purgatory which alone will be sufficient to secure them from the attacques of their wittiest Adversaries As to show this particularly First to prove a middle state between Death and Judgment which is neither Heaven nor Hell does not prove a Popish Purgatory Who ever is acquainted with the Writings of the Fathers of the first four Ages must confess that this was a received Opinion among them that no Man excepting Christ himself was received into Heaven till the day of Judgment I shall not multiply Quotations to this purpose which the Learned know where to find Irenaeus and Tertullian prove this from the example of Christ to which we must be conformed For Christ himself did not ascend into Heaven till after his Resurrection but as his Body rested in the Grave so his Soul went into the place of Souls departed and when he arose again then he ascended into Heaven And thus we must do also When we die our Souls shall live in those places which God has prepared for separate Souls and there they must remain till the Resurrection and when we have re-assumed our Bodies we shall be admitted into the highest Heavens whither Christ is ascended This they affirm in opposition to those Gnostick Hereticks who taught that as soon as they died they should ascend above the Heavens to him whom they called the Father which Irenaeus says is to exceed the order of promoting just Men as being ignorant of the regular gradations and advances to Incorruption And this he attributes to their denial of the Resurrection of the Flesh for it is no wonder that such Men should not know the order of the Resurrection who deny the Resurrection From whence it is plain that in Irenaeus his Opinion no Man who believed the Resurrection of the Flesh could reasonably think that the Souls of good Men did ascend into Heaven till Soul and Body was united at the Resurrection since Christ himself did not ascend into Heaven till after his Resurrection though he grants that some did believe so who were Orthodox in the Article of the Resurrection though herein they agreed with Hereticks That this was the Opinion of Iustin Martyr Lactantius Hilary S. Ambrose S. Chrysostom and divers others is at large proved by the learned Mr. Dally and vindicated from the exceptions of Cardinal Bellarmine But how this differs from a Popish Purgatory will appear in these three particulars First That they affirmed this of all separate Souls That none were received into Heaven before the Resurrection Patriarchs Prophets Apostles whatever they were they continue in the state of separate Souls and have not their full reward and are not received into the highest Heavens till the Resurrection of their Bodies This is the Lex Mortuorum as Irenaeus calls it the Law of the Dead the ordo promotionis justorum the order in which just Men shall be advanced For as S. Chrysostom affirms If the Body do not rise the Soul remains uncrowned out of that state of blessedness which is in Heaven Whereas the Popish Purgatory is not for all Souls but only for those who have not made a perfect satisfaction for their sins in this life and therefore must indure the temporal punishments due to them in Purgatory Whereas the Souls of all Children who die after Baptism before the commission of any actual sin and the Souls of good Men who have completed their satisfaction in this life according to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome ascend directly into Heaven which is expresly denied by these Ancient Fathers and was taught by few in those days but by such Hereticks as denied the Resurrection of the Body Secondly According to these Ancient Fathers this separate state wherein the Souls of good Men continue till the Resurrection is not a state of punishment as the Popish Purgatory is but of Joy and Felicity They were divided indeed about the place where the Souls of good Men lived till the Resurrection some placed it in secret receptacles within the Earth and therefore called it the Infernum as Tertullian did others thought it was above the Earth in some Celestial Region but below the highest Heavens but they all agreed that it was not Heaven and that it was not a state of punishment but of rest and happiness and therefore they called it Abraham's
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
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
take it Let us then consider how he can adjust this Matter with St. Paul and the sum of what he says is this that St. Paul only forbids Inspired and Extempore Prayers in an unknown Tongue where there is no body to interpret but the setled Forms of Divine Offices may be in an unknown Tongue for all that This is certainly as little as can be said and as little to the purpose for whoever considers the place will find that all the Apostles Arguments are against an unknown Tongue for this very Reason because it is unknown and not understood and then if we must not use an unknown Tongue in Religious Worship we must not use an unknown Tongue in our setled and ordinary Devotions There are three Arguments the Apostle uses which I think will reach our ordinary Devotions as well as inspired Gifts 1. That it is contrary to the Edification of the Church 2. That it contradicts the natural use of speaking 3. That it is contrary to the nature and end of Prayer 1. It is contrary to the Edification of the Church Now Brethren if I come unto you speaking with Tongues what shall I profit you except I shall speak to you either by Revelation or by Knowledge or by Prophecying or by Doctrine That is unless I speak something to you which you can understand and which may inform your Judgment as he adds In the Church I had rather speak five words with my Understanding that by my voice I might teach others also than ten thousand words in an unknown Tongue Now if these extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit were to be valued and used only for the Edification of the Church and to speak to the Instruction of others is to be preferred before speaking in an unknown Tongue by Inspiration then certainly the ordinary Service and Worship of God which is instituted on purpose for the Edification of the Church must be in a known Tongue when the extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit themselves must give place to Edification For if the Apostle would have made any exception methinks he should have excepted these extraordinary Gifts For one would think whenever the holy Spirit inspires men they ought to speak whatever Language it be in for it seems strange that any man should forbid these to speak whom the Spirit inspires and yet we see the Exercise of these Gifts were restrained to make them serviceable to the Church and not to be for meer Pomp and Ostentation But for men who have no pretence to any such Inspiration to affect to speak in an unknown Tongue that they may not be understood is to deprive the Church of the Edification of Religious Offices without any pretence for doing so 2. To speak in an unknown Tongue contradicts the natural end and use of Speech For even things without life giving sounds whether Pipe or Harp except they give a distinction in the sounds how shall it be known what is piped or harped For if the Trumpet give an uncertain sound who shall prepare himself to the Battel So likewise you except ye utter by the Tongue words easie to be understood how shall it be known what is spoken for ye shall speak into the Air There are it may be so many kinds of Voices in the World and none of them without signification therefore if I know not the meaning of the Voice I shall be unto him that speaketh a Barbarian and he that speaketh shall be a Barbarian unto me Is this Argument only against inspired Tongues or against the use of all unknown Tongues among Persons who do not understand them For this relates to the use of Speech in common Conversation as well as in the Offices of Religion and if Speech was given us to communicate our Thoughts to each other if it be so vain and absurd and useless a thing to talk to men in a Tongue which they do not understand it is much more absurd in Religion which does more straitly oblige us to mutual Edification For the use of words even in Prayer is not for the sake of God but men God knows our thoughts and therefore a mental Prayer is as acceptable to him without vocal words but the use of words is either to affect our selves and then they must be such words as we our selves understand or to direct others in the matter and form of their Prayers and then they must be such words as they understand or to unite the Affections and Desires of the whole Congregation at the same time in the same Petitions which is essential to publick Worship and then they must be such words as we all understand but to speak words which no body understands is to speak to no purpose which is absurd in common Conversation but profane in Religion 3ly Another Argument St. Paul uses against an unknown Tongue is That it is contrary to the nature of Prayer and religious Worship which must be a reasonable Service and therefore requires the exercise of the Understanding as well as Affections For if I pray in an unknown Tongue my Spirit prayeth but my understanding is unfruitful What is it then I will pray with the spirit and will pray with the Understanding also I will sing with the Spirit and I will sing with the Understanding also Else when thou shalt bless with the Spirit how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned that is every ordinary Christian who has not this gift of Tongues or of interpreting Tongues for there were no Clarks in those days to say Amen for the whole Congregation say Amen at thy giving of thanks seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest And if the Exercise of supernatural Gifts themselves which the Apostle seems here to call praying by the Spirit be not an acceptable Worship to God without the acts of our Reason and Understanding certainly an unknown Tongue is much more unjustifyable in our ordinary Devotions If the whole Congregation must say Amen to those Prayers which are offered to God and it be a ludicrous thing to say Amen to what we do not understand then whether the Prayers be inspired or composed it is necessary that the whole Congregation should understand them But our Author though very timerously insinuates an Answer or two to this one Reason why he thinks the setled Forms of Divine Offices are tacitely excepted by the Apostle and need not be performed in the vulgar and intelligible to every Auditor comes in in a Parenthesis and indeed was as fit for a Parenthesis as any thing could be for he will presently see that it might have been spared To many of which Divine Offices there is no necessity that all specially joyn and intend By which I suppose he means that there are several Offices in the Church of Rome which People are not bound to attend to nor joyn in and therefore there is no need they should understand them 1. Now in the first place I desire to know why
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