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
changed for Bread cannot be the Body of Christ if it be not Bread. Let him choose which he will either This signifies this Bread or it does not If it does then the Bread cannot be substantially changed for the Bread is the Body of Christ and therefore is Bread still is Bread and the Body of Christ too if it does not then how does he prove that the words of Consecration in a literal sense transubstantiate the Bread into the Body of Christ For This does not signifie the Bread and therefore This is my Body cannot signifie that the substance of Bread is transubstantiated into Christ's Body I wonder our Author is not ashamed at this time of day to talk at this rate after somany excellent Books as have been written upon this Argument to save my self any farther trouble I shall direct my Reader to the late Dialogues about the Trinity and Transubstantiation and the Discourse of the Holy Eucharist in the two great points of the Real Presence and the Adoration of the Host where he will find abundant satisfaction also to the two next Points which follow V. Our Lord's Presence in the Eucharist is merely gracious and influential and if more only to the faithful In answer to this I shewed him what we meant by Christ's Presence in the Eucharist that he is so present that his Body and Blood with all the benefits of his Death and Passion are exhibited to worthy Receivers as much as he could have been had we eat his natural Flesh and drank his Blood which is somewhat more than the mere influences of his Grace but he saies I assert our Lords Eucharistical Presence not to be substantial that is I suppose that the natural substance of his Body is not there and therefore that he is not corporally present and this indeed I do assert Therefore says he unless intirely absent our Lord must be present in the Eucharist by grace and influence only what is there besides substance and efficacy belonging to our Saviour's Body and Blood no colour of Scripture is produced for this Zuinglian proposition If he will allow no medium between Christ's Corporal and Substantial Presence and his Grace and Influence since it is demonstrable that he is not corporally present we must in this sense allow that he is present only by his Grace and Influence as that is opposed to a corporal presence And all Men must allow this who deny Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation But what is there besides Substance and Efficacy belonging to our Saviour's Body and Blood I answer there can be nothing naturally belonging to any Body besides its substance and natural vertues and powers which he calls its Efficacy but by Institution there may and we take the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper to be an Institution and therefore not to have a natural but instituted Vertue and Efficacy For the very notion of an Institution is that all the Vertues and Efficacy of it is not owing to Nature but to the Will and Appointment of God. Whatever is a natural power is no Institution no Sacrament for the effect there is wholly owing to Nature not to God's appointment which acts by a Power and Influence superior to Nature Which I think is little less than a demonstration that the natural Body and Blood of Christ is not substantially present in the Eucharist for whatever Efficacy and Vertue we attribute to eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood of Christ it is either a natural effect of this eating the Body and drinking the Blood of Christ or it is not If it be then it is no Sacrament which works not by the powers of Nature but of Institution If it be not what need is there of Christ's bodily presence in the Sacrament when a Sacramental Body of Christ consecrated Bread and Wine to represent and exhibit his broken Body and his Bloodshed for us by vertue of an Institution may be as effectual to all the ends and purposes of a Sacrament as his natural Body could be which can have no Sacramental Efficacy but by vertue of an Institution The benefits we expect from this Sacramental feeding on Christ's Body is an interest in the merits of his Death and Passion viz. the forgiveness of our sins the communications of his Grace and Spirit and a right to immortal life Now I would desire to know whether these are the natural effects of a corporal eating Christ's natural Body He purchased all this for us indeed by his Death and Passion but is pardon of sin which is God's free and gracious act incorporated with Christ's natural Body and will a corporal eating of his Body communicate it to us Do the communications of Grace and Spiritual life flow from the Body or from the Spirit of Christ Is it the contact of his Body that makes our bodies immortal or the inhabitation of his Spirit in us What is that Efficacy then which he attributes to Christ's natural Body and supposes to be inherent in it A natural efficacy such as can belong to human bodies signifies nothing to the purposes of a Sacrament and there can be no other efficacy inherent in Christ's natural Body unless he will say that pardon of Sin and Spiritual Grace and a power of making other bodies immortal are the inherent and essential properties of Christ's Body But suppose it were so how can the mere presence of Christ's Natural Body in the Sacrament which we neither see nor touch nor eat communicate all these divine vertues to us For if it be by Natural Communication it must be by contact for Bodies have no other way of working upon each other and yet they will not allow that we touch the Body of Christ no more than that we see it or that we break it between our Teeth or chew it or digest it in our Stomachs that is they will not allow that we naturally eat it and then how can it naturally communicate its vertues to us So that though the Natural Body of Christ were present in the Sacrament those divine Graces we expect from it must be the effects of a Sacramental Institution not of Nature and therefore the Natural presence of Christ's Body is of no use in the Sacrament for God may as well annex all the benefits of his Death and Passion to the Sacramental signs of his Body and Blood as to his Natural Body and the Power and Efficacy of the Institution will be the same either way And when the natural presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist is so absolutely impossible such a contradiction to the sense and reason of Man kind and of no use to the purposes of a Sacrament but what may as well be otherwise supplied and the Sacramental eating of Christ's Body in efficacious signs is so easie and intelligible and by the power of an Institution equally effectual and so agreeable to the Nature of all other Institutions and Sacraments both of the Old and New Testament what
should incline Men to expound those words of our Saviour This is my Body of his Natural Body contrary to all the Sacramental forms of speech used in Scripture did they not think it meritorious to believe impossibilities and contradictions To return then a more direct Answer to our Author's question what there is besides Substance and Efficacy belonging to our Saviour's Body I answer by Nature there is nothing else but by Institution there is for there is the Sacrament of the Lord's Body which is neither the natural Substance nor the natural Efficacy of his Body but a Sacramental Communion in the merits and Efficacy of his Death and Passion which is a spiritual eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood of Christ. And since he wants Scripture for this I will give him a very piain Text 1 Cor. 10. 16. The cup of Blessing which we bless is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ the Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ. Thus S. Paul explains what our Saviour said This is my Body and This is my Blood by this is the Communion of Christ's Body and Blood That is that those who by Faith partake of the Sacramental Bread and Wine do communicate in the Body and Blood of Christ. This is a different thing from the mere influences of his Grace for it is our interest and Communion in his Sacrifice which is the meritorious cause and spring of all Divine Influences and Communications We must be mystically and spiritually united to Christ to have Communion in the Sacrifice of his Body and Blood and then we receive the fresh supplies of Grace from him which are the purchase of his Death and the effect of our Union to him and this Communion with the Body and Blood of Christ we receive in the Lord's Supper which is instituted by Christ for that very purpose and therefore it is called the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ because it is the Sacrament of our Union to him whereby we communicate in his Body and Blood and if this be Zuinglianism I see no help for it but we must be contented to be Zuinglians VI. Adoration of the Eucharist i. e. of our Saviour under the species of Bread and Wine is Idolatry I answered There was no such proposition as this taught in the Church of England We teach indeed that Bread and Wine in the Eucharist remains Bread and Wine after Consecration and that to adore Bread and Wine is Idolatry To adore our Saviour is no Idolatry but to adore Bread and Wine for our Saviour may be as much Idolatry as to worship the Sun for God. Instead of answering this he tells us This blasphemous Tenet is taught by our Church and which is a little worse is practised by theirs For the majority of our pretended Bishops did Vote for the Test and do all of them take it and I hope will keep it too That it is a Canon of our General Council the Parliament and therefore it is very good Law and that is all we desire for our Religion from Parliaments and thank God that we have it and since they are a General Council may they insist upon their Infallibility But what is the matter with the Test Why it declares our Adoration of the Eucharist which is the Adoration of nothing but Iesus Christ to be Idolatry Is the Eucharist then nothing but Jesus Christ does the Council of Trent say so Is this the Doctrine of any of their Schoolmen Canonists or Divines Nay will this Author venture to say that the Eucharist is nothing but Jesus Christ himself Which is speck and span New Popery if this be the Doctrine of the Church of Rome No! he does not dares not say that the Eucharist is nothing but Jesus Christ but he says that the Adoration of the Eucharist is the Adoration of nothing but Iesus Christ. But what palpable nonsence is this For if the Eucharist be something which is not Jesus Christ then the Adoration of the Eucharist must be the Adoration of something which is not Jesus Christ. And yet though we should suppose the Doctrine of Transubstantiation to be true yet the natural Flesh and Blood of Christ according to the Doctrine of the Council of Trent though it be present in the Sacrament is not the Sacrament For there can be no Sacrament of the Eucharist without the species of Bread and Wine and yet the Council of Trent decrees that the worship of Latria which is due to the true God be given to this most Holy Sacrament And that we might know what they meant by the Sacrament they tell us it is that which is instituted by Christ to be received or eaten which certainly is the species of Bread and Wine For they being sensible how absurd it is to worship what we eat to prevent this they tell us that it is nevertheless to be adored because it is instituted to be received or eaten The reason indeed they give for it is because Christ is present in this Sacrament but though the presence of Christ be the reason of this Adoration yet the whole Sacrament is the object which is not merely the natural Body and Blood of Christ but the species of Bread and Wine under which is contained the Body and Blood of Christ and therefore to adore the Sacrament is not to adore nothing but Iesus Christ for the Sacrament is somewhat more But then if the Doctrine of Transubstantiation be false they have no other object of their worship but Bread and Wine and thus the Church of England believes and thus our General Council the Parliament which made the Test believed and thus all Men who dare trust their own Senses and Reason believe and if it be blasphemy to teach that the worship of Bread and Wine is Idolatry some of the mâ—st Learned Divines of the Church of Rome have been guilty of this Blasphemy and I should be glad to hear what our Authors opinion is of it VII All Christians whenever they communicate are obliged to receive in both kinds For this I urged the express words of institution which do as expresly command us to drink of the Cup as to eat of the Bread so that if there be any command in Scripture to receive the Bread there is the same command to receive the Cup nay indeed as if our Saviour had purposely intended to prevent this Sacrilegious taking away of the Cup from the People whereas in delivering the Bread he only says Take Eat when he blessed and delivered the Cup he expresly commanded Drink ye all of it And I further argued from the nature of the Eucharist which as it was instituted in both kinds so it is not a compleat Sacrament without it and yet our Author rubs his forehead and confidently tells his Readers Nor for this point can a Scripture command be discovered in the Answer Though the thirtieth Article affirms that
but repugnant to it but then a plain and evident consequence from something else which is taught in Scripture is all the proof which can be expected in such cases and this we are ready to give when our Author shall demand it And now would not any one wonder how from these premises he concludes that he has shewn Protestants obliged to give Scripture-reasons for their belief of Negatives that is if he will speak to the purpose that we are obliged to prove from plain and express Texts of Scripture that those Doctrines which we reject as unscriptural are not contained in Scripture we must prove from Scripture that that is not in Scripture which we say is not in it which may be done indeed by a negative Argument from the silence of Scripture about it but is not capable of a direct and positive Proof Let us now take a review of his several Protestant Doctrines for which he demands a Scripture-Proof and see wherein the Answer was defective I. Scripture is clear in all necessaries to every sober Inquirer In answer to this I observed that every plain Text of Scripture proved its own plainness and that as it needs no other Proof no more than we need a proof that the Sun shines when we see it so if we did not find it plain no other argument or testimony could prove it to be plain But this he takes no notice of but only endeavours to weaken two Scripture testimonies which I said do by a very easie and natural Consequence prove the plainness of Scripture for if the word of God be a light unto our feet and a lamp unto our paths then it must be clear if light be clear Psalm 119. 105. if it be able to make men wise unto salvation 2 Tim. 3. 15. then it must be plain and intelligible in all things necessary to salvation to which he answers that these Texts do not reach the proposition to be proved For if the word were a light to the Prophet David ' s feet if all Scripture be given that the Man of God may be perfect yet a perspicuity of Scripture in all necessaries to every sober Inquirer cannot be deduced thence except every sober Inquirer be a Prophet or a Man of God or at least subject to such As if none but Prophets or Apostles could understand the Scripture But I thought light had been visible to all Men that have eyes in their Heads and I am sure the same Prophet tells us that the Law of the Lord is perfect converting the Soul the Testimony of the Lord is sure making wise the simple the Statutes of the Lord are right rejoycing the heart the Commandment of the Lord is pure enlightning the eyes Psalm 19. 7 8. Is this spoken only of Prophets too Are there no other souls to be converted no other simple people to be made wise no other hearts to be rejoyced no other eyes to be enlightned but only theirs And when S. Paul tells Timothy from a Child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures which are able to make thee wise unto Salvation which was the place I cited does this prove that none but a man of God for which he exchanges it though that is not in the 15. but 17. verse can understand the Scriptures when it seems Timothy understood them when he was a Child However thus much he must grant in his own way that the Scriptures are very intelligible in all things necessary to Salvation for otherwise a man of God the Pastors and Teachers of the Church could not understand them if they be not so plain that they may be understood and if the Scriptures be plain and intelligible in themselves then he must grant that at least all Men of Parts and Learning and Industry who are sober and honest Inquirers may understand them as well as Divines unless he will say that Divines understand them not by the use of their reason and wise consideration but by Inspiration and Prophecy and then it is not the Scripture but the inspired interpretation of it which makes Men wise unto Salvation At least he must grant that the Scriptures can make any other Man of God perfect as well as the Pope for this is not spoke of S. Peter and his Successors only but of Timothy and any other Man of God and therefore there is no need that all other Bishops and Pastors should depend on the Pope as an infallible Oracle Nay if the Scriptures are able to make the man of God perfect in the discharge of his Ministry of which S. Paul here speaks for Doctrine for Reproof for Correction for Instruction in Righteousness then the people also who are to be taught may be made to understand the Scriptures the Doctrines Reproofs and Instructions of it for as the Scripture is the Teachers Rule so it is his Authority too and if the people cannot be taught to understand the Scriptures in things necessary to Salvation they cannot know that such things are in Scripture which destroys the Divine Authority of the Preacher For what he teaches without Scripture can only have his own authority or the authority of other Men like himself and yet no Man can tell whether what he teaches be in the Scripture who cannot in some measure understand the Scripture himself and if a Divine Faith must be founded upon the Authority of Scripture which is the only Divine Authority we now have and no Man can believe upon the Authority of Scripture who cannot understand it then it is as necessary that all things necessary to Salvation should be so plain in Scripture that all persons at least with the help of a Guide should understand them as it is that all even the meanest Men should know all things necessary to their Salvation For it is a Scandal to the Protestant profession to say that we reject the Authority of Church Guides which we own as well as the Church of Rome only with this difference That the Church of Rome will have Men believe their Guides without reason or understanding we have Guides not merely to dictate to us but to teach us to understand As the Masters in other Arts and Sciences do who explain the reasons of things to their Scholars till they attain to a great Mastery and perfection of knowledge themselves And if by the help of such a Teaching not an Imposing Guide Men may understand the Scripture in all things necessary to Salvation then the Scripture is plain and intelligible though an unlearned Man cannot understand it without a Guide as Mathematical demonstrations are certainly plain if any thing be plain though unskilful Men cannot understand them without a Master but that is clear and plain in it self which can be explained to every ordinary apprehension and such we assert the Scriptures to be in all necessaries Learned Men can by their own studies and inquiries understand the true sense of them and the Unlearned can be taught to
Bosom and Paradise which they distinguish from Heaven Tertullian calls it a place of Divine pleasantness appointed for the Spirits of holy Mon. The Author of the Questions and Answers to the Orthodox in Iustin Martyr expresly tells us That when the Soul goes out of the Body there is a great difference made between the Righteous and the Wicked For they are carried by Angels to such places as are proper for them The Souls of just Men into Paradise where they have the conversation and sight of Angels and Archangels and the vision 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of our Saviour Christ as it is written being absent from the body we are present with the Lord. From hence Bellarmine concludes That by Paradise this Author understands Heaven because there we shall have the Vision of Christ and therefore that Paradise must signifie that place where Christ is present Which is directly contrary to the Doctrine of this Author who makes Paradise only a receptacle of separate souls till the Resurrection But though it be not Heaven there is he says a great communication between Heaven and Paradise for they have the frequent visits and conversation of Angels and Archangels whom they see and converse with as they do with one another but when he speaks of Christ he expresly makes a distinction between their sight of and conversation with Angels and Christ for this latter is only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of Vision as we see things which are absent and at a distance but yet this does so strongly affect them that he thinks that of S. Paul may be applied to it being absent from the Body we are present with the Lord. And certainly this is no Popish Purgatory but as they thought the very next degree of happiness to Heaven it self Thus S. Hilary expresly asserts that the state of Souls departed is a state of happiness and S. Ambrose tells us that while the fulness of time comes the Souls are in expectation of such a Resurrection as they deserve Punishment expects some and Glory others and yet neither bad Souls are in the mean time without punishment nor the good without reaping some fruits of their Vertue But I need not multiply Quotations to prove that which no modest Man who is acquainted with the Doctrine of the Fathers can deny Thirdly Another difference is That this is an unalterable State till the day of Judgment and therefore no Popish Purgatory out of which as the Church of Rome pretends Souls may be redeemed by the Prayers and Alms and Masses of the Living and ascend immediately into Heaven This is evident from what I have already said that this State is to last till the Resurrection according to the sense of the ancient Fathers as Tertullian expresly affirms that Heaven is open to none while this Earth lasts but the Kingdom of Heaven shall be opened with the end of the World And S. Chrysostom observes from the Parable of Dives and Lazarus that the Souls of Men after their depature out of these Bodies are carried to a certain place from whence they cannot go out when they will but there expect the terrible day of Judgment Which plainly shows what his belief was that they must continue in that State which they enter upon at Death till the Resurrection And this I think is sufficient to show the difference between a Popish Purgatory and that middle state between Death and Judgment which the ancient Fathers taught Secondly Nor is it sufficient to prove a Popish Purgatory that the Ancient Fathers did believe that all Men must pass through the Fire at the day of Judgment That those who were perfectly good should receive no hurt nor damage by it that those who had any remains of corruption about them should be detained a longer or shorter time in that last Fire till they were purged from their sins and that bad Men should irrecoverably sink down into endless burnings This was a received opinion among the Ancient Fathers that at the day of Judgment all Men should be tried by Fire which is so universally acknowledged that I need not prove it by particular Quotations But yet there is an irreconcileable difference between this opinion and the Popish Doctrine of Purgatory as will appear in these particulars 1. That the Popish Purgatory is now and has been in being at least since the time of our Saviour and that those who deserve the fire of Purgatory fall into it when they go out of these Bodies whereas the Fire which the Fathers speak of is not till the day of Judgment This was the opinion of Lactantius Hilary Ambrose and S. Augustin himself who expresly tells us that this Fire is at the end of the World in fine seculi and therefore not the Popish Purgatory which as they would perswade us is already kindled and has been for many hundred Years Indeed S. Augustin though he owns that fiery trial at the last Judgment as the Fathers before him did yet he has something peculiar in this matter which none of the Fathers before him ever taught and therefore having no Authority of Tradition it must rest wholly upon his own Authority who had no more Authority to invent any new Doctrine in his Age than we have in ours There are three or four places in S. Augustin which do speak of some Purgatory fires which some Men must undergo between Death and Judgment which looks most like the Popish Purgatory of any thing in the Ancient Fathers and I believe was the first occasion of it which may be the reason why this Doctrine has so much prevailed in the Latin Church which was acquainted with S. Austin's Writings when it has been always rejected by the Greeks as is evident from the Council of Florence But there are two things to be said to this First That St. Austin speaks very doubtfully about it That there may be such punishments after this life he says is not incredible and we may examine whether there be any such thing or not and it may either be found or may still continue a secret whether some Christians according to the degree of their love and affection for these perishing enjoyments be not sooner or later saved by a certain Purgatory fire and in another place he says he does not reprove this opinion for it may be it is true now redarguo quia forsitan verum est De C. D. l. 21. c. 25. And elsewhere he says That though such speculations may serve for his own or other Mens instruction yet he does not attribute any Canonical authority to them and therefore he was very far from making it an Article of Faith as the Church of Rome has done Secondly And yet though St. Austin speaks of a Purgatory fire after death and before the day of judgment he seems by his whole discourse never to have thought of such a Purgatory as the Church of Rome has invented The occasion