Gold that must be burnt and dissolved before we can pass through this Fire into Heaven now though this be very unintelligible also how a material Fire can purge and refine a Soul yet it shows how much this differs from the Popish Purgatory which burns and torments indeed but does not purge and refine and therefore is very improperly called a Purgatory Fire Origen indeed whom Cardinal Bellarmine and others quote for this Purgatory Fire as they do also Plato and Virgil did believe a Purgatory Fire in a true and proper sense for he believed all punishments whether in this World or in the next were only Purgatory that is not meerly for punishment but for the correction and amendment of those who suffered And therefore he did also believe that the very worst of Men nay the Devils themselves should at last be purged and cleansed by Fire and restored to a state of happiness The summ of his Opinion in short was this That at the Day of Judgment Christ will destroy this World with Fire as he is said to come in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God. And this Fire which shall burn the World at the last Day seems to be that Purgatory Fire of which Origen and some other Fathers speak Though I know some thought this Fire to be in the upper Regions so as to intercept our ascent into Heaven without passing through it This will try all Men for all must pass through this Fire as the Ancients believed and those who had Hay or Stubble or any combustible matter about them who had any remains of corruption to be purged away must stay in it a longer or shorter time till they were thoroughly purged from their sins this as you have heard was the general opinion of the Fathers as well as of Origen and therefore Origen's Purgatory Fire is not the Popish Purgatory because that is not kindled till the Day of Judgment But then Origen thought that this purgation extended to the worst of Men and to Devils themselves that though they might lie many Ages in this Fire before they are perfectly purged yet they should be purged at last and restored to the favour and enjoyment of God. For which he was generally condemned by the Ancient Christians and principally by the Fifth general Council And yet there were other Fathers who were in some degree tainted with this opinion For there are plain marks of it in Gregory Nyssen if his works were not corrupted by the Origenists as some suspect and in S. Hierome himself For though some would not allow of the final Salvation of Devils yet they believed this of all Mankind though never so wicked others thought this must be confined to all Christians others to all those Christians who were not guilty of Heresie or Schism how wicked soever they were otherwise These opinions are rejected and condemned by the Romanists as well as by us and therefore they ought not to alledge such Authorities as these which are nothing to their purpose For that there will be such a fire at the day of Judgment does not prove that there is one already kindled and a Purgatory fire which cleanses and purges our sins does not prove that there is such a Purgatory Fire as is only to punish those whose sins are already pardoned and cleansed Fourthly There is another considerable difference between this Popish Purgatory and the fire at the day of Judgment that there is no redemption out of this by the Prayers and Alms and Masses of the living which is the most considerable thing in the Popish Purgatory and that for which I fear the Church of Rome does principally value it For this sets a good price upon Indulgences gives great Authority to their Priests inriches their Monasteries and is the great support of the Roman Hierarchy But as the Fathers say not one word about this so the account I have already given of their opinions is a demonstration that they could not think of any such thing because this fire is not till the day of Judgment and then I suppose when we all come to be judged you will grant it is too late to offer Prayers and Alms and Masses for the Redemption of our selves or others from these Purgatory flames The Fathers thought that we must all undergo this purgation by fire which would be longer or shorter as we had more or fewer sins to be purged away and therefore here can be no place for the suffrages and intercessions of the living According to the Popish Doctrine those Souls who are redeemed out of Purgatory must be redeemed before the day of Judgment and those who are not redeemed before are on course redeemed then for the Roman Purgatory must end at the day of Judgment though the Purgatory fire the Fathers speak of does but begin then Thirdly This gives occasion to another observation That the ancient practice of Praying for Souls departed does not prove that there is a Popish Purgatory or that those ancient Christians did believe that there was That this was a very ancient practice I readily grant as all Men must do who know any thing of these matters and yet from what I have discoursed it is evident that they never dreamt of such a Purgatory as the Church of Rome has now made an Article of Faith of and therefore they could have no regard to the Redemption of Souls out of Purgatory in their Prayers for the dead because they did not know of any such place But to what original then shall we attribute this custom of praying for the Dead Truly that is hard to say there is not the least footsteps of it in the Canonical Scripture neither of the Old nor New Testament as Tertullian and others acknowledge and when it first came into the Church we cannot tell that tender concern Men have for the memory of their dead Friends which the Heathens themselves showed in their Oblations and Sacrifices and funeral Rites for the Dead seem to have given occasion to it and those who were converted from Paganism to Christianity might still believe that the Dead challenged some part of our care and regard which at first was tempered with a due respect to the Laws of Christianity but soon encreased into greater excesses as it is the Nature of all Superstitions to do Prayers for the Dead seem at first to be used only at their Funerals in time grew Anniversary and were celebrated by their own Friends and Relations not with Propitiatory Sacrifices but with some offerings for the relief of the Poor and thus by degrees it crept into the service of the Church and at the Celebration of the Eucharist the Bishop or Priest made mention of the names of Martyrs and Confessors and Bishops and those who had deserved well of the Church and particular Christians in their private Devotions remembred their own Relations and Friends and thus it became a Custom without inquiring into the reasons of
it till from this very custom people began to conclude that such Prayers and Commemorations were very profitable to the Dead and that those who had not lived so well as they should do might obtain the pardon of their sins by the Prayers and Intercessions of the living Which I confess was a very natural thought and shows us the easie progress of Superstition that customs taken up without any good reason will find some reason though a very bad one when they grow popular Upon this Aërius condemns the practice and is reckoned among Hereticks for it Though he only desired to know for what reason the names of dead Men are recited in the Celebration of the Eucharist and prayers made for them whether by this means those who died in sin might obtain the pardon of their sins which he thought if it were true would make it unnecessary for Men to live vertuously if they had good pious Friends who would pray for them when they are dead Epiphanius undertakes to confute Aërius and we may easily perceive by him that they were not so well agreed about the reason of it as they were in the practice Had he understood the Popish Doctrine of Purgatory how easie had it been to answer it that the reason of it was that those who had died in a state of Pardon but had not made compleat satisfaction for the Temporal punishment due to their sins were to undergo this punishment in Purgatory and that they might be relieved and delivered from Purgatory by the Prayers and Alms of their living Friends This answer no doubt Epiphanius would have given had he known it but he says not one word of this matter which is a strong presumption that he knew nothing of it and gives such other answers as are no answer to Aërius Aërius demanded what benefit the dead received by the prayers of the living whether they would obtain for them the pardon of their sins or not to this Epiphanius says not one word but gives such reasons for it as respect the living not the dead As that it signifies our belief that those who are dead to this World do still live in another State are alive to God That it signifies our good hopes of the happy state of those who are gone hence and to make a distinction between Christ and all other good Men For we pray for all but him who interceeds for us all Very worthy reasons of praying for the dead but however what is all this to a Popish Purgatory The two first reasons do utterly overthrow it which signifie what good hopes we have of the happy and blessed state of our deceased Friends not that they are tormented in Purgatory but that they rest in the Lord And so does the third which declares that they prayed for all but Christ himself For Patriarchs Prophets Apostles Martyrs and the blessed Virgin her self for so the Church did till praying for these Saints and Martyrs was turned into Prayers and Supplications to them and yet I suppose no Man will say that they prayed for these Glorious Saints to pray them out of Purgatory when the Church of Rome her self will grant that they were never in it There were some opinions in the ancient Church which if they were not the first original of this custom of praying for the Dead yet were made use of by the Fathers to explain the meaning and use of it Thus as I have showed you the Fathers believed that the souls of good Men after Death did not immediately ascend into Heaven but were detained till the Resurection of their Bodies in a place of Rest and Happiness which they called Abrahams Bosom or Paradise Now their Happiness not being complete they thought it very fit to recommend them unto God in their Prayers and beg God to remember them which supposes that they were not in the immediate presence of God for it would be absurd to beg God to remember them who constantly attend his Throne and Presence And therefore they pray not for souls who are tormented in Purgatory but qui dormiunt in somno pacis who sleep in peace qui requieverunt in fide who dying in the true Faith are gone to Rest qui dormierunt quieverunt in fide who sleep and rest in the Faith as we find in the ancient Liturgies And yet they pray that God would give them rest by the water of rest in the bosom of Abraham with Isaac and Iacob that he would nourish them in a pleasant place by the waters of rest that is That he would continue and increase this intermediate state of Rest and Happiness to them For they did not think it improper to pray for what they knew the souls departed already enjoyed no more than we do in this State to pray for such blessings as we already have Another opinion among them was concerning the Millennium or thousand Years Reign with Christ on Earth which was to be before their admission into Heaven in the new Ierusalem which comes down from Heaven Now during these thousand Years they thought that all just Men should rise again but some sooner and others later according to their different merits Some at the beginning of the thousand Years others two or three hundred Years after others nearer the conclusion of them according to their different merits and deserts as Tertullian particularly explains it And as the Learned Mr. Dally observes several passages in their Prayers do plainly refer to this As when Tertullian directs a Widow to pray for her Husband primae Resurrectionis consortium a part in the first Resurrection And S. Ambrose prays for Gratian and Valentinian Te quaeso summe Deus ut carissimos suvenes matura Resurrectione suscites resuscites That God would raise those beloved young Men with an early Resurrection The like may be seen in the Gothick Missal and elsewhere and this I think has nothing to do with the Popish Purgatory Another opinion they had regard to in their prayers for the dead was the fire of the day of Judgment which they believed all Men must pass thorough before they could enter into Heaven and continue a longer or shorter time in it as they had more or fewer sins to purge away And therefore this last and terrible Judgment being yet to come they prayed that God would forgive their sins and be merciful to them and deliver them in the day of Judgment of which there are some remains still in the Roman Offices for the Dead Thus according to Mens different opinions they had different intentions in their prayers for the dead which is a sign as I observed before that though they were agreed in the practice the original reasons of this practice were not known but Men guessed at them as they could and altered their reasons as they changed their opinions Hence it is that S. Austin and S. Chrysostom though they never dreamt of a Popish Purgatotory yet speak
very differently of these matters from those who went before them For in their days they began to call upon the Saints and to beg their help and then S. Austin thought it very improper to pray for those whose help they themselves expected According to that known saying of his That he is injurious to a Martyr who prays for him Hence he makes three distinctions of souls departed which the Church never heard of before From whence I doubt not but the Church of Rome learnt their distinctions and accordingly allotted three different States for these three sorts of Men Heaven Purgatory and Hell. For S. Austin taught that some were so perfectly good that there was no need of Prayers or Oblations for them others imperfectly good and for these prayers were profitable others very bad who cannot be redeemed by the suffrages of the living The first of these the Church of Rome place in Heaven the second in Purgatory the third in Hell and let us first see whether S. Austin were of that mind for if he were not they cannot prove a Purgatory from him whatever becomes of his prayers for the dead Now it is evident that Saint Austin was of the same mind with those Fathers who went before him concerning the state of souls departed viz that none were received into Heaven till the Resurrection as he expresly affirms of all souls that during the time between death and the last Resurrection they are kept in hidden receptacles He divides the Church into two parts that which is still on Earth or that which after death rests in the secret receptacles and seats of souls Which he calls Abraham's Bosom and teaches that all departed souls either rejoyce in Abraham's Bosom or are tormented in eternal Fire And that by Abraham's Bosom he does not mean Heaven is evident from what he elsewhere says that though after this life we shall not go to that place where the Saints shall be when it shall be said to them Come ye blessed of my Father receive the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundations of the world which he represents as the common belief of all Christians for he says quis nescit Who knows not this yet we may be there where Dives saw Lazarus at rest viz. in Abraham's Bosom in illâ requie certè securus expectabis judicii diem in that rest you will securely expect the day of Judgment So that though S. Austin thought that some souls were so good and perfect that there was no need to pray for them yet he did not think that the most perfect souls ascended immediately into Heaven as the Church of Rome now teaches but were happy and at rest in Paradise or Abraham's Bosom till the Resurrection Nor did he think that those for whom he says our prayers are available those who are imperfectly good did after this life go into Purgatory there to bear the punishment of their sins For what S. Austin thought of Purgatory you have already heard which has nothing like a Popish Purgatory in it He prayed for his Mother Monica that God would forgive her all her sins and show mercy to her did he believe then that his Mother was in Purgatory by no means for he expresly says credo jam feceris quod to rogo sed voluntaria oris mei approba domine I believe thou hast already done what I now pray for but accept O Lord the free-will offerings of my mouth He believed his Mother was in a state of rest but hoped that God would accept his pious affection for his Mother and that she was not yet so perfect but she might receive some benefit by it To be sure the Church of Rome can never reconcile this prayer with their Doctrine for they teach that sins are not pardoned in Purgatory but those who are pardoned before they die suffer the temporal punishment of their sins in Purgatory whereas S. Austin does not Pray that his Mother may be delivered from the pains of Purgatory but that God would forgive her sins The truth is S. Austin was at a great loss between vindicating the ancient practice of the Church in Praying for Souls departed and giving a reasonable and justifiable account of it the Church did pray for Souls departed and therefore there must be some reason given of it or else these Prayers are vain and hypocritical if they serve no good end And yet in his days they began to think and he himself was of that mind that there were a great many Saints and Martyrs who did not want their Prayers who were fitter to be Intercessors themselves for those on Earth than to receive any benefit from their Intercessions and yet the Church prayed for all for the most perfect Saints for the Apostles and Martyrs and the blessed Virgin her self This he knew not how to reconcile but by saying That when the Church prayed for Saints and Martyrs Prophets and Apostles the meaning of her Prayers was not to intercede with God for them but to praise God for their Graces and Vertues but when she prayed for meaner Christians her Prayers were Intercessions for Pardon and Rest to their Souls and yet they were all prayed for in the same form of words and the ancient Church made no such distinction between them and thus he reconciles the matter by expounding the same words to two different and contrary senses as they are applied to different subjects which has taught the Church of Rome when occasion serves to soften her Prayers by expounding them contrary to the plain and natural signification of the words that the most direct and formal Prayers to Saints and the Virgin for all Temporal and Spiritual Blessings when they please shall signifie no more than a bare Ora pro nobis Pray for us About this time S. Chrysostom also in the Greek Church defended this practice of Praying for the Dead and yet the Doctrine of Purgatory never was received in the Greek Church as appears from the Council of Florence which is a plain sign That though the Roman Doctors think they have proved Purgatory if they can but prove that the ancient Church used to Pray for the Dead which no Body denies yet the Greek Church did not and does not to this day think this a good consequence for they Pray for the Dead but deny a Popish Purgatory Which shows that though they prayed for the Dead they did it for other reasons than the Church of Rome now does And yet S. Chrysostom does not agree with S. Austin in that distinction he makes of Souls departed which shows that there was no certain tradition about this matter but Men of Wit and Learning framed different Hypotheses and Schemes of things to themselves as they thought they could best give an account of this practice For this was the thing both S. Austin and S. Chrysostom were intent on to justifie the practice of the Church so that their Prayers for the Dead might
not be thought vain and hypocritical But whereas S. Austin distinguishes Souls departed into three orders those who are so perfectly good that they need not our Prayers others less perfect to whom our Prayers are beneficial and a third sort so wicked that their estate is irrecoverable and so past the relief of our Prayers S. Chrysostom mentions but two sorts sincere good Christians and Infidels and such as die without Baptism and bad Christians whom he places in the same rank As for the first he expresly tells us that after Death they are in a state of Rest and Happiness and upon this very account condemns those extravagant expressions of sorrow at their Funerals and therefore he never thought of a Popish Purgatory for I think we have great reason to lament those who are in Purgatory a place of torment though not Hell. As for others he thinks they deserve our Sorrow and Compassion and Prayers and Alms not that this can deliver them out of the state of the damned but that he thought it gave some little ease and relief to their torments And this was not only the sense of S. Chrysostom that the damned themselves were eased by the Prayers of the living but S. Austin seems to be of the same mind when he says that the suffrages of the living are profitable either ut plena fiat remissio aut tolerabilior sit ipsa damnatio to obtain perfect forgiveness or to make damnation it self more tolerable And I think what Basil of Seleucia relates concerning Thecla That by her Prayers she obtained the Soul of Falconilla who died a Pagan signifies that he believed something more than this that the Prayers of the living may not only ease the torments of the damned but deliver them out of Hell it self Now this the Church of Rome believes no more than we do They reject all the reasons for which the Ancients prayed for the Dead and have invented some new reasons which the ancient Fathers never thought of viz. to Pray Men out of Purgatory and therefore though they still Pray for the Dead and we do not yet they no more Pray for the Dead in the sense of the ancient Church than we do however I think from hence it appears that they cannot prove a Popish Purgatory from the practice of the ancient Church in Praying for the Dead which is all I intended to prove at this time XI Desiring the Intercessions of the blessed is more superstitious and derogatory to our Lord's Mediatorship than intreating the Prayers of holy Men Militant This I answered Was as plain in Scripture as that Christ is our only Mediator in Heaven who alone like the high Priest under the Law who was his Type is admitted into the Holy of Holies to make expiation and to interceed for us The summ of what we teach about this matter is this That we must worship none but God and therefore must not Pray to Saints and Angels as our Saviour teaches Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve That there is but one Mediator between God and man the man Christ Jesus and therefore we must not make more Mediators to our selves nor put our trust in the Intercession of Saints and Angels Thus far we have plain Scripture proof and then we think common sense teaches us the rest That it is an injury to an Only Mediator to set up other Mediators with him That good Men on Earth are not Mediators but Supplicants which is no encroachment on Christ's Mediatorship and that Saints in Heaven according to the Church of Rome Pray as Mediators and Intercessors who appear in the presence of God for us and this is not reconcilable with Christ's Onely Mediatorship in Heaven To this our Author answers Page 7. It is not at all in Scripture that our Saviour is our only Mediator of Intercession therefore this proposition is not plain there If such an only Mediatorship of Intercession be plain in Scripture it had been easie and kind to have named such a plain Scripture Yet none is brought unless the Answerer meant Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God c. for such a one Truly I see not how he can deduce from it any thing to his purpose till it appear that all Prayer is Divine Worship or that we Pray to Saints just as we do to God. This is all his answer and I think I might trust every ordinary Reader with it without any reply but I must be civil to our Author and therefore will try if I can make him understand this matter The Reader will easily see That that Text Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and what he has concealed in an c. as if he were afraid to let his own People who possibly may read his Book know what follows and him only shalt thou serve was never intended to prove that Christ is our only Mediator of Intercession The proof I insist on is in 1 Timothy 2. 5. There is one God and one mediator between God and men the Man Christ Iesus But says our Author this does not prove that there is but one Mediator of Intercession But why does it not prove this Is a Mediator of Intercession a Mediator if he be and there be but one Mediator then there is but one Mediator of Intercession for there is but one Mediator in all As for his distinction between a Mediator of Redemption and Intercession there is no such distinction to be found in Scripture and therefore when S. Paul asserts without any distinction that there is but one Mediator I think we have reason to do so too for if we admit of unscriptural distinctions I know no Article of our Faith but what may be distinguished away When the Apostle says There is but one God why may not a Heathen distinguish upon this That it is very true there is but one Supreme and Sovereign God though there are many inferior Deities as well as a Papist say That there is but one Mediator indeed of Redemption but there may be many Mediators of Intercession For both here and in 1 Cor. 8. 5. The Apostle makes Christ the one Mediator just as God is the one God and that sure signifies the only God and the only Mediator For though there be that are called Gods whether in Heaven or in Earth as there be Gods many and Lords many but to us there is but one God the Father of whom are all things and we in him and one Lord Iesus Christ by whom are all things and we by him Where as one God is opposed to the multitude of Heathen Gods so one Lord or one Mediator as Baalim and Lords signified those mediating powers between the Gods and Men is opposed to the many Lords and Mediators among the Heathens Indeed as there is no foundation in Scripture for this distinction between a Mediator of Redemption and Intercession so there is no sense in it
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
Shrine of any other powerful Saints to give all our Estates for saying Masses for the Dead to adore Reliques and Images to kiss the Pavement of such a Church or some Cross drawn on it to say over some particular Prayers so many times a day or to pray before such a particular Altar and such like things as by the liberality of Popes have so many thousand years Indulgence for a reward are indeed works of Supererogation because God has not commanded them but I doubt are no Christian excellencies Such things as these make Men Saints and enrich the Church with Merits and much good may do them with it X. Every Soul as soon as expired is conveyed to Heaven or Hell. In Answer to this I told him that the Scripture gives us no account of any other places of rewards and punishments in the other World but Heaven and Hell. And that this proposition that every Soul as soon as expired is conveyed to Heaven or Hell is only an Inference from this Doctrine that we know of no other place they should go to after death the Scripture having not told us of any other That our Church though She rejects Purgatory yet has not determined against an intermediate State between Death and Judgment Though Christ's Parable of Dives and Lazarus and S. Paul's desire to be dissolved and to be with Christ look fairly towards proving that good Men go to Heaven and bad Men directly to Hell when they die He takes notice only of this last passage of Dives and Lazarus and S. Paul and says that this would prove something if three Souls be All or All Souls expire in either Dives ' s fitness for Hell or Lazarus ' s and S. Paul ' s for Heaven But he should have taken the whole proof together that there is no mention made in Scripture of any other place of rewards or punishments in the next World but Heaven and Hell and that whereever we have any account of the state of Men after Death we either hear of them in Heaven or Hell. As Dives when he died was immediately tormented in Hell and Lazarus was conveyed into Abraham's bosom and S. Paul expected when he died to go immediately to Heaven and to be with Christ but we read of no Man who went to Purgatory when he died and what other proof can we have of this but that Heaven is promised to good Men and Hell threatned against bad Men and we have some examples of both recorded in Scripture unless we expect the Scripture should give us a compleat Catalogue of all who were saved or damned in those days As for Mens fitness for Heaven or for Hell when they die I know not well what he means by it For Men may be fit as he calls it for Hell who are not as wicked as Dives and we all have reason to hope that those may be fit for Heaven who are not so holy as St. Paul was Though there are different degrees of Vice and Vertue which may qualifie Men for different degrees of rewards and punishments yet as we read in Scripture but of two states in the other World Heaven and Hell so we read but of two distinctions of Men in this World the good and the bad to whom these promises or threatnings belong Now every Man when he dies must be one of these either a penitent or an impenitent sinner for the Scripture knows no medium between them If he be a penitent sinner by the gracious terms of the Gospel he has a right to pardon of sin and eternal life and why is not that Man fit for Heaven who has a Covenant-right to it and what should detain him in Purgatory who has an immediate right to Heaven if he be an impenitent sinner Hell is his portion and he must have it But after all this is no controversie between us and the Church of Rome whether every Soul as soon as expired is conveyed to Heaven or Hell but whether those who shall finally be saved must suffer the pains of Purgatory in the other World before they shall be received into Heaven Our Author has a mind to confound these two and seems to think it proof enough that there is a Purgatory if there be a middle state between death and judgment which is neither Heaven nor Hell and possibly those who do not understand this Controversie may be deceived with such pretences and therefore it will be convenient briefly to state this matter There have been I confess very different opinions among some of the Fathers about the state of Souls departed both before and since the Resurrection of Christ from the dead as you shall hear more presently and there may be very different opinions about it still and I believe will be among thoughtful and inquisitive Men and no great hurt done neither while they are not made Articles of Faith nor the foundation of some new and unscriptural worship But that our People may not be imposed on with sham-proofs which are nothing to the purpose as it is plain this Author intended to do in this Article it will be necessary plainly to represent the Doctrine of the Church of Rome concerning Purgatory that they may know what proofs to demand of it Now the Council of Trent determines no more than that there is a Purgatory and that the Souls which are detained there are helpt by the suffrages of the faithful but principally by the most acceptable Sacrifice of the Altar and commands the Bishops diligently to take care that the wholesome Doctrine of Purgatory delivered by the holy Fathers and Councils be believed held taught and preached to Christ's faithful People The Fathers of this Council were very careful not to determine what Purgatory is what the punishments of it are where the place of it is but refer us to former Fathers and Councils for it and therefore among the rest I suppose they mean the Council of Florence where this purgation is expresly affirmed to be by fire and to be a state of punishment Cardinal Bellarmine who wrote since the Council of Trent understood Fathers and Councils and the sense of the Roman Church as well as any Man and therefore I shall briefly shew what he thought of this matter That Bellarmine did believe that Souls departed were purged with fire is abundantly evident from what he discourses on 1 Cor. 3. and from those testimonies of the Fathers which he abuses to this purpose But for what end these punishments serve is as considerable as Purgatory fire it self and they Bellarmine tells us are to expiate venial sins or such mortal sins whose guilt is pardoned but not the temporal punishment due to them For according to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome there are some venial sins which in their own nature do not deserve eternal but only temporal punishments and as for mortal sins when the guilt of them is pardoned by the Sacrament of Penance by
more than what we give to the Bible ibid. The reasons why some Protestants have charged the worship of Images with Idolatry 88 No alterations made in the Law against worshipping Images in the New Testament 92 The reasons of the Second Commandment Moral and Eternal 93 No material Temple much less an Image allowed under the Gospel 95 The Primitive Church always understood the Worship of Images to be forbid under the Gospel 99 XIII Whether the Pope be Antichrist and whether this be taught in the Homilies of the Church of England ibid. XIV Concerning Prayers and Divine Offices in the Vulgar tongue 101 The self-contradictions of this Author 102 Whether S. Paul in 1 Cor. 14. only forbid inspired and extempore prayers in an unknown tongue not the setled forms of Divine Offices 104 All the Apostles arguments in that place against speaking in an unknown tongue concern our ordinary devotions 105 As 1. That it is contrary to the edification of the Church ib. 2. That it contradicts the natural end and use of speech 106 3. That it is contrary to the nature of Prayer and religious worship which must be a reasonable Service 107 Whether the people are bound to joyn in all the offices of publick worship 108 Whether the people understand their prayers though they are in Latin which they do not understand 112 XV. Concerning Schism and Separation 114 Separation from the Errors of the Church of Rome is not a Separation from the Catholick Church 116 Renouncing the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome no Schism ibid. Such a supremacy not essential to Catholick Unity 117 Concerning the Ecclesiastical combinations of neighbour Churches and Bishops into one body ibid. In what cases a particular Church may break off from such a body 118 The Popes Supremacy such an usurpation as may be renounced without the authority of a general Council ibid. The Church of England not originally subject to the Bishop of Rome as the Western Patriarch 121 The difference between Schism from the Catholick Church and the breach of Ecclesiastical Communion 122 To reform errors and corruptions in Faith and Worship can never be a fault 125 That the Church of England does not separate from all other Christian Societies 126 Concerning Communion in the Eucharist and other religious Assemblies 129 What Church we joyned in Communion with when we forsook the Communion of the Church of Rome 130 What Church we made the pattern of our Reformation 131 In what sense the Church of Rome her self was the pattern of our Reformation 132 XVI Concerning the defection and apostasie of the Clergy of the Catholick Church and the Reformation of the Laity 134 Whether the whole Clergy were against the Reformation 135 The Popish Clergy in the Reign of King Henry the Eighth did own the King's Supremacy and wrote for it 136 c. We do not assert That the Church of Rome has apostatized from fundamental Truth and Holiness 138 Whether all kind of Idolatry be an Apostasie from fundamental Truth and Holiness 139 The nature of that argument to prove That a thing is not because it cannot be when there is all other possible evidence to prove That it is 140 As that the Church of Rome has not erred because she cannot err 141 c. If the Reformation be good there can want no authority to reform 147 The Supreme Authority of any Nation has a regular Authority to declare what shall be the established Religion of that Nation which is all that we attribute to Kings and Parliaments in such matters 250 ERRATA PAG. 53. l. 4. for now r. non p. 123. l. 33. r. as shows p. 14â— l. 14. dele upon Some faults there are in Pointing which I must leave to the Reader to correct A VINDICATION OF SEVERAL Protestant Doctrines BEING AN ANSWER TO A LATE PAMPHLET ENTITULED Protestancy destitute of Scripture-Proofs THAT I have taken so little an occasion to write so big a Book I hope the Reader upon his perusal will pardon There is indeed a remarkable difference between us and our Roman Adversaries in this matter they can answer great Books in two or three Sheets if they vouchsafe to give any answer at all which they begin to be weary of we answer two or three Sheets in large Books but then we have very different ends in writing too they to make a show of saying somewhat to put by the blow by some few insignificant cavils we not only to answer our Adversaries which might be done in very few words but to instruct our people which requires a more particular Explication of the reasons of things But I shall make no Apology for my Book till I hear that it wants it for it may be some may think it as much too little as others too big He begins very regularly with the state of the Controversie between us to prove sixteen Protestant Tenets as he calls them by plain Scripture Scriptures but so plain to us for their Doctrines as they require to be yielded them by the Catholique Church for hers What will be thought plain by them is a very hard matter to guess when it seems the second Commandment it self is not thought by them a plain Scripture-proof against Image-worship and I despair of ever finding a plainer proof in Scripture for or against any thing But I told him in Answer to his request p. 17. that we desire no other proofs from them but what we are ready to give either the express words of Scripture or plain and evident consequence or the silence of Scripture to prove that any Doctrine is not in it And though they may reasonably demand of us what we demand of them yet they cannot reasonably demand more and whether I have not done him justice in this way shall be examined again under the several Articles of his request In the next Paragraph he mightily despises the Answer and concluded the pamphlet unworthy a publick or special notice and expected if not more pertinent yet at least more plausible replies to follow and I can assure him that he was very ill advised that he did not despise and expect on for his reply has given some credit and authority to that Answer and has now produced a Book which if he be wise he will despise too though I hope it will convince him that Protestants do not mean to expose their profession by silence which I do not find them much inclined to at present But let us consider the state of the question In answer to the Request to prove some Protestant Tenets by plain Scripture I told him this was a false representation of our Doctrine for though we do make the Scripture the rule of our Faith yet we do not pretend to own no Doctrine but what is contained in the express words of Scripture Our Church teaches us Art. 6. that Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to Salvation so that whatsoever is not read therein nor may be proved
Bosom and Paradise which they distinguish from Heaven Tertullian calls it a place of Divine pleasantness appointed for the Spirits of holy Mon. The Author of the Questions and Answers to the Orthodox in Iustin Martyr expresly tells us That when the Soul goes out of the Body there is a great difference made between the Righteous and the Wicked For they are carried by Angels to such places as are proper for them The Souls of just Men into Paradise where they have the conversation and sight of Angels and Archangels and the vision 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of our Saviour Christ as it is written being absent from the body we are present with the Lord. From hence Bellarmine concludes That by Paradise this Author understands Heaven because there we shall have the Vision of Christ and therefore that Paradise must signifie that place where Christ is present Which is directly contrary to the Doctrine of this Author who makes Paradise only a receptacle of separate souls till the Resurrection But though it be not Heaven there is he says a great communication between Heaven and Paradise for they have the frequent visits and conversation of Angels and Archangels whom they see and converse with as they do with one another but when he speaks of Christ he expresly makes a distinction between their sight of and conversation with Angels and Christ for this latter is only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of Vision as we see things which are absent and at a distance but yet this does so strongly affect them that he thinks that of S. Paul may be applied to it being absent from the Body we are present with the Lord. And certainly this is no Popish Purgatory but as they thought the very next degree of happiness to Heaven it self Thus S. Hilary expresly asserts that the state of Souls departed is a state of happiness and S. Ambrose tells us that while the fulness of time comes the Souls are in expectation of such a Resurrection as they deserve Punishment expects some and Glory others and yet neither bad Souls are in the mean time without punishment nor the good without reaping some fruits of their Vertue But I need not multiply Quotations to prove that which no modest Man who is acquainted with the Doctrine of the Fathers can deny Thirdly Another difference is That this is an unalterable State till the day of Judgment and therefore no Popish Purgatory out of which as the Church of Rome pretends Souls may be redeemed by the Prayers and Alms and Masses of the Living and ascend immediately into Heaven This is evident from what I have already said that this State is to last till the Resurrection according to the sense of the ancient Fathers as Tertullian expresly affirms that Heaven is open to none while this Earth lasts but the Kingdom of Heaven shall be opened with the end of the World And S. Chrysostom observes from the Parable of Dives and Lazarus that the Souls of Men after their depature out of these Bodies are carried to a certain place from whence they cannot go out when they will but there expect the terrible day of Judgment Which plainly shows what his belief was that they must continue in that State which they enter upon at Death till the Resurrection And this I think is sufficient to show the difference between a Popish Purgatory and that middle state between Death and Judgment which the ancient Fathers taught Secondly Nor is it sufficient to prove a Popish Purgatory that the Ancient Fathers did believe that all Men must pass through the Fire at the day of Judgment That those who were perfectly good should receive no hurt nor damage by it that those who had any remains of corruption about them should be detained a longer or shorter time in that last Fire till they were purged from their sins and that bad Men should irrecoverably sink down into endless burnings This was a received opinion among the Ancient Fathers that at the day of Judgment all Men should be tried by Fire which is so universally acknowledged that I need not prove it by particular Quotations But yet there is an irreconcileable difference between this opinion and the Popish Doctrine of Purgatory as will appear in these particulars 1. That the Popish Purgatory is now and has been in being at least since the time of our Saviour and that those who deserve the fire of Purgatory fall into it when they go out of these Bodies whereas the Fire which the Fathers speak of is not till the day of Judgment This was the opinion of Lactantius Hilary Ambrose and S. Augustin himself who expresly tells us that this Fire is at the end of the World in fine seculi and therefore not the Popish Purgatory which as they would perswade us is already kindled and has been for many hundred Years Indeed S. Augustin though he owns that fiery trial at the last Judgment as the Fathers before him did yet he has something peculiar in this matter which none of the Fathers before him ever taught and therefore having no Authority of Tradition it must rest wholly upon his own Authority who had no more Authority to invent any new Doctrine in his Age than we have in ours There are three or four places in S. Augustin which do speak of some Purgatory fires which some Men must undergo between Death and Judgment which looks most like the Popish Purgatory of any thing in the Ancient Fathers and I believe was the first occasion of it which may be the reason why this Doctrine has so much prevailed in the Latin Church which was acquainted with S. Austin's Writings when it has been always rejected by the Greeks as is evident from the Council of Florence But there are two things to be said to this First That St. Austin speaks very doubtfully about it That there may be such punishments after this life he says is not incredible and we may examine whether there be any such thing or not and it may either be found or may still continue a secret whether some Christians according to the degree of their love and affection for these perishing enjoyments be not sooner or later saved by a certain Purgatory fire and in another place he says he does not reprove this opinion for it may be it is true now redarguo quia forsitan verum est De C. D. l. 21. c. 25. And elsewhere he says That though such speculations may serve for his own or other Mens instruction yet he does not attribute any Canonical authority to them and therefore he was very far from making it an Article of Faith as the Church of Rome has done Secondly And yet though St. Austin speaks of a Purgatory fire after death and before the day of judgment he seems by his whole discourse never to have thought of such a Purgatory as the Church of Rome has invented The occasion
of what he says to this purpose is that noted place 1 Cor. 3. 11 12 13 14 15. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid which is Iesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold silver precious stones wood hay stubble Every Mans works shall be made manifest for the day shall declare it because it shall be revealed by fire and the fire shall try every Mans work of what sort it is if any Mans work abide which he built thereupon he shall receive a reward If any Mans work shall be burnt he shall suffer loss but he himself shall be saved but so as by fire Some there were who from this place concluded that those who held the foundation who believed in Christ and continued in the unity of the Church how wicked soever their lives were should at last be saved by fire This St. Austin vehemently opposed though it is very like the Doctrine or Practice of the Church of Rome which sends all good Catholick sinners how wicked soever their lives have been to Purgatory especially if they have had time to confess and receive Absolution They absolve all that confess and no Man who is absolved at the hour of death can go to Hell but how wicked soever he is he shall at last be saved by the fire of Purgatory In opposition to this St. Austin expounds wood and hay and stubble which some build upon the foundation not of such sins as the Scripture tells us will shut us out of the Kingdom of Heaven such as St. Paul mentions 1 Cor. 6. 9 10. Neither Fornicators nor Idolaters nor Adulterers c. shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven but of such a great passion for the present enjoyments of this World though lawful and innocent in themselves that we cannot lose them without great trouble and anxiety of mind for when such Men must suffer the loss of all these things for Christ if they hold the foundation if they prefer Christ before all other things they will suffer the loss of all things for him but then that fondness they have for this World will make the loss of these things very afflicting doler urit such sorrow burns their Souls and is a kind of Purgatory fire to them in this World which those good Men escape who sit loose from all present things and therefore are not so much affected with the loss of them but those who love this World too passionately if notwithstanding they can bear the loss of all for Christ shall be saved but so as by fire shall smart for their loving this World too well in those burning and Purgatory flames which an inordinate love and grief will kindle in their Souls This is what St. Austin understands by being saved by fire in this World that sorrow with which those are burnt when they lose these things who loved them too much while they had them but this Purgatory is in this life and St. Austin questions whether there may not be something like this aliquid tale in the next World that is that after death Men who loved this World too well may be greatly afflicted for the loss of it which is all the Purgatory fire before the day of judgment that St. Austin ever thought of and he was the first that ever thought of this and yet this is nothing at all to a Popish Purgatory as every body will grant So that though St. Austin was doubtful whether there may not be some Purgatory punishments after death for those who were too fond of this life that is whether their leaving this World and going into such a different state where they can enjoy nothing they were fond on here will not greatly afflict and burn and torment their minds either a longer or shorter time according to the degree of their love to this World yet neither St. Austin nor any of the Fathers thought that there was any material Purgatory fire such as the Popish Purgatory is till the end of the World. Secondly Another difference between that fire which the Fathers mention and the Popish Purgatory fire respects the persons who are to be tried in it For the Fathers taught that at the day of judgment all Men excepting Christ himself must pass through the fire not St. Peter nor St. Paul nay not the blessed Virgin herself excepted This is expresly asserted by Lactantius Hilary Ambrose and many others We must all be tried by Fire whoever desires to return into Paradise ideo unusignem illum sentire non potuit qui est justitia Dei Christus quia peccatum non fecit Christ only who is the righteousness of God and never committed any sin escapes that fire but they believed that all Mankind besides must pass through it that perfect good Men shall pass unhurt and untouched that those who are imperfectly good must be purged by fire and shall suffer by the flames of it a longer or shorter time as their purgation requires and that bad Men shall sink for ever into those bottomless Lakes of Fire and Brimstone But the Popish Purgatory is neither for very good nor very bad Men. Bad Men immediately go to Hell and perfect Saints ascend directly into Heaven without passing the fire of Purgatory which therefore cannot be that fire the Fathers speak of which the most perfect Saints must pass thorough into Heaven Thirdly Another difference is That the Popish Purgatory Fire is not for purgation but the Fire at the Day of Judgment according to the ancient Fathers is I observed before that the Popish Purgatory is not to make Men better for the Souls in Purgatory are perfect in all Graces and can neither merit nor sin All that they have to do in Purgatory is to make satisfaction for that temporal punishment which is due to their sins their sins are already pardoned and their Souls are purged they perfectly love God and are beloved by him and yet unless they be relieved by the Prayers and Alms and Masses of the living they may lie several Ages in Purgatory bearing the punishment of their sins when they are both pardoned and cleansed from sin which may seem a little odd to those Men who remember that Christ has born the punishment of our sins and who know no other end of punishments but either to reform the sinner or to take vengeance on their sins which there is no room for when the sin is pardoned But now though the ancient Fathers do deny that there is any purgation of sin between Death and Judgment but that every Soul continues in the same state wherein Death found it till the Day of Judgment yet they make the Fire at the Day of Judgment to be truly Purgatory to purge us from all the remains of Corruption just as Gold is purged and refined in the Fire and therefore they tell us that perfect Souls shall pass through the Fire unhurt but if there be any Lead mingled with our
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
there should be any such Divine Offices in publick Worship which the People are not bound to joyn in Methinks the Apostle's Argument against speaking in an unknown Tongue because it is contrary to Edification holds as well and for the same Reason against such Offices as these which certainly are not much for Edification when People are not bound to joyn in them unless every thing in publick Worship must be done for Edification and therefore must be understood by the People who are to be edified by it the Apostles Argument against these inspired Tongues is not good for if our Author had been present when St. Paul wrote this he could have easily answered him that there was no need that the whole Congregation should understand these inspired Men but let those understand who could and if no body understood it what hurt did it do Nay the Exercise of such extraordinary Gifts did edifie those who saw and heard though they did not understand and when the Spirit inspires men to speak in unknown Tongues we have reason to think that the Spirit did not intend that every one should understand them and that is reason to believe that the exercise of such Gifts was very fitting though they were not understood Let our Author try now how he can justifie St. Paul's Argument against unknown though inspired Tongues upon the Principle which he has laid down That the People are not bound to joyn in all the Offices of publick Worship That any thing may be done in publick Worship which is not for publick Edification or let him try if he can say half so much for such setled Forms of Divine Offices as People are not bound to joyn in and therefore not bound to understand as may be pleaded for the occasional Exercise of miraculous and inspired Gifts in an unknown Tongue and if he can't then this Answer he gives about such Offices as People are not bound to joyn in is a better Answer to St. Paul than it is to Protestants a much better Vindication of the Exercise of such unknown Tongues than of the use of Latine Service where Latine is an unknown Tongue For secondly I would ask our Author whether there be any Offices of Religion which People are bound to attend to and to joyn in His saying That there are many which they are not bound to attend to supposes that there are some which they are bound to attend to and to joyn in and his making this an Argument for Service in an unknown Tongue that there are many Offices which they are not bound to attend to and therefore not to understand for there must be the force of his Argument if it have any supposes that they must understand what they must attend to and joyn in how then does this justifie the Latine Service of the Church of Rome For their whole Service is in Latine an unknown Tongue and therefore according to his Reason the People are not bound to attend to or joyn in any part of their Worship because they understand none of it And is not that a pretty kind of publick Worship which no body is bound to attend to or joyn in not the Priest himself when he does not understand Latin which as they say too often happens in Catholick Countries 3ly Since our Author says That there are only many not all Divine Offices which the People are not bound to joyn in he would have done well to have given us some mark of distinction that we might have known what Offices People must joyn in and what not For I cannot for my life think of any Act of publick Christian Worship which all Christians are not bound to joyn in I should think it very convenient that all Christians should attend to and joyn in the holy Sacraments when they are administred for if they must not bear their parts there which must be their own Act or it signifies nothing it being a making and renewing a solemn Vow and Covenant with God to be sure they can be concerned in nothing else And therefore the Offices of Baptism and the Lords Supper ought to be administred in the vulgar Tongue that every Body may understand them Thus if men are bound to pray to God and to praise him surely they are bound to joyn in publick Prayers and Praises and then according to this Rule the publick Prayers and Hymns of the Church ought to be in the vulgar Tongue And I cannot imagine a Reason why the People ought not to attend to reading the Lessons the Epistles and Gospels for I know no other use of reading them but that the People might hear and understand them and be edified by them and then they also should be in the vulgar Tongue In short there is nothing is an Office of Religion but what the People are concerned in and therefore must attend to it and joyn in it unless it be not their Duty to attend to and joyn in the Worship of God And therefore our Author by insinuating this Principle That People must understand what they are bound to attend to and joyn in which is so agreeable to common sense that he could not resist it has effectually overthrown and condemned the Latine Service unless he can prove that People are not concerned to joyn in the Worship of God and then I desire to know why they must be present at it 4. But suppose as he says that there were no necessity that all should specially joyn and attend to all religious Offices yet were it not better that they should Were it not more for the Edification of the Church and of every particular Christian that they should understand their Prayers and all joyn in the same Petitions with the same devout Affections than that they should only gaze upon the Priest and be not Worshippers but meer Spectators of religious Worship Now if it be better to understand our Prayers than not to understand them to offer up a reasonable than unreasonable Service to God if it be better to worship God than meerly to see him worshipped then how can he justifie Service in an unknown Tongue For when the Apostle disputes against speaking with unknown Tongues the Argument whereon he founds the unlawfulness of it is That it is against Edification and this Argument must hold against Latine Service unless Ignorance edifies more than Knowledge which I believe at this time of day our Author will not care to say Secondly His next Answer is what I before took notice of That the People do understand their Prayers though they be in Latine The meaning of which is no more but this That by frequent attendance at Mass and observing the Actions and Ceremonies used by the Priest some of them understand whereabout the Priest is and what he is a doing they know when they hear the Bell and see the Elevation of the Host that they must fall down and worship c. but do not understand one word that is said
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
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
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