thereby is not to be required of any Man that it should be believed as an Article of Faith or be thought requisite or necessary to Salvation Where our Church distinguishes between what is read in the Scripture that is contained in express words there and what may be proved thereby that is by plain and necessary consequence from what is expresly taught in Scripture and yet confines such Proof as this only to Articles of Faith or what is thought requisite or necessary to Salvation And the true reason of this is that the Church of England teaches the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures to Salvation which is the very Title of this Article and therefore all things necessary to be believed to Salvation must be contained in express words in Scripture or be proved thence by plain and evident consequence which shows that we are not strictly obliged to prove any thing from Scripture but what we teach for an Article of Faith or as necessary to Salvation This is the reason why we demand a Scripture-proof from the Church of Rome for the new Articles of the Trent Faith for if the belief of them be necessary to Salvation as they say they are then either the Scriptures do not contain all things necessary to Salvation or they are bound to show where these Doctrines are contained in Scripture For this reason the Church of England which owns the sufficiency of the Scripture to Salvation rejects all those Doctrines which the Church of Rome without any Proof from Scripture teaches as necessary to Salvation and this we think reason enough to reject them that they are not contained in Scripture which contains all things necessary to Salvation Now our Author and some of his size who don 't see half a Consequence before them think they have a mighty advantage of us in demanding the same Proofs from us to justifie our rejecting their Doctrines which we demand of them to justifie their belief of them that is to say as we demand of them a Scripture-Proof that there is such a place as Purgatory they think they may as reasonably demand of us a Scripture-Proof that there is no such place as Purgatory just with as much reason as if one should tell me that by the Laws of England every Man is bound to Marry at twenty years old and when I desire him to show me the Law which makes this necessary he should answer though he cannot show such a Law yet it may be necessary unless I can show him a Law which expresly declares that it is not necessary whereas nothing is necessary but what the Law makes so and if the Law has not made it necessary there is no need of any Law to declare that it is not necessary Thus the Protestant Doctrine of the sufficiency of Scriptures to Salvation requires us to produce a plain Scripture-Proof for every thing which we believe necessary to Salvation but it does not require a Scripture-Proof that that is not necessary to Salvation which the Scripture has not revealed nor made necessary to Salvation for if the Scriptures contain all things necessary to Salvation it is a sufficient Proof that such Doctrines are not necessary to Salvation which are not contained in the Scriptures Unless we think that the Scripture must before-hand confute all possible Heresies which might arise in the Church and tell us particularly in all points what we must not believe as well as what we must This I observed was the case as to those Articles of the Church of England which are opposed to the Corruptions and Innovations of the Church of Rome that they are negative Articles and a negative Article only rejects such Doctrines from being Articles of Faith as are not contained in Scripture and it is ridiculous to demand a plain Scripture-Proof that such a Doctrine is not in Scripture We believe it is not there because we cannot find it there and those who pretend it is there cannot show it there which is proof enough and all that the Subject is capable of This is what our Author attempts an Answer to in the preceding Paragraph and first he says that those of the thirty nine Articles which are opposed to Catholick Religion so he calls the Popish Corruptions of Christianity contain Affirmative propositions or may be resolved into equivalent affirmatives What then Is the dispute about the terms wherein the Article is conceived whether they be Negative or Affirmative or about the reason why it is either affirmed or denied viz. that such a Doctrine is not taught in Scripture for this is all I meant by a negative Article that we deny such a Doctrine to be contained in Scripture Now suppose I should say There is no such place as Purgatory which is a negative Proposition or that Purgatory is a late and fond invention which is affirmative what difference is there between them when they both resolve into this that Purgatory is not taught in Scripture and therefore the question is still the same whether the Article be expressed affirmatively or negatively and no Man can be bound to prove by plain and express Scripture that Purgatory is not taught in Scripture Well! but though for a Negative or every non-assent or suspence of assent a reason may not be given or required yet for belief for a solemn profession subscription and swearing of that belief whether it be of negatives or affirmatives a reason may be assigned and required What glorious and triumphant Nonsence is here How does a negative Article and non-assent come to be the same thing For we Protestants use to give our assent to negative Articles And why are not Men bound to give a reason of their non-assent as well as of their assent And how are they more bound to give a reason of their profession and swearing their non-assent than they are of their bare non-assent And who ever dreamt that Men are not bound to give a reason of their non-assent and of their profession of non-assent and lastly what is all this to the purpose of demanding express Proofs of Scripture that such Doctrines as suppose Purgatory or the Invocation of Saints c. are not taught in Scripture And why is it not a sufficient reason of a non-assent or declared and professed denial of such Doctrines that it does not appear that they are taught in Scripture But the Request he says proposed only affirmatives and they have been considered and answered already and his Defence shall be considered again without any Fencing or Tergiversation But the Thirty nine Articles not only declare that the opposite affirmatives are not in Scripture for they may not be there and yet be true but if they be not there we cannot know they are true much less can they be Articles of Faith and necessary to Salvation but also that they are rather and plainly repugnant to Scripture this I confess does require a Scripture-Proof that a Doctrine is not only not in the Scripture
our Homilies that the Pope is Antichrist The most that looks that way is in the Second Part of the Homily for Whitsunday where from their opposition to some Gospel Doctrine and preferring their own Decrees before the express Word of God it is proved that they are not of Christ nor yet possessed with his Spirit From their Pride and Arrogance in challenging an Universal Headship and advancing themselves above Soveraign Princes or in the Scripture Phrase above all that is called God and treating Emperors and Kings with the greatest insolence and scorn Our Church concludes that they had not the Spirit of God but the Spirit of the Devil that wheresoever ye find the Spirit of Arrogancy and Pride the Spirit of Envy Hatred Contention Cruelty Murder Extortion Witchcraft Necromancy c. assure your selves that there is the Spirit of the Devil and not of God albeit they pretend outwardly to the World never so much Holiness that such wicked Popes as these are worthily accounted among the number of false Prophets and false Christs so that at most the Homily does but reckon these Popes in the number of false Christs but does not make the Pope the Antichrist It concludes with a Prayer That God by the comfortable Gospel of his Son would beat down Sin Death the Pope the Devil and all the Kingdom of Antichrist where I confess the Pope is put in very ill Company and a fair intimation given that he may have some relation to the Kingdom of Antichrist but yet he is not expresly called Antichrist And therefore as for his demand of Scripture Proof let him seek for it in those Writers who expresly affirm the Pope to be Antichrist where it may be he will find more than he will like or can easily answer I told him before that the Scripture does not expresly name who is Antichrist or the Man of Sin but gives such Characters of him as some think the Pope of Rome has the best claim to It is enough for us to know that he usurps such an Authority as Christ never gave him preaches such Doctrines as Christ never taught encourages such Actions as are contrary to the true Spirit of the Gospel and that is reason enough for us to reject him 14. Every Prayer used in Divine Offices must be in a Language vulgar and intelligible to every Auditor For the Proof of this I alleadged St. Paul's Discourse 1. Cor. 14. and must now consider what he tell us is the Apostles mind in it viz. that whoever had the gift of a Tongue strange to all the Auditory should forbear to dictate therein Extempore Sermons Prayers c. containing matter as well as the Tongue inspired into the Speaker I say this gift of no use but used for ostentation in such a case was to be reserved till either the Speaker or some Auditor could and did interpret that the rest might edifie Now will it follow from hence that all the settled Forms of Divine Offices to many of which there is no necessity that all specially joyn and intend be in the vulgar or intelligible to every Auditor It is enough to comply with the Apostles Doctrine that all new Extempore Prayers and Instructive or Exhortatory Discourse by Actions Ceremonies or Circumstances or other way not interpretable be as they are in the Vulgar But for the fixt Forms of Divine Offices that they be in a Language the most certain and the most intelligible not only in Christendom but in every Auditory Intelligible I say where needful to every one by either Actions Ceremonies and Circumstances or by Custom Affinity with the Vulgar or Books intepreting and containing Prayers correspondent to every part wherein the Auditory is concerned I have Transcribed the whole because it is as choice a Paragraph as we shall ordinarily meet with The only difficulty I see in it is to know at which end to begin to answer for if I understand him the beginning and conclusion of this Paragraph do not well agree In the beginning he would confine the Apostles Discourse against Prayers in an unknown Tongue to inspired and extempore Prayers and Sermons but that notwithstanding this the setled Forms of Divine Offices may be in an unknown Tongue in the conclusion he would fain insinuate that though the Publick Offices of the Church of Rome be in Latin which is not the Vulgar Tongue now in any Nation yet they are in a Language the most certain and the most intelligible not only in Christendom but in every Auditory It seems he had some little Qualm came over his Conscience some secret Convictions that Men ought to understand their Prayers and therefore he roundly asserts that Latin is the most intelligible Language that is the most known and best understood of any Language in Christendom and to every Auditory Now if this be so what need all this Dispute about Service in an unknown Tongue what need of distinguishing between extempore Prayers and setled Forms of Divine Offices we are all it seems agreed that Publick Prayers ought to be in an intelligible Language and that which is intelligible to every Auditor the only difference is whether Latin be as well understood in all the Auditories in England as English is Well but this is a very great Riddle and requires some skill to make it out for our English Auditories believe themselves that they do not understand Latin but they may be mistaken for ought any body knows let us than see how our Author makes it out Intelligible I say where needful to every one by either Actions Ceremonies and Circumstances or by Custom Affinity with the Vulgar or Books interpreting and containing Prayers correspondent to every part wherein the Auditory is concerned that is as we use to say you must know their meaning by their gaping and thus forsooth Latin is a very intelligible Language to those who do not understand one word of it What shuffling and trifling is this do the People understand Latin Prayers or do they not if they don't then the Service is performed in an unknown Tongue to them which St. Paul expresly condemns and whatever they understand about the Business yet they do not understand their Prayers which is the Dispute between us If these dumb Signs can teach People their Prayers then it is lawful for them it seems to know their Prayers and then why may they not pray in a Language which they understand for Words are more expressive of Thoughts than Actions and Ceremonies and Circumstances can be which can only tell in general what we are about not what we say and as for Books to interpret our Prayers what need we go so far about Why may we not pray in the Vulgar Tongue as well as interpret Prayers in a Vulgar Tongue And what shall those do who have no Books and cannot read This is direct Boys play to make an offer of giving something but to pull back your hand if any one offers to
understand them and this is the use we make of our Guides not to submit our judgments to them without any understanding but to inform our judgments that we may be able to see and understand for our selves Thus our Saviour taught his Disciples he opened their understandings that they might understand the Scriptures Thus the Apostles and Primitive Doctors instructed the World by expounding the Scriptures to them which does not signifie merely to tell them what the sense of Scripture is and requiring them to believe it but showing them out of the Scriptures that this is and must be the true sense of it and we need not fear that Protestancy should suffer any thing from such Guides as these though the Church of Rome indeed has felt the ill effects of them II. The Secular Prince hath all spiritual jurisdiction and authority immediately from and under God. Here he says I behave my self as if I were under apprehensions and durst neither own nor reject this Tenet and yet in my Answer I expresly show what the Church of England means by the Kings Supremacy in Ecclesiastical Causes which signifies no more than that the King is Supreme in his own Dominions and therefore there is no Power neither Secular nor Ecclesiastick above him for if there were he were not Supreme And this I said might be proved from Rom. 13. 1. Let every Soul be subject to the higher powers to which he answers that this proves more than I grant It proves ministring the Word and Sacraments to belong to the Higher Powers How so Yes this it does unless ministring the Word and Sacraments be not a soul affair be no act of power Learnedly observed because every soul must be subject to the Higher Powers therefore the King has all Power in soul-affairs and therefore of ministring the Word and Sacraments But if every soul only signifie every Man without excepting the Pope himself then I suppose all Ecclesiasticks as well as Secular persons are included in it and if all must be subject to the King then the King is Supreme over all but things are at a low ebb in the Church of Rome when such silly Quibbles must pass for Arguments III. Iustification by Faith alone viz. a persuasion that we are justified is a wholsome Doctrine In answer to this I denied that our Church teaches that justifying Faith is a persuasion that we are justified He grants that some of the Church of England have condemned it p. 4. but yet he may as justly charge us with it as we charge the Church of Rome with Doctrines contrary to their General Councils and constant Profession and we grant he may for if such things be done they are very unjust both in him and us we deny that we do any such thing and have lately abundantly vindicated our selves from such an imputation let him do as much for himself if he can But Cranmer was of this mind by whom the Articles were devised But how does that appear and if he were what is that to us when there is no such thing in our Articles will he allow the Council of Trent to be expounded according to the Private opinions of every Bishop that was in it The Antinomians plead the Doctrine of the eleventh Article as the Parent of their irreligion and so they do the Scriptures And what then Will he hence infer that the Scriptures countenance Antinomianism because they alledge Scripture for it And why then must this be charged upon our Articles Though what some may have done I cannot tell but Antinomians don 't use to trouble themselves with our Articles But the strictest Adherers to the Primitive Reformers in Doctrine the Puritans assert this Solifidian Parenthesis as the genuine and literal sense of Iustification by Faith alone and of the eleventh Article Why the Puritans the strictest Adherers to the Primitive Reformers in Doctrine but we need not ask a reason of his sayings who understands nothing about what he speaks For the Puritans did not and do not believe That justifying Faith is a persuasion that we are justified but they place justifying Faith in an act of recumbency on Christ for Salvation and dispute vehemently against his Notion of it But he says I might have given them a Text asserting what I confess our Church teaches viz. that justification by Faith only is a wholesome Doctrine and very full of comfort which intimates no necessity of repentance to Iustification none of the Sacraments Yes it does and of good works too as the conditions of our Justification though not as the meritorious causes of it for all this our Church comprehends in the notion of a living Faith which alone justifies and then I suppose as many Texts as there are which attribute our Justification to Faith so many proofs there are that Justification by Faith alone as opposed to all Meritorious Works is a wholesome Doctrine and very full of comfort IV. The substance of Bread and Wine remains after what it was before sacerdotal Consecration Here he takes no notice of any one word which I returned in Answer The sum of which is that the material substance before and after Consecration is the same that is that they are Bread and Wine still but by vertue of Christ's Institution after Consecration they are not mere Bread and Wine but a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's Death and to such as rightly and worthily and by Faith receive the same the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ as our Church teaches And this I proved must be the sense of the words of Institution This is my Body and urged such arguments for it in short as he durst not name again much less pretend to Answer but instead of that he endeavours to prove p. 5. that the words of Institution This is my Body literally understood do expresly prove that the substance of Bread does not remain at all after Consecration For the Eucharist is Christ's Body and Blood which if substantially Bread and Wine it cannot really be A change less than that of the substance of the Elements is insufficient to render them really and truly what the Text says they are after Consecration But did not I give him my reasons why these words could not be understood literally of the natural Body and Blood of Christ And is it enough then for him to say that in a literal sense they must signifie a substantial change of the Bread and Wine into Christ's natural Body and Blood without answering what I urged against it and yet in a literal sense it cannot signifie so For if This refers to the Bread which our Saviour took and blessed and brake and it can refer to nothing else then the literal sense of the words is This Bread is my Body and if Bread be the Body of Christ then the substance of the Bread cannot be
should incline Men to expound those words of our Saviour This is my Body of his Natural Body contrary to all the Sacramental forms of speech used in Scripture did they not think it meritorious to believe impossibilities and contradictions To return then a more direct Answer to our Author's question what there is besides Substance and Efficacy belonging to our Saviour's Body I answer by Nature there is nothing else but by Institution there is for there is the Sacrament of the Lord's Body which is neither the natural Substance nor the natural Efficacy of his Body but a Sacramental Communion in the merits and Efficacy of his Death and Passion which is a spiritual eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood of Christ. And since he wants Scripture for this I will give him a very piain Text 1 Cor. 10. 16. The cup of Blessing which we bless is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ the Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ. Thus S. Paul explains what our Saviour said This is my Body and This is my Blood by this is the Communion of Christ's Body and Blood That is that those who by Faith partake of the Sacramental Bread and Wine do communicate in the Body and Blood of Christ. This is a different thing from the mere influences of his Grace for it is our interest and Communion in his Sacrifice which is the meritorious cause and spring of all Divine Influences and Communications We must be mystically and spiritually united to Christ to have Communion in the Sacrifice of his Body and Blood and then we receive the fresh supplies of Grace from him which are the purchase of his Death and the effect of our Union to him and this Communion with the Body and Blood of Christ we receive in the Lord's Supper which is instituted by Christ for that very purpose and therefore it is called the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ because it is the Sacrament of our Union to him whereby we communicate in his Body and Blood and if this be Zuinglianism I see no help for it but we must be contented to be Zuinglians VI. Adoration of the Eucharist i. e. of our Saviour under the species of Bread and Wine is Idolatry I answered There was no such proposition as this taught in the Church of England We teach indeed that Bread and Wine in the Eucharist remains Bread and Wine after Consecration and that to adore Bread and Wine is Idolatry To adore our Saviour is no Idolatry but to adore Bread and Wine for our Saviour may be as much Idolatry as to worship the Sun for God. Instead of answering this he tells us This blasphemous Tenet is taught by our Church and which is a little worse is practised by theirs For the majority of our pretended Bishops did Vote for the Test and do all of them take it and I hope will keep it too That it is a Canon of our General Council the Parliament and therefore it is very good Law and that is all we desire for our Religion from Parliaments and thank God that we have it and since they are a General Council may they insist upon their Infallibility But what is the matter with the Test Why it declares our Adoration of the Eucharist which is the Adoration of nothing but Iesus Christ to be Idolatry Is the Eucharist then nothing but Jesus Christ does the Council of Trent say so Is this the Doctrine of any of their Schoolmen Canonists or Divines Nay will this Author venture to say that the Eucharist is nothing but Jesus Christ himself Which is speck and span New Popery if this be the Doctrine of the Church of Rome No! he does not dares not say that the Eucharist is nothing but Jesus Christ but he says that the Adoration of the Eucharist is the Adoration of nothing but Iesus Christ. But what palpable nonsence is this For if the Eucharist be something which is not Jesus Christ then the Adoration of the Eucharist must be the Adoration of something which is not Jesus Christ. And yet though we should suppose the Doctrine of Transubstantiation to be true yet the natural Flesh and Blood of Christ according to the Doctrine of the Council of Trent though it be present in the Sacrament is not the Sacrament For there can be no Sacrament of the Eucharist without the species of Bread and Wine and yet the Council of Trent decrees that the worship of Latria which is due to the true God be given to this most Holy Sacrament And that we might know what they meant by the Sacrament they tell us it is that which is instituted by Christ to be received or eaten which certainly is the species of Bread and Wine For they being sensible how absurd it is to worship what we eat to prevent this they tell us that it is nevertheless to be adored because it is instituted to be received or eaten The reason indeed they give for it is because Christ is present in this Sacrament but though the presence of Christ be the reason of this Adoration yet the whole Sacrament is the object which is not merely the natural Body and Blood of Christ but the species of Bread and Wine under which is contained the Body and Blood of Christ and therefore to adore the Sacrament is not to adore nothing but Iesus Christ for the Sacrament is somewhat more But then if the Doctrine of Transubstantiation be false they have no other object of their worship but Bread and Wine and thus the Church of England believes and thus our General Council the Parliament which made the Test believed and thus all Men who dare trust their own Senses and Reason believe and if it be blasphemy to teach that the worship of Bread and Wine is Idolatry some of the mâ—st Learned Divines of the Church of Rome have been guilty of this Blasphemy and I should be glad to hear what our Authors opinion is of it VII All Christians whenever they communicate are obliged to receive in both kinds For this I urged the express words of institution which do as expresly command us to drink of the Cup as to eat of the Bread so that if there be any command in Scripture to receive the Bread there is the same command to receive the Cup nay indeed as if our Saviour had purposely intended to prevent this Sacrilegious taking away of the Cup from the People whereas in delivering the Bread he only says Take Eat when he blessed and delivered the Cup he expresly commanded Drink ye all of it And I further argued from the nature of the Eucharist which as it was instituted in both kinds so it is not a compleat Sacrament without it and yet our Author rubs his forehead and confidently tells his Readers Nor for this point can a Scripture command be discovered in the Answer Though the thirtieth Article affirms that
because it is common to an exhortation as well as precept Suppose this then at least it may be a Command as well as an Exhortation and he can never prove that it is not a Command and therefore can never confute any Man who says it is a Command But suppose it be an Exhortation I thought that the Exhortations of the Gospel had always included a Command and I desire one instance of any Exhortation in Scripture which relates to things necessarily good or evil which does not include a Command Indeed the stile of the Gospel does not run in the form of Laws but of exhortatory Commands enforced with Reasons and Arguments to perswade and it is an effectual way to baffle all the Precepts of the Gospel if such Exhortations as are made in common to all Christians have not the force of a Command But I observed farther That whatever Virtues are commanded we must always reckon that the heights and perfections of those Virtues are commanded for God can command nothing less than a perfect Vertue and if this be true then all Christian Excellencies must be commanded unless they be such Excellencies as are no Vertues which I fear may be the case All Christian Virtues are commanded in Scripture without any bounds or limitations set to our duty and I always thought that Justice and Goodness and Charity Meekness and Humility Temperance and Chastity the Love of God and Men did signifie perfect Virtues and a perfect Virtue must be perfect in degrees as well as in its kind and the Gospel is so far from limiting our duty that it makes the Divine nature it self our pattern and example That we must be followers of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Imitators of God like dear Children And that we must be perfect as our Father which is in Heaven is perfect which advances our duty to the utmost possible attainments in Virtue But then I added that the attainment of the highest perfections in Virtue is not made the necessary condition of our Salvation Though a perfect Virtue be commanded yet for Christ's sake a sincere though imperfect obedience shall be accepted But the more perfect and excellent Virtue shall have the more perfect and excellent reward which is reason enough for us to aspire after the greatest perfections And yet those degrees of perfection which we are bound to attain to must bear some proportion to what we have received from God. For to whom much is given of them shall be much required Which shows that such attainments as bear proportion to our receipts shall be exacted from us as a just debt which may make different degrees of Virtue in different Men matter of strict duty This our Author says imports that proportion not equality must be in our accounts to our abilities This I do not well understand for an equal proportion is an equality But this he says does not agree with this Doctrine that we must always reckon the heights and perfections of Virtues are commanded His reason for it is this The Account corresponds to our Abilities so sure does the Command but all Abilities are not the same in all how then can God's Commands be so to all as they are if he always enjoyns the heights and perfections of Virtues The Account he says corresponds with our Abilities and therefore the Command must but how does he prove this God will accept of us according to our Abilities which is an act of Grace and Favour and owing to the Merits and Intercession of Christ and therefore his Commands too which are the Eternal and Unalterable Rules of Righteousness must be proportioned to our Abilities as if God might not in Grace and Mercy accept of less than in Justice he can require or as if it became a Holy and perfect Being to Command less than a perfect Virtue But all Abilities are not the same how then can God's Commands be so to all that is the same to all Men. And are not his Commands the same to all Men Do his Commands differ as Mens Abilities do How many several Gospels and several Laws then must we have And where do we find these several Commands proportioned to Mens several Abilities We have but one Gospel that I know of and the Laws of it are the same to all and it is necessary it should be so that all Men may know that they are bound to be as good as they can and not absolve themselves from any degrees of Virtue as above their Abilities and therefore not Commanded them by God This is what God will do himself when he comes to judge the World He will mercifully consider whether Men have done what they could and will accept of a little when it is their best but we must know that it is our duty to do all the good we can and therefore that the Law requires the most perfect Virtue which will engage us to do our best and use our utmost endeavours to please God and then depend on his Grace to accept our sincere endeavours instead of perfection Had I indeed said That God had made the heights and perfections of Virtue absolutely necessary to the Salvation of all Men then he might have confuted me from our Saviour's Rule of proportion To whom much is given of them shall be much required but this I expresly denied that every Man should be damned who does not attain to the highest perfections And expresly affirmed That a sincere Christian shall be saved notwithstanding his many defects but our reward shall be proportioned to our several degrees and attainments in Virtue That the most perfect Virtue shall have the most excellent reward And this is enough to confound the pretence of Merit and works of supererogation especially that sensless Doctrine of one Man's meriting for another which is the foundation of Popish Indulgences For if the most perfect Virtue be matter of Duty and under Command how is it possible that any Man can do more than his Duty unless he can do something better than the best And if our reward be proportioned to our best actions what redundancy of Merits can there be when all the good we do is so amply rewarded Thus I observed our Church confuted the Popish Doctrine of Supererogation from what our Saviour tells his Disciples When ye have done all that are commanded to you say we are unprofitable servants To this our Author answers If to supererogate did signifie with Catholicks to profit God then the fourteenth Article condemning the Teachers of works of Supererogation of Arrogance and Impiety had been solidly founded on When you have done all that are commanded to you say we are unprofitable servants But we meaning no such thing the Article perverts Scripture This is an admirable answer which does somewhat more than pervert for it ridicules the Text. For might not the Disciples have answered our Saviour as this Disputer does we are not so silly as to think we can profit God but
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
the Church of Rome truly represented the Answer to Monsieur de Meaux or to Papists Protesting against Protestant Popery nor the Vindication of the Catechism truly representing the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome in answer to the first and second Sheets of the second Part of the Papist Misrepresented and Represented Is our Author then one of those who are employed some times to do a little job at Writing but are not permitted to read any of our Books but what and when their Superiors please This gives an account of that Mystery how they can so confidently urge such things as all the World now laughs at for poor Men they know no better and what some so uncharitably call impudence is only ignorance He proceeds Their Test and Homily call the honour we pay to sacred persons and things Idolatry We must either then challenge Protestants to prove this proposition or conclude them calumniators We know what we profess and practise to be as the Catholick Church teaches we hear our Doctrine and Practice confidently said and solemnly subscribed to be Idolatry Sure then we may conclude that Protestants believe the proposition and decent it is that they give a reason of a Faith so injurious to the Catholick Church or henceforward renounce it This still makes good my conjecture that he has only heard in general of such a charge as this but never read the Arguments whereby some Protestants make good this charge at least as they apprehend for me-thinks had he known these proofs he should first have answered them before he had called for more but I assure him it will be an easier task to conclude them Calumniators than to undertake to answer them and therefore if he be wise let him stick to that if they believe and practise as the Church of Rome teaches which in defiance of common sence he will call the Catholick Church I am sure they give another kind of honour to the Cross and Reliques and Images than to the Bible but if he thinks that the Catholick Church always taught what the Church of Rome now teaches I would desire him to read a late Discourse intituled The Antiquity of the Protestant Religion concerning Images which will better inform him But since he calls so importunately for proofs it may be thought very uncivil to deny him and therefore I shall briefly represent to him the reasons why some Protestants have charged the Church of Rome with Idolatry in worshipping the Cross and Images and shall be very glad for the sake of the Church of Rome to see them well answered They lay their charge in the second Commandment which forbids the worship of Images and all representative objects and say that the words are so large as to comprehend all manner of Images which are set up for worship that the Law expresly forbids without any distinction of the end and intention of doing it all external acts of adoration as bowing down to them or before them that it does not meerly forbid the worship of Images as Gods for the Heathens themselves were never so senseless as to believe that their Images of Wood or Stone or Silver or Gold were Gods but only visible representations of their invisible Deities That it does not only forbid the worship of the Images of Heathen Gods but of the Lord Iehovah for the reason whereby Moses enforces this commandment is that they saw no similitude on the day that the Lord spake to them in Horeb out of the midst of the fire Deut. 4. 15. and therefore they must take good heed unto themselves lest they corrupt themselves with Images that they saw no Image of God is a good argument against their making and worshipping the Image of the true God but it is no direct argument against the Images of Heathen Gods and therefore this must be a prohibition of worshipping the true God by Images Another Scripture argument against Image-worship is from the infinite perfections and excellency of the Divine Nature that no Image can be made of God but what must be a reproach and debasement of his Majesty To whom then will ye liken God or what likeness will ye compare to him c. Isaiah 40. 18 c. and this surely is an argument against making and worshipping any Image of the true God. They consider farther that Aaron's Calf was not an Image of a false God but a Symbolical representation of the Lord Iehovah For they expresly call it the God which brought them out of the Land of AEgypt and when Aaron himself appointed a Feast for the Worship of this Molten God He said toâ—morrow is a Feast to the Lord or to Iehovah Exod. 32. 4 5. and therefore these Israelites are charged with changing their glory i. e. the Lord Iehovah who was the Glory of Israel into the similitude of an oxe which eateth grass Psalm 106. 20. But how can this be true if they did not intend this Calf as a Representation of the Lord Iehovah And it is evident that they made this Calf only as a Divine presence to go before them in the absence of Moses For while Moses delayed to come down out of the mount the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron and said unto him Up make us gods which shall go before us for as for this Moses the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt we know not what is become of him Verse 1. So that they did not think of changing their God but only wanted a Visible and Symbolical presence of God with them instead of Moses who when he was with them was a kind of Divine presence God conversing familiarly with him and by him giving them directions and orders what to do and yet the worship of this Calf which was not worshipped as a God or the Image of a false God but as a Symbolical Representation of the Lord Iehovah was Idolatry The like may be said of the Calves at Dan and Bethel which Ieroboam set up in imitation of the golden Calf and for Symbolical representations of the God of Israel For so he himself tells them Behold thy Gods O Israel which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt that is the Lord Iehovah whom Ieroboam did still own and Worship For he had no intention to change their God but only to prevent their going up to Ierusalem three times in the Year to Worship there according to the Law which he feared might prove the destruction of his new Kingdom And therefore God himself makes a great difference between the sin of Ieroboam and the sin of Ahab who introduced the worship of Baal a false God. And therefore though Iehu still preserved the golden Calves which Ieroboam set up yet he calls his Zeal in destroying Baal his Zeal for the Lord Iehovah Which is another Scripture-example of Idolatry in worshipping the Image or Representation of the True God. Another instance is the
take it Let us then consider how he can adjust this Matter with St. Paul and the sum of what he says is this that St. Paul only forbids Inspired and Extempore Prayers in an unknown Tongue where there is no body to interpret but the setled Forms of Divine Offices may be in an unknown Tongue for all that This is certainly as little as can be said and as little to the purpose for whoever considers the place will find that all the Apostles Arguments are against an unknown Tongue for this very Reason because it is unknown and not understood and then if we must not use an unknown Tongue in Religious Worship we must not use an unknown Tongue in our setled and ordinary Devotions There are three Arguments the Apostle uses which I think will reach our ordinary Devotions as well as inspired Gifts 1. That it is contrary to the Edification of the Church 2. That it contradicts the natural use of speaking 3. That it is contrary to the nature and end of Prayer 1. It is contrary to the Edification of the Church Now Brethren if I come unto you speaking with Tongues what shall I profit you except I shall speak to you either by Revelation or by Knowledge or by Prophecying or by Doctrine That is unless I speak something to you which you can understand and which may inform your Judgment as he adds In the Church I had rather speak five words with my Understanding that by my voice I might teach others also than ten thousand words in an unknown Tongue Now if these extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit were to be valued and used only for the Edification of the Church and to speak to the Instruction of others is to be preferred before speaking in an unknown Tongue by Inspiration then certainly the ordinary Service and Worship of God which is instituted on purpose for the Edification of the Church must be in a known Tongue when the extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit themselves must give place to Edification For if the Apostle would have made any exception methinks he should have excepted these extraordinary Gifts For one would think whenever the holy Spirit inspires men they ought to speak whatever Language it be in for it seems strange that any man should forbid these to speak whom the Spirit inspires and yet we see the Exercise of these Gifts were restrained to make them serviceable to the Church and not to be for meer Pomp and Ostentation But for men who have no pretence to any such Inspiration to affect to speak in an unknown Tongue that they may not be understood is to deprive the Church of the Edification of Religious Offices without any pretence for doing so 2. To speak in an unknown Tongue contradicts the natural end and use of Speech For even things without life giving sounds whether Pipe or Harp except they give a distinction in the sounds how shall it be known what is piped or harped For if the Trumpet give an uncertain sound who shall prepare himself to the Battel So likewise you except ye utter by the Tongue words easie to be understood how shall it be known what is spoken for ye shall speak into the Air There are it may be so many kinds of Voices in the World and none of them without signification therefore if I know not the meaning of the Voice I shall be unto him that speaketh a Barbarian and he that speaketh shall be a Barbarian unto me Is this Argument only against inspired Tongues or against the use of all unknown Tongues among Persons who do not understand them For this relates to the use of Speech in common Conversation as well as in the Offices of Religion and if Speech was given us to communicate our Thoughts to each other if it be so vain and absurd and useless a thing to talk to men in a Tongue which they do not understand it is much more absurd in Religion which does more straitly oblige us to mutual Edification For the use of words even in Prayer is not for the sake of God but men God knows our thoughts and therefore a mental Prayer is as acceptable to him without vocal words but the use of words is either to affect our selves and then they must be such words as we our selves understand or to direct others in the matter and form of their Prayers and then they must be such words as they understand or to unite the Affections and Desires of the whole Congregation at the same time in the same Petitions which is essential to publick Worship and then they must be such words as we all understand but to speak words which no body understands is to speak to no purpose which is absurd in common Conversation but profane in Religion 3ly Another Argument St. Paul uses against an unknown Tongue is That it is contrary to the nature of Prayer and religious Worship which must be a reasonable Service and therefore requires the exercise of the Understanding as well as Affections For if I pray in an unknown Tongue my Spirit prayeth but my understanding is unfruitful What is it then I will pray with the spirit and will pray with the Understanding also I will sing with the Spirit and I will sing with the Understanding also Else when thou shalt bless with the Spirit how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned that is every ordinary Christian who has not this gift of Tongues or of interpreting Tongues for there were no Clarks in those days to say Amen for the whole Congregation say Amen at thy giving of thanks seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest And if the Exercise of supernatural Gifts themselves which the Apostle seems here to call praying by the Spirit be not an acceptable Worship to God without the acts of our Reason and Understanding certainly an unknown Tongue is much more unjustifyable in our ordinary Devotions If the whole Congregation must say Amen to those Prayers which are offered to God and it be a ludicrous thing to say Amen to what we do not understand then whether the Prayers be inspired or composed it is necessary that the whole Congregation should understand them But our Author though very timerously insinuates an Answer or two to this one Reason why he thinks the setled Forms of Divine Offices are tacitely excepted by the Apostle and need not be performed in the vulgar and intelligible to every Auditor comes in in a Parenthesis and indeed was as fit for a Parenthesis as any thing could be for he will presently see that it might have been spared To many of which Divine Offices there is no necessity that all specially joyn and intend By which I suppose he means that there are several Offices in the Church of Rome which People are not bound to attend to nor joyn in and therefore there is no need they should understand them 1. Now in the first place I desire to know why