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
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
but they offer up their prayers to God not in their own name but by the hands of their great High Priest and in the merits of his Sacrifice which is subordinate to the mediation of Christ and as consistent with it as the prayers of the people under the Law were with the Atonement and Expiation made by the Priest who offered the Blood of the Sacrifice and the Incense to God. The work of a Mediator is to present our Prayers and Petitions and to give value and efficacy to them and therefore we must pray our selves we must put up our Petitions to God or our Advocate and Mediator cannot present them but is it injurious to the Office of an Advocate that we draw up a Petition which he is to present to our King So that the prayers of good Men for each other is no encroachment upon the Office of a Mediator for our prayers for others as well as for our selves must be offered to God by the hands of our Mediator And this shows also that to desire the prayers of good Men on Earth is no derogation from the Intercession of Christ for we only desire them to joyn with us in our Petition just as if we should procure some persons of worth and note to subscribe our Petition to our Prince which is no injury to our Advocate who presents it For they are two different things to subscribe a Petition and to present it to our Prince And besides this a prayer though it be the prayer of the best Man in the World is but a prayer still and may be answered or rejected as God sees fit but whatever prayer is presented by our Mediator is always granted For he mediates with authority and power he is able to save to the uttermost all those that come unto God by him seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them Under the Law the atonement and expiation of the Priest was always valid to all the intents and purposes of the Law that is to an external and legal purity much more is the mediation of Christ effectual for if it ever miscarried he could not be the object of our Faith and hope A supplicant may heartily desire our good but our Mediator by vertue of his office obtains all the petitions and prayers he presents and every body sees that these two are very consistent But though to desire the prayers of good Men for us on Earth do not derogate from the Intercession of Christ yet to flie to the aid of Saints in Heaven does For that makes them our Advocates and Intercessors not our fellow Supplicants whereas there is but one Mediator in Heaven who appears in the presence of God for us as under the Law only the High Priest could enter into the Holy of Holies which was a Type of Heaven and did prefigure that great High Priest who was to ascend into Heaven with his own Blood. I am sure the Church of Rome does not look upon the Saints in Heaven to be our fellow supplicants as good Men on Earth are but to be our Advocates and Intercessors and then they are Intercessors in Heaven where none but the High Priest was to intercede and they are Intercessors without a Sacrifice which is contrary to the Analogy both of the Old and New Testament For we have no more Intercessors than Priests and we have but one High Priest who is ascended into Heaven and appears in the presence of God for us And if intercession be annexed to the Priesthood I desire to know how the Virgin Mary comes to be so powerful a Mediatrix and Advocatress for we never heard of any she-High Priest before This is answer enough to what he intimates that desiring the Intercessions of the blessed is not more superstitious and derogatory to our Lord's Mediatorship than intreating the Prayers of holy Men Militant For to pray for one another in this World is as consistent with the mediation of Christ as to pray for our selves but the Intercessions of Saints for us in Heaven is inconsistent with the only Mediatorship of Christ. But praying to Saints in Heaven which he modestly calls Desiring the Intercessions of the blessed is of a different consideration and more injurious to God than to a Mediator considered only as our Mediator For prayer is an act of worship peculiar and appropriate to God and therefore not due to our Mediator himself if he were not God. We must pray to God in the name of our Mediator and present our Petitions to God by him but if our Mediator were not God we must not pray to him and thus they are injurious to our only Mediator when they pray to God in any other name and expect to be heard for the sake and merits of any other Mediator but only Christ as they always do on the Festivals of their Saints but to pray to Saints also is an additional crime it is giving the peculiar worship of God to creatures which I told him was expresly forbid by our Saviour Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve But says our Author I see not how he can deduce from it this last Text 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. But now methinks till he make the contrary appear it is very much to the purpose For prayer is appropriated to God in Scripture and all Mankind have thought prayer an act of religious worship and have been able to distinguish between a religious prayer and begging an Alms or making any request to our earthly Prince or Parents or Friends and if our Author does not understand this I have directed him in the Margin where he may be better informed XII Honouring the Cross the Reliques and Representations of our Lord and his Saints with that degree of Reverence as we do the Gospels commonly kissed and sworn by Altar and other sacred Utensils is Idolatry This I told him was ill represented for those who charge them with Idolatry in worshipping the Cross and Reliques and Images charge them also with giving more religious Honours and Worship to them than that external respect which we allow to the Gospels and religious Utensils as both the Decrees of their Councils and the visible practice of their Church proves To this our Author replies Our general Councils tell Protestants we pay no other honour to any creature than what than such an external respect as is due to the Bible I never heard before that they made the Bible the object of their worship but I am sure some which they call general Councils have defined the Worship of Images and Reliques witness the second Council of Nice and the Council of Trent It is strange to me that at this time of day he can think to impose upon Protestants with such shams Surely he has never read the Doctrines and Practices of
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