Selected quad for the lemma: sin_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sin_n	justification_n	life_n	remission_n	3,372	5	9.5028	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A25225	The additional articles in Pope Pius's creed, no articles of the Christian faith being an answer to a late pamphlet intituled, Pope Pius his profession of faith vindicated from novelty in additional articles, and the prospect of popery, taken from that authentick record, with short notes thereupon, defended.	Altham, Michael, 1633-1705.; Altham, Michael, 1633-1705. Creed of Pope Pius IV, or, A prospect of popery taken from that authentick record.	1688 (1688)	Wing A2931; ESTC R18073	87,445	96

the Article which he is here defending is founded and consider one passage therein which perhaps he might before overlook And then I shall proceed to conder the latter part of this Article The Passage is this the Council doth there declare That Concupiscence doth still remain even in those that are baptized and doth further declare that St. Paul did sometimes call this Concupiscence Sin. But though the Apostle did so yet the Council tells us That the Catholick Church no doubt the Roman Catholick did never think it to be so And if any one think otherwise let him be Anathema In the beginning of this Decree the Council pretends to have the assistance of the Holy Ghost whether they had or no is not easie to be granted but it is confessed on all hands that St. Paul was inspired from above and if so then how comes the Council and he to be at odds in this matter Either the Apostle or the Council were in the wrong for both parts of a Contradiction cannot be true Now whether the Authority of St. Paul or that of the Council of Trent be the better one would think were no very hard Question St. Austin I am sure did not think it was for if he had he would not have been so positive as he was Aug ad Hieron Epist 19. when he said The Authority of St. Paul is to me instead of all the Fathers and above all the Fathers to him I flee and to him I appeal from all other Doctors whatsoever II. Concerning Justification he gives us an account of what the Council of Trent hath defin'd in Four particulars 1. That Men are justified by an intrinsecal Justice And this he founds upon Two places of Scripture viz. Tit. iij. 7. where it is said That being justified by his Grace we should be made Heirs according to the hope of Eternal Life Which Grace saith he is in Men. And for this he quotes 2 Tim. i. 6. where it is said I put thee in mind to stir up that Grace which is in thee So he renders it but it is more properly translated I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the Gift of God which is in thee by the putting on my Hands Which last words he leaves out To this I answer What St. Paul here means by being justified by his Grace he himself very well explains in another place where he saith Rom. iij. 24. Being justified freely by his Grace through the Redemption that is in Jesus Christ Where to be justified Freely and to be justified by Grace are Synonymous Expressions and imply no more but that God did freely and without any merit of ours send his Son to die for sinners and by his Death to make satisfaction to divine Justice for our sins and by that means to obtain such Grace and Favour with God that our Sins might be Pardoned and we Justified before him whence it is very plain That by the Grace of God we are not to understand any intrinsecal Righteousness of our own but the free Grace and Favour of God in accepting the Righteousness of Christ instead of ours and imputing the same to us through Faith for our Justification And therefore St. Paul after he had a little more Explain'd himself Vers 28. concludes saying Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by Faith without the Deeds of the Law. As for his other Scripture which he brings in as an Auxiliary Proof it is quite foreign to the matter in hand for the Apostle there doth not speak of Justifying Grace nor indeed of any Grace if we take the word strictly for the word there is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in the other but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies not Grace but a Gift And the Gift which he there puts him in mind to stir up was the Gift of preaching As if he should have said Be sure couragiously to preach the Gospel and exercise that Ministerial Function which thou hast received by the Imposition of my Hands But I find this Gentleman is under a great mistake he takes Justification and Sanctification to be one and the same thing but I cannot much blame him for it because I know he is led into it by an Authority which he thinks to be Infallible and consequently Indisputable viz. the Council of Trent which teacheth him Sess 6. c. 7. That Justification consists not only in Remission of Sins but in Sanctification also and the renewing of the inward Man by a voluntary susception of Grace and Gifts by which of Vnrighteous a Man is made Righteous and of an Enemy a Friend that he may be an Heir according to the Hope of Eternal Life This is a far different Notion from that which the Church of England and the Holy Scriptures give us of Justification They teach us That by Justification we are to understand only Absolution or Remission of Sins but the Church of Rome confounds Justification with Sanctification and the Remission of Sins with the Renovation of our Minds And indeed in this Channel runs the main difference between us and them through the whole Controversie The Church of England delivers her Sentiments touching Justification thus Art. 11. We are accounted Righteous before God only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith and not for our own works or deservings Wherefore that we are justifyed by Faith only is a most wholesome Doctrine and very full of comfort And for a farther Explication thereof she refers to the Homily of Justification where she declares That by Justification 2 Hom. of Justificat part 1. she means the Forgivness of our Sins and Trespasses That this being received of God's Mercy and Christ's Merits embraced by Faith is taken and allowed of God for our perfect and full Justification That nothing on the behalf of Man doth contribute to this Justification but only a true and lively Faith which Faith is also the Gift of God Yet doth not this Faith exclude Good-works nor the necessity of them in Justified Persons but only shuts them out from the Office of Justifying This is the Doctrine of the Church of England and for this she hath good Authority both in Scripture and Fathers but I must not now enter upon this Controversie lest I lose the Vindicator therein I shall therefore proceed to his next particular 2. He tells us That the Council of Trent hath defin'd That all Works of the Just are not Sins This saith he is evident in Scripture as Luke i. 6. where 't is said of Zacharias and Elizabeth They were both Righteous before God walking in all the Commandments and Ordinances of the Lord blameless And 1 John v. 18. Whosoever is born of God sineth not Which likewise proves That the Commandments are not impossible to be kept as the same Council declares To this I answer If the Premisses be good the Inference therefrom I confess is natural For if Justified

him anointing him with Oil in the Name of the Lord And the prayer of Faith shall save the sick and the Lord shall raise him up and if he have committed sins they shall be forgiven him This place of Scripture hath been often enough brought upon the stage by one or other of the Roman party and as often considered and the Arguments drawn from it baffled by some of our Men. And therefore when I met with it here I did expect that this Gentleman who is so brisk at a Vindication had found some new Matter in it and thereby cut us out some new Work but instead of that he only quotes the place transcribes the words and leaves them to shift for themselves What therefore is here to be done by us save only to consider the design of the Apostle in these Words Which is plainly this St. James directs the sick person to call for the Elders of the Church to assist him in that condition The means by which they were to assist him are Two 1. They were to pray over him And 2. To anoint him with Oil in the Name of the Lord. And that in order to Two ends 1. The Recovery of the Sick. 2. The Remission of Sins Of these Means and Ends the one is Perpetual viz. Prayer and Remission of Sins the other Temporary viz. The Anointing with Oil and the Recovery of bodily Health That the Apostles had the Gift of Healing we grant and that in order to the working of their miraculous Cures they did use the Ceremony of Anointing with Oil we deny not but the Gift of Healing being now ceased in the Church that Ceremony is become useless and unprofitable and for that reason laid aside for God loves no unprofitable Signs Whilst it was in use it was used only in Order to bodily health but now in the Church of Rome it is not to be used whilst there are any hopes of Recovery but only in Articulo mortis when Men are at the point of Death as a viaticum into the other World. That this was design'd and used only in order to bodily health is plain from the Ancient Rituals of the Roman Church for above Eight hundred Years after Christ And Cardinal Cajetan freely confesseth Annot. in loc that this was the only use of it for saith he These words of St. James speak not of the Sacramental Vnction of Extream Vnction whether we consider the words or the Effects of them but rather of the Vnction which the Lord Jesus ordained in the Gospel to be used by his Disciples to the Sick. For the Text saith not Is any sick to Death but absolutely Is any sick Nor doth it assign any other use of anointing of the sick person but only the recovery of bodily health And the Ingenuous Cassander Cassand in Consult Art. 22. without any hesitation freely delivers his Opinion saying It is no Sacrament properly so called because it hath neither Word of Institution nor outward Element The eldest Evidence that we meet with for this pretended Popish Sacrament of Extream Vnction is the Council of Chalons Anno. 813. which was held above Eight hundred Years after Christ and was but at best a National Synod neither So that though we do not deny but that Anointing the Sick with Oil was a very Ancient Rite yet we cannot but look upon it as a very New Sacrament and one that was never advanc'd to that honour by any Appointmant of our blessed Saviour Of the pretended Sacrament of Orders TO evince this he produceth 2 Tim. i. 6. where St. Paul saith I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the Gift of God which is in thee by the putting on of my Hands St. Paul here admonisheth his Son Timothy to a vigorous exercise of that Power and Authority which by the Imposition of his Hands he had received to Preach the Gospel Lyra in loc And this is all that their own Lyra can find in this place But the Question between us is not Whether the Office of a Priest ought to be conferred upon him by the Imposition of Hands but whether such Ordination be a Sacrament of the new Law instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ To this I answer That if by the word Sacrament they only mean any sacred Sign or Mystery in Religion in which sence it is frequently used especially by the Latine Fathers we can very willingly and readily admit this Imposition of hands to be called a Sacrament But if they would advance it higher and have it called a Sacrament in the same sence as Baptism and the Supper of the Lord are or as this Article requires That we should receive it as a Sacrament of the New Law instituted by Jesus Christ and necessary for the Salvation of Mankind we cannot in this consent with them and that for these Reasons I. Because Imposition of hands though it be a Sign yet is it not a sacred Sign of the Covenant of God in Jesus Christ II. Because it is not common to all the Faithful but confin'd to a certain order of Men only III. Because there is no express Institution of it to be found in the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament and consequently no promise of Grace annexed to it IV. Because it is well known that many of the Roman Communion do not think Imposition of hands to be Essential to Holy Orders and if not then can it be no outward Sign of a Sacrament in them Nor can Ordination it self be a Sacrament seeing there is no outward visible Sign of it ordained by God. For these Reasons Though we acknowledge the Conferring of Orders by Imposition of hands to have been a very ancient usage in the Church and of Apostolical practice yet we think it to be a very new i. e. no Sacrament Of the pretended Sacrament of Matrimony AS an evidence of this he produceth Eph. v. 31 32. where St. Paul saith For this cause shall a man leave his Father and Mother and shall be joined to his Wife and they two shall be one flesh This is a great mystery but I speak concerning Christ and his Church The Church of Rome calls the marriage of Priests Sacrilege and yet will have the Marriage of Lay-men to be a Sacrament which conferrs justifying Grace And to prove this the Vindicator alledgeth this Text of Scripture as many others before him have done and have received their answer but as if there had been no such thing this Gentleman with sufficient confidence barely cites it and so leaves it To which however I shall return this answer The Apostle in this place as is plain to every considerate Reader speaketh of the sacred Union between Jesus Christ and his Church which Union he illustrates by that of Marriage between the Husband and the Wife His intent was not to exalt the Mystery of Marriage but the Union of the Church with Jesus Christ This Mystery then whereof he speaketh is the

saith This is my Body and all this he himself tells us was Bread. And that it did not receive any such wonderful Conversion or Change as they believe it did by the pronouncing of those words St. Paul who may be presumed to understand the mind of his Master as well as any of them is a very good Evidence who after the Words of Consecration by which they pretend the Change is made doth over and over again call it Bread as you may read 1 Cor. xi 26 27 c. 6. When he saith Do this in remembrance of me it implies an Absence for we can no more be said to remember that which is present than to see that which is absent 7. When it is said This Cup is the New-Testament in my Blood which is shed for you and for many for the remission of Sins Are these words to be understood literally too Must we believe that by the pronouncing of these words there is a substantial Change made If so then it must not be of the Wine but of the Cup and that not into the Blood of Christ but into the New Testament or New Covenant in his Blood which none of them as yet have been so bold as to affirm 8. If we consider that our Saviour celebrated this Sacrament before his Passion and said This is my Body which is broken and This is my Blood which is shed it cannot be literally true of his natural humane Body for that was then whole and unbroken and his Blood was not then shed And indeed it was impossible that the Disciples should understand these words literally because they not only plainly saw that what he gave them was Bread and Wine but they saw likewise as plainly that it was not his Body which was given but his Body which gave that which was given not his Body broken and Blood shed because they saw him alive at that very time and beheld his Body whole and unpierced Having thus considered the words of Institution and made some Remarks upon them let us now see how the Vindicator argues therefrom His first Remark is That the words of Institution are spoken in the present Tense whence he thus argues That it is certain that then before the Passion on the Cross the Body was given and broken Mystically and the Chalice shed for the Remission of Sins To this I answer 1. That if the Vindicator had consulted the Romish Bible or the Mass he might there have found Tradetur instead of Traditur shall be given instead of is given and Effundetur instead of Effunditur shall be shed instead of is shed Which words were likewise long ago used by Origen and St. Chrysostom Origen in Matth. Tract 35. Chrysost in 1 Cor. 11. Sa in verb. Matth. Cajetan in Luc. 22. and the Jesuit Sa would have told him in Greek it is said Which is shed the time present for the time to come And Cardinal Cajetan would have informed him even as the Evangelists by the time present have expressed the future Effusion of Blood saying is shed St. Paul likewise saying is broken signifieth by the present time the breaking of his Body which was after to be done upon the Cross Barrad Harmon Evangeilst Tom. 4. l. 3. c 4. And Barradius the Jesuit saith The Lord useth the time present instead of the future time which then approached for the words ought to be understood of his future passion which then drew near in this sence This is my Body which shall shortly be given for you to suffer and to die So that though the words were really spoken in the present Tense yet did not that hinder either the Primitive Fathers their own Translators of the Bible the Compilers of their Mass or their own Eminent Doctors from understanding them of the time to come Nor is it to be wondered at for they well knew that it was our Saviour's way and manner of speaking As for instance before any of the Jews were come to lay hands on him he said Behold the Son of Man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is betrayed or given into the hands of Sinners Matth. xxvi 45. Therefore doth my Father love me because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I lay down my Life that I may take it again John x. 17. And in another place I am no more in the World John xvij 11. And St. Paul in conformity to his Master's way and manner of speaking saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am already offered up 2 Tim. iv 6. All which considered it will not appear to be so very certain as this Gentleman thinks it is That the Body of Christ was given and broken before his Passion on the Cross But 2dly He seems to qualifie the rigour of his Assertion by telling us That all this was done Mystically To which I answer That if by Mystically he mean Sacramentally i. e. That our blessed Saviour by what he did at his last Supper intended to signify to his Disciples what he was about to do and suffer for them and the rest of Mankind the day following we shall not differ with him about it But if by Mystically he mean Really though Invisibly as undoubtedly he doth we cannot agree with him for in a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice as the Article which he here undertakes to defend calls it the thing offered ought to be visible and there ought to be a Destruction of it in the Sacrifice none of all which appears to be in this Action of our Blessed Saviour But he proceeds Which saith he being done in an unbloody manner and offered to God we call it an unbloody Sacrifice and it being for the Remission of Sins 't is likewise propitiatory To this I answer 1. The Vindicator here takes that for granted which we can by no means allow him viz. That the Body of Christ was given and broken Mystically and the Chalice shed for the Remission of Sins before his Passion on the Cross And why we cannot admit of this I have given you an Account already 2. He contradicts himself for he tells us This was done in an unbloody manner and yet he had before told us That the Chalice was shed by which I suppose he means if he have any meaning in it the Blood in the Chalice Now if Christ's Blood was shed how could it be done in an unbloody manner Or how could it be called an unbloody Sacrifice 3. He tells us It was offer'd to God but how doth that appear That our Saviour in his last Supper did indeed offer Bread and Wine to his Disciples is very plain and evident but that he offered either them or any thing else to God the Words of Institution give us no account 4. That it being for Remission of Sins it was likewise propitiatory And here he is under a great mistake for every thing that is for Remission of Sins is not a propitiatory Sacrifice The Baptism of John and his Preaching was for the Remission

of Sins Mark i. 4. And so likewise is Baptism and Repentance Acts ij 38. And yet I suppose the Vindicator will not say That either Baptism or Preaching or Repentance are propitiatory Sacrifices But perhaps he will say That all shedding of Blood made for Remission of Sins is a propitiatory Sacrifice I cannot consent to him in this neither for there is a shedding of Blood sacramental and not real which is made to represent the shedding of Christ's Blood upon the Cross and that is no propitiatory Sacrifice But what if it be real Though it be yet will not the proposition be universally true for the Blood of our Lord was really shed and for Remissions of Sins too at his Circumcision and yet Circumcision was no Sacrifice In a true propitiatory Sacrifice three Things are required 1. There must be a real Effusion of Blood. 2. That real Effusion of Blood must be for the Remission of Sins 3. That Effusion of Blood must be by the Death of the thing offered None of which are to be found in this Action of our Blessed Saviour at his last Supper and therefore it could not be a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice But if we should grant which we cannot do that this were a Sacrifice and a propitiatory Sacrifice too will it by a necessary Consequence follow that every Mass-Priest at this day doth in the Mass offer a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice for the Living and the Dead Yes saith the Vindicator For though Christ was offered but once upon the Cross of which St. Paul speaketh Hebr. vij 27. yet in this manner as Christ offered himself at his last Supper we believe that the Apostles and their Successors were commanded to repeat it in a perpetual memory and representation of his Death and Passion by Christ's own Institution when he said to them Do this in remembrance of me in which words he gave them power of doing the same that he had done To this I answer That in the same manner as Christ offered himself at his last Supper he is offered still i. e. Sacramentally and that by the command of Christ we are obliged often to celebrate or repeat this Sacrament in memory of his Death and Passion upon the Cross And that by virtue of those Words Do this in remembrance of me Power was give to the Apostles and their Successors to do the same thing he did i. e. to celebrate this Sacrament in memory of his Death and Passion on the Cross All this we readily grant but what is all this to the Priest's Offering in the Mass a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice for the Living and the Dead Those of the Roman Communion do indeed lay great stress upon these words Do this in remembrance of me pretending to find therein a power given to every Mass-Priest to offer up the Son of God as a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice for the Living and the Dead But if they would but consult St. Paul he would better inform them what the importance of these words is For after he had recited the words of Institution and in the close thereof these very words Do this in Remembrance of me in the very next words he tells them what it was they were to do in remembrance of him saying As often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lord's Death till he come 1 Cor. xi 26. 2. Having gone as far as he can with his Scripture proofs he calls in the assistance of Antiquity telling us with sufficient confidence That this i. e. the matter contained in this Article is the Sence of the Primitive Fathers Whether it be or no is the thing we are now to consider and for that purpose I shall examine his Quotations out of them His first Witness is St. Chrysost Hom. 7. I suppose he means 17. in Ep. ad Hebr. where it is said We still offer the same Sacrifice c. To this I answer What St. Chrysostom meant by those words I know no body can better inform us than St. Chrysostom himself who immediately subjoins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Or to speak more properly we make a commemoration of the same Sacrifice And in the same Homily had the Vindicator carefully perused it of been so honest as to have noted it he might have found such Expressions as these We offer indeed but it is in remembrance of his Death This Sacrifice is an Example of that Sacrifice This which we now do is in commemoration of that which hath been done But that which the Vindicator seems to lay the great stress upon is That St. Chrysostom in this Homily and likewise l. 6. de Sacerd. calls the Eucharist a Sacrifice We grant it but if he will let him explain himself he will tell him upon what account he so calleth it in this Homily Because it representeth the Sacrifice of our Lord's Death and therein we commemorate the same till his coming again And in the other place Because we pray unto God that he would receive the Sacrifice of his Death as a satisfaction for our Sins His next Evidence is St. Ambrose sup Ps 38. Where he speaks of the Priest's offering Sacrifice for the People and of Christ's being offered up upon Earth when his Body is offered St. Ambrose in the same place explains himself saying The Shadow went before the Image followed the Truth shall be The Shadow in the Law the Image in the Gospel the Truth in the Heavens O Man go up into Heaven and thou shalt see those things whereof here was an Image and a Shadow Where he plainly tells us that what is done here upon Earth is only an Image or Representation And in another place he saith In Luc. l. 5. c. 7. We have seen him and look'd upon him with our Eyes and we have thrust our Fingers into the print of his Nails For we seem to see him that we read of and to have beheld him hanging upon the Cross and with the feeling Spirit of the Church to have searched his Wounds Now as St. Ambrose here saith We see him hanging on the Cross c. In like manner doth he say He is offered up upon Earth when his Body is offered For as their own Gloss upon the Sentences of Prosper saith Christ is Sacrificed i. e. his Sacrifice is represented and a commemoration is made of his Passion His next Authority is Cyril Alex. Anath 11. We celebrate in our Churches an Holy Life-giving and Vnbloody Sacrifice What St. Cyril meant by this Unbloody Sacrifice he himself will best inform us if we consult him about it for in another place he saith Cyril contr Julian l. 10. We having left the gross Ministery of the Jews have a commandment to make a fine thin and spiritual Sacrifice And therefore we offer unto God for a sweet smelling savour all manner of Vertues Faith Hope Charity And in the same sence that he calls these Sacrifices doth he call

that I was sometimes a Monk a mad Papist so drunk so drown'd in Popery that I was ready to kill every one or assist and consent to their death if in any things they differed therefrom c. I hold That there is a Purgatory and that the Souls there detain'd are help'd by the Prayers of the Faithful THE Vindicator here tells us that he doth verily believe and is fully satisfied that there is a Purgatory but where it is or whether there be a true and proper Fire there or how long that punishment lasts these are no Articles of his Faith. He might have added Or what it is For the Council of Trent upon which he builds his Faith doth not tell him that So that to subscribe to this Article is in effect to subscribe to he knows not What nor Where nor Whether nor How long nor indeed Why. It may not be amiss therefore to acquaint you what the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is concerning Purgatory which I shall do out of their most Authentick Record viz. The Council of Trent Sess 25. Decret de Purgator Wherein it is declared That there is a Purgatory and that the Souls detain'd there do receive assistance from the suffrages of the Faithful but especially from the acceptable Sacrifice of the Altar And all who do not believe the same are by that Council anathematized which makes it a necessary Article of Faith. For thus the Council determineth If any one shall say that after a Man hath received the Grace of Justification the guilt of his Sin Sess 6. Can. 30. and the eternal punishment due thereto is so remitted that there remains no temporary pain to be satisfied for by him either in this World or in Purgatory before he can enter into the Kingdom of Heaven let him be Anathema And in another place the same Council tells us Sess 22. cap. 2. That the Sacrifice of the Mass is a truly propitiatory Sacrifice for the Living and for the Dead who are not yet throughly purged And to confirm this there is a Canon of that Council in the same Session in these words Can. 3. If any one shall say that the Sacrifice of the Mass is only a Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving or a bare Commemoration of the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross and not a propitiatory Sacrifice Or that it is profitable only to him that receives it and ought not to be offered up for the sins pains satisfactions and other necessities both of the quick and the dead let him be Anathema And the Catechism ad Parochos which always speaks the sence of that Council teacheth the same Doctrine telling us Part. 1. Art. 2. n. 5. That there is a Purgatory Fire wherein the Souls of the Godly being tormented for a certain time are expiated that so the Gates of the eternal Country may be opened unto them into which nothing defiled can enter This is the Doctrine of the Romish Church touching Purgatory which we are required to subscribe unto in this Article wherein we are taught and it is expected that we should steadfastly believe 1. That there is a middle state for the reception of Souls departed which is neither Heaven nor Hell. 2. That this state is a state of pain and punishment 3. That in this state they are to satisfie for some temporary punishments which were not accomplished nor accounted for in this life 4. That those tormented Souls may be assisted and relieved by the Prayers and Alms-deeds of their Friends here but especially by the acceptable Sacrifice of the Altar Now this Doctrine we cannot subscribe to having as we think great reason to reject it For 1. We do not find in holy Scripture any mention made of any other place for the reception of Souls departed besides Heaven and Hell and therefore we look upon it as a fond thing vainly invented 2. Nor do we find any the least footsteps of a Popish Purgatory among the Primitive Fathers nor for many hundred years after Christ In lib. advers Luther There own Martyr Roffensis deals plainly with us telling us That so long as there was no care of Purgatory which fairly implies that there was a time when Purgatory was either not known or not much cared for no Man sought after Indulgences for upon that depends all the opinion of Pardons If you take away Purgatory wherefore should we need Pardons Since therefore Purgatory was so lately known and received of the whole Church viz. not till the time of Boniface VIII about the Year 1300. who can wonder that there was no use of Indulgences in the beginning of the Church But though there was not then there is great use made of them now and would you know for what reason Erasmus in a witty Expression of his will give you a true account They do wonderfully affect the Fire of Purgatory because it is so profitable for their Kitchins But the Vindicator will tell us That both Roffensis and we are mightily out in our Calculation for he hath found very plain Footsteps of this Purgatory both in Scripture and Antiquity Which whether he hath or no is the thing now to be examined He produceth only one Scripture viz. Matth. xij 32. where it is said Whosoever shall speak against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven him neither in this World nor in the World to come Whence he thinks it follows by a necessary consequence That there are some Sins which shall be forgiven in the next World though not in this To this I answer 1. That if we should allow him this Exposition yet will it not thence follow that there must of necessity be a Purgatory Fire in which the Souls departed must be purged and have their sins pardoned For 1st Whether there be any true and proper Fire there this Gentleman knows not it is no Article of his Faith. 2. The Purgatory they speak of is not a place of pardon but of pain and punishment For according to their Doctrine Sin is already pardoned before the Souls enter into Purgatory only they are to remain there for some time to make up some satisfaction which was not completed in this Life But 2dly We cannot allow him this Exposition for it is so far from being a necessary consequence from these words that a contrary one seems to be plainly designed therein It shall not be forgiven neither in this World nor in the World to come i. e. It shall never be forgiven but shall certainly be punished both in this Life and in that to come So that whether we allow or disallow of this his Exposition this Scripture will not serve his purpose His Argument from Antiquity makes indeed a greater shew which is built upon these Foundations 1. That the ancient Fathers did frequently speak of an Intermediate State between Death and Judgment 2. That they did often make mention of a Purgatory and a Purgatory Fire which was to be

what is this to the Bishop of Rome for it is granted by all that after this time he was first settled in the See of Antioch but it is questioned by many whether ever he was fixed in the See of Rome Or if he was why should his Successors in the latter place have a better Title to it than those in the first But 3. If we will suffer St. Cyprian to be his own Interpreter he will fully clear the matter where having occasion to explain those words of our Saviour to Peter St. Cypr. de Unitat. Eccles Edit Oxon. p. 107. he concludes The rest of the Apostles were the same that St. Peter was being joined with him in the same fellowship of Honour and Power Where it is plain he gives no Supremacy to St. Peter over the rest of the Apostles much less did he intend any to his Successors But St. Cyprian must not escape thus he is again pressed to speak in this Cause For in his 73. Epist saith the Vindicator he hath these words Christ gave this power to Peter upon whom he built the Church To this I answer That this Epistle is an Answer to one sent him by Jubaianus concerning the Rebaptizing of Hereticks Against which it is objected by Jubaianus That we are not to enquire by whom a person is Baptized since he that is Baptized may receive Remission of Sins if he believe In answer to this Objection St. Cyprian after he had for some time discoursed of the Faith of those who are without the Church and the Efficacy thereof at last concludes But it is manifest where and by whom that Remission of Sins which is given in Baptism can be given For the Lord first gave to Peter upon whom he built his Church and from whence he shows the Original of Vnity that Power that whatsoever he should loose on Earth should be loosed in Heaven And after the Resurrection he also spoke to the Apostles saying As my Father hath sent me so send I you and when he had said this he breathed on them John xx 21. and said Whosoever Sins ye remit they are remitted and whosoever Sins ye retain they are retained Where you see he joins St. Peter and the rest of the Apostles in the same fellowship of Honour and Power with this only difference that it was given to St. Peter first and afterwards to them all jointly And at last he concludes which was all that he aimed at By this we understand both where and by whom Remission of Sins in Baptism can be given viz. In the Church and by the Pastors of the Church And now what is all this to the Supremacy either of the Bishop or Church of Rome But he hath not yet done with St. Cyprian he must come upon the Stage again to justifie what he saith Epist 55. where we find these words They are bold to carry Letters from schismatical and profane Persons to the Chair of Peter and the principal Church from whence the Priestly Vnity hath its rise In answer whereunto it may not be amiss to give you a short Account of the whole matter The Story is this Felicissimus and Five other Presbyters with him had made an horrible Schism in the Church of Carthage contending for the reception both of Hereticks and Apostates into the Church without any form of Ecclesiastical Discipline These were opposed by St. Cyprian of whose Opposition they were so impatient that at last they proceeded contrary to all Rule and Order to chuse a new Bishop and fix'd upon one Fortunatus Hereupon St. Cyprian calls a Council of African Bishops in which the cause was heard and these Schismaticks censured This so inflamed their turbulent and unquiet Minds that they resolve to carry the matter to Rome and accordingly Felicissimus and others of the Party were sent with Letters from their mock-Bishop Fortunatus to Cornelius Bishop of Rome And this is the carrying of Letters to St. Peter 's Chair c. that St. Cyprian here speaks of So soon as they were come there and had made known their business Cornelius by Letters acquaints St. Cyprian with it and he in this Epistle returns him an answer Whence we may Note That it was not St. Cyprian and the Catholick Bishops of Africa but the schismatical mock-Bishop Fortunatus and his adherents that appealed to Rome Nor doth Cornelius take upon him to cite St. Cyprian and the African Bishops to appear and answer the matter before him but only in a Brotherly and friendly manner by letters acquaints him with it And so far was St. Cyprian from owning any Superiority or power in the Roman Bishop over himself and the Bishops of Africa that the highest titles that he gives him in this whole Epistle are only Brother and Most dear Brother He also takes upon him sharply to reprove him for his pusillanimity and lowness of Spirit at the threats and menaces of those wicked Men He instructs him what he should do and directs him how to behave himself towards them He acquaints him that the cause was already judged in Africa and as good as tells him that he ought not to meddle with it For saith he it is determined by all of us and it is both equal and just that every ones Cause should be heard where the crime was committed Every Pastor hath his portion of the Flock which he ought to rule and govern and to give an account thereof not at Rome but in Heaven not to Cornelius but to Christ to the Lord. Those therefore who are under our Jurisdiction ought not to run about i. e. they ought not to apply themselves to any foreign Jurisdiction but to plead their cause there where they may have both Accusers and Witnesses of their Crime So far was St. Cyprian from owning any Superiority or Power in the Roman Bishop over himself and the African Bishops But he calls the Church of Rome The Chair of Peter and the principal Church 'T is true he doth so but that he never intended thereby to ascribe unto her a Superiority and Jurisdiction over all other Churches I take to be very plain from the account I have now given you of his sentiments out of this very Epistle But having already accounted for these expressions I am not willing to repeat the same thing over again but shall rather referr you to what hath been already said His next evidence is Greg. Naz. Hom. de Cre. Epist Doar We do not contemn nor revile that great Pastor who governs that magnificent City we know him to be honourable we acknowledge him the Head we desire he will shew himself an indulgent and tender Father and diligently take care of the whole Church To this I answer That if by Head he mean the chief Ruler and Governour we grant that he is so in his own province and that he take care of the whole Church of that Province committed to his Charge we think is his duty and with Nazianzen we