Bosom and Paradise which they distinguish from Heaven Tertullian calls it a place of Divine pleasantness appointed for the Spirits of holy Mon. The Author of the Questions and Answers to the Orthodox in Iustin Martyr expresly tells us That when the Soul goes out of the Body there is a great difference made between the Righteous and the Wicked For they are carried by Angels to such places as are proper for them The Souls of just Men into Paradise where they have the conversation and sight of Angels and Archangels and the vision 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of our Saviour Christ as it is written being absent from the body we are present with the Lord. From hence Bellarmine concludes That by Paradise this Author understands Heaven because there we shall have the Vision of Christ and therefore that Paradise must signifie that place where Christ is present Which is directly contrary to the Doctrine of this Author who makes Paradise only a receptacle of separate souls till the Resurrection But though it be not Heaven there is he says a great communication between Heaven and Paradise for they have the frequent visits and conversation of Angels and Archangels whom they see and converse with as they do with one another but when he speaks of Christ he expresly makes a distinction between their sight of and conversation with Angels and Christ for this latter is only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of Vision as we see things which are absent and at a distance but yet this does so strongly affect them that he thinks that of S. Paul may be applied to it being absent from the Body we are present with the Lord. And certainly this is no Popish Purgatory but as they thought the very next degree of happiness to Heaven it self Thus S. Hilary expresly asserts that the state of Souls departed is a state of happiness and S. Ambrose tells us that while the fulness of time comes the Souls are in expectation of such a Resurrection as they deserve Punishment expects some and Glory others and yet neither bad Souls are in the mean time without punishment nor the good without reaping some fruits of their Vertue But I need not multiply Quotations to prove that which no modest Man who is acquainted with the Doctrine of the Fathers can deny Thirdly Another difference is That this is an unalterable State till the day of Judgment and therefore no Popish Purgatory out of which as the Church of Rome pretends Souls may be redeemed by the Prayers and Alms and Masses of the Living and ascend immediately into Heaven This is evident from what I have already said that this State is to last till the Resurrection according to the sense of the ancient Fathers as Tertullian expresly affirms that Heaven is open to none while this Earth lasts but the Kingdom of Heaven shall be opened with the end of the World And S. Chrysostom observes from the Parable of Dives and Lazarus that the Souls of Men after their depature out of these Bodies are carried to a certain place from whence they cannot go out when they will but there expect the terrible day of Judgment Which plainly shows what his belief was that they must continue in that State which they enter upon at Death till the Resurrection And this I think is sufficient to show the difference between a Popish Purgatory and that middle state between Death and Judgment which the ancient Fathers taught Secondly Nor is it sufficient to prove a Popish Purgatory that the Ancient Fathers did believe that all Men must pass through the Fire at the day of Judgment That those who were perfectly good should receive no hurt nor damage by it that those who had any remains of corruption about them should be detained a longer or shorter time in that last Fire till they were purged from their sins and that bad Men should irrecoverably sink down into endless burnings This was a received opinion among the Ancient Fathers that at the day of Judgment all Men should be tried by Fire which is so universally acknowledged that I need not prove it by particular Quotations But yet there is an irreconcileable difference between this opinion and the Popish Doctrine of Purgatory as will appear in these particulars 1. That the Popish Purgatory is now and has been in being at least since the time of our Saviour and that those who deserve the fire of Purgatory fall into it when they go out of these Bodies whereas the Fire which the Fathers speak of is not till the day of Judgment This was the opinion of Lactantius Hilary Ambrose and S. Augustin himself who expresly tells us that this Fire is at the end of the World in fine seculi and therefore not the Popish Purgatory which as they would perswade us is already kindled and has been for many hundred Years Indeed S. Augustin though he owns that fiery trial at the last Judgment as the Fathers before him did yet he has something peculiar in this matter which none of the Fathers before him ever taught and therefore having no Authority of Tradition it must rest wholly upon his own Authority who had no more Authority to invent any new Doctrine in his Age than we have in ours There are three or four places in S. Augustin which do speak of some Purgatory fires which some Men must undergo between Death and Judgment which looks most like the Popish Purgatory of any thing in the Ancient Fathers and I believe was the first occasion of it which may be the reason why this Doctrine has so much prevailed in the Latin Church which was acquainted with S. Austin's Writings when it has been always rejected by the Greeks as is evident from the Council of Florence But there are two things to be said to this First That St. Austin speaks very doubtfully about it That there may be such punishments after this life he says is not incredible and we may examine whether there be any such thing or not and it may either be found or may still continue a secret whether some Christians according to the degree of their love and affection for these perishing enjoyments be not sooner or later saved by a certain Purgatory fire and in another place he says he does not reprove this opinion for it may be it is true now redarguo quia forsitan verum est De C. D. l. 21. c. 25. And elsewhere he says That though such speculations may serve for his own or other Mens instruction yet he does not attribute any Canonical authority to them and therefore he was very far from making it an Article of Faith as the Church of Rome has done Secondly And yet though St. Austin speaks of a Purgatory fire after death and before the day of judgment he seems by his whole discourse never to have thought of such a Purgatory as the Church of Rome has invented The occasion
changed for Bread cannot be the Body of Christ if it be not Bread. Let him choose which he will either This signifies this Bread or it does not If it does then the Bread cannot be substantially changed for the Bread is the Body of Christ and therefore is Bread still is Bread and the Body of Christ too if it does not then how does he prove that the words of Consecration in a literal sense transubstantiate the Bread into the Body of Christ For This does not signifie the Bread and therefore This is my Body cannot signifie that the substance of Bread is transubstantiated into Christ's Body I wonder our Author is not ashamed at this time of day to talk at this rate after somany excellent Books as have been written upon this Argument to save my self any farther trouble I shall direct my Reader to the late Dialogues about the Trinity and Transubstantiation and the Discourse of the Holy Eucharist in the two great points of the Real Presence and the Adoration of the Host where he will find abundant satisfaction also to the two next Points which follow V. Our Lord's Presence in the Eucharist is merely gracious and influential and if more only to the faithful In answer to this I shewed him what we meant by Christ's Presence in the Eucharist that he is so present that his Body and Blood with all the benefits of his Death and Passion are exhibited to worthy Receivers as much as he could have been had we eat his natural Flesh and drank his Blood which is somewhat more than the mere influences of his Grace but he saies I assert our Lords Eucharistical Presence not to be substantial that is I suppose that the natural substance of his Body is not there and therefore that he is not corporally present and this indeed I do assert Therefore says he unless intirely absent our Lord must be present in the Eucharist by grace and influence only what is there besides substance and efficacy belonging to our Saviour's Body and Blood no colour of Scripture is produced for this Zuinglian proposition If he will allow no medium between Christ's Corporal and Substantial Presence and his Grace and Influence since it is demonstrable that he is not corporally present we must in this sense allow that he is present only by his Grace and Influence as that is opposed to a corporal presence And all Men must allow this who deny Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation But what is there besides Substance and Efficacy belonging to our Saviour's Body and Blood I answer there can be nothing naturally belonging to any Body besides its substance and natural vertues and powers which he calls its Efficacy but by Institution there may and we take the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper to be an Institution and therefore not to have a natural but instituted Vertue and Efficacy For the very notion of an Institution is that all the Vertues and Efficacy of it is not owing to Nature but to the Will and Appointment of God. Whatever is a natural power is no Institution no Sacrament for the effect there is wholly owing to Nature not to God's appointment which acts by a Power and Influence superior to Nature Which I think is little less than a demonstration that the natural Body and Blood of Christ is not substantially present in the Eucharist for whatever Efficacy and Vertue we attribute to eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood of Christ it is either a natural effect of this eating the Body and drinking the Blood of Christ or it is not If it be then it is no Sacrament which works not by the powers of Nature but of Institution If it be not what need is there of Christ's bodily presence in the Sacrament when a Sacramental Body of Christ consecrated Bread and Wine to represent and exhibit his broken Body and his Bloodshed for us by vertue of an Institution may be as effectual to all the ends and purposes of a Sacrament as his natural Body could be which can have no Sacramental Efficacy but by vertue of an Institution The benefits we expect from this Sacramental feeding on Christ's Body is an interest in the merits of his Death and Passion viz. the forgiveness of our sins the communications of his Grace and Spirit and a right to immortal life Now I would desire to know whether these are the natural effects of a corporal eating Christ's natural Body He purchased all this for us indeed by his Death and Passion but is pardon of sin which is God's free and gracious act incorporated with Christ's natural Body and will a corporal eating of his Body communicate it to us Do the communications of Grace and Spiritual life flow from the Body or from the Spirit of Christ Is it the contact of his Body that makes our bodies immortal or the inhabitation of his Spirit in us What is that Efficacy then which he attributes to Christ's natural Body and supposes to be inherent in it A natural efficacy such as can belong to human bodies signifies nothing to the purposes of a Sacrament and there can be no other efficacy inherent in Christ's natural Body unless he will say that pardon of Sin and Spiritual Grace and a power of making other bodies immortal are the inherent and essential properties of Christ's Body But suppose it were so how can the mere presence of Christ's Natural Body in the Sacrament which we neither see nor touch nor eat communicate all these divine vertues to us For if it be by Natural Communication it must be by contact for Bodies have no other way of working upon each other and yet they will not allow that we touch the Body of Christ no more than that we see it or that we break it between our Teeth or chew it or digest it in our Stomachs that is they will not allow that we naturally eat it and then how can it naturally communicate its vertues to us So that though the Natural Body of Christ were present in the Sacrament those divine Graces we expect from it must be the effects of a Sacramental Institution not of Nature and therefore the Natural presence of Christ's Body is of no use in the Sacrament for God may as well annex all the benefits of his Death and Passion to the Sacramental signs of his Body and Blood as to his Natural Body and the Power and Efficacy of the Institution will be the same either way And when the natural presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist is so absolutely impossible such a contradiction to the sense and reason of Man kind and of no use to the purposes of a Sacrament but what may as well be otherwise supplied and the Sacramental eating of Christ's Body in efficacious signs is so easie and intelligible and by the power of an Institution equally effectual and so agreeable to the Nature of all other Institutions and Sacraments both of the Old and New Testament what
there should be any such Divine Offices in publick Worship which the People are not bound to joyn in Methinks the Apostle's Argument against speaking in an unknown Tongue because it is contrary to Edification holds as well and for the same Reason against such Offices as these which certainly are not much for Edification when People are not bound to joyn in them unless every thing in publick Worship must be done for Edification and therefore must be understood by the People who are to be edified by it the Apostles Argument against these inspired Tongues is not good for if our Author had been present when St. Paul wrote this he could have easily answered him that there was no need that the whole Congregation should understand these inspired Men but let those understand who could and if no body understood it what hurt did it do Nay the Exercise of such extraordinary Gifts did edifie those who saw and heard though they did not understand and when the Spirit inspires men to speak in unknown Tongues we have reason to think that the Spirit did not intend that every one should understand them and that is reason to believe that the exercise of such Gifts was very fitting though they were not understood Let our Author try now how he can justifie St. Paul's Argument against unknown though inspired Tongues upon the Principle which he has laid down That the People are not bound to joyn in all the Offices of publick Worship That any thing may be done in publick Worship which is not for publick Edification or let him try if he can say half so much for such setled Forms of Divine Offices as People are not bound to joyn in and therefore not bound to understand as may be pleaded for the occasional Exercise of miraculous and inspired Gifts in an unknown Tongue and if he can't then this Answer he gives about such Offices as People are not bound to joyn in is a better Answer to St. Paul than it is to Protestants a much better Vindication of the Exercise of such unknown Tongues than of the use of Latine Service where Latine is an unknown Tongue For secondly I would ask our Author whether there be any Offices of Religion which People are bound to attend to and to joyn in His saying That there are many which they are not bound to attend to supposes that there are some which they are bound to attend to and to joyn in and his making this an Argument for Service in an unknown Tongue that there are many Offices which they are not bound to attend to and therefore not to understand for there must be the force of his Argument if it have any supposes that they must understand what they must attend to and joyn in how then does this justifie the Latine Service of the Church of Rome For their whole Service is in Latine an unknown Tongue and therefore according to his Reason the People are not bound to attend to or joyn in any part of their Worship because they understand none of it And is not that a pretty kind of publick Worship which no body is bound to attend to or joyn in not the Priest himself when he does not understand Latin which as they say too often happens in Catholick Countries 3ly Since our Author says That there are only many not all Divine Offices which the People are not bound to joyn in he would have done well to have given us some mark of distinction that we might have known what Offices People must joyn in and what not For I cannot for my life think of any Act of publick Christian Worship which all Christians are not bound to joyn in I should think it very convenient that all Christians should attend to and joyn in the holy Sacraments when they are administred for if they must not bear their parts there which must be their own Act or it signifies nothing it being a making and renewing a solemn Vow and Covenant with God to be sure they can be concerned in nothing else And therefore the Offices of Baptism and the Lords Supper ought to be administred in the vulgar Tongue that every Body may understand them Thus if men are bound to pray to God and to praise him surely they are bound to joyn in publick Prayers and Praises and then according to this Rule the publick Prayers and Hymns of the Church ought to be in the vulgar Tongue And I cannot imagine a Reason why the People ought not to attend to reading the Lessons the Epistles and Gospels for I know no other use of reading them but that the People might hear and understand them and be edified by them and then they also should be in the vulgar Tongue In short there is nothing is an Office of Religion but what the People are concerned in and therefore must attend to it and joyn in it unless it be not their Duty to attend to and joyn in the Worship of God And therefore our Author by insinuating this Principle That People must understand what they are bound to attend to and joyn in which is so agreeable to common sense that he could not resist it has effectually overthrown and condemned the Latine Service unless he can prove that People are not concerned to joyn in the Worship of God and then I desire to know why they must be present at it 4. But suppose as he says that there were no necessity that all should specially joyn and attend to all religious Offices yet were it not better that they should Were it not more for the Edification of the Church and of every particular Christian that they should understand their Prayers and all joyn in the same Petitions with the same devout Affections than that they should only gaze upon the Priest and be not Worshippers but meer Spectators of religious Worship Now if it be better to understand our Prayers than not to understand them to offer up a reasonable than unreasonable Service to God if it be better to worship God than meerly to see him worshipped then how can he justifie Service in an unknown Tongue For when the Apostle disputes against speaking with unknown Tongues the Argument whereon he founds the unlawfulness of it is That it is against Edification and this Argument must hold against Latine Service unless Ignorance edifies more than Knowledge which I believe at this time of day our Author will not care to say Secondly His next Answer is what I before took notice of That the People do understand their Prayers though they be in Latine The meaning of which is no more but this That by frequent attendance at Mass and observing the Actions and Ceremonies used by the Priest some of them understand whereabout the Priest is and what he is a doing they know when they hear the Bell and see the Elevation of the Host that they must fall down and worship c. but do not understand one word that is said