yet we may supererogate and deserve some thanks from him It is true God being infinitely happy and perfect in himself we can make no addition to him and therefore cannot in a strict sense profit him nor therefore could our Saviour understand it in this sense but as that Servant may be said to profit his Master and to deserve thanks who does more than is his duty so might we be said to be profitable Servants could we also supererogate or do more than is our duty and here our Saviour's argument lies that when we have done all that is commanded us all the good that we can possibly do yet we must confess our selves unprofitable Servants because we have done nothing but what was our duty and if the Apostles themselves did and could do no more than was their duty I think our Church might very well charge these Teachers of works of Supererogation with Arrogance and Impiety if to advance themselves above the Apostles be Arrogance and to make God a debtor to them be Impiety But that our People may a little understand the weight and moment of this Controversie it will be necessary briefly to unriddle it Of what consequence the Doctrine of Purgatory is in the Church of Rome is sufficiently known for a Church which can perswade People that without her help they must be damned for some hundred or thousand Years for Purgatory is nothing else but a Temporal Damnation as Hell is Eternal which is the only difference between them must needs have a great authority over all sorts of persons who are conscious to themselves that they do not live so innocently as to be out of danger of Purgatory But the Doctrine of Purgatory it self could do the Church no service had she not the power of Indulgence to remit the pains of Purgatory and yet Indulgences are owing to the stock of Merits which the Church has the keeping and disposal of and yet there can be no Merits without some works of Supererogation and there can be no Works of Supererogation if no Man can do more than what is commanded than what is his duty to do For when we do no more than our duty we must confess our selves to be unprofitable Servants as that is opposed to Merit For no Man merits merely by doing his duty And this occasions this Dispute whether all Christian excellencies are commanded for if we can do no good thing but what is commanded there is no room left for Merits nor Works of Supererogation and then there can be no stock of Merits to be the Fund of Indulgences and then Purgatory will be so uncomfortable a Doctrine that no Man will trust to it but will think it his interest to live vertuously that he may escape both Hell and Purgatory and go to Heaven when he dies and then the Church of Rome will lose her Authority and her gainful Trade together This is the plain state of the case and therefore to do the Church of Rome Right she principally attributes Merit to such good Works as she calls them which God has no where commanded but whether these be Christian excellencies or no would be considered The Monkish vows of Poverty Coelibacy and absolute Obedience to their Superiors are thought a state of Perfection and Merit and if they be so these are works of Supererogation indeed for they are no where commanded by God but I confess I cannot understand the excellency of them especially not as practised in the Church of Rome It is an argument of a great and excellent mind to live above this World and to despise all the Charms and Flatteries of it but what Vertue it is to renounce the possession of any thing in this World I cannot tell It is in it self no Vertue that I know of to be Poor and therefore it can be no Vertue to choose Poverty The World was made for the use of Man and to use it well is an Argument of Vertue but merely to have nothing in the World is none To bear want with a patient mind and a quiet submission to the Divine Providence is a Vertue but to choose want is none Much less is it any vertue to renounce our private Possessions to live plentifully upon a common Stock and to be as intent in inriching a Monastery as any Man can be to advance his private Fortunes which is no great argument of a contempt of the World. And no more is it to renounce all honest and industrious ways of living as some do and to turn imperious and godly Beggars and live deliciously on the spoils and superstition of the people Coelibacy it self is no Vertue for then Marriage which is the Ordinance of God and a Popish Sacrament must be a Vice. For there is no Vertue strictly so called but is opposed to some Vice and Coelibacy is opposed to nothing but Marriage and therefore we must seek for the vertues of Coelibacy not merely in a vow against Marriage which is no Vertue but as it signifies a great mortification to all bodily Pleasures and is a means to advance us to a more Divine and heavenly state of Mind and every degree of Vertue we attain to shall receive a proportionable reward And thus Coelibacy though it be not a state of Perfection it self yet may advance us to a more perfect State and if we are the better Men for it we shall have the greater reward But to vow Coelibacy and to burn with Lust and to practise all the impurities of the Stews to renounce Marriage and to defile Wives and Virgins and still to call this a more perfect State than Marriage is a work of Supererogation indeed but whether it be supererogating Vertue or Vice God will judge who has forbid all uncleanness and instituted Marriage not only for the propagation of mankind but as a remedy against Lust. To vow absolute obedience to any Creature without reserving to our selves a judgment whether what he commands be good or evil is so far from being a State of Perfection that it is an encroachment upon the Divine Prerogative and gives such obedience to Men as is due only to God. This is expresly contrary to our Saviour's precept But call no Man Rabbi for one is your Master even Christ and all ye are Brethren And call no Man your Father upon earth for one is your Father which is in Heaven Neither be ye called Masters for one is your Master even Christ Matthew 23. 8 9 10. which does not oppose the use of these names in common Speech but forbids us to ascribe such an Authority to any Man on Earth as is due only to God and Christ And if a vow of blind obedience does not make Men our Masters in this forbidden sense I think nothing can Thus voluntary and unnecessary severities to the Body which serve no ends of Mortification or Devotion saying over a great number of Ave Maries going in Pilgrimage to Ierusalem or Loretto or to the
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
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