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. Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707. 1687 Approx. 261 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 83 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2004-08 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A59894 Wing S3365 ESTC R22233 12685478 ocm 12685478 65754 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A59894) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 65754) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 878:20) 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. Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707. [10], 150, [4] p. Printed for Richard Chiswell ..., London : 1687. Reproduction of original in Huntington Library. Attributed to William Sherlock. cf. NUC pre-1956. Table of contents: p. [3]-[10] Errata: p. [10] Advertisement: p. [1]-[4] at end. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Catholic Church -- Controversial literature. Church of England -- Doctrines. Protestancy destitute of Scripture proofs. 2003-11 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 Apex CoVantage Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2004-04 John Latta Sampled and proofread 2004-04 John Latta Text and markup reviewed and edited 2004-07 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion 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 Heav●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 more than what we give to the Bible . ibid. The reasons why some Protestants have charged the worship of Images with Idolatry . 88 No alterations made in the Law against worshipping Images in the New Testament . 92 The reasons of the Second Commandment , Moral and Eternal . 93 No material Temple , much less an Image allowed under the Gospel . 95 The Primitive Church always understood the Worship of Images to be forbid under the Gospel . 99 XIII . Whether the Pope be Antichrist , and whether this be taught in the Homilies of the Church of England . ibid. XIV . Concerning Prayers and Divine Offices in the Vulgar tongue . 101 The self-contradictions of this Author . 102 Whether S. Paul in 1 Cor. 14. only forbid inspired and extempore prayers in an unknown tongue , not the setled forms of Divine Offices . 104 All the Apostles arguments in that place against speaking in an unknown tongue concern our ordinary devotions . 105 As 1. That it is contrary to the edification of the Church . ib. 2. That it contradicts the natural end and use of speech . 106 3. That it is contrary to the nature of Prayer and religious worship , which must be a reasonable Service . 107 Whether the people are bound to joyn in all the offices of publick worship . 108 Whether the people understand their prayers , though they are in Latin , which they do not understand . 112 XV. Concerning Schism and Separation . 114 Separation from the Errors of the Church of Rome is not a Separation from the Catholick Church . 116 Renouncing the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome no Schism . ibid. Such a supremacy not essential to Catholick Unity . 117 Concerning the Ecclesiastical combinations of neighbour Churches and Bishops into one body . ibid. In what cases a particular Church may break off from such a body . 118 The Popes Supremacy such an usurpation as may be renounced without the authority of a general Council . ibid. The Church of England not originally subject to the Bishop of Rome as the Western Patriarch . 121 The difference between Schism from the Catholick Church , and the breach of Ecclesiastical Communion . 122 To reform errors and corruptions in Faith and Worship can never , be a fault . 125 That the Church of England does not separate from all other Christian Societies . 126 Concerning Communion in the Eucharist and other religious Assemblies . 129 What Church we joyned in Communion with , when we forsook the Communion of the Church of Rome . 130 What Church we made the pattern of our Reformation . 131 In what sense the Church of Rome her self was the pattern of our Reformation . 132 XVI . Concerning the defection and apostasie of the Clergy of the Catholick Church , and the Reformation of the Laity . 134 Whether the whole Clergy were against the Reformation . 135 The Popish Clergy in the Reign of King Henry the Eighth did own the King's Supremacy and wrote for it . 136 , &c. We do not assert , That the Church of Rome has apostatized from fundamental Truth and Holiness . 138 Whether all kind of Idolatry be an Apostasie from fundamental Truth and Holiness . 139 The nature of that argument to prove , That a thing is not , because it cannot be , when there is all other possible evidence to prove , That it is . 140 As that the Church of Rome has not erred , because she cannot err . 141 , &c. If the Reformation be good , there can want no authority to reform . 147 The Supreme Authority of any Nation has a regular Authority to declare , what shall be the established Religion of that Nation , which is all that we attribute to Kings and Parliaments in such matters . 250 ERRATA . PAG. 53. l. 4. for now r. non . p. 123. l. 33. r. as shows . p. 14● . l. 14. dele upon . Some faults there are in Pointing , which I must leave to the Reader to correct . A VINDICATION OF SEVERAL Protestant Doctrines : BEING AN ANSWER TO A LATE PAMPHLET ENTITULED , Protestancy destitute of Scripture-Proofs . THAT I have taken so little an occasion to write so big a Book , I hope the Reader upon his perusal will pardon . There is indeed a remarkable difference between us and our Roman Adversaries in this matter ; they can answer great Books in two or three Sheets , if they vouchsafe to give any answer at all , which they begin to be weary of : we answer two or three Sheets in large Books ; but then we have very different ends in writing too ; they to make a show of saying somewhat , to put by the blow by some few insignificant cavils ; we , not only to answer our Adversaries , which might be done in very few words , but , to instruct our people , which requires a more particular Explication of the reasons of things . But I shall make no Apology for my Book , till I hear that it wants it ; for it may be some may think it , as much too little , as others too big . He begins very regularly with the state of the Controversie between us , to prove sixteen Protestant Tenets ( as he calls them ) by plain Scripture ; Scriptures , but so plain to us , for their Doctrines , as they require to be yielded them by the Catholique Church for hers . What will be thought plain by them , is a very hard matter to guess , when it seems , the second Commandment it self is not thought by them a plain Scripture-proof against Image-worship , and I despair of ever finding a plainer proof in Scripture for or against any thing . But I told him in Answer to his request ( p. 17. ) that we desire no other proofs from them , but what we are ready to give , either the express words of Scripture , or plain and evident consequence , or the silence of Scripture , to prove that any Doctrine is not in it . And though they may reasonably demand of us , what we demand of them , yet they cannot reasonably demand more : and whether I have not done him justice in this way , shall be examined again under the several Articles of his request . In the next Paragraph he mightily despises the Answer , and concluded the pamphlet unworthy a publick or special notice , and expected , if not more pertinent , yet at least more plausible replies to follow , and I can assure him , that he was very ill advised , that he did not despise and expect on ; for his reply has given some credit and authority to that Answer , and has now produced a Book , which if he be wise , he will despise too ; though I hope it will convince him , that Protestants do not mean to expose their profession by silence , which I do not find them much inclined to at present . But let us consider the state of the question . In answer to the Request to prove some Protestant Tenets by plain Scripture , I told him this was a false representation of our Doctrine ; for though we do make the Scripture the rule of our Faith , yet we do not pretend to own no Doctrine , but what is contained in the express words of Scripture . Our Church teaches us , Art. 6. that Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to Salvation ; so that whatsoever is not read therein , nor may be proved thereby , is not to be required of any Man , that it should be believed as an Article of Faith , or be thought requisite or necessary to Salvation . Where our Church distinguishes between what is read in the Scripture , that is , contained in express words there , and what may be proved thereby , that is , by plain and necessary consequence , from what is expresly taught in Scripture ; and yet confines such Proof as this only to Articles of Faith , or what is thought requisite or necessary to Salvation . And the true reason of this is , that the Church of England teaches the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures to Salvation , which is the very Title of this Article , and therefore all things necessary to be believed to Salvation must be contained in express words in Scripture , or be proved thence by plain and evident consequence ; which shows , that we are not strictly obliged to prove any thing from Scripture , but what we teach for an Article of Faith , or as necessary to Salvation . This is the reason , why we demand a Scripture-proof from the Church of Rome for the new Articles of the Trent Faith ; for if the belief of them be necessary to Salvation , as they say they are , then either the Scriptures do not contain all things necessary to Salvation , or they are bound to show , where these Doctrines are contained in Scripture . For this reason the Church of England , which owns the sufficiency of the Scripture to Salvation , rejects all those Doctrines , which the Church of Rome without any Proof from Scripture teaches as necessary to Salvation ; and this we think reason enough to reject them , that they are not contained in Scripture , which contains all things necessary to Salvation . Now our Author , and some of his size , who don 't see half a Consequence before them , think they have a mighty advantage of us in demanding the same Proofs from us to justifie our rejecting their Doctrines , which we demand of them to justifie their belief of them : that is to say , as we demand of them a Scripture-Proof , that there is such a place as Purgatory , they think , they may as reasonably demand of us a Scripture-Proof , that there is no such place as Purgatory ; just with as much reason as if one should tell me , that by the Laws of England every Man is bound to Marry at twenty years old , and when I desire him to show me the Law which makes this necessary , he should answer , though he cannot show such a Law , yet it may be necessary , unless I can show him a Law which expresly declares , that it is not necessary : whereas nothing is necessary , but what the Law makes so ; and if the Law has not made it necessary , there is no need of any Law to declare , that it is not necessary . Thus the Protestant Doctrine of the sufficiency of Scriptures to Salvation , requires us to produce a plain Scripture-Proof for every thing , which we believe necessary to Salvation ; but it does not require a Scripture-Proof , that that is not necessary to Salvation , which the Scripture has not revealed nor made necessary to Salvation : for if the Scriptures contain all things necessary to Salvation , it is a sufficient Proof , that such Doctrines are not necessary to Salvation , which are not contained in the Scriptures : Unless we think , that the Scripture must before-hand confute all possible Heresies , which might arise in the Church , and tell us particularly in all points , what we must not believe , as well as what we must . This I observed was the case , as to those Articles of the Church of England , which are opposed to the Corruptions and Innovations of the Church of Rome , that they are negative Articles , and a negative Article only rejects such Doctrines from being Articles of Faith , as are not contained in Scripture , and it is ridiculous to demand a plain Scripture-Proof , that such a Doctrine is not in Scripture . We believe it is not there , because we cannot find it there , and those who pretend it is there , cannot show it there ; which is proof enough , and all that the Subject is capable of . This is what our Author attempts an Answer to in the preceding Paragraph , and first , he says , that those of the thirty nine Articles , which are opposed to Catholick Religion ( so he calls the Popish Corruptions of Christianity ) contain Affirmative propositions , or may be resolved into equivalent affirmatives . What then ? Is the dispute about the terms wherein the Article is conceived , whether they be Negative or Affirmative ? or about the reason , why it is either affirmed or denied , viz. that such a Doctrine is not taught in Scripture ? for this is all I meant by a negative Article , that we deny such a Doctrine to be contained in Scripture . Now suppose I should say , There is no such place as Purgatory , which is a negative Proposition , or that Purgatory is a late and fond invention , which is affirmative , what difference is there between them ? when they both resolve into this , that Purgatory is not taught in Scripture ; and therefore the question is still the same , whether the Article be expressed affirmatively or negatively , and no Man can be bound to prove by plain and express Scripture , that Purgatory is not taught in Scripture . Well! but though for a Negative , or every non-assent or suspence of assent , a reason may not be given or required , yet for belief , for a solemn profession , subscription and swearing of that belief ( whether it be of negatives or affirmatives ) a reason may be assigned and required . What glorious and triumphant Nonsence is here ? How does a negative Article and non-assent come to be the same thing ? For we Protestants use to give our assent to negative Articles : And why are not Men bound to give a reason of their non-assent , as well as of their assent ? And how are they more bound to give a reason of their profession and swearing their non-assent , than they are of their bare non-assent ? And who ever dreamt , that Men are not bound to give a reason of their non-assent , and of their profession of non-assent ? and lastly , what is all this to the purpose of demanding express Proofs of Scripture , that such Doctrines , as suppose Purgatory , or the Invocation of Saints , &c. are not taught in Scripture ? And why is it not a sufficient reason of a non-assent , or declared and professed denial of such Doctrines , that it does not appear , that they are taught in Scripture ? But the Request , he says , proposed only affirmatives ; and they have been considered and answered already , and his Defence shall be considered again without any Fencing or Tergiversation . But the Thirty nine Articles not only declare , that the opposite affirmatives are not in Scripture ( for they may not be there , and yet be true ) ( but if they be not there , we cannot know they are true , much less can they be Articles of Faith , and necessary to Salvation ) but also that they are rather , and plainly repugnant to Scripture ; this I confess does require a Scripture-Proof , that a Doctrine is not only not in the Scripture , but repugnant to it ; but then a plain and evident consequence from something else , which is taught in Scripture , is all the proof , which can be expected in such cases , and this we are ready to give , when our Author shall demand it . And now would not any one wonder , how from these premises he concludes , that he has shewn Protestants obliged to give Scripture-reasons for their belief of Negatives ; that is , if he will speak to the purpose , that we are obliged to prove from plain and express Texts of Scripture , that those Doctrines which we reject as unscriptural , are not contained in Scripture ; we must prove from Scripture , that that is not in Scripture , which we say is not in it ; which may be done indeed by a negative Argument , from the silence of Scripture about it , but is not capable of a direct and positive Proof . Let us now take a review of his several Protestant Doctrines , for which he demands a Scripture-Proof , and see wherein the Answer was defective . I. Scripture is clear in all necessaries to every sober Inquirer . In answer to this I observed , that every plain Text of Scripture proved its own plainness , and that as it needs no other Proof , no more than we need a proof , that the Sun shines , when we see it ; so if we did not find it plain , no other argument or testimony could prove it to be plain : But this he takes no notice of , but only endeavours to weaken two Scripture testimonies , which , I said , do by a very easie and natural Consequence prove the plainness of Scripture ; for if the word of God be a light unto our feet , and a lamp unto our paths , then it must be clear , if light be clear , Psalm 119. 105. if it be able to make men wise unto salvation , 2 Tim. 3. 15. then it must be plain and intelligible in all things necessary to salvation : to which he answers , that these Texts do not reach the proposition to be proved : For if the word were a light to the Prophet David ' s feet , if all Scripture be given , that the Man of God may be perfect , yet a perspicuity of Scripture in all necessaries to every sober Inquirer , cannot be deduced thence , except every sober Inquirer be a Prophet , or a Man of God , or at least subject to such : As if none but Prophets or Apostles could understand the Scripture ? But I thought light had been visible to all Men , that have eyes in their Heads : and I am sure the same Prophet tells us , that the Law of the Lord is perfect , converting the Soul , the Testimony of the Lord is sure , making wise the simple : the Statutes of the Lord are right , rejoycing the heart , the Commandment of the Lord is pure , enlightning the eyes , Psalm . 19. 7 , 8. Is this spoken only of Prophets too ? Are there no other souls to be converted , no other simple people to be made wise , no other hearts to be rejoyced , no other eyes to be enlightned , but only theirs ? And when S. Paul tells Timothy , from a Child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures , which are able to make thee wise unto Salvation ( which was the place I cited ) does this prove , that none but a man of God ( for which he exchanges it , though that is not in the 15. but 17. verse ) can understand the Scriptures , when it seems , Timothy understood them , when he was a Child ? However thus much he must grant in his own way , that the Scriptures are very intelligible in all things necessary to Salvation ; for otherwise a man of God , the Pastors and Teachers of the Church , could not understand them , if they be not so plain , that they may be understood ; and if the Scriptures be plain and intelligible in themselves , then he must grant , that at least all Men of Parts , and Learning , and Industry , who are sober and honest Inquirers , may understand them as well as Divines , unless he will say , that Divines understand them not by the use of their reason and wise consideration , but by Inspiration and Prophecy ; and then it is not the Scripture , but the inspired interpretation of it , which makes Men wise unto Salvation . At least he must grant , that the Scriptures can make any other Man of God perfect , as well as the Pope ; for this is not spoke of S. Peter and his Successors only , but of Timothy , and any other Man of God ; and therefore there is no need , that all other Bishops and Pastors should depend on the Pope , as an infallible Oracle . Nay if the Scriptures are able to make the man of God perfect in the discharge of his Ministry , of which S. Paul here speaks , for Doctrine , for Reproof , for Correction , for Instruction in Righteousness , then the people also , who are to be taught , may be made to understand the Scriptures , the Doctrines , Reproofs , and Instructions of it ; for as the Scripture is the Teachers Rule , so it is his Authority too ; and if the people cannot be taught to understand the Scriptures in things necessary to Salvation , they cannot know , that such things are in Scripture ; which destroys the Divine Authority of the Preacher . For what he teaches without Scripture , can only have his own authority , or the authority of other Men like himself : and yet no Man can tell , whether what he teaches be in the Scripture , who cannot in some measure understand the Scripture himself ; and if a Divine Faith must be founded upon the Authority of Scripture , which is the only Divine Authority we now have ; and no Man can believe upon the Authority of Scripture , who cannot understand it ; then it is as necessary , that all things necessary to Salvation should be so plain in Scripture , that all persons at least with the help of a Guide , should understand them ; as it is , that all , even the meanest Men , should know all things necessary to their Salvation . For it is a Scandal to the Protestant profession to say , that we reject the Authority of Church Guides , which we own as well as the Church of Rome ; only with this difference , That the Church of Rome will have Men believe their Guides without reason or understanding ; we have Guides not merely to dictate to us , but to teach us to understand . As the Masters in other Arts and Sciences do ; who explain the reasons of things to their Scholars , till they attain to a great Mastery and perfection of knowledge themselves : And if by the help of such a Teaching , not an Imposing , Guide , Men may understand the Scripture in all things necessary to Salvation , then the Scripture is plain and intelligible , though an unlearned Man cannot understand it without a Guide ; as Mathematical demonstrations are certainly plain , if any thing be plain , though unskilful Men cannot understand them without a Master ; but that is clear and plain in it self , which can be explained to every ordinary apprehension ; and such we assert the Scriptures to be in all necessaries . Learned Men can by their own studies and inquiries understand the true sense of them ; and the Unlearned can be taught to understand them ; and this is the use we make of our Guides , not to submit our judgments to them without any understanding ; but to inform our judgments , that we may be able to see and understand for our selves . Thus our Saviour taught his Disciples , he opened their understandings , that they might understand the Scriptures ; Thus the Apostles and Primitive Doctors instructed the World , by expounding the Scriptures to them , which does not signifie merely to tell them , what the sense of Scripture is , and requiring them to believe it ; but showing them out of the Scriptures , that this is , and must be , the true sense of it ; and we need not fear , that Protestancy should suffer any thing from such Guides as these , though the Church of Rome indeed has felt the ill effects of them . II. The Secular Prince hath all spiritual jurisdiction and authority immediately from and under God. Here , he says , I behave my self , as if I were under apprehensions , and durst neither own nor reject this Tenet , and yet in my Answer , I expresly show , what the Church of England means by the Kings Supremacy in Ecclesiastical Causes ; which signifies no more than that the King is Supreme in his own Dominions , and therefore there is no Power , neither Secular nor Ecclesiastick , above him ; for if there were , he were not Supreme . And this I said might be proved from Rom. 13. 1. Let every Soul be subject to the higher powers : to which he answers , that this proves more than I grant . It proves ministring the Word and Sacraments to belong to the Higher Powers . How so ? Yes this it does , unless ministring the Word and Sacraments be not a soul affair , be no act of power . Learnedly observed ! because every soul must be subject to the Higher Powers , therefore the King has all Power in soul-affairs , and therefore of ministring the Word and Sacraments : But if every soul only signifie every Man ( without excepting the Pope himself ) then I suppose all Ecclesiasticks as well as Secular persons are included in it ; and if all must be subject to the King , then the King is Supreme over all ; but things are at a low ebb in the Church of Rome , when such silly Quibbles must pass for Arguments . III. Iustification by Faith alone ( viz. a persuasion that we are justified ) is a wholsome Doctrine . In answer to this I denied , that our Church teaches , that justifying Faith is a persuasion , that we are justified . He grants , that some of the Church of England have condemned it ( p. 4. ) but yet he may as justly charge us with it , as we charge the Church of Rome with Doctrines contrary to their General Councils , and constant Profession ; and we grant he may , for if such things be done , they are very unjust both in him and us ; we deny , that we do any such thing , and have lately abundantly vindicated our selves from such an imputation ; let him do as much for himself if he can . But Cranmer was of this mind , by whom the Articles were devised ; But how does that appear ? and if he were , what is that to us , when there is no such thing in our Articles ? will he allow the Council of Trent to be expounded according to the Private opinions of every Bishop , that was in it ? The Antinomians plead the Doctrine of the eleventh Article , as the Parent of their irreligion , and so they do the Scriptures : And what then ? Will he hence infer , that the Scriptures countenance Antinomianism , because they alledge Scripture for it ? And why then must this be charged upon our Articles ? Though what some may have done , I cannot tell , but Antinomians don 't use to trouble themselves with our Articles . But the strictest Adherers to the Primitive Reformers in Doctrine ( the Puritans ) assert this Solifidian Parenthesis , as the genuine and literal sense of Iustification by Faith alone , and of the eleventh Article : Why the Puritans the strictest Adherers to the Primitive Reformers in Doctrine ? but we need not ask a reason of his sayings , who understands nothing about what he speaks : For the Puritans did not and do not believe , That justifying Faith is a persuasion , that we are justified , but they place justifying Faith in an act of recumbency on Christ for Salvation , and dispute vehemently against his Notion of it . But , he says , I might have given them a Text asserting , what I confess our Church teaches , viz. that justification by Faith only is a wholesome Doctrine , and very full of comfort , which intimates no necessity of repentance to Iustification , none of the Sacraments . Yes it does , and of good works too , as the conditions of our Justification , though not as the meritorious causes of it ; for all this our Church comprehends in the notion of a living Faith , which alone justifies ; and then I suppose as many Texts as there are , which attribute our Justification to Faith , so many proofs there are , that Justification by Faith alone , as opposed to all Meritorious Works , is a wholesome Doctrine , and very full of comfort . IV. The substance of Bread and Wine remains after , what it was before , sacerdotal Consecration . Here he takes no notice of any one word , which I returned in Answer : The sum of which is , that the material substance before and after Consecration is the same , that is , that they are Bread and Wine still , but by vertue of Christ's Institution , after Consecration they are not mere Bread and Wine , but a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's Death , and to such as rightly and worthily , and by Faith receive the same , the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ , and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ , as our Church teaches : And this I proved must be the sense of the words of Institution , This is my Body , and urged such arguments for it in short , as he durst not name again , much less pretend to Answer ; but instead of that he endeavours to prove ( p. 5. ) that the words of Institution , This is my Body literally understood , do expresly prove , that the substance of Bread does not remain at all after Consecration : For the Eucharist is Christ's Body and Blood , which if substantially Bread and Wine , it cannot really be . A change less than that of the substance of the Elements , is insufficient to render them really and truly , what the Text says they are , after Consecration . But did not I give him my reasons , why these words could not be understood literally of the natural Body and Blood of Christ ? And is it enough then for him to say , that in a literal sense , they must signifie a substantial change of the Bread and Wine into Christ's natural Body and Blood , without answering , what I urged against it ? and yet in a literal sense it cannot signifie so : For if This refers to the Bread , which our Saviour took , and blessed and brake , ( and it can refer to nothing else ) then the literal sense of the words is , This Bread is my Body ; and if Bread be the Body of Christ , then the substance of the Bread cannot be 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 should incline Men to expound those words of our Saviour , This is my Body , of his Natural Body , contrary to all the Sacramental forms of speech used in Scripture , did they not think it meritorious to believe impossibilities and contradictions . To return then a more direct Answer to our Author's question , what there is besides Substance and Efficacy belonging to our Saviour's Body ? I answer , by Nature there is nothing else , but by Institution there is ; for there is the Sacrament of the Lord's Body , which is neither the natural Substance , nor the natural Efficacy of his Body , but a Sacramental Communion in the merits and Efficacy of his Death and Passion , which is a spiritual eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood of Christ. And since he wants Scripture for this , I will give him a very piain Text , 1 Cor. 10. 16. The cup of Blessing which we bless , is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ ? the Bread which we break , is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ. Thus S. Paul explains , what our Saviour said , This is my Body , and , This is my Blood , by this is the Communion of Christ's Body and Blood : That is , that those , who by Faith partake of the Sacramental Bread and Wine , do communicate in the Body and Blood of Christ. This is a different thing from the mere influences of his Grace ; for it is our interest and Communion in his Sacrifice , which is the meritorious cause and spring of all Divine Influences and Communications : We must be mystically and spiritually united to Christ to have Communion in the Sacrifice of his Body and Blood , and then we receive the fresh supplies of Grace from him , which are the purchase of his Death , and the effect of our Union to him ; and this Communion with the Body and Blood of Christ , we receive in the Lord's Supper , which is instituted by Christ , for that very purpose , and therefore it is called the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ ; because it is the Sacrament of our Union to him , whereby we communicate in his Body and Blood ; and if this be Zuinglianism , I see no help for it , but we must be contented to be Zuinglians . VI. Adoration of the Eucharist , ( i. e. of our Saviour under the species of Bread and Wine ) is Idolatry . I answered ; There was no such proposition as this taught in the Church of England . We teach indeed , that Bread and Wine in the Eucharist remains Bread and Wine after Consecration , and that to adore Bread and Wine is Idolatry . To adore our Saviour is no Idolatry , but to adore Bread and Wine for our Saviour may be as much Idolatry , as to worship the Sun for God. Instead of answering this he tells us , This blasphemous Tenet is taught by our Church , and which is a little worse , is practised by theirs . For the majority of our pretended Bishops did Vote for the Test , and do all of them take it , and I hope will keep it too . That it is a Canon of our General Council , the Parliament ; and therefore it is very good Law , and that is all we desire for our Religion from Parliaments , and thank God that we have it ; and since they are a General Council , may they insist upon their Infallibility . But what is the matter with the Test ? Why , it declares our Adoration of the Eucharist ( which is the Adoration of nothing but Iesus Christ ) to be Idolatry . Is the Eucharist then nothing but Jesus Christ ? does the Council of Trent say so ? Is this the Doctrine of any of their Schoolmen , Canonists , or Divines ? Nay , will this Author venture to say , that the Eucharist is nothing but Jesus Christ himself ? Which is speck and span New Popery , if this be the Doctrine of the Church of Rome . No! he does not , dares not , say , that the Eucharist is nothing , but Jesus Christ ; but he says , that the Adoration of the Eucharist , is the Adoration of nothing but Iesus Christ. But what palpable nonsence is this ; For if the Eucharist be something , which is not Jesus Christ , then the Adoration of the Eucharist must be the Adoration of something , which is not Jesus Christ. And yet though we should suppose the Doctrine of Transubstantiation to be true , yet the natural Flesh and Blood of Christ , according to the Doctrine of the Council of Trent , though it be present in the Sacrament , is not the Sacrament . For there can be no Sacrament of the Eucharist without the species of Bread and Wine : and yet the Council of Trent decrees , that the worship of Latria , which is due to the true God , be given to this most Holy Sacrament : And that we might know , what they meant by the Sacrament , they tell us , it is that , which is instituted by Christ , to be received or eaten , which certainly is the species of Bread and Wine : For they being sensible , how absurd it is to worship , what we eat , to prevent this , they tell us , that it is nevertheless to be adored , because it is instituted to be received , or eaten . The reason indeed they give for it is , because Christ is present in this Sacrament ; but though the presence of Christ be the reason of this Adoration , yet the whole Sacrament is the object , which is not merely the natural Body and Blood of Christ , but the species of Bread and Wine , under which is contained the Body and Blood of Christ ; and therefore to adore the Sacrament is not to adore nothing but Iesus Christ , for the Sacrament is somewhat more . But then if the Doctrine of Transubstantiation be false , they have no other object of their worship but Bread and Wine ; and thus the Church of England believes , and thus our General Council the Parliament , which made the Test , believed , and thus all Men , who dare trust their own Senses , and Reason , believe ; and if it be blasphemy to teach , that the worship of Bread and Wine is Idolatry , some of the m●st Learned Divines of the Church of Rome have been guilty of this Blasphemy , and I should be glad to hear , what our Authors opinion is of it . VII . All Christians , whenever they communicate , are obliged to receive in both kinds . For this I urged the express words of institution , which do as expresly command us to drink of the Cup , as to eat of the Bread ; so that if there be any command in Scripture to receive the Bread , there is the same command to receive the Cup : nay indeed as if our Saviour had purposely intended to prevent this Sacrilegious taking away of the Cup from the People ; whereas in delivering the Bread , he only says , Take , Eat ; when he blessed and delivered the Cup , he expresly commanded ; Drink ye . all of it . And I further argued from the nature of the Eucharist , which as it was instituted in both kinds , so it is not a compleat Sacrament without it : and yet our Author rubs his forehead , and confidently tells his Readers ; Nor for this point can a Scripture command be discovered in the Answer . Though the thirtieth Article affirms , that both parts of the Lords Sacrament , by Christ's ordinance and commandment , ought to be ministred to all Christian Men alike : what he means by this I cannot guess ; for if he will not allow an express institution , to be a Scripture-Proof ; I despair of ever finding a Scripture-Proof for any thing ; unless he can tell me , what proof there can be of an institution , but the words of Institution : does this Institution then contain a command to receive the Eucharist ? if it does not , how does he prove , that all Christians are bound to receive the Eucharist ? if it does , then Take , Eat ; is a command to receive the Bread : and by the same reason , Drink ye all of this , is a command to all to receive the Cup ; and both these being a part of the same Feast , and commanded at the same time ; our Church had reason to say , that both parts of the Lord's Sacrament , by Christ's ordinance and commandment , ought to be administred to all Christian Men alike . The Church of Rome thinks the words of Institution a plain and necessary command to consecrate in both kinds , without which they grant it is not a Sacrament ; now what other command have they for consecrating , than we have for receiving in both kinds ? the words of Institution are all that we have about this matter ; and let them give me reason , how the same words come to signifie consecration , but not receiving , in both kinds ? nay they grant that the Priest who consecrates must receive as well as consecrate in both kinds ; and yet the Institution is in the same form of words , without making any distinction between the Priest and the People ; and how the same words should command the Priest to receive in both kinds , and not the People , is somewhat mysterious . I am apt to think , that the Fathers of the Council of Constance , who decreed the communion in one kind with a non obstante to our Saviour's Institution , did suspect , that there was a Scripture-Proof for communion in both kinds , or there had been no need to have made an exception to our Saviour's Institution , and to have set up the authority of the Church against it . The Church of Rome allows , that it is lawful for the People to communicate in both kinds , and have reserved this authority of granting such a liberty to the Pope , now how can it be lawful , unless Christ has allowed it , and where has he allowed it , unless in the words of institution ; and they prove more than allowance , even a command ; if , Drink ye all of this , be of the Imperative Mood . VIII . Chastity deliberately vowed may be inoffensively violated . This , I said , is no Doctrine of our Church , nor are Protestants now concerned in it , though some of the Monks and Nuns at the beginning of the Reformation were : and though I did not undertake a just defence of the Marriages of such devoted persons , yet I offered several things in Apology for them ; and said so much , that our Author did not think fit to make any reply to it , but only answers to my denial , that this is a Doctrine of our Church : He says , This proposition is a Doctrine of the Answerers Church , except his be not the same Church with Edward the Sixths , or the thirty second Article have another sense , than when composed by Cranmer : For all Bishops and Priests then in the Western Church had deliberately vowed chastity , and the Article says , It is lawful for them to marry , which certainly violates their vow . No Scripture is alledged justifying a Tenet , so impure , so persidious . Thus by consequence he proves , that it is the Doctrine of our Church , that chastity deliberately vowed may be inoffensively violated ; because in K. Edward the Sixth and Archbishop Cranmer's days , it was the Doctrine of this Church , that the Bishops and Priests then in being , who had deliberately vowed chastity , might notwithstanding marry . But suppose this was not the Doctrine in King Edward's days , what becomes then of his consequence ? and yet this is the truth of the case . For the Article then only taught , that Bishops , Priests , and Deacons , are not commanded to vow the state of single life without marriage ; neither by God's Law are they compelled to abstain from Matrimony : but there is not one word , whether those , who were Bishops and Priests at that time , and were under the vow of Coelibacy ( though every Priest , as a Priest , was not by the Laws of this Church , bound to undertake such a vow , though they were forbid by the Canons to marry ) might marry or not . For though the Article asserts , that they were not compelled by God's Law , to abstain from Matrimony ; yet it does not say , that they could not debar themselves this liberty by voluntary vows ; or that if they had done so , they might inoffensively break those vows , which is a very different question . Indeed in Queen Elizabeths Reign in the Convocation held at London , 1562. this Article is enlarged . Bishops , Priests , and Deacons , are not commanded by God's Law either to vow the estate of single life , or to abstain from marriage . Therefore it is lawful also for them , as for all other Christian Men , to marry at their own discretion , as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness . But this Article does not say , that those Bishops and Priests , who were entangled with a vow of Coelibacy might lawfully marry , but only their being Bishops and Priests was no hindrance to their Marriage : Whether there was any other impediment , it concerned them to consider ; but these obligations of Vows , which any of them were then under , being a personal thing ; the present decision of that Controversie was not thought fit to be made an Article of Religion . So that though some particular Persons were at that time concerned in this question , yet the Doctrine of our Church , never was concerned in it ; for there never was any Synodical definition of it ; and therefore there is no need of producing Scripture-Proofs for it . But yet notwithstanding this , I am far from condemning those Bishops and Priests , and Nuns , and Friers , who did then marry ; for I am sure a chast Marriage is more acceptable to God , than an impure Coelibacy : and those Abominations which were discovered at the Dissolution of Monasteries , were enough to make Men abhor such vows of Chastity , as he calls them : and I am very much of the opinion , that it were still better for Priests to marry , than to debauch their Penitents or Converts . Thus much for his impure and perfidious Tenet . IX . All Christian excellencies are commanded . This , I told him , I thought S. Paul had determined , Philip. 4. 8. Whatsever things are true , whatsoever things are honest , &c. think on these things . For if these general expressions do not comprehend all Christian excellencies , I know not what does . To this he answers , Unless besides comprehending , it command them , that Scripture will not prove the Tenet . And the mode of expression ( that is , its being in the Imperative Mood , Think on these things ) does not prove it to be a command , 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 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 Shrine of any other powerful Saints ; to give all our Estates for saying Masses for the Dead ; to adore Reliques and Images , to kiss the Pavement of such a Church , or some Cross drawn on it ; to say over some particular Prayers , so many times a day , or to pray before such a particular Altar ; and such like things , as by the liberality of Popes , have so many thousand years Indulgence for a reward , are indeed works of Supererogation , because God has not commanded them , but I doubt are no Christian excellencies . Such things as these make Men Saints , and enrich the Church with Merits , and much good may do them with it . X. Every Soul as soon as expired is conveyed to Heaven or Hell. In Answer to this , I told him , that the Scripture gives us no account of any other places of rewards and punishments in the other World , but Heaven and Hell. And that this proposition , that every Soul , as soon as expired , is conveyed to Heaven or Hell , is only an Inference from this Doctrine , that we know of no other place , they should go to after death , the Scripture having not told us of any other . That our Church , though She rejects Purgatory , yet has not determined against an intermediate State , between Death and Judgment . Though Christ's Parable of Dives and Lazarus , and S. Paul's desire to be dissolved and to be with Christ , look fairly towards proving that good Men go to Heaven , and bad Men directly to Hell , when they die . He takes notice only of this last passage of Dives and Lazarus and S. Paul ; and says , that this would prove something , if three Souls be All , or All Souls expire in either Dives ' s fitness for Hell , or Lazarus ' s and S. Paul ' s for Heaven . But he should have taken the whole proof together ; that there is no mention made in Scripture of any other place of rewards or punishments in the next World , but Heaven and Hell ; and that whereever we have any account of the state of Men after Death , we either hear of them , in Heaven or Hell. As Dives , when he died , was immediately tormented in Hell , and Lazarus was conveyed into Abraham's bosom , and S. Paul expected , when he died , to go immediately to Heaven , and to be with Christ : but we read of no Man , who went to Purgatory when he died : and what other proof can we have of this , but that Heaven is promised to good Men , and Hell threatned against bad Men ; and we have some examples of both recorded in Scripture ; unless we expect the Scripture should give us a compleat Catalogue of all , who were saved or damned in those days . As for Mens fitness for Heaven or for Hell , when they die ; I know not well , what he means by it . For Men may be fit , as he calls it , for Hell , who are not as wicked , as Dives , and we all have reason to hope , that those may be fit for Heaven , who are not so holy as St. Paul was . Though there are different degrees of Vice and Vertue , which may qualifie Men for different degrees of rewards and punishments , yet as we read in Scripture , but of two states in the other World , Heaven and Hell , so we read but of two distinctions of Men in this World , the good and the bad , to whom these promises or threatnings belong . Now every Man , when he dies , must be one of these ; either a penitent or an impenitent sinner ; for the Scripture knows no medium between them . If he be a penitent sinner , by the gracious terms of the Gospel , he has a right to pardon of sin , and eternal life ; and why is not that Man fit for Heaven , who has a Covenant-right to it ? and what should detain him in Purgatory , who has an immediate right to Heaven ? if he be an impenitent sinner , Hell is his portion , and he must have it . But after all , this is no controversie between us , and the Church of Rome , whether every Soul as soon as expired is conveyed to Heaven or Hell ; but whether those , who shall finally be saved must suffer the pains of Purgatory in the other World , before they shall be received into Heaven . Our Author has a mind to confound these two , and seems to think it proof enough , that there is a Purgatory , if there be a middle state between death and judgment , which is neither Heaven nor Hell ; and possibly those , who do not understand this Controversie , may be deceived with such pretences , and therefore it will be convenient briefly to state this matter . There have been , I confess , very different opinions among some of the Fathers , about the state of Souls departed , both before and since the Resurrection of Christ from the dead , as you shall hear more presently ; and there may be very different opinions about it still , and I believe will be among thoughtful and inquisitive Men , and no great hurt done neither , while they are not made Articles of Faith , nor the foundation of some new and unscriptural worship . But that our People may not be imposed on with sham-proofs , which are nothing to the purpose ( as it is plain this Author intended to do in this Article ) it will be necessary plainly to represent the Doctrine of the Church of Rome concerning Purgatory , that they may know , what proofs to demand of it . Now the Council of Trent determines no more , than that there is a Purgatory , and that the Souls , which are detained there , are helpt by the suffrages of the faithful , but principally by the most acceptable Sacrifice of the Altar : and commands the Bishops diligently to take care , that the wholesome Doctrine of Purgatory delivered by the holy Fathers and Councils , be believed , held , taught , and preached , to Christ's faithful People . The Fathers of this Council were very careful , not to determine , what Purgatory is , what the punishments of it are , where the place of it is , but refer us to former Fathers and Councils for it : and therefore among the rest , I suppose , they mean the Council of Florence ; where this purgation is expresly affirmed to be by fire ; and to be a state of punishment . Cardinal Bellarmine , who wrote since the Council of Trent , understood Fathers and Councils , and the sense of the Roman Church , as well as any Man , and therefore I shall briefly shew , what he thought of this matter . That Bellarmine did believe , that Souls departed were purged with fire , is abundantly evident from what he discourses , on 1 Cor. 3. and from those testimonies of the Fathers , which he abuses to this purpose . But for what end these punishments serve , is as considerable as Purgatory fire it self ; and they , Bellarmine tells us , are to expiate venial sins , or such mortal sins , whose guilt is pardoned , but not the temporal punishment due to them ; For according to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome , there are some venial sins , which in their own nature do not deserve eternal , but only temporal punishments : and as for mortal sins , when the guilt of them is pardoned by the Sacrament of Penance , by Confession , and the Absolution of the Priest , yet there remains a temporal punishment to be undergone by the penitent , either in this World , or in Purgatory . So that if Men die under any venial sins , or mortal sins , whose guilt is remitted , which they have not made compleat satisfaction for in this World , they must bear the temporal punishments of these sins in Purgatory : and therefore as very good Men , who have neither any venial , nor mortal sins , to satisfie for , go directly to Heaven , when they die ; and bad Men , who are under the guilt of mortal sins , go directly to Hell : so those , who are indifferently good , i. e. who have only venial sins , or the temporal punishment of mortal sins to make satisfaction for ; what is wanting of a compleat satisfaction for these sins , while they lived , must be made up in Purgatory . For we must not think , that this fire of Purgatory is for the purging or reforming sinners , that they may ascend more pure and refined into Heaven ; but only and meerly to bear that Temporal punishment , which is due to sin . For the Cardinal industriously proves , That the Souls in Purgatory can neither merit nor sin ; that they are perfect in Charity , and consequently in all other Graces ; and come no more perfect out of Purgatory , than they went in ; but when they have paid the uttermost Farthing , have undergone all that Temporal punishment , which is due to their sins , then they shall be released , and received into Heaven . But because this is a very uncomfortable Doctrine , That Men must lie many Hundred or Thousand Years in Purgatory , which differs from the torments of Hell only in the continuance of them , ( for Purgatory is as hot as Hell , but one is Temporal , and the other Eternal ) which is a very terrible consideration , that we must be tormented for many Hundred Years , though not for ever ; therefore they tell us , that the Souls in Purgatory may be relieved by the Prayers and Alms of the living , and by the Sacrifice of the Mass ; and principally by Indulgences , which the Pope dispenses and applies to particular Persons , out of the Treasury of the Church , which consists of the Merits of supererogating Saints . This short account I have given of the Doctrine of Purgatory ; not that I intend to spend time to confute it now ; to show how groundless it is ; how injurious to the Goodness of God , and to the Merits of Christ ; how contrary to the Sense of the Primitive Church , and of most , if not all , Christian Churches at this day , excepting the Church of Rome ; but to let our People see , what kind of proofs they must demand for Purgatory ; which alone will be sufficient to secure them from the attacques of their wittiest Adversaries . As to show this particularly . First , to prove a middle state between Death and Judgment , which is neither Heaven nor Hell , does not prove a Popish Purgatory . Who ever is acquainted with the Writings of the Fathers of the first four Ages , must confess , that this was a received Opinion among them ; that no Man , excepting Christ himself , was received into Heaven till the day of Judgment . I shall not multiply Quotations to this purpose , which the Learned know where to find . Irenaeus and Tertullian prove this from the example of Christ , to which we must be conformed . For Christ himself did not ascend into Heaven till after his Resurrection ; but as his Body rested in the Grave , so his Soul went into the place of Souls departed ; and when he arose again , then he ascended into Heaven . And thus we must do also . When we die , our Souls shall live in those places , which God has prepared for separate Souls , and there they must remain till the Resurrection ; and when we have re-assumed our Bodies , we shall be admitted into the highest Heavens , whither Christ is ascended . This they affirm in opposition to those Gnostick Hereticks , who taught , that as soon as they died , they should ascend above the Heavens to him whom they called the Father , which , * Irenaeus says , is to exceed the order of promoting just Men , as being ignorant of the regular gradations and advances to Incorruption . And this he attributes to their denial of the Resurrection of the Flesh ; for it is no wonder , that such Men should not know the order of the Resurrection , who deny the Resurrection . From whence it is plain , that in Irenaeus his Opinion , no Man who believed the Resurrection of the Flesh , could reasonably think , that the Souls of good Men did ascend into Heaven till Soul and Body was united at the Resurrection : since Christ himself did not ascend into Heaven till after his Resurrection : though he grants that some did believe so , who were Orthodox in the Article of the Resurrection , though herein they agreed with Hereticks . That this was the Opinion of Iustin Martyr , Lactantius , Hilary , S. Ambrose , S. Chrysostom , and divers others , is at large proved by the learned Mr. Dally , and vindicated from the exceptions of Cardinal Bellarmine . But how this differs from a Popish Purgatory will appear in these three particulars . First , That they affirmed this of all separate Souls , That none were received into Heaven before the Resurrection . Patriarchs , Prophets , Apostles , whatever they were ; they continue in the state of separate Souls , and have not their full reward , and are not received into the highest Heavens , till the Resurrection of their Bodies . This is the Lex Mortuorum , as Irenaeus calls it , the Law of , the Dead ; the ordo promotionis justorum , the order in which just Men shall be advanced . For as S. Chrysostom affirms , If the Body do not rise , the Soul remains uncrowned , out of that state of blessedness , which is in Heaven . Whereas the Popish Purgatory is not for all Souls , but only for those , who have not made a perfect satisfaction for their sins in this life ; and therefore must indure the temporal punishments due to them in Purgatory . Whereas the Souls of all Children , who die after Baptism , before the commission of any actual sin , and the Souls of good Men , who have completed their satisfaction in this life , according to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome , ascend directly into Heaven : which is expresly denied by these Ancient Fathers ; and was taught by few in those days , but by such Hereticks , as denied the Resurrection of the Body . Secondly , According to these Ancient Fathers , this separate state , wherein the Souls of good Men continue till the Resurrection , is not a state of punishment , as the Popish Purgatory is , but of Joy and Felicity . They were divided indeed about the place , where the Souls of good Men lived till the Resurrection ; some placed it in secret receptacles within the Earth , and therefore called it the Infernum , as Tertullian did ; others thought it was above the Earth in some Celestial Region , but below the highest Heavens ; but they all agreed , that it was not Heaven , and that it was not a state of punishment , but of rest and happiness : and therefore they called it Abraham's 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 of what he says to this purpose , is that noted place , 1 Cor. 3. 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15. For other foundation can no man lay , than that is laid , which is Iesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation , gold , silver , precious stones , wood , hay , stubble ; Every Mans works shall be made manifest : for the day shall declare it , because it shall be revealed by fire ; and the fire shall try every Mans work of what sort it is : if any Mans work abide , which he built thereupon , he shall receive a reward . If any Mans work shall be burnt , he shall suffer loss ; but he himself shall be saved , but so as by fire . Some there were , who from this place concluded ; that those who held the foundation , who believed in Christ , and continued in the unity of the Church , how wicked soever their lives were , should at last be saved by fire : This St. Austin vehemently opposed , though it is very like the Doctrine or Practice of the Church of Rome , which sends all good Catholick sinners , how wicked soever their lives have been , to Purgatory ; especially if they have had time to confess , and receive Absolution . They absolve all that confess , and no Man , who is absolved at the hour of death can go to Hell ; but how wicked soever he is , he shall at last be saved by the fire of Purgatory . In opposition to this , St. Austin expounds wood and hay , and stubble , which some build upon the foundation , not of such sins as the Scripture tells us , will shut us out of the Kingdom of Heaven , such as St. Paul mentions , 1 Cor. 6. 9 , 10. Neither Fornicators , nor Idolaters , nor Adulterers , &c. shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven , but of such a great passion for the present enjoyments of this World , though lawful and innocent in themselves , that we cannot lose them without great trouble and anxiety of mind : for when such Men must suffer the loss of all these things for Christ ; if they hold the foundation , if they prefer Christ before all other things , they will suffer the loss of all things for him ; but then that fondness they have for this World , will make the loss of these things very afflicting ; doler urit , such sorrow burns their Souls , and is a kind of Purgatory fire to them in this World , which those good Men escape , who sit loose from all present things , and therefore are not so much affected with the loss of them ; but those who love this World too passionately , if notwithstanding they can bear the loss of all for Christ , shall be saved , but so as by fire ; shall smart for their loving this World too well in those burning and Purgatory flames , which an inordinate love and grief will kindle in their Souls . This is what St. Austin understands by being saved by fire in this World , that sorrow with which those are burnt , when they lose these things , who loved them too much , while they had them ; but this Purgatory is in this life , and St. Austin questions , whether there may not be something like this , aliquid tale , in the next World : that is , that after death Men who loved this World too well , may be greatly afflicted for the loss of it ; which is all the Purgatory fire before the day of judgment , that St. Austin ever thought of ; and he was the first , that ever thought of this ; and yet this is nothing at all to a Popish Purgatory , as every body will grant . So that though St. Austin was doubtful , whether there may not be some Purgatory punishments after death , for those who were too fond of this life ; that is , whether their leaving this World , and going into such a different state , where they can enjoy nothing , they were fond on here , will not greatly afflict and burn and torment their minds , either a longer or shorter time according to the degree of their love to this World : yet neither St. Austin , nor any of the Fathers thought , that there was any material Purgatory fire ( such as the Popish Purgatory is ) till the end of the World. Secondly , Another difference between that fire which the Fathers mention , and the Popish Purgatory fire , respects the persons , who are to be tried in it . For the Fathers taught , that at the day of judgment all Men , excepting Christ himself , must pass through the fire : not St. Peter , nor St. Paul , nay not the blessed Virgin herself excepted . This is expresly asserted by Lactantius , Hilary , Ambrose , and many others . We must all be tried by Fire , whoever desires to return into Paradise , ideo unusignem illum sentire non potuit , qui est justitia Dei , Christus , quia peccatum non fecit . Christ only , who is the righteousness of God , and never committed any sin , escapes that fire : but they believed , that all Mankind besides must pass through it , that perfect good Men shall pass , unhurt and untouched ; that those who are imperfectly good must be purged by fire , and shall suffer by the flames of it a longer or shorter time , as their purgation requires ; and that bad Men shall sink for ever into those bottomless Lakes of Fire and Brimstone . But the Popish Purgatory is neither for very good , nor very bad Men. Bad Men immediately go to Hell , and perfect Saints ascend directly into Heaven without passing the fire of Purgatory ; which therefore cannot be that fire , the Fathers speak of , which the most perfect Saints must pass thorough into Heaven . Thirdly , Another difference is , That the Popish Purgatory Fire is not for purgation ; but the Fire at the Day of Judgment , according to the ancient Fathers , is . I observed before , that the Popish Purgatory is not to make Men better , for the Souls in Purgatory are perfect in all Graces , and can neither merit nor sin ; All that they have to do in Purgatory is to make satisfaction for that temporal punishment , which is due to their sins : their sins are already pardoned , and their Souls are purged ; they perfectly love God , and are beloved by him ; and yet unless they be relieved by the Prayers , and Alms , and Masses of the living , they may lie several Ages , in Purgatory , bearing the punishment of their sins , when they are both pardoned and cleansed from sin ; which may seem a little odd to those Men , who remember , that Christ has born the punishment of our sins ; and who know no other end of punishments , but either to reform the sinner , or to take vengeance on their sins , which there is no room for , when the sin is pardoned . But now , though the ancient Fathers do deny , that there is any purgation of sin between Death and Judgment ; but that every Soul continues in the same state , wherein Death found it , till the Day of Judgment ; yet they make the Fire at the Day of Judgment to be truly Purgatory ; to purge us from all the remains of Corruption , just as Gold is purged and refined in the Fire : and therefore they tell us , that perfect Souls shall pass through the Fire unhurt ; but if there be any Lead mingled with our Gold , that must be burnt and dissolved before we can pass through this Fire into Heaven : now though this be very unintelligible also , how a material Fire can purge and refine a Soul , yet it shows , how much this differs from the Popish Purgatory , which burns and torments indeed , but does not purge and refine , and therefore is very improperly called a Purgatory Fire . Origen indeed , whom Cardinal Bellarmine , and others quote for this Purgatory Fire , as they do also Plato and Virgil , did believe a Purgatory Fire in a true and proper sense ; for he believed all punishments , whether in this World , or in the next , were only Purgatory ; that is not meerly for punishment , but for the correction and amendment of those , who suffered . And therefore he did also believe , that the very worst of Men , nay the Devils themselves , should at last be purged and cleansed by Fire , and restored to a state of happiness . The summ of his Opinion in short was this , That at the Day of Judgment , Christ will destroy this World with Fire , as he is said , to come in flaming fire , taking vengeance on them , that know not God. And this Fire , which shall burn the World at the last Day , seems to be that Purgatory Fire , of which Origen , and some other Fathers speak . Though I know some thought this Fire to be in the upper Regions , so as to intercept our ascent into Heaven without passing through it . This will try all Men ; for all must pass through this Fire , as the Ancients believed ; and those , who had Hay or Stubble , or any combustible matter about them , who had any remains of corruption to be purged away , must stay in it a longer or shorter time , till they were thoroughly purged from their sins ; this as you have heard , was the general opinion of the Fathers , as well as of Origen , and therefore Origen's Purgatory Fire is not the Popish Purgatory , because that is not kindled till the Day of Judgment . But then Origen thought , that this purgation extended to the worst of Men , and to Devils themselves ; that though they might lie many Ages in this Fire , before they are perfectly purged , yet they should be purged at last , and restored to the favour and enjoyment of God. For which he was generally condemned by the Ancient Christians , and principally by the Fifth general Council . And yet there were other Fathers , who were in some degree tainted with this opinion . For there are plain marks of it in Gregory Nyssen , if his works were not corrupted by the Origenists , as some suspect ; and in S. Hierome himself . For though some would not allow of the final Salvation of Devils , yet they believed this of all Mankind , though never so wicked ; others thought this must be confined to all Christians ; others to all those Christians , who were not guilty of Heresie or Schism , how wicked soever they were otherwise . These opinions are rejected and condemned by the Romanists , as well as by us , and therefore they ought not to alledge such Authorities as these , which are nothing to their purpose . For that there will be such a fire at the day of Judgment , does not prove , that there is one already kindled ; and a Purgatory fire , which cleanses and purges our sins , does not prove , that there is such a Purgatory Fire , as is only to punish those , whose sins are already pardoned and cleansed . Fourthly , There is another considerable difference between this Popish Purgatory , and the fire at the day of Judgment ; that there is no redemption out of this by the Prayers , and Alms , and Masses of the living ; which is the most considerable thing in the Popish Purgatory ; and that for which I fear the Church of Rome does principally value it . For this sets a good price upon Indulgences , gives great Authority to their Priests , inriches their Monasteries , and is the great support of the Roman Hierarchy . But as the Fathers say not one word about this , so the account I have already given of their opinions , is a demonstration , that they could not think of any such thing ; because this fire is not till the day of Judgment , and then I suppose , when we all come to be judged , you will grant it is too late to offer Prayers , and Alms , and Masses , for the Redemption of our selves or others from these Purgatory flames . The Fathers thought , that we must all undergo this purgation by fire , which would be longer or shorter , as we had more or fewer sins to be purged away , and therefore here can be no place , for the suffrages and intercessions of the living . According to the Popish Doctrine , those Souls , who are redeemed out of Purgatory , must be redeemed before the day of Judgment , and those who are not redeemed before , are on course redeemed then , for the Roman Purgatory must end at the day of Judgment ; though the Purgatory fire the Fathers speak of , does but begin then . Thirdly , This gives occasion to another observation : That the ancient practice of Praying for Souls departed , does not prove that there is a Popish Purgatory , or that those ancient Christians did believe that there was . That this was a very ancient practice I readily grant , as all Men must do , who know any thing of these matters , and yet from what I have discoursed it is evident , that they never dreamt of such a Purgatory , as the Church of Rome has now made an Article of Faith of , and therefore they could have no regard to the Redemption of Souls out of Purgatory in their Prayers for the dead , because they did not know of any such place . But to what original then shall we attribute this custom of praying for the Dead ? Truly , that is hard to say ; there is not the least footsteps of it in the Canonical Scripture , neither of the Old nor New Testament , as Tertullian and others acknowledge ; and when it first came into the Church we cannot tell : that tender concern Men have for the memory of their dead Friends , which the Heathens themselves showed in their Oblations and Sacrifices , and funeral Rites for the Dead , seem to have given occasion to it ; and those who were converted from Paganism to Christianity , might still believe , that the Dead challenged some part of our care and regard , which at first was tempered with a due respect to the Laws of Christianity , but soon encreased into greater excesses , as it is the Nature of all Superstitions to do . Prayers for the Dead seem at first to be used only at their Funerals , in time grew Anniversary , and were celebrated by their own Friends and Relations , not with Propitiatory Sacrifices , but with some offerings for the relief of the Poor ; and thus by degrees it crept into the service of the Church ; and at the Celebration of the Eucharist , the Bishop or Priest made mention of the names of Martyrs and Confessors , and Bishops , and those who had deserved well of the Church , and particular Christians in their private Devotions , remembred their own Relations and Friends ; and thus it became a Custom , without inquiring into the reasons of it ; till from this very custom , people began to conclude , that such Prayers , and Commemorations were very profitable to the Dead ; and that those , who had not lived so well as they should do , might obtain the pardon of their sins by the Prayers , and Intercessions of the living : Which I confess was a very natural thought , and shows us the easie progress of Superstition ; that customs taken up without any good reason , will find some reason , though a very bad one , when they grow popular . Upon this Aërius condemns the practice , and is reckoned among Hereticks for it : Though he only desired to know , for what reason the names of dead Men are recited in the Celebration of the Eucharist , and prayers made for them ; whether by this means , those , who died in sin might obtain the pardon of their sins ; which he thought , if it were true , would make it unnecessary for Men to live vertuously , if they had good pious Friends , who would pray for them , when they are dead : Epiphanius undertakes to confute Aërius ; and we may easily perceive by him , that they were not so well agreed about the reason of it , as they were in the practice : Had he understood the Popish Doctrine of Purgatory , how easie had it been to answer it ; that the reason of it was , that those , who had died in a state of Pardon , but had not made compleat satisfaction for the Temporal punishment due to their sins , were to undergo this punishment in Purgatory ; and that they might be relieved and delivered from Purgatory by the Prayers and Alms of their living Friends . This answer no doubt Epiphanius would have given had he known it , but he says not one word of this matter , which is a strong presumption , that he knew nothing of it ; and gives such other answers , as are no answer to Aërius . Aërius demanded , what benefit the dead received by the prayers of the living , whether they would obtain for them the pardon of their sins or not ; to this Epiphanius says not one word , but gives such reasons for it , as respect the living not the dead . As that it signifies our belief , that those who are dead to this World , do still live in another State , are alive to God : That it signifies our good hopes of the happy state of those , who are gone hence , and to make a distinction between Christ , and all other good Men : For we pray for all but him , who interceeds for us all . Very worthy reasons of praying for the dead ! but however , what is all this to a Popish Purgatory ? The two first reasons do utterly overthrow it , which signifie , what good hopes we have of the happy and blessed state of our deceased Friends , not that they are tormented in Purgatory , but that they rest in the Lord : And so does the third , which declares , that they prayed for all but Christ himself . For Patriarchs , Prophets , Apostles , Martyrs , and the blessed Virgin her self ; for so the Church did , till praying for these Saints and Martyrs , was turned into Prayers and Supplications to them ; and yet I suppose , no Man will say , that they prayed for these Glorious Saints , to pray them out of Purgatory ; when the Church of Rome her self will grant , that they were never in it . There were some opinions in the ancient Church , which if they were not the first original of this custom of praying for the Dead , yet were made use of by the Fathers to explain the meaning and use of it . Thus as I have showed you , the Fathers believed , that the souls of good Men after Death did not immediately ascend into Heaven , but were detained till the Resurection of their Bodies , in a place of Rest and Happiness , which they called Abrahams Bosom , or Paradise : Now their Happiness not being complete , they thought it very fit to recommend them unto God in their Prayers , and beg God to remember them , which supposes , that they were not in the immediate presence of God ; for it would be absurd to beg God to remember them , who constantly attend his Throne and Presence : And therefore they pray not for souls , who are tormented in Purgatory , but qui dormiunt in somno pacis , who sleep in peace , qui requieverunt in fide , who dying in the true Faith , are gone to Rest ; qui dormierunt & quieverunt in fide , who , sleep and rest in the Faith , as we find in the ancient Liturgies : And yet they pray , that God would give them rest , by the water of rest in the bosom of Abraham with Isaac and Iacob , that he would nourish them in a pleasant place by the waters of rest : that is , That he would continue and increase this intermediate state of Rest and Happiness to them . For they did not think it improper to pray for what they knew , the souls departed already enjoyed ; no more than we do in this State , to pray for such blessings , as we already have . Another opinion among them , was concerning the Millennium or thousand Years Reign with Christ on Earth , which was to be before their admission into Heaven , in the new Ierusalem , which comes down from Heaven . Now during these thousand Years they thought , that all just Men should rise again , but some sooner , and others later according to their different merits . Some at the beginning of the thousand Years , others two or three hundred Years after , others nearer the conclusion of them , according to their different merits and deserts ; as Tertullian particularly explains it . And as the Learned Mr. Dally observes , several passages in their Prayers do plainly refer to this : As when Tertullian directs a Widow to pray for her Husband , primae Resurrectionis consortium , a part in the first Resurrection . And S. Ambrose prays for Gratian and Valentinian , Te quaeso , summe Deus , ut carissimos suvenes matura Resurrectione suscites , & resuscites : That God would raise those beloved young Men with an early Resurrection . The like may be seen in the Gothick Missal , and elsewhere ; and this I think has nothing to do with the Popish Purgatory . Another opinion they had regard to in their prayers for the dead was the fire of the day of Judgment , which they believed all Men must pass thorough , before they could enter into Heaven , and continue a longer or shorter time in it , as they had more or fewer sins to purge away : And therefore this last and terrible Judgment being yet to come , they prayed , that God would forgive their sins ; and be merciful to them , and deliver them in the day of Judgment , of which there are some remains still in the Roman Offices for the Dead . Thus according to Mens different opinions , they had different intentions in their prayers for the dead , which is a sign , as I observed before , that though they were agreed in the practice , the original reasons of this practice were not known , but Men guessed at them , as they could , and altered their reasons , as they changed their opinions . Hence it is , that S. Austin and S. Chrysostom , though they never dreamt of a Popish Purgatotory , yet speak 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 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 ; for the office of a Mediator , considered as a Mediator , consists wholly in Intercession ; whence his authority and interest to intercede arises , is of another consideration : and therefore S. Iohn distinguishes between Christ's being an Advocate for us , and a Propitiation for our sins , 1 John 2. 1 , 2. if any man sin , we have an Advocate with the Father Iesus Christ the righteous . And he is the Propitiation for our sins . Christ is our only Redeemer , who has bought us with his own Blood ; but to be our Redeemer , and to be our Mediator and Advocate are two things : by the Constitution and Appointment of God both these are united in one person ; that he who is our only Redemer , is our only Advocate also ; but yet to redeem with his Blood , and to intercede with his Father for us , differ as the death of the Sacrifice doth from the intercession of the Priest. To Redeem and make Atonement for our sins by shedding his Blood upon the Cross , is not his Intercession for us ; and to intercede for us in Heaven is not to redeem us by shedding his Blood , though he intercedes in vertue of his Blood. So that though Christ be our Redeemer , yet considered as our Mediator , and Advocate , his mediation consists wholly in his Intercession for us : And therefore to say , that there is one Mediator , and one Intercessor is the very same thing . Suppose then the Apostle had said , there is one God , and one Intercessor between God and Men , the man Christ Iesus ; would this have proved , that there are no Mediators of Intercession but only Christ ? Or would they still say , that there is an Intercessor of Redemption , and Intercessors of Intercession , and yet that there is but one Intercessor ? But besides this , this very distinction between a Mediator of Redemption , and a Mediator of pure Intercession , that is , such a Mediator as mediates in vertue of his Blood and Sacrifice , and a Mediator , who intercedes only by prayers , and personal interest and Merits , is contrary to the Analogy both of the Old and New Testament . For as there is no Remission or Expiation , so there is no mediation without Blood. For to mediate and intercede is not merely to pray for another , but it signifies a Ministerial authority to apply the vertues and merits of a Sacrifice . Thus it was under the Law of Moses : The High Priest was the Mediator , or as the Apostle speaks , every High Priest taken from among men , is ordained for men in things pertaining to God , that he may offer both gifts and Sacrifices for sins . Heb. 5 , 1. Thus he mediates by offering Gifts and Sacrifices , by making Atonement and Expiation of sin . And no Man has authority to do this , but by God's Appointment . No man taketh this honour to himself , but he that is called of God , as was Aaron , v. 4. Since there is no remission of sins without shedding Blood , without the Atonement and Expiation of Sacrifice ; there can be no mediation but in vertue of the Sacrifice ; and therefore there can be no Mediator , but he who offers the Sacrifice , which confines mediation to the Sacerdotal Office. And therefore if we have but one High Priest , there can be but one Mediator also between God and Man. But that we may rightly apprehend this matter , and be able to distinguish betwen the prayers of good Men for themselves and for each other , and the intercessions of a Mediator ; we must distinctly consider the vertue of the Sacrifice , the prayers of the people , and the Intercession of the Priest , all which must concur to an effectual Prayer , to obtain our requests , and desires of God. Thus it was in the Mosaical Law. The Sacrifice was slain instead of the sinner , and to bear the punishment of sin , and without shedding of blood there was no remission . Prayers could not expiate sin without a Sacrifice ; and therefore even in the time of the Patriarchs an Altar , which is for Sacrifice , was the place of their Devotions . Thus Noah , as soon as he came out of the Ark built an Altar , and offered Sacrifice to God. Thus we frequently read , how Abraham in his Travels whereever he made any stay , built an Altar unto the Lord , and called upon the name of the Lord ; that is , he offered Sacrifices and Prayers to God. The like we read of Isaac and Iacob : So that an Altar was the place of their solemn Devotions ; that is , they offered up their prayers to God in vertue of a Sacrifice . For sinners must not go directly to God without the Atonement and Expiation of a Sacrifice . Hence under the Law , while the Priest offered the Sacrifice , the people offered up their prayers to God to ascend together with the Sacrifice ; and therefore those , who lived in places remote from Ierusalem , which was the only place of Sacrifices ; or those who could not attend the daily Sacrifices in the Temple , yet were to observe the time of offering their Sacrifices , for the time of their Prayers : Whence it is that the time of offering the Sacrifice is called also , the hour of Prayer . Thus the people were to offer a Sacrifice for sin , and to offer up their prayers in vertue of the Sacrifice ; but then neither their prayers nor their Sacrifice were acceptable to God , unless they were offered by the Priest : who sprinkled the blood of the Sacrifice upon the Altar to make Atonement ; and offered Incense as an emblem of their prayers : To which the Psalmist alludes . Let my prayer be set before thee as Incense ; and the lifting up of my hands , as the evening Sacrifice . And therefore the Evangelist observes , that the whole multitude of the people were praying without at the time of Incense : that their prayers might ascend as Incense . Thus we expresly read in the Book of the Revelations , of An Angel , who stood at the Altar , having a golden Censer , and there was given unto him much incense , that he should offer it with the prayers of all Saints upon the golden Altar , which was before the Throne ; and the smoke of the Incense , which came with the prayers of the Saints , ascended before God out of the Angels hand . Which expresly applys these legal Types to the state of the Gospel , that great Sacrifice and great High Priest , who presents our prayers to God. The death of Christ upon the Cross was the Sacrifice for all our sins ; in vertue of this Sacrifice we pray to God ; but Christ our great High Priest , is now ascended into Heaven to present himself before his Father , to offer his own blood , and in vertue of that , to offer our prayers to him . This is the work of a Mediator and High Priest , not so much to pray for us , as to offer up our prayers to God , in the vertue and efficacy of his own Sacrifice , and with the authority of a heavenly Mediator and High Priest. Now this plainly shows the difference between the prayers of good Men for themselves and one another , and the Intercession of a Mediator . Good men are humble supplicants , 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 the Church of Rome truly represented , the Answer to Monsieur de Meaux , or to Papists Protesting against Protestant Popery , nor the Vindication of the Catechism truly representing the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome in answer to the first and second Sheets , of the second Part , of the Papist Misrepresented and Represented . Is our Author then one of those , who are employed some times to do a little job at Writing , but are not permitted to read any of our Books , but what and when their Superiors please ? This gives an account of that Mystery how they can so confidently urge such things , as all the World now laughs at , for poor Men , they know no better ; and what some so uncharitably call impudence , is only ignorance . He proceeds . Their Test and Homily call the honour we pay to sacred persons and things , Idolatry . We must either then challenge Protestants , to prove this proposition , or conclude them calumniators . We know , what we profess and practise to be as the Catholick Church teaches , we hear our Doctrine and Practice confidently said , and solemnly subscribed to be Idolatry . Sure then we may conclude , that Protestants believe the proposition , and decent it is , that they give a reason of a Faith so injurious to the Catholick Church , or henceforward renounce it . This still makes good my conjecture , that he has only heard in general of such a charge as this , but never read the Arguments , whereby some Protestants make good this charge , at least as they apprehend : for me-thinks had he known these proofs , he should first have answered them before he had called for more ; but I assure him , it will be an easier task to conclude them Calumniators , than to undertake to answer them , and therefore if he be wise let him stick to that ; if they believe and practise , as the Church of Rome teaches , ( which in defiance of common sence , he will call the Catholick Church ) I am sure they give another kind of honour to the Cross , and Reliques and Images , than to the Bible ; but if he thinks , that the Catholick Church always taught what the Church of Rome now teaches , I would desire him to read a late Discourse intituled ; The Antiquity of the Protestant Religion concerning Images , which will better inform him . But since he calls so importunately for proofs , it may be thought very uncivil to deny him ; and therefore I shall briefly represent to him the reasons , why some Protestants have charged the Church of Rome with Idolatry in worshipping the Cross , and Images , and shall be very glad for the sake of the Church of Rome to see them well answered . They lay their charge in the second Commandment , which forbids the worship of Images , and all representative objects , and say that the words are so large as to comprehend all manner of Images , which are set up for worship , that the Law expresly forbids , without any distinction of the end and intention of doing it , all external acts of adoration , as bowing down to them or before them : that it does not meerly forbid the worship of Images as Gods ; for the Heathens themselves were never so senseless as to believe that their Images of Wood or Stone , or Silver or Gold , were Gods , but only visible representations of their invisible Deities . That it does not only forbid the worship of the Images of Heathen Gods , but of the Lord Iehovah ; for the reason whereby Moses enforces this commandment is , that they saw no similitude on the day , that the Lord spake to them in Horeb out of the midst of the fire , Deut. 4. 15. and therefore they must take good heed unto themselves , lest they corrupt themselves with Images : that they saw no Image of God is a good argument against their making and worshipping the Image of the true God , but it is no direct argument against the Images of Heathen Gods ; and therefore this must be a prohibition of worshipping the true God by Images . Another Scripture argument against Image-worship is from the infinite perfections and excellency of the Divine Nature , that no Image can be made of God , but what must be a reproach and debasement of his Majesty . To whom then will ye liken God , or what likeness will ye compare to him , &c. Isaiah 40. 18 , &c. and this surely is an argument against making and worshipping any Image of the true God. They consider farther that Aaron's Calf was not an Image of a false God , but a Symbolical representation of the Lord Iehovah ; For they expresly call it , the God , which brought them out of the Land of AEgypt , and when Aaron himself appointed a Feast for the Worship of this Molten God , He said , to●morrow is a Feast to the Lord , or to Iehovah , Exod. 32. 4 , 5. and therefore these Israelites are charged , with changing their glory , ( i. e. the Lord Iehovah , who was the Glory of Israel ) into the similitude of an oxe , which eateth grass , Psalm . 106. 20. But how can this be true , if they did not intend this Calf as a Representation of the Lord Iehovah . And it is evident , that they made this Calf only as a Divine presence to go before them in the absence of Moses ; For while Moses delayed to come down out of the mount , the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron , and said unto him , Up , make us gods , which shall go before us : for as for this Moses , the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt , we know not what is become of him , Verse 1. So that they did not think of changing their God , but only wanted a Visible and Symbolical presence of God with them , instead of Moses ; who , when he was with them , was a kind of Divine presence ; God conversing familiarly with him , and by him giving them directions and orders what to do : and yet the worship of this Calf , which was not worshipped as a God , or the Image of a false God , but as a Symbolical Representation of the Lord Iehovah , was Idolatry . The like may be said of the Calves at Dan and Bethel , which Ieroboam set up in imitation of the golden Calf , and for Symbolical representations of the God of Israel . For so he himself tells them , Behold thy Gods , O Israel , which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt ; that is , the Lord Iehovah , whom Ieroboam did still own and Worship . For he had no intention to change their God , but only to prevent their going up to Ierusalem three times in the Year to Worship there , according to the Law ; which he feared might prove the destruction of his new Kingdom . And therefore God himself makes a great difference between the sin of Ieroboam and the sin of Ahab , who introduced the worship of Baal , a false God. And therefore though Iehu still preserved the golden Calves , which Ieroboam set up , yet he calls his Zeal in destroying Baal , his Zeal for the Lord Iehovah . Which is another Scripture-example of Idolatry in worshipping the Image or Representation of the True God. Another instance is the Brazen Serpent , which Moses set up in the Wilderness , which was neither a God , nor the Image of any God , neither of the Lord Iehovah , nor of any Heathen God ; and was not at first set up to be worshipped , but only to be looked on by those , who were stung with fiery Serpents ; and was preserved as a kind of holy Relique , as a lasting memorial of that deliverance God wrought for them by it . But when the Children of Israel burnt Incense to it , though they could intend to Worship no other God in it , but the Lord Iehovah , who gave it that miraculous Power , and could Worship it only as a memorative Sign of God's mighty Power , yet Hezekiah destroyed it , with the other Instruments of Idolatry , 2 Kings 18. 4. And yet I think I could make a much better Apologie for the Worship of the Brazen Serpent , than of the Cross. For that was a Type of Christ crucified , a Type of God's own appointment , a miraculous and wonder-working Type , which I should think should as much deserve to be worshipped , as the Picture or Image of the Tree whereon our Saviour died . For if a memorative Sign of Christ deserve such Divine Honours , let them give me a reason , if they can , why the Type of a cruoified Saviour ought not as much to be worshipped by the Iews in those days , as the Figure of Christ's Cross now . Thus the Protestants argue against the worship of Images from the Second Commandment , and from the Reasons and Authorities of the Old Testament , and as for the New Testament , they can find no alteration made in this Law there : we are commanded indeed to keep our selves from Idols , but the Gospel has given us no new notion of Idolatry , and therefore they reasonably conclude , that what was Idolatry under the Old Testament , is so under the New. And indeed they look upon the Second Commandment as a natural or moral Law , and such Laws Christ neither did , nor could alter , no more than he could alter the Eternal Reasons of things . For the Prohibition of Image-worship is founded in the Invisibility , Purity , Spirituality , and immense Glory and Perfections of the Divine Nature , which cannot be represented by matter ; and these Reasons are as unchangeable as God is , and the Law must be as unchangeable as the Reasons of it . And therefore we find these very Reasons urged by St. Paul in the times of the Gospel ; Forasmuch as we are the Offspring of God , we ought not to think , that the Godhead is like unto Gold , or Silver , or Stone graven by Art , or man's device , Acts 17. 29. Not as if the Heathens fancied , that their Gods were like the Images they worshipped ; for this is not only denied by their Philosophers , but the very Nature of the thing shows it ; for they worshipped such kind of Images , as it was impossible for them to conceive should be the likeness of any God ; not only the Images of Men , but unpolished Stones , and Trees , Birds , and Beasts , and creeping things ; which they did not take to be Gods , nor the proper likenesses of their Gods , but symbolical Representations of them ; but the Apostles Argument is this , That it is a ridiculous thing to make any Image of God , when we cannot make any thing like him , as foolish a thing as it would be to paint a Sound ; and that it is an affront to so glorious a Being , to represent him by that which is so very unlike him , and so infinitely unworthy of his Majesty and Greatness . And though this Argument from the Invisibility and Spirituality of the Divine Nature does not conclude against making the Images of Christ and his Apostles , who had the shape and figure of men , which might be painted or carved , no more than it did against many Images of Heathen Gods ; most of whom were no better than dead Men and Women , yet it holds against the worship of any Image ; for God alone , who is a pure and infinite Spirit , is the sole Object of our religious Worship ; and to worship God by an Image , is to reproach his Nature , and to debase him as low as matter ; and to worship that which can be painted , is to worship a false Object ; for Christ as God , and so only he is the Object of our Worship , cannot be painted ; and to worship any material Image , though it be not made for the Supreme God , is yet a Reproach to the Divine Nature , as it signifies that something which is divine , and a fit Object of our Adorations , may be represented by material Images and Pictures . But the Protestants consider farther , that if the Worship of Images was forbid by the Law of Moses , it must needs be much more contrary to the Gospel of our Saviour , which has less to do with Matter and Sense , than the Law had . Our Saviour tells us , That God is a Spirit , and those who worship him , must worship him in Spirit and in Truth , in opposition to the external , and typical , and figurative Worship of the Law ; and if this typical Worship which was allowed when the Worship of Images was forbid , be now abrogated as less pure and spiritual , they think it very strange , that the Worship of Images , which is the most gross and material , and unmanly Worship that can be invented , shall be allowed under the spiritual state of the Gospel . And there is one Argument to this purpose , which I would desire our Author seriously to consider , viz. That there is no material Temple in the Christian Church , much less Statues and Images ; for the understanding of which , we must consider what notions the Heathens had of their Temples , what notion the Iews had of it , and that there is no such Temple in the Christian Church . As for the Heathens , their Temples were the Houses of their Gods , where they dwelt , and were confined , and shut up by some Magical Spells and Charms , as the Images of their Gods were fastned there , that they might be always present to attend the Sacrifices and Worship of their Votaries : For they did not believe that their Gods were omnipresent , and therefore they confined their presence to Temples and Images , that they might know where to find them . Their Temples were the places where they kept the Statues and Images of their Gods , to whom such Temples were dedicated , and where they believed such Gods dwelt : according to that of Menander ; — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . That a just and righteous God must tarry at home to defend those who placed him there . This Origen gives an account of in his third and seventh Book against Celsus , and the thing is so known , that I need not prove it , a Temple and an Image in the Heathen Theology were inseparably united ; an Image to represent their God , a Temple as a House for him to dwell in , and where they might be sure to find him . Under the Jewish Law God so far condescended to the weakness of that People , as to a have visible Presence among them ; first in the Tabernacle , and then in the Temple at Ierusalem ; but though he had his Temple , yet he had no Image , which the Heathen World thought essential to a Temple . For though a symbolical Presence was no confinement of God , nor injurious to his Majesty , yet a material Image was : And yet Solomon in his Prayer of Dedication , took care to prevent the Heathen notion of a Temple , as if Cod were confined to it ; for he owns his Omnipresence , that he fills both Heaven and Earth ; only he prays , that he would have a more particular regard to that place , and to those Prayers which should be offered up there ; 1 Kings 8. 27 , 28 , &c. But will God indeed dwell on the earth ? Behold the Heaven , and Heaven of Heavens cannot contain thee , how much less this house that I have builded ? Yet have thou respect unto the Prayer of thy Servant , and to his Supplication , O Lord , my God , to hearken unto the cry , and to the Prayer which thy Servant prayeth before thee this day : That thine eyes may be open to this House night and day , &c. And therefore we may observe , that the Temple was so contrived as to be a figure of the whole world . For the Holy of Holies was a figure of Heaven into which the High Priest entered once a year , Heb. 9. 24. and therefore the rest of the Temple signified this earth , and the daily worship , and Service of it ; which plainly signified to them , that that God who dwelt in the Temple , was not confined to that material Building , but filled Heaven and Earth with his Presence , though he was pleased to have a more peculiar regard to that place , and to the Prayers and Sacrifices which were offered there . And yet it seems that God would not so far have indulged them at that time , as to confine his Worship and peculiar Presence to a certain place , had it not been for the sake of some more Divine Mystery . For Gods Symbolical and Figurative Presence in the Tabernacle and Temple was only a Type of the Incarnation of the Son of God , of his dwelling among us in a humane Body or material Temple , as St. Iohn plainly intimates 1 Iohn 14. The word was made flesh , and dwelt among us , and we beheld his Glory , the Glory as of the only begotten of the Father , full of Grace and Truth ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , he Tabernacled among us ; dwelt among us as God under the Law did in the Tabernacle or Temple ; and Christ expresly calls his Body the Temple 2. Iohn 19. Destroy this Temple , and in three days I will raise it up , which the Evangelist tells us , he spake of the Temple of his Body , 21. v. and he affirms himself to be greater than the Temple 12. Matth. 6. he being that in Truth of which the Temple was a Figure ; God dwelling among us , God dwelling in human Nature . For this Reason the Worship of God was confined to the Temple at Ierusalem , to signifie to us that we can offer up no acceptable Worship to God , but in the Name and Mediation of Christ. But now under the Gospel all these Types and Figures being accomplished in the Person of our Saviour ; as their Priesthood and Sacrifices , so their Temple also had an end ; as Christ expresly tells the Woman of Samaria , who disputed with him about the place of Worship , whether it were the Temple at Ierusalem or Samaria ; Woman believe me , the hour cometh when ye shall neither in this Mountain , nor yet at Jerusalem Worship the Father , John 4. 21. which cannot signifie that they should Worship God neither at Ierusalem nor Samaria , for there were famous Churches planted by the Apostles at both these places , where they Worshipped God in Spirit and in Truth ; but it signifies that there should be no material Temple , that the Presence of God should not be confined to a certain place , as then it was to the Temple ; which occasioned that Dispute between the Iews and Samaritanes , in which Temple God was perculiarly present ; but wheresoever they Worshipped God in Spirit and in Truth , the place should make no difference in their Acceptation , as it did under the Law ; which is not opposed to the erecting of decent and separate places of Worship under the Gospel , but only to the Notion of a Temple . That this was the sense of the Primitive Christians , that they had no material Temples , as the Heathens had , is evident from their Writings ; for the Heathens made this objection against them , that they had no Temples nor Images ; which is owned and answered by Origen against Celsus lib. 8. Minutius Faelix , Arnobius , Lactantius : The force then of the Argument is this , If under the Gospel God does not allow of so much as a Temple or Symbolical Presence , which he did allow of under the Law , when he forbad Images , much less certainly does he allow Images now , which he forbad under the Law. But Protestants have another Argument to prove , that the Worship of Images is forbid by the Gospel as well as by the Law ; and that is , that the Primitive Church always understood it so , as is evident from the Writings of the Ancient Fathers , who condemned the Worship of Images , and urged such Arguments against it in their Disputes with the Heathens , as had easily been retorted upon themselves had they practised the same thing ; and yet this was never objected against them by their wittiest Adversaries in that Age , though when Image Worship began to be introduced into the Church , it was presently objected against the Christians both by Jews and Heathens ; and which is more than this , besides all the other Arguments which they used , they alleadged the Second Commandment as the Reason , why they could not Worship Images , which is a certain Proof , that they then thought the Second Commandment was still in force . But I shall not enlarge upon this , because it is so well done in a late Discourse concerning the Antiquity of the Protestant Religion , Part 2. concerning Images to which I refer my Reader . 13. The Pope is Antichrist . I answered , This has been affirmed by some Protestants , but is no Article of our Church , and therefore we are not bound to prove it , but when we have a mind to it . No Man ever pretended that there is any such Proposition in Scripture , as that the Pope is Antichrist , but some think , that the Characters of Antichrist and the Man of Sin , are much more applicable to him than the Universal Headship and Infalibility . To this our Author answers ( p. 8. ) Do only some Protestants , and no Homily ( subscribed as containing a Godly and wholsom Doctrine , necessary for these times , Article the Fifty fifth ) though the Church of England owns but Thirty nine Articles ; affirm the Pope to be Antichrist ? Yet we meet with no Scripture brought to prove this Godly necessary Doctrine . Now though I could tell him , that every saying in an Homily has not the Authority of an Article , yet I need not enter into that Dispute ; for I am pretty confident it is no where expresly asserted in any of our Homilies , that the Pope is Antichrist . The most that looks that way , is in the Second Part of the Homily for Whitsunday ; where from their opposition to some Gospel Doctrine , and preferring their own Decrees before the express Word of God , it is proved , that , they are not of Christ , nor yet possessed with his Spirit . From their Pride and Arrogance in challenging an Universal Headship , and advancing themselves above Soveraign Princes , or in the Scripture Phrase , above all that is called God , and treating Emperors and Kings with the greatest insolence and scorn : Our Church concludes , that they had not the Spirit of God , but the Spirit of the Devil ; that wheresoever ye find the Spirit of Arrogancy and Pride , the Spirit of Envy , Hatred , Contention , Cruelty , Murder , Extortion , Witchcraft , Necromancy , &c. assure your selves , that there is the Spirit of the Devil and not of God ; albeit they pretend outwardly to the World never so much Holiness , that such wicked Popes as these are worthily accounted among the number of false Prophets and false Christs ; so that at most the Homily does but reckon these Popes in the number of false Christs , but does not make the Pope the Antichrist . It concludes with a Prayer , That God by the comfortable Gospel of his Son would beat down Sin , Death , the Pope , the Devil , and all the Kingdom of Antichrist ; where I confess the Pope is put in very ill Company , and a fair intimation given that he may have some relation to the Kingdom of Antichrist , but yet he is not expresly called Antichrist . And therefore as for his demand of Scripture Proof , let him seek for it in those Writers who expresly affirm the Pope to be Antichrist ; where it may be he will find more than he will like , or can easily answer . I told him before that the Scripture does not expresly name who is Antichrist , or the Man of Sin , but gives such Characters of him , as some think the Pope of Rome has the best claim to : It is enough for us to know , that he usurps such an Authority as Christ never gave him , preaches such Doctrines as Christ never taught , encourages such Actions as are contrary to the true Spirit of the Gospel ; and that is reason enough for us to reject him . 14. Every Prayer used in Divine Offices , must be in a Language vulgar and intelligible to every Auditor . For the Proof of this I alleadged St. Paul's Discourse , 1. Cor. 14. and must now consider what he tell us is the Apostles mind in it , viz. that whoever had the gift of a Tongue strange to all the Auditory , should forbear to dictate therein Extempore Sermons , Prayers , &c. containing matter , as well as the Tongue inspired into the Speaker : I say this gift ( of no use , but used for ostentation in such a case ) was to be reserved till either the Speaker or some Auditor could and did interpret , that the rest might edifie . Now will it follow from hence , that all the settled Forms of Divine Offices ( to many of which there is no necessity , that all specially joyn and intend ) be in the vulgar , or intelligible to every Auditor ? It is enough ( to comply with the Apostles Doctrine ) that all new Extempore Prayers , and Instructive or Exhortatory Discourse ( by Actions , Ceremonies , or Circumstances , or other way not interpretable ) be , as they are , in the Vulgar . But for the fixt Forms of Divine Offices , that they be in a Language the most certain and the most intelligible , not only in Christendom , but in every Auditory . Intelligible I say , where needful , to every one by either Actions , Ceremonies , and Circumstances , or by Custom , Affinity with the Vulgar , or Books intepreting and containing Prayers correspondent to every part , wherein the Auditory is concerned . I have Transcribed the whole , because it is as choice a Paragraph as we shall ordinarily meet with . The only difficulty I see in it , is to know at which end to begin to answer , for if I understand him , the beginning and conclusion of this Paragraph do not well agree . In the beginning he would confine the Apostles Discourse against Prayers in an unknown Tongue , to inspired and extempore Prayers and Sermons , but that notwithstanding this , the setled Forms of Divine Offices may be in an unknown Tongue ; in the conclusion he would fain insinuate , that though the Publick Offices of the Church of Rome be in Latin , which is not the Vulgar Tongue now in any Nation , yet they are in a Language the most certain and the most intelligible , not only in Christendom but in every Auditory . It seems he had some little Qualm came over his Conscience , some secret Convictions that Men ought to understand their Prayers ; and therefore he roundly asserts , that Latin is the most intelligible Language , that is , the most known and best understood of any Language in Christendom , and to every Auditory . Now if this be so , what need all this Dispute about Service in an unknown Tongue ? what need of distinguishing between extempore Prayers , and setled Forms of Divine Offices ? we are all it seems agreed , that Publick Prayers ought to be in an intelligible Language , and that which is intelligible to every Auditor ; the only difference is whether Latin be as well understood in all the Auditories in England , as English is . Well , but this is a very great Riddle , and requires some skill to make it out ; for our English Auditories believe themselves that they do not understand Latin , but they may be mistaken for ought any body knows ; let us than see how our Author makes it out , Intelligible , I say , where needful , to every one by either Actions , Ceremonies , and Circumstances , or by Custom , Affinity with the Vulgar , or Books interpreting , and containing Prayers correspondent to every part , wherein the Auditory is concerned ; that is , as we use to say , you must know their meaning by their gaping ; and thus forsooth , Latin is a very intelligible Language to those who do not understand one word of it . What shuffling and trifling is this ! do the People understand Latin Prayers , or do they not ? if they don't , then the Service is performed in an unknown Tongue to them , which St. Paul expresly condemns ; and whatever they understand about the Business , yet they do not understand their Prayers ; which is the Dispute between us : If these dumb Signs can teach People their Prayers , then it is lawful for them , it seems , to know their Prayers , and then why may they not pray in a Language which they understand ? for Words are more expressive of Thoughts , than Actions , and Ceremonies , and Circumstances can be , which can only tell in general what we are about , not what we say ; and as for Books to interpret our Prayers , what need we go so far about ? Why may we not pray in the Vulgar Tongue as well as interpret Prayers in a Vulgar Tongue ? And what shall those do who have no Books and cannot read ? This is direct Boys play , to make an offer of giving something , but to pull back your hand if any one offers to take it . Let us then consider , how he can adjust this Matter with St. Paul ; and the sum of what he says is this , that St. Paul only forbids Inspired and Extempore Prayers in an unknown Tongue , where there is no body to interpret , but the setled Forms of Divine Offices may be in an unknown Tongue for all that . This is certainly as little as can be said , and as little to the purpose ; for whoever considers the place , will find that all the Apostles Arguments are against an unknown Tongue , for this very Reason , because it is unknown and not understood ; and then if we must not use an unknown Tongue in Religious Worship , we must not use an unknown Tongue in our setled and ordinary Devotions . There are three Arguments the Apostle uses , which I think , will reach our ordinary Devotions , as well as inspired Gifts . 1. That it is contrary to the Edification of the Church . 2. That it contradicts the natural use of speaking . 3. That it is contrary to the nature and end of Prayer . 1. It is contrary to the Edification of the Church . Now , Brethren , if I come unto you , speaking with Tongues , what shall I profit you , except I shall speak to you either by Revelation , or by Knowledge , or by Prophecying , or by Doctrine ? That is , unless I speak something to you , which you can understand , and which may inform your Judgment ; as he adds , In the Church I had rather speak five words with my Understanding , that by my voice I might teach others also , than ten thousand words in an unknown Tongue . Now if these extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit were to be valued and used only for the Edification of the Church , and to speak to the Instruction of others , is to be preferred before speaking in an unknown Tongue by Inspiration ; then certainly the ordinary Service and Worship of God , which is instituted on purpose for the Edification of the Church , must be in a known Tongue , when the extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit themselves must give place to Edification . For if the Apostle would have made any exception , methinks he should have excepted these extraordinary Gifts : For one would think , whenever the holy Spirit inspires men , they ought to speak whatever Language it be in : for it seems strange , that any man should forbid these to speak , whom the Spirit inspires ; and yet we see the Exercise of these Gifts were restrained to make them serviceable to the Church , and not to be for meer Pomp and Ostentation . But for men , who have no pretence to any such Inspiration , to affect to speak in an unknown Tongue that they may not be understood , is to deprive the Church of the Edification of Religious Offices , without any pretence for doing so . 2. To speak in an unknown Tongue , contradicts the natural end and use of Speech . For even things without life giving sounds , whether Pipe or Harp , except they give a distinction in the sounds , how shall it be known what is piped or harped ? For if the Trumpet give an uncertain sound , who shall prepare himself to the Battel ? So likewise you , except ye utter by the Tongue words easie to be understood , how shall it be known what is spoken , for ye shall speak into the Air ? There are , it may be , so many kinds of Voices in the World , and none of them without signification : therefore if I know not the meaning of the Voice , I shall be unto him that speaketh a Barbarian , and he that speaketh shall be a Barbarian unto me . Is this Argument only against inspired Tongues , or against the use of all unknown Tongues , among Persons who do not understand them ? For this relates to the use of Speech in common Conversation , as well as in the Offices of Religion ; and if Speech was given us to communicate our Thoughts to each other ; if it be so vain , and absurd , and useless a thing to talk to men in a Tongue which they do not understand , it is much more absurd in Religion , which does more straitly oblige us to mutual Edification . For the use of words even in Prayer , is not for the sake of God , but men . God knows our thoughts , and therefore a mental Prayer is as acceptable to him without vocal words ; but the use of words is either to affect our selves , and then they must be such words as we our selves understand ; or to direct others in the matter and form of their Prayers , and then they must be such words as they understand ; or to unite the Affections and Desires of the whole Congregation at the same time in the same Petitions , which is essential to publick Worship ; and then they must be such words as we all understand ; but to speak words which no body understands , is to speak to no purpose , which is absurd in common Conversation , but profane in Religion . 3ly . Another Argument St. Paul uses against an unknown Tongue , is , That it is contrary to the nature of Prayer and religious Worship , which must be a reasonable Service , and therefore requires the exercise of the Understanding , as well as Affections . For if I pray in an unknown Tongue , my Spirit prayeth , but my understanding is unfruitful . What is it then , I will pray with the spirit , and will pray with the Understanding also ; I will sing with the Spirit , and I will sing with the Understanding also . Else when thou shalt bless with the Spirit , how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned ( that is , every ordinary Christian , who has not this gift of Tongues , or of interpreting Tongues ; for there were no Clarks in those days to say Amen for the whole Congregation ) say Amen at thy giving of thanks , seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest ? And if the Exercise of supernatural Gifts themselves , which the Apostle seems here to call praying by the Spirit , be not an acceptable Worship to God , without the acts of our Reason and Understanding , certainly an unknown Tongue is much more unjustifyable in our ordinary Devotions . If the whole Congregation must say Amen to those Prayers which are offered to God , and it be a ludicrous thing to say Amen to what we do not understand , then whether the Prayers be inspired , or composed , it is necessary that the whole Congregation should understand them . But our Author ( though very timerously ) insinuates an Answer or two to this one Reason , why he thinks the setled Forms of Divine Offices are tacitely excepted by the Apostle , and need not be performed in the vulgar , and intelligible to every Auditor , comes in in a Parenthesis , and indeed was as fit for a Parenthesis as any thing could be ; for he will presently see , that it might have been spared . To many of which ( Divine Offices ) there is no necessity that all specially joyn and intend : By which I suppose he means , that there are several Offices in the Church of Rome , which People are not bound to attend to , nor joyn in , and therefore there is no need they should understand them . 1. Now in the first place , I desire to know why 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 . But this is only to understand the Actions and Ceremonies , not the words ; and cannot answer the end of publick Prayer , which is to offer up our common Petitions to God with one Heart and Mind . The use of words in publick Prayer , is to direct and determine our Thoughts , and to excite our Affections ; for this Reason the Priest reads the Prayers with an audible Voice , that all the People may joyn with him , and these indeed are Publick and Common Prayers ; but now in the Church of Rome the Priest reads the Prayers , but the People do not joyn with him , because they do not understand him ; but the most they can do is by Actions and Ceremonies , to guess at what part of the Service he is , and either only look on , or if they be very Devout , entertain themselves with some good Pious Thoughts , or put up some private Prayers to God , or it may be to the Virgin Mary , or some Saint , while the Priest is saying Mass ; and thus the Priest prays by himself , and the People , if they do pray , pray by themselves , and have no other Benefit of the Publick Offices of the Church , but only to see what the Priest does , which at best can only fill them with some Religious Amusements , or with confused , and indistinct , and Enthusiastick Devotions . It is plain , that in the Church of Rome , the Devotions of the People are left to their own Extempore Conceits , which is a thousand times worse than the Extempore Prayers of the Preachers , who may be Men of Parts and Learning , and able to suggest very Proper Petitions , and very Pious Thoughts , and to excite very Devout Passions in their Hearers ; and is it not very odd that the Church should have settled Forms of Divine Offices , Composed Forms of Prayer and Praise , and yet the People , who will pray , must be left to their Extempore Devotions ; is this also for the Edification of the Church ? Is not this Fanaticism with a Witness . To conclude this Argument , I know no practise in the World more directly contrary to the sense of all Mankind than Prayers in an unknown Tongue . There was no Nation , nor no Religion in the World ever professedly guilty of it , but the Church of Rome ; and there can be no Reason imaginable why they should conceal their Worship , unless they are ashamed of it , or suspect that no disinterested Man can like it when he knows it ; and it is as odd a Task to prove that Men must understand their Prayers , as it would be to prove that the use of Speech is to be understood . 15. A Company of Christians voluntarily separating from all other Christian Societies , condemning their Doctrines and Rites , destitute also of any visible correspondence with them in the Eucharist , in any Religious Assemblies or Solemn Devotions ; can , notwithstanding this perverse , intire , and manifest Separation be a Mystical Member of Christ in Catholick Unity , and a Charitable part of the Catholick Church . In answer to this I told him , that if he applies this to us , it is manifestly false ; for though we do not Communicate with the Church of Rome in her corrupt Worship , yet there are many Christian Churches with which we can and do Communicate ; and separate our selves no farther from any Society of Christians , than they separate themselves from the Primitive and Apostolick Church ; that if the Church of England be a true Apostolick Church in Faith , and Worship , and Government , and separates from other Churches only upon account of such Corruptions as will justifie a separation , what should hinder her from being a Mystical Member of Christ , in Catholick Unity , and a Charitable part of the Catholick Church ? for a true Apostolick Faith and Worship does certainly make us the Mystical Members of Christs Body , or else I desire to know what does ? That Catholick Unity is not violated by a just separation , and dangerous Corruptions in Faith and Worship are a just cause of separation . Come out from among them , and , be ye separate , saith the Lord ; and touch not the unclean thing and I will receive you 2 Cor 6. 17. All that our Author replies to this is , that This Proposition relates to matter of Fact , which we affirm Protestants to have done , and desire them to make out by Scripture the Lawfulness of it , and its consistency with Catholick Unity and Charity . But I denied that we had done this , and gave him in short my Reasons why I denied it , which methinks might have deserved some notice : and as for our separation from the Corruptions of the Church of Rome , that I gave him my Reasons for , and such as , it seems , he had no mind to answer ; that separation might sometimes be lawful and necessary , and therefore not chargeable with Schism , nor a breach of Catholick Unity , I proved from the Text now quoted . Come out from among them , &c. to which he says , If I intend this for a Proof , then it must import that it is the Duty of one Christian , or a Party pretending to be a National Church to come out of the Catholick Church , and be separate from her ; less than this will not reach the Protestant Case , and so much as this will by no means agree with one Holy Church , wherein alone the Communion of Saints , Remission of Sins , and Life Everlasting are to be found . But how is this the Protestant Case ? How does separation from the Church of Rome , and that no farther neither than she is Corrupt , come to be a separation from the Catholick Church ? He knows that we deny the Church of Rome to be the Catholick Church , and we know that he can never prove it to be so ; and whatever Church or Churches have corrupted the Faith and Worship of Christ , we shall make no scruple at all to separate from them in such Corruptions , and have the whole Gospel to justifie us in it ; for in such Cases we are under the same obligation to separate , that we are to profess the true Faith , and practise the true Worship of Christ. All that can be charged upon the Church of England is , that she renounced the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome , and denied Obedience and Subjection to that See , which never had any Divine Right to claim it : and that she reformed those Errors in Doctrine , and Corruptions in Worship , which she formerly was guilty of . This charge we readily own , but deny that this is Schism of Separation from the Catholick Church . For till our Author can prove that the Unity of the Catholick Church consists in subjection to the Bishop of Rome , it is ridiculous to charge us with breaking Catholick Unity , by denying that Obedience which we do not owe ; and when he can prove this essential to Catholick Unity to submit to the Bishop of Rome , as the visible Head of the Church , we will own our selves to be Schismaticks . But then I must mind him what he is to prove , viz. that by a Divine Institution the Bishop of Rome is the visible Head of Unity , to whom all Churches must submit , for nothing can be essential to the Unity of the Church but what Christ himself has made so ; and what is not absolutely essential may be changed and altered , when there is absolute necessity for it , without a sinful breach of Unity ; and therefore though they cannot make good their claim to this Universal Supremacy , not so much as by Ecclesiastical Canons and Constitutions , and ancient Customs , as has been often proved by Learned Protestants ; yet to shorten that Dispute , which to be sure none but Learned Men can be judges of ; whatever Jurisdiction or Primacy they pretend to , have been formerly granted by Ancient Councils to the Bishop of Rome , may be retrenched or denied without the Guilt of Schism , when it proves a manifest Oppression of the Christian Church , and serves only to justifie and perpetuate the most Notorious and Intolerable Corruptions of the Christian Religion . And the Reason is very plain , because all human Constitutions are alterable , and what is alterable ought to be altered , when the indispensable Necessities of the Church and of Religion require it . Catholick Unity requires no Superiority , or Jurisdiction of one Bishop or one Church over another , but only Mutual Concord and Brotherly Correspondence ; and therefore a Church which rejects any Foreign Jurisdiction , may yet maintain Catholick Unity , as the African Churches did in St. Cyprians days . The Combination indeed of Neighbour Churches and Bishops , for the more convenient Exercise of Ecclesiastical Discipline and Government , we grant was very Ancient , and is of great use to this day ; but if such Combinations as these degenerate from their first Institution , and by the Tyranny and Encroachments of some usurping Bishops is improved into a Temporal Monarchy , and invasion upon the inherent Rights and Liberties of all other Bishops and Churches , I would desire to know why these Oppressed Bishops and Churches may not vindicate their own Rights and Liberties , and cast off such an intolerable Yoak ? No , you 'l say , when such a Superiority and Subordination of Churches is Ordered and Decreed by general Councils , which is the Supream Authority in the Church , no change nor alteration can be made but by an equal Authority ; and therefore no particular Bishops or Churches can reject any such Jurisdiction , unless it be revoked by a general Council , without the guilt of Schism . Now in Answer to this , Let us consider , 1. Suppose such an aspiring Bishop has usurped such an Authority , as was never Orginally granted him by any Council ; that he has improved a Primacy of order ( which yet is more than the Nicene Canons granted to the Bishop of Rome ) into a Supremacy of Jurisdiction , and has enlarged his Patriarchate beyond its original Bounds , may not that be taken away without a general Council , which was usurped indeed but never given ? 2ly . Suppose a general Council had granted what it had no right to give ; as it must have done , if ever any general Council had granted or confirmed the Popes Pretensions , of being the Universal Bishop and visible Head of the Church , and the Fountain of all Ecclesiastical Authority , and granted away these Rights and Powers , which are inherent in every Church , and inseparable from the Episcopal Office. For it is not in Ecclesiastical as it is in Civil Rights ; Men may irrevocably grant away their own Civil Rights and Liberties , but all the Authority in the Church cannot give away it self , nor grant the whole intire Episcopacy , with all the Rights and Powers of it , to any one Bishop . If Bishops will not exercise that Power which Christ has given them , they are accountable to their Lord for it ; but they cannot give it away , neither from themselves , nor from their Successors ; for it is theirs only to use , not to part with ; and therefore every Bishop may reassume such Rights , though a general Council should give them away , because the grant is void in it self . 3ly . Especially when the Regular means of Redress is made impossible by such Usurpations ; when the Christian Church is so inslaved to the Will and Pleasure of one Domineering Bishop , that there can be no general Council unless he call it , and preside in it , and confirm it by his own Authority ; and how impossible it is this way to cast off such an usurping Power , when the Usurper must be the Judg in his own Cause ; I need not prove , especially when Christian Princes and Bishops are so devoted to the See of Rome , either linked to it by secular Interests , or over-awed by Superstition ; that it is in vain to expect that such a Council should Redress such Abuses , as they themselves are fond of ; or if they would have them Redressed if they could , yet dare not venture to attempt it ; must all Bishops now and Churches quietly submit to such Usurpations , because the greatest number of them will not , or dare not , vindicate their own Rights ? Is it then unlawful for Christian Bishops to Exercise that Authority which Christ has given them , and of which they must give an Account , if they happen to be out-voted by other Bishops ; I grant the less number of Bishops cannot make Laws for the Universal Church , in opposition to the greater numbers ; whatever Constitutions owe their Authority to mutual Consent , must in all reason be confirmed and over-ruled by the greater numbers ; but the less number , nay any single Bishop may observe the Institutions of our Saviour , and exercise that Authority which he has given him , without asking leave of general Councils , nay in opposition to them ; for the Authority and Institution of our Saviour is beyond all the general Councils in the World. 4. Especially when we have the consent of much the greater number of Bishops , without their meeting in a general Council . All the Eastern Bishops , which are much more numerous than the Western , I cannot say , have cast off the Authority of the Bishop of Rome , because they never owned it , but yet they oppose and reject his Authority , as much as the Bishops of England do ; and therefore our Reformers in casting off the Pope , did nothing but what they had the Authority of the whole Eastern Church to justifie ; which I take to be as good as a Council of Western Bishops , though they may call it General : For the Business of a Council in such cases , is not to consent to some new Laws , but to declare ancient and original Rights ; and if we have their authentick Declarations in this matter , we need no more : For we do not so much want their Authority , as their Judgment in this Point . It is a very daring thing to oppose the universal Consent of the whole Christian Church ; and no private Bishops , nor National Combination of Bishops , would be able to bear up against such a Prejudice ; but when we have the concurrent Opinions of the greatest number of Christian Bishops , we need not much concern our selves for want of the Formality of a Western Council , who are interested Parties ; yes , you 'l say , at least the Church of England was subject to the Jurisdiction of the Western Patriarch , and therefore ought not to have innovated without the Patriarchal Authority , and a Patriarchal Council , nor to have rejected the Patriarchal Authority , which was confirmed by ancient Councils . Now , not to dispute this at present , Whether England were subject to the Bishop of Rome , as the Western Patriarch , which it is certain our Brittish Bishops , when Austin the Monk came into England , would not own ; and which was never granted by any ancient General Council : and the Submission of the English Bishops afterwards by Fear or Flattery , could never give such a Right as should oblige all their Successours for future Ages ; yet I say this Patriarchal Authority is not the Dispute between the Church of England and the Church of Rome . Our Reformers took no notice of the Patriarchal Authority , but the Universal Headship and Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome , as is evident from the Articles of our Church , in which there is no mention of it : And this was such an Usurpation as might be renounced , without the Authority of any Council , as I have already shown . Indeed his Patriarchal Authority , if he had any , necessarily fell with it : For when he challenges such an exorbitant Power , so far exceeding the Bounds and Limits of a Patriarchal Authority , and will exercise all , if he exercise any , and will hold Communion with none upon any other terms , and will not be confined to a meer Patriarchal Jurisdiction , we must necessarily renounce all Subjection to him to deliver our selves from his Usurpations ; when his pretended Patriarchate is swallowed up in his Universal Headship , he may thank himself , if he forfeits what he might with a better Appearance make some Pretence to , by challenging so much more than ever was his right . And the Patriarchal Authority it self , could he have made any pretences to it , which he never could over the Church of England , which was originally a free and independent Church , being but a human Constitution , may be renounced without Schism , when necessity requires it ; and certainly , if ever there can be any necessity for such a Rupture , it becomes necessary then , when it swells into a boundless , and unlimited Authority , to the Oppression of the whole Christian Church in her essential Rights and Liberties . 5ly . There is one thing more I would have observed for the right stating of this Dispute about Schism . viz. the difference between Schism from the Catholick Church , and the Breach of Ecclesiastical Communion between different Churches . In the first Sense Schism cuts us off from the Body of Christ , and consequently puts us out of a state of Salvation ; and therefore it can be nothing less than a Separation from the Communion of the Church in things essential to Faith , or Worship , or Government ; for in this sense no man can be a Schismatick , without , in some Degree or other , forfeiting his Christianity , and his essential Right to Christian Communion . Ecclesiastical Communion is the Union of several distinct Churches into one Ecclesiastical Body for mutual Advice and Counsel , and the more pure Administration of Discipline . When several Bishops who have originally all the same Authority in the Government of their several Churches , bestow different Powers on some Bishops , whom they advance above others with the Title and Authority of Metropolitans , or Patriarchs , with a Power of calling Synods , and receiving Appeals , and the principal Authority of Ordinations ; and govern their several Churches by such Ecclesiastical Laws , as are agreed on by common Consent , or the major Vote , This is a very useful Constitution , and of great Antiquity in the Church , if it had not its beginning in the Apostles times ; and for any Bishop or Church causelessly to break such a Confederacy as this , is a very great Evil , and has the Guilt and Crime of Schism ; but yet it does not seem to be such a Schism as divides the intrinsick Unity of the Catholick Church , and cuts off such a Church from the Body of Christ. For the Unity of the Catholick Church consists in one Faith , and Worship , and Charity , and such an external Communion , when occasion offers , shows , that we are all the Disciples of the same common Lord and Saviour ; and own each other for Brethren ; but the Church may be the one Body of Christ , without being one Ecclesiastical Body , under one governing Head , which it is impossible the whole Christian Church should be ; and therefore a Church which divides it self from that Ecclesiastical Body , to which it did once belong ; if it have just and necessary Reasons for what it does , is wholly blameless , nay , commendable for it ; if it have not , it sins according to the nature and aggravation of the Crime ; but still may be a Member of the Catholick Church , and still enjoy all the Priviledges of a true Catholick Church , the Communion of Saints , the Forgiveness of Sins , and the Promises of everlasting Life : Which shows us how the holy Catholick Church in the Creed may be One , notwithstanding all those Divisions of Christendom , which are occasioned by the Quarrels of Bishops , and the Disputes about Ecclesiastical Canons , and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction . Those who are the Beginners or Fomentors of such Divisions , shall answer it to their Lord and Judge , as they shall all their other personal Miscarriages : but it would be very hard , if such a Church , which in its Faith and Worship is truly Catholick , should be cut off from the Body of Christ , and all the Members of it put out of a State of Salvation , because the Bishops and Pastors of such Churches think fit to divide themselves from that Ecclesiastical Body , to which they were united by Custom , or ancient Canons . Now this is the most they can make of our forsaking the Ecclesiastical Communion of the Church of Rome ; That we have divided our selves from the Bishop of Rome , to whom by Custom , or some pretended Canons , we owed Obedience and Subjection ; which I have proved to be very innocent in us , because it was necessary : But suppose it were a causeless and criminal Separation , yet it is only an Ecclesiastical Schism , which does not separate us from the Catholick Church , though it does from that Ecclesiastical Body , of which the Bishop of Rome makes himself the Head. This , I think , is a sufficient Justification of the Church of England in rejecting the Authority of the Church of Rome ; and her reforming the Errors and Corruptions of Faith and Worship , needs no defence at all , though there were never a pure and reformed Church in the World besides her self . For I would desire our Author to tell me , whether it be a fault to reform the Corruptions of Faith and Worship . Can it be a fault then to believe as Christ has taught , and to worship God as he has prescribed ? Is it possible that the true Catholick Faith and Worship should ever be a Crime ? if it be not , then it can be no fault to make the Doctrines and Institutions of our Saviour , the Rule of our Faith and Worship ; and that is all that we mean by reforming ; not to mend Christian Religion , but to return to Primitive Christianity . To cast such Doctrines out of our Creed , as Christ never taught , and to reject all new and suspected Worships : And if it be always a Duty to profess what Christ and his Apostles have taught , and to practise as they have commanded ; then if ever we believed or practised otherwise , it is necessary to reform ; which is not in a proper sense to reform the Church , or the Christian Faith and Worship , but to reform our selves . For the Christian Faith and Worship is always the same ; and if there be any thing to be reformed , it must be our own Errors and Mistakes . What then is the Fault of the Church of England ? Why cannot she be a mystical Member of Christ in Catholick Unity , or a charitable part of the Catholick Church ? The Charge is drawn up against her , under three Heads . 1. That she voluntarily separates from all other Christian Societies . 2. Condemns their Doctrines and Rights . 3. Has no visible Correspondence with them in the Eucharist , nor in any religious Assemblies , nor solemn Devotions . Let us consider these distinctly . 1. The Church of England voluntarily separates from all other Christian Societies . This I told him was false as to matter of Fact ; for there are a great many Christian Societies which we can , and do hold Communion with , as opportunity serves ; and he can never make good this Charge , but by denying , that there are any other Christian Societies besides the Church of Rome ; which , I suppose , is what he intends . Well! we do separate , he says , and that voluntarily from the Church of Rome , that is , from all Christian Societies . Now I grant we do separate from the Bishop and the Church of Rome , considered as the Principle and Center of Catholick Unity , as I observed before ; but considered as a Christian Church , so I deny , that we separate from the Church of Rome , or any other Christian Church , as far as they are Christian , and we are bound to communicate with them no farther . For , I pray , consider what Christian Communion is , which certainly is nothing else but to communicate in the true Christian Faith and Worship ; for to communicate in Judaism , Paganism , Mahumatism , or any unchristian Doctrines or Practices , certainly is not Christian Communion : And therefore every Church is more or less perfect in Christian Communion , according to the Purity and Perfection of her Faith and Worship . If then the Church of England professes the true Christian Faith , and worships God according to the Gospel of his Son , without any corrupt Mixtures and Innovations , as far as true Faith and Worship reaches , she is in Communion with all the Christian Churches in the World ; for she agrees with them in all that they believe or practise , which is truly Christian , and Christian Communion extends no farther . Well , but when the whole Church was agreed in Faith and Worship , we broke this Bond of Unity by a pretended Reformation . Suppose this , the Question still is , Whether this Unity of the Church was a Christian Communion ? for if it were not , it is no Separation from the Christian Church , to leave its Communion in those things which are not Christian : And therefore the whole Controversie will still turn upon this Point , whether the Reformation of the Church of England be a true Gospel Reformation ; for if we reformed nothing but what ought to be reformed , then we separated no farther than we ought to separate ; and such a Separation , if you will call it a Separation , I hope , is no Crime . Did Elias separate from the Jewish Church , because he broke their Unity in the Worship of Baal , and reduced them to the Institutions of the Moisaick Law , which was the Standard of their Religion and Communion ? Just so the Church of England separated from the Church of Rome , by rejecting those Articles of Faith , and Forms of Worship , which are not Christian. Some kind of Separation indeed there must be between a pure and a corrupt Church , but if you would know on which side the Separation is criminal , you must consider on which side the corruption is ; for necessary Truths can never make a criminal Separation . The Church which forsakes the Truth , is always guilty of the Separation , not the Church which forsakes Errors ; and therefore it is a ridiculous thing to charge those with the Schism , who only forsake the Company , when those are the Schismaticks , who forsake the Truth . And yet this is the only pretence for the Church of Rome to charge us with Schism , That they did not leave us , but we left them ; they kept where they were , and we went out from among them , and forsook their Communion ; but it was because they had first forsaken the Apostolick Communion , by corrupting the Apostolick Faith and Worship . They were the Deserters and Separatists , we only returned to the true Christian Communion , and were very sorry to leave them behind us . The short of it is this , if we cannot justifie our Reformation , we are Schismaticks ; if we can , we are none : And I would desire all Protestants to take notice of this short Answer , and stick to it ; for it is as certain as any Demonstration in Euolid , that no man can be a Schismatick , who forsakes no Society of Christians any farther than they forsake the Truth . 2. The next charge is , that we condemn their Doctrines and their Rights ; but do we condemn any thing which ought not to be condemned ? if we do it is indeed a fault ; but if we don't , why are we blamed for it ? 3. We have no visible Correspondence with them in the Eucharist , nor in any Religious Assemblies , nor Solemn Devotions . How so ? we visibly receive the Eucharist our selves , and perform our Solemn Devotions in Publick Assemblies , and this is to Communicate with the whole Christian Church in the same Sacraments and Worship , and the only way that distant Churches have to Communicate with each other in Sacraments and Worship ; unless he thinks the Church of England must travel into France , and Spain , and Italy , into Greece and AEgypt , and all other remote Churches to Communicate with them . No , but when their Worship is brought home to us , we refuse to joyn with them ; right ! for according to the Laws of Catholick Communion , when they are in England they ought to Communicate with us , not we with them , according to St. Austins Rule , to observe the Rights and Usages of the Church , whither soever we come , as far as they are Innocent ; if we denied to receive them to our Communion , they might with better reason charge us with Schism ; but we are not bound to forsake the Communion of our own Church to follow Foreign Customs at home . But when we do come where their Worship is the Established Religion , we still refuse to Communicate with them ; we do so indeed with the Roman Church , but not with all other Christian Societies ; and the Reason is , because we believe their Worship is sinful , and no Christian is bound to Communicate in a sinful Worship , as they themselves must grant : So that still this whole Controversy issues in this , whether the Terms of their Communion be not sinful ; if they be , this will justifie our Non-communion with them ; if they be not , we are Schismaticks , and by this we are willing to stand or fall . So that this charge of Schism upon the Church of England is very absurd and ridiculous , unless they can charge us with Schismatical Doctrines and Practices ; if we separate for the sake of a Corrupt Faith or Worship , we are Schismaticks indeed ; but if we separate , only because we will not profess any Erroneous Doctrines , nor Communicate in a corrupt Worship , unless the true Faith and true Worship can make Men Schismaticks , we may very securely scorn such an Accusation . And it is as impertinent a Question to ask us what Church we joyned in Communion with when we forsook the Communion of the Church of Rome : For if by joyning in Communion with other Churches , they mean uniting our selves in one Ecclesiastical Body with them , putting our selves under the Government of any other Patriarch , so we joyned in Communion with no other Church , and there was no reason we should ; for we were Originally a free independent Church , which owed no Subjection to any other Church , but had a plenary Power to decide all Controversies among our selves , without appealing to any foreign Jurisdiction ; and when we had delivered our selves from one Usurper , there was no reason to court a new one , this not being necessary to Catholick Unity and Communion . If by joyning in Communion with other Churches , they mean , what other Churches we made the Pattern of our Reformation , we freely confess we made no Church of that Age our Pattern ; but I think we did much better , for we made the Scriptures our Rule , and the Primitive and Apostolick Churches our Pattern , which we take to be a more Infallible direction than the Example of any Church then or now : If we must have been confined to the Faith and Practise of other Churches then in being , without regard to a more Infallible Rule , and a more unquestionable Authority , I confess , I should have chose to have continued in the Church of Rome , which had the most visible and flourishing Authority of any other Church at that time ; but our Reformers did believe , and very rightly , that no Church had any Authority against the Scriptures and Primitive Practise , and then they were not concerned to enquire whether any other Church did in all things believe and practise as they taught , but what the Faith and Practice of the Apostles and their immediate Successors was ; and yet they very well know , that most of those Doctrines and Practises , which they condemned in the Church of Rome , were condemned by other Churches also , though it may be those other Churches might have some less Errors and Corruptions of their own . If the Scriptures and the Example of the Primitive Churches be a sufficient Authority to justifie a Reformation , then the Church of England is blameless , though no other Church in the World followed this Pattern but our selves ; for this is the Rule and Pattern which they ought all to follow , and if they do not , it is not we are to blame , but themselves . And yet what if I should say , that our Reformers made the Church of Rome her self , the Pattern of our Reformation ; and indeed this is the plain truth of the Case . For we framed no new Creeds , no new Articles of Faith , no new Forms of Worship , no new Models of Government , but retained all that is Ancient and Apostolick in the Church of Rome , and only rejected those Corruptions and Innovations , which were introduced in several Ages , and confirmed all together by the Council of Trent . Our Faith is contained in the Apostles , Nicene , Athanasian Creeds , which are all owned by the Church of Rome , and were the Ancient Faith of the Catholick Church . We own the two Christian Sacraments , Baptism and the Lords Supper , which were expresly Instituted by our Saviour himself , and which the Church of Rome owns . We Worship one God through Jesus Christ , who is that one Mediator between God and Man , as the Church of Rome confesses , though she brings in a great many other Mediators by the help of a distinction . Our publick Liturgie is so conformed to the Ancient Liturgies of the Roman Church , that it has been often objected to us , though very peevishly and absurdly , by Dissenters , that our Common Prayer is taken out of the Mass Book : Our Litanies , Collects , Hymns , are many of them taken out of the old Latin Liturgies , only we have changed the Popish Legends into Lessons out of the Old and New Testaments , and have left out Prayers to Saints , and all the Corruptions of the Mass , and other Superstitions : So that in Truth the Church of England is the exact Resemblance of the Church of Rome in her state of Primitive Purity , before her Faith and Worship were corrupted with new and superstitious Additions ; and it is plain that this was the Rule of our Reformation , not to form and model a new Church , but only to Purge the Church from all new Corruptions , and to leave the old Foundations and Building as it was ; and if we have indeed retained all that is Ancient and Apostolick in the Church of Rome , and rejected nothing but Innovations in Faith , and Corruptions in Worship ; they need not enquire for a Church which believes all that we do , for the Church of Rome her self does so , and if they believe more than they should , it is no fault that we do not believe all that they do ; and therefore we had no need to seek for any other Church to joyn with ; for we staid where we were , and did not leave our Church , but Reform it ; and a Man who does not pull down his House , but only cleanses it , and makes it a more wholsom Habitation , needs not inquire for a new House to dwell in . To conclude this Argument , our positive Faith and Worship is the same still with the Church of Romes , and therefore they cannot blame us for it ; and in those Doctrines and Practices wherein we have forsaken the Church of Rome , we have the Authority and Practice of most other Churches to justifie us , which do not own the Supremacy of the Pope , nor Transubstantiation , nor Purgatory , nor Communion in one kind , nor Latin Service , nor the Worship of Images , with several other of the Trent Innovations : So that in truth we are so far from separating from all Christian Societies , that there are few things in our Reformation , but what are owned and justified either by the Church of Rome her self , or by some other Churches ; not to take notice now , that there are few things in our Reformation but what some Doctors of the Roman Communion , have either justified , or spoke modestly of . 16. The whole Clergy of the Catholick Church may Apostatize from Fundamental Truth and Holiness , whilst part of a National Laity may preserve both , discover the Clergies defection , and depriving them heap to themselves Teachers of their own sending and instruction . In Answer to this I told him , that if by this he meant , that the whole Clergy of the Christian World did at the time of the Reformation maintain the Doctrines of the Church of Rome , which were rejected and condemned only by a Major Vote of a Parliament of Lay-men in England , all the World knew how false it is . For , 1. There were many other Churches , and better parts of the Catholick Church than the Church of Rome , which did not own those Doctrines and Corruptions , which we reject . 2. Nay the whole Clergy of the Roman Church did not , for many of our English Bishops and Clergy were as Zealous for the Reformation as any Lay-men ; so were the German Reformers , who were Originally Popish Monks and Priests , and yet did not follow the Laity , but lead them way to the Reformation . In reply to this , he says , I manifest my self meanly versed in the Story of my own Party , or no friend to Ingenuity and Truth . For it is certainly true and attested by Protestant Historians and Records , that all the Bishops , and the whole Convocation declared against Lay-supremacy and other Protestant Points , and for Non-compliance therewith were almost all deprived ; the Queen and her Lay-Parliament enacting Supremacy , whereby she imposed new Doctrines , displaced the Catholick Clergy , and created Prelatick Ministers . And whether he or I be most in the right let the Reader Judg. For , 1. It is plain I did not speak only of the Clergy of England , but of the whole Clergy of the Catholick Church , as he himself stated the Question ; and he answers only to the Clergy of England , and with what Truth shall be examined presently : For if the whole Clergy of the Catholick Church have not Apostatized , whatever the Clergy of the Church of Rome has done , he loses the very Foundation of his Request to us , to prove that the whole Clergy of the Catholick Church have Apostatized from Fundamental Truth and Holiness , for we are not bound to prove that which is false ; but he who allows no Catholick Church but the Church of Rome , must consequently allow no Clergy of the Catholick Church , but the Roman Clergy , but we grant neither one nor t'other ; and yet as I showed the Roman Clergy themselves were the first Reformers ; and therefore what he insinuates cannot be true , that the whole Roman Clergy opposed the Roman Laity in the Reformation . 2. As for the English Reformation , he confines it in his Answer only to the Story of Queen Elizabeth , and what was done in her Reign ; but the Article he would have proved , and the Answer I gave to it has no such limitation ; and I must still repeat , that all the World knows , and , the Histories and Records of our Church assure us , that the Popish Bishops and Convocation in Henry the Eight's days did acknowledg the Kings Supremacy , and in higher Terms than Queen Elizabeth would challenge it . Indeed the late Oxford Writer , or rather Publisher of Books , charges this upon that force they were under ; that is , that the Clergy was taken in a Praemunire , and the King would not compound the Business with them , unless they acknowledged him to be the Head of the Church . But does this prove that they did not make this Recognition ? if force or flattery can corrupt the whole Clergy ; then it seems the whole Clergy of the ( Roman ) Catholick Church may Apostatize from Fundamental Truth and Holiness , if they fall first into a Praemunire , and meet with a King who will take the Advantage of it ; and are not the Clergy then admirable Guides to follow ? especially if they can be so over-awed , as not only to make such a Profession , but to Write and Dispute for it , and use all variety of Arguments to perswade People to believe it . The Institution for the necessary Erudition of a Christian man , was agreed on in Convocation , and published by Authority . Bishop Gardiner wrote a Book de vera Obedientia , to which Bonner prefixed a Preface upon the same Argument . Stokesly , Bishop of London , and Tonstal Bishop of Duresm , wrote in defence of the Kings Proceedings , to Cardinal Pool ; and many Sermons were preached by several Bishops to the same purpose ; out of which Dr. Burnet has collected the Arguments used by them , both against the Power of the Pope , and for the Supremacy of the King : And during that Session of Parliament , which took away the Power of the Pope in the year 1534. A Bishop preached every Sunday at St. Paul's Cross , and taught the People , that the Pope had no Authority in England . Was all this matter of force too , and fear of the Praemunire , which was pardoned in Parliament , Anno 1531. three years before ? Let us now consider what passed under Queen Elizabeth : And methinks , what was good Doctrine in King Henry's time , should be good Doctrine still : and yet it is true , that many Bishops then did protest against the Act for Supremacy , and refused the Oath when it was offered them ; and that many of those Bishops who had wrote , or preached for it before , such as Bonner , Bishop of London , and Tonstal of Duresm , which seems to lessen their Authority in this matter ; and when the Nation had so lately had the sense of the whole English Roman Clergy in this Point , their present obstinacy to confirm their former Opinions , without answering their former Reasons , was no sufficient cause why a Lay-Parliament should not renew such Laws without the consent of the Clergy , which were at first made with it : not a Bishop dissenting , excepting Fisher Bishop of Rochester : And whereas he talks in such a strain , as if this were opposed by the whole Clergy , and that they were almost all deprived for it , the account which the Visiters gave the Queen , is very different , that of 9400 beneficed Men in England , there were no more but fourteen Bishops , six Abbots , twelve Deans , twelve Archdeacons , fifteen Heads of Colledges , fifty Prebendaries , and eighty Rectors of Parishes , that had left their Benefices upon account of Religion , which is a very inconsiderable number to the whole . 3. I answered farther , That we do not say , that the Roman Church her self has apostatized from fundamental Truth and Holiness . We do grant , that they have retained the true Faith and Worship of Christ , though they have fatally corrupted both by Additions of their own . And therefore we are not bound to prove , that the whole Clergy of the Catholick Church may apostatize from fundamental Truth and Holiness ; for we do not say they did . All that he replies to this , is , That this Apostacy ( at the least ) is taught in the 19 and 21 Articles and Homilies against the Peril of Idolatry . That is to say ( for I suppose that is his meaning ) that the Church of England charges the Church of Rome with Idolatry , and Idolatry is an Apostacy from fundamental Truth and Holiness . But if men may be guilty of some kinds of Idolatry , and of very great corruptions in Faith and Worship , without denying any fundamental Article of the Christian Faith , then Idolatry it self does not prove such an Apostacy from fundamental Truth . And this is the opinion of those who own the Church of Rome a true , though a corrupt Church , notwithstanding they charge her with idolatrous Practices . For they consider , that the Jewish Church was guilty of Idolatry in the Worship of the Golden Calf , and the Calves at Dan and Bethel , and yet were a true Church still , because they worshipped only the true God , the God of Israel , though in an idolatrous manner . And I would advise our Author not to insist too peremptorily on this , That Idolatry is an Apostacy from fundamental Truth , till he is sure that he can clear himself and his Church from the charge of Idolatry . I know very well what he aims at , to disprove the charge of Idolatry , because Idolatry is an Apostacy from fundamental Truth and Holiness ; and thus the Church cannot apostatize , and therefore cannot commit Idolatry ; which is like their proving , that the Church has not erred , because it cannot err : Whereas if de facto it appears that the Church has erred , that is a Demonstration that it can err . Thus if de facto it appears that the Church is guilty of Idolatry , this is a Demonstration , that either Idolatry is not such a fundamental Apostacy , or that the Church may fall into such an Apostacy . Those who say , that Idolatry is not such an Apostacy , are not bound to prove that the Church may fall into such an Apostacy from fundamental Truth , to make good their charge of Idolatry . Those who say , that Idolatry is such an Apostacy , are bound to prove , either directly , that the Church is not guilty of Idolatry , or by consequence that she cannot be , because she cannot apostatize from fundamental Truth : so that the Proof lies on their side , not on ours ; we are not bound to prove that the Church may apostatize from fundamental Truth and Holiness , because we have no occasion to say it may ; but they are bound to prove that the Church cannot so apostatize , because it is the best defence they have against the charge of Idolatry . But I cannot pass on without briefly considering the nature of this Argument , to prove that a thing is not , upon a pretence that it cannot be , when there is all other possible evidence to prove that it is ; which is now the modish and popular way of disputing , and the very last refuge of the Church of Rome . If you charge them with Errors and Corruptions in Faith and Worship , and prove your charge beyond the possibility of a fair Reply , they presently take sanctuary in the Indefectibility or Infallibility of their Church . Their Church cannot err , because the Council , or Pope , or at least both of them together , are infallible : Or , as others say , Tradition is infallible ; for the Church must believe to day , as it did yesterday , and to morrow as it does to day , and so from one Generation to another ; and therefore it is impossible there ever should be any change in the Faith of the Church . The Church cannot be guilty of Idolatry , because it cannot apostatize from fundamental Truth and Holiness ; and so in other cases : And therefore the way they take with their new Converts , is not to dispute particular Controversies , but instruct them well in this one Point , which puts an end to all other Disputes , That the Church cannot err , and cannot apostatize from fundamental Truth and Holiness ; and then it is certain , whatever she teaches , she cannot err ; and whatever she does , is not Apostacy . Now not to show at present how vainly the Church of Rome challenges to her selfe the Title , Priviledges , and Prerogatives of the Catholick Church , and appropriates all those Promises to her self , which were made to the Church in general ; nor to examine the meaning of those Texts , whereon she founds this pretence of Infallibility , I shall only consider , whether this Plea , the Church cannot err , therefore she has not erred ; the Church cannot apostatize from fundamental Truth and Holiness , therefore she is not guilty of Idolatry ; which , say they , is such an Apostacy , be sufficient to satisfie any honest inquisitive man , who can read the Scriptures , and compare what the Church now believes and practises , with the Doctrines and Institutions of our Saviour . For , 1. When such Errors and Corruptions are notoriously evident , though but in any one instance , to argue that the Church has not erred , because she cannot err , is to dispute against matter of fact , like the Philosophers disputing against the possibility of Motion ; and no Argument whatsoever is good against matter of fact , True , you 'l say , if it were notoriously evident that the Church has erred , there were an end of her Infallibility ; but this is matter of dispute , whether she have erred or not , and then if you can prove that she cannot err , you effectually prove that she has not erred . No such matter ; for if she be charged with Errors , and plain evidence brought , that she has actually erred , unless you can as plainly take off this evidence , it weakens and overthrows all the Proofs for Infallibility whatever they are ; and therefore the pretence of Infallibility is of no use in this dispute , but to cheat the ignorant and unwary ; for if I can prove that such Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome are Errors and Corruptions , till I am satisfied that they are not , I can never believe that Church to be infallible , which I can prove has erred : and therefore while any charge against the Errors of the Church of Rome remains unanswered , it is too soon to talk of her Infallibility ; for actual Error is a just confutation of Infallibility , but the pretence of Infallibility is not a just Plea against the charge of actual Error ; because if I can prove my charge against them , that they have erred , that disproves their Infallibility , and then nothing else can prove it : So that this Infallibility can do them no service at all in this Dispute , whether they have erred or not ; for if I can prove that they have erred , I overthrow all their Proofs of Infallibility ; and whether they have erred or not , is not to be tryed by their Infallibility , but by the Rule of Truth and Error , which are the Holy Scriptures ; so absurd it is to think to determine all the Controversies now in dispute among us , by the Churches Infallibility . It is indeed a most certain Truth , that if the Church be infallible , she cannot err , and therefore she has not erred ; and it is as certainly true , that if the Church has erred , she can err , and therefore is not infallible . The Romanists assert the first , the Protestants the second ; but there is this difference between these two Pleas , That if we can make good our charge against them , that they have actually erred , this is a direct and positive Proof against their Infallibility ; but though it be as certainly true , that an infallible Church cannot , and has not erred , yet whatever Proofs they bring of the Churches Infallibility , they are not a direct Answer to that charge , That she has actually erred , and can have no force to prove her Infallibility , till that charged be answered , because there can be no Proof against matter of fact . And therefore when they begin with the Proof of Infallibility , they begin at the wrong end ; for when the Church is charged with Error , if they would not lose their labour , they must prove that she has not erred , before they prove her to be infallible ; for otherwise after all the pains they have taken to prove her Infallibility , if they cannot deliver her from the charge of having erred , their Labour is lost , and therefore it is best to try that first ; which shows what a Sophistical Argument it is to prove that the Church has not erred , because she is infallible and cannot err ; for they must first prove that she has not erred , before they can prove her to be infallible ; for till this be removed , it is an effectual Bar to all other Proofs of Infallibility . And thus their compendious way of making Converts , and confuting Hereticks , is nothing but Sophistry and a Cheat ; and if men would be sincere and honest Converts , they must not flatter themselves with an Opinion of the Churches Infallibility , but must examine the particular Disputes between us , and be thoroughly satisfied that the Church of Rome has not erred , before they embrace her Communion . 2. For if it appear , that the Church of Rome has been guilty of Error or Apostacy , this is a certain Demonstration , that either those Scripture-promises which she alledges , do not belong to her , or do not signifie what she brings them for ; for whatever Christ promises , he will certainly perform ; and therefore if the Church of Rome has erred , he never promised she should be infallible . To be sure when the Sense and Application of such Texts of Scripture are disputed , as they are between Protestants and Papists , that side must have the advantage , which is confirmed by the Event , and matter of Fact ; and therefore if it appear the Church of Rome has erred , the Protestant Interpretations of those Texts , Thou art Peter , and upon this Rock will I build my Church , and such like , are to be preferred before the Popish Interpretations , which apply them to the Bishops of Rome , as the Infallible Guides of the Church , especially when that evidence we have that the Church has Erred , is much more plain and notorious , then that Christ has promised that she shall not Err ; when the Scripture Proofs , that the Church of Rome has Erred in several Doctrines and Practices which she now teaches , are much plainer than those Texts are , by which they prove that she cannot Err : if I can prove by plain Texts that she has Erred , this shall teach me how to expound those obscure Texts , from which some would prove that she cannot Err. Indeed it is very happy that no Man believes Christ has promised Infallibility to the Church of Rome , but those who believe that she has not Erred ; for if they did , it would be a very dangerous State of Temptation , and a very ill Argument in the hands of an Infidel against Christianity ; for they would rather charge Christ with a breach of his Promise , which would destroy his Authority , than believe contrary to the plainest and most convincing Evidence , that the Church of Rome has not erred ; and indeed it would stagger the Faith of a Christian , if the pretended Promises of Infalibility to the Church of Rome , were as plain as her Errors are ; for what should any Man do in that case ? believe that she has not erred , because of the Promise of Infalibility , or disbelieve the Promise because she has erred ? When both sides are equally plain , and yet can never be reconciled , it is a sore Temptation to believe neither , when I know not which to choose , and cannot possibly believe both . So that to urge the Infallibility of the Church that she cannot err against the plainest evidence that she has erred , may make some Men Infidels , but can make no considering Man a Roman-Catholick . But to return to our Author , though I think I have not left him all this time , I gave a fourth Answer to this Reqnest , which he takes no notice of , viz. If the first discovery of this Defection had been made by Lay-men , and afterwards acknowledged by the Clergy , who joyned in the Reformation , I should not have thought the Reformation ever the worse for it . For if the Clergy corrupt Religion , we have reason to thank God if he opens the Eyes of honest and disinterested Lay-men . For this is the great grievance , that the Clergy should Apostatize , and a National Laity discover the Clergies Defection and reform it . This is now the fashionable way of Disputing against the Reformation of the Church of England , that it was not regularly done by the consent of the Major part of the Clergy in a National Synod , which first ought to have been obtained , before the Queen and the Parliament had made any Laws about it ; which is the whole design of a late Oxford Book against the Reformation . Now this I confess seems to me a very strange way of Reasoning , unworthy of Christians , especially of Christian Divines ; for not to enter now into the History of the Reformation , which those who please may learn from Dr , Burnet , who has Published the Authentick Records of the most material Transactions in it , yet I say , 1. If the Reformation be good and necessary , there can want no Authority to reform ; and my Reason is , because it is Established by the Authority of Christ and his Apostles , which is a good Authority to this day ; for to Reform Abuses and Corruptions , signifies no more than to Profess the pure and uncorrupted Faith and Worship of Christ ; and I desire to know whether Christ have not given sufficient Authority to every Man to do this ? or whether there be any Authority in Church or State which can de jure forbid the doing it , and make it unlawful and irregular to do so ? if there be , truly Christ and his Apostles have preached the Gospel to very little purpose , if we must not believe or practice as they teach , unless our Superiors will give us leave . How could the Gospel have been at first planted in the World upon these Principles ? Jews and Heathens had a regular Authority among them to determine matters of Religion , and this Authority opposed and condemned the Faith of Christ ; and therefore unless particular Men had reformed for themselves , and joyned themselves to the Fellowship of the Apostles , they must have continued Jews or Pagans to this day . For as for what our Author says , that sueb a change in Religion ought to have some Scripture , or because Extraordinary , should have Miracles to countenance it : I answer , we have both , we have reformed according to the Scriptures , and can justifie our Faith and Worship by the Scriptures , and a Scripture Reformation is confirmed by Miracles , because the Doctrine of the Gospel is so confirmed ; and we no more want new Miracles to confirm our Reformation , than to confirm the Authority of the Christian Religion ; for Reformed Christianity is nothing else but the old Primitive Apostolick Christianity ; and therefore we have the same Authority to reform now , which the Apostles at first had to preach the Gospel ; for their Authority to preach the Gospel is , and will be to the end of the World , a sufficient Authority to all Men to believe it , and consequently to renounce all Errors and Corruptions in Faith and Worship , which are contrary to it . 2. As for the Authority of the Clergy , whatever it be , it is certain Christ gave them no Authority to preach any other Gospel than what he had taught them , which is the express Commission which he gave to the Apostles themselves ; and therefore whatever Decrees , and Definitions they have made contrary to the true Faith and Worship of Christ , are void of themselves , and want no Authority to repeal them . As for that distinction between making and declaring new Articles of Faith , it is a meer piece of Sophistry ; for if they have the power of declaring , and no body must oppose them , nor judg of their Declarations under the pretence of declaring , they may make as many new Articles of Faith as they please ; as we see the Council of Trent has done : This Extravagant Authority they give to the Clergy , of making Decrees and Canons concerning Faith and Worship , which shall oblige the Laity to a blind Obedience and implicit Faith , is a most ridiculous pretence , unless it be supported with Infallibility ; and yet you have already heard , that the pretence of Infallibility it self , though it may silence those Mens objections , and stop their farther inquiries who do really believe it , yet it is no defence against the charge of Errors , nor a sufficient Answer to that charge ; and how vain the pretence it self is , has been abundantly proved in some late Treatises . This is enough to show how insignificant that charge is against the Reformation , that those Bishops and Priests who were at that time in Power , and were zealously addicted to the Interests of Rome , would not concur in it , though afterwards much the greater numbers submitted to it , and thereby gave it an after confirmation , which is as much as they can pretend for the confirmation of some of their General Councils . I grant , nothing can be looked on as the Act of the Clergy , which is not done by a regular Authority , according to the Rules of that Church . nor do we pretend that the Reformation was perfected or finished by the regular Authority of the Popish Clergy , though several of them were Zealous in it ; but we say it is never the worse for that ; if they can prove that what we call a Reformation is faulty upon other Accounts , then we will grant that to reform against the consent of the Clergy did greatly aggravate the Crime ; but if the Reformation were just and necessary , and a true Reformation of the Errors and Corruptions of Christianity , the dissent of the Clergy could not and ought not to hinder it , for they had no such Authority from Christ , either to corrupt Religion , or to hinder the Reformation of it . 3. The Supreme Authority of any Nation has a regular Authority to declare what shall be the Established Religion of that Nation ; and therefore the Queen and the Parliament could make the Reformed Religion the National Religion Established by Law ; and this is all that we Attribute to Kings and Parliaments . We do not justifie our Reformation because it was confirmed by the Authority of Parliament , but because it is agreeable to Scripture ; But we Thank God that he then inclined the heart of the Queen and Parliament to Establish the Reformation , and heartily pray that he would still continue it to us and to our Posterity for ever . Amen . The End. Books lately printed for Richard Chiswell . THE History of the Reformation of the Church of England . By GILBERT BURNET , D. D. in two Volumes . Folio . The Moderation of the Church of England , in her Reformation , in avoiding all undue Compliances with Popery , and other sorts of Phanaticism , &c. by TIMOTHY PULLER , D. D. Octavo . A Dissertation concerning the Government of the Ancient Church : more particularly of the Encroachments of the Bishops of Rome upon other Sees . By WILLIAM CAVE , D. D. Octavo . An Answer to Mr. Serjeant's [ Sure Footing in Christianity ] concerning the Rule of Faith : With some other Discourses . By WILLIAM FALKNER , D. D. 4 o. A Vindication of the Ordinations of the Church of England ; in Answer to a Paper written by one of the Church of Rome , to prove the Nullity of our Orders . By GILBERT BURNET , D. D. Octavo . An Abridgment of the History of the Reformation of the Church of England . By GILB . BURNET , D. D. Octavo . A Collection of several Tracts and Discourses , written in the years 1678 , 1679. &c. by Gilbert Burnet . D. D. To which are added , ( 1 ) A Letter written to Dr. Burnet , giving an Account of Cardinal Pool's secret Powers . ( 2 ) The History of the Powder-Treason , with a Vindication of the Proceedings thereupon . ( 3. ) An Impartial Consideration of the Five Jesuits dying Speeches , who were Executed for the Plot , 1679. In Quarto . The APOLOGY of the Church of England ; and an Epistle to one Signior Scipio , a Venetian Gentleman , concerning the Council of Trent . Written both in Latin , by the Right Reverend Father in God , IOHN IEWEL , Lord Bishop of Salisbury : Made English by a Person of Quality . To which is added , The Life of the said Bishop : Collected and written by the same Hand . Octavo . A LETTER writ by the last Assembly General of the Clergy of France to the Protestants , inviting them to return to their Communion . Together with the Methods proposed by them for their Conviction . Translated into English , and Examined , by GILB . BURNET , D. D. Octavo . The Life of WILLIAM BEDEL , D. D. Bishop of Kilmore in Ireland . Together with Certain Letters which passed betwixt him and Iames Waddesworth ( a late Pensioner of the Holy Inquisition of Sevil ) in Matter of Religion , concerning the General Motives to the Roman Obedience . Octavo . The Decree made at ROME the Second of March , 1679. condemning some Opinions of the Iesuits , and other Casuists . Quarto . A Discourse concerning the Necessity of Reformation , with respect to the Errors and Corruptions of the Church of Rome . Quarto . First and Second Parts . A Discourse concerning the Celebration of Divine Service in an Unknown Tongue . Quarto . A Papist not Misrepresented by Protestants . Being a Reply to the Reflections upon the Answer to [ A Papist Misrepresented and Represented ] . Quarto . An Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England , in the several Articles proposed by the late BISHOP of CONDOM , [ in his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholick Church . ] Quarto . A Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the CHURCH of ENGLAND , against the EXCEPTIONS of Monsieur de MEAUX , late Bishop of Condom , and his VINDICATOR . Quarto . An Answer to THREE PAPERS lately printed , concerning the Authority of the Catholick Church in Matters of Faith , and the Reformation of the Church of England . Quarto . A Vindication of the Answer to SOME LATE PAPERS concerning the Unity and Authority of the Catholick Church , and Reformation of the Church of England . Quarto . An Historical Treatise written by an AUTHOR of the Communion of the CHURCH of ROME , touching TRANSUBSTANTIATION . Wherein is made appear , That according to the Principles of THAT CHURCH , This Doctrine cannot be an Article of Faith. Quarto . A CATECHISM explaining the Doctrine and Practices of the Church of Rome ; with an Answer thereunto . By a Protestant of the Church of England . Octavo . A Papist Represented and not Misrepresented : Being an Answer to the First , Second , Fifth and Sixth Sheets of the Second Part of the [ Popish Representer ] ; and for a further Vindication of the [ CATECHISM , truly representing the Doctrine and Practices of the Church of Rome . ] Quarto . In 3. Discourses . The Lay-Christian's Obligations to read the Holy Scriptures . Quarto . The Plain Man's Reply to the Catholick Missionaries . 24 o. The Protestant's Companion : Or an Impartial Survey , and Comparison of the Protestant Religion as by Law established , with the main Doctrines of Popery . Wherein is shewn , that Popery is contrary to Scripture , Primitive Fathers and Councils ; and that proved from Holy Writ , the Writings of the Ancient Fathers , for several hundred Years , and the Confession of the most Learned Papists themselves . Quarto . Mr. Chillingworth's Book called [ The Religion of Protestants a safe way to Salvation ] made more generally useful , by omitting Personal Contest , but inserting whatsoever concerns the Common Cause of Protestants , or defends the Church of England . With an Addition of an Useful Table , and also of some genuine Pieces of the same Author never before Printed , viz. about Traditions , against the Catholicism and Infallibility of the Roman Church . And an Account of the Arguments which moved him to turn Papist , with his Confutation of the said Arguments . Quarto . A Discourse of the Holy Eucharist , in the two great points of the Real Presence and the Adoration of the Host. In Answer to the Two Discourses lately printed at Oxford on this Subject . To which is prefixed a large Historical Preface relating to the same Argument . Quarto . The Pillar and Ground of Truth . A Treatise shewing that the Roman Church falsly claims to be That Church , and the Pillar of That Truth , mentioned by S. Paul in his First Epistle to Timothy , Chap. III. Vers. 15. Quarto . A Brief Discourse concerning the Notes of the Church , with some reflections on Cardinal Bellarmin's Fifteen Notes . Quarto . An Examination of the Cardinal's First Note , concerning [ The Name of Catholick ] . — His Second Note , [ Antiquity ] . — His Third Note , [ Duration ] . — His Fourth Note , [ Amplitude or Multitude , and variety of Believers ] . — His Fifth Note , [ The Succession of Bishops ] . — His Sixth Note , [ Agreement in Doctrine with the Primitive Church ] . — His Seventh Note , [ Union of the Members among themselves , and with the Head ] . — His Eighth Note , [ Sanctity of Doctrine ] . ( The rest will be published Weekly in their Order ) . A Defence of the Confuter of Bellarmin's Second Note of the Church [ Antiquitr ] against the Cavills of the Adviser . Quarto . The Peoples Right to read the Holy Scriptures asserted . In Answer to the 6th , 7th , 8th , 9th and 10th Chapters of the [ Popish Representer , Second Part ] . Two Discourses : Of Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead . Quarte . 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 ] . FINIS . Notes, typically marginal, from the original text Notes for div A59894-e2320 Ans. to request , p. 1. Answer to Request , p. 2. F , Prot. Answer to Request , p. 3. Answer to Request . p. 5. Council . Trid. Sess. 7. de Eucharistia cap. 5. Answer to Request , p. 7. Concil . Corstant . Sess. 13. Purgatorium esse , animasque ibi detentas , fidelium suffragiis , potissimum vero acceptabili altataris sacrificio juvari praecipit Sancta Synodus Episcopis , ut sanam de purgatorio Doctrinam , à sanctis patrib●s & sacris conciliis traditam , Christi fidelibus credi , teneri , doceri , & ubique predicari diligenter studeant . Concil . Trid. Sess. 25. decret . de purgat . De purgat . l. 1. cap. 5. cap. 10. l. 2. cap. 10 , 11 , 12. Cap. 11. Idem l. 2. cap. 3 , 4. Ibid. c. 14. Cap. 16. Irenaeus l. 5. contr . haeres . c. 31. Tert. de anima , cap. 55. * Supergrediuntur ordinem promotionis justorum , & modos ( al. motus ) meditationis ad incorruptelam ignorant . Ir. ibid. Qui ergo universam reprobant resurrectionem , & quantum in ipsis est , auferunt eam de medio , quid mirum est , si nec ordinem resurrectionis sciunt . — Ibid. Quidam ex his , qui putantur rec●e credidisse — baereticos sensus in se habentes . Ibid. Dall . de poenis & satisf . l. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Locum divinae amoenitatis recipiendis sanctorum spiritibus destinat●m . Tert. Apol. cap. 47. Iustin Martyr l. resp . ad Orth. quaest . 75. Hilar. in Psal. 2. & in Psal. 120. Ergo dum expectatur plenitudo temporis , expectant animae Resurrectionem debitam . Alias manet poena , alias gloria . Et tamen nec illae interim sine in●●iâ , nec istae sine fructu . Ambr. de bono mortis cap. 10. Nulli patet coelum terra adhuc salva , ne dixerim clausa , cum transactione enim mundi reserabuntur regna coelorum . Tert. Apol. cap. 47. Chrys. Hom. 29. in Matth. Aug. l. 16. de C. D. c. 24. Tale aliquid etiam post hanc vitam fieri incredibile non est , & utrum ita sit , quaeri potest ; & aut inveniri , aut latere , nonnullos fideles per ignem quendam Purgatorium , quanto magis minusve bona pereuntia dilexerunt , tanto tardius , eitiusve , salvari . Aug. Enchirid. c. 69. Cum iis quae descripsimus , ita nostra vel aliorum exerceatur , vel erudiatur , infirmitas , ut tamen in eis nulla velut canonica constituatur authoritas . Aug. de octo Quaest. Dulcilii Quaest. 3. Aug. Enchiridion ad Laurent . cap. 67 , 68 , 69. Ambros. Serm 20. in Psal. 118. Cyrilli Hierosol . liturgia . Syr. orationes . Bibl. patrum . T. 6. Tertull. contra Marcion . c. 24. Dall . de poenis & satisf . l. 5. c. 9. Tert. de monog . c. 10. Ambr. de obitu Val. Bibl. Patr. T. 6. Enchirid. ad Laurent . De civit . Dei l. 12. c. 9. Idem , Tract , 10. in Ep. Ioan. Chrys. Serm. 3. in Philip. ed. Savil. Tom 4. p. 20. & in Hebr. Ser. 4. p. 453. Chrys. Homil. 21 in Act. T. 4. p. 734. Aug. Enchirid. ad Laurent . Answer to Request , p. 10 , 11. Genes . 8. 20. Genes . 12 7 , 8. Ch. 26. 25. 35. Act. 3. 1. Psal. 141. 1. Luke 1. 10. Revel . 8. 3 , 4. Hebr. 7. 25. See Answer to Papists protesting against Protestant Popery . See the Object of Religious worship , Part 1. and the Answer to Papists Protesting against Protestant Popery , Sect. 4. Protestancy destitute of Scripture-Proofs , p. 8. 1 Kings 12. 28. 1 Kings 16 , 31. 32. 2 Kings 10. 16. Maximus Tyrius Dissert . 38. Answer to Request . p. 12. Prot. dest . p. 9. 1 Cor. 14. 6. 19. Vers. 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11. Vers. 14 , 15 , 16. Answer to Request . p. 13. Protestancy destitute of Scripture Proofs . p. 10. See Dr. Barrows Treatise of SuPremacy . See Dr. Stilling fl . Origines Britan. p. 106. &c. Answer to Request . Protestancy destitute of Scripture Proofs . Church Government . Part. 5. English Reformation ch . 2. p. 21. Burnets History of the Reformation , part 1. book 2. p. 137. Burnets Histo ry of the Reform . part 2. l. 3. p. 401. Church Government Part. 5. concerning the English Reformation . See the Authority of Councils , with the Appendix . in Answer to the eight Theses of the Oxford Writer , And the Judge of Controversies .