X js'-'''K»'
1' -ttffiaSs^^Miaata'j.ia'S-!

YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

A
PRESERVATIVE AGAINST POPERY,

IN SEVERAL

^tlttt 33is!«ursie£5

UrON THE

PRINCIPAL HEADS OF CONTROVERSY
BETWEEN
PROTESTANTS AND PAPISTS
BEING WRITTEN AND PUBLISHED
33g tl)j moiSt «min«nt Mibines of t!)t dijurtfi of (JBnglanU,
CHIEFLY IN THE REIGN OF KING JAMES II.
COLLECTED BY
THE RIGHT REV. EDMUND GIBSON, D.D.
SUCCBSSIVELr LORD BISHOP OF LINCOLN AND LONDON,
[B, 1669, D, 1748,]
CAREFULLY REVISED AND EDITED
FOE THE BRITISH SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING THE RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES
OP THE REFORMATION, BY
THE REV. JOHN GUMMING, D,D,

VOL, XI.

L O N 1) O M :
PUBLISHED AT THE SOCIETY'S OFFICE,
8, EXETER HALL, STRAND.

, .-.- p., i:,
y-^f w>~ *¦-¦!''

CONTENTS OF VOLUME XI.

THE POPISH METHODS
FOR THE PARDON OF SIN, GROUNDLESS.
BOOK VI.
UPON THE HEAD OF PURGATORY.
PAGE
I, — A Discourse of Purgatory, By Dr, 'Wake, late Archbishop of
Canterbury  1
II, — The Texts examined, which Papists cite out of the Bible, for
the proof of their Doctrine concerning Purgatory, In two
Pai-ts, By Mr, Brampston, Prebend of 'Worcester , 36
BOOK VII,
UPON THE HEAB OF PRAYER FOE THE DEAD.
A Discoui-se of Prayers for the Dead. By Dr, 'Wake, late Arch
bishop of Canterbury  82

AN APPENDIX, CONTAINING SOME GENERAL DISCOURSES
AGAINST POPERY,
I. — A Preservative against Popery : being some plain Directions to
unlearned Protestants, how to dispute with Romish Priests,
In two Parts, By Dr, Sherlock, late Dean of St, Paul's 104

IV CONTENTS.

PAGE

II. — A Summary of the principal controversies between the Church
of England and the Church of Rome. By Dr, Sherlock,
late Dean of St, Paul's .  247
III, — The Council of Trent examined and disproved by Catholic
Tradition, iu the main points in controversy between us and
the Church of Rome ; with a particular account of the times
and occasions of introducing them. To which a Preface is
prefixed conceming the true sense of the Council of Trent,
and the notion of Transubstantiation, By Dr, Stilling-
FLEET, late Bishop of 'Worcester  339

THE POPISH
METHODS FOR THE PARDON OF SIN
GROUNDLESS.

BOOK VI,
UPON THE HEAD OF PURGATORY,
A DISCOURSE OF PURGATORY.

INTRODUCTION,

There is so near a connexion between the two points of
Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead, as they are now estab
lished in the Church of Rome, that it is impossible to state
the one as we ought, without entering on some consideration
of the other. It has been so much the rather thought fit to
give an account to the world of both these, in that the opinions
of the primitive Fathers touching the state of the souls de
parted, and the early practice of praying for the dead founded
thereupon, being not well understood by the generality now-a-
days, seem to give our adversaries a greater pretence to
antiquity in these points, than in most others that are in
debate betwixt us.
For what concerns the latter of these, I shall in the next
discourse say what I suppose may be sufficient to shew, how
little grounds the ancient custom of praying for the dead in
the primitive ages of Christianity, will afford to the practice
of those who pretend to be their followers in the same custom
now. As to the business of Purgatory, which is our present
concern, we willingly allow it to have been of very venerable
antiquity ; and to have exceeded not only our Reformation,
but even Christianity itself, for some hundreds of years. The
truth is, the Church of Rome is beholden for this doctrine,
as well as for many other things in her religion, to her worthy
VOL, XI, B

2 POPISH METHODS FOR THE PARDON OP SIN,
ancestors the heathen poets and philosophers ; and though
I cannot tell how far Cardinal BeUarmine's'^ argument will
hold good to prove it from thence to have been the dictate of
right reason itself, because this might engage us to give up the
cause to Paganism, not only in the points of the worship of
images and inferior deities, &c, which perhaps the Cardinal
may be content to think the voice of nature too ; but even as
to all the other parts of their superstition, in which they were
more universally agreed than in their notion of a purgatory ;
yet for what concerns the thing itself, we do not deny but
that many of them did certainly believe it,
Eusebius recounts it of Plato, f that he di-vided mankind
into three states : some, who having purified themselves by
philosophy, and excelled in holiness of life, enjoy an eternal
felicity in the islands of the blest, vdthout any labour or trou
ble, which neither is it possible for any words to express or
any thoughts to conceive. Others, that having lived exceed
ingly wicked, and therefore seemed incapable of cure, -he sup
posed were at their deaths thrown down headlong into hell,
there to be tormented for ever. But now, besides these, he
imagined there were a middle sort,J who, though they had
sinned, yet had repented of it ; and therefore seemed to be in
a curable condition, and these he thought went down for some
time into hell too, to be purged and absolved by grievous tor
ments : but that after that, they should be delivered from it,
and attain to honours according to the dignity of their bene
factors. Now that they supposed these who were in this state, might
receive help from the prayers and sacrificings of the li-ying,
the complaints of the ghosts of Elpenor in Homer, § and of
Palinurus in Virgil, || abundantly shew. And indeed the
ceremonies used for their deliverance, as described by those
poets, ^ so nearly resemble the practice of the present Roman
Church, that were but their poems canonical, it would be in
vain for the most obstinate heretic here to contend with them,
* Bellarmine de Purgat. lib. 1. cap, 11. p. 612. Colon. 1620.
t Prseparat. Evangel. lib._ 11. cap. 38 p, 568. Ed. GL. Paris, 1627,
J Kai oi fiiv dv do^aiai iikiTMg ^ijiioiKivat, -TropevdkvTeQ k-!rl rbv ' A\i-
povra, avajiavTss S. dij Kai aiiroTs dxvtiara kariv, IttI tovtov (f.
Toiroiv) a<pixvovvTai tiq Trjv Xijivriv, Kai kKti oUovai ts, Kal Ka9ai-
p6iiivot,ruiv Te dSiK-iifiaTuv Sidovrig Siicae,a7roX-uovTai ei rig ri riS'iKtidi.
T&v Tt tvipyiaiCiv TiftaQ^ipovrai, Kara rrjv aS,iav tKaarog.
§ In Odyss. 1. 12. |1 In ^neid. 1, 6,
H Vid. ib, Odys. 30. Virg. ^Eneid, 1. 5.

purgatory. 3
It must then be confessed, that our adversaries in this point
have at least 400 years antiquity, not only against us, but
even beyond Christianity itself. And I suppose I may,
without any injury to the memories of those holy men, who
have been our forerunners in the faith, say, that it was the
impression which these opinions of their philosophy had made
upon them, that moved them, when they became Christians,
to fall into conjectures concerning the state of the soul in the
time of separation, not very much different from what they
had believed before.
It is not necessary to recount the errors of Origen as to this
matter : who turned even hell itself into a purgatory,* and
thought that not only vdcked men, but the very devils too,
might be so purged in it, as to come forth angels of light,
St, Augustine tells us,-t- that the Platonics were of an
opinion not much different from this, who though they would not
have any sins passed unpunished, yet supposed that all punish
ments, whether of this life or the next, were designed to amend,
and therefore that whatever pains awaited men after death, they
were all purgatory. And though this conceit of Origen has
been condemned by the Church as heretical, yet there re
mained other opinions for some centuries after, not much
differing from it, J Some thought that " all men whatsoever
should in the end be saved ;" others, and among these, § St,
Jerome himself, that " all Christians should be delivered :"||
some who restrairied their charity yet more, still allowed sal
vation to all that died -within the pale of the catholic Church ;
to which others finally added this further condition, that they
had not only stood firm to the faith, but also been charitable
to the poor. Which last circumstance is the very same that
Virgil,^ from the Platonics, again required in those who
should be translated to the Elysian fields ; in which therefore
he places not only them whose virtue and piety had entitled
to that happiness, but also by their alms had made others
mindful of them,
"Quique sui memores alios fecere merendo."
But not to insist more particularly on these things ; three
* Bellarmine, 1, 1, de Purgat, t. 2, [ut supra,] p, 573,
t De Civitat, Dei 1, 21, c. 13. p, 793. t, 5. Lugd, 1664,
J See for all those, St. Austin de Civit, Dei, 1, 21, c, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22,
^ See below Sect,
11 August, Enchirid. ad Laurent, c. 67. [ut supra,] p. 64. t. 3.
IT Virgil, .Sneid, 1, 6,
B 2

4 POPISH METHODS FOR THE PARDON OP SIN,
opinions there seem to have been among the ancient Fathers
concerning tbe state of men after death, more generally
received, "=1, That the souls departed do not straightway go to
heaven, but remain in a quiet and pleasing state, free of all
troubles and pains, yet earnestly expecting their final consum
mation in glory,
2. Another opinion there was, which from the credulity of
Papias,t became almost the universal belief of the first ages of
Christianity, concerning the millenary kingdom of Christ jj
that our blessed Sa-viour, before the final judgment, should
come down from heaven, and raise from the dead those
of the faithful whose piety had been most eminent and ap
proved ; and with them reign a thousand years at Jerusalem,
in great plenty, and with extraordinary splendour ; and that
this was that which St. John meant by the first resurrection,
and at the end whereof the other was to follow,
3, A third opinion, and that too embraced by many of the
most ancient Fathers, § was, that all men being raised up at
the last day, should pass through a certain probatory fire,]] in
which every man should be scorched and purified ; and some
be tormented more, others less, according as they had lived
better or worser lives here upon earth.
Such were the opinions of the primitive Fathers as to this
matter. It is e-sddent to any one that shall please to compare
these -with the account I shall hereafter give of the present
Roman purgatory, how vastly different they were from what is
now proposed to us as an article of faith. But yet from these,
opinions it is, that those of that communion impose upon the
unwary their pretence of antiquity for this doctrine ; whilst
whatever those holy men have written of a third place, mean-
» Bellarmine de Sanct, beatl, 1, c, 5. p. 713. [Colon. 1620.] Owns it
to have been the opinion of Tertullian, Lactantius, and Victoriuus
Martyr: but Sixtus Senensis more fairly confesses it of many others,
Bibl, lib, 6, annot, 345, p. 714, edit, 1626, Colon, 4to, Irenaeus, Justin
Martyr, Clemens, Origen, Prudentius, Ambrose, St, Chrysostom, St,
Augustine, Theodoret, &c,
t See Eusebius Hist. Eccles. 1. 3. u. 39. [p. 112.1 edit. Valesii. [Par,
1659] ^
t Justin Martyr contr, Tryph. p. 89. C. Edit. Henr. Staph. Gr.—
Irenaeus vid, apud Euseb, Hist, Eccles. lib, 3. cap. 39. [Ibid,] Tertul
lian passim, &c,
§ This is asserted by almost all the Fathers of the Primitive Church,
11 AoKt/iaaTiKov.

PURGATORY, 5
ing the place of sequester"' before mentioned ; but especially
of the pulsatory firef at the end of the world, they presently
apply it all to their own fancy, and which in those first ages
found no manner of entertainment.
It is, I know, generally pretended by those of the other
communion, that St. Augustine at least began to favour their
opinion. And indeed I will not deny but that he does some
times speak of a purgatory after this life ; but yet so, as that
it refers either to the same purgation we before spake of, at the
end of the world ; or else to that grief, f which he imagined
those souls who had been passionately tied to the things of this
world, might still retain in their place of sequester: and
which he therefore thought to be the meaning of that obscure
place of St. Paul, 1 Cor. iii. 12, so confidently produced by
our adversaries on all occasions, in favour of their doctrine.
But all this he proposes with so much doubt and uncertainty,
as plainly shews it to have been in this Father's time so far
from an article of faith, that he durst not affirm any thing at
all concerning it.
Thus then had the Roman doctrine of purgatory no maimer
of foundation in the Primitive Church. About 600 years after
Christ, Pope Gregory the Great first began to give countenance
to it. The pubUc practice of praying for the dead continuing
still in force in the Church, and those opinions of the primitive
Fathers upon which that was first estabhshed, being now no
longer received with that universal belief they had heretofore
been, it was but natural to seek out some other grounds for a
practice, which they saw so generally received, and yet could
not well tell what account to give of the reason of it. Let us
add this, that about that time a sad barbarity began every
where almost to overspread the world : the Goths and Lom
bards in Italy, the Franks and Burgundians in France, the
Vandals and West Goths in Spain, the Saxons in Britain,
destroying almost all learning out of the world. From hence
forth miracles and visions governed the Church : the flames of
jEtna and Vesu-vius were thought on purpose to have been
kindled to torment departed souls. Some were seen broiling
upon gridirons, others roasting upon spits, some burning
before a fire, others shivering in the water, or smoking in a
* 1st Opinion, t 3rd Opinion,
} Vid, August, loc. supr, citat, Enchirid. cap. 67. [vol. 6. p, 221, Par,
1685,] ad Dulcit quEest, 1, &c.

6 POPISH METHODS FOR THE PARDON OP SIN.
chimney. The very ways to purgatory were now discovered ;
one in Sicily, another in Pozzueto, a third nearer home, in
Ireland. One found out by the help of an angel, another of the
devil. Insomuch that Pope Gregory himself was carried away
with these illusions, and which some are not ashamed, even at
this day, to support.
By these means came purgatory first established in the
Roman Church, in the sixth, seventh, and eighth centuries :
but yet, still the article continued rude and unpolished. Pope
Gregory discovered how certain souls, for their punishment,
were confined to baths and such like places on earth, but he
had not, as yet, found out any one common place for them to
be tormented in, in hell. Nay, for some ages after, it seems
not to have been risen to a matter of certainty, so far was it
yet from being an article of faith. Insomuch that in the
twelfth century, many doubted of it, as we may gather by that
expression of Otto Frisingensis,"' Ann. 1146 : "That there is
in hell a place of purgatory, wherein such as are to be saved,
are either only troubled -with darkness, or decocted with the
fire of expiation, some (says he) do affirm ;" plainly enough
implying, that all did not believe it.
It is not necessary to say, what opposition this novel inven
tion met with in the several centuries in the Latin Church,
from Claude, bishop of Turin, in the ninth century, from Peter
Bruges and Henry his successor at Toulouse ; from the Wal-
denses in France and Piedmont, among whom this doctrine
was never received, and who are therefore condemned by
Cardinal Bellarmine himself,t on this account. I wiU rather
observe, that the Eastern Churches have continued all along
free from this error. For, however the Pope and his ministers
so far prevailed -with the Greeks in the Council of Florence,J
as to persuade them to yield to a kind of pretended imion in
this matter ; yet both their apology penned by Marcus Euge-
nicus,§ archbishop of Ephesus, and presented to Cardinal
Cusan, and the deputies of the Council of Basil || the year
* Lib. 8. Chron. cap, 26. Esse apud inferos locum Purgatorium, in quo
salvandi vel tenebris tantum afficiantur, vel expiatiouis igne decoquantur,
quidam asserunt, [fol, xcix. p, 2. Ai-gent, 1515,]
t Bellar. de Purg. 1. 1. cap. 2, p. 571, 572,
X Session 25ta, Counc, Labb. tom, 13. p. 492. et p, 1135 TLut
Par. 1672,] ^ ^ '
§ Vid, apud Sixt, Senens, Bibl. 1, 6, Aunot, 259 [ut supra.] p. 667,
II June 14, 1438,

PURGATORY. 7
before, wherein they positively declare, "that they neither
had received any such doctrine from their ancestors, and
therefore neither would they ever accept it ;" plainly shews
they had no such tradition amongst them ; and the proceedings
of the same Marcus, and of the Greek Church after, neither
of which would be drawn to consent to this union, more
fully confirm it. And it is well known how the Christians*
of Asia and Africa do not at this day consent with the Roman
Church in this point, as some of their own authors confess ;
though others not so ingenuous, would endeavour to persuade
the contrary.
But however this be, purgatory is now become an article of
faith, and of too comfortable an importance to be easily parted
with ; nor have I the vanity to hope I shall be able to argue
those men out of it,-]- who, by this craft, gain their li-ving, and
will, no doubt, therefore, be as zealous in defence of it, as ever
Demetrius wasof the great goddess Dianauponthe same account.
But for those whose interest it rather is to be freed from these
terrors after death, which serve only to enrich the priests, and
keep the laity all their lives in fear and subjection ; I hope to
satisfy them, that these are only imaginary flames, invented
for gain, established upon false grounds, and kept up by
artifice and terrors to delude the people, but which themselves,
many of them, no more believe, than did that great Cardinal,
who minded one day to pose his chaplain, J and proposed this
question to him, " How many masses would serve to fetch any
soul out of purgatory ?" to which, when he appeared, as well
he might, unable to reply, the Cardinal thus pleasantly
solved the doubt, " that just so many masses would serve to
fetch a soul out of purgatory, as snow-balls would serve to heat
an oven."
But it is time now to come to a closer examination of all
these thiogs, and in order thereunto, let us first see : —

* Histoire Critique, p, 5. 20 Edit. Franckfort, 1684, for the Greeks,
Id, p. 69. Cites Gabriel Sionita, affirming the same of the Melchites,
Purgatorium nuUum existere pessime crediderunt. Id. p, 72, That the
Georgians beheve a Purgatory, but not such as the C. R, See concerning
the Armenians, p. 141, Job Lndolph, Hist, .Sthiop, Lat, shews the same
of the Ethiopians, that they deny a Purgatoiy, 1. 3. u, 5. n. 67, 68, See
BeUarm. 1. 1, de Purg. cap, 2, [ut supra,] p. 572.
t Acts xix. 25, &c. t C. RicheUeu.

8 POPISH METHODS FOR THE PARDON OF SIN,
Sect, I,
What it is that the Church of Rome means by Purgatory.
Had the doctrine of Purgatory been as clearly explained by
the Council of Trent, as it was peremptorily defined in it, we
should have had the less need to make the present inquiry,'''
In Pope Pius IVth's Creed, it is only said in general terms,
that " they constantly believe that there is a purgatory, and
that the souls there detained are helped by the suffrages of
the faithful," Nor is their decree concerning it at all more
clear ; it only adds, " that they are assisted by the suffrages of
the faithful,t hut especially by the acceptable sacrifice of the
mass ; and therefore, that the bishops should diligently take
care that the wholesome doctrine of purgatory, delivered by
the holy Fathers and Councils, should be believed, held, and
taught by all the faithful in Christ,"
Indeed, in the foregoing sessions,! we find two other things
defined vrith reference to this doctrine, but such as conduce
very little to the better understanding of it. 1st, It anathema
tizes those who shall say, " that after the grace of justification,
the fault and guUt of eternal punishment is so remitted to the
penitent sinner, that there remains no guilt of a temporal
punishment to be paid by him, either now, or hereafter in
purgatory, before he can attain to the kingdom of heaven."
And, 2ndly, in their Canons of the Mass, they resolve, " If any
one shall say that the mass is not a propitiatory sacrifice, or
that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead,§
for their sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities, let
him be anathema,"
And accordingly, the Bishop of Meaux, in his Exposition of
the Doctrine of the Catholic Church, contains himself within
the same bounds : " Those (says he) who depart this hfe in
grace and charity, || but nevertheless indebted to the Divine
justice some pains which it reserved, are to suffer them in the
other life, — This is what the Council of Trent proposes to our
belief, touching the souls detained in purgatory, without
• See it at the End of the Council of Trent, p, 225, Edit, Labbe, Paris,
1667, Fol,
t Session 25. [Ibid.] p. 174, t Session 6. Can, 30, [Ibid,] p, 41,
§ Session 22, Can. 3. [Ibid.] p. 135,
II Expos, Bish, Condom, sect. 8, p, 15,

puhsatgry. 9
defining in what their pains consist, or many other such like
things," The Misrepresenter calls it, " A place or state where souls
departing this life,* pardoned as to the eternal guilt or pain,
yet obnoxious to some temporal penalty, or with guilt of some
venial faults, are purged and purified before their admittance
into heaven,"
Alexander Natalis is yet more precise : he distinguishes
what is of faith in this matter, and what not, and thus resolves :f
that it does not at all belong to the faith, " 1st, Concerning
the place, whether it be in this world, or upon earth, or in the
dark air where the de-vils are : or in the hell of the damned ;
or in some place underneath nearer the earth, that the souls
are purged, 2ndly, Concerning the quality of those sensible
pains which the souls held in purgatory undergo ; whether it
be true and corporeal fire, or whether darkness and sorrow, or
any other torment inflicted by the justice of God, punishing
them after a wonderful, yet true manner, 3rdly, Concerning
the duration of these purgatory pains, how long the souls are
detained there. For though Soto thought that no soul con
tinued in purgatory above ten years, yet it is a matter altogether
uncertain how many years those pains shall last, — The only
thing therefore (he says) that is in controversy between the
CathoUcs (as he calls them) and Protestants, is this, whether
the faith teaches that there is a state of the dead, in which
they shall be expiated by temporary punishments, ahd from
which they may be freed, or otherwise helped by the prayers
of the Church,"
But though this then be all which these men suppose is to
come into our inquiry ; yet I must observe, that the Catechism
sent out by order of the Council of Trent, determines concern
ing the pains themselves, that they are caused by fire, " There
is (says that CatechismJ) a purgatory fire, in which the
souls of the faithful being tormented for a certain time, are
expiated ; that so a passage may be opened for them into their
eternal country, into which no defiled thing can enter," So
that I do not see how they can choose but allow the pains of
purgatory to be determined by them to the particular kind of
fire, * Papist Misrepr, sect, 23, p, 30,
+ In Dissert. Sffic, 4, dissert, 41, p, 352, [Par, 1679,
t Catechism, ad Paroch, part, 1, Artie, 5, sect, 5, page 41- Colon,
1684,

10 POPISH METHODS FOR THE PARDON OP SIN,
St, Thomas is yet more precise ; not only that it is fire in
which the souls are tormented, but that it is the very same
fire that torments the damned in hell,* and the just in pur
gatory. And Bellarminef himself confesses, that almost all
their divines teach, that the damned and the souls in purgatory
are tormented in the same fire, and in the same place.
But yet, since they suppose that nothing ought to come
into this dispute, but just what is defined in the Council of
Trent ; we will take the state of the question according to
their own desire, and inquire only in the words of Cardinal
Bellarmine, " Whether there be any such place (as they suppose) in
which, as in a prison, the souls are purged after this life,
which were not fully purged before : that so being cleansed,
they may be able to go into heaven, where no unclean thing
shall enter," Sect, II,
That there is no ground for such a Purgatory in the Holy
Scripture.
To demonstrate this, it will not, I presume, be expected
that I should shew the weakness of all those places, which
though some of their controvertists have alleged, yet the
more learned among them freely confess to have nothing to
the purpose in them. Cardinal Bellarmine has put together
nineteen several texts out of both Testaments ; but yet was far
from thinking them all to his purpose ;J confessing either of
all, or at least of all out of the Old 'Testament, except the
first, that they are but probable arguments. Of these Alexander
Natalis utterly rejects sixteen ; and one he mentions not, as
indeed he needed not to do it, when Bellarmine himself had
set a particular mark upon it,§ as impertinent.
The Misrepresenter, unwilling to see his cause reduced to
two only places of holy Scripture, restores again to its autho
rity, jj one of those which Natalis had rejected,^ and adds
another which they had all of them overlooked, but very unfor-
* In 4, Sent, dlst, 21, qu, 1, art. 1. [vol. 12. p. 499. col. 1, Venet,
1780.] t BeUarm. de Purg. lib. 2. cap, 6, [ut supra,] p, 646
t De Purgat. 1. 1. c. 3, [Ibid,] p. 578, a,
§ Ibid, cap. 8. arg, ult, sect, Utuntur nostri, p, 601, D.
II 1 Cor. iii. 15. If 1 Pet. iii. 15.

PURGATORY, • 1 1
tunately : for that, first, they have ever been esteemed* two
of the most difficult and obscure places of all the New Testa
ment ; and therefore, certainly must be very unfit to build an
article of faith upon. And then, 2ndly, for St, Austin, upon
whose authority he would be thought to allege them ; it is
evident that he utterly mistook the design of that Father,
if he thought that he understood them of the Roman pur
gatory, as both his words evidently shew, and his own masters,
Natalisf has ingenuously confessed for the one, and Bellar-
minej for the other. So that then I may reasonably presume
to have answered the design of the present section, if I can
give a fair account of those two places which they all agree to
be the principal supports of this doctrine ; § and from whence
some of them doubt not to say, it may be demonstratively
concluded. Now the first of these, is that noted passage in the 2 Maccab.
cap, xii. where (they tell us) it is said,|| "That money #as sent
to Jerusalem, that sacrifices might be offered for the slain ; and
it is recommended as a holy cogitation, to pray for the dead."
This, not only Bellarmine^ ranks in front of his Scripture
proofs, but the Misrepresenter has again advanced it, and
Natalis doubts not to call it a demonstrative testimony.
But to all this our exceptions are very just :
1st, That the book itself is not of sufficient authority to
estabhsh a matter of faith.
2ndly, That if it were, yet is not the text, by any means,
clear for the proof of that, to which it is apphed by them,
1st, For the authority of the Book itself.
Thus much our adversaries themselves confess,** and I think
we need desire no more ; that this book was never received by
the Jewsff as canonical : that St, Jerome therefore rejected it
out of the canon of the Christian Church : that it was not of a
long time|J after received into it ; insomuch, that in Pope
* BeUarm, de Purg.l, 1, c, 5, [Ibid,] p. 582, A- NataUs Alex, dissert,
41, ssec, 4, [ut supra,] p, 378,
t Vid, in loc, 1 Cor, iii, 15, [ut supra,] p, 377, 379,
t BeUarm, de Christi Anima, lib, 4, cap, 13. p, 455, per tot,
$ Natal, Alex, in loc, [ut supra,] p, 362, || Misrepres, ii. 23, p, 28,
\ BeUarm. de Purg, 1, 1. c, 3, Misr, Sect, 23, p, 28, Natalis ub.
supr, p, 364, ** See Mons, du Pin, Biblioth, dissert, prel, p, 59, &c,
tt BeUarm, de Purg, 1, 1, cap, 3, p, 575, NataUs Alex. Sec, 4, par, 3,
cU^ert, 41, [ut supra,] p, 365, Xt BeUarm, ibid. p. 576.A,B,

12 POPISH METHODS FOR THE PARDON OF SIN.
Gregory the Great's time,* that is 600 years after Christ, it
was lawful to doubt of its authority ; for indeed, that Pope
himself did not receive it as canonical. And sure then it
ought not to be thought unreasonable in us to doubt of the
authority of a book, which being a part of the Old Testament,
was yet never received by the Jews as canonical, and of whose
authenticalness therefore, the primitive Christian Church, for
the first 600 years, declared themselves altogether unsatisfied.
But, 2ndly, To allow the book the credit which they desire ; yet
still the text is by no means clear for the proof of that to
which it is applied by them. The story itself is this, " Tliat
when Judas, the day after the battle, came to bury the bodies
of them that were slain, -f they found under the coats of every
one that had been killed, things consecrated to the idols of the
Jamnites, which was forbidden to the Jews by the law. This
discovered to them the cause of their death, and how they
were slain by God for their sin. Hereupon Judas, and all his
men, betook themselves to prayer, and besought God that the
sin might wholly be put out of remembrance. And Judas,
upon this occasion, exhorted the people to keep themselves,
by their example, from the like sin ; and lastly, he made a
collection among them of a sum of money, and sent it to
Jerusalem, to offer a sin-offering unto the Lord,"
This is the story, and the design of all is very easy ; that
Judas, considering the danger he had been in by the sin of
these men, prayed to God that it might not be imputed to the
people, and offered a sin-offering for the congregation according
to the law; remembering what the whole people had once
suffered in the like case for Achan's transgression, J
But our adversaries will have this sin-offering to have been
for the dead, and the history expressly says it was so, I
answer, 1 st, The history says no more than what we have set
down, that Judas did this : for the rest, it is the conjecture of
the historian, not an historical narration of what design Judas
had in it. Now that this could not have been his design, is
evident : 2ndly, In that, neither the law of Moses, nor any
other part of the holy Scripture, makes any mention of any
such sacrifice, either prescribed or aUowed of, for the dead.
And 3rdly, Had the law in some cases approved of sacrifices
* Canus, 1. 2. c. 10, ad, 4, fa Maccab. xu. 39, &c,
t Joshua vii.

PUBQATORY, 13
for the dead, yet certainly it could not have done it in this,
idolatry being one of those sins for which there was no offer
ing allowed, nor any atonement to be made for it.
But what then is it, that this historian designed ? I reply,
it was this : that Judas, by this sacrifice, made an atonement
for the dead, to the end, that their sin being forgiven, they
might have a happy resurrection. This he expressly declares,
ver, 44, 45, "For considering (says the historian) that there
is an excellent reward laid up for those that die godly, which
was a holy and godly thought ;* he therefore made an expia
tion for the dead, that they might be absolved from their sin,"
For many of the Jews then, as some Christians have done
since, thought offerings might be made for the forgiveness of
those sins after death, that were not forgiven before , Therefore,
seeing that these soldiers died in a grievous sin before they
had time to repent, the historian supposed that Judas might
have designed this offering to expiate their offence,' that so
they might obtain a happy resurrection. But now, this was
only the conjecture of the historian, and as before we have
seen very ill grounded, to be sure far enough distant from the
Roman purgatory. For 1st, This respected the future resur
rection, that the present sufferings of the dead, 2ndly, The
prayers here spoken of were offered for men who died in a
mortal sin ; but the Papists deny that any such go to purgatory,
or can receive any benefit from the prayers of the living, 3rdly,
Whatever becomes of all the rest ; how was it possible that
these prayers should have been designed for the slain to deliver
them out of purgatory, when, if we will believe the Papists
themselves, their souls were not there, but either in hell or in
the limbus, where they supposed the souls of the ancient
Fathers were detained, till our Saviour Christ descending
thither, set them free.
So that which way soever then we consider this passage, it
cannot give us any manner of satisfaction. If we look upon it
as a part of that history, the book is not canonical ; nor was
ever esteemed so by the Jews, or by the Christians of the first
600 years. If we take it as the history of what Judas did,
this respected not the dead at all ; nor by consequence, can it
belong to purgatory. If, according to the opinion of the
relator, it regards the dead indeed, but then with reference to
* EZr' iji^Xiiriav toXq /ler tvatjStiae KoijxmfikvoiQ sakXiarov avo-
Ktifitvov xapiarrjpiov, baia Kai tvat^ris iirivoia. "OSitv irepi Ti9vt)-
KOTUV Tov kii\aaiJ,bv 's-woiriaaTO rfiQ ajiapriaq airo\v9fivai.

14 POPISH METHODS FOR THE PARDON OF SIN,
their future resurrection, not their present punishment ; and
so is StiU impertinent. If, finally, according to the hypothesis
of the Papists themselves, it is utterly impossible it should
belong to purgatory, because there was, as yet, no such place,
and therefore these soldiers could not be there, or by any sacri
fices be delivered from thence. And this, I hope, may be a
sufficient reply to this first passage.
The other, from whence they also tell us their doctrine of
purgatory may be demonstratively concluded, is in the xiith
of St, Matth. ver, 32, where our Saviour, speaking of the sin
against the Holy Ghost, tells us, that " it shall not be for
given, neither in this world, neither in the world to come,"
He would, I believe, be thought to make a very strange
conclusion, that should, without more ado, argue thus abruptly
from this passage, "Therefore there is a purgatory:" and
indeed, . they themselves are sensible of it. And therefore
Bellarmine confesses, that according to the rules of logic, pur
gatory cannot be inferred from hence : but, according to the
rules of prudence, he thinks it may, because that otherwise, he
says, Christ must be said to have spoken improperly, which we
ought not to suppose he did. But if there be nothing in this
place to prove purgatory, according to the rules of logic, I
suppose it must be some mistake then, in that which he told
us before, that it may be demonstratively inferred from thence.
For as for the rule of prudence, that will, at most, make it but
very probable.
But indeed, this rule will fail them, as well as the other,
as we shall e-ridently see in examining the proofs which they
make from it. Now their argument lies thus : " Our Saviour
Christ says, that the sin against the Holy Ghost shall not be
remitted, neither in this world, nor in that to come : we must
therefore suppose, that some sins shall be remitted in the
world to come, or else our Saviour spake improperly, which,
according to the rules of prudence, we may not say. Now the
world to come, must signify the state of the soul between the
day of every man's death, and the final resurrection, because,
that after that, no sins shall be remitted : and it must be to
those who are in a middle state, because those who are blessed,
are already forgiven ; and those who are damned, shall never
be remitted,"
This is the sum of their arguing from this place : but now,
if it appear that we can have no manner of assurance of any of
these suppositions ; much more if it be clear that not one of

PURGATORY, 1 5
ihem is true ; then I presume it -will follow, that neither is it
prudentially credible that our Saviour here intended to estab
lish a purgatory, but rather altogether certain that he did not,
1 st. Then : Our Saviour says, " that the sin against the Holy
Ghost shall not be forgiven, neither in this world, nor in that
to come ;" therefore, they conclude, some sins shall be forgiven
in the world to come,
I answer : It is most certain that some sins shall be forgiven
in the world to come, even all those that are forgiven in this,
and for which, therefore, God shall not call us to account at
the last day. As if one should say, to him that repents and
beheves, his sins shall not be imputed neither in this world,
nor in the world to come ; that is, they shall never be imputed.
And so both St, Mark and St, Luke interpret the phrase,*
" He shall not be forgiven," says the one ; "he shall not be
forgiven for ever," says the other : what is this to purgatory ?
But our adversaries are more acute : ' ' Christ says, the sin
against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven, neither in this
world, nor in that to come ; therefore some sins that are not
forgiven in this world, shall be forgiven in the world to come,"
This, indeed, is no consequence, according to the rules of
logic, as Bellarmine acknowledges ; but how then does it fol
low ? Because that otherwise, our Saviour Christ would have
spoken improperly, which, according to the rule of prudence,
we ought not to say. The Cardinal might have added, ac
cording to the rule of civility and good breeding too. But
still, how does this appear ? Why, because that otherwise it
would have been impertinent to say, that it shall not be for
given, neither in this world, nor in the world to come, if no
sins should be forgiven in the world to come, that are not for
given in this,
I answer, 1st, He might have said it to exaggerate his
speech, and so the better enforce the heinousness of the crime ;
and it is a thing very ordinary, on such occasions, to use many
words, when one would have been sufficient ; but, 2ndly, He
might, and certainly did do it, to prevent the mistake of the
Jews, and cut off all hopes of pardon for this sin : two things
there were, which they understood by the S2n DbS?, or
world to come ; the kingdom of the Messiah, and the state
after death ; and in both these, they thought a remission might
be had for some sins, that were not otherwise to be forgiven :
* Mark iii, 29, Luke xii, 10.

16 POPISH METHODS FOR THE PARDON OP SIN,
our blessed Saviour, therefore, to take away all hopes of remis
sion for this sin, and make the deeper impression upon their
rainds, bids them not flatter themselves with any such fond
expectations ; that this was a sin that should never be forgiven
them, neither in this world, nor in the world to come ; i. e,
neither now nor in the kingdom of the Messiah ; neither in the
hour of death, nor in the day of judgment. But,
2ndly, They suppose, that the world to come, must signify
the time between every man's death, and the general resur
rection. But now, for this, there is no manner of ground, either in
the holy Scripture, or in the language of the Jews ; nor
can it be with any propriety so esteemed. For the world to
come, cannot be supposed to begin till this world ends, i. e.
till the time be, that, according to their own confession,* pur
gatory shall be no more. Whatever then our Saviour Christ
means by the world to come, or however sins shall be remitted
there, it cannot be understood of purgatory, which now is in
this present world, and in the other shall be destroyed,
3rdly, They suppose, lastly, that the persons whose sins
shall be forgiven, are not the perfectly just, in whom there is
no spot of sin remaining ; nor yet the damned, whose sins are
irremissible ; but such as are in a middle state, i. e. that depart
with sanctifying grace and charity, but yet guilty of some lesser
sins, of which they are to be purged,
I reply, 1 st, That there is not a word of all this so much as
hinted in the text ; and any one might from thence, as reason
ably conclude for either of the other kinds, as they do for this
middle sort. For as concerning the just, it is not certainly at
all absurd to say, that their sins are then forgiven, when they
are finally acquitted at God's tribmial, as they shall be in the
world to come. And for the wicked, since we here are told
that blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is the only sin that
shall not be forgiven ; nay, our Saviour expressly says, that
all other sins shall be remitted ; it may, with much more agree
ment to the text, follow, that all men, be their sins what they
will, shall have grace of repentance, whereby they may be par
doned in the world to come, the blasphemers of the Holy
Ghost alone excepted, than that those only shall be forgiven,
who die with venial sins. But,
* BeUarm. de Purg. 1, 1. c. 5. [ut supra,] p. 586. D, Dice, post novis-
simum judicium non fore Purgatorium,

PURGATORY. 1 7
2ndly, What have we here to do with the remission of sins ?
Purgatory is a place, not where sins are remitted, but where
they are punished with the greatest severity ; nay, what is
still more, punished after they are remitted ; nay, what is still
more extraordinary, therefore punished, because they are re
mitted. For if the guilt were not remitted, the sinner could
not go to purgatory, nor have the favour of being punished
there. And therefore it is utterly impertinent, from the re
mission of some sins in the world to come, to conclude there
is a place where all sins, even the least, are exacted, and that
so rigidly, that there is no escaping thence, till either, by their
selves, or their friends, they have paid " the uttermost far
thing,"* In short, if we will conclude any thing as concerning the
remission of sins from this, the rules both of logic and pru
dence will direct us to make one part of the opposition answer
to the other ; and then it will stand thus. The sin against
the Holy Ghost shall never be at all forgiven, whether as to
guilt or punishment, but shall be avenged to all eternity.
Therefore all other sins, upon repentance, shall be forgiven,
both as to the fault and punishment, so as not to be required,
neither now or hereafter. Any other remission than this, the
Scripture nowhere speaks of, nor does this text infer it. And
to suppose without proof that there is any other, is in good
earnest to beg the question.
The sum of all is what I before said :f that our blessed
Saviour intended hy this phrase, to cut off all hopes of pardon
for this sin, by telling them that it should not be remitted,
neither by any expiation in this life, nor by any extraordinary
grace of God in the age of the Messiah, or in the life after
this ; which are the only notions of the world to come that
the Jews knew, and in both which they fancied some sins not
elsewhere remissible, might be forgiven.
And this may suffice to have been said to shew, how far the
holy Scripture is from establishing this doctrine as an article
of faith ; for sure, if these places which they call demonstra
tive, are so little to the purpose, we can have no great expec
tation from the rest, which themselves esteem but only pro
bable proofs of it.
* Matth. V. 26, t See Dr, Lightfoot upon the place.

VOL, XI.

18 POPISH METHODS FOR THE PARDON OF SIN.
Sect. III.
That the Primitive Church for 600 years, knew nothing of the
Romish Purgatory.
But if the Scriptures be thus silent in this matter, let us
see if the Fathers of the Church, in the first ages of the Gos
pel, received the present doctrine of purgatory as an article of
their belief, I shall need to insist so much the less on this herej
because the greatest part of the authorities, that are usually
produced to this effect, relate not immediately to purgatory,
but to prayers for the dead ; and therefore will be more pro
per to be considered in the next discourse. Those that speak
precisely to this point, are but few ; and I shall take thera in
such order, as seems most natural for our examination.
And the first I shall mention, is Origen,* We ought so
much the rather to complain of the sophistry of our adver
saries in making use of his testimony ; in that, either they
themselves must deny that his opinion concerning purgatory
was the same with theirs ; or they must confess that those
Fathers and Councils who condemned him as an heretic on
this account, have in him pronounced their sentence also, I
have before observed of this Father, that he thought there
were no pains but purgatory after this life ; insomuch, that
after a certain time, not only all men, though never so wicked,
but the devils themselves should be purified by them, and so
saved in the end,f This, Bellarmine elsewhere confesses to
have been his opinion, and to this, the place which he quotes
out of him, clearly refers 4 " He that is saved, is saved by
fire, that so if by chance he has any thing of lead mixed in
him, the fire may melt and separate it, that so all may be made
pure gold," And is not this a rare testimony for purgatory,
which neither they themselves approve of, and which, both
the ancient Fathers, Epiphanius, St, Jerome, St, Austin, nay,
and even the fifth General Council itself, has condemned as
heretical. And what I have now said of Origen, I must in the next
place affirm of another Father, § and he the first which Bellar
mine produces on this occasion, viz. Gregory Nyssen, who has
* Origen, t Lib, 1, de Purg. c, 2, p, 573. C. [nt supra.]
X OngenHomil. 6. in Exod, [vol, 2, p. |148. col, 2, Par, 1733,]
Qui salvus fit, per ignem salvus fit, ut siquid forte de specie plumbi
habuerit admixtum, id ignis decoquat et resolvat, ut efficiantur omnes
aurum purum, BeUar. de Purg. 1. 1, t. 10, [ibid,] p, 608, B,
5 Gr, Nyssen.

PURGATORY, 1 9
long since been observed as to this matter, to have favoured
the heresy of Origen, Indeed we are told by Photius, that
Germanus, patriarch of Constantinople, in the seventh century,
wrote an apology for him,* in which he shews that this was
not the opinion of Gregory Nyssen himself, but that his works
had been corrupted by the followers of Origen, the better to
countenance their error ; whichsoever it were, it is the same
thing as to the authority of his writings in this controversy :
and indeed the very places cited by Bellarmine shew, that this
was the purgatory he contends for : viz. such, in which all
were to be purified, and at last saved for ever. He distin
guishes two orders of men, of which, one, by the discipline of
Christ, are purged here on earth.f such are the patriarchs,
prophets, apostles, disciples, martyrs, and as many as pre
ferred (says he) a virtuous life before a sensual and material
enjoyment ; in the other he ranks " all other men whatsoever,
who shall return," he says, " to that grace that was once
given them,J after that, by the future discipline, " i. e. in the
world to come, after the final judgment, " they shall have
cast off in the purgatory fire their propension to matter :" for
so it is in the original ; and not as Bellarmine renders it, a
wiping away the spots of matter in a purgatory fire after this
Ufe. To these two I must in the next place subjoin St. Jerome, §
whom, though I will not with Butfinus|| accuse of being in
volved in the error of Origen, yet Bellarmine^ himself cannot
deny him to have been charged with an opinion not very much
differing from it, viz, "that all catholic Christians shall in
the end be saved, after they have been tried and purified in
the fire," And this, the very place which they cite in favour
* Codex 233, p, 904, Ed, G. L. [Rotham. 1653,]
t Greg. Nyss. de mortuis Orat, p, 635, Toij irarpiapx'^C re Kal
ToijQ -Kpo^ijraQ, Kai tovq ffvv abroiQ re Kai ^er' evtlvoiQ dt dpeTrjg re
Kai (l)L\o(To^ias dvaSpafiOvraQ k-jri to reXitov. p.aSrrjTdQ Xs-ya>, Kai diro-
aroXovg, Kai /idprvpag, Kai Travraq tovq r-qv ivdptrov Z>^rjv -Kpb tov
iiXiKov TeriiirjKOTaQ /3iou, 636, A, To, 3, Ed, GL. Paris, 1638.
t Ibid, p, 636, Tuv Se Xoi-ir&v Std rfjg eig iio-rfpov dyui-yrjg ev Tif
KaSrapaiif} Trvpi dirojiaXovruiv rrjv Trpbg Tqv vXriv TrpoaitdSiiiav, Kai
irpbg Ti)v k^ dpxvg d-jroKXjjpojOelaav ry ip-uffei x^^^"^ — ^^ l^P ^'^ "^^
Trapa^evet Tutv dXXoTpi(JV -i} e-jTiSfviiia ry tpvasi, B, -Which Bellarmine
from P, Francisc, Zinus, faultily renders, Aliis autem post banc vitam
purgatorioigne materise labes abstergentibus, dePurg, 1. 1. c. 10. [ut su
pra,] p. 607, § St. Hierome.
II See BeUarm, de Purg, 1, 2, c, 1, [Ibid,] p. 631, A,
II Ibid, 632, C. C 2

20 POPISH METHODS POB THE PARDON OF SIN,
of their purgatory, plainly shews to have been his opinion :*
" As we beheve (says he) the torments of the devil, and of all
that deny the faith, and of those -wicked men who have said in
their heart, there is no God, to be eternal : so for those who are
sinners and -wicked, but yet Christians, whose works are to be
tried and purged in the fire, we beheve that the sentence of the
Judge shall be moderate, and mixed -with clemency," In which
words this opinion, which the Romanists themselves confess to
be erroneous, is plainly contained, viz. of the moderate punish
ment of wicked men and sinners, if Christians ; i. e. of their
salvation after a certain time of purgation in the fire of the last
judgment (for so the opposition to the eternal punishment of
the others, requires us to expound it) : but for the burning of
good men, whose sins are forgiven, and who depart this life in
a state of charity, and in the grace of God, such as are punished
in the Popish purgatory, of this there is no mention.
And the same is so evidently the meaning of the other
passage aUeged by Bellarminef from this Father, that there
can be no doubt of it : " If," says he, " Origen says that all
rational creatures are not to be destroyed, and allows repen
tance to the devil ; what is this to us, who say, that the devil
and his companions, and all -(ricked and prevaricating men
shall perish for ever ; and that Christians, if they are overtaken
in their sins, shall be saved after punishment."
And hitherto we have considered such passages, as the
error of Origen, sufficiently different from the doctrine of the
Romish purgatory, has given occasion to. But there was
another opinion in the Primitive Church, which I have
mentioned above, and to which many other expressions of the
other Fathers do aUude, viz. " That all those who at the last
day shall appear before the judgment-seat of Christ, shall be
proved by a certain terrible fire, by the force of which the
* Sicut Diaboli et omnium negatorum atque impiorum, qui dixerunt in
corde sue non est Deus, credimus setema tormenta ; sic peccatornm et
impiorum, et tamen Christianorum, quorum opera in igne probanda sunt
atque purganda, moderatam arbitramur, et mixtam clementise sententiam
Judicis. Comm, in Is. in fin, [vol, 4, p. 832, Veron, 1735,] BeUarm, 1.1.
c, 10, [ibid,] p, 608, A,
f BeUarm, ib, p, 608, D, Hieron. lib. 1. contr. Pelag. nltr, med, [Ibid,
vol, 2, p. 712.] Si autem Origenes omnes rationabiles creaturas dicit non
esse perdendas, et Diaholo tribuit Poenitentiam ; Quid ad nos, qui Dia-
bolum et sateUites ejus, omnesque impios et prasvaricatores dicimus perire
perpetuo ; et Christianos, si in peccato prseventi fuerint, salvandos esse
post poenas ?

PURGATORY. 21
good and bad shall be separated, and if any evil of their past
life still adheres to the good, it shall then in that purgatory fire
be entirely done away."
Now to this, belong those passages that are produced on
this occasion from Lactantius, Hilary, St. Ambrose, Eusebius
Emissenus, and some of St. Austin himself. I shall offer one
proof of this in the last instance of Cardinal Bellarmine,* St.
Hilary, which he thus quotes : " An unwearied fire is to be
undergone by us, in which are to be endured those grievous
punishments, of a soul to be expiated from its sins."f But
the whole passage is indeed this : St. Hilary, in his annotations
on the 20th verse of the 1 1 9th Psalm, " My soul breaketh
for the longing that it hath unto thy judgments," applies it
unto the future judgment ; J and among other observations,
has this passage :§ "Seeing we must render an account for
every idle word, do we desire the day of judgment, in which
that unwearied fire is to be passed through ? In which those
grievous punishments are to be undergone for the expiating of
a soul from sin ? A sword shall pass through the soul of
the blessed Virgin Mary, that the thoughts of many hearts may
be revealed. If that Virgin who bore God is to come into the
severity of the judgment, will any one dare desire to be judged
by God ?" This certainly is such a testimony, as had Bellar
mine ever examined it, he would have been ashamed to have
produced it for a proof of purgatory.
The authority of St. Cyprian, || as it is commonly cited by
them, seems more considerable : " It is one thing to be purged
from sins by a long time of torments, and to be mended a great
while by fire ; another by suffering to have purged all suis."
But the truth is, this is as httle to the purpose, as any we
have yet seen. St. Cyprian, in that epistle to Antonian,
defends a certain new decree of his Church, that had been
made in favour of those who fell in times of persecution,
* BeUarm. de Purg, 1, 1, c, 10, [ibid.] p, 607, &c,
t Nobis est ille indefessus ignis obeundus, iu quo subeunda sunt gravla
ilia expiandae a peccatis animffi supplicia. BeU, [ibid,] p, 609,
i HUar, in Psal, cxviii, Gimel. p, 865, F, 866, A, Edit, Paris, 1652,
§ An cum de omni ocioso verbo rationem simus prsestituri, diem judicii
concupiscimus, in quo nobis est ille indefessus ignis obeundus, m quo
subeunda sunt gravia Ula expiandse a peccatis animse suppUcia .' B.
Marise animam Gladius pertransibit, ut revelentur multorum cordium
cogitationes ; si in judicis severitatem, capax iUa Dei Virgo ventura est,
desiderare quisaudebit a Deo jndicari.' [Ibid,]
II Cyprian, BeUarm, de Purg, 1, l,c, 10, [ibid,] p. 608, D,

22 POPISH METHODS POB THE PARDON OF SIN.
whereby they were admitted to penance, and by which it was
feared by some, lest the Christians should be rendered more
slow to suffer for the faith. In this epistle, St, Cyprian*
, shews Antonian, that though the Church had granted some
thing of favour to these libellatic Christians, yet still their
condition was infinitely worse than that of the martyrs, so that
there was no cause to doubt, but that every one ought to prefer
martyrdom, notwithstanding the new favour that was allowed
to them. And then entering upon the comparison, " It is one
thing (says he) to stand in expectation of pardon (as the
penitents did), another to be arrived at their glory (as the
martyrs were) : it is one thing, being clapt into the prison, %ot
to go out thence till they have paid the uttermost farthing
(i, e. not to be admitted into the Church, till they had passed
through all the several parts of the penance inflicted on them),
another presently to receive the reward of their faith and
courage : one thing to be cleansed by a long grief for sin, and
to be purged a long time by fire ; another to have purged
away all sins by suffering," All which still refers to the afflic
tions and troubles of the penance they were to undergo, and
concerning which all this discourse of St, Cyprian is ; whereas
the holy martyrs, by suffering, were already cleansed from all
their sins, 'There is nothing more ordinary, than by the
phrase oifire, to signify any kind of affiictions : and if the
conjecture of the reverend editor of the Oxford Cyprian, be
accepted, as the authority of several manuscripts seems to
render it exceeding probable, that instead of diu igne, it
ought it be diutine : then it will follow, that this Father spoke
nothing at all of fire ; but only said this, that it is infinitely
better vrith the martyrs to be justified from all their sins in
heaven, than with the penitents, be put under a long course of
severe discipline for them here in the Church on earth.
And this interpretation the learned Rigaltius approves ;t
and what St. Cyprian himself adds, plainly shews that it can
not refer to the Romish purgatory where, going on still with
* Cyprian, Epist, 55,Antoniano, pp, 109, 110, Edit, Oxon, [1682,]
Aliud est ad veniam stare, aUud ad Gloriam perveuire ; aliud missum in
carcerem non exire inde, donee solvat novissimum quadrantem, ahud
statim fidei et virtutis accipere Mercedem : aliud pro peccatis longo
dolore cruciatum emundari, et purgari diu igne (f, diutine), aUud peccata
omnia passjone pui-gasse ; aliud denique pendere in die judicii ai
sententiam domini ; aUud statim a Domino Coronari.
t See his Annot, in loc, [ibid.] p. 109, 110,

PURGATORY, 23
the antithesis, he adds, " It is one thing in the day of judg
ment, to expect with anxiety the sentence of the Lord (as these
penitents were to do) ; another to be presently crowned by the
Lord," as these martyrs were. Now this could not be said
of the souls in purgatory, who, if you believe them, are in no
anxiety about their future sentence, but actually secure of their
salvation, as soon as they shall be delivered from those severe,
yet temporary pains in which they are.
For Gregory Nazianzen, both his scholiast Nicetas* inter
prets the fire he speaks of, to be that of hell, and the occasion
of his words, and the persons to whom he addresses, shew
it cfe,n be understood of no other. The persons were the Nova-
tians ; the occasion, to exhort them, by the fear of this punish
ment, to return to the communion of the Church, f Now for
schismatics, if they continue obstinate in their separation, I
suppose the Church of Rome will allow there shall be reserved
some worser fire than that of purgatory.
The next Father, produced by Bellarmine, is St, Basil, J
¦who, upon Isaiah ix. 18, says, "That sin is therefore by the
prophet compared to grass, because grass is the most fruitful
among herbs." §— And then he goes on in the words produced
for purgatory : || "if therefore we lay open our sins by confession,
we shall make this grass dry, and worthy to be devoured by
the purgatory fire," Now that this purgatory fire cannot be
that which the Romanists mean, is evident from this, that the
sin is not devoured hy that, but being first devoured by con
fession and repentance, is here punished in this fire. We must
therefore seek out some other meaning, and for that, we can
take no better than what this same commentary affords us ;
viz. that it signifies the Holy Spirit, operating upon the hearts
of the penitent, and with his celestial fire consuming those
sins, which by confession are dried, and made fit for that holy
flame. So on the sixth of Isaiah, speaking of the altar which
the prophet there saw, he says was signified by it, ^" A certain
* Gregory Nazianz, tom, 2, Op, GL, p. 1037, C, Paris, 1630.
t Greg, Naz, HomU, 39, t, 1, [Ibid,] p,636,
t St, BasU, BeU, [ut supra,] p, 608, C,
§ "On -q dypwarig iroXvyov^raTov i(JTiV ev {Sordvaig, Kai oiiSaftov
KaraX-tjyei dvT-qg -rj yevvi](Tig.
II 'Eav ovv yVfivtjKjio^ev rriv dfiapriav did ri/g e^ofioXoyrjtrewg,
iiroiriaafiev aiirriv ^ripdv dS,iav tov KaBapTiKov wpbg KarajipdiBrjvat.
BasU, in 9, Is, tom, 2. p. 216. Ed. GL. Paris, 1637.
% ''E-TTovpdviov rt ^vaiacTTrjpLov, tovt ean x'^^'-^v KaSraptcriiov ^vxHJv,
o^ev kK-Kefi-TTerai Toig dyiai^oiikvaig dvvdfie<n to KoSrdpatov iriip.

24 POPISH METHODS FOR THE PARDON OF SIN,
celestial altar, namely, the place of the purifying of souls;
from whence that purgatory fire is sent out to the sanctified
powers. With this fire did the heart of Cleopas and Simon
burn, when our Lord opened to them the Scriptures, With this
fire are they heated, who are warmed by the Holy Ghost," &c.
As for the other passage that is alleged from the same com
ment,* it is so clear, that by the purging, or rather the
castigating fire which he there speaks of, he undersrtands
those evils and afflictions that God was about to bring upon
the Israelites for their amendment, that I shall not need say
any thing more to it.
For Theodoret,t whom Bellarmine cites out of his comments
on 1 Cor, iii. He is indeed, the clearest of all to their
purpose: "We beheve," says he, J "this is to be the very
purgatory fire, in which the souls of the dead are tried and
purged as gold in a crucible." But now the misfortune is,
that Theodoret has no such words: nay, though they themselves
are the editors of his works, yet have they never yet dared to
insert this pretended explication into them. It is indeed, an
instance of the peculiar confidence of these men, in their pre
tences to antiquity, not only to go on to allege Theodoret § for
an abettor of their doctrine, after they had been publicly
challenged by a Greek author |[ in his tract against Purgatory
concerning it; but especially, when his comments on this very
place of St, Paul, which themselves have set forth, interpret
the fire he there speaks of, to be the fire of hell ;^ and the day
which is to reveal it, the day of judgment.
There are yet remaining two of the writers of the Latin
Church to be considered by us ; the first Tertulhan,** in his
book de Anima, c, 17, So Bellarmine alleges him; but it
should have been the 35th, But this author is utterly foreign
to his purpose. All he says is, that the souls of men shall
be restored to their bodies, some sooner, others later, in
TomiiTif^ TTvpi KXetiirra Kai ^i/iuivog tKaiero rj KapSia, 'ore Strivoiyev
avTolg 0 Kvpiog rdg ypaij>dg- ToiovTif dep/idivovTai -Trvpi o'l T(f
¦irveiftaTi Zkovreg, &c, T, 2, cap, 6, [Ibid.] p, 172. B
* Vid. ibid, p, 216. E. t Theodor,
i BeUarm, [ut supra,] p. 608. CD.
§ See BeUarm. 1. 1. de Purg. c. 5. [Ibid.] p. 591, B,
II Nilus de Purgatorio, p. 144, [Lugd, Bat, 1595.]
f Theodoret in 1 Cor. iii. 12, 13. Tijgyikvvqg rb vvp. T. 3, p, 134,
A. and below Lit. B. r) yap rifikpa SrjXuia-ei- dvTi tov, q Tijg Kpheag. Et
Lit, C, rlfikpa Tijg kiri^aveiag tov aiarfipog. Edit. Paris GL, 1642,
** Tertul.

PURGATORY, 25
Christ's millenary kingdom, according to what their sins or
piety have deserved : that if we live wickedly, the Judge shall
cast us into the infernal prison,* " from whence we shall not
go out, until every the least offence has been paid for by the
delay of our rising," And this was all that Rigaltius himself
understood by it.
As for St. Austin,f the last Father to be considered by us,
I have already said enough to ob-viate whatever authorities can
be brought from him. He was in the opinion of those who
beUeved a probatory fire at the end of the world ; and to this
many of his expressions refer. Again, he thought that those
who departed hence, did not go straight to heaven; and there
fore that those whosef affections were very much tied to the
things of this world, might still retain in their separate state
some desires towards them, and be troubled for the loss of
them: and by this we must explain some others of his sayings.
But in all these, he expresses himself with so much doubt and
uncertainty, as pldnly shews how little he thought any of these
things to be articles of faith ; and whatever they were, yet are
they, to be sure, all of them vastly different from the Roman
purgatory. And now, after so particular an examination of the several
testimonies produced in favour of this doctrine; I think I may
venture to conclude with the same that I began this section,
that neither the holy Scripture, nor Fathers of the first 600
years, do at all authorize the Romish purgatory. Let us see,
finally, whether the reasons offered for the establishment of it
will have a sufficient weight to engage us to believe it.
Sect. IV.
That the principles of right Reason do not engage us to the
belief of Purgatory .
And first, thus they argue : " There are some sins in their
own nature venial, § and worthy only of a temporal punish
ment : but it is possible a man may depart out of this hfe with
• Et judex te tradat Angelo executionis, et iUe te in cai-cerem mandet
infemum, unde non dimittaris nisi modico quoque deUcto mora Resur-
rectionis expense, p, 291, Edit, Paris, 1675,
t St, Austin,
X See his Enchiridion, cap. 67, 68. 69. [Vol. 6, p. 221, 222, Par.
1685.] Et in QuEest, ad, Dulcit, qu, 1, See above, lutroducfion,
^ $ BeUarm, de Purg, L 1, c, 11, [ut supra,] p, 609, C,

26 POPISH methods POR THE PARDON OP SIN.
such only : therefore it is necessary that he may be purged in
another life."
To this rope of sand, rather than argument, I reply, 1st, that
the supposition it goes upon, is false. 2ndly, that the conclu
sion it infers, is inconsequent. For the former of these ; that
some sins are less than others, it is confessed ; but that any
sins are properly venial, we deny. To be venial is to be
worthy of pardon, or not to deserve punishment ; but whatso
ever does not deserve punishment, can be no sin, for all sin
infers an obligation to punishment ; and therefore to be a sin,
and yet be venial, is in proper terms, no better than a flat
contradiction. Again, the sins here spoken of, are supposed to
be worthy of a temporal punishment, but sins that are worthy
of a temporal punishment, are not properly venial ; therefore,
either the sins here spoken of, must not deserve even a tem
poral punishment, or they cannot be said to be properly
venial. But, 2ndly, be the sins, as they desire, venial, how does it from
hence follow, that it is necessary that these be punished in
another life ? And why is not the blood of Christ, which
cleanses the greatest sins, a sufficient purgatory for the least
infirmities ? Venial sins, are by themselves confessed to be
entirely consistent with the grace of God ; nay, so consistent,
as not to destroy, or but even lessen it. Now for a Christian,
who has lived so well, as to be still in the grace and favour of
God ; that has received an actual pardon of all his other sins,
through the merits and satisfaction of Christ, so as to be
absolutely certain of a crown of glory for ever ; to think that
such a one, I say, shall be punished vrith torments, inferior in
nothing but the duration to those of hell fire itself, for such
slips and infirmities as the best of men are encompassed with,
a.nd which no man can ever hope perfectly to overcome ; and
this, notwithstanding all the promises of mercy and forgive
ness, which God has declared to us ; this certainly, is so far
from being a dictate of right reason, that it is impossible for
any one that has any reason at all, and is not exceedingly
carried away with prejudice for his opinion, ever to beheve
it. Again, 2ndly, thus they argue : " When sinners are recon
ciled to God, the whole temporal pain is not always remitted
with the sin:* now it may happen, and often does happen,
* BeUarm, ibid, p, 610. C,

PURGATORY, 27
that in a man's whole life, he does not fully satisfy for that
temporal pain ; and therefore there must be a purgatory wherein
to do it,"
I answer,; that this too proceeds upon a false supposition,
that God when he forgives our sins, does not also forgive the
entire obhgation to punishment, which, by our sins, we stood
engaged to ; and which both Scripture and reason contradict,
1st, That God does sometimes afflict those persons whose
sins he forgives, whether to prove, or to amend, or to secure
them for the future ; this it is confessed we read in Scripture ;
and that this is most reasonable, cannot be denied, upon the
account of those excellent ends that are to be served thereby,
both to the benefit of the sinner, and to warn others, by his
example, not to offend. But where is there any mention of
any thing of this kind, either threatened or done in another
life ? What end is there to be served in this ? When men go
to purgatory, they are already in the grace of God, or other
wise they could not come thither ; they are already forgiven their
sins, and secure of their salvation, "The punishments therefore
of that place, can serve no end, either of improring him that
suffers them, or of keeping others, by his example, from
offending. Add to this that the justice of God is already
entirely satisfied by the merits and sufferings of Christ : so
that then these punishments can be inflicted for no other
purpose than for the dehght God takes in punishing.
But to say that God delights in the punishment of any, much
more of good men, who are his children, who love him, and
whom, therefore, he both loves and intends to glorify to all
eternity ; this is certainly to advance a notion unworthy of
God, and contrary to all those kind and endearing ideas which
the holy Scriptures have given us of him, and therefore ought
not, without evident proof, which is not so much as pretended
to by them, to be admitted.
2iidly, When we say that God forgives sin, we must under
stand by it, one of these two things, viz. that he remits either
the stain, or the guilt of it. For by sin there are only these
two contracted. As for the stain or pollution of sin, that is
not properly forgiven, hut is washed away by God's sanctifying
grace, upon our repentance and reconciliation to him: and for
the gmlt, that is nothing else, but that obhgation to punish
ment, which every man by sinning renders himself obnoxious
to; so that to remit the guilt, is to remit the obligation to
punishment. To say, therefore, that God forgives the guilt

28 POPISH METHODS FOR THE PARDON OF SIN.
of sin, and yet that our obligation to punishment remains, is
in effect to say, that God forgives the guilt, which he does
not forgive, which must be a contradiction.
But may not God forgive the guilt, as to the obhgation it
lays upon us to eternal punishment, and yet retain it as to a
temporal one ? No doubt he may, and had he declared that he
would do so, we must have beheved it. But then this would
not have been properly to forgive the guilt, but to commute it,
to lessen it. And since, neither has he any where declared
that this is all he does when he forgives sins : nor does his
justice require that he should do no more ; but especially seeing
wherever God speaks of the remission of sins, he does it
without restriction, in the most large, comprehensive terms
that can be imagined : we see no cause either to suspect his
goodness, or to lessen his mercy by our own arbitrary and
ungrounded limitations.
But, 3rdly, there is yet another argument, and it is this :*
" The opinion that takes away purgatory, is not only false but
pernicious ; for it makes men lazy in avoiding sinning, and in
the doing of good works. Whilst he that believes that there
is no purgatory, but that all sins are abolished by death to
those that die in faith, saith to himself, to what purpose do I
labour in fastings and prayer, in continence and alms-deeds 1
Why do I defraud my heart of its dehghts and pleasures,
since at my death, my sins, whether few or many, shall all be
done away ?" "  Habeat jam Roma Pudorem ;
Tertius e coelo cecidit Cato."
For is not this rare cant ? to hear those who have taken
away the fears of hell, with a demure countenance exclaim
against us as wicked, in throwing off so great an engagement
to piety, as, if you will believe it, they esteem purgatory to be?
But yet, since the point is brought at last to this issue, let us
see the comparison,
1st, We who deny purgatory, thus press the practice
of good works upon our auditors. That God, to whom we
are engaged by all imaginable ties of love, duty, and gratitude,
expressly requires them of us, as the only means to retain his
favour. That if we be zealous is his service now, we shall
certainly receive an eternal weight of bhss and glory in his
* BeUarm. de Purg. lib. 1. c. 11. [ibid,]p. 613, D,

PURGATORY. 29
kingdom. But that if we be careless and negligent of our
duty, nothing but everlasting torments shall remain for us.
That, let us not deceive ourselves, or flatter our souls with any
new ways of getting to heaven ; "-without holiness no man shall
ever see the Lord," Repentance is the only thing that by faith
can reconcile us to his favour : and repentance cannot be true,
except there be a true love of God, and an utter detestation of
sin, and a hearty contrition that we have ever committed it :
and a steadfast resolution never to fall any more into it ; and
this improved in an actual, sincere endeavour, what in us lies,
to abound in good works, and fulfil that duty which he re
quires of us. That without this, it is not any power or
authority of the Church, absolving us from our sins ; any
pardons or indulgences, either before or after our commission
of them, that can stand us in any stead, or restore us to God's
favour and the hopes of salvation. But that if we do this,
then indeed we may assure ourselves of his acceptance ; we
may raise our hopes to the blessings that he has promised ;
and that we may be the more encouraged to pursue them, may
assure ourselves that all those joys which he has prepared for us,
and which it does not now enter into the heart of man even to
conceive anything of, as he ought to do, are not at any great
distance : as soon as ever we have finished our course here, we
shall presently be translated, if not to a perfect fruition of
them, yet to such an antepast, as shall be more than a suffi
cient reward for all our endeavours in the pursuit of them.
This is the method of our preaching : let us now set Car
dinal Bellarmine in the pulpit, and see how more effectually he
will press these things upon his congregation. And because I
would not make the worst of the matter, we will not consider
him in quahty of a Jesuit, instructing the people by artifice
and distinction, how to evacuate the whole morality of the
Gospel, by stating precisely the point, how often a man is
obliged to love God ? Whether upon all Sundays and holi
days ? or only once a year ? or once in five years ? or but any
one time in a man's whole life ? or finally not at all, neither
liring nor dying ? This were, it may be, to carry matters too
far ; we will stop within the bounds of their more common
belief. And here, first of all, as is most fitting, we must be sure to
put them often in mind of the obedience they owe to the
Church : of the high opinion they ought always to retain of
her, and of that entire submission where-with they are to yield

30 POPISH METHODS FOR THE PARDON OF SIN,
themselves to her conduct. That they be sure not to fail to
go to mass every Sunday and holiday ; that they eat
no flesh on any of the fasts of the Church, unless
they are othervrise dispensed with to the contrary ; that
once, at least, every year they receive the sacrament, and
before they do so, that they fail not to go to confession ; that
they make no doubt, but by the priest's absolution, they are
certainly forgiven their sins, whatsoever they were ; that
indeed, it were well that they were contrite for them ; but if
they are not, it is all one, attrition, with the sacrament of
penance, does the same thing : that this, therefore, sets them
free of all danger of hell, so that be their hves what they will,
there is no great fear of that ; but yet, that to secure their
piety, the Church has thought fit to discover to them another
very terrible place called purgatory, whither they must go to
satisfy for their sins, before they can get to heaven. That,
indeed, let them live how they will, hither they must come :
but yet, let them not be discouraged ; there are several secret
ways of avoiding it, -with infinitely more security than the best
life in the world can give them. First, an indulgence may be
had, aud that too beforehand, to secure the greatest sinner
from ever coming thither. If this fad, yet they may enter
themselves into some holy fraternity, as for instance, that of
the Scapulary, and then they certainly get out of pur
gatory the Saturday after they die,. At least, that let the
worst that can happen, a good number of masses, when they
are dead, infallibly does the business. It is true, none of these
things can be had without money, and therefore the poor
must take heed, and have as few sins as they can to answer
for ; but yet, that if they watch their time, an indulgence will
come at an easy rate, and the Church in charity will fall her
price, rather than refuse that money that will be so much to
the benefit of her faithful children.
This is, I think, the difference between us : let the world
now judge, who it is that give the greatest encouragement to
vice, the Cardinal in these easy methods of salvation, or we, by
retaining the old Scripture way of repentance and a good life.
But the truth is, the argument ought to have lain thus ; the
opinion that takes away purgatory, aud leaves men that have
lived well in repose at their death, cuts off all the benefit of
masses, prayers for the dead, and the hke; not to say anything
of the dear concern of indulgences, by which our Church and
our clergy, in great measure, subsist ; and therefore, though

PURGATORY. 31
we know we have nothing to say for it, yet we are resolved
we will not quit the belief of it. And this, indeed, is the
honest truth; but for the rest, it is in good earnest, nothing
to the purpose.
Sect. V.
That the doctrine of Purgatory is contrary to Scripture,
Antiquity and Reason.
Hitherto we have seen how little grounds the Church of
Rome has to establish this doctrine as an article of faith ; we
will now go yet further, and shew not only, that there is no
obligation upon us, either from Scripture, or Antiquity, or
Reason, to believe this doctrine ; but that according to the
principles of every one of these, we ought not to do it,
1«^, For Scripture.
It is not a little to be considered, in opposition to this
doctrine, that these sacred writings not only every where
represent to us this present hfe as the time of trial and exercise
of sufferings and afflictions ; but also encourage us on this very
consideration, to bear them with patience and resignation,
that as soon as we die, they shall all end, and we shall receive
the blessed reward which God has prepared for them that
bear them as they ought to do, " I look upon it," says St, Paul,
Rom, viii, 18, "that the sufferings of this present life are not
worthy to be compared with the glory that shall be revealed,"
And again, 2 Cor, iv, 1 7, " For the sufferings of this present
life work out for us a far more exceeding and etemal weight of
glory," Many other places of this kind there are, in which
our present sufferings are compared with, and opposed to, our
future reward. Now if, when all these encounters are ended,
there be still another, and a more dreadful sort of trial to be
undergone elsewhere, how could the Apostle have used those
kind of antitheses ; and have encouraged us to a constancy in
our present afihctions, from the prospect of a time, when,
according to these men, there are yet greater and more severe
ones to be undergone by us ?
And this then may be a second observation ; that the
Scripture always speaks of the death of good men as a blessing,
an immediate rest from their labours ; and therefore, sure,
understood nothing of those torments to which the Church of
Rome now condemns them. So Rev, xiv, 13 : "I heard a
voice from heaven, saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead

32 POPISH methods for the PARDON OF SIN,
which die in the Lord from henceforth : yea, saith the Spirit,
that they may rest from their labours," It was this assurance
made the holy men of old so desirous of their dissolution, that
they might find an end of all those labours and evils which
they suffered here, Phil, i, 23 : "I am in a strait," says St,
Paul, " betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be -with
Christ, which is far laetter," &c. Surely St, Paul never thought
of purgatory, when he talked thus of going to Christ ; nor
would he have appeared so desirous of his dissolution, had he
known he should have been cast into such a fire as the
Romanists suppose to be in this infernal region.
Nor can it here be reasonably said, that this was the
Apostle's peculiar happiness; and therefore, that though
he indeed was secure of going immediately to Christ, yet others
were not therefore to expect the like favour : for 2 Cor, v, 1,
we find him promising the very same to all Christians indif
ferently ; " We know," says he, " that if our earthly house of
this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God,
an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens," And
again, ver, 8, "When we are absent from the body," says he,
" we are present with the Lord :" by all which it appears, that
when good men die, they go to the Lord, to Christ, to their
heavenly house ; and that sure is not purgatory.
To this agree these few instances we have of just men's
dying, in the New Testament, Lazarus in the parable,
was in Abraham's bosom ; the penitent thief on the cross was
promised that he should be that day with Christ in paradise :
and we have good reason to believe, that the same is the state
of all others, not only from the passages already mentioned,
and many more of the like kind that might have been offered ;
but also from this, that we have not in all the holy Scripture
the least intimation of any such place as purgatory : that there
is neither precept nor example of any one, that either prayed
for the delivery of their friends departed, out of these pains,
or any directions left for any one hereafter so to do. Now cer
tainly it is not easy to be imagined, that the holy penmen
should have been so perfectly silent in this matter, had there
been so great a cause for it. as the delivery of their souls out
of purgatory undoubtedly would have been ; or had they then
esteemed it so excellent and necessary a piece of Christian
harity, as it is now pretended to be.
And this presumption against purgatory, the holy Scrip
tures vrill afford us. If we look.

PURGATORY, 33

2ndly, To the holy Fathers,
We shall find them proceeding exactly upon the same prin
ciples : they thought the just, when they were departed, were
presently in a state of happiness ; that it was injurious to
Christ, to hold, that such as died in his faith, were to be
pitied ; that Christians therefore ought not by any means to
be afraid of dying :* " It is for him," says St, Cyprian, " to fear
death, that is unwilling to go to Christ, It is for him to be
unwilling to go to Christ, who doth not believe that he begin
neth to reign with Christ, — Simeon said. Lord, now lettest
thou thy servant depart in peace ; proring and witnessing that
the servants of God then have peace, then enjoy free and quiet
rest, when being drawn from these storms of the world, we
arrive at the haven of our everlasting habitation and security.
— Let us therefore embrace the day that bringeth every one
to his own house, which having taken us away from hence,
and loosed us from the snares of this world, returneth us to
paradise, and to the kingdom of heaven,"
I shall leave it to any one to consider, whether this holy
Father, who discoursed thus of our dying, believed any thing
of these tormenting purgatory fires, that now keep men in
anxiety, and make the best Christians afraid to die. And the
same is the language of all the rest.f St. Chrysostom parti
cularly enforces the same considerations from those Psalms that
were usually said at the burial of the dead. " Return to thy
rest, O my soul, for the Lord hath been gracious unto thee.
You see," says that holy Father, " how that death is a bless
ing, a rest, God calls it a blessing, and dost thou lament ?
What couldst thou have done more, if thou hadst been his
enemy ?"
But to put this matter, as to the point of antiquity, beyond
all doubt, I will remark distinctly two or three things,
1st, That several of the most ancient Fathers, not only
believed the souls of the faithful to be in happiness, immediately
upon their departure, but to be carried immediately into
* See his Book de MortaUtat, p, 157, [Oxon, 1682,]
t Hieron, in Os, com, 3, Augustiu, Epist, 28, ad Hier, To. 2. p, 31,
A, [Lugd, 1664.] Et Tract, 49, in Joan, [Ibid,] To. 9, p. 124. A. Auctor,
Qusest. sub Justini nomin. Cluaest. 75. p. 436, D, E, Paris, 1636, Chrysost,
Horn, de SS. Bernice et Prosdoce, t, 1, Fronted, p, 563, Paris, G. L,
1636, VOL, XI, B

34 POPISH methods por the pardon of SIN,
heaven,* 1, So Athenagoras, 2, St, Cyprian, 3. Origen,
4, Gregory Nazianzen, 5. Chrysostom, 6, Cyril Alexandrinus,t
7, St, Jerome, and others. Now, certainly they who believed
that just men, when they die, go straight to heaven, could not
have believed that they were for a long while after their death
tormented in purgatory ; and therefore all these, at least, must
have been of an opinion different from the Church of Rome
in this matter.
2ndly, Another thing remarkable in some of the ancient
Fathers, is, that they utterly deny that the soul is capable of
being purged in another world; and this is, to be sure,
expressly contrary to the present doctrine of the Romanists m
this point. Thus Gregory Nazianzen, speaking of the judg
ment after death : " It is better," says he, " to be now chas
tised and purged, than to be delivered over to that torment,
when it shall be no longer a time of purgation, but of punish
ment," Where we see the Father expressly opposes the time
of purgation in this life, to the time not of purgation, but of
punishment in the next. And St, Chrysostom, "If the soul
be purged here {i.e. from sin), that fire shall not hurt it,
when it departs hence : but the soul that goes hence in sin,
that fire (not of purgatory, but of hell) shall receive," This
was the doctrine of those times ; the soul that was clear of sin
by God's pardon and forgiveness, no fire could hurt ; that
which was not, no fire could cleanse ; but it was to remain in
torments of hell for ever.
Nor may we omit to observe, 3rdly, That the Fathers take
no notice of purgatory in such places, as had they believed it,
they could not well have omitted it. Hence we see no mention
of it in any of their Creeds or Councils, or catechetical dis
courses, in which the other articles of their faith are set down
and explained. The fifth General Council, which condemned
Origen for his errors, concerning the pains after death, never
mentioned any other purgatory in opposition to that which he
had heretically invented. But that which shews it yet more
plainly to have been unknown to them, is, that not only St.
Augustine, but Pope Gregory himself, the great patron of this
error, yet spoke of it with some doubt ; not as they use to do
* 1. Legat. pro Christianis. 2. Cyprian libr. de mortal, p. 157. vid.
supr. 3. Orig. contr, Cels, 1, 6, 7. 4. Greg. Naz. Or, 10. To. 1. [ut supra] :
p. 173. 5. Chrysost, vid, supr,
t 6, Cyril, Alex, in Joan. 19, 30. Mb. 12. to. 4. Ed. G. L. Paris 1638.
p. 1069, B. C. 7. Hier. Epist. 25. fol. 71. C, to. 1, Edit. Erasm.

PURGATORY, 3.5
of a point firmly believed by the Church, but as a peculiar
thing, in which they were not themselves very well resolved.
When the Fathers disputed against Origen, they none of them
mention any of the purgatory pains, which the orthodox
faith taught, to distinguish them from those which he
erroneously had invented. When Epiphanius disputed against
Aerius, concerning the reason and benefit of praying for the
dead, is it to be imagined he could then have forgot the great
concern of delivering the souls departed out of purgatory, had
the Church then believed any such thing ? To all which, if
we finally add, that the Greek Church neither at this day does,
nor ever did receive this doctrine, I cannot tell what clearer
evidence we can desire to shew, that this whole business of
purgatory is but an error of the Latin Church, not an article
of the catholic faith, 3rdly, For Reason.
I shall only offer this one reflection : whether there can be
any reason to think there should be such a place, and suc'n
punishments as purgatory, for no end or purpose in the world.
They who go thither must be perfect in charity, in the grace
of God, secure of their salvation ; their satisfaction must have
been made by Christ's blood, and so God's justice satisfied.
Now when all this is already done, to what end is it that they
should be tormented ? Had there been any means by such a
purgatory, either to fit them for heaven, or to satisfy the
Divine justice, there might then have been some pretence for
it. But to think that God punishes men only for punishing-
sake ; and this too his own servants, men who are in his favour,
that have lived well, and upon that account are justified by
him through the blood of Christ ; this is such an idea of an
infinite love, mercy and goodness, as sure can never be the
dictate of right reason ; I think I may say, is utterly mcon-
sistent -with it.

D 2

36 popish methods por the pardon of SIN,
THE TEXTS EXAMINED, -WHICH PAPISTS CITE OUT OF
THE BIBLE, FOR THE PROOF OF THEIR DOCTRINE CON
CERNING PURGATORY,

PART I,
The Council of Trent shews her artifice and subtlety m no
one point defined by her, more than in her definition concern
ing Purgatory, which, though she propounds for an article of
faith (and that a most important one), yet her wisdom has
thought fit to give no description of it, but leaves it to her
prelates and priests to tell what it is, and in what extent to be
beheved. Again, though she prefaces her canon with a pretence of a
purgatory established in the Catholic Church, according to the
doctrines of Scripture, and the traditions of primitive Fathers,
yet when she comes to give her own injunctions about it, she is
pleased to pass by the Scriptures, and oblige her bishops to he
careful to have it preached too, and beheved by all the faithful,
not as founded in Scripture, but as it has been delivered hy
holy Fathers and Councils,* It seems (whatever the later
defenders of it may have found out) that the Holy Ghost which
directed her, assured her of a much better security from tradi
tion than foundation in the Scriptures. But was not this
infallible Council all this whUe much more cautious of her own
honour and ease, than careful of the souls of her proselytes,
whose faith she thus exposes to the uncertainty of man's repre
sentation? What if any priest should trump up Origen' s old
purgatory ? he may produce a much fairer pretence for it fi-om
antiquity, than can be produced in vindication of the present
Roman purgatory : aud let him but make it appear to be as
beneficial to the churchmen, and there can be no doubt but it
shall be allowed to be as necessary to be believed by the Church.
Amongst the ancient writers, we meet with many strange
and unaccountable fancies this way, and there seems to have been
* Decret, de Purgat, in initio, [Labbe, ConcU, vol. 14, p, 894, Lut
Par. 1672.] ^

purgatory, 37
a general notion amongst them of a purging fire : but then this
was as different from the present Papistical purgatory, as the
present time is from the time to come, or as that which is to
purge some only, from that which is to purge and purify all
men : for theirs was a fire which was supposed to burn out at
the day of judgment, and through which, not only venial
sins, and such as are defective in some parts of satisfaction,
but also the purest saints, prophets, apostles, martyrs, nay,
the holy Virgin herself, were imagined to endure and pass
through : and this purgatory is abundantly proved out of
the Fathers by Bellarmine himself.* So that if the opinion
of holy Fathers must guide their faith ; or if they are to believe
now, as the Fathers believed in this particular, they must have
not only a very implicit, but according to Bellarmine himself,f
a very groundless and erroneous faith : since he explodes these
imaginations of the Fathers for such. But to come more
close to the business in hand ; though the Trent doctors were
so nice and tender in their canons, yet we find them more
courageous in their Catechism,J where, amongst the articles of
their Creed, they not only numher purgatory, but also define or
describe to us what it is, viz. a purgatory fire, by which the
souls of the faithful, after some determinate torments, are
purged; or, as the word expiare more properly imports, in
¦jvhich they make satisfaction and amends to God's justice for
the failures which they had not time to repair in this life ; and
so become qualified to enter those everlasting mansions, into
which nothing that is defiled shall enter. And no doubt it
must be upon this authority that Bellarminef so confidently
maintains the punishment of purgatory to be the punishment
of fire, since the Council of Trent no ways defines it to be a
fire in her decree about it. As to the place of this purgatory,
whether it be in the heavens above, or in the earth beneath,
we as yet hear not one word ; but for this, they are to rely
upon their confessors, and how they vrill be able to resolve
what the Church representative presumed not to meddle vrith,
I leave them to judge, that can take a view of those irrecon
cilable imaginations some of the later of the Fathers and
Schoolmen had, concerning this particular. For my part, I
* BeU, de Purg, lib, 2, cap, 1, [vol, 2. p, 357, 358. Prag. 1721.]
t BeU. ibid,
t Catech. ad Paroch. de quinto Symb, Art, p, 52, [Colon, 1684,]
§ Bell, dePurg. Ub. 2. cap. 10. Parag. certum est quarto. [Ibid. p. 371.
col. 1,]

38 popish methods for the pardon of sin,
cannot but wonderfully mistrast the inspiration, which is pre
tended to have directed these holy Fathers to beheve, and
propose to be believed, on pain of damnation, a place, of which
they dared not to give any manner of account at all : since
there is scarce any one text, either in the Old or New Testament,
where we meet the worA. fire, but what with some fetch or other
their arguers apply to, and interpret of their purgatory ; must
it not follow, that this Council really mistrusted the exphca-
tions of their own expositors, that it was satisfied purgatory
was not intended in, or asserted by those places, since, not
withstanding all of them, she hath avoided defining it to be a
fire 1 Perhaps, indeed, such a particular assignment of place
as we meet defended by the Cardinal and others, was not so fit
for an mfallible synod to assert ; yet since she pretends that her
faith hereof is grounded on the Scriptures, methinks it might
well become her infallibility to have asserted as much as is,
according to their own principles, to be derived from Scripture ;
and if that be any thing at all, it must be both that it is a fire,
as Bellarmine* infers from 1 Cor. iii, 1 5, " — shall be saved so as
by fire," and also that it is a place under the earth ; since almost
all of them reason for it, from these words,f " — to whom every
knee shall bow, of things in heaven, in earth, and under the
earth :" concluding those under the earth can be none but the
souls in purgatory • for at last, if it be no subterraneous prison,
what impudence must it be thus to abuse and misapply this
Scripture? So that without misrepresentation, I hope, we
may aver, that the Popish article in this point, is this, that
there is a subterraneous place, where, after this life, the souls
of the faithful do abide for some time, till chastised with the
torments of its fire, they have paid satisfaction for such sins as
they had not satisfied for iu this world, and which satisfaction
may be hastened by the prayers of the living ; since the one
is the plain doctrine of their Catechism, and the other a neces
sary inference from those arguments from Scripture, wherewith
they themselves defend their purgatory. And therefore we
may observe, that the bare doctrine of a third place (though
that is as inconsistent with the Scriptures), with which the
author ' of Popery Represented and Misrepresented, would
shuffle off this article of purgatory, will not suit with the
doctrine and article of the Church of Rome ; unless it he a
place of fiery torments, where he that has obtained full pardon
* BeU, quo supra. t phil.U. 10,

purgatory, 39
for all his sins, may further satisfy and atone ; and out of
which he may be prayed, by the intercessions of the living.
Now then, we of the Reformed Church of England, not only
particularly disown such a purgatory, but also absolutely deny
that there is any such state at all for satisfactions by torments
after this life. We acknowledge but two states, the one of
the faithful in heaven, the other for the unrighteous and
impenitent in hell ; and this we maintain ; first, because the
Scriptures speak of no more but these two; besides, since
the Church of Christ has never been represented under
other titles than these two. Militant and Triumphant :
they do necessarily exclude this third subterraneous Church,
which is neither militant, because ascertained of salvation, and
freed from the conflicts and oppositions of this world ; nor
triumphant, because scorched and afflicted vrith the most
exquisite pains and torments. Secondly, We reject their
purgatory, because it is no other than a dream, and delusion of
man's fancy and contrivance, vrithout the least colour or
countenance of the holy Scriptures to support it ; much more,
without plain and clear Scripture to recommend and enforce it
for an article of faith : and this is what we undertake to make
good at present. Nor can we more happily discharge this per
formance, than by a close encounter with our adversaries, and
by laying open the dark obscurities they ^depend on, and dis
covering with what weak and impertinent misapplications they
abuse the Scriptures, fondly ensnaring their own souls, and
other men's.
The author I shall the more purposely examine, shall be
the Catholic Scripturist, who, as he is the latest, so we may
expect to find him the most profound and prepared ; amongst
forty Popish points boasted to be made apparent in Scripture,
we may certainly expect to have this of purgatory, which is of
such incomparable use and accomphshment for the Church's
grandeur, most irrefutably displayed and laid open. Now then,
the method he observes in proving it from Scripture, is this, first,
fromprinciplesof,Scripture,necessarilyinferringsuchapurgatory; secondly, from several express texts which prove a purgatory.
We shall therefore, follow him in the same method :
First, discover the impertinence of his pretended principles.
Secondly, shew the insufficiency of the texts alleged, and
that, with this advantage given him, that where we find his
judgment and knowledge in the Scriptures failing (which I
assure you, labours under many great infirmities), we will help

40 popish methods por the pardon op sin.
him with the texts urged and insisted on by those of better
judgment and knowledge of his own party.
The first principle he pretends from Scripture, is this,'*
that there are Scriptures which teach that after the sin itself
is forgiven, there do remain some pains still due, even to that
sin, and therefore consequently infer a purgatory, because that
man to whom the sin is forgiven, may die before he has paid
those pains in this life, :,
But may not that man who has read those passages of the
Prophet,f " He has borne our griefs, he has carried our
sorrows ; he was bruised for our iniquities, and wounded for
our transgressions:" and again, "the chastisement of our
peace was upon him :" wonder what Scripture there can possi
bly be, which teaches us that there are pains and sorrows
due for sin, not comprehended within Christ's sufferings, but
such, which even after his full pardon and remission granted to
us, must actually be borne and satisfied for in our o-wn persons !
Why this he attempts to make out by these two instances.
First, That original sin, J though it is effectually washed away
in baptism, yet the infant baptized, is still obnoxious to death,
after such remission, which is the punishment due to that sin.
Secondly, From what we meet vrith in the 14th chapter of
Numbers, where God tells the people, that though he had
forgiven them their'sins according to his word, yet that they
should not see the promised land ; ver, 32, but their
carcases should fall in the wilderness ; ver, 33, their
children should wander in the wilderness for forty years, and
should bear their fornication, until the carcases of their fathers
should be consumed in the desert.
Now the answer to both these instances, is clear and
obvious : for, first, they speak only of such punishments, as
God, for their transgressions, inflicted on the liring in this
world, and therefore to infer hence a punishment necessarily
to be inflicted on the dead, must be irrational. For, secondly,
God may, no doubt, inflict a temporal punishment, as he did
on Darid ; either as a condition of his remission, or as an
outward admonition and mark of our iniquities for all
generations, whereby to deter and affright them from the like
misdoings, and yet this no ways argues a satisfaction inherent
in such a temporal punishment ; or, that when he pardons us
* Cath. Script. 25. Points of Purgatory. t Isa. lui,
J Cath, Script. 25, Points of Purgatory.

purgatory. 41
without any such temporal afflictions annexed, some punishment
must still necessarily be due by way of a satisfaction for our
sins, which must unavoidably be paid, either here, or hereafter.
What ! because God hath entailed death upon all for a testimony,
and outward remembrance of our parents' disobedience in this
life, therefore there must be apurgatory for satisfactions hereafter.
Is death a satisfaction for our original sin ? Then how comes
it washed away by baptism before death ? Or again, because,
according to the degeneracy of man's nature, such an innocent
baptized infant may die, is it more rational to say with this
Scripturist, it died for a satisfaction due to our original guilt,
which remains after our remission by baptism, or to say it died
according to the disposition and appointment of God, who has
made death a continual memorandum of that original guilt ?
The Scriptures indeed tell us, that " death came through sin,
and hath so passed upon all ;" but they tell us withal, that for a
good Christian, such as we may believe a baptized infant to be,
" to die is gain :" to be sure they say no such thing as this
Scripturist would teach us, to wit, that for some sins forgiven,
and remitted to us through Christ's blood, there remain some
after pains, for a personal satisfaction payable by us in another
state. Death, no doubt, is the consequence of that corruption
which our parents have derived on us through their disobedi
ence ; but by no means a satisfactory punishment for their
transgressions. And therefore, secondly, though God in the
same breath, tells his people they shall bear their fornication in
the wilderness forty years, in which he told them he had
forgiven them their sins, yet this proves not that it was upon
the account of any remaining satisfaction that God afflicted
them forty years, as the Catholic Scripturist infers (for let him
answer me, how a punishment of forty years, could be a just
satisfaction to the offended justice of God, against whom they
had then sinned most mortally), but that in this life, God
would have them subdued, humhled, and kept in forty years
straits and severities for a curb and bridle to their posterities,
though in the mean time, those who died in the wilderness
with this promise of forgiveness, no doubt slept with their
fathers, even in the bosom of Abraham ; and thus their own
expositors will teach them, that these tribulations and
punishments, wherewith God sometimes afflicts us in this
world, are to keep us humble, and dependent upon his good
ness, to remember us continually of our miscarriages and

42 POPISH methods por the pardon op sin.
iniquities, and so increase our repentance and submission ; but
no satisfactions or recompences to complete the ultimate
discharge of our debts to his justice. And therefore, certainly,
it must be the greatest wonder in the world, to hear a man
that pretends to be a father of the children of Christ, and one of
the priests of the Lamb, conclude -with this Cathohc Scripturist,
that because God threatened the fathers to punish their pos
terity so severely in this life, because these were the terms and
particulars upon which he had remitted their iniquity, therefore
it must be reasonable to infer the fathers themselves, who
obtained a promise of remission before death, should for a
time, nay, forty years, says our Scripturist, be tormented with
purgatory,* or that they could not be forgiven without under.
going the pains of a middle state. For all that I see, he may
as well conclude transubstantiation, or the worship of images,
from this place and instance, as any the least pretence of a
purgatory. And therefore it vrill not be worth the while to
follow him through the rest of his instances, since they all
tend to the same end, and shew only that there was a present
punishment accompanying an eternal remission, which was
purely in the justice of God to inflict or abate according to
his free mercy, it relating only to this life; but tell us nothing,
that such punishments were so due to the Divine justice in
another world, if not undergone in this, that it could not be
satisfied without them ; this certainly must reflect on the all-
sufficient sacrifice of our Redeemer, whose blood is the propi
tiation for our sins ; and therefore as his principle is vrithout
Gospel or dirinity, so must the purgatory founded thereon be
without Scripture or divine relation.
His second principle from Scripture is this :-|- " The Scrip
tures teach that there are venial sins, i.e. such sins as are light
and trivial, which, though they deserve some temporal mulct,
yet no eternal torments, and therefore he that dies impenitent
in them, cannot go to heaven, because nothing that is in the
least defiled can enter therein : nor to hell, because he deserves
not those everlasting burnings ; therefore a third state there
must be, even purgatory, where he may, in some sense, be
purged, and through his o-wn satisfaction in enduring its tor
ments, prepare and qualify himself for heaven," What
incomparable reasoning is here ! which sets a man above the
satisfaction of Christ's merits, his sins being too small to need
* Cath. Script, p. 233. f Cath. Script, p. 337,

PURGATORY, • 43
his expiation, which finds remission for a man dying in
impenitence, that contradicts the whole current of the Gospel,
which teaches us, that without repentance there can be no
remission ; and again, to fix a purgatory, calls in question the
justice and equity of God himself, who hath pronounced by
his Holy Spirit, that he that shall offend in the least of his
commands, shall in nowise be his disciple, and then certainly,
by no means enter into his glory.
As to the instances alleged by him of the midwives preserv
ing the Hebrew children,* and Rahab's denying, and hiding
away the messengers, what grounds they went upon in their
answers, appear not to us ; whether God who is the Disposer
of all things, by his Holy Spirit, immediately inspired and di
rected them or no, is not mentioned ; but for their incurring
such venial sins as he speaks of, there is not the least pretence
nor circumstance to infer it ; the text says, they " feared God
in that action," Exod, i, 15, and that because they did so,
" he prorided for them and built them houses," And of Ra-
hab it is recorded, that she was "justified by works, receiving
the messengers, and putting them forth another way, after she
had first hid them," James ii, 25, By which we may con
clude, they sinned not at all in so doing : but how it proves
them guilty of a venial transgression, when God himself
applauded their performance, I profess I cannot apprehend,
I shall make bold to aver, that had there been any un
just equivocation, or sinful falsification, God would never
have approved, much less by his Holy Spirit commended
and rewarded them. These, indeed, are two of those transac
tions which we are to believe well done, because God himself
has vouched them to be such ; but we can take no measures
from such dark proceedings which remain so unaccoimtable ;
and now, how even venial sins could be thus meritorious, as to
obtain God's express favour, particular approbation, nay, re
wards, will take up our Scripturist another labour to make out.
In the meantime, let us go on and see with what profound
stupidity he toys and trifles with the most terrible denuncia-
'tions of Christ himself: Matth. v. 22, "Whosoever is angry,"
says our Saviour, " with his brother without a cause, shall be
in danger of the judgment ; and whosoever shall say unto his
brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council ; but whoso
ever shall say. Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." Here
our Scripturist is very pompous and triumphant, and from the
* Cath, Script, p, 337.

44 popish methods for the pardon of sin,
pretence of three kinds of punishments, very confidently pro
claims three kinds of sins, amongst which, venial are one,
which he -will have to merit only a temporal punishment,
whereas now our Sariour is most serious here in representing
the terrors and punishments, threatening all the works and
fruits of our unlawful anger, even in the other -world : but
what wonder to see so blundering a Jesuit thus ridiculously
insulting vrith such straws, when the great Cardinal himself
lays hold on such inconsistent conclusions to establish his pur
gatory ?* One would think nothing could possibly be more
plain than our Saviour's intention in this place, which was to
shew, that though the law of man only censured and con
demned the murderer, yet the Dirine justice revealed in Christ,
will pursue every disorderly passion, every undue motion and
operation of anger, even in a capital manner in the world to
come ; to which purpose, as murder was accountable to the
judgment, which had the cognizance of capital matters ; so
says our Sariour, "Whosoever is angry vrith his brother
-without a cause," that is, is guilty but in the least degree,
" shall be in danger of the judgment ; whosoever shall say
Raca, shall be in danger of the council," which inflicts a yet
severer punishment, viz. that of stoning ; " but whosoever shall
say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire," that is, the
highest and most afflicting of all punishments. Now what
can be more plain, than that, as murder is the highest and
most grievous of all the effects of passion and unjust wrath,
and that which gave occasion to this discourse of our Saviour ;
so these three are represented by him as several degrees and
approaches towards that dreadful sin, not different kinds of
sins, as the Cardinal, vrithout the least occasion infers, but
different degrees of the same sin, and so consequently, the
penalties annexed to them not different kinds, but several
degrees of the same punishment, viz. all equally eternal,
though not all equally afflicting and tormenting. Bellarmine
acknowledges that the punishments insinuated here, are such
as shall be infiicted in the next world, but by an inex
plicable fetch, would have part temporal, viz. those threatened
to the first two degrees punishable by the judgment and council,
and part eternal : but he produces no reason for his conjecture,
nor, indeed, does any appear, unless it be these words hell fire,
which though I confess they may be taken literally, yet our
Sariour seems to use them here in a metaphorical way, with
» BeU. de Purg. Ub. 1. cap. 8, [p. 340. col, 2, Prag. 1721,]

purgatory. 45
irespect to the terrors of Hinnom,* which the Jews even then
had in memory, and by which it is probable, he took occasion
to express the exquisiteness of the punishment due to the
highest degree, since they had no such punishment among
them, as burning in a light fire : but since our Saviour here
declares every degree to be capital, why must not every degree
be liable to an eternal punishment ? Did ever any man reckon
venial offences amongst capital punishments ? I will here re
fer our Scripturist to one of his own fraternity ; Maldonat,f
in his comment upon this chapter : " As for the council," says
he, " that also conyrehends capital punishments, nay, such
hy which eternal death is signified." I would fain know what
temporal punishments are to be expected at the judgment-seat
of God ; but that it is there, where this sentence -will be given,
TheophylactJ apparently informs us, explaining the case of
the sinner in the second degree, who is in danger of the coun
cil : " In danger of the council (says he) of the holy Apostles,
when they sit judging the twelve tribes of Israel," I doubt
that punishment will be of an eternal duration, which they in
flict. And therefore, because I would refer them to the
authorities most allowable in their own opinions, which may
undeceive them in so weighty a concern as the wrong meaning
of the Scriptures, I must send them again to the same Mal-
donat, with another most applauded champion of their own
fraternity, and that is Suarez,§ who plainly denies this text to
relate to purgatory, and that for this reason, because it is
mighty probable those three particulars (judgment, council,
and hell fire) intimate an eternal damnation, which is greater
or lesser, according to the quality of the offence. And then
for the Cardinal's three kinds of sins and punishments, hear
the resolution of Maldonat,|| in the place before cited : " It is
* See Grotius upon the place, [vol, 2, p, 45, col, 1, Lond, 1679.]
+ Maid, in loc. deinde per Concilium Capitalem pcenam intelUgit, per
quam seternam mortem significat.
X Theophylact, in locum : evoxog earat T<p (rvvedpitp tHjv dyifiiv 'Attoct-
ToXwv, 'ore Kadiaovai Kpivovreg rdg SdiSsKa ^vXdg. [vol, 4, p, 27, Venet.
1754.] § Suarez. Tom. 4. in Thom, Disput, 45, §, 1, num, 13, p, 557, Hie
locus non spectat ad banc Controversiam de Purgatorio, quia valde pro-
babUe est omnia ilia membra (Judicii, Concilii, Gehennse) signiiicare
aeternam damnationem, et pcenam majorem, vel minorem, pro qualitate
delictomm, II Maid, in Mat, v. Certum est hoc in loco poenarum et peccatorum
gradus, non genera distingui, quae tria peccata Christus eadem inferni
poena, licet non eadem gravitate, digna esse docuit.

46 popish methods for the pardon op sin.
certain," says he, " that not the kinds, but the degrees of sins
are distinguished in this place, which three degrees, Christ
has here pronounced, deserving the same infernal punishment,
though not the same weight and severity of it,"
I shall only admonish such Scripturists as these of these
two things, and so leave them to a more impartial reflection on
their own cause, 1 , That it is very requisite they should agree
amongst themselves about this text of Scripture, before they
lay such stress and weight upon it in so important a point as
an article of their faith, 2, That they would remember that
they are not only Protestants, but those of their own order,
which thus testify against them, how shamefully these have
abused and distorted this plain Scripture,
And thus we come to his conrincing words, his few and
many stripes, his motes and beams, his gnats and camels,
which are the remaining support of his venial reasonings ; to
all which, I shall first give this general answer, and let our
Scripturist make the best of it : that if those offences expressed
in these terms, and which, for the manner of the expressing
them, he concludes to be but venial, are sins indeed, then
they must be a transgression of the law of God, for vrithout
law, there can be no sin. Secondly, If they are committed
against any part of the law of God, then they must be equally
obnoxious to the infinite wrath and judgment of God, vrith
other sins, which are expressed in the most heinous manner.
For, since the holy Apostle tells us, " Whosoever shall offend
in any one (though the most minute particular of the law)
is guilty of all :" must it not necessarily follow, that sueh a
minute transgressor must also be equally hable to the punish
ments due to the whole law ? And then those can never be
made appear by Scripture to be more than eternal ; for though
God, indeed, does not threaten an equal degree of sufferings,
yet the wages of all sin is revealed to be death, and that too
death eternal ; and we hear of no other punishment for sin
ners, of what kind soever in the New Testament, but a " fearful
looking for of judgment, and fiery indignation ;" but without
timely repentance, a final exclusion from the kingdnm of hea
ven. Our Scripturist,* indeed, insinuates, that God and
Christ must be tyrants, and cruel, in his opinion, should they
reward our hghter miscarriages with eternal pains ; but God's
justice has left no comfortable expectation for any impenitent
sinner whatsoever, dying unrepentant, though but in the least
? Cath, Script, p. 337.

purgatory, 47
of sins ; nor indeed do we find anything offered by the Catho
lic Scripturist himself, to evince the contrary. To pass by his
motes and beams, which our Saviour calls so, only in compari
son vrith the more heinous enormities of the Pharisees ; can
any thing be more venial, than a few idle words ? and yet, if
the Scripture the Catholic produces may be relied upon, I
dare aver, all pretence of purgatory for venial satisfactions is
altogether ridiculous: "For I say unto you,"* says our
Sariour, " that every idle word that men shall speak, they
shall give an account thereof in the day of judgment:" what
can be the meaning of this text, if not this, that every idle
word not here repented of, shall be accounted for at the day of
judgment ? And then where is your purgatory satisfaction.
He flutters next with his many and few stripes, making the
many signify eternal punishment, but the few no more than
two or three strokes of a discipline, or such a short risk in
purgatory, as may easily be bought off with a small present to
his confessor at the last gasp : but can any one be more fit for
many stripes than this Jesuit, that blushes not to fool and trifle
thus with the word of God ? Do not Theophylact, and all divines
(but those that understand no divinity) understand these stripes,
as the same in kind, but different in their number and portion ?
Does not our Saviour plainly shew how he will require from
us all according to those gifts and capacities he has endowed
us with, that whosoever offends or neglects obedience to his
will, must expect the very same revenges of his justice, though
not in the same degree ? Is here any thing to incite us to sin
against God, or neglect the opportunities of amendment in
this life, upon the confidence of salvation, through our en
during a few momentary strokes in another state ? Cannot
the stripes be few and many, but they must needs be temporal
and eternal ? Did ever any divine before this Scripturistf
suggest, if all were eternal, then they must all be equally many
and numerous ? What says Theophylact upon the place :J
" Let us be afraid, my brethren ; for if he who knoweth no
thing is worthy of stripes, what shall become of us, who
knowingly offend ?" This was his address to the doctors of
the Church, and may admonish our Scripturist, that even an
ignorant transgression of the law exposes us to the stripes due
* Matth, xii, 36. t Cath, Script, p. 242.
§ Theoph. in locum. ^pi^ij)jxev dSeXipoi ei yap 6 [itjdk oXwg yvovg, d^iog
TrXij-ywv, -TToTog d-jraXXd^ei Xoyog rovg ev yvtxitjei,. 7rXrj[ifieXovvTag, Kai
fidXiara ei Kai SiddaKaXoi elev.

48 POPISH METHODS FOR THE PARDON OP SIN,
to the law, yea, even to the same in quality, though not in num
ber, as is payable to the most knowing offender : and there
fore, though this Catholic Scripturist' s understanding in the
Scriptures cannot much endanger him, though he be in the
rank of doctors, yet he has great reason to beware, lest his
affected ignorance do not expose both himself and followers
to the greatest stripes. For my part, I see no other way for
him to escape, but by his honest recanting such wretched dis
tortions and riolations of the Scriptures, and so confessing,
that, as the Scriptures enforce no such principle as sins venial,
so neither do they establish any such place as purgatory for
their expiation.
And thus I come to his third principle from Scripture,
which is this ; the Scriptures teach us to pray for the dead,
therefore they teach us there is a purgatory. Now this is
as concluding in the consequence, as it is false in the pre
mises. We deny not, but that prayer for the dead is of great
date and antiquity, but we are sure purgatory is nevertheless
a novelty for that ; the grounds the ancients went upon ia
their prayers for those deceased, being altogether inconsistent
with the present circumstances of the Popish purgatory.
Every body knows what different conceptions they had of the
state of the dead, some fancying, that though they slept in
peace, yet they were detained in various receptacles, out of
which, at the last day, they should be removed, some sooner,
some later, according to the guilt and number of their sins.
Others conceived, that though they enjoyed a present ease,
yet there would a purging fire flame out at the last day,
which should try and purify, and through which, both bad
and good, were all to pass. Now those who were led with
such imaginations as these, I hope, might offer up their prayers
for the happy resurrection, speedy acquittal at the day of
judgment, and perfect consummation of the blessedness of
them who were fallen asleep in the sleep of death, without the
least apprehension of a purgatory, where even those which die
in the Lord are in continual broilings and torments. It is
one thing surely to beseech God to be merciful in his last
judgment, and another thing to entreat him to grant a
relaxation and deliverance out of present torments; nay,
nothing is more apparent than that the ancients, when they
prayed for those departed out of this hfe, thought of nothing
less than a purgatory ; for if we look into their Liturgies, do
we not find their pubhc offices for the dead framed in this

PURGATORY. 49
manner ; nay, in these very words, " Offerimus tibi ratio-
nalem hunc cultum, pro in fide requiescentibus, majoribus,
Apostolis, prwcipue vero pro sanctissima Maria Deipara, ^c*
We offer unto thee, O Lord, this our reasonable sacrifice for
them that rest in faith, our fathers, patriarchs, prophets and
apostles, but more especially the most holy Virgin," And there
fore certainly here is no appearance of the notion of a purga
tory, which not only depriveth of present rest, but abounds
with such torments, as neither prophets nor apostles, much
less the holy Virgin, could, according to their own acknow
ledgments, be exposed to. And indeed, whoever takes a riew
of that short chapter in Epiphanius.f where he justifies the
Church in this particular against Aerius, must conclude that
prayers for the dead, and purgatory, are no such reciprocal
principles, but that the one may be made without the least
supposition of the other,}; His first and main reason for them
is this, that they which are present at the prayers, may hereby
become assured that the dead are not reduced to a non
existence, but still alive, and in being with God himself: which
is inconsistent with their notion of purgatory, which is this,
that the souls of the departed are therein detained from God's
blessed presence, 2, He not only shews it done to distinguish
the faithful servants of Christ from other men, but also Christ
himself, who is not to be prayed for, from the best of saints.
And when he reckons up the differences between Christ and
those they prayed for then, § he describes them thus: He is
God, the other, men ; he is in heaven, the other in the earth,
by reason of their bodily remains detained there ; he says not,
by reason of their souls detained in a subterraneous prison, as
no doubt he would have suggested, had that Church prayed
for their dead with those religious apprehensions of a purga
tory, which the present defenders of it now do, 3, He tells
us, that prayers offered for the dead, are indeed profitable for
them, though they take not away all their sins,|| Which
shews, that in his time they hoped by them, in some measure,
• Basil, et Chrysost, in Liturg.
t Epiph, Hseres, 75. cap, 7. [vol, 1, p, 911, Colon, 1682,]
t Epiph, quo supra rt tovtov KaipioTepov, iriUTtveiv fikv rovg tra-
povrag, 'on ol direXOovTeg ZHai, Kai iv dvvTtapi,iq, ovk eiaiv, dXXd eial,
Kai 'CHai Ttapd Tip deairoT-g.
§ Epiph, ibid, icai o ixev ev ovpavOJ, b Se k-iri Tijg ytig, Sid rd k-n-iyijg
Xei-ipava. II Epiph, ibid, ixpsXet Sk Kai 17 vTrep airwv -yivo/ilvi) eiixn, "' Kai rd
oXa Twv aiTiap,driiiv p,q d-noKOTrrei.
VOL, XI. E

50 popish methods for the pardon of sin,
to remit, and take away the sins of those for whom they
prayed, and so consequently that the prayers then made in the
Church had no resemblance at all to such as now suppose a
purgatory, because these neither respect nor entreat for the
remission of sins or guUt, which is all obtained and perfected
in this hfe, before their coming thither ; and therefore, though
Epiphanius tells us they prayed for the vricked, that God
would extend his mercy to them, yet it was the mercy of
remitting their sins, not delivering them out of some punish
ments they endured for a time, for want of a full satisfaction.
And since the just, such as patriarchs and apostles, were alike
mentioned with the vricked,* nothing can be more plain, than
that they prayed for the dead -without the least apprehension
of a purgatory, and so consequently that prayer for the dead
does not necessarily infer a purgatory. As for his reasoning,
why should they pray either for the souls in heaven, or those
in hell ? it is nothing to the purpose, since some of them
prayed for the hastening and perfecting their bhss at the day
of judgment ; others, with an opinion, that even the souls in
hell might perceive some relief and mitigation by their prayers,
which opinion St, Augustine professes he will not strive
against.f so long as the wrath of God is acknowledged to remam
eternally upon them. And therefore I shall say no more, but
proceed to examine what Scriptures they are which teach, and
recommend to us, prayer for the dead.
Now, for this purpose, he has pitched upon two places ; the
first of which is this :% " What shall they do which are baptized
for the dead, if the dead rise not at all ? Why are they then
baptized for the dead ?" A very dark text, to clear a very
obscure doctrine, " Why are they baptized for the dead ?" As
if he had said, says our Scripturist, To what end do men do
penance for the dead, if the dead rise not ? Why, to a very
good end, may the Jesuit reply, viz. to restore them from the
pains of purgatory ; and so the Apostle be never the nearer
proving the resurrection at the last day, from this baptism.
Again, may we not here demand, why must, " be baptized for
the dead," be interpreted, doing penance, offering prayers,
sacrifices, and afflicting a man's self for the dead ; since the
Cathohc Scripturist brings not one authority for it, and Bellar
minef renounces the expositions of the most celebrated amongst
* Ibid, v-n-ep fikv dfiapTiaXHv Seopevoi, v-n-epSe Sisaidiv Kai TraTepuv,
¦x-poipriTtfiv, &c. t Enchirid. ad Laurent, cap. 112. i 1 Cor. xv. 29.
§ BeU. de Purg. Ub. 1. cap. 6. [vol. 2. p. 336. Prag, 1721.]

PURGATORY. 5 1
the Fathers, viz. Tertullian, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Epipha
nius, Theophylact, besides their own angehcal Thomas, to
assert it ? Indeed, our Sariour expresses his own passion in
such words as these, "I have a baptism to be baptized with,"
Luke xii, 50, And so martyrdom by the ancient Church,
was called " the baptism of blood ;" but what is all this to
prayers and sacrifices ; or, indeed, to a man's personal affhcting
himself? Let Baptizari pro mortuis signify affligi, to be
affiicted, in the passive, yet still how shall it imply affligere, or
to affUct one's self, in the active ? Is it the same thing to
suffer afflictions from others, and to afflict ourselves for others ?
Let them shew wherever baptism, or to be baptized, is used in
this sense through the whole Scriptures : why, that Bellar
mine can do, because the punishment of purgatory in the
Scriptures, is called baptism, as Matth, iii, " He shall baptize
you -with the Holy Ghost, and vrith fire," But then this is
only said, and not proved, and therefore why may not we
reply, that that speech of the holy Baptist, " he shall baptize
you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire," denotes no more but
such a baptism which Christ fulfilled on earth ; and the word
fire, is only expressive of the efficacy and great powerfulness
of its operation, Chrysostom* explains it thus ; and Theo-
phylact-j- after him, tells us expressly when it was that our
Lord baptized with this baptism: "What is the meaning of this,"
says he, "He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and
•with fire ? Why, the meaning is very clear ; for he sent his
Holy Spirit unto his Apostles, and the fiery cloven tongues
appeared and rested upon them," And, indeed, nothing can
be more clear, than that St, John here foretold our Saviour
to be the Giver of the Holy Ghost : and that he would mani
fest his extraordinary dirine virtue in a risible miracle, when
he thus poured forth his Spirit in the shape of fiery tongues
upon his Apostles. Here is no forced or metaphorical strain ;
nothing but what many of the Cardinal's own fraternity accord
to. Thus Maldonat} upon the place tells us, " Some indeed
* Chrysostom, in locum, [vol, 7. p, 154, Par. 1727.]
t Theoph, in Lucae tertium caput, versum 16, Ti Se ravra SqXovai;
To U£v Bairrifrei vfiag kv -Trve-vfiari Kal nvpi, irpoSrfXov -jravTojc, Kal
yap Tolg 'AiroaToXoig e-Tre/i-^e to n-vevfia, Kai wpival yXuiacrai ujip9ri<7av
fiepiKo/Jievai avToig. [ut supra, vol, 1. p. 295.]
X Maid, in Mat. iii. Sunt qui per ignem, hoc loco Purgatorium interpre-
tentur ; sed dubium non est, quia per ignem, Spiritus Sanctus signifi-
cetur ; Conjunctio etenim (et; non est copulativa, sed explicativa. Quas
E 2

52 POPISH METHODS FOR THE PARDON OF SIN-
interpret this place of purgatory ; but there can be no doubt,
but by fire in this place, is meant the Holy Ghost, for the
conjunction {et) is not here to ibe taken as copulative, but
explicative ; and this exphcation is added, to shew that every
ordinary communication of God's Spirit is not signified herein;
but that most illustrious descent of it, in a fiery appearance in
the day of Pentecost, And that the word /re, is only
demonstrative of the manner and fulness of that communi
cation of God's blessed Spirit, may appear from St, Mark and
St, John, both which express it only by Spiritu Sancto, Holy
Ghost,'' Nor is Maldonat alone in his interpretation, for
another of them also, Ribera,* in his comment upon Joel,
applies this of the second of the Acts, and thus explains it ;
" Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, They were so
far baptized with the Holy Ghost (says he) that the whole
house was filled therewith ; and hence (says he) we underr
stand that of St, Matthew, He shall baptize -with the Holy
Ghost, and with fire," I confess, indeed, the Fathers some?
times apply the word fire to another meaning ; but then, not
-vrith respect to purgatoi-y, but the fire of Gehenna ; and not-
-withstanding the Cardinal quotes Basil for the other, yet,
besides a man's own reading, Toletf tells us, that Basil,
Hilary, and Damascene, all interpret it of hell fire.
And as we have thus refuted the Cardinal's proof, so shall
we easily disappoint him in the text itself; for why such strains
here, metaphors and fetches ? Baptizari pro mortuis, i.e.
to do penance, sacrifice, pray and groan for dead men.
SalmeronJ tells us, the reason why some make use of this
metaphorical interpretation, is, because if the words should be
taken properly here, there could be no sohd argument whence
for the Apostle to conclude a resurrection, and we know the
only reason for such interpretations, is, the absurdity and impos-
sibihty of the literal sense. But is here really any thing of all
this in the case 1 Suppose some men, out of concern for those
expUcatio est addita, nt non quaUscunqne Spiritus Sancti communicatio,
sed Ula illustrissima, die Pentecostes specie ignis quae facta est, signi-
ficaretur, * Riber, Com, in Joel 2, Numb, 54, et 55, In tantum Spiritu Sancto
baptizati sunt, ut repleretur tota domus in qua erant sedentes, Hinc
intelligimus iUud, Matth, 3. Ipse baptis. &c,
t Tol, in Luc, cap. 3, Sic ignem interpretatur BasUius, HUarius, et
Damascenus, X Salmeron Com, in, 1 Cor, cap. 15, disput. 24. Quoniam proprie.

PURGATORY, 53
who died without baptism, in a mistaken zeal, would be bap
tized for them, in hopes the dead might perceive the benefit of
their ricariate baptism at the resurrection ; would not such a
custom as this be a good argument against such men, that
there is a resurrection ? Again, suppose there was such a
custom in the Church (and we can bring great authorities to
confirm there was) that the catechumens, in all desperate
diseases, or upon a certain prospect of death, when they were,
as to this life (as we say) lost men, to be looked upon rather as
dead than hving, used to receive the baptismal laver ; and so
Baptizari pro mortuis, be interpreted to mean no more, than
to be baptized for such as were accounted for dead men : how
would this weaken the Apostle's reasoning? Must not an
argument pressed from such a custom, rather conrince such
men, that, according to their own usage, there must be a
resurrection, than destroy the strength of such an inference ?
I shall determine nothing of certainty of so uncertain a text
(unless it be, that it signifies nothing to a purgatory) ;
but thus much Epiphanius tells us,* " that it was in the
sense of the first supposition, that tradition had interpreted
those words of the Apostle, If the dead rise not, why are they
then baptized for the dead ?" And as to the catechumens, that
they, by this their usage, declared for the resurrection of the
dead. "That the Apostle alluded to a particular manner of some
men, it is plain, by the way in which he expresses it, "Why are
they baptized for the dead? And why stand vve in jeopardy every
hour ?" By the one, referring to the manner of some particular
men ; in the other, respecting the general affiictions of all
Christians, suffering, in hopes of the resurrection : and there
fore, how a universal obligation of praying for the dead can be
inferred from such a particular instance, as does not so much
as glance at prayer, I conceive not. All that Bellarmine replies
to this, is this, that haptizantur refers to all the Jews,f and
that our Saviour did choose here rather to reason them into
the belief of a resurrectiion from the old custom of the Jews,
who used to pray for the dead, than the latter usage and man
ner of Christians : but is not this to answer one difficulty vrith
another ? How prepared the Cardinal was to make out such
a custom amongst the Jews, as founded upon the commands of
• Epipha, Cerinthian, Hteres. 28. Kai tovtov eveKa ij irapdSoaig q
kXOovaa eig v/idg, (prjal, tov avrbv aywv 'A-rroaroXov elprjKkvai, ei
oXiiig veKpol, &c. p. 114. [Colon. 1682.]
t Bell, de Purg, cap. 6. at contra banc, &c. [ut supra, p. 338. col. 2,]

54 POPISH METHODS FOR TUE PARDON OF SIN,
God's law in the Scriptures, we may easily conjecture, by his
sticking so close to his Apocryphal canon for it : and if such
a custom was not founded upon the law of God, the Cardinal's
reply is to no purpose, unless it be, to remember us of this
answer, that, "Why are they baptized for the dead?" maybe
only mentioned here, as an argument ad hominem, made use of by
the Apostle only to illustrate the truth of the resurrection, no
ways delivered as a truth and doctrine approved here, and
estabhshed by the Apostohcal authority. It is more than
probable that some of them, who had that custom amongst
them, yet still denied the resurrection, because the Apostle
does so pressingly, and with such a vehement iteration of
their own custom, endeavour to convince them of the certainty
of it ; but then it must follow, that let those words signify
what they will, they can be no argument for the recommenda
tion of what they signify to our use and performance ; and so
the Papists are as far as ever from making out this doctrine of
praying for the dead from this Scripture, Nor is this of its
being used only as an argument ad hominem our own conjecture,
but such a one as has the judgment of no less a Cardinal than
Baronius* to support it. And now is not this an admirable
way of founding articles of faith upon such Scriptures, which
they dare not trust the Fathers to interpret, nor yet can accord
in their own explications about them.
But now it will be time to inquire, how much stronger the
Cathohc Scripturist is in his other text, which is this : 1 John
V, 16, " If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not
unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them
that sin not unto death." As, when they find the word fire
they presently discover the terrible flames of purgatory ; so
wherever they light upon the word death, or dead, they can
immediately perceive that advantageous rehef of praying for
the dead. Was ever text so managed, as our Scripturist has
handled this ? If he makes any thing of it, I think it is only
this, that it treats not of sins mortal, and sins venial, " There
is a sin unto death,t says the Apostle, I do not say ye shall
pray for it; and so we," says the Scripturist, "never pray for
those whom we know to die unrepentant ; and this is the true
meaning of the place," Is this the true meaning ? Then let
me ask this Catholic expositor, do you pray for those whom
* Baron. Annal, tom, 1. Ann, 57, § 165, et 100. [p. 473, 474, Luc.
1738.J t Cath. Script, p. 247.

PURGATORY. 55
ye know to live unrepentant ? That is, do you pray for those
very sins, which ye know the sinner has not repented him of ?
Yes, that they do, if the Scripturist* is in the right of it ; for
they hold prayer lawfully and fruitfully made, for all sins
whatever, during the lifetime of the sinner. But how this
can agree vrith the true sense of the place, or be reconcUeable
with the Apostle's meaning, whom he acknowledges to have
taught us here, that there is a sin unto death, for which he
dares not say we shall pray, let the Scripturist explain. What
is the true meaning of this place? When the Apostle insinuates
"there is a sin unto death," i.e. of that deadly provocation as
shall never be forgiven, and therefore such as we can have no
grounds to pray for, he does plainly teach us, we must not
pray for the dead : when he speaks of a sin not unto death, he
does then as plainly justify us in our prayers for the dead, I
know not the way of breeding amongst the Cathohc fathers,
but should a Protestant sophister have inferred such a
conclusion from such premises, he would certainly have been
soon hissed out of our schools. Suppose the Apostle had
spoke in the words of this Scripturist (with which he thinks to
salve up all), there is a sin until death, and a sin not until
death ; this would have informed us, that there remains no
help by our prayers in this world, for final impenitence ; and
so again, that we are to pray here for the penitent in this
life ; but it must still remain a mystery, how the Apostle should
hereby suggest, or recommend to us prayers for the dead.
What is the Apostle doing in this chapter? Is he not
endeavouring to excite and stir us up to prayer, -with the
assurance that God will hearken to, and grant us our petition,
if we ask anything according to his will? ver, 14, Again,
does he not here give an instance what it is God is vrilling we
should ask of him, and tell us, that if we see our brother sin
a sin, yet if we experience withal, that he relents, and con
tinues not obstinate and unrepentant in his sin (which certainly
brings death, and shall be pardoned upon no prayers or inter
cessions), we may pray for such a sinner, and he shall be raised
from the death of his sin, and restored unto the life of salva
tion upon our prayers : what is all this to praying for the dead?
Does he not strangely manifest his extraordinary knowledge in
the Scriptures, when we hear him repeating this,tthat we may
pray for all sins before the death of the sinner, as a reason
why St, John must necessarily in this place intend praying for
the dead, since every novice can inform him, that we are no
» Cath, Script, ibid, t Cath. Script, p. 248.

56 POPISH METHODS FOR THE PARDON OP SIN,
more to pray for all the sins of the living, than'we are to pray
for all the sins of the dead, if there be any force iu these words
of the Apostle, We may, no doubt, pray for the conversion of
all sinners upon earth, and that God would give them a timely
repentance in this life, but we must not pray for their impeni
tence, or that God would forgive them their sins unrepented
of; and this must be the import of the Apostle's expression,
who tells us not, that we are to pray for such sinners while
liring ; or that we may not pray for them when dead ; but
only that he affirms not that we may pray for them at all. But
is it not still more admirable to hear the Scripturist proving
prayer for the dead from this text ?* Because the Apostle
speaks of their prayers who knew their brother to sin not unto
death, that is, as he himself explains it, to have given signs
of true repentance ; which I warrant a man cannot give signs
of true repentance till he is dead. The words are, "who sees his
brother sin," which must suppose, that he that prays, and the
sinner who is prayed for, are both in the same state as to
place, viz. in this land of the living : and I believe, no man
could have apprehended anything of the condition of the [dead
from this text, but he that has no hfe at all in his understanding.
Good God! may not a man read his Bible all the days of his
life, -without the least apprehensions of a purgatory from such
Scriptures as these be ? Has not the Catholic Scripturist
plainly destroyed his own undertaking, by appealing to such
Scriptures, which, as they prove no prayer for the dead, so do
they, according to his own measures, lead us to conclude that
there is no purgatory. And thus much for his pretended
principles from Scripture, inferring a purgatory.

PART II,
But we have not done yet; there remain still some ranks of
more express texts, ushered in vrith all the -wit and artifice of
the most accomplished Bellarmine, which may require some
stay, though give no great stop to this conclusion, no purga
tory in the Scriptures, These are marshalled into two heads,
some out of the Old, some out of the New Testament ; out of
both which, with great pomp, he proclaims there is a purga-
tory.f For the greater honour of the Old, he makes his first
* Cath. Script, in the sarae page.
t BeU. de Verbo Dei, Ub. 1. c. 10. at the beginning. Hi libri simul
omnes recipiuntur ab Hebrteis, [Ibid, vol, 1, p, 18, col, 1,]

PURGATORY. 57
and most rigorous attempt out of the Apocrypha, as if that
book, which he himself grants the Jews received not, was the
best witness of their faith and devotion. I shall not spend
time now in examining such proofs as those, which come not
out of the Scriptures, but proceed to his more canonical
quotations, whose authority is allowed by all sides. And first.
Is it not very strange to find a purgatory pleaded for out of the
Old law, which, though most express and particular in all
things relating to prayers and sacrifices, yet insinuates not the
least office for a deliverance out of that subterraneous cap
tirity? Have not many of their own party doubted, and as many
openly denied there was any purgatory before Christ, and
indeed, does not the nature of the thing itself abundantly
proclaim as much ? For to what end should God enjoin them
thus to pray and affiict themselves, for those tormented in such
a state, out of which there was no possibihty of relief or
redemption for them then, there having been, according to
their own principles, no entrance for any into heaven before
Christ ? Again, after all their sins were forgiven, which is the
case of those in purgatory, what hindered, but they were as fit
for limbus patrum, wherein the deceased are supposed to
have been then detained from the glorious vision of God, which
must have been torment enough to every righteous soul, as any
other whatever. But to speak to the texts themselves alleged
for proof hereof : Zech, ix, II, "As for thee also, by the
blood of thy covenant, I have sent forth thy prisoners out of
the pit, wherein is no water ;" is one of the strongest and most
appealed to, and which Bellarmine concludes absolutely to refer
to a purgatory,* But would it not be very expedient these
arguers should determine amongst themselves, what is the
true meaning of these words,' before they found an article of
faith upon them ? Was limbus patrum, where all the purest
saints are fancied to have resided with peace and sweet con
tentment, so very like or agreeable to purgatory, with all its
fiery pangs and scorchings, as that God may have presented
both in the same words and characters ?t That this use is,
and has been made of this text, to infer the one as well as the
other, not only the Cardinal acknowledges, but BecanusJ also
tells us that Catholics commonly understand it either of limbus
• De Purg, lib, 1, cap, 3. § nonus locus, [Ibid, vol. 2.p, 330, col, 1,]
t BeU, de Purg, Ub. 1. cap. 3. [Ibid.]
t Becan, de Purg. Calvin, p. 538, [Mogunt. 1609.]

58 POPISH METHODS FOR THE PARDON OF SIN,
patrum, or our purgatory : and one of their present champions
apphes it directly to a limbus ;* and then may not we with
better reason conclude it alludes to neither of those two states,
which are so irreconcilably different from each other ? Bel
larmine' sf reason why it must be understood of a purgatory,
and not limbus patrum, is this, because the lake mentioned
here, is described to have been without water, whereas in
Umbo patrum, there are the sweet waters of consolation and
refreshment : but how consistent is this -vrith his own descrip
tions of purgatory in the fourth chapter of his second book,
where he treats of the state of the souls held therein ? What !
is purgatory without water, -without the least refrigeration or
comfort ? Can they who have obtained the certainty of their
salvation, even that certainty which excludeth all fear, remain
-without the least capacity of ease and refreshment ? Does not
the Cardinal himselfj tell us, that the Church, in the Canon of
her Mass, prays for those in purgatory, under the denomi
nation of such as sleep in the Lord ? And again, that those
who sleep in the Lord, by reason of their certainty of salvation,
perceive an incredible mixture of consolation with their tor
ments : and then, if this reason of the Cardinal be no reason
at all, why may not the others of them who interpret it of a
limbus, be esteemed the more substantial expositors, and so
the Papists without a purgatory in Scripture, for all such
passages as this ? The meaning of this text is plain and easy
to any one who reads the chapter, wherein he will perceive,
that, though it may have had some respect to the redemption
of Israel out of that horrible captivity of Babylon, where
they had been destitute of the sweet refreshments, the refresh
ing streams springing from the true worship and sacrifices of
God, which were not to be offered but at Jerusalem ; yet it
had a more particular eye to the redemption of man out of
the bottomless lake of everlasting damnation, by the strength
of that covenant established in the blood of Christ : for doeS
not the ninth verse in these words, " Behold, thy King cometh
unto thee : He is just, and haring salvation, lowly, and ridmg
upon an ass, and upon a colt, the foal of an ass ;" plainly
describe to us our blessed Redeemer hastening to the joyful
triumph and accomphshment of our etemal blessedness upon
the cross ? Has not the Holy Ghost, Matth. xxi, 8, apphed to,
* Touchstone of Reformed Gospel, p. 80, t Bell, ibid
X BeU. de Purg. Ub, 3, [Ub. 2,] cap, 4. Sect, tertia, [Tertio,]' quia-
ad finem capit.

PURGATORY, 59
and interpreted this very prophecy of Christ ? In a word, here
is nothing in the circumstances of this place, which, according
to their o-wn principles, is applicable to a purgatory : for, first,
the souls therein detained, can no ways be said to be the
prisoners of Christ, because they are supposed to have obtained
his full remission before their coming thither ; neither can
any soul be said to be delivered from purgatory by the blood
of his covenant, since they profess that this releasenient is either
to be purchased by the prayers of the living, or worked out by
our own personal pains and torments.
Another place alleged by the Cardinal for the proof hereof,
are those words of the Psalmist, Psal. Isii, 12:" We went
through fire and water, and thou broughtest us out into a wealthy
place," The former text asserted a purgatory, by making out
to us a lake wherein is no water ; behold here both fire and
water conspiring to make up a purgatory. We may observe
here, that though Bellarmine is most positively confident in
his vindication of the texts cited out of the Apocryphal books,
yet as for those brought out of the canonical Scripture of the
Old Testament, he neither justifies them -with one argument,
nor yet avouches any one of them upon his own word ; as to
this before us, he says nothing for it, but that among divers
explications, Origen understands it of a purgatory : but who
ever examines Origen' s purgatory, will find his notion can give
but little advantage to the chimera Bellarmine undertakes to
maintain, neither will the Cardinal abide by the explication of
Origen : and therefore we will answer him here in the words
of an applauded bishop of their own, uttered by him upon the
occasion of their misusing this very text to this purpose :*
" I approve not such trifling as this (says he), which explains
these words of purgatory," Indeed, if we read the Psalm, it
is unaccountable to imagine how any men could possibly pro
duce such a text for such a doctrine, wherein there appears
not the least relation to, or countenance for a purgatory,
unless it be in the word fire ; and they may as well derive it
from hell fire, as that fire and water herein represented : for
does not the Psalmist in the foregoing part of this very verse,
repeat before the Almighty, " thou sufferedst men to ride over
our heads ?" And does that look like a state of purgatory ?
Again, does he not in the 9th and 10th verses shew how God
had proved and tried them asthe silver is tried ; and ver, 1 3,
* Rotfeu, in Luth, Artie, 37, duod aUi sic nugantur, non probo.

60 POPISH METHODS FOR THE PARDON OP SIN,
14, manifest before the Lord, that he would now "go into his
house with burnt- offerings, and pay him those vows which he
had spoke with his mouth, and promised with his hps, when
he was in those troubles," Do not all these circumstances
abundantly erince, that the fire and water, through which
God had now brought them into the present ease and enjoy
ment of this world, was that fire of afflictions, miseries, and
necessities, wherewith he had chastised and risited them in
this hfe ? And therefore, consequently, that the only infe
rence deducible from these words must be, that of the Holy
Ghost, " through much tribulation we must enter into the
kingdom of God," And thus have we this text explained by
Ribera,* a Jesuit, in his comment upon the last verse of the
13th of Zechariah, where he interprets those words, "I will
bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as
silver is refined, and try them as gold is tried," &c, thus this
shews, says he, that Christians shall be exercised, tried, and
approved by temptations and miseries, as we read Psal, Ixri,
So that we may pass through the heat and terrors of this fire
and water, and yet be never the more in danger of the parch-
ings of their purgatory : what Jesuitical theology is this, to
interpret such discourses as relate to afflictions and trials in
this life, so as to establish thereby the fictitious pains and
torments of the dead ?
There are several other texts and places alleged by the
Cardinal to the same purpose, as 1 Sam, xxxi : " The inhabi
tants of Jabesh Gilead, when they heard what the Phihstines
had done to Saul, fasted seven days ;" and 2 Sam, i, where it is
said, " Darid wept until even for Saul and for Jonathan, and
the men that were with him," " For though indeed," says
Bellarmine, " all this might have been the effects of grief and
sorrow, occasioned by that dismal slaughter, yet it is credible
it was to help and ease the souls of the dead, it seeming
irrational for them to weep and fast seven days together upon
any other account," But first, is it only credible that it was to
help out of purgatory ? Then it is not certain and demonstrable,
as those inferences which are to confirm and make out articles
of faith ought to be : for though it be credible to any one who
inspects his reasoning, that the Cardinal was here conscious of
* Rib. Com. in Zech. xiii. Num. xvii. significat Populum Christianum
variis tentationibus exercendum atque probandum, ut fiat quasi aurum
purissimum, ut Psal. Ixvi. Transivimus, &c.

PURGATORY, 61
his own trifling, yet, I suppose, they wont infer it to be
demonstration, 2. Why is it credible that, upon this news,
they were struck more with the thoughts of the torments of
purgatory, than with the apprehensions of the disgrace and
ignominy redounding hereby to the people of Israel, whose
prince thus became a prey and sacrifice to their enemies, which
they knew was an erident manifestation of God's wrath against
them ? The text plainly lays before us the grounds and reason
of this fasting, that it was for the house of Israel, and because
they were fallen by the sword, ver, 12, i. e. because the name
of Israel would hereby be reproached among the heathen ; not
because their deceased friends were to be tormented with the
pains of the dead in purgatory. And therefore put the case
it might have been irrational only for a testimony of sorrow, as
the Cardinal suggests, to have fasted seven days, yet, I hope,
twice seven days could not have been too many to have mani
fested the sense of their sins, which had thus provoked the
Almighty to deliver them and their king, with infamy and
slaughter, into the will of their enemies. But Bellarmine
attempts farther to clear his argument, that it was for the good
of the dead in purgatory, that they fasted seven days, from the
use and custom of David, who used to fast and pray for the
obtaining some gift or blessing from God, as in the case of the
child, for whom he ceased praying when dead, and all hopes of
enjoying him in this world were perished. But not to oppose
the Cardinal in his conjecture, how can this possibly make out
a purgatory ? David, and the people, no doubt, proposed the
obtaining of something by their prayers and seven days fasting ;
but why must that necessarily be, the ease and deliverance of
the souls in purgatory ? Was there nothing else to be obtained
here? What may we think of God's acceptance of their
humiliation ? What of their endeavour herewith of appeasing
the wrath of God, and an obtainme^t of the reconciliation of
his mercy and compassion for the future ? Was any thing of
this kind also irrational ? When David ceased his fasting,
upon the death of his child, did he not teach us that the
advantage and benefit of our prayers extend not to the dead ?
Is it not a very strange thing, that a man cannot mourn or
lament for the loss of a father, brother, or a deceased friend,
but such sorrow must immediately point out and direct us to a
purgatory ? The holy Apostle St, Paul indeed comforts and
solaces such as sorrow for the dead, and endeavours to restrain
and moderate their grief ; hut it is by assuring us the dead are

62 POPISH METHODS FOR THE PARDON OF SIN,
but asleep ; notvrithstanding the suitableness of the opportunity,
he gives not the least hint of any racking pains they endure
in the way to rest ; neither does he bid us comfort ourselves
with the hopes or assurance that our prayers and intercessions
shall obtain, or hasten their releasement out of them : so that
we may conclude the Apostle's thoughts were far different from
those of the Cardinal, applying the sense of our sorrows for the
departed to the apprehension of a purgatory.
Another text produced by the Cardinal, is out of Micah vii,
8, 9 : " Rejoice not against me, O mine enemy : when I fall, I
shall arise : when I sit in darkness, the Lord shall be a light
unto me, I will bear the indignation of the Lord, because I
have sinned against him, until he plead my cause, and execute
judgment for me," If we mind the whole chapter, the sense
and proper meaning of it will appear to be this ; the holy
prophet, in the first part of it, represents the great sins and
iniquities of Jerusalem, that such was the degeneracy of Israel,
" that the best of them was become a brier, and the most
upright sharper than a thorn hedge," ver, 4 ; that therefore
God's vengeance and destructions were upon them, to pursue
their transgressions with his justice. And then again, as is
usual in all the denunciations of God's wrath against his
people, in the person of Jerusalem, the holy prophet manifests
some remains of the Dirine love and mercy still reaching
towards them, admonishes Babylon not to insult over her ; for
though she was now laid waste and destroyed by her, yet
should she be raised again and become rebuilt in glory ; though
she should thus bear the indignation of the Lord, for this
reason, because she had sinned, yet afterwards, upon her
repentance and amendment, should God plead her cause
against her enemy {viz. Babylon), and execute judgment for
Jerusalem, repair those wounds and breaches now made in her,
in the ease and glory of her posterity. This is the plain and
proper import of the chapter, and therefore this place can
respect only the present miseries and afflictions befalling us m
this life. As to purgatory, here is not so much as any one
circumstance which resembles it : for first, the wrath of God,
which Jerusalem now bore, was that uttered against the
heaviest sins, and most intolerable apostasy from his law, even
those mortal sins which condemn not to purgatory, which were
not to be purged, or done away by its fiercest satisfactions.
2, It is no ways agreeable to the souls in purgatory, to have
the reason of their fall and condemnation thither, represented

PURGATORY, 63
with such aggravations of the greatest sins and transgressions,
because they are released from the guilt of sin in this life ; and
sent thither only to recover some unwary slips and venial
deflections. As for the Cardinal, he only mentions this text
to make up his number, says nothing for it himself, throws his
own delusion upon St, Jerome, whom yet Ribera* in his com
ment upon the place, cites in favour of the quite contrary
explication, viz. the very same exposition which we have given
before. Another of his places cited, is the ninth chapter of Isaiah, the
1 8th verse : " Wickedness burns as a fire, it shall devour the
briers and the thorns," The clear sense and meaning of the
prophet in this place, is apparent enough from ver, 9, where
he begins the description of the pride and haughtiness of
Israel ; and admonishes them of the vengeance of God pouring
forth all her enemies upon her ; and therefore when he tells us
in this verse that vrickedness burneth like a fire, it is the
vrickedness of these enemies of Israel whom the prophet
meaneth, and whom God would now permit to devour, not all
the people, viz. not those who yet worshipped and obeyed
aright, but the thorns and briers, the most lewd and sinful
persons amongst them. But now how the devouring the thorns
and briers, which denote the most grievous and mortal sinners,
can intimate those venial transgressions which the fire of pur
gatory may consume, wear away, and satisfy for, I shall leave
to these framers of apurgatory to explain.
Another text is out of the third chapter of Malachi, and the
3rd verse : " And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of
silver, and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as
gold and silver," Who this Refiner and Purifier is, whom the
prophet speaks of in this chapter, it is plain in the first verse,
viz. that Lord, even the Messenger of the Covenant renewed by
the Father in his Son Christ, whom our fathers before, and
all Christians now, delight in, 2ndly, The end and purpose of
this purification and refining by fire, is also clear in the latter
end of the third verse, viz. "that they may offer unto the
Lord an offering of righteousness," And therefore, Srdly, the
persons to be thus refined and purified, by the efficacious
operation of this fire of God's Holy Spirit, could be none but
* Ribera in locum : Ita Hieronymus et alii, Ne Ireteris, O Babylon,
de ruina mea, quae mihi nunc ^ Propheta prsedicta est ; eram a te expug-
nata, sed iterum aedificabor.

64 POPISH METHODS FOR THE PARDON OF SIN,
the sons of Leri, the priests and congregations of Israel con
versant in this life at the time of Christ's coming and appear
ance ; the end of this Refiner being to repair and qualify such
to pay those sacrifices and oblations as may become pleasant
unto the Lord, ver, 4, In a word, the prophet in this place
foretels the expiation, and cleansing of our hearts by the Holy
Ghost given by Christ, and therefore he is said by the fire of
his Holy Spirit, to warm our souls, to purge and cleanse them,
as the fire purgeth and cleanseth metals, by separating and
throwing off their dross ; and in this sense, the Spirit of Christ,
i. e. by which he is said to renew and purify us from our cor
ruptions and filthiness, is frequently by the prophets entitled
the spirit of fire, and the spirit of burning, particularly Isa, iv,
4 ; which place also is alleged for the confirmation of pur
gatory, but with what ground let the Cardinal* determine,
who in his argument from this place, acknowledges the refining
and purging mentioned in this place, to relate merely to the
living, whereas that respects only the dead ; for he may as well
infer the dead to be the living, as from this purifying the
living by the Spirit of God, conclude a purging and satisfying
for the sins of the dead in another state. And thus we have
taken a view of their whole force and strength in the Old
Testament ; and I persuade myself there cannot be a greater
argument of the weakness of their cause, a clearer refutation
of their shameful obtrusions of this state on the faith and
belief of a Christian's conscience, than what the naked recital
and examination of their own proofs must necessarily erince,
I proceed now to their conclusions and deductions from the
New Testament,
The first text that we meet cited by Bellarmine, is Matth,
xii, 32 : "But whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it
shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the
world to come," The main stress of the argument from these
words, lies in that expression, " neither in this world, neither
in the world to come ;" that is, as Bellarmine and his foflowers
understand it, neither in this world, nor in purgatory. Indeed
St, Augustine seems to infer some future remission of sins
after this life from this text, but what remission, or of what
sins, he declares he dares not aver ; so that his conjecture was
far from the Cardinal's present imagination of a purgatory,
which determines what is remitted, viz. the guilt of some
* BeU, de Purg, [Ub. 1.] cap. 3. §. locus decimus, [ut supra, p, 330.]

PURGATORY, 65
; miscarriages ; and also the way how it is remitted, viz. by
iterminate endurance of pains and torments,
;condly. Whatever remission that holy Father conceived
lid be hereafter, it could be only a thing probable and
3ctural, and therefore no ground for an article of faith
ch he tells us is to he founded on plain and indubitable
iture), because he himself was both doubtful and uncertain
; as is apparent in four distinct places of his writings,*
ifess it seems very strange to me, how the world to come
Id here signify purgatory, which is fixed in an intermediate
e of time between a man's death and the resurrection ;
I the Scriptures do so generally understand by it the day
dgment, or the time after the resurrection ; as we read
cularly Luke xx, 35: "Those that shall be accounted
hy to enjoy that world, and the resurrection from
dead." The coming of Christ to judgment is every
e represented to us as the end of this world, so that the
r must commence from the time of his coming to judgment ;
this,f if considered, vrill take off all pretences of imperti-
e in these words of our Saviour, vrithout that purgatory
3sion, which the Cardinal infers as a salvo for our Saviour's
etion, in expressing himself in these terms, " neither in
world, neither in the world to come ;" for is it any imper-
ce or uncouthness to say, blasphemy against the Holy
it is a sin of that dreadful account, as shall neither be
'ed pardon in this world by the absolution of men, nor be
ounced or proclaimed pardoned by Christ himself at the
9f judgment ; when he shall perfect and consummate the
ssion or punishment entered here on earth, when he shall
he righteous, " Come, ye blessed," give the final impression
eir pardon ; but against the ungodly pronounce, " Go, ye
id ;" eternally bind up those sins which have, or ought to
been bound on earth ? And that which may confirm this
cation, is the use and manner of the Scriptures themselves,
b all along express the time for the retributions of rewards
punishments to be the day of judgment, as Matth. xxv,
13 ; and indeed, this is elegantly explained by the Cardinal
t, Aug, Enchirid. ad Laurentium, cap. 66, et cap. 68. vol. ii. [p. 598,
Jassan. 1797.] Juxta finem in Octo Qusest. ad Dulcit. (iusest. 1.
de et Operibus, cap, 16, [Ibid, p, 546,]
le Purg, [lib. 1.] cap, 4, et Respondeo non sequi, &c, sed tamen sequi
lum Regulam prudentise ; quia faceremus Dominum ineptissime
m ; inepte enim diceret hoc, &c, [vol. 2. p. 331. col, 1. Prag, 1721.]
L, XI, F

66 POPISH METHODS FOR THE PARDON OF SIN.
himself,* she-wing us how, though a particular sentence passes
upon every man in the day of his particular trial after death,
yet the same is said to be "done at the last day, and that pro
perly too, because then it is published before the whole world,
to the greatest honour of the righteous, and the highest infamy
and reproach of the ungodly : and does the Scripture any
where suggest to us under the title of the world to come, any
place or state distinct from heaven or hell ? so that withoilt
inferring a third place in the world to come for remission of
sins, according to Bellarmine himself, our Saviour's manner of
speaking, may be allowed most clear and expressive.
Secondly, Since blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is here
expressed a sin of the most unpardonable provocation to God,
since our Saviour repeats it -vrith the highest abhorrency, telling
us twice, that though all other sins and blasphemies may be
forgiven, yet still that against the Holy Ghost shall not : may
we not very agreeably to the whole narration here aver, that
our Lord makes use of that expression, " neither in this world,
nor in the world to come," rather by way of aggravation, or to
express stiU the greater heinousness of the sin, than tacitly to
infer, that there remains a remission and forgiveness of other
sins in the world to come ; rather to shew that this sin shall
be eternally unpardonable, or as St. Mark expresses, ver, U,
never be forgiven at all, than to teach us that other sins and
transgressions not forgiven in this, may yet be remitted in the
world to come, and that too, before we enter into the other
world, which is the case of remission had by purgatory. All
that I find replied by the Cardinalf to this, is that by a like
aggravation we may shuffle off hell itself, and call it an aggra
vation when our Lord condemns the wicked, " Go you into
everlasting burnings :" but by what logic, or from what pre
mises he draws his conclusion, it is past my capacity to con
jecture : our Lord in divers places, and upon several opportuni
ties, expressly tells us, " that the portion of the wicked shall
be everlasting burnings:" well, therefore, when he says,
"blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven,
neither in this world, neither in the world to come," he must
either be understood to insinuate a remission of sins in pur-
» BeU. ibid, cap, 5. ad secundum dico, in fine, Et tamen dicuntur hsc
eadem fieri in novissimo judicio, quia tunc fient coram toto mundo mani-
festissime, et cum summo honore justorum, et ignominia impiorum, fa.
[p. 334, col, 1.] s f .
t BeU, dePurg, cap, 4. sect, 8. [sect. 2.] At contra, &c, [Ibid, p,330.
col. 2.] ' L r ¦

PURGATORY, 67
jgatory, or we may as reasonably conclude that there is no such
punishment as hell fire. Is not the Cardinal more impertinent
in this induction, than he would infer our Saviour's expression
to be, were there no purgatory remission after this life ? That
this expression is hyperbohcal and figurative, St, Mark mani
festly insinuates, briefly comprehending this more figurative
and ample circuition of St, Matthew in that short speech,
Non remittetur in ceternum, " shall never be forgiven," Indeed,
Bellarmine* says, St, Mark is no interpreter of St, Matthew,
but his reason for it is beyond the Cardinal himself, viz.
because St, Matthew writ more copiously and largely, and St,
Mark's Gospel is but a compendium of St, Matthew : as if that
man which contracts another man's meaning, and that too by
the guidance of an infallible Spirit, were not to be allowed a
competent judge of his intentions. Or, again, as if the more
flourishing and rhetorical were to determine and over-rule the
more concise and comprehensive. It is certain St, Mark, who
was guided by the same Spirit with St, Matthew, has delivered
nothing different from, or discording with St, Matthew's mean
ing ; and therefore, since the whole tendency of the Scriptures
may incline us this way, and St, Mark has explained it to this
purpose, must it not be most consequential to infer, that, to
be forgiven neither in this world, nor in the world to come,
imports no more but this, " shall never be forgiven," As for
this induction which the Cardinal makes,f either our Saviour
spake the words as St, Matthew relates them, or as St, Mark,
or as both : if as St, Matthew, or as both, we have gained our
point, it will in no measure advantage his cause : for though he
spoke the very words of St, Matthew, yet he meant no more
by them than St, Mark has explained : so that by consequence,
they are very far from erincing a third place for i-emisSion of
sins after death ; or instructing us, that that remission in the
world to come, which he here denies of the, sin against the
Holy Ghost, he tacitly insinuates to be competible >to other
sins. The Cardinal himself acknowledges such au' inference as
this to be no good logic ; and to argue by way of instance :
when the Scriptures affirm hypocrisy is a sin so hateful to
God, that he cannot bear it, may we rationally infer, that
there be some other sins of that nature, that his infinite purity
can bear with them ? Is it not more clear to affirm, that by
this expression the Scriptures only manifest the grievousness
* BeU. quo supra, j. Respondeo non debere, [p, 331, col. 2,]
t BeUarm, ibid. F 2

68 POPISH METHODS FOR THE PARDON OF SIN,
of this sin of hypocrisy, but no ways tacitly affirm God can
endure and bear with other sins ? So that according to the
way of the Scriptures themselves, we may say that our Saviour
in these words only aggravates the odiousness of the sin against
the Holy Ghost, shewing it shall never be forgiven, but no
ways adrises us, that there are other sins which may be for
given, if not in this, yet in the world to come. As to what
the Cardinal alleges,* of the impropriety of this expression,
" neither in this world, nor in the world to come," if there were
no remission in the world to come, it is impertinent, and to no
purpose, since those words do fully answer the purpose of our
Saviour, and with the greater vehemency deny all remission
whatever to that sin. And although it would be improper to
say, I will marry neither in this world, neither in the world to
come, because there is no such thing as marrying, and giring
in marriage there ; yet it follows not that it must be as im
proper to say, it shall neither be remitted in this world, neither
in the world to come, because, though there is no remission for
sins not remitted in this world, yet all remission is said to he
confirmed there, and the Scriptures usually acquaint us that
our final doom and sentence shall be pronounced at the judg
ment-seat of Christ.
Thirdly, That this text advantageth not the Popish purga
tory, is further clear, because it treats of the remission itself
of sin, not satisfaction for some hght failures, which is the
chiefest remission of their purgatory. All that the Cardinal
has to reply here, is no more but this, that in purgatory,
there is also a remission of venial faults. To which I answer,
that venial sins, as they call them, have nothing to do with
this place ; for since they are the most mortal sins and blasphe
mies, to which our Lord here compares the sin against the Holy
Ghost, declaring that though they might be forgiven, yet this
should not, neither in this, nor in the world to come : must it
not follow, that if any remission in the world to come be to
be inferred from these words of our Lord, it must certainly be
a remission of mortal sins ; and so the Cardinal as far to seek
as ever for the estabhshment of his purgatory, since frora
thence they profess all mortal sins excluded, so as that there is
no remission at all for them there. The Cardinal makes an
offer of a return to this, but it is such a one as may quite end
the controversy of a purgatory from this text ; for he says, our
* Ibid.

PURGATORY. 69
Saviour spake here of a complete and perfect remission, which
comprehends the remission both of the sin and the punish
ment,* in which manner the most grievous sins are said to be
remitted in another world, for this reason, because their remis
sion is completed there. But, first, what is all this to venial
sins, or the remission had in purgatory, which, according to
his own principles, has nothing to do with grievous sinners ?
Again, how can the completion or perfection of all remission
belong to purgatory, when the Scriptures every where refer it
to the last judgment of Christ ? Secondly, If the most
grievous sins are said to be remitted in the other world, for
this reason, because their remission is completed there, then
why may not this expression, " shall be forgiven neither in
this world, neither in the world to come," signify one and the
same remission, the one, viz. that " in the world to come,"
being only a confirmation, and completion of the other ?
Thirdly, If the remission " in the world to come" be the same
with that in this life, only in a higher and more compre
hensive perfection completing it, then how can these words
infer a third state, for remission of such sins as are no ways
remitted in this world ? Indeed, according to the doctrine of
Christianity, though not according to the doctrine of the
Church of Rome, the remission of the punishment always ac
companies the remission of the sins, but yet it will not follow,
that this text of Scripture, which treateth of the remission of
sins only, is agreeable, or apphcable, much less demonstrative
of their purgatory, wherein they pretend only to a remission
of punishment, and some penal satisfaction for such sins as
are already remitted in this world. And thus I think, by the
help of the Cardinal, we have sufficiently disappointed them
of the assistance of this text, in the support of their purgatory.
The next place alleged, is 1 Cor. iii, 15, "Shall be saved,
yot so as by fire," The Cardinal tells us,f this is one of the
obscurest, but yet most profitable texts ; so illustriously mani
fest is their cause in the Scriptures, that its advantages are
the deepest obscurities ; and its clearest light treasured up in
the profoundest darkness. He also tells us it is reckoned by
St. Augustine amongst those difficult sentences St. Peter
* BeU, ubi supra : et tertio Respondeo, Christus loquitur de perfecta
Remissione, quae complectitur Remissionem culpse, et poenee, quomodo
gravissima peccata remittnntur in alio seculo, quia ibi completur eorum
Remissio, [p, 331,col, 1.]
t Bell, de Purg. cap, 5. lib. 1. in initio. [Ibid. col. 2.]

70 POPISH METHODS FOR THE PARDON OF SIN,
Speaks of, which many wrest to their own destruction ; and !
therefore we may all conclude, what an incomparable founda- ¦
tion it must be, whereon to bottom an article of faith. If we
consider the circumstances of the whole place, we shall find
them in no respect suiting with their purgatory : for ver, the
13th, the Apostle tells us, the fire here spoken of, is that where
by "every man's work shall be made manifest," and therefore,
consequently, that all men, both bad and good, both Apostles
and others, shall pass through the trial and examination of
that fire here mentioned ; which agrees not with their notion
of purgatory, from which Apostles and saints are wholly to be
exempted, 2, As the examination of this fire extends itself
to all men, so is its force and operation said to exert itself upon
the works, not the persons of every man, as in the latter part
of the 13th verse, "The fire shall try every man's work, of
what sort it is ;" and so again, verse 14, 15, " If any man's
work abide," or " if any man's work shall be burnt," Where
as the fire of their purgatory has nothing to do with the
works of men, which are supposed to be accepted before an
entrance therein, but wholly exerciseth its sting and punish
ment upon the very souls of men, 3, If we consider the day
which shall thus declare our works, we shall perceive that can
no ways agree with their chimerical purgatory : for though
the text tells us it shall be revealed in fire, yet some interpret
this revelation by fire, of the final conflagration of the world ;
others, of such a one as shall flame out at the day of God's
final judgment ; the last of which, Bellarmine* acknowledges
to be the general opinion of the Fathers, and also admits of,
and allows it, for the most true. Now, how from this fire,
which shall be revealed at the day of judgment, we may infer
a present fire-purging and cleansing the souls of men imme
diately after their departure out of this life, I confess I want
the Cardinal's dexterity to make out. I suppose, according to
their own principles, the fire of purgatory shall be no more
then (whatever it is now) at that last judgment, and there
fore, how this description or insinuation of that examming
and determining flame which shall thus search and prove the
works of all men then, can declare or manifest to us this
purging fire at present, out of which milhons shafl have
escaped before, and into which, perhaps, millions shall never
enter, viz. all remaining here in the flesh at that terrible day
* BeU. de Purg, Ub, 1. cap. [5.] Sect, Tertio quiaGraecus, in the endof
the pai-agraph.

PURGATORY, 71
of the Lord, some of the Cardinal's disciples would do very
well to explain to us. As to all the particulars of this text,
such as are foundation, builders, gold, silver, wood, hay, stub
ble, nay, the fire which shall try every man's work what sort it
is, the Cardinal,* with Protestants, interprets to have an im
proper, and metaphorical meaning, and then what agreement
can this clause bear to the rest, if taken properly, and in its
literal signification ? Bellarmine confesses one or two apparent
equivocations in his own exposition, understanding, "whose
works the fire shall try," of a metaphorical and figurative
fire ; but " shall be saved so as by fire," of a material and affiict-
jng fire : but it is the incoherence of his own imaginary doc
trines, not any variations in the text itself, which forced and
obliged him thereunto : for if we understand the whole in a
metaphorical way, we do no violence, but altogether clear up
the Apostle's meaning ; for as to that clause wg Sia Trvpog,
" so as by fire," upon which all his stress depends ; this cer
tainly clearly manifests, that fire is here mentioned only figu
ratively or by way of likeness, or resemblance ; as who should
say, his works shall perish in the fire, but the workman shall
escape, yet, with that difficulty and hazard, as if that examin
ing fire had got hot hold on, and been ready to devour him ;
now the Cardinal acknowledges that examining fire to be
metaphorical : indeed the Apostle seems carefully to have
obviated the impropriety of the acceptation of that word fire
here, by the interposition of that particle (ws), nor can the
grammatical construction any ways help out the Cardinal's
imagination of such a material fire, which, by its pains and
tortures, should actually save and restore the person tortured
therein, unto hfe. As for what the Cardinal alleges from
those words, "If any man's work shall be burnt, he shall
suffer loss,"f inferring, that it meaneth, that such a person
shall receive a punishment : though a loss and punishment
are very different things ; the one being inflicted on us by
another, the other many times the effect of a man's personal
negligence and error ; yet, if we agree vrith the Cardinal in
this punctilio, it will not follow, that the punishment referred
to here must necessarily be a punishment by fire. Is not the
loss of all his labours, and the experiencing them to be rather
the works of damnation than leading to a reward, a very heavy
punishment ? As for any other, there is not the least colour
* BeU, ibid,
t Ibid, Sect, Secundo ignis iste, in the end, [p, 335, col, 2,]

72 POPISH METHODS FOR THE P4RD0N OF SIN,
orpretenee from the words. The most material objection I
find made to this exphcation, is this, that if the words, "so
as by fire," are not to be understood of a material and tor
menting fire;* then those builders who are said to build,
gold, silver, and precious stones, may as properly be said to
escape so as by fire, as the raisers up of hay, wood and stub
ble ; and so that distinction which the Apostle plainly sug
gests to be between them, insignificant, and to no purpose.
But this is easily removed, if we observe, that, though they
are all subject to this fire of trial and examination, yet they
are not all obnoxious to the like hazard and danger by it;
for though it consumes and destroys the one {viz. the wood,
hay and stubble), yet it does but illustrate, and make more
manifest the worth and perfections of the other, viz. the gold,
silver, and precious stones. As I suppose two men of unequal
qualifications may run through the same examination, though
the one with no hazard, but rather advantageous to his repu
tation : so that as wood, hay, and stubble, which refer to such
false and unwarrantable doctrines, as men shall be account
able for at the fiery examination of God's fiercest judgment,
bear no relation at all to venial sins, which a small penance,
perhaps a supernumerary Ave Maria, may -wipe off in this
hfe, or at most, a few pangs in purgatory, clear us from, long
before that terrible day, which shall declare our works ; so is
the fire here mentioned, to try every man's work of what sort it
is, far from the nature of their purgatory scorchings, because
they are only to purge and satisfy, these to examine and make
trial ; in a word, the one is a probatory, the other a purgatory
fire. There are those indeed, which interpret this fire of
those tribulations and afflictions wherewith God often examines
our works and doctrines in this hfe, particularly St, Augustine
and Gregory the Great, whose dreams and delusions seem to
have given the first occasion to this chimerical purgatory;
but I shall not determine the time when God vrill exercise
and examine us with this fiery trial, it being sufficient to shew,
that the nature of this examining fire, let it happen when it
will, is no ways suitable to that imaginary one, fancied to he
now burning in purgatory, the property of that being to try
works, but the efficacy of this, to afflict and punish souls ;
and that this place is thus to be understood metaphorically,
we might confirm by divers of their own expositors : besides
* BeU, ibid. §. Denique sequeretur, in the beginning, [p, 334, col, 2.]

PURGATORY, 73
many pressing arguments urged by Erasmus,* to evince that
it makes neither for venial sins, nor a purgatory, for whicb
Bellarmine declares it so profitable, Suarezf cites Sedulius,
Lyranus, Cajetan, and others, interpreting it almost in our
very words, though indeed, he himself -will have the whole
place understood of a proper and material fire ; but hej brings
no better inducements to determine us on his side, than Bel
larmine offers to make out, that though fire in one part of the
text must be meant allegorically, yet " so as by fire," must
necessarily be taken in a literal and proper meaning : indeed
the instance by which the Cardinal undertakes to make it ap
pear to us, that it was the manner and custom of St, Paul,
thus to use the same word in divers senses in the same sen
tence, is most remarkable, and does abundantly evince, that
the Cardinal' s§ wit was more put to it to make out this point,
than his conscience concerned for laying down the truth : the
text appealed to is this, " He hath made him sin for us, who
knew no sin ;" here the word sin is to be taken in as different
an acceptation, as the word _/?re in the former place. What!
was he made mortal sin, who knew only venial sins, or how is
sin here taken in a different meaning ? Indeed to be made
sin, and to know sin, have different meanings, but then they
are also different sentences ; but as for the word sin, that im
ports the very same in relation to them both ; as to his being
made sin, it means no other than that that spotless Lamb was
sent by God to be the sacrifice for our mortal sins ; and the
punishment he underwent shews, that the sins imputed to him,
or for which in our stead he accounted, were those very
sins which he knew not, that is, which he had not been per
sonally concerned in committing. What agreement is here
with sins different, such as mortal and venial, vrith a resem
blance of a metaphorical and a proper fire ? Or because we
meet the one expression, what countenance can it give to the
other inference and deduction ? They were the same mortal
transgressions which the Apostle intimated in the one place,
and it was no doubt, one and the same metaphorical fire which
he represents and alludes to in the other : but thus it is,
when men will appeal to Scripture for the confirmation of
such doctrines as differ from the very spirit and letter of the
* Eras, in locum, [p, 470, BasU. 1542,]
t Suarez. tom. 4. in Thom. disput, 45, Sect, 1. Num. 25.
X Ibid, Sect, 1, Num, 28,
^ BeU, quo supra Sect, Secundo dico non esse insuetum, &c. [p, 336.
col. 2.]

74 POPISH METHODS FOR THE PARDON OP SIN,
Scriptures, that they are compelled to such irrational and un-
concluding misapplications.
And thus I proceed to another plpce insisted on for the
justification of a purgatory by the Cardinal, and that is, Matth,
V, 25, 26, " Agree vrith thine adversary quickly, whiles thou
art in the way vrith him ; lest at any time the adversary dehver
thee to the judge, and the judge dehver thee to the officer, and
thou be cast into prison. Verily I say unto thee. Thou shalt
by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost
farthing," How 1 shall he by no means come out thence,
until he himself has paid his utmost farthing ? Then how can
this prison be imagined to be purgatory, out of which by the
means of the prayers and masses of the liring, the dead are every
day supposed to come forth, discharged from all payments to be
made by themselves ? Bellarmine tells us, St, Chrysostom
understands this place in its literal meaning, that is, as haring
respect purely to enforce peace and reconciliation with our
neighbour in this life ; and Emanuel Sa* testifies, St, Jerome
explains it of a reconciliation and peace to be made with our
enemies in this world. If we consider the design of the
whole chapter, which was an enforcement of those Christian
virtues, whereby we might ensure to ourselves peace and
happiness here in this world, as well as comfort and felicity in
that which is to come, we shall perceive no inconsistency or
impropriety in such an interpretation ; for though Bellarmine
insinuates, Christ would not have so positively inferred, " he
should not go thence till he hath paid the utmost farthing ;"
had he meant only the imprisonment of offenders against the law
of man in this world, out of which they most frequently
escape, without such payment ; yet as Theophylact upon the
xiith chapter of St, Luke suggests, this might be for the.
greater terror, and more effectually to allure men and carnal
minds to love and agreement, vrith the frightfuUest prospect of
those severities they seem most to dread ; I say, it may very
consistently, and agreeably to our Saviour's intention m the
chapter, thus be taken in its most obvious and literal meaning :
but it is, and hath been often explained in an allegorical manner,
but yet with no regard or advantage to their purgatory, as
shall plainly be evinced out of their expositors. Thus Mal-
donatf in his comment upon the place, gives us this clear
* Schol. in loc.
t Maldon. in Matth. v. 25. Adversarius noster est ille quem laedimus,
quern raca aut stultum appella-vimus, qui actionem apud Deum contra nos

PURGATORY, 75
andfarailar account of it : our adversary here intimated, says he,
is that man whom we have offended, whom we have abusively
called Raca, and fool, for which he shall implead us at God's
tribunal : the way, is the time of this life ; the judge, Christy
who shall then tell us, what we have done to the least of his
we have done to himself : the officer is the deril, or some eril
spirit by whom God affiicts sinners ; the prison is hell ; and
the last farthing, the least sins and offences : and that this
expression of paying the last farthing, is proverbially used, to
signify one to be punished after the utmost rigour. And then
further, when our Saviour tells us, he shall not go thence till
he has paid his last farthing ; his meaning, says he, is not,
that he should go out afterwards, but, as St. Augustine
expresses it, that he shall not go out at all, for this reason,
because those in hell, for every mortal sin, stand indebted in
infinite punishment, which it is impossible they should ever be
able to satisfy. And Stella,* in his comment upon the xiith
chapter of St. Luke, farther explains the same in this manner :
if a man, says he, should infer from these words, until he has
paid, that when he has paid he shall be released, he would not
err, but then this would be the same as never ; because there
is no end of infinite, and this particle donee in Scripture,
signifies eternity. And to oppose an equal match for the
Cardinal, Tolet (who was both a Jesuit, and the first Cardinal
of their order), in his comment upon the same place of St,
Luke, explains it to the very same effect, telling us that it is to
be applied to that man who dies without remission obtained in
this hfe; he shall certainly be sent to the prison of hell, until
he satisfies his debt ;-f not that he shall one day satisfy it, and
habet : Via est hujus vitse tempus : Judex Christus, qui dictums, quod xmi
ex his minimis fecistis ; mihi fecistis : Minister daemon malus, qui in
torquendis damnatis Deo ministerium prsebet : Carreer infemus : quadrans
minima culpa : ad quadrantem solvere, pro summo jure puniri proverbio
dicebatur, Et postea : quod autem dicit, nos inde non exituros, donee
ultimum quadrantem persolvamus, non'signiflcat, ut ait Augustiuus, exituros
postea; sed nunquam exituros : Quia qui in inferno sunt, cum semper debitas
pcenas solvant, quia pro quolibet mortal! peccato infinitas poenas debent,
nunquam persolvunt, [p, 121. Mogunt, 1596.]
• Stella in Luc. cap, 12, Non intelligas quod aliquando exiet, quia
donee particulain Sacris Uteris aeternitatem significat, &c,
t Ann. 89, et 90, Applicatur dictum ei qui ante Tribunal Dei com-
parebit sine pcenitentia et remissione peccati in hac vita [hoc seculo] facti ;
mittetur profecto in carcerem inferni, quousque satisfaciat debito ; non
quod aliquando satisfaciat, id enim nunquam fiet, nee eripietur in oetemum ;
sed id solum dicitur, quod non aliter liberabitur ; et iste sensus est ger
manus et parabolae accommodatus, [p, 775, col, 1, Colon, Agr, 1611,]

76 POPISH METHODS FOR THE PARDON OF SIN,
SO be released, for that shall never be, neither shall he be
released for ever ; but our Sariour uses this way of expression
to shew there is no other, and so by consequence, no way at all
of escaping or getting out. And this is most proper and agree
able to the parable. And thus you see not only we Protestants
in favour of a heresy, but some plain-deahng Jesuits in rindica-
tion of the truth, do honestly confront the Cardinal in his proofs
of a purgatory.
The main particulars on which he grounds the strength of
his reasonings, from this text, are these two : 1st, our Sariour's
making use rather of the similitude of a debtor, which relates,
I warrant, to venial sins, than a murderer, or an adulterer,
whose offences are mortal indeed. The 2nd, the force of this
particle donee, which he would have to signify a time of re
leasement after payment. But to the first, did not the
Cardinal remember his Pater Noster, and that Christ himself
has there comprehended the most mortal offences, under that
expression, "forgive us our debts ?" Can any sin be believed
more mortal than those which are there numbered amongst our
debts to God ? Had the Cardinal been more intent upon his
prayers, he could never have been so zealously bent towards
the maintaining such errors vrith such triflings as this. As
to the 2nd, the force of the particle donee, is it not a wonder
to see so great a Cardinal sheltering himself with so ignorant
a shuffle ? Is not this word frequently used in the Scriptures
with respect to eternity, as Psalm ex,, " Sit thou on my right
hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool ?" Were his
enemies no sooner to be made his footstool, but Christ was to
be displaced from the right hand of God, or do these words
oppose his eternal continuance at God's right hand ? This, I
think, no Christian vrill affirm, that believes the Nicene Creed,
when it obliges us to confess his kingdom shall have no end.
Again, the use of this particle is so frequent in Scripture, that
Theophylact, in his comment upon the first chapter of Matthew,
tells us it is the property of the Scriptures to use it in this
latitude, and from the force of donee peperit, -with St,
Jerome, concludes Joseph never knew Mary at all ; to be
sure they signify not _that he knew her afterwards, which I
suppose the worshippers of the holy Virgin, and defenders of
her perpetual virginity, will no ways oppose. And as for the
inference the Cardinal draws from these words, " he knew her
not till she had brought forth," viz. that they signified she
should certainly bring forth : whatever it was to his purpose,

PURGATORY, 77
yet it was no ways agreeable to the scope of the place, which
was now to signify the entire chastity of her virginal purity,
when she conceived and brought forth our blessed Lord; not to
demonstrate his birth, or that she should bear him : and
therefore I shall conclude the controversy from these words,
-with the words of Jansenius,* telling us, first, that no man
can justly plead for a purgatory from this place. And again,
that the design and tendency of the parable, sheweth that the
particle donee manifests not that the debt here mentioned
shall one day be paid, but that the extremest justice shall be
executed upon such a debtor ; and that he that shall unjustly
offend his neighbour, and so make him his adversary, and
afterwards vrill not endeavour a satisfaction and reconciliation,
whilst he is in the way here in this life, but defer all till
the day that God cometh to judgment, shall then feel the
fearfullest judgment of God; and because he must be incapable
to pay the debt then, be tormented vrith everlasting punish
ment. This is clear, without force or straining, and therefore
this prison far different from the gaol of purgatory.
And thus have I done vrith the Cardinal : but there have
been other vrits at work since, and attempted to strengthen
their arguments vrith such additions as these, the first of Peter,
the 3rd chapter, the 19th verse, "By which also he went, and
preached unto the spirits in prison ; which sometime were dis
obedient, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the
days of Noah." Our modem arguers now, conclude here is a
clear and manifest illustration of their purgatory, in this very
dark and mystical insinuation of Christ's preaching in that
very Spirit, by which he was raised from the dead, to the
spirits in prison, in the days of Noah, Bellarmine indeed, in
his fourth book de Christo, and thirteenth chapter, makes use
of these words to prove Christ's descent ad inferos; contrary
to the exposition and opinion of St, Augustine, but he brings
them not to establish his reasonings about purgatory, and
therefore we may conclude him most inclinable to the opinion
of Salmeron,-)- who tells us, that though some understand them
of a purgatory, yet they are much more to the purpose of a
limbus patrum : and indeed Salmeron urges them as a mani
fest demonstration of a limbus, against Beza, taking them in
* Jansen, Concord, in locum, cap, 20, pag, 108. non potest quis recte
ex hoc loco urgere probationem Purgatorii, &c. vid. locum, [p. 289. Lovan.
1572.] t Salm. in loe.

78 POPISH METHODS POR THE PARDON OF SIN,
another sense : but if they are so manifest for a limbus, with
what face can they thus distort, and apply them to evmce a
place so different from it as purgatory ? Though the place is
obscure and difficult, yet it is not so intricate, but that we may
clearly perceive it has nothing to do -with purgatory : for,
first, it is clear from the words, that the Spirit in which he is
said here to preach to the souls in prison, was that very Spirit
by which he was raised from the dead, which could be no
other but as (Ecumenius, cited by Salmeron, in his comment
upon the place, explains it, the Spirit of his di-vinity : by
reason he could not be raised from the grave by rirtue of any
other spirit whatever ; and therefore this preaching could have
no relation at all to souls in a separate state : which if he
risited, it was in the Spirit of his soul ; and therefore Bellar
mine* concludes, that the Spirit here mentioned signifies his
soul ; and Suarezf avers the true meaning of the text to he
this. Sold anima. Christum prcedicasse, " "That Christ preached
in his soul only :" which is, in direct words, to contradict the
holy Apostle, telling us, that " being put to death in the
flesh, he was quickened by the Spirit,"' ver, 18, by which
Spirit he went and preached to the spirits in prison, which
sometime were disobedient in the days of Noah ; which
manifestly suggests to us, that this going forth to preach, was
in the Spirit of his divinity, and before his appearance in the
flesh ; and therefore no ways to be understood of his preaching
the Gospel after his death, and before his resurrection, to those
who remained in certain receptacles of the earth. But, secondly,
that they were the souls of men living in this world, and not
the souls of those departed, to whom in this Spirit of his
dirinity Christ is said here to have preached, further appears
from the very text, which tells us. That the souls to whom
he preached, were such as were then disobedient, and that the
time of their disobedience, was before the flood, when the
ark was building : and therefore that long-suffering of God,
which St, Peter speaks of, must denote Chri.st's patience, who
had called those men, liring thus in disobedience, to repentance
by his Holy Spirit, preaching to them by the tongue of Noah :
and giving them farther testimonies of his love and mercy to
them, by that " preacher of righteousness," in the time that the
ark was a building, which was a fair warning of their ap-
* BeU. de Christo, lib. 4. [cap. 13.] Para, exposit, 2, [ut supra, vol, h
p. 254. col. 2.]
t Suarez. tom. 2. in Tliom, Quest. 52. Art. 1. Disput. 42. sect 1.

PURGATORY, 79
proaching -destruction, and therefore might well have won
them to repentance. What is there here any ways agreeable
to the souls of the dead ? Besides, since they were the dis
obedient to whom Christ is said to have preached in his
Spirit ; it is manifest, that according to their own principles, it
could not be those detained in limbo patrum, for they were
the obedient preachers of righteousness themselves, viz. Noah,
Abraham, Isaac, &c. Nor could it be the souls in purgatory,
for besides, that there could be no such state before Christ had
opened unto us the gate of heaven ; to what end or purpose
could he have preached to these, who must have obtained his
full remission of all their sins in this life, who wanted no
knowledge of righteousness, only some few satisfactory strokes
to introduce them into paradise.
To conclude, though we take the words in the meaning
which their own expositors put upon them, yet we cannot
positively infer there is a purgatory from them, because at last
they may more clearly be understood of that prison, wherein
they imagine the righteous patriarchs themselves to have been
detained ; not that these could stand more in need of such
preaching, who are expressed by God's Holy Spirit both to
have known before, and to have rejoiced when they saw the day
of Christ ; as the Apostle fully explains to us, when he tells us
how Moses esteemed the reproach of Christ greater riches
than the treasures of Egypt. And therefore we may, with the
most reason, conclude this preaching was neither to the souls
in the one place, nor to those in the other : and that from this
text can be made out no such place as either of them is fancied
to be.
Acts ii, 24, is also cited by some of them, the words are,
" Whom God raised up, haring loosed the pains of death :"
the sense of which, as they explain it, is this, that when Christ
died, and descended beneath in the earth, he freed many from
their pains and torments ; not the damned, because they are
past all deliverance ; not the saints, because they endure no
pains at all ; therefore the souls in purgatory. But do the
words intimate the least glimpse of any such releasement per
formed here by Christ ? Do they not tell us expressly, that
the person loosed, was the Lord Jesus himself, whom they
had crucified, ver, 23, And moreover, that the pains from
which he was loosed, were those of death, iiZlvag tov Sravarov,
as the words are in the Greek, " by which it was impossible he
should be holden," What is all this to purgatory, or the re-

80 POPISH METHODS FOB THE PARDON OF SIN.
leasement of souls from its fiery terrors ? What a strange
zeal is here for a purgatory, that cannot allow of our Lord's
resurrection from the dead, without his leaving such a state
behind him ?
Again, Luke xxiii, 42, " Lord, remember me when thou
oomest into thy kingdom ;" is applied to the same purpose,
though the thief, when yet alive, made this request to our
Sariour, yet this must necessarily argue an opinion of a
remission after this life ; and though our Lord answers him,
" To-day thou shalt be -with me in paradise;" yet this dis
proves not a purgatory, but must be looked upon as an extra
ordinary case that he escaped that prison, and an exemption to
that general rule of a purgatory, which yet never was established
in the Gospel,
Again, when the Apostle, Phil, ii, 1 0, tells us, that " at
the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, of things in heaven,
and things in earth, and things under the earth," he most
convincingly informs us of a purgatory ; by reason (as they
interpret it) those under the earth, must necessarily be under
stood to be the souls tormented there. But what shifts are
these, to advance an article of belief? Does not the Apostle
here represent unto us the universal sovereignty of Christ ?
And bovring of knees here mentioned, denote that subjection,
which not only every human creature, but even the inanimate,
nay, the very derils, trembhng and quaking, confess due to
Christ ? Why must those in the earth necessarily be the souls
in purgatory ? Are there not many men, women, and baptized
infants, dead in the faith, whose bodies lie therein covered,
besides many liring animals and vegetables, which are fre
quently said in Scripture, to bow to, and glorify God in their
kind, and according to the consistency of their natures ? Is not
this sufficiently explained to us in the fifth chapter of the
Revelations, at the 13th verse : "Every creature which is in
heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are
in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying. Blessing, and
honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the
throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever ?" And sometiraes
we hear holy David in like manner, calling upon the sun and moon
to praise the Lord with him. What creatures are those in the sea,
which shall knowingly, and with a sense of veneration glorify
Christ? May they not as reasonably fix a purgatory in the moon,
or in the waters, as in the earth, from such texts as these are ?
I shall conclude all with that in the xxist chapter of the

PURGATORY, O I
Revelation, at the 27th verse, " And there shall enter into it
mo unclean thing," From whence they infei;, that the souls of
the faithful that are spotted vrith sin, must be purged in the
next life, before they enter into the kingdom of God, and so
consequently a purgatory. We need here but repeat the whole
verse for an answer ; which runs thus, " And there shall enter
into it no unclean thing ; neither whatsoever worketh abomi
nation, or maketh a he, but they which are written in the
Lamb's book of life." For does it not clearly appear whom
the holy Apostle meant by the unclean ? Were they not the
workers of lies and abominations, or such, whose impenitence
had excluded them the Lamb's book of hfe ? And will this
agree with the state and condition of purgatory, which receives
not any thing unclean, but those just persons who have obtained
remission through his blood, who are stopped therein, not for
any purification of sins retained, but to make payment and
satisfaction for some debts forgotten to be discharged in this
life ? I hope those souls therein detained, are not such as are
excluded the Lamb's book of life. Besides, though the heirs
of salvation are yet imclean, still I hope faith, with the blood
and merits of Christ, are much better refiners and purifiers
than the fire of purgatory : when once our sins are purified
and cleansed hereby, there is no fear we shall be bound by the
way, or detained from the kingdom prepared for us ; since the
Holy Ghost has so fully assured all such, " If our earthly
house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of
God, a house eternal in the heavens," 2 Cor. v, 1, So far is
this doctrine of a purgatory from being clear or apparent in
the Scriptures, that he must want common sense, that shall
be perverted by such illogical deductions as are made in its
behalf.

VOL, XI,

BOOK VIL
THE POPISH METHODS FOR THE PARDON OF SIN,
GROUNDLESS; UPON THE HEAD OF PRAYER FOR THE
DEAD. J
waKfc W 
A DISCOURSE

PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD.

We have now passed through the former part of our under
taking, and found but little reason to be concerned for those
imaginary flames, which so much terrify those of the other
communion. It only remains that we descend to the great
argument that is most usually insisted upon by them, to prove
at least the antiquity of their error, and that is from the unde-
nied primitive custom of praying for the dead ; and conceming
which, I suppose, it may be sufficient to offer these two
things. First, To give a general account, what the practice of the
Primitive Church was ; from whence it vrill appear how little
advantage the Church of Rome can derive to themselves by it.
Secondly, To answer those allegations, that are from hence
brought by them in favour of that praying for the dead, which
is now practised by them in their Church.
Sect. I.
Of the Practice of the Primitive Church, in praying for
the Bead.
Now that I may give the clearer account of this, I must
observe, 1st, That it is one thing to inquire whether we may
not innocently pray for the dead ; and another, whether we
ought to do it. 2. That there is a great difference between
praying for the dead in general, without defining what the par
ticular intent of it is, and what advantages accrue to the dead
thereby, and determining that we are to pray for the dead upon

PRAYER FOR THE DEAD. 83
such a certain account, as for instance, to deliver their souls
out of purgatory, and that our prayers are effectual in order
thereunto. 1 . As to the former of these, we do not deny but that the
Fathers did begin very early to pray for the dead ; and some of
them were so zealous for it too, that Epiphanius (as we shall
see below) made it no small part of his accusation of Aerius,
that he opposed the practice of it. But yet, we do not find
that they pretended it was any part of a Christian's duty to do
this : that the Gospel has any where required it of us, or recom
mended it to us : in short, they did it as something which
seemed to them very pious and fitting ; but they tied up
no man's conscience with any decisions or anathemas about it.
2. For the benefit and advantage of it, in this they were yet
less agreed than in the other : insomuch that when Aerius,
whom I before mentioned, earnestly demanded what good came
td the dead from our prayers ? Epiphanius* chose rather
to fly off to the custom of the Church, to the necessity of these
prayers, to distinguish the condition of our blessed Lord from
that of all other persons, and the like ; than he would say
expressly, how or wherein the dead were profited by them.
Many were the private opinions of those holy men, as to
this matter.f Some who believed the millenary doctrine
before mentioned, that the dead in Christ should rerive within
the compass of a thousand years, some sooner, others later,
according as they had lived better or worser lives on earth ;
flattered themselves, that by their prayers they might hasten
the feUcity of their friends, and accordingly ¦pTajei,'^. propter
maturam resurrectionem, for their speedy rising in Christ's
kingdom. 3. Others supposed, that in the general conflagration of the
world at the last day, all men should pass through the fire ;
that the better Christian any one had been, the less he would
feel of the torment of it : and these prayed for the dead, that
God would have mercy on them in that day, and not suffer
* Epiph, Hseres, 75, 1, 3, n, 3, [vol, 1,] p, 908, A, Edit, [Colon.]
Anno 1682, Ibid, n 7. p, 911, C,
t TertuUian, lib, 3, contr. Marc, c, 24, p, 412, [Par, 1675,] Intra
quam aetatem (sc, 1000 annorum) concluditur sanctorum resurrectio, pro
: meritis maturius vel tardius resurgentium,
X TertuU, deMonogam. u. 10, [Ibid,] p, 531, A, Ambros, de Obit,
Valent, T, 3, Te quaeso, summe Deus, ut Charissimos Juvenes matura
Resurrectione suscites, &c, [vol. 2, p, 1196, Par. 1690,]
g2

84 POPISH METHODS FOR THE PARDON OF SIN,
them to be too much singed and burnt, not in the fire of pur
gatory, but in the general conflagration at the end of the world,
4, Some believed that the souls of just persons departed,
went not straight to heaven, but were reserved in a certain place
of sequester, where they earnestly expected, and continually
wished for their absolute consummation with all the faithful in
Christ's kingdom. And these prayed that God would give
them ease, rest and refreshment, in the bosom of Abraham,
that they might be comforted vrith the blessed company of the
holy angels, and the vision of our Saviour Christ, till the so
much vrished-for day of judgment should come,
5, And lastly, not to mention any more ; others there were
who thought that the sentence was not instantly pronounced
as soon as men died; or if it were, yet not so peremptorily, but
that still, till the last day, the increase of glory might be added
to the crown of righteousness which God hath designed for
the just ; and some diminution made of the torments of the
wicked. Now these prayed for the dead out of this hope, to
render them either more happy or less miserable, to augment
their glory, or to diminish their pains for ever.
And all these were the private opinions of particular men, no
definitions of the faith of the Church in this matter :* many of
the holy Fathers declaring no other cause of their praying for
the dead, than only to shew their hopes of them, that they
still lived, and therefore ought to have some communion
maintained vrith them : or else to distinguish all, even the
greatest saints, from on r blessed Sariour, and shew his infinite
prerogative above them, whilst they prayed for all the rest, to
testify their infirmity, and only gave thanks for him, to mani
fest his glory.
Having given this particular account of the opinions of the
primitive Fathers as to this point, and to some or other of
which I shall shew, that all the passages produced out of them,
in rindication of the doctrine of purgatory, may be applied ;
it vrill be no difficult matter to shew how little all this can
favour the present doctrine of the Roman Church in this matter,
1 , The primitive Christians, it is true, prayed for the dead,
but they never put it into any of their Creeds, as the Council of
Trent has done now. Nay, Epiphaniusf himselt^ in the close
of his book, making a distinct recapitulation of what was the
* Epiphan, ib. sect. 7. p. 911.
t See Epiph, [Ibid.] tom. 2, 1, 3. p. 1103, vol, 1. n, 21,

PRAYER FOR THE DEAD, 85
catholic faith, and what the constitution of the Church,
places prayers for the dead among the latter ;* and which were
therefore used, because the custom of the Church gave autho
rity thereunto,
2. The prayers that are made for the dead, by the Church
of Rome, are expressly determined to this particular end,f to
help and reheve the souls that are detained in purgatory.
Whereas we do not find in the Primitive Church any thing at
all defined as to the immediate design and benefit of them ;
and are only sure of this, that it was not to deliver the souls
out of purgatory.
Now this in general is evident, in that we find them to have
prayed for the best persons, for the holy apostles, martyrs,
and confessors ; for the blessed Virgin herself ; for those
whom they supposed at the same time to be in happiness, and
whom the Papists themselves do not suppose to have ever
touched at purgatory.
Thus we find in the Liturgies, said to be of the ancient
Church, that their prayers were made for all these: the author
of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, having first described the
party deceased, J "as replenished with dirine joy, and now no
more fearing any change for the worse ; being publicly pro
nounced a happy man, and verily admitted into the society of
the saints that have been from the beginning of the world;"
then brings in the bishops praying for him;§ "that God
would forgive him all the sins he had committed through
human infirmity, and bring him into the light and land of the
living, into the bosom of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: into the
place where there is no more any pain, or sorrow, or sighing."
In the Liturgy, said to be St, Basil's, we find them thus pray
ing for the dead ; " Be mindful, O Lord, of them which are
dead, and are departed out of this life, and of the orthodox
bishops, II which from Peter and James the Apostles, until this
» Ibid,n. 23. p. 1106.
t See Sess, 25, Cone, Trid, dePurg, [Labbe, ut supra, vol, 14, p. 894,]
Symb, Pii IV, &c. [Ibid, p, 945,]
X De Ecclesiast, Hierarch, cap, 7. p, 347, 348, 350, A, B, C, 352, C.
[vol, p. 405, 407, 409, 410, Antv, 1634,]
§ UdvTa fxkv d^eivat rd Si' dv6pti)-n-ivrjv dff^kveiav rjp,apT7Jiieva
Tip KeKoift7jp,kvtp, Karard^ai Se avrbv iv ^ti}Tl Kal x^P^ ^(jjvtwv, Sec. p,
354, A, [Ibid, p, 411.]
II See all these collected by Abp, Usher ; Answer to a Challenge ; Ch,
of Prayers for the Dead, p, 185, &c. edit, 1625. Constitut, Apost, hh.
8, cap. 12. [Labbe, ConcU. vol, 1. p. 482, Lut, Par, 1671.]

86 POPISH METHODS FOR THE PARDON OF SIN.
day, have clearly professed the right word of faith ; and parti
cularly of Ignatius, Dionysius, Juhus, and the rest of the
saints of worthy memory. Be mindful, O Lord, of them also
who have stood unto blood for religion, and by righteousness
and holiness have fed thy holy flock."
In the Liturgy ascribed to the Apostles, thus they pray :
"We offer unto thee for all the saints which have pleased thee
from the beginning of the world ; patriarchs, prophets, just
men, apostles, martyrs, confessors, bishops, priests, deacons :"
surely, I hope not to deliver all these out of purgatory.
In the Liturgy* of the Church of Egypt, ascribed to St,
Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, and Cyril of Alexandria, it stands
thus : " Be mindful, O Lord, of thy saints ; vouchsafe to
remember all thy saints which have pleased thee from the
beginning ; our holy Fathers the patriarchs, prophets, apostles,
martyrs, confessors, preachers, evangelists, and all the souls of
the just which have died in the faith ; especiaUy the holy,
glorious, the evermore Virgin Mary, mother of God ; and St,
John, the forerunner, the baptist and martyr ; St, Stephen, the
first deacon and martyr ; St. Mark, the apostle, evangelist,
and martyr," &c.
In the Liturgy of the Church of Constantinople, said to he
St. Chrysostom' s,f we find the very same : " We offer unto
thee, this reasonable serrice for those who are at rest in the
faith; our forefathers, fathers, patriarchs, prophets, and
apostles, preachers, evangelists, martyrs, confessors, religious
persons, and for every spirit perfected in the faith ; especially
for our most holy, immaculate, and most blessed lady, the
mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary."
I suppose, I need no other evidence than these public records
of the very prayers of the Primitive Church, to shew that they
did not pray for the dead, with any intent to the bringing
them out of purgatory ; and by consequence, that there can he
no manner of proof derived from what those holy men did, to
justify what the Church of Rome now does. Were it at all
needful to enforce this from the testimonies of private writers,
I could easily run them out into a greater length than I am
willing to do, St, CyprianJ prayed for Laurentinus and Igna
tius, whom he in the same place acknowledges to have received
* Liturg, .^gyptiac, ex Arabic, Convers, Usher, ib, p, 186,
t Chrysost. Liturg, Edit, Goar, in Euchol, p. 78, Paris, 1647,
X Cypri, Epist, 39, p, 77, Ed, Oxon, [1682,]

PRAYER POR THE DEAD. 87
palms and crowns for their sufferings. St. Ambrose* prayed
for the religious emperors Valentinian and Gratian ; for Theo
dosius ;f for his brother Satyrus ; J all which, at the same time,
he declares he thought to be in happiness. Gregory Nazianzen
did the hke for his brother Caesarius : and all these and many
other proofs might at large be produced, were it needful to
insist. But this will more properly be done in the next point ;
wherein I am to examine the proofs offered by those of the
Roman Church in favour of their own present practice, from
the custom of the primitive Fathers which we have hitherto
been speaking of. Sect. II.
The allegations brought hy those of the Church of Rome, to
justify their practice of Praying for the Bead, examined ;
and their weakness demonstrated.
Before I enter on this debate, it may not be amiss to pre
mise what the true state of the,point in controversy is ; viz. not
whether the primitive Fathers did not pray for the dead, after
the manner we have now seen : for that we have already con
fessed they did : but whether they prayed for the dead upon
the same principles that the Church of Rome does now, as
supposing them to be in a state of torment, undergoing the
temporal pains due to their sins, and in which therefore they
were charitably to be relieved by the prayers and suffrages of
the liring. This is that which our adversaries are to prove to
us ; and I will now inquire what one of the latest of them, in
his collections upon this point, § has offered to this purpose.
And here, 1st, I cannot but observe his loose proposing of
the point in debate, || and the short account he gives of the case
of Aerius in this matter, whom he sets at the head of his
inquiry. " In the first century," says he, " about the year of
Christ ."iO, Aerius went out of the Church, and teaching many
erroneous doctrines, related by St, Epiphanius, Hser, 75,
endeavoured to draw numbers after him. His principal tenets
were those wherein he condemned prayers for the dead," &c.
* De Obitu Valentin. Imper, [ut supra,]
t Id, De Obit, Theodos, Imper, [ibid, p. 1208, &c,]
X Id, De Obit, fratris, [p, 1135,] Greg, Naz, in Funer, Csesarii, Or, 10,
[vol, 1, p, 168, Par. 1630.]
§ Nubes Testium of Aerius, p. 84, || Ibid,

88 POPISH METHODS FOR THE PARDON OF SIN,
And a little below, " Aerius* condemned praying for the dead :
the Fathers practised it, and owned it as advantageous to
the souls departed,"
That the Fathers practised praying for the dead, and that
many of them believed it advantageous to them, we have before
freely allowed : and that Aerius was to be condemned for what
he did in opposition hereunto, we shall hereafter shew : in the
mean time this gentleman ought to have known, that this is
neither what they affirm, nor we deny : if he will state the
question as he ought, it must be as we have before done it,
" Aerius condemned praying for the dead, to deliver them out
of purgatory ; the Fathers practised it, and owned it as advan
tageous in order to this end :" but this neither did Aerius con
demn, nor the Fathers practise ; and therefore, the state of
this question alone, had it been sincere, would have confuted
his whole chapter.
To give then such an account of Aerius, -f as may let us dis
tinctly see what his error was, and how little chargeable we are
with it, however it has pleased the writers of the Roman
Church, not without some ignorance, as well as much uncharit-
ableness, to impute it to us : I must first observe a small
mistake in our author, as to the point of his chronology,
whereby he is pleased to place Aerius J in the first century,
about the year of Christ 50, I shall not need to say that there
must be something of an error in this, because his own friend
Natalis, § out of whom he has transcribed every article of this
chapter, will assure him, that he was contemporary with
Epiphanius, and liring at the time that that Father wrote.
So that, unless we suppose him to have been almost 400
years old, we must conclude that this gentleman has placed
him near 300 years before his time. But this only by the
way : as for the error itself, with which Epiphanius || charges
him, it is this, " That he opposed the mentioning the names
of the dead : asking, to what purpose they did it? He that is
ahve prayeth, or offereth the sacrifice ; what shall this advan
tage the dead ? But if the dead are indeed profited thereby,
then let no man from henceforth trouble himself to live well ;
* Nubes Testium, p. 84,
t BeU. de. Purg. 1, 1. c. 2. D, p. 571, [vol, 2, p, 336, col. 1, Prag,
1721,] Petavius in Epiphan, [ut supra, vol, 2.] p, 328, n. 3. Natal.
Alex. disp. 41. sec. 4. p. 346. part. 3. [Par. 1679.] X Page 84.
i NataUs Alex. Hist. 4. Sec. par, 1, p, 263, Paris. 1679,
II Epiphan, User. 75. [ut supra, vol. 1.] p. 908, B,

PRAYER FOR THE DEAD, 89
only let him oblige his friends, or give money to persons to pray
for him, that none of those inexpiable sins he hath committed,
may be required of him." This was the case of Aerius : and
had the Church indeed universally believed, as some of the
Fathers did, that the judgment after death was suspended till
the general resurrection, and that in the mean time, the sins of
the dead might be expiated by the prayers of the liring, he
had but justly enough opposed so dangerous an error. But
this was not the common opinion of the Church, nor her
design in those prayers : which, as the author of the Eccle
siastical Hierarchy* tells us, were made only for good men :
either for such as had committed no notorious faults, or had
repented of them, and so died in an assured hope of God's
favour and acceptance. And therefore Epiphanius, f in answer
to this objection, gives another reason why they prayed for the
dead ; viz. to declare their faith and hope concerning them ; to
distinguish the infinite prerogative of our Sariour Christ above
all, even the chiefest of his saints, by praying for these, but
giring thanks only for him : and then for the benefit these
prayers did the dead, he tells him, that though they were not
of force to cut off all sins, which was the foundation of his
objection, yet they were profitable to them, to implore the
mercy of God for those who had been sinners, but repented ;
and to obtain for them a recompense for all in the resurrection
of the just.
The prayers therefore of the Church, for the rejecting of
which Epiphanius here justly reproves Aerius, were not such
as the Church of Rome now useth ; it being not imaginable,
had the Church then known any thing of praying of souls out
of purgatory, that either Aerius could have asked the question,
" to what purpose are these prayers ?" or Epiphanius, being
asked, not presently have replied, " to deliver the souls departed
from the flames of purgatory," The prayers that Aerius con
demned were those which the primitive Fathers made, upon
the account that from Epiphanius I have just now given : and
which those of the Church of Rome do no less condemn than
he did ; whilst they so often tell us, that if there be no purga
tory, prayers for the dead must be unprofitable : so says
Aquinas :J that the manner of praying for the apostles, mar-
* Dionys. Eccles, Hierarch, cap. 7. Kal yap ovSk tqvto koivov kari rotg
iepoTgre Kai dvikpoig. p. 347. [ut supra, p, 405.]
t Epiphan. ibid. n. 7. p. 911,
X Con, Gent, lib, 4. c. 91, [vol, 18. p, 495. col, 1, Venet, 1782,]

90 POPISH METHODS FOR THE PARDON OF SIN.
tyrs, &c. is by disuse deservedly abolished : so Mendoza :* nay,
that to offer sacrifices for those that are in bliss, is plainly
absurd and impious : so says Azorius ;t who in this, certainly
outruns Aerius himself, who only pretended that it was unpro
fitable ; but never durst say it was impious and absurd.
It is therefore very improper in our collector of the Primitive
Fathers, to insinuate as if we were Aerians upon the account
of our not praying -with them for the dead. Aerius rejected
the prayers that the Primitive Church made, upon those
principles that we have said, and which the Romanists them
selves reject and condemn vrith him : we reject those prayers
which the Church of Rome makes now for delivering souls out
of purgatory. Had we hved in those times that Aerius did,
we had readily complied vrith the practice of those holy men,
upon such grounds as they used it. Had those holy Fathers
hved now in the dregs of the Church, and seen the abuse of
the Romanists in this matter, I make no doubt but they would
have censured both the cause and the practice of the present
praying for the dead, as false and unfitting ; I am sure Epipha-
niusj elsewhere gives us sufficient reason to beheve that he
would ; where, speaking concerning the state after death, he
tells us, " that in the age to come, after the death of a man,
there is no advantage of fasting, no call to repentance, no
demonstration of charity ; — ^there Lazarus does not go to
the rich man, nor the rich man to Lazarus : neither Abraham
sends the poor man to labour that he may grow rich, nor does
the rich man obtain, though with prayers, entreating merciful
Abraham, Then the garners are sealed, the time is ended, the
combat finished, the hsts are empty, and the crowns distributed.
Those that have not yet encomitered, have no more oppor
tunity ; and they who have been overcome in the lists, are cast
out. In short, all is perfectly ended, when once we are
departed hence."
And now having thus prepared the way to the following
inquiry ; let us see whether his Fathers will prove any better
advocates for their cause, than this loose and imperfect state
of the question between us seems to promise. And,
1 st, I must take notice, that the greatest part of those he
has here cited, say only in general, that they were wont to
* Controvers, Theol. qu, 6, Schol. sect. 7.
t Azorius Instit, Moral, tom, 1, 1. 8,c. 20. See these cited by Abp.
Usher,^Answer to a Chall, [ut supra,] p. 244,245,
X Epiphan. Hser, 59, [ut supra,] p. 501, A. B, C,

PRAYER POR THE DEAD. 91
pray for the dead, that God would forgive them their sms, and
instate them in the light and land of the living ; or something
of the like kind. Now it is evident from what has been before
observed, that all these argue nothmg more than what we have
already confessed to have been the practice of the Primitive
Church, but give not the least authority to those prayers which
are made in the Church of Rome, to deliver the souls departed
out of purgatory.
So Dionys. Areopag. :* " The venerable prelate coming,
prays over the dead body, he implores the Divine clemency, to
pardon all the sins committed by the deceased party, through
human frailty, and that he may be received into tlae state of
bhss, and region of the liring."
This is indeed the sense of what the pretended Dionysius-f
says, though not his words : but then I must observe, 1st,
" That this prayer is made over those, who haring lived holy
lives, are now come to the end of their combats, and therefore
rest in joy, and in a certain hope, and are already received into
those most holy seats, to which all those in time shall be
promoted, J who are here endued vrith a dirine perfection."
So that it must he an intolerable presumption to pretend that
this prayer was designed to deliver the deceased out of a place
of torments, nothing inferior to those of hell fire, such as we
are told purgatory is.
2ndly, The author inquiring to what purpose these prayers
were made, answers, § "That the holy bishop, knovring the
promise of God to those who had lived well, now prayed that
those sins which by human frailty had been committed by the
person deceased, being forgiven, the rewards promised to the
just might be accomplished in him." Here then is a plain
account of the design of their praying, but no way favourable
to the business of purgatory.
Srdly, Pachymeres in his Paraphrase, explaining what the
meaning of those hymns and lessons was, which were read at
the funeral of such a one for whom they thus prayed, says, " It
is to signify those eternal mansions, || to which the party
deceased is gone, and to exhort the liring to strive after the
like holy end," Now, surely, these etemal mansions of the
• Nubes, Test, p. 85, NataUs Alex, sec, 4. to, 3, [ut supra,] p, 392,
Dionys, Hierarch. Eccl. p, 354, A, [ut supra, p, 411,]
t Dionys, ibid, p. 348, C, [Ibid, p, 406,]
X Ibid, p. 352. C, [Ibid, p, 409,]
§ Dionys, ibid, p, 356, 357, [Ibid, p. 412. 413.]
II Dionys. Eccl, Hierarch. p, 366, D, [Ibid, p, 429,]

92 POPISH METHODS POR THE PARDON OP SIN.
blessed, were not the Roman purgatory; and it would have
been but an uncomfortable exhortation, to have proposed to the
living, that they should use their utmost endeavours, that they
might come into this place of torments,
4thly, In his account of the prayers themselves, he says,
" That the bishop knows from the holy Scriptures, that by the
just judgment of God,* a blessed and dirine life is prepared
for the just, the Dirine goodness mercifully overlooking the
spots which by human frailty we contract, and from which no
man is free. And therefore knowing this, he prays, that
whatever spots of this kind, he by his frailty may have con
tracted, that God would mercifully overlook them, and give
him his sacred reward." And the same was the language of
the ancient Liturgies of the Church, which we have before cited;
in which, haring named the holy apostles, martyrs and con
fessors, which even the Romanists themselves vrill not send to
purgatory ; they pray, that they may rest in the country of
the hring ; in the delights of paradise, in God's kingdom, in
the bosom of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob ; as St, James'sf
Liturgy has it in the very words of Dionysius : "Make them J
rest in the tabernacles of thy saints," says St, Mark,§ " in the
light of thy countenance," says St Basil, and St, Chrysostom ;
" give them rest," says St, Cyril, || Now, if these prayers for
this rest were to this end, that God would deliver them out of
purgatory, and set them at ease, as the Church of Rome
pretends, then certainly the holy Apostles and the blessed
Virgin must have been in a very ill condition, who after 400
years (for so late, some of these prayers must be confessed to
have been), were still esteemed by the Church to lie in those
purgatory flames ; and it was great imcharitableness in St,
Peter and his successors, that they would not all this while
open the treasure of the Church, and by some powerful in
dulgence, set them at liberty. Conclude we therefore, that
there is no manner of consequence in this argument, the
primitive Fathers prayed " for the rest of the souls departed ;"
* Ibid, p, 370. [Ibid. p. 433,]
t 'Ek£i avTovg dvd-Travaov, kv x*^?? Z,(1>vtii)v, kv T-g fiaaiXiiq, gov,
iv Ty TpV(py row -irapaSeiaov, kv rolg KoX-Troig 'AjSpad/i, 'laaaK, Kai
'laKw^, Litur. Jacob. Bibl. Patr. [Lit. Sanct. Patr. p. 29, Par. 1560.]
X Tag ^vxdg dvd-iravaov raig riov dyiav aov CKrivalg. Lit, Marc.
^ 'Avd-jravaov avrovg ottou Ittio-ko-ttei rb ipuig rov irpoaisi-iTov cov.
Lit. Basil. etChrys, [Liturg, Sanct, Patr. ut supra, p. 61. 99.]
II Da ilUs requiem, Cyril. Hieros, [Alexandi-.] Liturg. [p. 58. Aug.
Vind, 1604.]

PRAYER POR THE DEAD. 93
therefore they thought them in torment in a purgatory
fire, suffering the temporal punishment due to their sins, and
by these prayers beheved they could deliver them from
thence. And yet is this the most that the greatest part of the testi
monies which are offered to us, say ; and hy consequence are,
as we see, wholly impertinent to the purpose of the Church of
Rome : I shall need only name them, since the same answer I
have given to this first, will, by application, serve for all the
rest. So Tertullian, whose words our collector* thus renders,t
" We make oblations for the dead, and keep the anniversary of
their birth," He is speaking in that chapter of several
customs of the Church, which tradition and long usage had
established, but for which there was no authority of holy
Scripture ; and this he gives as one instance. But were these
oblations to deliver them out of purgatory? I shall only
desire him to consider the interpretation which their own editor
gives of the Natalitia, which he renders Anniversaries, and then
affirm it if he can. By the Natalitia, says he, "is meant the
solemnities used to be kept in honour of the martyrs, J every
year, on the day when by dying to the world they were born
to heaven," It seems then these solemnities Tertulhan here
speaks of, were for those who were already born to heaven, for
the holy martyrs ; and not, as is pretended, to dehver their
souls out of purgatory.
Nor does Amobius§ add any thing more : " What reason
was there, that our Churches should be so outrageously thrown
down, in which prayers were offered to our sovereign God,
peace and mercy was implored for all, for magistrates, armies,
kings, friends and enemies, whether alive or dead," Here is
mention of praying for the dead ; but as for purgatory,
oiiSe ypv.
What Eusebius II speaks conceming the death of Constantine,
* NataUs Alex, diss, 41, tertu Ssec, [ut supra,] p, 394, Nubes Test,
p, 85,
t Oblationes pro defunctis, pro nataUtiis annua die facimus, De Corona,
c, 3, p, 102, A, [Par, 1675,]
X Le Prieur, Annot, in loc, p, 102,
§ NataUs Alex, [ut supra,] p, 395, Nub, Test, 86, Cur immaniter
conventicula dirui (meruerunt) in quibus summus oratur Deus, pax
cunctis et venia postulatur, Magistratibus, Exercitibus, Regibus, FamiU-
aribus, Inimicis, adhuc vitam degentibus, et resolutis corporum vinctione,
lib, 4, 11 Natalis Alex, ibid, p, 398, Nub, Test, 88,

94 POPISH METHODS POR THE PARDON OF SIN,
is no way more pertinent. He tells us that they offered up
prayers to God for the soul of the emperor; but that these
prayers were to deliver his soul from the temporal pains of
purgatory, he says not one word,
I have already considered Epiphanius, and we find in his
reprehension of Aerius much against them, but nothing in
their favour: as for what Theodoret* relates of Theodosius the
younger, that he prayed for his father and mother, begging
that they might obtain pardon for all their sins of frailty ; it
still confirms that they did in those days pray for the dead,
and for the forgiveness of their sins ; but for the remission of
any present temporal punishment, which they thought they
were undergoing for them, this we do not find that they
prayed for, i
For St, Ambrose,f had his whole words been transcribed,
we should have seen, at first view, that they were nothing to
the purpose. He exhorts Faustinus, " not so much to bewail
his sister, as to pray for her," What, to dehver her soul out
of purgatory ? No surely, for in the words immediately fore
going, he tells him, " that being taken for a time from us,J
she doth pass a better life there," But this little oversight,
ought not, in justice, to be imputed to our collector ; who
transcribes Natalis, and not the Fathers themselves ; and could
therefore give us no more than what he found in him.
The next from whom he supposes may be inferred the
doctrine of praying souls out of purgatory, is St, Jerome :§
who, in the epistle mentioned to Pammachius some time after
the death of his wife Paulina, || particularly commends him
that he had sold all his goods, and given them to the poor, and
taken up the resolution of leading a monastic life, " Other
husbands," says he, " dress their vrives' tombs with riolets,
roses, and purple flowers, and by these serrices, ease their
disturbed mind : but our friend Pammachius pays no other
duty to the holy ashes and venerable bones, but by giving alms,
cherishing them by this sweet odour, because he knows it is
written, as water extinguishes the fire, so do alms blot out sin."
This is, in some measure, St, Jerome's sense, but by no means
* Natal, Alex, [ibid,] p, 401. Nub. Test. 92,
t NataUs Alex, [ibid,] p, 402, Nub. Test, 93,
t Haec ad tempus quidem erepta nobis meliorem iUic Vitam exigit.
Epist. 8. [ut supra, p. 944,]
§ Natal, Alex, [ibid.] p. 402. Nub, Test. 93.
II Vid, Arg, Eras. p. 73, tom, 1, [Basil, 1516.]

PRAYER FOR THE DEAD, 95
I suitable to the elegance of his expressions : but not to insist
(on that, was this charity to deliver her soul out of purgatory ?
Nay, but St, Jerome* in the close of that very epistle says,
" that she was with her sister BlesiUa already vrith the Lord:"
that they both enjoyed a sweet and pleasant sleep : and in the
very words cited, there are so many expressions of her present
quiet, as can never he reconciled to the purgatory torments.
But this the translator left out : " cherishing them (says he)
by this sweet odour :" St, Jerome's words are these : " With
these figments and these odours he cherishes her dead ashes
NOW AT REST :" which plainly enough shews that he thought
her in a state and place vastly different from the condition of
souls in purgatory ; all that St, Jerome then meant by this,
was only thus much, that this charity of Pammachius was
most pleasing to Paulina, that her soul rejoiced in it, as in a
fragrant and delightful odour; and that hereby he should
engage the mercy of God not for himself alone, but for his
wife too, in whose name he did it, and to whose salvation it
should therefore not a little conduce.
As to what is alleged of St, Austin's praying for his
mother Monica, f nothing certainly could have been more in
auspicious to the consequence that is pretended to be drawn
from it ; for besides that in all which he says, there is not one
word of any temporal pains, which he desired she might be
freed from ; he expressly declares, " that he beUeved God had
already done all that he desired :" J if therefore he desired to
have her delivered out of purgatory, he beheved God had
already done it, and therefore the prayers he now made, could
not be to obtain her freedom. But this circumstance our
author cautiously omitted, though in the middle of what he
set down ; and that the charge of such false dealing may not
always lie upon Natalis, I must here free him from it ; this
being the only passage in the whole chapter which our
collector has not borrowed from him ; and must therefore now
bear the blame himself, unless he has some other friend, that
I do not at present know of, upon whom to lay the imputation.
I shall not need to give any answer more to the other pas-
* Fol, 76, Edit, Eras, tom, 1, [Ibid.]
t Natal, Alex, [ibid.] p, 402. Nubes Test, 94,
J Et credo jam feceris quod te rogo, sed voluntaria oris mei approba
Domine, St, August, Confession,!. 9,c, 13, tom, 1, p, 61, B, [Lugd,
1664.]

96 POPISH METHODS FOR THE PARDON OF SIN.
sage or two from the same Father ; in none of which is there
the least mention of any purgatory pains, or that the prayers
were made for their deliverance from them.
And hitherto then we have considered such testimonies as
cannot, with any show of reason, be pretended to make any
thing for the custom of praying for the dead, now used in the
Church of Rome, But now,
2ndly, Some others there are that may seem more immedi
ately to their purpose ; in which they expressly desire rest,
comfort, and refreshment for the dead, I have already
answered in great measure this argument, by shewing that
these things they prayed for, even for the apostles and mar
tyrs, and the blessed Virgin herself ; and therefore that these
expressions cannot be said to signify, that the persons for whom
they prayed, were either in purgatory, or any other place of
torments. But I vrill now more expressly remove this diffi
culty, and to that end I must repeat what I have before ob
served, that many among the ancient Fathers supposed, that
the souls departed do not go straight to heaven, but are kept
in a place of sequester, where they earnestly desire the accom
plishment of the number of Christ's saints, that they may be
consummated with them in glory. Now vrith reference to
this opinion it was, that they prayed to God to give them rest:
so Tertullian, and St, Ambrose, alleged by our collector ;*
to grant them repose, a quiet sleep : so St, Cyprian, i. e. as
Tertullian himself explains it,-|- " that they might have
comfort in the bosom of Abraham, till the time of the resur
rection shall come,"
If it shall be objected against this, that to pray for their
rest implies as if they were not now in ease, and so reduce us
to a necessity of confessing either a purgatory, or some other
the like place of punishment : I answer, 1st, If this be so,
then the blessed Virgin, the apostles, martyrs, and confessor
were all at this time in purgatory, above 300 years after their
death ; for thus we see they prayed in the Primitive Church
by name for them, which yet the Church of Rome dares not
say. But, 2ndly, In the continuance of their prayers for the
dead, they used the same supphcations that they did at their
first departure ; and therefore pray for their rest and repose,
* Nub, Test, vid, supr.
t Lib. de An. c, 35, [p. 291. Par. 1695.] Id. Ub. 4, contr. Marc, c. 34.
[Ibid. p. 450.]

PRAYER FOR THE DEAD, 97
as if they were but now just about to enter into it ; and this
account Cardinal Bellarmine himself gives us of it.* To
which let me add, Srdly, that the ancient Fathers thought,
that in this place of refreshment, there were divers degrees of
it ; and therefore they prayed that God would give them rest,
not as if they were now totally destitute of it, but as desiring it
might be increased to them in a yet higher degree : or else,
4thly, as TertuUian's words seem to imply, they desired hereby
their rest, i. e. the continuance of that rest they now enjoyed,
to the day of judgment.
Nor is it any prejudice to this, that the dead were now out
of a capacity of having their state ever altered, and therefore
that it was in vain to pray for that happiness which they were
already secure of, since, as Bellarmine himself confesses,t the
ancients thought it no way improper to pray for those things
which they knew God was resolved to give : and we see our
blessed Sariour, in his own short prayer, has commanded us to
pray that God's kingdom may come, which, whether we pray
or no, will in its due time most infallibly be accomplished.
Whether these reasons may, any or all of them, appear to
be a sufficient vindication of such kind of prayers, I cannot
tell : but this is certain, that the primitive Christians did pray
for the rest of those whom they esteemed already in happi
ness, and by consequence that these prayers do not argue a
state of torments, from whence the dead were to be delivered
by them. And because it may be of great moment to be well
assured of this, I will subjoin an undeniable instance of it in
one of the very particulars offered by our Collector, but with
what sincerity I shall leave the reader to judge, in favour of
purgatory. St. Ambrose, in his oration on the death of Theodosius, thus
prays for him : " Give perfect rest to thy servant Theodosius,
that rest which thou hast prepared for thy saints. Let his
soul ascend thither from whence it had its origin ; where it
may be out of the power of death, where it may know that
death is not an end of nature, but of sin. I loved him, and
therefore I pursue him to the region of the living, nor will I
leave him, till by my tears and prayers, I bring him whither
his merits call him, into the holy mount of our Lord, where
there is life vrithout end."
• Lib, 2. de Purg, cap, 5, p. 644, C, [ut supra, p, 332.]
t Lib, 2, de Purg, cap, 5, ibid, [p, 334,]
VOL, XI. H

98 POPISH METHODS FOR THE PARDON OF SIN.
Thus Our collector tells us St. Ambrose prayed for Theodo
sius : but did this holy bishop think him as yet in purgatoryj
and that by his prayers he should set him at rest from the tor
ments of it ? Let us judge by what goes before in the same
oration :* " Theodosius, of honourable memory, being freed
from doubtful fight, doth now enjoy everlasting light, and
continual tranquillity ; and for the things which he did in this
body, he rejoiceth in the fruits of God's reward ; because he
loved the Lord his God, he hath merited the society of the
saints," And again, in the same oration : " He hath not laid
down, but changed his kingdom, being taken by the right of
his piety into ther tabernacles of Christ, into the heavenly Jeru
salem, "f Now surely the tabernacles of Christ, the Jerusalem
that is above, are no characters of purgatory ; and yet here St,
Ambrose thought Theodosius, at the same time that he prayed
for him. But St, Ambrose is yet more express : " TheodosiusJ
therefore (says he) remains in light, and glorieth in the com
pany of the saints," Let the reader now judge, whether the
prayers of this holy man for the rest of Theodosius, be any
precedent for those prayers that are made for the rest of souls,
by the Church of Rome,
3, There is yet one vritness to be considered, and upon
which our Collector insists more largely than ordinary, and
that is St, Chrysostom :§ who in the places cited out of him,
speaks indeed of certain benefits which came to the dead by
our prayers ; and thereupon exhorts all persons to perform
this office to them, I have before mentioned an opinion of
some Fathers, that even the damned in hell might be advan
taged by the prayers of the liring ; and if not be freed from,
yet be at least alleviated in their torments. And in this ex
cessive charity, St, Chrysostom was one of the forwardest ; as
is evident in the very Homihes|| cited by this Collector, were I
at liberty to insist on a thing so well known. We are not
* Absolutus igitur dubio certamine, fruitur nunc Augustse memorise
Theodosius luce perpetua, tranquUlitate diuturna, et pro lis quae in hoc
gessit corpore, munerationis Divinse fructibus gloriatur. Ergo quia dilexit
AugustiB memorise Theodosius Dominum Deum suum, meruit sanctorum
consortia, [ut supra, vol, 2, p, 1206,]
t Regnum non deposuit sed mntavit; in tabernacula Christi jure
pietatis ascitus, in illam Hierusalem supernam, [Ibid, p, 119?,]
+ Manet ergo in lumine Theodosius, et sanctorum ctetibus gloriatur.
[Ibid. 1208,] § Nub, Test, p, 88, 89, &c.
II Hom, 21, in Act, tom, 3, in N, T. p, 202, 203. [Par. 1636.]
Hom. 3. in Ep, PhU. to. 6, in N, T, [ibid.] p, 32, 33,

PRAYER POR THE DEAD, 99
therefore to wonder, if we find this Father so earnestly press
ing this charity of praying for the dead, which he thought of
so great a force, as even to reUeve the greatest sinners. If
this be either the belief or practice of the Roman Church, we
shall not deny them a pattern in this holy Father : but if this
be what they neither believe nor allow of, how impertinent
must it be to produce his praying for the dead, on such prin
ciples as they condemn, to be a witness of the antiquity of
their praying for the dead to deliver them out of purgatory,
which he knew nothing at all of, nor did at all intend by his
prayers, 4. As for what is finally added, concerning the Greek
Church, it is confessed that they do pray for the dead upon
the same grounds, and after the same manner that the ancient
Church did ; but that they pray for them as the Romanists
would now insinuate, this is false, as we have before shewn ;
nor do the testimonies produced at all convince us of it.
And this may suffice to have been said to the several proofs
that are offered by those of the Roman communion in favour
of this error, concerning prayers for the dead ; for as for
Isidore Hispalensis, he is beyond the period I have fixed to
my reflections ; and for St, Perpetua's dream, which the Mis
representer, from Natalis too, heretofore insisted upon, I may
reasonably presume, by our Collector's omission of it, that he
thought it sufficiently answered by the learned author that
first undertook the examination of his pretences against us.

CLOSE.
And now, after so particular examination of all these things,
there is but one objection more remaining, that I can foresee
may possibly be made against us, on this occasion : for be it
that we have reason to throw off the Romish error of purga
tory, and by consequence those prayers for the dead which
are made in that Church to deliver the souls from thence ; yet
since we cannot deny but that the primitive Christians did
pray for the dead for many other ends, and which we do not
presume to condemn them for, wherefore at least do we not
continue the ancient practice, and pray for them as those holy
men of old did?
This perhaps may be a scruple that some raay raise, and
' haring answered it, I shall conclude. And, H 2

100 POPISH METHODS FOB THE PARDON OF SIN.
1st, If he be one of the Roman communion that makes tbis
objection, he may please to tell us, wherefore it is, that they
of his own Church do not do this ? or why he should requhe
us to follow the ancient practice of the Church, in those things
which themselves do not think sufficient to oblige them to a
conformity ? They may call us Aerians, or what else they please
upon this account ; but if to follow the error of Aerius in this
be to become properly Aerians, we have before seen that they
do so ; nay, they outstrip him in it ; whilst that sort of prajdng
for the dead, which the ancients used, he thought only need
less and irrational;* but there are amongst them those who
doubt not to call it impious and absurd .
I have before shewn what the grounds were, on which those
holy men prayed for the dead : now there is not one of these,
which is not at this day disclaimed by the Church of Rome,
no less than by us, and especially that which was the chiefest
foundation of all, viz. the opinion of the state of the soul out
of heaven during its separation, they have in the Council of
Florence flatly condemned. Now t£ it be then no crime in
them, to reject the opinions of those primitive Christians, on
which this practice was founded, nay, to censure the very
practice itself upon any other account but that which they
now assert, and which the ancient Fathers, as we have seen,
never knew ; how comes it to be more unlawful in us to do
this, than it is in them ? or why may not we as well leave off
praying for the dead as the ancient Church did, as they them
selves not only leave it off, but even censure it to have been
impious and absurd, which we never presumed to do ? But,
2ndly, If the person who makes this objection, be of some
other communion, I have several reflections to ofler in our jus
tification in this matter.
1 st. Let his reverence for antiquity be never so great, yet
he will not, I am sure, say either that those holy men were
infallible in every thing they did, or that we ought to receive
at all adventures, whatever can be proved to have descended
from them. We do indeed confess, that this custom of pray
ing for the dead, was one of the most early practices of the
Church, But then we have seen what it was that introduced it : and
their grounds are many of them such as are now generally
disclaimed by almost all Christians ; such as that of Christ's
* See above.

PR.IYER FOR THE DEAD, 101
millenary kingdom ; of the passing of all men through the
purgatory fire at the end of the world ; of the souls of the just
being in a place of sequester out of heaven till the last day,
and the like : the rest so inconsiderable, as that we cannot by
any means think them sufficient to warrant so dangerous a
practice. For what is it to engage us to this, that the an
cients thought hereby to distinguish the best of men from our
Sariour Christ ? To testify their hopes of a future resurrec
tion ? To maintain a kind of fellowship and communion with
them ? There are other ways enough to do all this, without
engaging in such a piety, as the holy Scripture is not so much
as pretended to countenance ; the most that ever the holy
Fathers offered for it, being the custom of the Church ; and
Tertullian expressly places it among those things which are
nowhere written. How far such an authority might then have
obliged us to compliance with the practice of the Church, had
we lived in those primitive times, it is not necessary to inquire ;
but since neither the holy Scripture requires it, nor does the
custom of the Church now exact it of us, nor do we acknow
ledge those opinions on which it was heretofore used, nor can we
see any benefit that we are able to do the dead by them ; it is
but reasonable to omit that which might justly give offence to
some, but cannot possibly bring advantage to any.
But, 2ndly, We have yet a more particular reason, why it is
by no means fitting at this time, thus to pray for the dead ;
and that is, to prevent that danger which the present practice
of the Church of Rome would be apt to expose men to, should
we do it. To pray for the souls departed, as that Church
does, neither did the primitive Fathers ever allow, and we
have sufficiently shewn how dangerously erroneous it is to do
so. It is therefore by no means convenient to continue a
practice whereby it might be very easy to lead men into such
gross mistakes ; and however some might still be able to make
the distinction, and see a great difference in the design and
intention of the same kind of praying ; yet the iU use that is
made, even of what those holy Fathers did, sufficiently shews
us how apt men are to confound those things together, that
have so nigh a relation as to the practice, and the act being
the sarae, to lead them to believe that the principle is so too.
In short, Srdly, We cannot imagine, if there were indeed
any such great piety in this practice, as to deserve our apology
for the omission of it, how it comes to pass, that neither pre
cept nor example of any such thing, is to be found in the holy

102 POPISH METHODS FOE THE PARDON OP SIN.
Scriptures : and to those who make that the rule of their reli
gion, we do not see that any more need be said than this, that
we find nothing there to authorize such a devotion, and that
therefore we cannot think it fitting to make it a part of the
Church's service.
I shall close up all with the words of our Church iu her
Homily upon this subject :* "Let these and such other con
siderations be sufficient to take away the gross error of purga
tory out of our heads ; neither let us dream any more that the
souls of the dead are any thing at all holpen by our prayers ;
but as the Scripture teacheth us, let us think that the soul of
man passing out of the body, goeth straightways either to
heaven, or else to hell ; whereof the one needeth no prayer,
the other is vrithout redemption. The only purgatory wherein
we must trust to be saved, is the death and blood of Christ,
which if we apprehend -with a true and steadfast faith, it purg
eth and cleanseth us from all our sins, even as well as if he
were now hanging upon the cross. ' The blood of Christ,'
saith St. John,-|- ' hath cleansed us from all sin.' ' The blood
of Christ,' saith St. Paul, ' hath purged our consciences from
dead works, to serve the liring God.' Also in another place,
he saith, J 'We be sanctified and made holy by the offering
up of the body of Jesus Christ done once for all.' Yea, he
addeth more, saying, ' With the one oblation of his blessed
body and precious blood, he hath made perfect for ever and
ever, all them that are sanctified.' This then is that purga
tory, wherein all Christian men put their whole trust and con
fidence ; nothing doubting, but if they truly repent them of
their sins, and die in perfect faith, that then they shall forth
with pass from' death to life. If this kind of purgation vrill
not serve them, let them never hope to be released by other
men's prayers, though they should continue therein unto the
world's end. He that cannot be saved by faith in Christ's
blood, how shall he look to be delivered by man's intercessions?
Hath God more respect to man on earth, than he hath to
Christ in heaven? 'If any man sin,' saith St. John, 'we
have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous,
and he is the propitiation for our sins,'§ But we must take
heed that we call upon this Advocate, while we have space
given us in this hfe, lest when we are once dead, there be no
* Thu-d part of Sermon concerning Prayer, p, 212, Ed, Ox, 1683,
t 1 John i, 7. Heb. ix, 14. X Heb, x, 10, § \ John u, 1, 2.

PRAYER FOR THE DEAD, 103
hope of salvation left unto us. For as every man sleepeth
with his own cause, so every man shall rise again with his own
cause. And look in what state he dieth, in the same state he
shall also be judged, whether it be to salvation or damnation,
" Let us not therefore dream either of purgatory, or of prayer
for the souls of them that be dead ; but let us earnestly and
diligently pray for them which are expressly commanded in
holy Scripture, namely for kings and rulers, for ministers of
God's holy word and sacraments, for the saints of this world,
otherwise called the faithful ; to be short, for all men living,
be they never so great enemies to God and his people, as
Jews, Turks, Pagans, infidels, heretics. Then shall we truly
fulfil the commandment of God in that behalf, and plainly de
clare ourselves to he the true children of our heavenly
Father, who suffereth the sun to shine upon the good and
bad, and the rain to fall upon the just and unjust,
" For which, and all other benefits, most abundantly be
stowed upon mankind from the beginning, let us give him
hearty thanks, as we are most bound, and praise his name for
ever and ever. Amen."

AN APPENDIX,
CONTAINING
SOME GENERAL DISCOURSES AGAINST POPERY.

A PRESERVATIVE AGAINST POPERY:
BEING SOME PLAIN DIRECTIONS TO UNLEARNED PROTESTANTS,
HOW TO DISPUTE WITH ROMISH PRIESTS.

PART L

THE INTRODUCTION.

While so many learned pens are employed to such excel
lent purpose, in answering the writings, and confuting the
doctrines and practices of the Church of Rome, I cannot
but think it a very useful work, to give some plain directions
to those who are unlearned, who have neither time to read,
nor money to buy, nor abilities to understand more learned
controversies. Our divines indeed have taken great care to
write short tracts, -with great plainness and perspicuity, and
with as little unnecessary show of learning as may be, to fit
them the better for unlearned readers ; and they have had, by
the blessing of God, wonderful success ; Popery was never so
generally understood, as it is at this day ; the meanest trades
men can now dispute against Popery -trith sufficient skill and
judgment, and need not be beholden to the prejudices of
education to secure them : and therefore my business shall not
be at present, downright to state any one controversy between
us and the Church of Rome, but to direct our people how to
secure themselves against the attacks of our Roman adversaries,
to check their conferring and disputing humour, or to baffle
them, I shall reduce all into as plain a method and as short
a compass as I can, and shew.

A PRESERVATIVE AGAINST POPERY. 105
First, How to stop them at the beginning bf their dispute.
Secondly, Give some rules about the topics, from which they
dispute, such as Reason, Scripture, and the Authority of the
ancient Fathers and writers of the Church.
Thirdly, How to answer some of their most popular pre
tences, such as the uncertainty of the Protestant religion, the
misrperesentations of Popery, &c.
Fourthly, To give some short directions as to particular
controversies.

CHAP. I.
How Protestants may prevent disputing with Papists.
Now I do not by this mean that they should always avoid
their company, and run away from them wherever they meet
them, which is very ill manners ; though it is not adrisable
neither to court such acquaintance, or to make them our inti
mates, when neither the obligations of nature, nor other ciril
or political reasons make it necessary ; for conversation many
times prevails more than arguments can do, and vrill as soon
corrupt men's faith, as manners.
Nor do I mean that Protestants should obstinately retuse
to discourse with Papists when they meet them ; to hear what
they have to say for themselves, and to give a reason for their
own faith ; this is agreeable to Protestant principles, to prove
all things, and to hold fast that which is good ; and yet this
ought to be done with great prudence and caution too ; for
there are a sort of perverse disputers, who are to be avoided,
according to the Apostolic precept, " If any man teach other
vrise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of
our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according
to godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about
questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh en-vy, strife, rail
ings, eril surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt
minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is god
liness : from such -mthdraw thyself," 1 Tim. yi. 3, 4, 5.
Men of weak judgments, and who are not skilled in the
laws of disputation, may easily be imposed on by cunning
sophisters, and such as lie in wait to deceive ; the Church of
Rome is very sensible of this, and therefore vrill not suffer her
people to dispute their religion, or to read heretical books, nay.

106 A PRESERVATIVE
not SO much as to look into the Bible itself; but though we
allow all this to our people, as that which God not only allows,
but requires, and which all considering men will allow them
selves, whoever forbids it ; yet we do not allow them to be
perpetual seekers, to be always doubtful of their religion, to be
like children tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine.
And therefore the hberty of judging and inquiring, which we
aflow, is only that they may understand the true reasons of
their faith, and be well grounded in it, which men may be,
who are not able to answer every carilhng objection ; but it is
an abuse of this liberty, when men have itching ears, and
hearken after all novelties of opinions, and grow wanton and
sceptical disputers; and therefore it is very consistent with
that liberty which Protestants allow, to advise Christians to
be very careful, how they hearken to such as preach any new
doctrine which they have not been taught, that the weak in
faith and knowledge should not venture upon doubtful dispu
tations ; that they should not be hasty to question what they
have believed, nor to give heed to new doctrines ; that they
should not rely on their own imderstanding in these matters,
but when they meet vrith any difficulties, should consult their
spiritual guides, not to be finally determined by their authority,
as the Church of Rome requires, but to hear their reasons, and
what answers they can give to such difficulties as they them
selves cannot answer : with such cautions £is these, we dare
venture our people to hear and read, and inquire, as much as
they please, and have not found yet, that our Roman adver
saries have been able to make any great impression upon such
honest and prudent inquirers. But that which I intend at
present, is of another nature, to teach our people a way to
make these men sick of disputing themselves, to make them
leave off those impertinent and noisy squabbles, with which
they disturb all company they come into : and this is no such
mighty secret neither, as may be expected, but it is very plain
and obrious at the first proposal.
For when you are assaulted by such troublesome disputers,
only ask them, whether they vrill allow you to judge for your
selves in matters of rehgion ; if they -will not, why do they
trouble you with disputing? for the end of disputing, is to
convince, and you cannot be convinced, unless you may judge
too : would they dispute with a stone, that can neither hear,
nor understand ? Or would they make a speech to convince a
horse, that he is out of his way, and must take another road,

AGAINST POPERY, 107
if he would return home? And do they not talk to as little
purpose, and spend their breath as vain upon a man, who can
hear indeed, and understand somewhat, but must not follow
his own understanding ? If they say, that you must judge for
yourselves, ask them, whether this be the doctrine of their
Church, that private men may judge for themselves ? Whether
this do not resolve our faith into a private spirit, which they
say is the Protestant heresy, and the foundation of Protestant
uncertainty ? If they once open this gap to heretics into the
Church, there is great danger, that more will run out at it,
than will come in ; and it is well if the Church itself stays
behind ; for what becomes of tbe Church of Rome, if all their
glorious cant of the infallibihty of Church, and Popes, and
General Councils, be at last resolved into a private spirit!
While these men go about to dispute heretics into their Church,
they unavoidably give up the cause of the Church, and of
infallibihty, which is the way to dispute a great many good
Cathohcs out of it, who are kept there only by the power of a
bhnd and imphcit faith. Here then let our Protestant fix his
foot, and not stir an inch, till they disown infallibility, and
confess that every man can, and must judge for himself in
matters of rehgion, according to the proofs that are offered to
him. For vrill a vrise man dispute with one, who, he knows,
banters him all the while ? who appeals to his private judg
ment (as all men do, who dispute vrith one another), and at the
same time cries down this private spirit as the cause of schisms,
and heresies, and blasphemies, and every thing that is eril :
no man of any spirit, but vrill scorn to dispute vrith one, who
intends only to put a trick on him, and to outwit him if he can ;
and in truth, it is no more to endeavour to dispute a man into
Popery, ^when the fundamental principle of Popery is, that we
must not reason and dispute, but beUeve ; that we must take
our faith upon the authority of the Church, without asking
any questions about it. There are two or three things which
may be answered to this.
1. That though disputing be not a proper way for Papists
to take, yet it is the only way that can be taken with Protes
tants, who are all for disputing, and will believe nothing vrith
out a reason, and therefore Protestants ought not to blame
Papists for disputing, unless they would be good Cathohcs
without it. Now in answer to this, I have something to say
to Papists, and something to Protestants.
1. As for the Papists, what necessity soever they be in
of disputing, I desire to know with what face they can reproach

108 A PRESERVATIVE
Protestants with adhering to their own private judgments,
when they themselves are such zealous disputants, which is an
appeal to every private man's judgment : if ever they make any
converts, they must be beholden to men's private judgments
for it ; for I think men cannot change their opinions without
exercising a private judgment about it ; and I suppose
when they dispute vrith men to make them Papists, they intend
to convert them by their own private judgments. Now
what difference is there between men's using their private
judgments to tum Papists, or to turn Protestants ? One in
deed may be false, and the other true ; but private judgment
is private judgment still: and if it be so great a fault for
men to use their own private judgments, it is as great a
fault in a Papist, as in a Protestant. So that at least, as to
converts, the Church of Rome has no advantage in this
particular over Protestant Churches : some by the exercise
of their own reason and judgment, go over to the Church of
Rome, and some to the Church of England; some are disputed
into Popery, and some into Protestantism : and therefore, for
the sake of their beloved converts, and their beloved disputa
tions, they ought to be more favourable to a private spirit :
the truth is, hy disputing with heretics, they give up then:
cause, and confess, that in all disputes of religion, there hes an
appeal to every man's private judgment and conscience ; and
should they lose this point by their disputing, all the converts
they make cannot recompense such a loss.
Secondly, As for Protestants, though they have no other
way to satisfy themselves, or to convince others, but by reason
and discourse, yet this is no reason why they should dispute
with those men who disown the judgment of reason, as a pri
vate spirit. For why should I dispute ¦with any man who uses
such arguments to conrince me, as he himself does not think a
sufficient reason of faith ? Ask then one of these disputers,
who alleges Scripture, reason, and antiquity, to prove any
doctrines of the Romish faith. Do you. Sir, believe transub
stantiation, the worship of images, the invocation of saints,
purgatory, mass for the dead, upon the bare authority of these
Scriptures and Fathers you have produced for them ? If these
doctrines were not defined by the Church, should you think
these arguments sufficient to prove them ? or, could you sup
pose the Church had defined the contrary, should you think
the arguments good still? In short, can any reason, any
authority of Scripture, or Fathers, be any foundation for a
Divine faith, but only the authority of the Church ? He that

AGAINST POPERY, 109
says they can, is no Papist ? and he that says they cannot,
confesses, that he uses such arguments, as he himself does not
build his faith up(m : if you will believe them, you may ;
but though you do, you are no sound believer, without
resolving your faith solely into the authority of the
Church, And, I think, he must love disputing well, who -will
dispute with such men as these ; and those must have a good
degree of assurance, who will be troublesome with their dis
putes, after such a discovery. The end of disputing, I
suppose, is either to convince, or to be convinced : but should
you answer and baffie all such a man's arguments, if he be
modest, it may be he may blush a little, but is not to be
moved ; for his faith, after all, is not built upon these argu
ments, but upon Church authority ¦- and it is to no purpose
for you to suffer yourself to be convinced by these arguments,
for it will not make you a good Catholic, without resolving your
faith wholly into the authority of the Church, It is certainly
a very surprising thing, for a Protestant to be disputed into
Popery ; for as soon as he is converted, he must renounce the
very means of his conversion : he must use his own judgment
to turn Papist, and as soon as he is turned, he must renounce
his own judgment, and confess it to be of no authority. Now
though, it may be, such a private judgment as leads a man to
Popery, may as well deserve to be renounced, as any ; yet it is
an odd kind of contradiction, to renounce our own private
reason and judgment,' and yet to own our conversion ; me
thinks such men should renounce their conversion too at
the same time they renounce their reason : for if their conver
sion be good, it is a sign their judgment was so ; but if their
judgment be not fit to be trusted, methinks this should make
them question their conversion : and therefore they should
either maintain the reputation of their judgment and conver
sion together, and then they cannot be good Catholics, while
they adhere to their own judgment, or they should renounce
them both together : nay, they must not only renounce their
own judgments, as soon as they are converted, but they must
renounce the authority and validity of those very arguments
whereby they are converted, whether from Scripture, reason,
or Fathers ; they must confess, that these arguments are not
a sufficient foundation for a Divine faith vrithout the authority
of the Church ; for it is a dangerous thing to allow any
authority to Scripture or Fathers, without the Church, for
that may make men heretics ; and yet, I suppose, when

110 A PRESERVATIVE
heretics are converted by these arguments, it must be the force
of the arguments, and not the authority of the Church, which
converts them, unless they beheved the authority of the
Church before they were converted, and that was a little too
early for it. Now, methinks, when Protestants turn Papists,
as they pretend, from the conviction of their own reason and
judgment, and as soon as they are converted are taught that
there is no relying upon their own judgment, and that the
reasons whereby they were converted, are not good in them
selves, vrithout Church authority ; if it were possible for them
ever to use their reason more, after such a change, it would
certainly make them disown their conversion ; which, it seems,
was the effect of a very fallible judgment, and very uncertain
and inauthentic reasons,
2, There is another pretence for these disputes, which may
seem to answer this difficulty, that the intention of these dis
putes, is only to lead you to the infallible Church, and set you
upon a rock ; and then it is very natural to renounce your
own judgment, when you have an infallible guide. Our own
judgment then must bring us to the infallible guide, and when
we have found him, we have no farther use for our own judg
ment, I answer,
1 , Should we grant this, it puts an end to all the particular
disputes of religion between us and the Church of Rome, We
may dispute on about an infallible judge, but they cannot,
with any sense, dispute vrith us about the particular articles of
faith, such as transubstantiation, the sacrifice of the mass,
the worship of images, and the like; for these are to be learned
only from the Church, alid cannot be proved by Scripture or
Fathers, without the authority of the Church, And if they
would confess this, they would save us and theraselves a
great deal of trouble : for why should they be at the trouble of
writing such arguments, or we to answer them, when they
theraselves confess, that the arguments are not good, unless
they be confirmed by the Church's authority ? I confess, 1
have often wondered to see such volumes of controversies
written by the Roman divines, for I could never imagine to
what end they are writ. Is not their faith wholly resolved
into the authority of the Church ? What need reasons and
arguments then, which cannot work faith in us ? Either these
arguments are sufficient to confirm the articles of their faith,
without the authority of the Church, or they are not : if they
are, then there is no need of infallibility, since all the articles

AGAINST POPERY. 11 1
of faith are confirmed hy such reasons, as are a sufficient foun
dation for faith without it : and thus they give up all their
arguments for an infallible judge, from the necessity of such a
judge. If they be not, of what use are they ? Does the
decision of the Church need to be confirmed by such argu
ments ? If they are not good arguments vrithout the authority
of the Church, they can no more give authority to the Church,
than an infallible Church can want any authority but its own.
Are they to conrince heretics ? But how if heretics should con
fute them ? If they be not in themselves good arguments, they
may be confuted ; and they know, by sad experience, that
there are heretics, as they call them, who have wit and learning
enough to confute what is to be confuted ; and if they fall
into such hands (which has been their hard fate of late), they
are sure to be confuted : and I doubt then they had better
have let them alone ; for the Catholic cause may suffer much
in the opinion of the world, when all their arguments are con
futed. All then that they can design by such arguments, is to
impose upon the weak and ignorant, when learned men are out
of the way, which is no very commendable design ; and that
design will be spoiled too, if unlearned men do but learn to ask
them the question, whether they build their faith upon such
arguments ? For then they must either quit the authority of
their Church, or the strength of their arguments : the first
reduces them to Protestant uncertainty, for then they have no
other foundation for their faith than Protestants have ; which
resolves itself into the reasons and arguments of faith : the
second puts an end to disputing about these matters ; for
no man needs answer any arguments, which the disputant
himself acknowledges not to be good.
2. There is nothing then left for disputation, and the exer
cise of our private reason and judgment, but the inquiry
after an infallible judge. And here also, before you dispute,
it will be necessary to ask them, whether the belief of an
infallible judge must be resolved into every man's private
judgment ? Whether it be not necessary to believe this with a
Divine faith ? And whether there can be any Divine faith vrith
out an infallible judge? Certainly, if ever it be necessary to have
an infallible faith, it is so to be infallibly assured of an infallible
judge, because this is the foundation of all the rest : for though
the judge be infallible, if I be not infaUibly assured of this, I
can never arrive to infallibility in anything ; for I cannot be
more certain, that his determinations are infallible, than I am

112 A PRESERVATIVE
that he himself is infalhble ; and if I have but a moral assu-
race of this, I can be but morally assured of the rest ; for the
building cannot be more firm than the foundation is : and thus
there is an end to all the Roman pretences to infallibility.
Now if we must believe the infallibility of the Church, or Pope
of Rome, with an infallible faith, there is an end of disputing ;
for no reasons or arguments, not the authority of the Scrip
ture itself, vrithout an infallible judge, can beget an infallible
faith, according to the Roman doctors : for this reason they
charge the Protestant faith vrith uncertainty, and will not allow
it to be a Dirine, but human faith, though it is built upon the
firmest reasons, the best authority, and the most express Scrip
ture that can be had for any thing ; but because we do not
pretend to rely on the authority of a living infallible judge,
therefore, forsooth, our faith is uncertain, human, and fallible;
and this, they say, makes an infallible judge necessary,
because without him we have no infallible certainty of any
thing. Now if nothing but an infallible judge can be the foundation
of an infallible faith, then it is to no purpose to dispute about
such a judge; for disputing is nothing else but weighing reason
against reason, and argument against argument, or Scripture
against the pretence of Scripture ; but whoever gets the better
of it this way, no reasons, or arguments, or Scripture proofs
can beget an infallible certainty, which is necessary in this
case; and therefore this is all lost labour, and they do but put a
trick upon you, when they pretend to dispute you into the
belief of an infallible judge ; for they themselves know, and
must confess, if you ask them, that the best and most con
vincing arguments cannot give us an infallible assurance of this
matter ; and yet unless we are infallibly assured of an infalhble
judge, it is all to no purpose.
3. I can think but of one thing more, that can be said in
this cause, viz. that it is manifestly unreasonable not to grant to
the Church of Rome that liberty which all men and Churches
challenge, to dispute for themselves, and against their adver
saries : for when two men or two Churches differ in matters of
faith, there is no other way to end the controversy, but by
disputing it out ; whereas this discourse will not allow them to
dispute, nor any Protestants to dispute with them.
In answer to this, I grant, that the charge is in a great
ineasure true, and shews the absurdity of that Church and
religion, but does not disprove the reasonableness of this

AGAINST POPERY, 113
method. If men will embrace such a religion as will not admit
of disputing, it is their own, and their religion's fault, not the
fault of those men who will not dispute with them. Now a
religion which leaves no room for the exercise of reason and
private judgraent, leaves no place for disputes neither ; for how
shall men dispute, who must not use their own reason and
judgment? "They ought not to dispute themselves, if they be
true to their own principles ; and no man ought to dispute
vrith them, who will not be laughed at hy them, and by all the
world : for to dispute without reason, is a new way of disputing
(though it is the only thing that can justify the Romanists,
and our late disputants have been very careful to observe it );
and to dispute vrith reason, is to use our private reason in
religion, which is Protestant heresy. Infallible men ought not
to dispute, for that is to quit their infallibility ; and fallible
men are very unwise to dispute vrith them, because no good
can come of it : for reason can never confute their infallible
adversaries, nor make themselves infallible believers.
But for the better understanding of this, I have two things
to say, 1, That Papists may dispute against Protestant
heresies, as they call them, but cannot dispute for their own
religion, 2, Protestants may dispute against Popish doctrines,
and to rindicate their own faith, but cannot reasonably be
disputed into Popery,
1. That Papists may dispute against Protestant heresies,
but cannot dispute for their own religion : and the reason of
this difference is plain, because Protestants allow of reason, and
discourse in matters of religion ; and therefore they may be
confuted, if good reasons can be produced against them : and
here the Romanists may try their skill ; but the religion of
Rome is not founded* on reason, but on infallibility ; and there
fore is not the subject of a dispute, because the truth and
certainty of those doctrines, is not resolved into the reasons of
them. They ought to allege no other ground of their faith,
but the infallibility of the Church ; and they ought not to
dispute about this neither : but those who will believe it may,
and those who vrill not, may let it alone, because infalhbility
is not to be proved by reason ; for reason proves nothing in
fallibly, and therefore cannot give us an infallible certainty of
the Church' s infallibility = *?
But you will say, if they have other arguments for the truth
of their faith, besides the infallibility of the Church, why may
they not urge those other reasons and arguments to conrince
VOL, XI. I

114 A PRESERVATIVE
those, who vrill not own the Church's infallibility ? I answer,
because whatever other reasons they have, their faith is not
resolved into them ; and therefore it is not honest in them to
urge those for the reasons of their faith, which are not the
reasons why they beheved : for let me ask them, suppose they
may have very good reasons for sorae of their doctrines, do
they believe them merely because they are reasonable ? If they
say they do, then they believe just as Protestants believe ; and
there is no need of infallibility, when men beheve nothing but
what is reasonable ; and it is pity that so good a thing as
infalhbility should serve only to support an unreasonable
faith. Let me ask them again, can they have a sufficient certainty,
that these reasons are good, without an infallible judge ? If
they can, then the faith of Protestants, which is grounded
upon rational eridences, may be very certain too, though it be
not infallible ; if they cannot, then their reasons are none,
since the very certainty of them is resolved into an infalhble
authority ; and therefore they are no certain reasons, that is,
not such as a man may rely on, when they are separated from
infallibility ; and consequently they ought never to be urged
apart from infalhbility, because they themselves do not think
them good reasons, that is, not a sufficient foundation of faith
alone : and then I know not why they should be urged at all ;
for infallibility can stand by itself, without the support of any
reasons. I ask them again, would they reject those doctrines which
they think they can prove by such evident reasons, did they
see those reasons as eridently confuted ? If they would not,
then it is plain, they do not believe them for the sake of those
reasons ; for if they did, they would reject them, when all
their reasons were confuted : they only impose upon the world
with a pretence and flourish of reason, and set up a man of
straw for Protestants to shoot at ; but whatever becomes of
their reasons, they have a safe retreat into infalhbility.
If they believed any doctrine because it is reasonable, if
they will be true to themselves, they ought to reject all
doctrines, which are unreasonable, or contrary to sense and
reason : he who believes for the sake of reason, can never
believe against it : for if reason makes a thing credible, then
what is unreasonable is incredible too : and we may as reason
ably disbelieve what is confirmed by reason, as believe what
reason contradicts : and therefore it is not very modest to hear

AGAINST POPERY, 11,5
men talk of reason in any case, who can believe such an absurd
and unreasonable doctrine as transubstantiation.
Now whatever opinion Protestants have of reason. Papists
ought not to pretend to it, because their faith has nothing to
do with reason : it is a reproach to an infallible Church, and
infallible faith, to need the supports of reason. And the truth
is, those who will have nothing to do with reason, reason
commonly has as little to do with them, but owes them a shame,
whenever they pretend to her ; and therefore they had as good
let her alone,
2, Protestants may dispute against Popish doctrines, and to
vindicate their own faith, but they cannot reasonably be
disputed into Popery, When Papists allege Scripture, reason,
or human authority for any doctrines of their religion, Protes
tants, who allow of the use of reason in religion, may examine
and confute thera : when Papists dispute against Protestant
doctrines, Protestants are concerned to rindicate their own
faith, or to renounce it ; but if a Protestant understands him
self, and his own principles, all the disputes in the world can
never make him a Papist, For to be a Papist, does not signify
merely to believe transubstantiation, or the worship of saints
and images, and such-hke Popish doctrines ; but to resolve
our faith into the infallible authority of the Church, and to
believe whatever the Church believes, and for no other reason,
but because the Church teaches it. This is the peculiar and
distinguishing character of the Church of Rome, which divides
it from all other Churches and sects of Christians ; and there
fore our late Popish writers are certainly in the right, to
endeavour to bring the whole controversy to this issue ; not to
dispute about particular doctrines, which follow on course,
when once you believe the Church to be infallible ; but to per
suade men that the Church is infallible, and that the Church
of Rome is that infalhble Church, Now, I say, no under
standing Protestant can be disputed into this kind of Popery,
and that for two plain reasons, 1 . Because no arguments or
disputations can give rae an infallible certainty of the infalli
bihty of the Church, 2, Because it is irapossible by reason
to prove, that men must not use their own reason and judg
ment in matters of religion,
1 , No arguments can give me an infallible certainty of the
infaUibility of the Church, The great motive to any man to
forsake the other communions of Christians, and to go over to
the Church of Rome, is, to attain an infallibility in faith, which
1 2

116 A PRESERVATIVE
is a wonderftil good thing, if it were to be had ; but though
the Church of Rome were infallible, and I should be conrinced
that there were some reason to think so, yet unless I can be
infalhbly assured of it my faith is still as fallible, as the
Protestant faith is ; and I am no nearer to infallibility in the
Church of Rome, than in the Church of England, For as I
observed before, unless I can have an infallible certainty of the
infallibility of the Church, I can have no infallibility at all :
though the Church were infallible in all her decrees, I can
never be infallibly certain of the truth of her decrees, unless I
be infallibly certain that she is infaUible, It is a known rule
in logic, that the conclusion must follow the weaker part, and
therefore it is irapossible to infer an infallible faith from the
fallible belief of the Church's infallibility.
And yet the best reasons in the world (which is all that
disputing can do, to offer reasons for our faith) cannot give us
an infallible certainty, because reason itself is not an infallible
principle, at least the Church of Rome dares not own, that any
man's private reason and judgment is infallible ; for then
Protestants may set up for infallibility as well as Papists, No
man, by reason and argument, can arrive at a greater certainty
than Protestants may have, and yet no man can arrive at
greater certainty, in the way of disputing, than reason and
argument can give him ; and then a Popish convert, who is
reasoned into the belief of infallibility, though he has changed
his opinion, yet has no raore infallibihty now, than he had
when he was a Protestant, Protestants vrithout an infallible
Church, may have all the certainty that reason and argument
can give thera ; and a convert has no greater certainty (if he
have no more than what disputing could give him) for his
infalhble Church : and how is it possible then, that a reason
able man can be disputed out of the Church of England into
the Church of Rome, upon such vain hopes of a more in
faUible certainty ? For let him go where he vrill, if he be led
to Rome itself by his own fallible reason and judgment (which
is the only guide he has in disputing), he wiU be the same
falhble creature that ever he was. But to represent this the
more familiarly, let us hear a short conference between a
sturdy Protestant, and a new convert,
Prot. O, my old friend I I am glad to meet you, for I have
longed to know what change you find in yourself, since you are
become an infallible believer.
Conv. I find, sir, what I expected, very great ease and

AGAINST POPERY, 117
satisfaction of mind, since I am delivered from aU doubtful
disputes in such an important concernment as the salvation of
my soul, and have a firm and sure rock to trust to, such an
infallible Church as cannot err itself, nor misguide me,
Prot. This, I confess, is a very great advantage ; and there
fore as we have been formerly of the same Church and com
munion, I would be glad to keep your company also in so
advantageous a change. Pray therefore tell me, how you
carae to be so infallibly persuaded of the infalhbility of your
Church. Conv. With all my heart ; and I shaU be very glad of such
company : and indeed, there are such powerful reasons for it,
as I ara sure must convince so free and ingenuous a raind, as
you always carry about with you. For Christ has promised to
build his" Church upon St, Peter, and that the gates of hell
shall not prevail against it, —
Prot. Hold, good sir 1 Reason 1 Are you got no farther
than reason yet ? Will reason ever make a man infallible ? I
have considered all the reasons that are used to this purpose,
and know what to say to them, if that were our business ; and
the truth is, I have a great deal of unanswerable reason, to stay
where I am ; and am a little surprised, to think that you, or
any raan, should leave the Church of England for want ol
reason, or go to the Church of Rome for it : and therefore
pray tell me the secret, for there must be something else to
make converts besides reason,
Conv. Then I perceive you take me for a knave, who have
changed my religion for base secular ends, vrithout reason,
Prot. You know that best ; but that was not my meaning :
but the reason of my question was, because you changed for
an infallible faith. Now if you rely stUl upon reason, I don't
see how your faith is more infallible than mine : for I ara as
confident, as you can be, that I have as good reasons for my
faith, and in my opinion, much better, than you have for
yours, Conv. I beg your pardon for that : I rely upon the autho
rity of an infalhble Church, you trust to your private reason,
Prot. And I beg your pardon, sir, for I rely on the autho
rity of Scripture, which is as infallible as your Church,
Conv. But you rely on your own reason for the authority
of Scripture, and those particular doctrines you draw from it,
Prot. And you rely on your own reason and judgment, for
the infalhbility of your Church, and consequently of all the

118 A PRESERVATIVE
doctrines of it ; and therefore your infallible faith is as much
resolved into your own falhble judgment, as the Protestant
faith is, : so that the difference between us is not, that your
faith is infallible, and ours fallible ; for they are both ahke,
call it what you vrill, faUible or infallible ; but the dispute is,
whether your reason and judgment, or ours, be best ; and
therefore, if you think your reason better than ours, you did
well to change ; but if you changed your Church, hoping to
grow more infallible by it, you were miserably mistaken, and
may return to us again : for we have more rational certainty
than you have, and you have no more infaUible certainty than
we. You think you are reasonably assured that your Church
is infallible, and then you take up your rehgion upon trust
from your Church, without, and many times against sense and
reason, according as it happens ; so that you have only a
general assurance of the infallibility of your Church, and that
no greater than Protestants pretend to in other cases, viz, the
certainty of reason and argument ; but have not so much as a
rational assurance of the truth of your particular doctrines ;
that if you be mistaken about the infallibility of your Church,
you must be miserably mistaken about everything else, which
you have no other eridence for. But now we are in general
assured, that the Scriptures are the Word of God, and in par-*
ticular are assured, that the faith, which we profess, is agree
able to Scripture, or expressly contained in it, and does not
contradict either sense or reason, nor any other principle of
knowledge. So that we have as much assurance of every arti
cle of our faith, as you have of the infallibility of your Church ;
and therefore have at least double and treble the assurance
that you have. But if you know the reasons of your conver
sion, I desire to know of you, what made you thmk that you
wanted certainty in the Church of England ?
Conv. Because with you every man is left to his own pri
vate reason and judgment, the effects of which are very risible
in that infinite variety of sects among you, which shews what
an uncertain thing your reason is, that so few judge ahke of
the power and validity of the sarae reasons,
Prot. And were you not sensible at the same time, that
you were left to your own reason and judgment, when you
turned Papist ? Are you not sensible, that men do as httle
agree about your reasons for infallibihty, as they do about any
Protestant reasons ? Do not I know the reasons alleged by
you for the infallibUity of your Church as well as you do :

AGAINST POPERY, 119
and do we not stUl differ about them ? And is not this as
much an argument of the uncertainty of those reasons, which
make you a Papist, that they cannot make me a Papist, as the
dissent of Protestants in other matters, is of the uncertainty
of their reasons ? Could you indeed he infalhbly assured of
the infallibility of your Church, I grant you would have the
advantage of us : but whUe you found your belief of infalh-
bihty upon such an uncertain principle, as you think reason
is : if certainty had been your only aim, you might as well
have continued in the Church of England, as have gone over
to Rome,
This abundantly shews what a ridiculous thing it is for a
Protestant to be disputed out of his Church and religion, upon
a pretence of raore infallible certainty in the Church of Rorae :
were they indeed inspired with an infallible assurance, that the
Church of Rome is infallible, there might he some pretence
for this ; but an infallibility which has no better foundation
than men's private reason, and private judgment, is no infalh
bility, but has all the same uncertainties, which they charge
on the Protestant faith, and a great deal more, because it is
not founded upon such great and certain reasons.
The plain truth is, men may be taught from their infancy
to believe the Church infallible, and when they are grown up,
raay take it, without examination, for a first and self-erident
principle, and think this an infallible faith : but raen who un
derstand the difference between the eridence of reason and
infallibihty, can never found an infallible faith on reason, nor
think that a raan who is reasoned into the belief of the infalh-
bihty of the Church, is more infalhble in his faith, than a Pro
testant is : and such a man vrill see no reason to quit the
Church of England, for the sake of an infalhble faith ; for
though they had an infaUible guide, yet reason cannot give
them an infalhble assurance of it, but can rise no higher at
most than a Protestant certainty.
2, It is impossible also by reason to prove, that men must
not use their own reason and judgment in matters of rehgion.
If any man should atterapt to persuade you of this, ask him,
why then he goes about to dispute vrith you about religion ?
Whether men can dispute vrithout using their own reason and
judgment ? Whether they can be convinced without it ?
Whether his offering to dispute with you against the use of
your reason, does not prove him ridiculous and absurd ? For
if you must not use your reason, why does he appeal to your

120 A PRESERVATIVE
reason ? And whether you should not be as ridiculous and
absurd as he, if by his reasons and arguments you should be
persuaded to condemn the use of reason in religion ? Which
would be the same act to do, what you conderan, to use your
reason when you condemn it. If you must not use your rea
son and private judgment, then you must not by any reasons
be persuaded to condemn the use of reason ; for to condemn is
an act of judgment, which you must not use in matters of
religion. So that this is a point which no man can dispute
against, and which no raan can be convinced of by disputing,
¦vrithout the reproach of self-contradiction.
This is an honourable way of silencing these troublesome
and clamorous disputants, to let them see, that their princi
ples vrill not allow of disputing, and that some of their funda
mental doctrines, which they impose upon the world, are a
direct contradiction to all disputes, for the very admitting of a
dispute, confutes them ; and the meanest man may quickly say
more in this cause, that their greatest disputants can answer.

CHAP, II,
CONCERNING THE SEVERAL TOPICS OF DISPUTE,
Sect, I,
Concerning arguments from Reason.
2. The next direction relates to the topics frora which they
dispute ; which are, either Reason, Scripture, or the authority
of the ancient Fathers and writers of the Christian Church ;
for the infallible authority of Popes, or General Councils, is the
thing in dispute between us, and therefore can prove nothing
tiU that be first proved by something else.
1. To begin then vrith Reason : now we do allow of reason
in raatters of religion ; and our adversaries pretend to use it,
when they think it will serve their tum, and rail at it, and
despise it, when it is against them.
Not that we make natural reason the rule or the measure
of our faith ; for to believe nothing but what raay be proved
by natural reason, is to reject revelation, or to destroy the ne
cessity of it ; for what use is there of a revelation, or at least

AGAINST POPERY. 121
what necessity of it, if nothing must be revealed, but what
might have been known by natural reason without revelation ;
or art least what natural reason can fully comprehend, when it
is revealed? But though we believe such things, when they
are revealed by God, which natural reason could never have
taught us, and which natural reason does not see the depths
and mysteries of ; and therefore do not stint our faith: and
confine it within the narrow bounds of natural reason ; yet we
use our reason to distinguish a true from a counterfeit revela
tion, and we use reason to understand a revelation ; and we
reason and argue from revealed principles, as we do from the
principles of natural knowledge : as frora that natural princi
ple, that there is but one God; we might conclude, without a
revelation, that we must worship but one God : so from that
revealed doctrine of one Mediator between God and man, we
may as safely conclude, that we must make our apphcations,
and offer up our prayers and petitions to God, only by this
one Mediator ; and so in other cases.
Now to direct Protestants how to secure themselves from
being imposed on by the fallacious reasonings of Roman
priests, I shall take notice of some of the chief faults in their
way of reasoning ; and when these are once known, it will be
easy matter for men of ordinary understandings to detect their
sophistry, 1 , As first, we must allow of no reason against the authority
of plain and express Scripture : this all men must grant, who
allow the authority of Scripture to be superior to natural rea
son ; for though Scripture cannot contradict plain, and neces
sary, and eternal reasons, i. e. what the universal reason of .
mankind teaches for a necessary and eternal truth ; yet God
may coramand such things, as we see no natural reason for,
and forbid such things as we see no natural reason against ;
nay, it may be, when we think there are plausible reasons
against what God commands, and for what he forbids : but in
all such cases, a divine law must take place against our uncer
tain reasonings ; for we may reasonably conclude, that God
understands the reasons and natures of things, better than we
do. As for instance, when there is such an express law as, " Thou
shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou
serve :" no reason in the world can justify the worship of any
other being, good or bad spirits, besides God, because there is
an express law against it, and no reason can take place against

122 A PRESERVATIVE
a law. The hke may be said of the second Commandment,
" Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image, nor the
likeness of any thing which is in heaven above, or in the earth
beneath, or in the waters under the earth, thou shalt not bow
down to them, nor worship them." Which is so express a
law against image-worship, that no reason must be admitted
for it. No man need to trouble himself to answer the reasons
urged for such practices, for no reasons ought to be aUowed,
nor any dispute adraitted against such express laws.
This, I suppose, all men vrill grant : but then the difficulty
is, what is an express law ? For tbe sense of the law is the
law ; and if there may be such a sense put on the words, as
will reconcile these reasons vrith the law, we must not say then,
that such reasons are against the law, when, though they may be
against the law in some sense, yet they are consistent with
other senses of the law ; and it is most likely, that is the
true sense of the law, which has the best reason on its side.
It must be confessed there is some truth in this, *hen the
words of the law are capable of different senses, and reason is
for one sense, and the other sense against reason, there it is fit,
that a plain and necessary reason should expound the law : but
when the law is not capable of such different senses, or there
is no such reason as makes one sense absurd, and the other
necessary, the law must be expounded according to the most
plain and obrious signification of the words, though it should
conderan that, which we think, there may be some reason for,
or at least no reason against ; for othervrise it is an easy
matter to expound away all the laws of God. To be sure all
men must grant that such reasons as destroy the law, or put
an absurd or impossible fence on it, are against the law, and
therefore must be rejected, how plausible soever they appear :
as for instance, some there are, who, to excuse the Church of
Rome from idolatry in worshipping saints, and angels, and the
Virgin Mary, positively affirm, that no man can be guilty of
idolatry, who worships one supreme God; as a late author
expressly teaches : " As for the invocation of saints, unless they
worship them as the suprerae God, the charge of idolatry is an
idle word ; and the adoration itself, which is given to them as
saints, is a direct protestation against idolatry, because it sup
poses a superior deity ; and that supposition cuts off the very
being of idolatry."* Now, not to examine what force there
• Reasons for abrogating the Test, p. 133.

AGAINST POPERY, 123
iis in this reason, our present inquiry is only, how this agrees
with the first coraraandment, " Thou shalt have none other
igods before me ?" Before my face, as it is in the Hebrew : which
supposes an acknowledgment of the supreme God, together
with other gods ; for otherwise, though they worship other
gods, they do not do it before the face of God, while they see
him, as it were, present before them : to worship other gods,
in the presence of the supreme God, or before his face, as that
phrase signifies, is to worship them together with him ; and
therefore this is well expressed by the Septuagint, by TrXijv kpov,
'besides me;' which supposes that they worshipped. him too.
And our Sariour expounds this law by " Thou shalt worship
the Lord thy God, and hira only shalt thou serve."* So that
this reason, that there can be no idolatry, where the Lord
Jehovah is worshipped as the supreme God, contradicts the
very letter of this law.
How then does this author get rid of the first command
ment ? Truly by laying it all aside : for he gives this as the
whole sense of the first commandment, that God enjoins the
worship of himself, who, by his Almighty power, had delivered
them from their Egyptian bondage. f -But is this all that
these words, " Thou shalt have no other gods before me," sig
nify ? The worship of God, indeed, is supposed in them ;
but the express words of the law, are not for the worship of
the Lord Jehovah, but against the worship of any other gods,
before hira, or besides him : but according to our new expo
sitor, this is no part of the law, though according to the express
words, it is the principal, if not the whole meaning of it.
If this argument be good, viz. that idolatry is nothing else,
but the worship of other beings besides the Lord Jehovah, as
suprerae gods, then other gods, in this coraraandment, must
signify other supreme gods ; and then the commandment runs
thus : " Thou shalt have no other supreme gods before me."
Now this is a very absurd sense, because it supposes, that men
may believe and worship more supreme gods than one ; for if
there can he but one supreme God, and by gods in the com
mandment, be meant supreme gods, then it is absurd to forbid
any man to have other supreme gods, because no man can
acknowledge two supremes : it should have been, " Thou shalt
not have any other God besides me," not " gods :" for though
it had been possible for thera to have acknowledged some other
* Matth. iv. 10, t Ibid, p, 80,

124 A PRESERVATIVE
God to be supreme, and rejected the Lord Jehovah from being
suprerae, yet they could not have other supreme gods. But
it is evident, that God here forbids the worship of a plurahty
of gods, of other gods ; and therefore they could not all be
suprerae gods.
But suppose it had been any other God in the single number,
yet to understand this of a supreme God, is very absurd ;
because there is no other supreme God, but the Lord Jehovah,
and those who worship but one supreme God, worship him,
and none else. For a supreme God is not to be pointed at, is
not to be distinguished by his person or feature, as one man is
distinguished from another : indeed a prince may properly say
to his subjects, you shall own none but me for your kmg,
because they know his person, and can distinguish him from
all other men. But the Jews never saw God, nor any likeness
or similitude of hira ; they were not acquainted with his person,
nor could they distinguish hira from other gods, by any
personal characters ; they knew him only by his notion and
character of the supreme Being, who made the world, and all
things in it, and brought them by a mighty hand out of the
land of Egypt, Now does it not sound very strange, that the
supreme God, who is known only by this character, that he is
Supreme, the great Creator and Sovereign Lord of the world,
should make a law, that we should worship no other supreme
God but himself ; when it is absolutely impossible, that he who
worships a supreme and sovereign God should worship any
other god but himself, because he alone is the supreme God?
and therefore those who worship the supreme God, under this
notion, as supreme, worship him, and no other being. So that,
if we vrill make sense of it, the meaning of the first command
ment is plainly this : " Thou shalt not give Divine honours to
any other beings, as to inferior gods, as the idolatrous practice
of the world now is, which worships a great many things for
gods ; but thou shalt worship only one suprerae and sovereign
Being, the Maker and sovereign Lord of the world, which is I
myself, the Lord Jehovah, who brought thee out of the land
of Egypt, out of the house of bondage," When the supreme
God commands us to worship himself, the meaning must be,
that we pay our worship and adorations to a supreme being,
considered as supreme ; and he who worships such a supreme
being, worships the tme God, whora we can distinguish from
false gods only by this character, that he is supreme : and when
this supreme Being forbids us to worship any other gods, it

AGAINST POPERY, 125
must signify, that we must worship nothing which is not
suprerae, not that we must not believe that which is not
supreme to be the supreme God ; which would be ridiculous
nonsense, to coraraand them not to own that Being for the
supreme God, which they know not to be supreme.
But it may be said, that the heathens did worship some
beings, who were not the supreme God, as supreme, as this
author tells us, they did the sun, though nobody told him so,
that I know of ; for Macrobius, whom he cites in this cause,
does not say, that they worshipped the sun as supreme God,
though he says, that most of the gods they worshipped, did
signify the sun : but suppose the sun were the chief object of
their worship, and looked on as the greatest and most princi
pal god ; this does not prove that they worshipped it as the
supreme God : for these are two very different things, to be
worshipped as the chief God, which such a people have, and
to be worshipped under the notion of absolute supreme. Some
Pagan idolaters might worship a creature as their chief and
greatest deity, and might caU it their great, their greatest god,
because it is the greatest god they have ; their king and prince
of gods, as Mr, Selden tells us, they called the sun, as being
the chief planet who directed and governed the infiuences of
the rest, not as the maker of the world, as this author asserts :
but those who direct their worship to a supreme and sovereign
being, considered as absolutely supreme, infinite in all perfec
tions, the Maker and Governor of the whole world, can under
this notion worship no other but the Lord Jehovah, because
there is no other supreme God but he. Which shews, that
the first commandment is so far from forbidding the worship of
other suprerae gods, besides the Lord Jehovah, that to make
sense of it, these other gods must be expounded, not of supreme,
but inferior deities ; and it is so far from being the notion of
idolatry, to worship other supreme beings, besides the Lord
Jehovah, that it is nonsense to suppose it. The true notion
of idolatry in the first commandment, is to worship some
inferior beings, together with the supreme God ; it is a grosser
sort of idolatry, when men wholly neglect the worship of the
supreme God, and worship some creature for their greatest and
chiefest god ; and it is worse still, when men worship bad
spirits, together with the supreme God : but it is erident this
law condemns the worship of any inferior beings, though we
do also worship the supreme God,
I shall give but one instance more of this nature, and that

126 A PRESERVATIVE
is, the second commandment, which in such express words,
forbids the worship of all images, of what kind or nature
soever. Now whatever reasons men may imagine there are
for the worship of images, they can be of no force against an
express law : and if these words be not express, " Thou shalt
not make to thyself any graven image," &c, I despair of ever
seeing an express law. For had God intended by this law to
forbid the worship of any images, under what notion or respects
soever, I would desire to know what more significant and com
prehensive words could have been used to have declared his
mind, unless he had expressly rejected those false interpreta
tions, which the patrons of image-worship have since invented,
but were never thought on at that tirae.
The same author, whom I have so often mentioned, haring
expounded the first commandment* only to a positive sense,
not to forbid the worship of other gods, but only to command
the worship of the Lord Jehovah, expressly contrary to the
very letter and plain sense of the law ; agreeably to this, he
makes the second commandment only to forbid the worship of
idols or false gods, and not that neither, unless they take them
for the suprerae Deity, His words are these :
" In the next place he forbids them the worship of all idols,
i. e. as himself describes them, the hkeness or similitude of any
thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in
the water under the earth, A plain and indeed a logical defi
nition this, that idolatry is giving the worship of the supreme
God to any created, corporeal, or visible deity, or any thing
that can be represented by an image, which nothing but
corporeal beings can, and to suppose such a being the supreme
Deity, is the only true and proper idolatry," Now let any
man judge, whether this be not such a gloss as utterly destroys
the text.
As for his worship of idols, there is no such word in the
law, but images, likenesses, similitudes ; but yet I wUl not
dispute about this, for an idol does not only signify a false
god, but the images either of false gods, or false and "corporeal
images of the true God, For the idols of the heathens, as the
Psalmist teUs us,t "are silver and gold, the work of men's
hands ;" which can relate to nothing but images and pictures ;
for corporeal deities, which were made by God, are not the
work of men's hands,
* Ibid, p, 30, t Psal, cxxxv, 15,

AGAINST POPERY, 127
Now idolatry, he says, " is giving the worship of the
supreme God to any created, corporeal, or risible deity, or any
thing which can be represented by an image, which nothing
but corporeal beings can," Now how plain and logical soever
this definition of idolatry be, there is not a word of it in the
text. That forbids not the worship of any created, corporeal,
or visible deity (which is forbid in the first commandment),
but only the worship of images, " the likeness of any thing in
heaven or earth, or in the water under the earth," Now an
image differs frora the thing whose image it is. And it is a
very strange exposition of the second commandment, which
forbids nothing else but the worship of images, to take no
notice of the worship of images as forbid in it. According to
this gloss upon the law, a man may worship ten thousand
images and pictures, so he do not worship any risible and
corporeal deity, and not break this commandment ; which I
think is not to give the sense of the law, but to expound it
away. But how does the worship of corporeal and visible deities,
and nothing else, appear to be forbid by this law, which
mentions nothing at all but the likeness of things in heaven,
and earth, and water ? Why, our learned author imagines
that no images can be made, but only for corporeal and risible
deities, because nothing but corporeal beings can be represented
by an image : which conceit is worth its weight in gold ; for
it evidently proves, that there are no pictures of God the
Father, nor of the Trinity, in the Church of Rorae, because
they are not corporeal deities, and therefore cannot be repre
sented by an iraage : so miserably have all travellers been
mistaken, who tell us of a great many such pictures, and not
very decent ones neither. There can, indeed, be no picture,
or image, to represent the likeness and similitude of an in
corporeal God, but yet the visible parts of heaven and earth,
and the visible creatures in them, may be represented by
images, and the images of such visible things may be made the
symbolical representations of invisible and incorporeal deities ;
and such inrisible and incorporeal deities may be worshipped in
the likeness and similitude of corporeal things ; and then I am
sure, to forbid the worship of images, may signify something
more than merely to forbid the worship of some risible and
corporeal deities ; for it may signify the worship of invisible
and incorporeal deities, by risible images. But I perceive he
imagined, that when God forbade them to make and worship

128 A PRESERVATIVE
the likeness of any thing in heaven, in earth, or in the waters
under the earth, he only forbade the worship of those beings,
whose likeness or images they made ; whereas all men know,
that those very idolaters who worshipped these glorious parts
of the creation, did not represent them in their proper like
nesses and figures ; and that those who worshipped invisible
and incorporeal beings, did it by material and visible figures ;
which plainly proves, that when God forbade the worship of
images, he had not respect merely to visible and corporeal
deities, but forbade image-worship, whether they were the
images of visible and corporeal, or of inrisible and incorporeal
deities. Our author durst not say (as the Roman advocates do), that
God in the second commandment only forbids the worship of
images as gods ; which is such glorious nonsense, that he
could not digest it : and therefore he supposes, that God does
not forbid the worship of images at all, but only of such
corporeal deities, as may be represented by images ; which is a
more genteel way of discarding the second commandment, than-
to leave it out of their books of devotions. But if he will
stand to this, he condemns the Popish worship of dead men
and women, for they are corporeal deities ; nay, of Christ
himself, considered as a man, who might be represented by an
image or picture. And thus I doubt he has done the Church
of Rome no kindness at all : for this is a demonstration against
the worship of saints, and the Virgin Mary, because they are
created, corporeal and risible beings, who may be represented
by images ; and he has thought of an argument against images,
which neither the Scripture, nor the Church of Rome, know
anything of: the Church of Rome thinks it a good argument
for the images of Christ, and the saints, and the Virgin Mary,
that they are representable by images and pictures ; and there
fore there can be no hurt in such images : and the Scripture
perpetuaUy urges that argument against images, that the Deity
cannot be represented by an image ; but neither of these
arguments are good, if our author's notion be good : for then
to worship such corporeal beings, as may be represented by
images, is to worship corporeal gods, which is idolatry. And
there is no danger in the images of an incorporeal deity, which
cannot represent the god for which they are made ; for what
ever the iraage be, this is not to worship a corporeal god,
since we know him to be incorporeal, and therefore it is not
idolatry.

AGAINST POPERY. 129
But he has one salvo stUl to excuse those from idolatry, who
worship even corporeal gods (for he speaks not a word of
worshipping the images of any "gods), that they are not
idolaters, unless they worship such corporeal gods, supposing
them to be the supreme deity ; whereby he explains what he
means by giring the worship of the supreme God to any
created, corporeal, or visible deity ; vis. to think such a God
to be the supreme God, is to worship it as supreme. And
thus those who worshipped the sun, not thinking him to be
the supreme God, but the chief minister of proridence under
the supreme God, with reference to this lower world, as most
of the sun-idolaters seemed to do, were not idolaters . Nay,
very few of the philosophers, though they worshipped their
country gods, were idolaters, because they either did not
believe them to be any gods, or at least not to be the supreme;
as it is certain Socrates, Plato, TuUy, and many others, did
not. But it is plain, that to worship the supreme God, is not
merely to suppose him to be supreme ; for St Paul tells us,
that there were some, who knew God, but did not worship him
as God : and therefore there is an external and visible worship,
which is due to the supreme God, as well as the belief, that
he is supreme. And if this worship which is due to the
supreme God, be given to any being which we ourselves do
not believe to be supreme, we are idolaters ; and then, though
we do not believe the gods we worship to be supreme, any
kind or degree of religious worship {or which is used as an
act of religion, not as coraraon and civil respects) is idolatry.
This commandment brings it as low as merely bovring to an
ithage, and then I doubt no other act of religious worship can
escape the charge of idolatry.
But though it is not my business to pursue this author, I
cannot pass over the very next paragraph, where he observes,
" though there may seem to be two sorts of it" (this idolatry
in worshipping corporeal beings) : " First, either to worship a
material and created being, as the supreme Deity : or, secondly,
to ascribe any corporeal form or shape to the Divine nature,
yet in result, both are but one ; for to ascribe unto the
supreme God any corporeal form, is the same thing as to
worship a created being, for so is every corporeal substance."
Which is a very wonderful paragraph : for thus some of the
ancient Christians, who believed God to be corporeal (as
Tertullian himself did), but yet did not believe that he was
VOL. XI. K

130 A PRESERVATIVE
created, but that he created all things, were as very idolaters,
as those who worshipped the sun or earth : and I would gladly
know, who those men are, who ascribe unto the supreme God,
a corporeal form, and yet think that he was created, I am
apt to think they differ a little in their phUosophy from our
author, and did believe that a corporeal supreme Deity might
be uncreated ; and then I suppose, there may be some differ
ence also between their worshipping a corporeal created, and a
corporeal uncreated God, at least if men's belief and opinions
of things makes a difference, as this author must allow ; for, if
I understand him, to worship a corporeal being, without
behering it to be supreme, does not make them idolaters ; but
if they believe it supreme, it does ; and by the same reason,
though to worship a suprerae corporeal created deity (if that
be not a contradiction) be idolatry, yet to worship a corporeal,
which they believe to be an uncreated deity, is no idolatry :
for though I beheve, vrith our author, that all corporeal beings
are created, yet I suppose, those who believed God to be
corporeal, did not believe that every thing that is corporeal
was created.
So that the first and second commandments are very plain
and express laws, the one forbidding the religious worship of
all inferior beings, corporeal or incorporeal, vrith or without
the supreme God, or forbidding the worship of all other beings
but the supreme God ; the other forbidding the external and
visible worship of any material images and pictures : and
though I am certain, there can be no good arguments to justify
such practices as are forbid by these laws, yet no Christian
need trouble himself to answer them ; for be they what they
wUl, it is a sufficient answer to them, to say, they are against
an express law.
2. Another rule is, in raatters of faith, or in such things as
can be known only by revelation, not to build our faith upon
any reason, without the authority of Scripture. That this
may be the better understood, I shall briefly shew what those
things are, which can be known only by revelation, and there
fore which every Protestant should demand a plain Scripture-
proof for, before he heheves them, whatever reasons are pre
tended for them : as,
1. Whatever depends solely upon the vrill and appointment
of God, which God might do, or might not do, as he pleased.
In such cases our only inquiry is, what God has done ? And
this can be known only by revelation ; for reason cannot

AGAINST POPERY. 131
discover it, because it depends not upon any necessary reason,
but on the free and arbitrary appointment of God: as St.
Paul teUs us, that as " no man knows the things of a man, but
the spirit of man, that is in him ; so no man knoweth the
things of God, but the Spirit of God :" that is, as no man can
tell the secret thoughts and purposes of a man, nor how he vriU
determine himself in matters of his own free choice and
election : so what depends purely upon the wiU of God, is
known only to the Spirit of God, and therefore can be made
known to us only by revelation.
Many such things there are in dispute between us and the
Church of Rome, which depends so entirely upon the vrill of
God, that they may be, or may not be, as God pleases. As
for instance :
No man, or company of men, can be infallible, unless God
bestow infallibility on them ; for infallibility is not a natural
endowment, but a supernatural gift ; and therefore no reason
can prove the Bishop of Rorae, or a General Council to be in
fallible. God may make them infallible if he pleases, and if
he pleases, he may not do it : and therefore our only inquiry
here is, what God has done ? And this can be known only by
revelation. Thus that the Church of Rome only, and those Churches
that are in communion with her, should be the Catholic
Church, and the Bishop of Rome the CEcumenical pastor, and
the centre of Catholic unity, must depend wholly upon insti
tution ; for nothing but the vrill and appointment of God, can
give this pre-eminence and prerogative to the Church and
Bishop of Rome, above all other Churches and bishops. No
reason then can prove this vrithout plain and express Scripture
to prove such an institution.
Were there nothing in Scripture or reason to prove, that
the sacrament of the Lord's Supper is not a propitiatory sacrifice
for the liring and the dead, yet no reason can prove, that it
is : for the rirtue and acceptation of a sacrifice, entirely
depends upon the vrill and appointment of God, at least so far,
that no sacrifice can be propitiatory vrithout it : and therefore
there can be no other proof, that the Mass is a propitiatory
sacrifice, but the declaration of God's vrill and institution, that
it shall be so.
2. Those things can also be proved only by Scripture, which
are done in the other world, which is an unknown and inrisible
state to us, any farther than the Scripture has revealed it :
K 2

132 A PRESERVATIVE
and men may more reasonably expect to find out, by the power
of reason, what is done every day in China, or the most remote
and unknown parts of the earth, than what is done in the
other world. And then there are a great many things wherein
you must reject all pretences to reason, any farther than it is
supported by plain and erident Scripture, As to give some
instances of this also :
1 . No reason can prove, that there is such a place as purga
tory, for that is an invisible place in the other world ; if there
be any such place, no man living ever saw it ; and then
how can any man know, that there is such a place, unless it
be revealed ? To attempt to prove that there is such a place
as purgatory, merely by reason, is just as if a man, who had
some general notion of an inquisition, but never had any credi
ble information, that there actually was any such place, should
undertake, to prove by reason, that there is and must be such a
place as the inquisition.; though he should happen to guess
right, yet it is certain his reasons signified nothing ; for some
countries have the inquisition, and some have not ; and therer
fore there might have been no inquisition any where, how strong
soever the reasons for it might be thought to be. We may as
well describe by the power of reason, the world in the mooUj
and what kind of inhabitants there are there, by what laws
they live, what their business, what their pleasures, and what
their punishments are, as pretend to prove that there is a purr
gatory in the next world, for they are both equally unknown to
us ; and if reason cannot prove that there is such a place as
purgatory, nothing else which relates to purgatory, can be proved
by reason,
2, Nor can we know what the state of saints in heaven is,
without a revelation, for no man has been there to see : the
state of the other world is such things as neither eye hath
seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of
man to conceive. And then I cannot understand how- we
should know these things by reason.
The Church of Rorae teaches us to pray to saints, , and, to
fly to their help and aid. And there are a great many things
which a vrise man would desire to know, before he can think it
fit to pray to them ; which yet it is irapossible to know, with
out a revelation : as, whether the saints we direct our prayeM
to, be in heaven ? Which is very fit to be known, and yet can
certainly be known but of a very few of that vast number,
that are worshipped in the Church of Rome ; the Apostles of

AGAINST POPERY. 13.'?
Christ, and the Virgin Mary, we have reason to believe are in
heaven, and we may hope well of others, but we cannot know
it : no man can see who is there, and bare hope, how strong
soever, is not a sufficient foundation for such a religious invoca
tion of unknovm saints, who, after all our persuasions that
they are in heaven, may be in hell, or at least in purgatory,
where they want our prayers, but are not in a condition to
intercede for us.
¦ ¦. ; Thus it is very necessary to know, what the power and
. autjjority of the saints in heaven is, before we pray to them ;
for it is to no purpose to pray to them, unless we know they can
help us. The Council of Trent recommends to us the invoca
tion of saints, as of those who reign vrith Christ in heaven, and
therefore have power and authority to present our petitions,
and procure those blessings we pray for. And if I could find
^ny such thing in Scripture, it would be a good reason to pray
to them ; but all the arguments in the world cannot prove this,
vrithout a revelation : they may be in heaven, and not be medi
ators and advocates.
¦ Thus, whatever their power and authority may be, it is to no
purpose to pray to thera, unless we are sure that they hear our
prayers ; and this, nothing but a revelation can assure us of ;
for no natural reason can assure us, that mere creatures, as the
most glorious saints in heaven are, can hear our soft, nay,
mental prayers, at such a vast distance, as there is between
heaven and earth.
Such matters as these, which reason can give us no assurance
of, if they be to be proved at all, must be proved by Scripture;
and therefore, as the pretence of proring these things byr
reason, is vain, so no Protestant should be so vain, as to trouble
himself to answer such reasons.
But you will say, the Papists do pretend to prove these things
by Scripture. I answer, so far it is very well ; and I only
desire our Protestant to keep them to the Scripture proofs,
and to reject all their reasons ; and then let them see what
- they can make of it. As for Scripture proofs, they shall be
considered presently.
3. More particularly you must renounce all such reasons, as
amount to no more than some may-bes, and possibUities ; for
what only may be, may not be, and every thing that is possible,
is not actually done. As for instance : when you ask these
men, how you can be assured, that the saints in heaven can
hear our prayers ? They offer to shew you by what ways this

134 A PRESERVATIVE
may be done : they may see all things in the glass of the
Trinity, and thereby know aU things that God knows. Which
is but a may-be ; and yet it is a more likely may-be, that there
is no such glass as gives the saints a comprehensive riew of
aU that is in God. Well, but God can reveal aU the prayers
to the saints, which are made to them on earth. Very right !
we dispute not God's power to do this, but desire to know,
whether he does it or not ; and his bare power to do it, does
not prove that : but the saints in heaven may be informed of
what is done on earth, by those who go from hence thither, or
by those ministering angels, who frequently pass between
heaven and earth : but this may not be too ; and if it were, it
would not answer the purposes of devotion : for in this way of
intercourse, the news may come too late to the saints, to whom
we pray, to do us any good : as, suppose a man pray to the
Virgin Mary in the hour of death, or in a great storm at sea,
the man may be dead, and shipwrecked, before the Virgin
knows of his prayers, and may carry the first news of it into
the other world himself. Such kind of may-bes and conjec
tures as these, are a very sorry foundation for an infallible
Church to buUd her faith on.
4. You must reject also all such reasons in divine and
spiritual things, as are drawn from earthly patterns. A con
sidering man would a little wonder, how a Papist should so
punctually determine what is done in the other world, without
speaking vrith any one who has seen it, and vrithout having
any revelation about it, as I have already observed ; but who
ever considers many of their arguments, vriU soon find that
they make this world the pattern of the next, and reason from
sensible to spiritual things.
Thus the true foundation of saint worship is, that men
judge of the court of heaven by the courts of earthly princes :
the most effectual way to obtain any request of our prince, is
to address ourselves to some powerful favourite ; and they take
it for granted that all saints and angels in heaven are such
favourites, and can obtain whatever they ask ; and therefore
they pray very devoutly to them, and beg their intercession
with God and their Sariour. Especially in earthly courts, the
queen-mother is supposed to have a powerful influence upon the
young prince her son ; and therefore they do not doubt but
the Virgin Mary, the mother of Christ, can do what she
pleases vrith her Son : and since it is generally observed, that
women are more soft and tender, and compassionate, than men,

AGAINST POPERY. 135
they hope to gain that hy her intercession, which he, who died
for them, would not grant without it ; and therefore they beg
her to shew herself to be a mother, that is, to take the autho
rity of a mother upon her, and command her Son. Thus princes
and great raen love to have their pictures set up in public
places, and to have all ciril respects paid to them, which re
dounds to the honour of those whose pictures they are ; and
therefore they imagine that this is as acceptable to Christ, and
the saints, as it is to men ; as if the other world were nothing
else but a new scene of sense and passion.
Mankind is very apt to such kind of reasonings as these ;
and indeed they can have no other, when they will undertake
to guess at unseen, and unknown things : but if there be any
difference between the court of heaven and earth, if pure
spirits, who are separated from flesh and sense, have other
passions and resentments, than men have ; that is, if we must
not judge of spiritual things by sense, of the govemment of
God by the passions of men, then such reasonings as these
may betray us to absurd and foolish superstitions, but are a
very ill foundation for any new and uncommanded acts of
worship. 5. Never admit any arguments merely from the usefulness,
conveniency, or supposed necessity of any thing, to prove that
it is. As for instance : a supreme oecumenical bishop, and aa
infallible judge of controversies, are thought absolutely neces
sary to the unity of the Church, and certainty of faith, and
confounding of schisms and heresies. If there be not a suprerae
pastor, there can be no unity ; if there be not an infallible
judge, there can be no certainty in religion; every man must
be left to his own private judgment, and then there vrill be as
many different religions, as there are faces. Now if I thought
all this were true (as I beheve not a word of it is), I should only
conclude, that it is great pity that there is not an tmiversal pastor
and infalhble judge instituted by Christ ; but if you would
have me conclude from these premises, ergo, there is an univer
sal bishop and head of the Church, and an infalhble judge of
controversies, I must beg your pardon for that ; for such
arguments as these do not prove that there is such a judge, but
only that there ought to be one, and therefore I must conclude
no more from them. Indeed, this is a very fallacious way of
reasoning, because what we may call useful, convenient, neces
sary, may not be so in itself ; and we have reason to believe it
is not so, if God have not appointed what we think so useful,

136 A PRESERVATIVE
convenient, or necessary ; which is a more trae, and more=
modest way of reasoning, than to conclude that God has ap
pointed su"ch a judge, when no such thing appears, only because
we think it so useful and necessary, that he ought to do it.
These directions are sufficient to preserve all considering
Protestants from being imposed on by the fallacious reasonmgs
of Papists, Sect. II.
Concerning Scripture Proofs.
2. Let us now consider their Scripture proofs, though it is
not choice, but necessity, which puts them upon this trial :
when they have good Catholics to deal with, a httle Scripture
will serve the turn, but heretics will be satisfied -with nothmg
else ; and therefore in disputing vrith them, they are forced to
make some little show and appearance of proring their doctrine
by Scripture ; but they come very unwillingly to it, and make
as much of a little, as may be. The truth is, there is eridence
enough, for they have no great confidence in the Scriptufe
themselves, and therefore do not deal honestly and fairly with
poor heretics, when they raake their boasts of Scripture.
For did they believe that their doctrines which they endear
vour to prove from Scripture, were plainly and eridently con
tained in them, why should they deny the people the liberty
of reading the Scriptures ? If the Scriptures be for them,
why should they be against the Scriptures 1 The common
pretence is, that those who are unlearned, put very wild senses
upon Scripture, and expound it by their own fancies ; which,
in many cases indeed, is too true : but why should the Church
of Rome be more afraid of this, than other Protestant
Churches ? If they think the Scripture is as much for them,
as we think it for us, why dare they not venture this as well
as we ? We are not afraid men should read the Scripture,
though we see what wild interpretations some put on thera,
because we are certain we can prove our faith by Scripture,
and are able to satisfy all honest men, who will impartially
study the Scriptures, that we give the true sense of them ; and
if they believed, they could do so to, why do they avoid this
trial, whenever they can ? For though they admit people to
dispute from the Scripture in England, where they cannot help
it, yet they will not allow them so much as to see the Scrip-

AGAINST POPERY. 137
tures in Italy or Spain, where they have power to hinder it :
nay, they themselves do in effect confess, that the pecuhar
doctrines and practices of their religion, wherein they differ
from all other Christian Churches, cannot be proved by
Scripture. And therefore, to help thera out, where the Scrip
ture fails, they fly to unwritten traditions, which they make
of equal authority with the Scriptures themselves ; which they
would never do, were they not convinced, that the Scriptures
are not so plain on their side, as to satisfy any man, who has
not already given himself up to the Church of Rome with an
implicit faith.
And therefore, before you enter into any debate about the
sense of any particular texts of Scripture, and their way of
pro-ring their particular doctrines frora Scripture, ask them
two questions ; without a plain answer to which, it is to no
purpose to dispute with them out of Scripture,
Ask first, whether they vrill aUow the holy Scriptures to be
a complete and perfect rule of faith ; that no Christian ought
to receive any doctrine for an article of faith, which cannot be
proved from Scripture? This, to be sure, they must not
allow, unless they vrill reject the Council of Trent, which gives
as venerable an authority to tradition, as to Scripture itself:
since -then they have two rules. Scripture and tradition ; when
they pretend to dispute fr6m Scripture, it is reasonable to know
of them, whether they will stand to Scripture, and reject such
a doctrine, if it cannot be plainly proved out of Scripture : for
if they vrill not stand to this, they give up their cause, and
there is no need to dispute with them : for why should I dis
pute with any man from Scripture, who will not stand to the
determination of Scripture ? We Protestants, indeed, do
own the authority of Scripture ; and what we see plainly
proved out of Scripture, we must abide by : which is reason
enough for us to examine the Scripture proofs, which are pro
duced by our adversaries. But it is sufficient to make them
blush, if they had any modesty, to pretend to prove their doc
trines from Scriptures, when they themselves do not believe
them merely upon the authority of Scripture, and dare not
put their cause upon that issue ; which gives a just suspicion,.
that they are conscious to themselves, that their Scripture
proofs are not good, and should make Protestants very careful,
how they are imposed on them. To dispute upon such prin
ciples as are not owned on both sides, can establish nothing,
though it may blunder and confound an adversary ; it is only

138 A PRESERVATIVE
a trial of wit, where the subtlest disputant vrill have the vie-. :
tory ; and it is not worth the while for any man to dispute
upon these terms.
This is not to reject the authority of Scriptures, because
the Papists reject it, which no Protestant can or wfll do, but
it is an effectual way for men, who are not skilled in disputa
tions, to deliver themselves from the troublesome importuni
ties of Popish priests, when learned men, who can detect
their fallacies are out of the way. Let them but ask them,
whether all the peculiar doctrines of the Church of Rome can
be proved by plain Scripture eridence ? If they say, they
can ; then they must reject the necessity of unwritten tradi
tions, and acknowledge the Scripture to be a coraplete and
perfect rule of faith. A point, which I believe, no under
standing priest vrill yield. If they say, they cannot ; ask
them, with what confidence they pretend to prove that from
Scripture, which they confess is not in it ? Why they go
about to impose upon you, and to persuade you to believe
that upon the authority of Scripture, which they themselves
confess, is not, at least not plainly, contained in Scripture,
2, Ask such disputants, who allege the authority of Scrip
ture, to prove their Popish doctrines, how they themselves
know what the sense of Scripture is, and how you shaU know
it ? For it is a ridiculous undertaking to prove anything by
Scripture, unless there be a certain way of finding out the
sense of Scripture, Now there can be but three ways of doing
this, either by an infallible interpreter, or by the unanimous
consent of primitive Fathers, or hy such human means as are
used to find out the sense of other books,
I, If they say, we must leam the sense of Scripture from
an infallible interpreter ; tell them, this is not to dispute, but
to beg the cause. They are to prove from Scripture, the doc
trines of the Church of Rome ; and to do this, they would
have us take the Church of Rome's exposition of Scripture.
And then we had as good take her word for all, vrithout dis
puting. But yet,
1 , They know, that we reject the pretences of an infallible
interpreter : we own no such infallible judge of the sense of
Scripture, And therefore, at least, if they vriU dispute with
us, and prove their doctrines by Scripture, they must fetch
their proofs from the Scriptures themselves, and not appeal to
an infallible interpreter, whom we disown : which is like ap
pealing to a judge in ciril matters, whom one of the contend-

AGAINST POPERY, 139
ing parties thinks incompetent, and to whose judgment they
will not stand, which is never likely to end any controversy :
and yet they cannot quit an infallible interpreter, without
granting, that we may understand the Scriptures without such
an interpreter, which is to give up the cause of infallibility,
2, One principal dispute between us and the Church of
Rome, is about this infallible interpreter ; and they know that
we vrill not own such an interpreter, unless they can prove
from Scripture, that there is such an one, and who he is. The
inquiry then is, how we shall] learn from Scripture, that there
is such an infallible interpreter? that is, who shall expound
those Scriptures to us, which must prove that there is an
infaUible interpreter ? If without an infallible interpreter, we
cannot find out the true sense of Scripture, how shall we know
the true sense of Scripture, before we know this infallible in
terpreter ? For an interpreter, how infallible soever he be,
cannot interpret Scripture for us, before we know him : and if
we must know this infallible interpreter by Scripture, we must
at least understand those Scriptures, which direct us to this
infallible interpreter, without his assistance. So that of neces
sity, some Scriptures must be understood without an infallible
interpreter, and therefore he is not necessary for the interpre
tation of all Scripture : and then I desire to know, why other
Scriptures may not be understood the same way, by which we
must find out the meaning of those texts which direct us to
an infallible interpreter ? There are a hundred places of Scrip
ture, which our adversaries must grant, are as plain and easy
to be understood as those : and we believe it as easy a matter
to find all the other Trent articles in Scripture, as the supre
macy and infallibility of the bishop of Rome, If ever there
needed an infaUible interpreter of Scripture, it is to prove such
an infaUible interpreter from Scripture ; but upon this occa
sion he cannot be had, and if we may make shift without him
here, we may as well spare him in all other cases,
3. Suppose we were satisfied from Scripture, that there is
such an infaUible interpreter, yet it were worth knowing, where
his infaUible interpretation is to be found ; for if there be such
au interpreter who never interprets, I know not how either
they or we shall understand Scripture the better for him :
now, have either Popes or General Councils given us an au
thentic and infallible exposition of Scripture ? I know of none
such : aU the expositions of Scripture in the Church of Rome,
are writ by private doctors, who were far enough from being

140 A PRESERVATIVE
infallible ; and the business of General Councils, was not to
expound Scripture, but to define articles of faith : and there
fore we find the sense of very few texts of Scripture synodi-
cally defined by any General CouncU : I think, not above four
or five by the Council of Trent, So that after aU their talk
of an infallible interpreter, when they undertake to expound
particular texts, and to dispute vrith us about the sense of
them, they have no more infallibihty in this, than we ha-fe ;
for if they have an infalhble interpreter, they areneier^^he betr
ter for him, for he has not given them an infaUible interpreta
tion, and therefore they are forced to do as Protestants do,
interpret Scripture according to their own skill and under
standing, which, I suppose, they wUl not say, is impossible* >
But you will say, though the Church has not given us an
infallible interpretation of Scripture, yet she has given us an
infallible exposition of the faith, and that is an infaUible rule
for expounding Scripture, I answer, there is a vast difference
between these two : for our dispute is' not about the sense of
their Church, but about the sense of the Scripture ; we know
what doctrines their Church has defined, but we desire to see
them proved frora Scripture : and is it not a very modest and
pleasant proposal, when the dispute is, how their faith agrees
with Scripture, to make their faith the rule of expounding
Scripture ? Though, I confess, that is the only way I know
of, to make their faith and the Scriptures agree ; but this
brings the Scripture to their faith, does not prove their faith
from Scripture,
II, As for expounding Scripture by the unaniraous consent
of primitive Fathers : this is indeed the rule which the Coun
cil of Trent gives, and which their doctors swear to observe;
how well they keep this oath, they ought to consider. Now
as to this, you may tell them, that you would readily pay a
great deference to the unanimous consent of Fathers, could
you tell how to know it ; and therefore, in the first place, you
desire 'to know the agreement of how many Fathers makes
an unanimous consent : for you have been told, that there
hath been as great variety in interpreting Scripture among
the ancient Fathers, as among our modern interpreters ; that
there are very few, if any controverted texts of Scripture,
which are interpreted by an unanimous consent of all the
Fathers. If this unanimous consent then signify all the Fa
thers, we shaU be troubled to find such a consent in expound
ing Scripture, Must it then be the unanimous consent of the

AGAINST POPERY. 141
greatest number of Fathers ? This will be a very hard thing,
especially for unlearned men, to tell noses : we can know the
opinion only of those Fathers who were the writers in every
age, and whose writings have been preserved down to us ; and
who can tell, whether the major numbers of those Fathers
who did not write, or whose writings are lost, were of the
same mind with those whose writings we have ? And why
must the major part be always the wisest and best men ? And
if they were not, the consent of a few wise men, is to be pre
ferred before great numbers of other expositors.
Again, ask them, whether these Fathers were infallible, or
traditionary expositors of Scripture, or whether they expounded
Scripture according to their own private reason and judgment :
if they were infalhble expositors, and delivered the traditionary
sense and interpretation of Scripture, it is a little strange, how
they should differ in their expositions of Scripture, and as
strange how private doctors and bishops should in that age
come to be infallible, and how they should lose it in this ; for
now infallibility is confined to the Bishop of Rome, and a
General Council. If they were not infallible expositors, how
comes their interpretation of Scripture to be so sacred, that it
must not be opposed ? Nay, how comes an infallible Church
to prescribe such a fallible rule of interpreting Scriptures ? If
they expounded Scripture according to their own reason and
judgment, as it is plain they did ; then their authority is no
more sacred than their reason is ; and those are the best expo
sitors, whether ancient or modern, whose expositions are
backed with the best reasons. We think it a great confirma
tion of our faith, that the Fathers of the Church, in the first
and best ages, did believe the same doctrines, and expound
Scripture in great and conceming points, much to the same
sense that we do ; and therefore we refuse not to appeal to
them, but yet we do not wholly build our faith upon the
authority of the Fathers ; we forsake thera where they forsake
the Scriptures, or put perverse senses on them ; and so does
the Church of Rome too, after all their boast of the Fathers,
when they contradict the present Roman Catholic faith, as they
do very often, though I believe without any malicious design,
because they knew nothing of it.
However, ask them once more, whether that sense which
they give of those texts of Scripture, which are controverted
between us and the Church of Rome, be confirmed by the
unanimous consent of all the ancient Fathers : whether, for

142 A PEESEEVATIVE
instance, all the ancient Fathers did expound those texts,
" Thou art Peter, and on this rock vrill I build my Church,"
and "feed my sheep," &c, of the personal supremacy and infal
libihty of Peter and his successors the bishops of Rome?
Whether they all expounded those words, " This is ray body,"
of the transubstantiation of the eleraents of bread and vrine into
the natural flesh and blood of Christ? And those words,
" Drink ye all of this," to signify, let none drink of the cup,
but the priest who consecrates ? And so in other Scriptures.
If they have the confidence to say, that aU the Fathers
expounded these and such like Scriptures, as the doctors of the
Church of Rome now do, tell them, you have heard and seen
other expositions of such Scriptures cited from the ancient
Fathers by our Dirines, and that you will refer that cause to
them, and have it tried whenever they please.
III. There is no other way then left of understanding Scrip
ture, but to expound it as we do other writings ; by consider
ing the signification and propriety of words and phrases, the
scope and context of the place, the reasons of things, the
analogy between the Old and New Testament, and the like :
when they dispute with Protestants, they can reasonably
pretend to no other way of expounding Scripture, because we
admit of no others ; and yet if they allow of this, they open a
vride gap for aU heresies to come into the Church ; they give
up the authority of the Church, and make every man his own
pope, and expose themselves to all the senseless raillery of
their admired Pax Vobis. By this they confess, that the
Scripture may be understood by reason, that they can back
their interpretations vrith such powerful arguments, as are able
to conrince heretics, who reject the authority of an infallible
intei-preter : and then they may unsay all their hard sayings
against the Scriptures, that " they are dark and obscure dead
letters, unsensed characters, mere figured ink and paper ;" they
must recant all their raUlery against expounding Scripture by
a private spirit, and allowing every man to judge of the sense
of it, and to choose what he pleases : for thus they do them
selves, when they dispute with heretics about the sense of
Scripture ; and I am pretty confident, they would never speak
against Scripture, nor a private spirit more, if this private
spirit would but make us converts ; but the mischief is, a
private spirit, if it have any tmcture of sense and reason,
seldom expounds Scripture to a Roman Cathohc sense.
So that m truth, it is a vain, nay, a dangerous thing for

AGAINST POPERY. 143
Papists to dispute with Protestants about the sense of Scrip
ture ; for it betrays the cause of the Church, and vindicates the
Scriptures, and every man's natural right of judging from the
usurpations and encroachments of a pretended infallibility ; but
yet dispute they do, and attempt to prove their doctrines from
Scripture. And because it is too large a task for this present
undertaking, to examine all their Scripture proofs, I shall
only observe some general faults they are guilty of, which who
ever is aware of, is in no danger of being imposed on by their
pretences to Scripture : and I shall not industriously multiply
particulars, for there are some few palpable mistakes, which
run through most of their Scripture proofs.
1 . As first, many of their Scripture proofs are founded upon
the hkeness of a word or phrase, vrithout any regard to the
sense and significatiou of that word in Scripture, or to the
matter to which it is apphed ; as for instance, there is not a
more useful doctrine to the Church of Rome, than that of
unwritten traditions, which are of equal authority vrith the
Scriptures ; for were this owned, they might put what novel
doctrines they pleased upon us, under the venerable name of
ancient and unwritten traditions. Well, we deny that there
are any such unwritten traditions, which are of equal authority
vrith the Scripture, since the canon of Scripture was written
and perfected, and desire them to prove that there are any
such unwritten traditions. Now they think it sufficient to
do this, if they can but find the word tradition in Scripture ;
and that we confess they do in several places : for tradition
signifies only the delivery of the doctrine of the Gospel, which
we grant was not done perfectly in writing, when those epistles
were written, which speak of traditions, by word, as well as by
epistle.* But because the whole doctrine of the Gospel was
not written at first, but deUvered by word of mouth, does it
hence follow, that after the Gospel is written, there are still
unwritten traditions of equal authority vrith the Scripture ?
This is what they should prove ; and the mere naming of tra
ditions in Scripture, before the canon was perfected, does not
prove this : for all men know, that the Gospel was delivered
by word of mouth, or by unwritten tradition, before it was
written ; but this does by no means prove, that there are
unwritten traditions, after the Gospel was written. To prove
this, they should shew us where it is said, that there are some
• 1 Thess, ii, 15.

144 A PRESERVATIVE
traditions that shall never be written, that the rule of faith
shall always consist partly of written, partly of unwritten
traditions. Thus we know how zealous the Church of Rorae is for their
purgatory fire, wherein all men, who are in a state of grace, or
delivered from the guilt of their sins, must yet undergo that
punishment of them, which has not been satisfied for by other
means. As profitable a doctrine as any the Church of Rome
has, because it gives great authority to sacerdotal absolution,
and sets a good price upon masses for the dead, and indul
gences : and yet the best proof they have for this is that fire
mentioned 1 Cor, iii, 13, 14, 15 : "Every man's work shall
be made manifest : for the day shall declare it, because it shall
be revealed by fire, and the fire shall declare every man's work
of what sort it is, — If any man's work shall be burnt, he shall
suffer loss : but he himself shall be saved, but so as by fire,"
Now here is mention of fire indeed ; but how does it appear
to be the Popish purgatory ? Suppose it were meant of a
material fire, though that does not seem so proper to try good
or bad actions, a true and orthodox or heretical faith, yet this
fire is not kindled till the day of judgment, which is eminently
in Scripture called the day, and is the only day we know of in
Scripture, which shall be revealed by fire, when the " Lord
Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in
flaming flre," 2 Thess, i, 7, 8, So that here is nothing but
the word fire, appUed to another fire, than St. Paul ever
thought on, to prove a Popish purgatory.
Thus they make confession to a priest ordinarily necessary
to obtain the forgiveness of our sins ; and have no better
Scripture proofs for it, but that we are often commanded to con
fess our sins, sometimes to God, and sometimes to one another,
but never to a priest.
They have made a sacrament of extreme unction, wherein
the sick person is anointed for the forgiveness of sins ; and
though a sacrament ought to have the most plain and express
institution, both as to the matter and form, and use, and end
of it, yet the only proofs they produce for this, is the disciples
working miraculous cures by anointing the sick vrith oil, Mark
vi. 13, which methinks is a httle different from the sacrament
of extreme unction, which is not to cure their sickness, but to
forgive their sins; and St. James's command,* "Is any sick
* James v, 14, 15,

AGAINST POPERY, 145
among you? Let him caU for the elders of the Church, and let
them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the
Lord : and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the
Lord shall raise him up ; and if he have committed sins, they
shall be forgiven him," Where anointing with oil, joined with
fervent prayer, is prescribed as a means of restoring the sick
person to health again ; and therefore is not the Popish extreme
unction, which is to be administered only to those who are
dying: and though St, James adds, "And if he have com
mitted sins, they shall be forgiven him :" yet, 1, This is not
said to be the effect of anointing, but of the fervent prayer :
and 2, This very forgiveness of sins does not refer to a plenary
pardon of sins in the other world, but signifies the reraoval of
the visible and sensible punishments of sin, in restoring the
sick person to health again. That though such sickness was
inflicted on him for his sins, and possibly were the effects of
Church censures, which in those days were confirraed and
ratified by bodily punishments, yet upon his reconcihation to
the Church, and the prayers of the elders, and the cereraony
of anointing, he should be restored to health again, which was
an external and visible reraission of his sins, and should be a
plenary pardon, if he brought forth the true and genuine
fraits of repentance : this is very natural, and very agreeable to
tbe scope and design of the text, and differs as much from the
Popish extreme unction, as their greatest adversaries could
wish. Such kind of proofs as these are merely the work of
fancy and imagination, and can impose upon no man who will
but attend to the different use and signification of words,
2, Another grand fault our Roman adversaries are guilty of
is, that their Scripture proofs are always very lame and imper
fect, that is, that they never prove their whole doctrine from
Scripture, but only some httle part of it : they draw very fine
and artificial schemes, and if they can find some little appear
ance in Scripture to countenance any one part of it, they take
that for a proof of the whole. As for instance :
Thus they tell us, that Christ made Peter the prince of the
Apostles, and the head of the universal Church, his own ricar
upon earth ; and that the bishops of Rome, who are St, Peter's
successors, succeed Dot only to his chair, but to all the rights
and prerogatives of St, Peter ; and therefore the Bishop of
Rome, also is the Head of the Church, the CEcumenical pastor,
who neither wants St, Peter's keys or sword. This is a very
notable point, if it were well proved ; but, as I observed before,
yoL, XI. L

146 A PRESERVATIVE
this being a matter of pure institution, which depends wholly
upon the wiU of God, it can be proved only by Scripture : how
much then of this do they pretend to prove from Scripture?
Why, they wUl prove by Scripture, that St, Peter was the
prince of the Apostles, because Christ said unto him, " Thou
art Peter, and on this rock I vrill buUd my church :" and "I
will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven ;" and
" Feed my sheep ;" which indeed are lamentable proofs, for the
same power was given to all the Apostles ; John xx, 21, 22,
23, "Then said Jesus unto them. Peace be unto you: as my
Father sent me, even so I send you," all of you ; and therefore
not one in subjection to another, but all with equal power :
" And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith
unto them. Receive ye the Holy Ghost ; whosesoever sins ye
remit, they are remitted unto them ; and whosesoever sins ye
retain, they are retained," Accordingly, on the day of Pente
cost, the Holy Ghost fell on them all, they were all endowed
vrith the gift of tongues, and miracles, and prophecy ; they all
had the same infallible Spirit, and therefore needed no superior
head over them : they were to be separated into all parts of
the world, where they could have no communication with each
other, and therefore could have no universal head. The history
of the Acts of the Apostles gives not the least intimation of
any such superiority, which either St, Peter chaUenged, or the
other Apostles paid him ; which are strong presumptions against
such a supremacy of St, Peter : and I suppose they them
selves will grant, that all the rest of the Apostles were as
infalhble as he.
But suppose that we should grant them, that St, Peter was
the chief of the Apostles, and had a kind of primacy, not of
govemment, but order, how do they prove from Scripture that
the bishop of Rome succeeds in aU the rights and prerogatives of
St, Peter ? For unless this be proved, whatever prerogative
St, Peter had, it signifies nothing to them : and yet this cannot
be proved, but by institution ; for though Christ had bestowed
a primacy on St, Peter, yet unless he expressly grant it to his
successors too, nay, to his successors in the see of Rome, his
primacy as being a personal prerogative, must die with his
person : as a prince may grant a priority to persons in the
same office and power, may make a first colonel, or a first
captain; but if these men to whom the presidency is given,
die, or are removed, those who succeed in their ofiice and

AGAINST POPERY, 147
power, to the same regiment or company, do not therefore
succeed to their priority too ; for this did not belong to their
office, but to their persons, and the king may give the priority
again to whom he pleases, or appoint them to succeed in
course, according to their admission into such offices. And
by the same reason, the primacy of the Roman bishops, who
are St, Peter's successors, does not foUow from the primacy of
St, Peter, unless they can shew that Christ has given them
the primacy also, as weU as St, Peter ; and this must be proved
from Scripture, because it is matter of institution, and no
argument in the world can prove any thing, which depends
solely upon an institution, vrithout proring the institution : but
this the Roman doctors never pretend to ; for they know, that
there is not one word in Scripture about it ; and nothing but
the authority of Scripture can prove a divine institution. So
that could they prove the primacy of St, Peter frora Scripture,
they prove but half their point, and that the most inconsiderable
half too, for it does them no good. And therefore when they
make a great noise about St, Peter's primacy and prerogatives,
never trouble yourselves to dispute that point with them, which
is nothing to the purpose ; but to require them to prove from
Scripture, that the bishop of Home, as St, Peter's successor,
is appointed by Christ to be the supreme oecumenical bishop,
and the prince of all bishops. And if you stick here, as in
reason you ought, there is an end of that controversy.
Thus there is nothing the Church of Rome makes a greater
noise about, than infallibihty, though they are not agreed
where to place this infallibility, whether in the Pope, or a General
Council : but let it be where it will, this being a matter of
institution, must be proved by Scripture: how then in the
first place do they prove the Pope to be infallible ? That they
think is very plain, because Christ says, " Thou art Peter, and
upon this rock will I build ray Church, and the gates of hell
shall not prevail against it," But how does this prove, that
the bishop of Rome is infallible ? for here is not a word of the
bishop of Rome Yes, this proves St, Peter to be infallible,
who was afterwards bishop of Rome, and therefore all his
successors are infallible too. Now that St, Peter was infallible,
as all the other Apostles were, we readily grant ; though, I
think, this text does not prove it : but does this prove the
bishop of Rome's infallibility ? Just as St, Peter's primacy
proves the Pope to be the oecumenical primate : they thera-
l2

148 A PRESERVATIVE
selves must grant, that an infallible Apostle may have a falhble
bishop for his successor ; or else they must either deny, that
the rest of the Apostles, as well as St, Peter, were infalhble, or
they must grant, that all the Apostles' successors, that is, all
the bishops who succeeded any of the Apostles in their sees,
raust be as infallible as the bishops of Rome, who succeeded
St, Peter ; and then there vrill be so much infalhbility, that it
will be worth nothing : if then there be not a natural and
necessary entail of infallibility upon the successors of infalhble
Apostles, they must shew us an express institution, which
makes the successors of Peter at Rorae infallible. And let
our Protestant deraand this, before he owns the infalhbility of
the Pope of Rome, and then, I believe, they will not think him
worth converting.
Thus as for those who place infallibility in a General Council,
demand a Scripture proof of it, that they would produce the
General Council's charter for infallibility : this they cannot do ;
but they say the Church is infallible, and the General Council
is the Church representative, and therefore a General Council
must be infallible too. So that here are several things for
them to prove, and to prove by Scripture too ; for there is no
other way of proring thera, before they can prove the infalli
bility of General CouncUs : as, 1 , That the Church is infalhble,
2. That a General Council is the Church representative, 3,
That the Church representative is that Church to which the
promise of infallibility is made. And then they raight conclude,
that a General Council, as being the Church representative, is
infallible. Now instead of proving every particular of this by
Scripture (as they must do, if they -will prove by Scripture,
that General Councils are infallible), they pretend to prove no
more than the first of the three, that the Church is infallible ;
and that very lamely too, as may appear more hereafter : and
then they take all the rest for granted, without any proof:
which is just as if a man, who in order to prove his title to an
estate, is required to prove, that this estate did anciently belong
to his family, that it was entailed upon the heir male, that this
entail was never cut off, nor the estate legally alienated, and
that he alone is the trae surriving heir; should think it enough
to prove only the first of these, that the estate did anciently
belong to his family ; whicb it might have done and yet not
belong to it now, or if it did still belong to it, he may not be
the true heir.
Thus if we consider what it is they teach about purgatory.

AGAINST POPERY. 149
we shaU quickly perceive, how little it is, they pretend to prove
of it : they teU us, that there is a purgatory fire, after this
life, where men undergo the punishraent of their sins, when
the fault is pardoned : that the Church has power out of her '
stocks of merits, which consists of the supererogating works of
great and eminent saints, to grant pardons and indulgences to
men while they live, to deliver them from several thousand years
punishment, which is due to their sins in purgatory ; that the
souls in purgatory may be released out of it by the prayers,
and alms, and masses of the living ; which is the very life and
soul of this doctrine of purgatory. Now of all this, they
pretend to prove no more from Scripture, but that there is a
purgatory fire after this life ; and how they prove it, you have
already heard : but that either penances or pilgrimages, and
other extraordinary acts of devotion, while we live, or the Pope's
pardon and indulgences, can either remit or shorten the pains of
purgatory ; or that the prayers and alms of our liring friends,
or masses said for us by mercenary priests, can deliver us out
of purgatory, which we are principally concerned to know, and
without which, purgatory vrill not enrich the priests nor the
Church ; this they never attempt, that I know of, to prove hy
Scripture : whether there be a purgatory or not, in itself con
sidered, is a mere speculative point, and of no value : but
could they prove, that the Pope has the keys of purgatory, and
that alms and masses vrill deliver out of purgatory ; this were
worth knovring, and is as well worth proving, as any doctrine
of the Church of Rome ; for there is nothing they can get
more by. But if you will not beheve this, until they produce
a Scripture proof of it, you may let them dispute on about the
place of purgatory, and keep your raoney in your pocket.
Thus it is in most other cases, if you take their whole doctrine
together, and demand a proof of every part of it, and not take
a proof of some little branch of it for a proof of the whole, you
will quickly find, that they will not be so fond of disputing, as
some of them now are.
3. Another way our Roman adversaries have of proving
their doctrines from Scriptures is, instead of plain and positive
proofs, to produce some very remote and inerident consequences
from Scripture ; and if they can but hale a text of Scripture
into the premises, whatever the conclusion be, they call it a
Scripture proof. There are infinite instances of this, but I can
only name some few,
"Thus they prove the perpetual infalhbihty of the Church,

150 A PRESERVATIVE
because Christ promises his disciples to be with them " to the
end of the world," Matth, xxriii, 20 ; which promise cannot be
confined to their persons, for they were to die long before the
end of the world, and therefore must extend to their successors.
Suppose that, and does Christ's being vrith them, necessarily
signify that he will make them infalhble ? Is not Christ with
every particular Church, vrith every particular bishop, nay,
vrith every particular good Christian, and must they all be
infallible then ?
Thus Christ promises that the gates of hell shall not pre
vail against his Church ; ergo, the Church is infalhble ; for if
error and heresy prevail against the Church, the gates of
hell prevail against it : and I add, if sin and wickedness
prevail against the Church, the gates of hell prevail against it;
ergo, the Church is impeccable, and cannot sin ; which is to
the full as good a consequence as the other : and therefore the
gates of hell prevailing, can neither signify the mere prevalency
of errors or sin in the Church, but such a prevalency as destroys
the Church ; and this shall never be, because Christ has promised
it shall never be ; and it may never be, though the Church he
not infallible ; and therefore this does not prove infalhbihty.
Thus they prove there is such a place as purgatory, where
sins are forgiven and expiated, because our Saviour says, that
the sin against the Holy Ghost, shall neither be forgiven in this
world, nor in the world to come, Matth, xii, 32 ; and therefore
there are some sins which are forgiven in the next world,
because there is a sin which shall not be forgiven there. Now
not to consider the ordinary use of such phrases to signify no
more, than it shall never be, vrithout distinguishing between
what is to be done in this world, and what in the next; nay, not
to consider how contrary this is to their own doctrine of pur
gatory, that men who go to purgatory have all their sins already
forgiven, though they must suffer the punishment of them
there ; which, how absurd soever it is, yet shews, that
purgatory is not a place of forgiving sins ; and therefore cannot
be meant by our Saviour in those words : yet supposing all
they would have, that there shall be some sins forgiven in the
next world, which are not forgiven in this; how does this prove
a Popish purgatory, where souls endure such torments as are
not inferior to those of hell itself, excepting their duration ?
That some sins shall be forgiven in the next world, I think,
does not very evidently prove, that men shaU be tormented, it
may be for several ages, in the fire of purgatory.

AGAINST POPERY, 151
Thus they prove the necessity of auricular confession to a
priest, from the power of judicial absolution, Christ has given
the priest power to forgive sins, and hereby has made him a
judge, to retain or remit sins, to absolve and inflict penances.
Now a judge cannot judge right, without a particular know
ledge of the fact, and all the circumstances of it ; and this the
priest cannot know, vrithout the confession of the penitent :
and therefore, as priests have authority to absolve, so a
penitent, who would be absolved, must of necessity confess.
But now I should think it a much better consequence, that the
priest has not such a judicial authority of absolution, as requires
a particular confession of the penitent, because Christ has no
where commanded all men to confess their sins to a priest, than
that the priest has such a judicial authority, and therefore all
men must confess to a priest : for though our Saviour does
give power to his Apostles to remit and retain sins, yet those
words do not necessarily signify a judicial authority to forgive
sins ; or if they did, it may relate only to public sins, which
are too well known without a private confession ; or however,
it is not the particular knowledge of the sin, vrith all the
circumstances of it, but the marks and characters of true
repentance for public or secret sins, which the best rule and
direction whora to absolve ; and therefore there is no need of a
particular confession to this purpose.
But the sophistry of this is most palpable, when they draw
such consequences from one text of Scripture, as directly
contradict other plain and express texts. Thus because St.
Peter teUs us, that there are many things hard to be under
stood, in St. Paul's epistles, "which they that are unlearned
and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, to
their own destruction," 2 Peter iii, 16, From hence they
would conclude, that people ought not to be allowed to read
the Bible : as if St, Peter had intended to forbid them to read
those epistles, which St, Paul had written to them; nay, to
read this very epistle which he hiraself now sent to them.
For these epistles which were sent to the Churches, that they
might be read by them, make a considerable part of the New
Testament, which the people must not be allowed to read now.
But setting aside this, this consequence that the people must
not read the Bible, is directly contrary to a great many other
texts, which expressly command them to read, and search, and
study, and meditate on the laws of God, and the holy Scrip
tures, as every body knows. I confess it amazes me to hear

152 A PRESERVATIVE
men argue at this rate : when they cannot produce any one
text which forbids people to read the Scriptures, and there are
a great many express commands that they should read the
Scriptures, they think it sufficient to oppose against aU this
authority, a consequence of their own making, and a very
absurd one too, and call this a Scripture proof.
I would not be thought wholly to reject a plain and erident
consequence from Scripture ; but yet I vrill never admit of a
mere consequence to prove an institution, which must he
delivered in plain terms, as all laws ought to be ; and where I
have no other proof, but some Scripture consequences, I shall
not think it equivalent to a Scripture proof : if the consequence
be plain and obrious, and such as every man sees, I shall not
question it ; but remote, and dubious, and disputed conse
quences, if we have no better evidence, to be sure are a very
iU foundation for articles of faith. Let our Protestant then
tell such disputants, that for the institution of sacraments, and
for articles of faith, he expects plain positive proofs : that as
much as the Protestant faith is charged with uncertainty, we
desire a little more certainty for our faith than raere inferences
from Scripture, and those none of the plainest neither.
4. Another false pretence to Scripture proofs is, to clap their
own sense upon the words of Scripture, vrithout any regard to
the use and propriety of words, to the circumstances of the
place ; to the reason and nature of things ; and to call this a
Scripture proof of their doctrine, when their doctrines do not
naturally grow there, but are only engrafted by some cunning
artists, upon a Scripture stock. I shall* give you only one
instance of this, their doctrine of transubstantiation.
As for transubstantiation, they teach, that the elements of
bread and vrine are converted into the natural flesh and blood
of Christ, which was born of the Virgin Mary : that after
consecration there is nothing of the substance of bread and
vrine, but the accidents subsist without a substance : that the
natural body of Christ, his soul and dirinity, are present under
the species of bread ; nay, that whole Christ, flesh and blood,
is under the species of bread, and in every particle of it, and
under the species of wine, and every drop of it : that the body
of Christ is not broken, nor his blood shed in the sacrament,
but only the species of bread and vrine, which are nothing :
that it is only this nothing which we eat and drink in the
sacrament, and which goes down into our stomachs, and carries
whole Christ down with it. Now this doctrine sounds so very

AGAINST tOPERY, 153
harsh, is so contrary to all the evidence of our senses, and has
so many absurdities and contradictions to reason, that it ought
to be very plainly proved from Scripture in every part of it :
for if a man might be persuaded to renounce his senses and
reason to believe Scripture, yet it ought to be equally erident
to him at least, that Scripture is for it, as it is, that sense and
reason is against it : and yet there is not one word in Scripture
to prove any one part of this doctrine of transubstantiation ;
neither that the natural flesh and blood of Christ is in the
sacrament, nor that the substance of bread and vrine does not
reraain after consecration, nor that the accidents of bread and
wine, such as colour, smell, taste, quantity, weight, subsist
without any substance or subject to subsist in. These are
such paradoxes to sense and reason, that they ought to be very
well supported vrith Scripture, before they are received for
articles of faith, or else our faith vrill be as very an accident,
without any substance, as the sacramental species themselves
are. But though they have no text which proves the least
tittle of all this, yet they have a text whereon they graft this
doctrine of transubstantiation, viz, "This is my body," which
they say, signifies every thing which they teach concerning
trans-abstantiation ; but then I hope they will prove that it
does so, not expect that we should take it for granted, because
they say it. Now, not to insist upon those arguments, whereby
our divines have so demonstratively proved, that transub
stantiation, as explained by the Church of Rome, cannot be
the sense of " This is my body," my advice to Protestants is,
to put them upon the proof, that this is the sense of it, which
in reason they ought to prove, because there is not one word of
it in the text ; and I shall only tell thera what proofs they
ought to demand for it.
Now I suppose all men vrill think it reasonable, that the
evidence for it, should at least be equal to the eridence against
it, though we ought indeed to have more reason to beheve it,
than to disbelieve it ; or else we must hang in suspense, when
the balance is equal, and turns neither way. Now I vrill not
oppose the evidence of sense and reason, against the authority
of Scripture ; for I vrill never suppose that they can contradict
each other : and if there should appear some contradiction
between them, I will be contented at present, without disputing
that point, to give it on the side of Scripture ; but I vrill
oppose the eridence of sense and reason against any private
man's, or any Church's exposition of Scripture: and if that

154 A PRESERVATIVE
exposition they give of any text of Scripture, as suppose, "This
is my body," contradict the eridence of sense and reason, I
may modestly require as plain proof, that this is the meaning
of the text, as I have, that such a meaning is contrary to all
sense and reason : for though sense and reason be not the rule
and measure of faith, yet we must use our sense and reason in
expounding Scripture, or we may quickly make a very absurd
and senseless religion.
Now this shews us what kind of proof we raust require, that
transubstantiation is the doctrine of the Gospel, viz, as certain
proof as we have, that transubstantiation is contrary to sense
and reason. And therefore,
1, We must demand a self-evident proof of this, because it
is self-erident, that transubstantiation contradicts sense and
reason. Every man, who knows what the word raeans (which
I beheve men may do, vrithout being great philosophers), and
will consult his own senses and reason, will need no arguments
to prove, that transubstantiation contradicts both. Now such
a Scripture proof I would see for transubstantiation, so plain,
and express, and self-erident, that no man, who understands
the words, can doubt whether this be the meaning of them ; I
mean, a reasonable, not an obstinate, vrilfiil, and sceptical
doubting. Now I believe, that our adversaries themselves will
not say, that " This is my body," is such a self-evident proof
of transubstantiation ; I am sure some of the vrisest men among
them have not thought it so, and the fierce disputes, for so
many ages, about the interpretation of those words, proves that
it is not so : for men do not use to dispute what is self-evident,
and proves itself without any other arguments. Now it is
very unreasonable to require any man to believe transubstantia
tion against a self-evident proof, that it is contrary to sense
and reason, vrithout giving him a self-erident proof, that it is
the doctrine of Scripture ; which is to require a man to beheve
against the best reason and eridence,
2, We must demand such a Scripture proof of transubstan
tiation, as cannot possibly signify anything else ; or else it will
not answer that eridence which we have against transubstantia
tion. For sense and reason pronounce transubstantiation to
be naturally impossible ; and therefore unless it be as impossible
to put any other sense upon Scripture than what signifies
transubstantiation, as it is to reconcile transubstantiation to
sense and reason, there is no such good evidence for transub
stantiation, as against it. Were the Scripture proofs for

AGAINST POPERY, 155
transubstantiation so plain and erident, that it were impossible
to put any other sense on the words, then I would grant, that
:it is as impossible for those who believe the Scriptures, to dis-
heheve transubstantiation, as it is for those, who trust to their
own sense and reason, to believe it. Here the difficulty would
be equal on both sides, and then I should prefer a dirine
revelation (if it were possible to prove such a revelation to be
dirine), before natural sense and reason ; but I presume, no
man will say, that it is impossible to put another, and that a
very reasonable, interpretation upon those words, " This is my
body," vrithout expounding them to the sense of transubstan
tiation. Our Roman adversaries do not deny, but that these words
are capable of a figurative, as well as of a literal sense ; as
when the Church is called the body of Christ, flesh of his
flesh, and bone of his bone, it is not meant of his natural, but
his mystical body ; and thus, when the bread is called the
body of Christ, it may not signify his natural, but sacramental
body, or liis body to aU the ends and purposes of a sacraraent.
Now if there be any other good sense to be made of these words,
besides transubstantiation, there cannot be such a necessity to
expound them of transubstantiation, as there is not to expound
them of it ; for I do not reject Scripture, if I deny transub
stantiation, when the words of Scripture do not necessarUy
prove it ; but I renounce sense and reason, if I believe it.
Now, though I were bound to renounce my sense and reason,
when thej' contradict Scripture, yet sure I am not bound to
deny my sense and reason, when they do not contradict
Scripture ; and sense and reason are never contrary to Scrip
ture, nor Scripture to them, when the words of Scripture are
capable of such an interpretation as is reconcilable both to sense
and reason : in such a case, to expound Scripture contrary to
sense and reason, is both to pervert the Scripture, and to
contradict reason, without any necessity. An unlearned man
need not enter into a large dispute about transubstantiation ;
let him but require his adversary to give him as plain eridence,
that transubstantiation is the doctrine of the Gospel, as he can
give him, that it is contrary to sense and reason, and the
dispute will quickly be at an end. It had been very easy to
have given raore instances under every head, and to have
observed more false ways of expounding Scripture, which the
doctors of the Church of Rome are guilty of; but these are
the most obvious, and therefore the best fitted to my design to

156 A PRESERVATIVE
instruct unlearned men ; and I must not suffer this discourse,
which was at first intended rauch shorter than it already is, to
swell too rauch under my hands.
Sect. III.
Concerning the ancient Fathers, and Writers, of the Christian
Church.
Though learned men may squabble about the sense of the
Fathers and Councils, it is very unreasonable that unlearned
men should be concerned in such disputes, because they are
not competent judges of them ; and yet there is nothing which
our Roman disputants make a greater noise vrith, among
women and children, and the meanest sort of people, than
quotations out of Fathers and CouncUs, whom they pretend to
be all on their side. Now as it is a ridiculous thing for them
to talk of Fathers and Councils to such people, so it is very
ridiculous for such people to be converted by sayings out of
the Fathers and Councils : I confess, it has made me often
smile, with a mixture of pity and indignation, at the folly of
it ; for what more contemptible easiness can any man be guilty
of, than to change his religion which he has been taught out
of the Scriptures, and may find there, if he pleases, because he
is told by some honest priest (a sort of men who never deceive
any one), that such or such a Father, who lived it raay be they
know not where nor when, and wrote they know not what, has
spoke in favour of transubstantiation or purgatory, or some
other Popish doctrine.
And therefore let rae adrise our Protestant, who is not
skilled in these matters, when he is urged vrith the authority
of Fathers, to ask thera some few questions.
1 . Ask thera, how you shall certainly know what the judg
ment of the Fathers was ? And this includes a great many
questions, which must be resolved, before you can be sure of
this ; as, how you shall know that such books were written by
that Father, whose narae they bear ? Or that they have not
been corrupted by the ignorance or knavery of transcribers,
while they were in the hands of monks, who usurped great
authority over the Fathers, and did not only pare their nails,
but altered their very habit and dress, to fit them to the modes
of the times, and make 'thera fashionable ? How you shall
know what the true meaning of those words are, which they

AGAINST POPERY, 157
cite from them? which the words themselves many tiraes
will not discover, without the context. How you shaU know
that such sayings are honestly quoted, or honestly translated ?
How you shall know whether this Father did not, in other
places, contradict what he here says ? Or did not alter his
opinion after he had wrote it, without writing public recanta
tions, as St, Austin did? Whether this Father was not con
tradicted by other Fathers ? And in that case, which of the
Fathers you must believe ?
You raay add, that you do not ask these questions at
random, but for great and necessary reasons : for in reading
some late English books, both of Protestants and Papists, you
find large quotations out of the Fathers on both sides ; that
sorae are charged vrith false translations, with perverting the
Father's sense, with misciting his words, vrith quoting spurious
authors, as it seems many of those are, which make up the late
Speculum, or Ecclesiastical Prospective-glass; to name no more.
Now how shall you, who are an unlearned man, judge of such
disputes as these ? What books are spurious or genuine ?
whether the Fathers be rightly quoted ? And what the true
sense of them is ? For my part, I know not what answer such
a disputant could make, but to blush, and to promise not to
allege the authority of Fathers any more. It is certain, in
such matters, those who are unlearned, must trust the learned;
and then, I suppose, an unlearned Protestant vrill rather trust
a Protestant than a Popish doctor, as Papists vrill rather trust
their priests than Protestant dirines ; and then there is not
much to be got on either side, this way : for when a Protestant
shews an inclination rather to believe a Popish than a Protes
tant divine, he is certainly three-quarters a Papist beforehand.
Indeed unlearned Protestants, who are inquisitive, and have
tirae to read, have such advantages now to satisfy theraselves,
even about the sense of Fathers and Councils, as may be no
age before ever afforded : there being so many excellent books
written in English, as plainly confirm the Protestant faith, and
confute Popery, by the testimonies and authorities of ancient
writers; and such men, though they do not understand Latin
and Greek, are in no danger of all the learning of their Popish
adversaries : and any man who pleases, may have recourse to
such books, and see the state of the controversy with his own
eyes, and judge for himself; but those who cannot do this, may
very fairly decline such a trial, as improper for them. For,
2. Let our Protestant ask such disputers, whether a plain

158 A PRESERVATIVE
man may not attain a sufficient knowledge and certainty of his
religion, vrithout understanding Fathers and Councils ? If they
say he cannot, ask thera how many Roman Catholics there are,
that understand Fathers and Councils ? Ask them, how those
Christians understood their religion, who lived before there
were any of these Fathers and Councils ? Ask them again,
whether they believe that God has raade it impossible to the
greatest part of mankind, to understand the Christian religion?
For even araong Christians theraselves, there is not one in an
hundred thousand, who understands Fathers and Councils,
and it is morally impossible they should : and therefore cer
tainly there must be a shorter and easier way to understand
Christian religion than this, or else the generality of mankind,
even of profest Christians, are out of all possibility of salvation.
Ask thera once more, whether it be not a much easier matter
for a plain honest man to learn all things necessary to salva
tion, out of the Scriptures themselves, especially vrith the help
of a wise and learned guide, than to understand all Fathers
and Councils, and take his religion from thera ? Why then do
they so quarrel at people's reading the Scriptures, and put them
upon reading Fathers and Councils ? I suppose they wiU grant,
the Scriptures raay be read a little sooner than so many volu
minous Fathers, and Labbe' s CouncUs into the bargain; and,
I beheve, most men who try, vrill think that they are more
easily understood ; and therefore, if Protestants, as they pre
tend, can have no certainty of the true sense of Scripture, I am
sure there is much less certainty to be had of the Fathers : a
short time will give us a full riew of the Scriptures ; but to
read and understand all the Fathers, is work enough for a
man's life : the Scripture is all of a piece, every part of it
agrees vrith the rest ; the Fathers many times contradict them
selves and each other : and if raen differ about the sense of
Scripture, they differ much more about Fathers and Councils,
That it is a mighty riddle, that those who think ordinary
Christians not fit to read the Scriptures, should think it neces
sary for them to understand Fathers and Councils ; and yet
they are ridiculous indeed to dispute with every tradesman
about Fathers and Councils, if they do not think they ought to
read and understand them.
The sum is, such Protestants as are not skilled in book learn
ing, may very reasonably tell these raen, who urge them -with
the authority of Councils and Fathers, that they do not pretend
to any skill in such matters, and hope it is not required of

AGAINST POPERY, 159
them ; for if it be, they are in an ill case : the holy Scriptures,
not Fathers and Councils, is the rule of their faith ; if they
had read the Fathers, they should believe them no farther,
than what they taught was agreeable to Scripture ; and there
fore, whatever opinions any of the Fathers had, it is no con
cern of theirs to know, if they can learn what the doctrine of
Christ and his Apostles was, without it : learned men may dis
pute about these things ; and they have heard learned
Protestants affirm, that the Church of Rome can find none of
her pecuUar doctrines in the writings of any of the Fathers for
the first three hundred years ; and it is certain, if this be true,
all the later Fathers are of no authority to establish any new
doctrine ; for there was no more authority in the Church, to
bring in any new doctrines, after three hundred years, than
there is at this day.
Unlearned men may very honourably reject all dispute
about Fathers and Councils (though learned men cannot, and
indeed need not); for if they are not bound to read Fathers
and Councils, I think they are not bound to understand them,
nor to dispute about them ; and it is very unadrisedly done,
when they do : for it is past a jest in so serious a matter,
though othervrise it were comical enough, for men to be
converted by Fathers and CouncUs, without understanding
them.

CHAP, III,

HOW TO ANSWER SOME OP. THE MOST POPULAR PRETENCES
URGED BY PAPISTS AGAINST PROTESTANTS,
Sect, I,
1, Concerning the Uncertainty of the Protestant Faith.
Our Popish adversaries of late, have not so rauch disputed,
as fenced ; have neither dovmright opposed the Protestant
faith, nor vindicated their own, but have betaken themselves
to some tricks and amusements, to divert and perplex the
dispute, and to impose upon the ignorant and unwary.
One of their principal arts has been, to cry out of the uncer
tainty of the Protestant faith. This every body is nearly
concerned in ; for there is nothing wherein certainty is so
necessary, and so much desired, as in matters of religion,
whereon our eternal state depends. This has been often

160 A preservative
answered by Protestants, and I do not intend to enter into the
merits of the cause, and shew upon what a firm and sure
bottom the Protestant faith stands : this is a caril easily
enough exposed to the scorn and contempt of all considering
men, without so much trouble.
For, 1 , Suppose the Protestant faith were uncertain, how is
the cause of the Church of Rome ever the better ? Is this a
sufficient reason to tum Papists, because Protestants are un
certain ? Does this prove' the Church of Rome to be infallible,
because the Church of England is fallible ? Must certainty
necessarUy be found among them, because it is not to be found
with us ? Is Thomas an honest man because John is a
knave ? These are two distinct questions, and must be dis
tinctly proved. If they can prove our faith uncertain, and
their own certain, there is reason then to go over to them ;
but if they cannot do this, they may, it may be, persuade men
to renounce the Protestant faith, but not to embrace Popery,
Ask them then, what greater assurance they have of their
faith, than we have of ours ? If they tell you, their Church is
infallible ; tell thera, that is another question, and does not
belong to this dispute. For the infallibility of their Church
does not follow from the uncertainty of our faith ; if they can
prove their Church infallible, whether they prove our faith
uncertain or not, we will at any time change Protestant cer
tainty for infallibility : and if they could prove our faith un
certain, unless they could prove their own more certain
(though we bate them infallibility), we may cease to be Protes
tants, but shall never turn Papists,
2, Ask them, what they mean by the uncertainty of the
Protestant faith? For this may signify two things: either,
1 , That the objects of our faith are in themselves uncertam,
and cannot be proved by certain reasons : or, 2ndly, That our
persuasion about these matters, is uncertain and wavering. If
they mean the first, then the sense is, that the Christian re
ligion is an uncertain thing, and cannot be certainly proved ;
for this is the old Protestant faith : we believe the Apostles'
Creed, and whatever is contained in the writings of the Evan
gelists and Apostles, and this is all we beheve : and I hope,
they will not say these things are uncertain ; for then they
renounce the Christian religion, and infallibility itself cannot
help them out: for infallibility cannot make that certain,
which is in itself uncertain : an infallible man must know
things as they are, or else he is mistaken, and ceases to be in-

against POPERY, 161
fallible ; and therefore what is certain, he infallibly knows to
be certain, and what is uncertain, he infallibly knows to be
uncertain : for the most certain and infallible knowledge does
not change its object, but sees it just as it is : and therefore
they must allow the objects of our faith, or the Protestant
faith, as to the matter of it, to be very certain, and built upon
certain reason, or else their infallible Church can have no cer
tainty of the Christian faith.
If they mean the second thing, that we have no certain
persuasion about what we profess to believe : this is a great
abuse to Protestants, as if we were all knaves and hypocrites,
who do not heartily and firmly believe what we profess to be
heve : and a Protestant, who knows that he does very firmly
and stedfastly believe his religion, ought to reject such a
vUlanous accusation as this, with indignation and scorn. In
deed it is both impudent and silly for any man to tell a Pro
testant, that his faith is uncertain (as that signifies an uncer
tain and doubtful persuasion), when he knows and feels the
contrary ; and nobody else can know this but hiraself: in
what notion then is the Protestant faith uncertain? What
can faith signify, but either the objects of faith, or the internal
assent and persuasion ? The objects of our faith are certain,
if Christian religion be so, that is, they have very certain
evidence : our assent and persuasion is very certain, as that is
opposed to all doubtfulness and wavering : and what certainty
then is wanting to the Protestant faith ?
When then you hear any of these men declaiming about the
uncertainty of the Protestant faith, only ask them, what they
mean by the Protestant faith ? Whether the articles of your
faith, that they are uncertain ; or the act of faith, your internal
assent ' and persuasion ? If they say, they raean the act of
faith ; teU them, that it is a strange presumption in them to
pretend to know your heart ; that you know that best yourself,
whether you do firmly and stedfastly believe your religion ;
and to give them satisfaction in that point, you assure them
that you do. As for the objects of your faith, or what it is
you believe, tell them, you are a member of the Church of
England, and embrace the doctrine of it, and there they may
find your faith both as a Christian and as a Protestant ; and
may try their skill on it when they please, to prove any part
of it uncertain, and you are ready to defend it. This is a
plain and fair answer, and I believe you will hear no more of
them.

162 A PRESERVATIVE
For as for their common argument to prove the uncertainty
of the Protestant faith, that there is a great variety of opinions
amongst Protestants, and that they condemn one another with
equal confidence and assurance : ask them, how this proves
your faith to be uncertain, either as to its object, or as to its
assent ? May not what you believe, be very certainly true,
because some men believe the contrary ? Tell thera, you do
not place the certainty of what you beheve, upon any man's
beliering, or not beliering it, but upon the certain reasons you
have to prove it ; and therefore if they would conrince you,
that what you believe is not certain, they must disprove your
reasons, not merely tell you, that other men think it false or
uncertain, and believe othervrise : thus does it prove, that you
give an uncertain and doubtful assent to what you profess to
believe, because other men are very fully persuaded of the con
trary ? Pray tell them, that you do not build your assent upon
other men's persuasions, but upon the reasons of your faith ;
and while they are unshaken, you shall believe as you do, and
vrith the sarae assurance, whoever believes otherwise.
There are two things indeed, which this argument proves,
but they signify nothing to weaken the Protestant faith,
1 . That all the doctrines which are professed by some Pro
testants, are not certain ; for some of them must be false,
when they are contradictory doctrines maintained and pro
fessed by several sects of Protestants ; but then no man, that
I know of, ever jsaid, that all Protestant doctrines were certain;
which I hope does not hinder but that some Protestant doc
trines may be certain ; and then the doctrines of the Church
of England may be certain, though some other communions of
Protestants have erred.
2. This arguraent proves also, that men who are mistaken,
may be very confidently persuaded of their mistakes, and there
fore the confidence of persuasion does not prove the certainty
of their faith ; and I never heard any man say that it did :
but I hope this does not prove that a man who is certain upon
erident reasons, must be mistaken too, because men who are
certain vrithout reason may mistake.
And yet this very argument, from the different and contrary
opinions among Protestants to prove the uncertainty of the
Protestant faith, signifies nothing, as to our disputes with the
Church of Rome : for ask them what they would think of the
Protestant faith, were all Protestants of a mind ? Would their
consent and agreement prove the cehainty of the Protestant

against POPERY. 163
faith ? Then the Protestant faith, in opposition to Popery, is
very certain : for they all agree in condemning the errors and
corruptions of the Church of Rome ; and thus I think they
get nothing by this argument : for if the dissensions of Pro
testants prove the uncertainty of their faith, as to such matters
wherein they differ, then by the same rule their agreement in
opposition to Popery, shews their great certainty in such
matters : and this, I suppose, is no great inducement to a
Protestant to turn Papist. Sect. II.
Concerning Protestant misrepresentations of Popery.
This has been another late artifice of our Roman adver
saries, to amuse ignorant people with a great noise of misre
presenting: that Protestant divines have painted Popery in
such horrid shapes, as to disturb the imaginations of people,
and to beget an incurable aversion in them against Popery,
without understanding what it is. I shall not now dispute
this matter over again : there has been so much of late said
of it, and this pretence so shamefully baffied, in answer both
to the Representer, and to Monsieur de Meaux' s Exposition,
that I am apt to think, they themselves could be very glad
that it had never been mentioned, or could now be forgot ;
and therefore referring the inquisitive reader to those late
books, wherein they will find this controversy fairly stated, I
have some few things to add, which are plain and obvious to
everybody ; and that both with reference to the probability of
this charge, and to the consequence of it.
First, As to the probability of this charge. Now, 1. Ask
them, whether the first Reformers charged the Church of
Rome with such doctrines and practices as they were not
guilty of? We have not, that I know of, increased our charge
against the Church of Rome in this age ; if there has been
any difference, we have rather been more favourable and candid
in our censures of some of their doctrines, than the first Re
formers were. Now is it likely, that the first Reformers
should charge the Church of Rome wrongfully 1 No man can
be a misrepresenter, but either out of ignorance or design ;
which of these then can we, vrith any probabihty, charge the
first Reformers with ?
As for ignorance, is it a probable thing, that Luther, Me
lancthon, CEcolampadius, Zuinglius, Bucer, Calrin, or to corae
M 2

164 A preservative
to our own English Reformers, that Archbishop Cranmer, and
others, who had all been Papists themselves, should be igno
rant what was taught and practised in the Church of Rome ?
It is now thought in this very cause, a very considerable proof,
that Protestants do misrepresent Papists, because some Papists
deny such doctrines and practices as Protestants charge them
with -, and, say they, can you think that Papists do not under
stand their own religion better than Protestants do ? Now
though this may be made a question, and I am very apt to
think, that compare the learned and the unlearned Protestants
and Papists together, there are more Protestants than Papists
who understand Popery : and not only experience verifies this,
but there is a plain reason why it should be so ; because it is
the principle of Protestants, that they must neither believe
nor disbelieve anything without understanding it ; but an im
plicit faith in the Church, governs the unlearned Papist, and
many of those who should be learned too.
But let that be as it will, this arguraent signifies nothing to
our first Reformers : for if Papists may be presumed to under
stand their own religion, the first Reformers, who were all
educated in Popery, might be as well presumed to understand
what Popery then was ; and therefore there can be no reason
to suspect that they misrepresented Popery out of ignorance.
Nor is it more probable, that they should misrepresent
Popery out of interest and design : for if they were conscious
to theraselves, that Popery was not so bad as they represent it
to be, why should they themselves have set up for Reformers ?
And what hope could they have, that at that time, when
Popery was so well known, they should persuade the world to
believe their misrepresentations ?
Was it so desirable a thing for men to bring all the powers
of the Church and court of Rome upon themselves, merely to
gratify a misrepresenting humour ? Do these men remember
what our Reformers suffered, for opposing Popery ? The loss
of their estates, their liberties, their lives, aU the vengeance of
a blind and enraged zeal ? And did they undergo aU this with
such constancy and Christian patience, only for the sake of
telhng lies, and raising scandalous reports of the Church of
Rome ? We think it a very good argument, that the Apostles
and first preachers of Christianity were very honest men, and
had no design to cheat the world, because they served no
worldly interest by it ; but cheerfully exposed themselves to
aU manner of sufferings in preaching the Gospel : and why

AGAINST POPEEY, 165
does not the same argument prove our first Reformers to be
honest men, and then they could not be vrilful misrepresenters ?
Nay, if we will but allow them to have been cunning men
(and it is evident they did not want vrit), they would never
have undertaken so hopeless a design, as to run down Popery
merely by misrepresenting it ; when, had their exceptions
against Popery been only misrepresentations of their own, aU
the world could have confuted thera : had the first Reformers
been only misrepresenters, can we think, that they could have
imposed upon such vast numbers of men, learned and unlearned,
who knew and saw what Popery was ? They were no fools
themselves, and therefore • could not hope to impose such a
cheat upon the world,
2, Ask them again, How old this complaint is, of Protestant
misrepresentations of Popery ? How long it has been discovered,
that Popery has been thus abused and misrepresented ? Were
the first Reformers charged with these misrepresentations by
their adversaries in those days ? Did they deny, that they gave
religious worship to saints, and angels, and the Virgin Mary, to
images and relics ? Did they cry out of misrepresentations,
when they were charged vrith such doctrines and practices as
these ? Or did they defend them, and endeavour to answer
those arguments which the Reformers brought against them ?
And yet, methinks, if Popery had been so grossly misrepre
sented by the Reformers, this would as soon have been dis
covered by the learned Papists of those days, as by our late
Representer ; but it is most hkely they did not then think
Popery so much misrepresented, for if they had, they would
certainly have coraplained of it : so that the high improba
bility of the thing, is a sufficient reason to unlearned Protest
ants, to reject this charge of Protestant misrepresentations of
Popery, as nothing else than a Popish calumny against Protest
ants ; and to conclude, that if Popery be misrepresented
now, it is only by themselves, and that is the very truth of
the case.
Secondly, Let us consider this charge of misrepresentations
in the consequences of it, it would a little puzzle a man to guess,
what service they intend to do the Church of Rome by it. For,
1 , By complaining of such misrepresentations of Popery,
they plainly confess, that those doctrines and practices,
which vi'e charge the Church of Rome with, are very bad,
and fit to be rejected and abhorred of all Christians, This
the Representer himself confesses, and is very copious and
rhetorical upon it. Now this is of mighty dangerous conse-

166 A PRESERVATIVE
quence ; for if it appears, that we have not misrepresented
them, that the doctrines and practices we charge them with,
are truly the doctrines and practices of the Church of Rome,
then, by their own confession. Popery is a very bad rehgion,
and to be rejected by Christians ; then there was a very just
reason for our separation from the Church of Rome, and we
are no longer either schismatics or heretics ; and if the cause
be put upon this issue, we need desire no better vindication of
the Church of England : for if they cannot prove us heretics
or schismatics, till they can prove us misrepresenters, I believe,
we are pretty secure for this age,
2, These men who complain so much of misrepresentmg,
endeavour to make the doctrines of the Church of Rome, look
as like Protestant doctrines, as possibly they can, as if there
were little or no difference between them : now methmks this
is no great reason for a Protestant to tum Papist, that the
Popish faith is so much the better, the nearer it comes to the
Protestant faith. The truth is, the chief mystery in this late
trade of representing and misrepresenting, is no more but this,
to join a Protestant faith with Popish practices ; to believe as
Protestants do, and to do as Papists do. As to give some few
instances of this in the Papist Misrepresented and Represented,
" The Papist represented, believes it damnable to worship
stocks and stones for gods, to pray to pictures or images of
Christ, the Virgin Mary, or any other saints," This is good
Protestant doctrine : but then this Papist says his prayers
before an image, kneels and bows before it, and pays all external
acts of adoration to Christ and the saints, as represented by
their images ; though it is not properly the image he honours,
but Christ and his saints by the images. Which is down-right
Popery in practice.
Thus " he believes it is a raost damnable idolatry, to make
gods of men, either liring or dead." Which is the Protestant
faith : but yet he prays to saints, and begs their intercession,
vrithout behering them to be gods, or his redeemers ; which is
Popery in practice.
" He believes it damnable, to think the Virgin Mary more
powerful in heaven than Christ," Which is Protestant doctrine :
but yet he prays to her oftener than either to God or Christ, says
ten Ave-maries for one Paternoster ; which is a Popish devotion,
" He beheves it unlawful to commit idolatry, and most
damnable to worship any breaden God," Which is spoke like
a Protestant ; but yet he pays dirine adoration to the sacra
ment, which is done hke a Papist. And thus, in most of

AGAINST POPERY. 167
those thirty-seven particulars of the double characters of a
Papist Misrepresented, his great art is to reconcUe a Protestant
faith vrith Popish practices.
So that this new way of representing Popery is no reason to
a Protestant to alter his faith, because, it seems, they believe
in many things just as we do ; but, I think, it is a very great
reason for a Papist to alter his practice, because a Protestant
faith and Popish worship do not very well agree. Those who
would not make gods of stocks and stones, of dead men and
women, had certainly better not worship them, which is the
most certain way not to make them gods ; and those who
think it such damnable idolatry to worship a breaden god, in
my opinion, are on the safer side not to worship the risible
species of bread in the eucharist. Let but our Protestant
observe this, that when they would represent Popery most
favourably, they either say what Protestants do, or something
as like it, as they can, and he will see no reason, either to
change his faith or his practice.

PART II,
CHAP, IV.
SOME DIRECTIONS RELATING TO PARTICULAR CONTROVEBSIES.
Those who would understand the particular disputes
between us and the Church of Rome, must of necessity read
such books as give the true state of the controversy between
us, and fairly represent the arguments on both sides ; and
where such books are to be raet vrith, he may learn from a
letter, entitled, " The present State of the Controversy between
the Church of England and the Church of Rome : or, an
account of books written on both sides." But my present
design is of another nature, to give some plain and easy marks
and characters of true Gospel doctrines ; whereby a man, who
has any relish of the true spirit of Christianity, may as cer
tainly know truth from error, in many cases, as the palate can
distinguish tastes. There are some things so proper to the
Gospel, and so primarily intended in it, that they may fitly
serve for distinguishing marks of true evangelical doctrine :
I shall name some of the chief, aud examine some Popish doc
trines by them.

168 A PRESERVATIVE Sect, I,
Concerning Idolatry.
1 , One principal intention of the Gospel, was more perfectly
to extirpate all idolatry : " For this purpose the Son of God
was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the deril,"*
that is, not only all sin and vrickedness, but the very kingdom
of darkness ; that kingdom which the deril had erected in the
world, the very foundation of which was laid in idolatrous
worship. To this purpose, Christ has expressly taught us, that there
is but one God, and has more perfectly instructed us in the
nature of God : " For no man hath seen God at any time, but
the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he
hath declared him,"f Ignorance was the mother of Pagan
idolatry, because they did not know the true God : they wor
shipped anything, everything, for a God ; and therefore the
most effectual course to cure idolatry, was to make known the
true God to the world : for those men are inexcusable, who
know the true God, and worship anything else. Though
indeed, according to some men's divinity, the knowledge of
the true God cures idolatry, not by rooting out idolatrous
worship, but by excusing it ; by making that to be no ido
latry in a Christian, who knows God, which was idolatry
in a heathen, who did not know hira : for if (as some say)
none can be guilty of idolatry, who acknowledge one
supreme Being; then the heathens, when once they were in
structed in the knowledge of the one true God, might have
worshipped all their country gods, which they did before,
vrithout being guilty of idolatry ; which is, as if I should say,
that man is a rebel, who, through mistake and ignorance, owns
any man for his prince, who is not his prince ; but he is no
rebel, who knows his lawful prince, and pays homage to another,
whom he knows not to be his prince.
And therefore our Saviour confines all religious worship to
God alone : " Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him
only shalt thou serve," J It is his answer to the devil, when he
tempted him to fall down and worship him, but he gives such
an answer as excludes all creatures, not only bad, but good
spirits, from any share in religious worship : our Saviour does
"¦ 1 John iii, 8. f John i. 18. { Matth. iv. 10.

AGAINST POPERY, 169
hot deny to worship him merely because he was the devil
(though that a man may do without the guilt of idolatry, who
knows him to be the deril, if those men are in the right, who
allow nothing to be idolatry, but to worship some being for
the supreme God, who is not supreme ; for then you may
worship the deril without the guilt of idolatry, if you do not
beheve him to be the suprerae God), but our Sariour's reason
for not worshipping him was, because we must worship none
but God, Which is as good a reason against the worship of
the most glorious angel, as of the deril himself : nay, our
Saviour denies to worship him, though the deril made no terms
with him about the kind or degrees of worship : he does not
require hira to offer sacrifice to him (which is the only act of
worship the Church of Rome appropriates to the supreme
God), but only to bow down before him, as an expression of
religious devotion ; he did not deraand that degree of worship,
which the Church of Rorae calls latria, and appropriates to
the supreme God : nay, he confesses that he was not the
suprerae God, for he does not pretend to dispose of the king-
doras of the world in his own right, but says, they were given
to him, and he had power to give thera to whom he pleased ;
in which he acknowledges that he had a superior, and there
fore could not in the same breath, desire to be owned and
worshipped as the supreme. But our Saviour denies to give
him this inferior degree of worship, and thereby teaches us,
that no degree of rehgious worship must be given to any being,
but the supreme God,
And because mankind were very apt to worship inferior
demons, as believing them to have the care of this lower world,
and that it was in their power to do great good to them, to
answer their prayers, and to mediate for them with the superior
deities, or with the supreme God, if they believed one supreme,
which appears to be a received notion among them : to prevent
this kind of idolatry, God advances his own Son to be the
universal Mediator, and the supreme and sovereign Lord of
the world ; that all mankind should make their addresses and
applications to him, and offer up their prayers only in his
name ; that in him they should find acceptance, and in no
other name ; which was the most effectual way to put an end
to the worship of all inferior deities, and creature patrons and
advocates ; for when we are assured, that no other being can
mediate for us with effect and power, but only Christ, it is
natural to worship no other mediator but hira, who being the

170 A PRESERVATIVE
eternal Son of God, may be worshipped without danger of
idolatry. Thus St, Paul tells us, that though the heathen
world had " gods many, and lords many, yet to us there is but
one God, the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ:"* one
supreme and sovereign Deity, and one Mediator between God
and men.
Now this being so apparently one end of Christ's coming into
the world, to suppress the idolatry of creature worship, and to
confine all religious worship to one supreme Being, in opposi
tion to the many gods of the heathens, and to teach us to make
our applications to this one God by one Mediator, in oppo
sition to the worship of inferior deities ; can any man imagine,
that the worship of saints and angels, and the Virgin Mary,
can be any part of the Christian religion? For how dear
soever they are to God, they are but his creatures ; and if
sovereign princes vrill not receive their greatest favourites into
their throne, much less will God,
If God, under the Gospel dispensation, has taken care to
prevent the worship of inferior beings, by appointing his own
Son to be our only Mediator and Advocate, can we imagine,
that he ever intended we should offer up our prayers to other
mediators ? If he had liked the mediation of creatures, would
he have given his own Son to be our Priest and our Mediator ?
Whatever fair pretences may be made for this, it apparently
contradicts the Gospel dispensation ; for if we must own but
one God, he alone must be worshipped ; if we have but one
Mediator, we must offer up our prayers only in his name and
intercession, The religious worship of creatures is idolatry, and
if God intended to root idolatry out of the world, by the
Gospel of Christ, he could never intend to set up the worship
of saints, and the Virgin Mary, which though it have not aU
the aggravations of Pagan idolatry, yet is creature worship.
Thus we know how fond the heathens were of material
images and pictures, to represent their gods as risibly present
with thera ; and to receive religious worship in their stead :
not that they did beheve their gods to be corporeal, or that
their corporeal images were proper likenesses of their gods, in
which a late author places the whole of idolatry, which I con
fess was agreeable enough to his design, to find out such a
notion of idolatry, as it may be no persons in the world were
ever guilty of, and then he might excuse whom he pleased from
» 1 Cor, viii. 5, 6,

AGAINST popery; 171
idolatry : but the heathens were not such great sots, as this
account makes them, as the learned " founder of all anticatholic,
and antichristian principles" * (as this author is pleased to style
a very great man, whose name vrill be venerable to future ages),
has abundantly proved. But they wanted some material
representations of their gods, in which they might, as it were,
see them present, and offer up their petitions to them, and
court them vrith some visible and sensible honours. Now to
cure this idolatry, though God would not allow any images or
pictures for worship, yet by the law of Moses, he appoints
them to buUd an house or temple for himself, where he would
dwell araong thera, and place the symbols of his presence ; there
was the mercy-seat, and the cherubims covering the mercy-
seat, and there God promised Moses " to meet -with him, and to
commune vrith him from between the two cherubims, which
are upon the ark of the testimony ,"-|- Now this was a sym-
bohcal representation of God's throne in heaven, where he is
surrounded with angels as we know ; the holy of holies itself
was a figure of heaven ; and therefore the Jews, when they
were absent from the temple, prayed towards it, and in the
temple (as is thought) towards the mercy-seat, as the place of
God's peculiar residence ; as now when we pray, we lift up our
eyes and hands to heaven, where God dweUs ; so that under
the law God had a peculiar place for worship, and peculiar
symbols of his presence, but no images to represent his person,
or to be the objects of worship : I know some Roman doctors
would fain prove the cherubims to have been the object of
worship, and which is more wonderful, a late bishop of the
Churchof England has taken some pains to prove the same,
and thereby to justify the worship of images in the Church of
Rome ; J and before I proceed, I shall briefly examine what he
has said in this cause.
One would a little wonder, who reads the second command
ment, which so severely forbids the worship of images, that
God himself should set up images in his own temple as the
objects of worship ; and a modest man would have been a
little cautious, how he had imputed such a thing to God,
which is so direct a contradiction to his ovra laws. That the
cherubims were -" statues or images, whatever their particular
* Dr, Stillingfleet's Defence of the Discourse concerning Idolatry.
t Exod, xxv. 22,
X Reasons for abrogating the Test, p, 124, 8sc,

172 A PRESERVATIVE
form was," I agree with our author, and that is the only thing
I agree with him in : for,
1 , That " they were sacred images set up by God himself, in
the place of his own worship,"* I deny. For the holy of hohes,
where the ark was placed, and the mercy-seat over the ark,
and the cherubims at the two ends spreading their vrings, and
covering the mercy-seat, was not the place of worship, but the
place of God's presence. The place of worship is the place
wherein men worship God ; now it is sufficiently known, that
none of the Jews were permitted to go into the holy of holies,
nor so much as to look into it, and therefore it could not be
no more the place of their worship : the holy of holies was the
figure of heaven, and therefore could be no more the place of
worship to the Jews, than heaven now is to us, while we dwell
on earth. The high priest indeed entered into the holy of
holies once a year, with the blood of the sacrifice, -f which was
a type of Christ's entering into heaven vrith his own blood, and
yet the priest went thither not to worship, but to make an
atonement ; which I take to be two very different things ; how
ever, if you vrill call this worship, it has no relation to any
worship on earth, but to what is done by Christ in heaven, of
whom the high priest was a type. And this, I think, is a
demonstration, that the placing of cherubims to cover the
mercy- seat in the holy of holies, does not prove the lawful use
of images in temples or churches, or in the worship of God on
earth ; if it proves any thing it must prove the worship of God
by images in heaven, of which the holy of holies was a figure ;
and if any man can be so foohsh as to imagine that, let them
make what they please of it, so they do but excuse us from
worshipping God by images on earth,
2, That these cherubims " were the most solemn and sacred
part of the Jewish rehgion ; that nothing is more remarkable in
the Old Testament, than the honour done to the cherubims ;
that an outward worship was given to these images, as symbols
of the Dirine presence," that the " high priest adored these
cherubims once a year," as this author asserts, I utterly deny ;
and he has not given us one word to prove it.
For the cherubims were so far from being the raost solemn
and sacred part of the Jevrish religion, that they were no part
at all of it, if by religion he means worship ; for there was no
regard at all had to the cherubims in the Jewish worship ; and
* Ibid, p. 127. t Heb. ix, 11, 12.

AGAINST POPERY. 173
it is so far from being remarkable in the Old Testament, that
there is not the least footstep, or intimation of any honour at
aU done to the cherubims : there is nothing in Scripture con
cerning them, but the command to make them, and place them
at the two ends of the mercy- seat; and that God is said to
dwell between the cherubims, and to give forth his oracles and
responses from that place : but I desire to learn, where the
Jews are commanded to direct their worship to or towards the
cherabims ? Where the high priest is commanded to adore
the cherubims once a year ? Or what Protestant grants he
did so, as this author insinuates ?
He supposes the cherubims to have been " the symbols of
God's presence" and his "representation,"* and that the Jews
directed their worship to them as such, and that is to worship
God by images, or to give the sarae signs of reverence to his
representations, as to himself : but how does it appear that
the cherubims were the symbols of God's presence ? God in
deed is said to sit between the cherubims, and he promised
Moses to coraraune vrith him from between the cherubims,
but the cherubims were no symbols of God's presence, much
less a representation of him : if any thing was the symbolical
presence of God, it was the mercy-seat, which was a kind of
figurative throne, or chair of state ; but the cherubims were
only symbolical representations of those angels, who attend
and encompass God's throne in heaven, and were no more re
presentations of God, or symbols of his presence, than some
great ministers of state are of the king ; as this author himself
acknowledges, when he makes the four beasts in the Revela
tions (Rev. iv. 6, 7), " which stood round about his throne,"t
to be an allusion to the representation of the immediate Divine
presence in the ark by the cherubims : if he had said to the
chembims covering the mercy-seat, which was his figurative
throne, and where he was invisibly present, without any risi
ble figures or symbols of his presence, he had said right : for
the cherubims which covered the mercy-seat, were no more
symbols of God's presence, than the four beasts, which stood
before the throne, are the presence of God ; or than some
great courtiers or ministers of state, who attend the king, are
the presence of the king ; they . attend the king, wherever he
is, and so may be some sign of his presence, but are not a
symbolical presence, as a chair of state is. But it seems our
author imagined, that the cherubims were such symbols of
* Page 130, X Page 127,

174 A PRESERVATIVE
God's presence, and such representations of him, as images
were of the Pagan gods, and therefore might be worshipped
vrith the same signs of reverence, as God himself was ; accord
ing to Thomas Aquinas' s rule, that the image must be wor
shipped vrith the same worship, which is due to the proto
type, or that being whose iraage it is, which is such old Popery,
as Monsieur de Meaux, and the Representer cry shame of;
well, but how does he prove, that any worship was directed
to these cherubiras ? I can find no proof he offers for it, but
" David's exhortation (as he calls it), to the people, to honour
the ark (he should have said worship), ¦Kpo(TKvvelTe, bow down
to, or worship his footstool, for it, or he, is holy,"* Now
suppose this did relate to the ark, what is that to the cheru
biras ? When but four pages before, he tells us, that the ark
is called God's footstool, and the chembims his throne ; how
then does Darid' s exhortation to worship the ark, which is
God's footstool, prove that all their worship, must be directed
to the cherubiras, which are his throne ? It is a pity, that
great wits have but short memories.
And yet I fancy, our author would have been much trou
bled to prove the ark to be meant by God's footstool ; for the
ark was in the holy of holies, which was a figure of heaven ;
and neither the heaven, nor anything in it, but the earth, is in
Scripture called God's footstool ; and the Psalmist expressly
applied it to Zion,f and to the holy hill, which, I wiU not
prove, was not the ark.
And this I suppose is a sufficient confutation of his expo
sition of the words, " To bow down to, or worship his foot
stool ;" for I believe he did not think that Mount Zion, or
the holy hill, was the object of worship, or the symbol of
God's presence ; but there God was present, and that was
reason enough to worship at his footstool, and at his holy
hill : as our English translation reads it.
But now, suppose the Jews were to direct their worship to
wards the mercy-seat, which was covered with the cherubims,
where God had promised to be present ; how are the chem
bims concerned in this worship ? The worship was paid only
to God, though directed to God, as peculiarly present at that
place ; which is no more, than to lift up our eyes and hands
to heaven, where the throne of God is, when we pray to him :
I grant, that bowing to, and bowing towards any thmg, as the ob-
* Page 130, t Psalm xcix, 2, 9.

AGAINST POPERY, 175
ject of worship, is the very same, as this author observes ; and
therefore had the Jews either bowed to or towards the cherubim,
as the objects of their worship, as the Papists bowed to or to
wards their images, they had heen equally guilty of idolatry, and
the breach of the second commandment ; but when bowing to
signifies bovring to an object of worship, and bowing towards
signifies bo-wing to this object of worship, only towards such a
place, where he is peculiarly present, this makes a great dif
ference ; and this is all the Jews did at most, if they did that ;
they bowed to God towards the mercy-seat, where he dwelt,
vrithout any regard to the cherubims or mercy-seat, as the ob
ject of worship, which was as invisible to the Jews then, as
the throne of God and the angels in heaven are now to us ;
and we may as well say, that those who lift up their eyes and
their hands to heaven, when they pray to God, worship the
angels, who encircle his throne, because they know that the
angels are there ; as say, that the Jews worshipped their in
risible chembims, because they knew that the cherubims were
there : for is there any necessity that the Jews must worship
whatever they knew was in the holy of holies, because they
worshipped God towards that place, any more than there is,
that we must worship whatever we know to be in heaven,
when we direct our worship to God in heaven ?
Men, I grant, may worship an unseen object, for so we all
worship God, whom we do not and cannot see ; but it is a
good argument still, that the cherubims were not intended by
God for the objects of worship, because they were concealed
from the people's sight ; for I believe the world never heard
before of worshipping invisible images : the original intention
of images, is to havfe a risible object of worship : for an in
risible image can affect us no more than an invisible God ;
and if our author had consulted all the patrons of image-wor
ship, vrhether Pagan or Popish, he would have found most of
the reasons they allege for this worship to depend on sight,
and therefore whatever he thought, are all lost when a man
shuts his eyes, A man who directs his worship to an image,
may he an idolater in the dark, and vrith his eyes shut ; but as
bhnd as idolaters are, there never had been any image- worship,
had their images been as invisible as their gods ; and there
fore sight has more to do in this matter, than our author was
aware of.
But it seems the high-priest once a year did see these cheru
bims, and adore and worship them. But this is another mis-

17C A PRESERVATIVE
take : for the Jews did believe, that the high-priest never
saw the cherubims, or mercy-seat, even when he went once a
year to the holy of hohes ; and they have great reason for
what they say, since God expressly commanded, that when he
went into the holy of holies, he should take " a censer fuH of
burning coals of fire from off the altar before the Lord, aud
his hands full of sweet incense beaten small, and bring it with
in the veil : and he shall put the incense upon the fire before
the Lord, that the cloud of the incense may cover the mercy-
seat, that is upon the testimony, that he die not," Levit. xvi.
12, 13, Which shews that the cherubiras, and mercy-seat,
were to be covered vrith a cloud of incense, and to become as
inrisible to the high-priest within the veil, as to the people
vrithout it.
But suppose the high-priest did see the cherubims, when he
entered vrithin the veil, I have one plain argument to prove
that he did not worship them, not only because no act of wor
ship was commanded him when he went into the holy place,
but because as the holy of holies was the figure of heaven, and
the cherubims the types of angels, who stand about the throne
of God ; so the high-priest entering into the holy of hohes,
was the type of Christ ascending into heaven with his own
blood ; and therefore the high-priest must do nothing in the
holy of holies, but what was a proper figure and type of what
Christ does in heaven : and then he must no more worship
the cherubims, which covered the "mercy-seat, or the typical
throne of God, than Christ himself, when he ascended to
heaven, was to worship the angels, who stand about the throne.
So that notvrithstanding God's command to make two che
rubims, and to place them at the two ends of the mercy-seat
in the holy of holies, all image-worship was strictly forbid by
the law of Moses ; and God has prorided the most effectual
remedy against it, by the incarnation of his Son : mankind
have been always fond of some visible deity, and because God
cannot be seen, they have gratified their superstition by
making some risible images and representations of an invisible
God : now to take them off from mean corporeal images and
representations, which are both a dishonour to the Divine na
ture, and debase the minds of men, God has given us a risible
image of himself, has clothed his own eternal Son with human
nature, who is " the brightness of his Father's glory, and the
express image of his person," Heb, i. 3, And therefore, St,
John tells us, "That the word was made flesh, and dwelt

AGAINST POPERY. 177
among -us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only
begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth," John i. 14.
And for this reason, when Phihp was desirous to see the Fa
ther, " Shew us the Father, and it sufficeth ;" Christ teUs him,
that the Father is to be seen only in the Son, who is his visible
image and glory : " Jesus saith unto him. Have I been so long
time vrith you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip ? He
that hath seen me, hath seen the Father ; and how sayest
thou then. Shew us the Father?" John xiv. 8, 9. This was
one end of Christ's incarnation, that we might have a risible
Deity, a God incarnate to represent the Father to us, who is
the liring and visible image of God ; and there could not be
a more effectual way to make men despise all dead material
representations of God, than to have God risibly represented
to us in our own nature.
It is true, Christ is not risible to us now on earth, but he is
risible in heaven, and we know, he is the only visible image of
God, and that is enough to teach us, that we must make and
adore no other. He is as risible to us in heaven, as the
raercy-seat in the holy of holies was to the Jews, and is that
true propitiatory of which the raercy-seat was a type and figure,
Eom. iii, 25 : " Him hath God set forth to be a propitiation
through faith in his blood," ikaarripwv, the mercy-seat, as that
word is used, Heb, ix, 5, He is the natural image of God,
and his mercy-seat, or presence and throne of grace ; he is his
visible image, though he cannot be seen by us ; for the typi
cal mercy-seat in the holy of holies, did prefigure, that his
residence should be in heaven, and therefore inrisible to us on
earth ; but there we may see him by faith, and there he vrill
receive our prayers, and present them to his Father.
Now then to sum up this argument : since it was one main
design of Christ's appearance, to root all the remains of idola
trous worship out of the world, is it credible, that the worship
of saints and angels, and the Virgin Mary ; the worship of
images and rehcs, as it is practised in the Church of Rome,
should be any part of Christian worship, or allowed by the
Gospel of our Sariour 1 If creature-worship, and image-wor
ship were so offensive to God, here is the worship of creatures
and images stUl, and therefore all the risible idolatry that
ever was practised in the world before : all that they can pre
tend is, that they have better notions of the worship of saints,
and angels, and images, than the heathens had : but whether
they have or no, will be hard to prove : the Pagan phUosopherii
VOL. XI. N

178 A PRESERVATIVE
made the same apologies for their worship of angels, and de^
mons, and images, which the learned Papists now make, and
whether unlearned Papists have not as gross notions about
their worship of saints and images, as the unlearned heathens
had, is very doubtful, and has been very much suspected by
learned Romanists themselves : but suppose there were some
difference upon this account, can we think, that Christ, who
came to root out all idolatrous worship, intended to set up a
new kind of creature-worship and image-worship in greater
pomp and glory than ever, and only to rectify men's opmions
about it ? Suppose the idolatry of creature-worship and image-
worship, does consist only in men's gross notions about it ; yet
we see under the law, to prevent and cure this, God did not
go about to rectify their opinions of these things, but abso
lutely forbids the worship of all images, and of any other being
but himself : which methinks he would not have done, had
there been such great advantages in the worship of saints, and
angels, and images, as the Romanists pretend : and when God,
in the law of Moses, forbade all creature and image-worship,
can we think, that Christ who came to make a more perfect
reformation, should only change their country gods into saints
and angels, and the Virgin Mary, and give new names to their
statues and images ? Which, whatever he had taught about
it, instead of curing idolatry, had been to set up that same
kind of worship, which the law of Moses absolutely forbade,
and condemned as idolatry.
When God, to cure the idolatrous worship of inferior
daemons, as their mediators and advocates vrith the supreme
God, sent his own Son into the world to be our Mediator, can
we think, that he intended after this, that we should worship
angels, and saints, and the Virgin Mary, as mediators ? When
God has given us a visible image of himself, his eternal, and
incarnate Son, whom we may worship and adore, did he still
intend that we should worship material and sensible images of
wood or stone ? By the incarnation of his own Son, God did
indeed take care to rectify men's mistakes about creature-wor
ship, and to cut off all pretences for it : those who pleaded
that vast distance between God and men, and how unfit it was
that sinners should make their immediate approaches to the
supreme God, and therefore worshipped inferior daemons as
middle beings between God and man, have now no pretence
for this, since God has appointed his own Son to be our me
diator : those who worshipped images as the visible represen-

AGAINST POPERY. 179
tations of an inrisible God, have now a risible object of
worship, a God incarnate, a God in the nature and likeness of
".a, man ; and though we do not now see him, yet we have the
notion of a risible God and Mediator, to whom we can direct
our prayers in heaven, which is satisfaction enough even to
men of more gross and material imaginations, vrithout any
artificial and senseless representation of the Deity : and was all
this done that men might worship creatures and images with
out idolatry ? Or rather, was it not done to cure men's inclina
tions to commit idolatry vrith creatures and images ? Whoever
believes that the Gospel of our Sariour was intended as a
remedy against idolatry, can never be persuaded, that it allows
the worship of saints and images ; which if it be not idolatry,
is so exactly like it in all external appearance, that the allow
ance of it does not look hke a proper cure for idolatry.
Sect. IL
Concerning the great love of God to mankind, and the assur
ances of pardon and forgiveness which the Gospel gives to
all penitent sinners ; which are much weakened by some
Popish doctrines,
2. The Gospel of Christ was intended to give the highest
deraonstration of God's love to mankind, and the greatest
possible security to aU humble penitent sinners, of the forgive
ness of their sins : hence the Gospel is called the " Grace of
God," and the "Gospel of Grace," as being a dispensation of
love and goodness ; and therefore, whatever lessens and dispa
rages the Gospel-grace, can be no Gospel doctrine. As to
consider this particularly.
The Gospel magnifies the grace of God, in giring his own
Son for us : " God so loved the world, that he gave his only
begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not
perish, but have everlasting life," John iii. 16. "In this was
manifested the love of God towards us, because that God sent
his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live
through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that
he loved us, aud sent his Son to be the propitiation for our
sins," 1 John iv. 9, 10. And St. Paul assures us, that this is
such a glorious manifestation of God's love, as vrill not suffer
us to doubt of any other expressions of his goodness : " He
that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all,
how shall he not vrith him also freely giv^ us all things?"
N 2

180 A PRESERVATIVE
Rom. rin. 32. So that the Gospel of our Sariour gives us
much higher demonstrations of God's love and goodness, than
either the hght of nature, or the law of Moses did. Love is
the prevaUing attribute of God under the Gospel dispensation,
for " God is love, and he that dwelleth in love, dwelleth in
God, and God in him," 1 John iv, 16,
Thus the Gospel of Christ gives a humble penitent as great
assurance of pardon, as his own guilty fears can desire ; for
repentance and remission of sins is preached in the name of
Christ : he has expiated our sins by the sacrifice of his death ;
" God commendeth his love towards us, in that while we were
yet sinners, Christ died for us : much more then being justi
fied by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him ;
for if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled unto God by
the death of his Son, much more being reconciled, we shall be
saved by his life," Rom, v, 8, 9, 10, For as he was delivered
for our offences, so he was raised again for our justification ;
and " him hath God exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour, to
give repentance unto Israel, and reraission of sins,"* So that
" if any man sin, we have an advocate vrith the Father, Jesus
Christ the righteous,f who is able also to save all them to the
uttermost, that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to
make intercession for them," Heb, vii, 25, "These are the iiin-
damental doctrines of Christianity, and therefore nothing can
be a Gospel doctrine, which weakens or overthrows them. Let
us then examine the Popish doctrine of purgatory, and the
invocation of saints and angels as our mediators with God, and
see how they are reconcilable with the Gospel notion of God's
love, and that security it gives us of pardon, through the merits
and intercession of Christ.
1 . Let us consider the doctrine of purgatory, which is but
the outward court or region of hell, where the punishments
are as severe as in hell itself, only of a less continuance ; and
yet as short as they are, they may last many hundred, nay
thousand years, unless their friends and the priests be more
merciful to them, or they themselves have taken care before
death to pay the price of their redemption. This is a bar
barous doctrine, and so inconsistent with that mighty love of
God to penitent smners, as it is represented in the Gospel of
Christ, that it is not reconcilable with any notion of love and
goodness at all ; you may call it justice, you may call it ven-
* Acts V, 31. f 1 Johnii, 1,

AGAINST POPERY. 1-8 1
geance, if you pleasCi but love it is not, or if it be, it is such
a love as no man can distinguish from hatred : for my part I
declare, I do not desire to be thus loved ; I should rather
choose to fall into nothing, when I die, than to endure a thou
sand years torments to be happy for ever ; for human nature
cannot bear the thoughts of that : and is this that wonderful
love of God to sinners, which is so magnified in the Gospel,
to torment those, who are redeemed by the blood of Christ,
some hundred or thousand years in the fire of purgatory,
which is not cooler than the fire of hell.
The light of nature, I confess, never taught this ; for man
kind never had a notion of such an outrageous love ; they
always thought, that the love of God consisted in doing good,
not in damning those whom he loves, for so many ages : and
if this be all the discovery the Gospel has made of the love of
God, we have no great reason to glory in it. He who can be
lieve that God, who so loved the world as to give his only
begotten Son for the redemption of sinners, will torment a
penitent sinner so many years in purgatory, till he has either
endured the punishraent of his sins himself, or is released by
the charity of his friends, or the masses of some mercenary
priests, deserves to lie in purgatory, till he thinks more
honourably of the Divine goodness, and be con-rinced, that it
is no such extravagant commendation of the love of God, to
send penitent sinners to purgatory.
There are two extravagant notions whereon the doctrine of
purgatory is founded, which overthrow all the natural notions
men have of goodness, and destroy all the hope and confidence
of the most penitent sinners in the goodness of God, As,
1 , That God may forgive sins, and yet punish us for them ;
for no man can go into purgatory according to the doctrine of
the Church of Rorae, whose sins are not already forgiven :
but though his sins are forgiven, he must make satisfaction
for their temporal punishment, which is due to them, either
in this world, or in purgatory : now how reconcUable these
two are, to forgive and to punish, let all mankind judge, I
believe, very few men think they are forgiven when they are
punished ; for that which all men desire should be forgiven
them is the punishment they have deserved. What is it men
are afraid of when they have sinned ? Is it not that they shall
be punished for it ? What is it men desire when they desire
pardon ? Is it not that they may not be punished ? And is it
any comfort to a malefactor to be pardoned, and to be hanged?

182 A PRESERVATIVE
Does any man boast of his love and kindness, or take any
comfort in it, who freely forgives him, but exacts the pay
ment of the debt, or the punishment of his fault? And if
this be so contrary to the very notion of goodness and for
giveness among men, how comes it to be the notion of good
ness and forgiveness in God ? How comes that to be love and
goodness which the sinner receives no benefit by ? For love
and goodness, I think, signifies to do good ; or if this he
goodness, let those take comfort in it that can.
If it be said, that it is an act of goodness, to exchange the
etemal punishment of hell, which is due to sin, into the tem
poral punishment of purgatory, I grant this is somethmg,
but only ask. Whether it would not have been a more perfect
expression of love and goodness, to have remitted the tem
poral punishment also of, it may be, some thousand years
torment in purgatory ? Whether this might not have been ex
pected under a dispensation of the most perfect love ? And
from that God who sent his only begotten Son into the world
to save sinners ? Whether those sins are perfectly forgiven,
which shall be avenged, though not with eternal, yet vrith long
temporal punishments in the next world ? Whether any man
thinks himself perfectly forgiven, who is punished very se
verely, though not absolutely according to his deserts? And
consequently, whether the doctrine of purgatory be not a veiy
great diminution of the love of God, and the grace of the
Gospel ? And whether that can be a true Gospel doctrine,
which represents the love of God much less than the love of
& kind and good man, who when he forgives the injury, for
gives the whole punishment of it ? Nay, whether that can he
a Gospel doctrine, which represents the love of God less than
infinite ? And I suppose an infinite love may forgive true
penitents the whole punishment of their sins ; and then there
is no need of purgatory,
2ndly, In purgatory, God does not only punish those whop
he has pardoned, but he punishes for no other reason but
punishment sake. For thus the Roman doctors teU us, that
the souls in purgatory are in a state of pardon, and in a state
of perfect grace ; and they suffer the pains of purgatory, not
to purge away any remains of sin, or to purify and refine them,
and make thera more fit for heaven, but only to bear the
punishment due to sin, for which they had made no satisfaction,
whUe they lived. Now I dare boldly affirm, this is irreconcil
able with any degree of love and goodness : to makje any

AGAINST POPERY. 1B3
punishment just, it must have respect to the guilt of sin; to
make it an act of goodness, it must be intended for the refor
mation of the sinner ; but when sin is pardoned, the guilt at
least is taken away, and therefore such punishments can have
no relation to guUt ; and when the sinner is in a perfect state
of grace, and needs no amendment, such punishments can have
no respect to the good and reformation of the sinner, and
therefore such punishments are neither so just nor good ; and
this is the exact notion of purgatory ; and methinks we should
consider, whether this agrees with that account the Gospel gives
us of the love and goodness of God : should a prince have a
jail of the same nature with purgatory, where for several years
he torments those whom he pretends to have pardoned, and who
are grown very good men, and good subjects, and need no cor
rection or disciphne, I believe all the world would laugh at
those, who should call this love and goodness, pardon and
raercy. Hell is very irreconcilable with the goodness of God,
because it is prepared only for those, who are the objects of a
jpst, a righteous vengeance, and a very good God may be very
just; but purgatory can never be reconciled with the superabun
dant goodness of God to sinners, through Jesus Christ, unless
men think it a great kindness to suffer the pains of hell for
several months, years, or ages, for no reason which makes it
either just or good to suffer them. So that a Popish purgatory
is inconsistent with the belief of God's great love and good
ness to sinners, in Jesus Christ, and destroys the hope and
confidence of sinners : for if they may lie in purgatory for some
thousand years, as they may do, notvrithstanc&ig the love of
God, and the merits of Christ, if the Pope, or the priests,
or their money be not more merciful unto them, they have no
great reason to glory much in the goodness of God, though they
should go to heaven at last : so that our Protestant need not
dispute much about purgatory: let him only ask a Popish
priest, how the doctrine of purgatory can be reconcUed with
that stupendous love of God, declared to penitent sinners, in
his Son Jesus Christ ? For it is a contradiction to the notion of
goodness among men, to inflict such terrible punishments in
mere grace and love, even when the sin is pardoned, and the
sinner reconcUed, and no longer in a state of discipline and
trial. Secondly, The doctrin* of purgatory destroys, or weakens
that security the Gospel hath given sinners of their redemption
from the wrath of God, and the just punishment of their

184 A PRESERVATIVE
sins. Our great security is the love of God, declared to the
world by our Lord Jesus Christ ; but if the love of God to
penitent sinners, who are redeemed by the blood of Christ, be
consistent vrith his tormenting them in purgatory so many
thousand years, as you have already heard, it will be a very
hard thing to distinguish such love from wrath, and a sinner,
who is afraid of so many thousand years punishment, can take
no great comfort in it : but besides this, the doctrine of pur
gatory destroys men's hope and confidence in the merits and
intercession of Christ, and in the express promises of pardon
and remission of sins in his name.
1 . It destroys men's hopes in the merits of Christ, and the
atonement and expiation of his blood ; for if the blood of
Christ does not deliver us from the punishment of sin, what
security is this to a sinner ? Yes, you will say, Christ has
redeemed us from eternal, though not from temporal punish
ments, and therefore penitent sinners have this security by the
expiation of Christ's death, that they shall not be eternally
damned : this I know the Church of Rome teaches ; but I
desire to know, how any man can be satisfied from Scripture,
that Christ by his death has delivered us from eternal punish
ments, if he have not delivered us from temporal punishments
of sin in the next world ? I thankfully acknowledge, and it is
the only hope I have, that the Gospel has given us abundant
assurance of the expiation and atonement made for sin by the
blood of Christ ; but what I say, is this, that if these texts
which prove our redemption by the death of Christ, do not
prove that Christ has redeemed us from the whole punishment
due to sin in the next world, they prove nothing, and then we
have not one place of Scripture to prove, that Christ, by his
death, has redeemed us from eternal punishments ; which is
enough to make all Christians abhor the doctrine of purgatory,
if it destroy the doctrine of salvation by Jesus Christ. As to
shew this briefly :
The hope and security of sinners depends upon such
Scripture expressions as these : That Christ has died for our
sins ; that he has made atonement for sin ; that he is a propitia
tion through faith in his blood ; that he has redeemed us from
the curse of the law, being made a curse for us ; that remission
and forgiveness of sins is preached in his name ; that by him
we are justified from all those things, from which we could not
be justified by the law of Moses ; that being justified by faith,
we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ ; that

AGAINST POPERY, 185
we are reconciled unto God, and saved from wrath by him.
Now I desire to know, whether all these expressions signify,
that for Christ's sake, and through the atonement and expia
tion of his blood, a penitent sinner shall be delivered from the
punishment due to his sins? If they do not signify this, how
is a sinner secured, that though his sins are pardoned, and he
is justified, and reconciled to God, and redeemed from the
curse of the law, and saved from wrath, he shall not, after all
this, be damned for his sins, since that is the punishment of
sin, which it seems is not removed, when sin is pardoned, and
the sinner justified and reconciled to God? If these expres
sions do not signify taking away the punishment of sin, I desire
one text of Scripture to prove, that a sinner who is pardoned
and justified, shall not undergo the eternal punishment of his
sins. If to be pardoned and justified, &c, does signify to be
delivered from the punishment of sin, I desire to know, how a
sinner, who is pardoned and justified, can be punished for his
sins ? That is, how a sinner, who is released from the punish
raent of his sins, should be bound to suffer the punishment of
his sins in purgatory ?
Our Roman adversaries do indeed distinguish between the
temporal and eternal punishment of sin ; the etemal punish
ment of sin, they say, Christ has made satisfaction for, and that
is removed by his death, that no penitent sinner shall be
eternally damned ; but a sinner must make satisfaction for the
temporal punishment of sin hiraself, either in this world, or in
purgatory : and consequently that forgiveness of sins, signifies
the remission of the eternal punishment of sin, but not of the
temporal. Now I shall not put them to prove this distinction
from Scripture, which is a very unreasonable task, because there
is nothing in Scripture about it ; but yet I would gladly be
secured, that I shall be saved from eternal punishments ; and
therefore I would gladly know, how forgiveness of sins, and
our redemption from the curse of the law, signifies our deliver
ance from eternal punishments, if they do not signify our
deliverance from the punishment of our sins ? And how can
they signify our deliverance from the punishment of our sins,
if notwithstanding this we must suffer the punishment of our
sins in purgatory? If they signify, that we shall not be
punished for our sins, then indeed they may signify that we
shall not be eternally punished ; but they cannot signify that
we shall not be eternally punished, unless they signify that
we shall not be punished, and therefore not in purgatory

186 A PRESERVATIVE
neither ; if that be the punishment of sin. The truth is, this
is a very senseless distinction between the temporal and eternal
punishment of sin : for I desire to know, whether the temporal
punishment be not the punishment of sin ? be not the curse of
the law ? If it be, then forgiveness of sin, if it remits tbe
punishment, remits the temporal punishment, for that is the
punishment of sin ; then our redemption from the curse of
the law, redeems us from purgatory, for that is the curse of
the law too : if you add, and from death, for that is the curse
of the law too, and yet those who are redeemed and justified,
die still ; which shews the fallacy of this argument ; for it
seems redemption from the curse of the law, does not signify
our redemption from the whole curse ; for then a justified per
son must not die, since bare dying is part of the curse : I
answer, this had certainly been true, had not the necessity of
dying been expressly excepted out of this redemption; "for in
Adam all die," and " it is appointed (by a divine decree) for all
men once to die ;" and could they shew, where purgatory is
excepted too, then I would grant, that those who are redeemed
frora the curse of the law might fall into purgatory, if that be any
comfort to them : and yet the case is vastly different between
deathand purgatory: for though deathbe the curse of the law, yet
we may be delivered from]death as a curse and punishment, with
out being dehvered from the necessity of dying : and thus good
men are redeemed from death: for their sins are expiated and
pardoned, and then the sting of death is gone ; for the sting of
death is sin, and therefore when our sins are pardoned, death can
not sting us, can do us no hurt ; because it does not deliver us
over to punishment, but transplants us into a more happy state.
The fears of death are conquered by the promises of immortal
life, and death itself shaU at the last day be swallowed up in
rictory, when our dead bodies shall be raised imraortal and
glorious ; so that though good men still die, yet they are
redeemed from the curse of the law, from death itself as a
curse and a punishment. But the Popish purgatory is a
place of punishment, and nothing but punishment ; and there
fore is not reconcilable with the remission and forgiveness of sin.
Again I ask. Whether there are two kinds of punishments
due to sin, temporal and eternal, of such a distinct nature and
consideration, that the promise of forgiveness does not include
both ? Nay, that God cannot forgive both ; that only the
eternal punishment can be forgiven, but the temporal punish
ment must be satisfied for, or endured by the sinner : if this

AGAINST POPERY. 187
were the case indeed, then I would grant, the promise of for
giveness could extend only to eternal punishments, because
God can forgive no other ; and the forgiveness of eternal
punishment, does not include the forgiveness of the temporal
punishment. But if the curse of the law be eternal death,
and all other punishments, which can properly be called the
punishment of sin (for correction and discipline is not the
wrath of God, and the curse of the law), are only parts of the
curse, and a partial execution of it ; if the only thing that
makes sinners obnoxious to temporal punishments is, that they
are under the sentence of etemal death, which God may execute
by what degrees he pleases ; then to forgive eternal punish
ment, must include the forgiveness of temporal punishments,
as parts or branches of it. As suppose there were a law, that
no man should suffer any bodily punishments, but such a
malefactor as is condemned to die, but when the sentence of
death is passed upon him, it should be at the prince's pleasure
to defer the execution of this sentence, as long as he pleased,
and in the mean time to inflict all other punishments on him,
whatever he pleased ; in this case to pardon the sentence of
death, would deliver such a man from all other punishments
too, which by the law are due only to that man, who is under
the sentence of death : and in such a constitution for any man
to say, that the prince's pardon extends only to life, but does
not excuse from whipping and pilloring, and perpetual imprison
ment, would be to make the pardon void, since no man by the
law can suffer those other punishments but he who is con
demned to die, and therefore he who is pardoned the sentence
of death, in consequence of that, is pardoned all other punish
ments too.
Thus it is here : the original curse against sin was, " In
the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die," which
by the Gospel of Christ is expounded of eternal death, and
there is no other threatening in aU the Gospel against sin, but
eternal death ; and therefore all other punishments are inflicted
by virtue of this law, and consequently he who is dehvered
from this curse of the law, from etemal punishments, is
delivered from the whole punishment due to sin ; unless they
can find some other law in the Gospel, besides that which
threatens eternal death, which obliges a sinner to punishment.
Again, since they acknowledge, that Christ by his death has
delivered us from eternal punishments, I do not think it worth
the while to dispute vrith them, whether those sufferings and

188 A PRESERVATIVE
calamities, which good men are exposed to in this world, may
properly be called punishments, or only correction and disci
pline ; but I desire to know, why they call purgatorj^, which is
a place of punishment in the other world, a temporal punish
ment ? For this is an abuse of the language of Scripture,
which makes this world temporal, and the next world eternal,
as St, Paul expressly tells us ; " The things which are seen
are temporal; but the things which are not seen are etemal,"
2 Cor, iv. 18, And therefore temporal punishments signify
the punishments in this world, but the unseen punishments,
as well as the unseen rewards of the next world are etemal ;
which is a demonstration, that there is no purgatory, unless it
be eternal, and then it is but another name for hell ; and there
fore the state of the next world is called either life or death,
etemal life or etemal death : those " who believe in Christ
shall never die," John xi, 25, 26. Now I desire to know the
difference between living and dying, and perishing in the next
world ; for bad men do not cease to be, nor lose all sense in the
next world, no more than good men ; and therefore life can
only signify a state of happiness, and death a state of misery,
which is much worse than not being ; now if good men must
not perish, must not die, but live in the next world, they must
not go to purgatory, which is as much perishing, as much
dying, as hell, though not so long ; but if they must never die,
never perish, they must never suffer the pains of purgatory,
which is a dying and perishing, that is, a state of torment and
misery, while they continue there.
Let us then see how a Papist, who believes a purgatory fire
in the next world, wherein he shall be tormented (God knows
how long !) for his sins, can prove that a penitent sinner shaU
not be eternally damned : Oh ! says he, Christ has died for our
sins, and made atonement for them, and we are pardoned and
justified through faith in big blood ; and what then, may we
not StiU be punished for our sins ? If not, what becomes of
purgatory ? If we may prove, that we shall not be eternally
damned for sin, which is the proper punishment of it : for if to
be pardoned and justified, signify to be delivered from punish
ment, it signifies our dehverance from the whole punishment
of sin, since the Scripture does not limit it : if they do not
signify our deliverance from punishment, then we may be eter
nally punished for sin, though we are pardoned and justi
fied. But we are " redeemed from the curse of the law, and saved

AGAINST POPERY, 189
from wrath," But if such a man may go to purgatory, why
not to hell ? Or if the curse of the law, and the wrath of God
be in hell, but not in purgatory, though the torments are
equally great, why may not he lie for ever in purgatory, as
well as a thousand years ? -with this comfort, that though he
be infinitely tormented, yet it is not the curse of the law, nor
the wrath of God,
Well, but Christ has promised, that those " who believe in
hira, shall not perish, but have everlasting hfe :" and that
proves that the pains of purgatory cannot be for ever, for then
Christ could not make good his promise of bestovring ever
lasting life on them : so I confess one would think, and so I
should have thought also, that when Christ promised, that
such believers should not perish, and should never die, that he
meant, such men should not go to purgatory in the next
world ; but if falling into purgatory be not perishing, and not
dying, it may be everlasting life too, for ought I know, and
then the pains of purgatory may be eternal.
Whoever would not forfeit all the assurance the Gospel has
given us, of our redemption from hell, and a glorious immor
tality, must reject the Popish doctrine of purgatory, as a flat
contradiction to all the gracious promises of the Gospel : for
hell, or an etemal purgatory, is as reconcilable with the
promises of forgiveness and immortal life, as the Popish pur
gatory is,
2, This doctrine of purgatory destroys our hope and con
fidence in the mediation and intercession of Christ, and that
for these two plain reasons : 1 . As it represents him less
merciful and compassionate ; and, 2. Less powerful, than
the wants and necessities of sinners require him to be. For,
I. After all that is said in Scripture of his being so " merci
ful and compassionate an high-priest," a sinner who hears
what is told him of purgatory, could vrish hira a great deal
more compassionate than he is : for it is no great sign of
tenderness and compassion to leave his members in purga
tory fire, which burns as hot as heU. Could I beheve
this of our Saviour, I should have very mean thoughts of his
kindness, and not much rely on him for anything : we should
think him far enough from being a merciful and compassionate
prince, who can be contented to torture his subjects for a year
together ; and it is a wonderful thing to me, that when a mer
ciful man cannot see a beast in torment without reliering it,
it should be thought consistent vrith the mercy and compassion

190 A PRESERVATIVE
of our Saviour, to see us burn in purgatory for years and ages.
To be sure this destroys all our hope in him in this world ; for
why should we think, he will be concerned what we suffer here,
who can contentedly let us lie in purgatory, to which all the
calamities and sufferings • of this life are mere trifles? 0
blessed and merciful Jesu ! pardon such blasphemies as these.
Por, IL If he be compassionate, he must want power to help ns;
and that destroys the hope of sinners as much as want of com
passion. It must be want of will or power in him, that he
does not dehver us from purgatory as weU as hell : and if he
want power to deliver us from purgatory, for my part, I should
more question his power to deliver from hell, for that is the
harder of the two : if his blood could not expiate from the tem
poral punishment of sin, which the merits of some supereroga
ting saint, or the Pope's indulgence, or the Priest's masses can
redeem us from, how could it make expiation for etemal pun
ishment ? If his interest in the court of heaven will not do the
less, how can it do the greater ? There is no doctrine more
irreconcilable with the perfect love and goodness of God, and
the merits and intercession of our Sariour, which are the
fundamental doctrines of the Gospel, which is a dispensation of
love and grace, than this of purgatory, and therefore we may
safely conclude that this is no Gospel doctrine.
2, Let us now examine the doctrine of invocation of saints
and angels as our mediators vrith God, and see whether it does
not disparage the grace of the Gospel, the love of God, and of
our mediator and advocate Jesus Christ, to penitent sinners.
Now a very few words will decide this matter,
1 , With respect to God : how can that man beheve, that
God is so very gracious to sinners for the sake of Christ, who
seeks to so many advocates and mediators to intercede for
him vrith God? To imagine that we want any mediator to
God, but only our High Priest, who mediates in virtue of his
sacrifice, is a reproach to the Dirine goodness. The wisdom
aud justice of God may require a sacrifice, and a high-priest to
make atonement for sin, but infinite goodness needs not any
entreaties, and mere intercessions to move him. A tmly good
man, who knows a proper object of his kindness, needs not to
be asked to do good. The use of such advocates and media
tors among men, is either to recommend an unknown person
to the favour of the prince, or fairly to represent his cause to
him, which has been misrepresented by others, or to procure

AGAINST POPERY. 191
favour for an undeserring person, or among equal competitors,
to procure some one to be preferred ; this is all the use of inter
cession among men : for a good, and wise, and just prince,
will do what is wise, and just, and good, not only vrithout
intercessors, but against all intercessions to the contrary. Now
I suppose no man will say, that God wants mediators and
advocates upon any one of these accounts ; for he knows every
man, understands perfectly his cause, will never be persuaded
by any intercessions to shew kindness to unfit objects, that is,
to impenitent sinners ; and his goodness is so unconfined, and
so extensive to all, that there can never be any competition for
his favour ; and therefore to multiply advocates and mediators
to God, must argue a great distrust of his mercy and good
ness, which a kind and good prince would take very ill of us.
God indeed has commanded us to pray for one another in
this world, as he has to pray for ourselves ; but this is not by
way of interest and merit, as the Church of Rome pretends
the saints in heaven pray for us, but by humble supphcations,
which is very reconcilable with the goodness of God, to make
prayer a necessary condition of granting pardon and other
blessings we want : but as the use of prayer for ourselves, is
not to move God merely by our importunities to do good to us,
for we must pray in faith, that is, vrith a humble assurance
and confidence that God will hear us, which includes a firm
belief of his readiness to grant what we pray for ; so neither
are our prayers for others to move God by our interest in him,
that is, they are not the intercessions of favourites, but of
humble supplicants.
There was great reason why God should make prayer the
condition of our receiring, though he wants not our importu
nities to move him, because there are a great many exceUent
rirtues exercised in prayer ; such as great sorrow for sin, great
humiUty of mind, faith in God's promises, the acts of love and
affiance and trust in God, and a constant dependence on his
grace and proridence for aU spiritual and temporal blessings :
and there was great reason why he should command us to pray
for others, though he wants none of our intercessions for them;
because it is a mutual exercise of charity, of love to our bre
thren, and forgiveness to our enemies, and is a mighty obligation
to do all other acts of kindness ; for those who know it to be
their duty to pray for one another, will think themselves bound
to do good to one another g.lso : this becomes those, who live
and converse together, iui this world, because it is a great

192 A PRESERVATIVE
instrument of virtue, and that is a reason why God should
encourage the exercise of it, by promising to hear our prayers
for each other.
But as far as mere goodness is concerned, the Gospel repre
sents God as so very good to sinners, that there is no need of
any intercessor for them : for " God so loved the world, that
he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever beUeveth in him
should not perish, but have everlasting life," John in. 16,
This was an act of goodness antecedent to the incarnation
and death of Christ, and the highest act of goodness that God
could manifest to the world, and therefore secures us of God's
love and goodness to sinners without a mediator and advocate ;
for that love which provided a mediator for us, was without
one, and proves, that it was not for want of goodness, or that
he needed entreaties, that he gave his Son to be our mediator.
And therefore hence St, Paul proves, how ready God is to bestow
all good things on us : " He that spared not his own Son, but
dehvered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely
give us all things," Rom, riii, 32, And our Saviour himself
represents the goodness of God, by the tenderness and com
passion of an earthly parent : " If ye then, being eril (that is,
less good than God is), know how to give good things to your
chUdren, how much more shall your heavenly Father give
good things to thera that ask hira," Matth, vii, 1 1 : especially
in the parable of the prodigal, where our Saviour describes the
goodness of God to sinners, by that passion of joy wherewith
the Father received his returning prodigal ; nay, he assures his
disciples, that there was no need of his own intercession to
inchne God to be good and kind to them : " At that day ye
shall ask in my name ; and I say not unto you, that I wiUpray
the Father for you : for the Father himself loveth you, because
ye have loved me, and believed that I carae out from God,"
John xvi, 26, 27. God is so infinitely good, that he needs no
mediators or intercessors to incline him to all acts of goodness ;
but as he is the wise and just Governor of the world, he
requires a sacrifice for sin, and a high-priest to make atonement
for it, and to intercede in virtue of the sacrifice. Such a
mediator Christ is, who alone is both our sacrifice and our
priest, and therefore our only mediator ; not to incline God to
be good, for that he was before, infinitely good, or else he
had not given his Son to be our sacrifice and our high-priest,
but to make atonement for our sins, and thereby to reconcile
the exercise of God's goodness with his wisdom and justice m

AGAINST POPERY. l93
governing the world. Such a Mediator and High-Priest does
not lessen the Divine goodness, for the intention of his media
tion is not to make God good and kind, but to make it wise
and just in God to do good to sinners ; but all other mediators
in heaven, whose business it is by prayers and entreaties, and
interest and favour to incline God to be good to such particu
lar persons as they intercede for, is a real disparagement to the
Divine goodness ; as if he would not be good unless he were
conquered by entreaties, and overruled by the prevailing inter
cessions of some great favourites : and yet such mediators as
these the saints, and angels, and Virgin Mary are, if they be
mediators at all ; and therefore to pray to them as to our
mediators, argues such a diffidence and distrust of God's
goodness, as does not become the Gospel of our Saviour ; this
can be no Gospel doctrine, because it is irreconcilable vrith that
account the Gospel gives us of the love of God.
2, Nor is it less injurious to the love of our Sariour, to fly
to the prayers and aids of saints, and angels, and the Virgin
Mary herself, I shall not now dispute, what encroachment
this is upon the mediatorship of Christ, to make our addresses
and applications to other mediators ; but whoever does so,
must either think that Christ wants interest with God, without
the joint intercession of saints and angels, or that he wants
kindness to us, and either vrill not intercede for us at all, or
will not do it unless he be prevailed with by the intercession of
saints, or the entreaties or the commands of his mother, I
suppose they will not pretend that he wants power to do what
we ask of him, when he himself has assured us, " that what
soever we ask of the Father in his name, he will give it us,"
John XV, 16, John xvi, 23, 24, Does our Mediator then need
other mediators to intercede with him for us ? What I he who
became man for us ? who lived a laborious and afflicted life for
us ? who loved us so as to give himself for us ? who is a
merciful and compassionate High-Priest, and touched vrith a
feeling of our infirmities, being in all things tempted like as
we are, yet without sin ?
What a change does this make in the whole Gospel ? Had
not the Church of Rome found out some better security for
sinners, in the mediation of saints, and angels, and the blessed
Virgin, what a hopeless state had we been in ? For all that the
Gospel tells us is, that God in great love and goodness to
sinners, sent his Son to be our Saviour ; and that we might
have the greater assurance of his pity and compassion for us,
VOL. XI. o

194 A PRESERVATIVE
he became man, flesh of our flesh, and bone of our bone; and
not only so, but submitted to all the weaknesses and infirmities
of our nature, to the greatest shame and reproach, to the
sharpest pains, and the most infamous death, that he might
the better know what our temptations and sufferings are in
this world, and might be more sensibly affected vrith our con
dition in all our sufferings : this, one woiUd have thought,
should have given the greatest security to sinners of his readi
ness to help them, who did and suffered all this for them ; and
this is the only security which the Gospel of our Sariour gives
us. But it seeras Christ is not raerciful and pitiful enough :
his virgin mother has softer and tenderer passions, and such an
interest in him, or authority over him, in the right of a mother,
as some of them have not without blasphemy represented it,
that she can have anything of him ; and thus they suppose
the other saints to be much more pitiful than Christ is, and to
have interest enough to protect their supplicants, or else it is
not imaginable why they should need or desire any other advo
cates. Now let any man who understands the Gospel, and
finds there how the love of Christ is magnified, not only in
dying for us, but in his being a merciful and compassionate
High-Priest, that this is the only hope of sinners, that " if any
man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ
the righteous, who is also a propitiation for om- sins," think
the invocation of saints, as our patrons and advocates, to be a
Gospel doctrine if he can. Sect, III,
Concerning the Nature of Christian Worship.
3, Another manifest design of the Gospel, was to reform
the worship of God, not only by extirpating idolatry, but by
purging it from all Pagan and Jevrish superstitions, and, to
appoint such a worship as is more agreeable to the nature both
of God and man. And whoever wUl take the pains to com
pare the worship of the Church of Rome, vrith that worship
which our Sariour has prescribed in the Gospel, vrill easily
discover how unhke they are. Let us then consider what
Christ has reformed in the worship of God, and what kind of
worship he has prescribed to his disciples,
1. What he has reformed in the worship of God ; and that
may be comprehended in one word ; he has taken away all

AGAINST POPERY. 195
that was merely external in religion. By which, I do not
mean that our Saviour has forbid all external acts of worship,
or such external circumstances as are necessary to the decent
and orderly performance of rehgious worship, which the nature
and reason of things requu-es under all dispensations of reli
gion ; but that he has laid aside all such external rites as either
were, or were thought to be in themselves acts of religion, and
to render such worshippers very acceptable to God. A great
many such rites there were in the Pagan reUgion, and a great
many in the Jevrish worship of God's own institution, and a
great many more, which the tradition of the elders, and the
superstitions of the scribes and Pharisees had introduced.
We know the Jewish worship consisted of external rites ; in
their temple, and altars, and sacrifices, and washings, and
purifications, in new moons and sabbaths, and festival solem
nities, in consecrated garments aud vessels for the service of
the temple, in distinction of meats, &c,, the very external
observance of these rites were acts of rehgion, and necessary
to make their worship acceptable to God ; and the vrilful and
presumptuous neglect or contempt of thera, was punished with
death. Now our Saviour has abrogated all these Jevrish rites, and
has instituted nothing in the room of them, excepting the two
sacraments, baptism, and the Lord's supper, which are of a
very different nature and use, as we shall see presently. He
did not, indeed, while he was on earth, blame the observation
of the law of Moses, which till that time was in full force, and
which he observed himself; but he blamed the external super
stition of the Pharisees, in washing cups and platterg, and
making broad their phylacteries, and thinking themselves very
righteous persons, for their scrupulous- observation even of the
law of Moses, in paying tithe of mint and cummin, &c,, while
they neglected " the weightier raatters of the law, judgment,
mercy, and faith," Matth, xxiii, 23, But when our Sariour
was risen from the dead, and had accoraplished all the types
and shadows of the law, then the Apostles vrith greater free
dora opposed a legal and external righteousness, and though
they did for a time indulge tbe Jews in the observation of the
rites of Moses, yet they asserted the liberty of the Gentile
converts from that yoke, as we may see in the first Council at
Antioch, and in St, Paul's disputes with the Jews, in his
Epistle to the Romans and Galatians, and elsewhere. And
indeed, whoever considers the nature of the Christian religion,
o 2

196 A PRESERVATIVE
vrill easily see, that all those ends which such external rites
served either in the Jewish or Pagan religion, have no place
here, and therefore nothing that is merely external can be of
any use or value in the Christian worship. As to shew this
particularly, 1 , There is no expiation, or satisfaction for sin, imder the
Gospel, but only the blood of Christ, and therefore all external
rites are useless to this purpose. Him,* and him only, " God
hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood,"
Death was the punishment of sin, and death is the only expia
tion of it ; and none else has died for our sins but Christ alone,
and therefore he only is a propitiation for our sins : and yet
we know, how great a part both of the Pagan and Jewish reh
gion was taken up in the expiation of sin ; all their sacrifices,
to be sure, were designed for this purpose, and so were their
washings and purifications in some degree, and many other
voluntary severities and superstitions, this being the principal
thing they intended in their religious rites, to appease God,
and make hira propitious to them. Since, then, Christ has
made a full and complete satisfaction and atonement for sin,
and there is no expiation or satisfaction required of us, all
external rites for expiation and atonement can have no place in
the Christian worship, without denying the atonement of
Christ, and this necessarily strips Christian religion of a vast
number of external rites practised both by Jews and heathens,
2, Nor does the Gospel admit of any legal uncleanness and
pollutions, distinction between clean and unclean meats, which
occasioned so many laws and observances both among Jews
and heathens ; so many ways of contracting legal uncleanness,
and so many ways to expiate it, and so many laws about eating
and drinking, and such superstition in washing hands, and
cups, and platters ; but our Sariour told his disciples.f " Not
that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man, but that
which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. For
whatsoever entereth in at the mouth, goeth into the beUy, and
is cast out into the draught ; but those things which proceed
out of the mouth, come forth from the heart, and they defile
the man. For out of the mouth proceed eril thoughts,
murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blas
phemies ; these are the things which defile a man ; but to eat
with unwashen hands, defileth not a man," And this also
* Rom. iii, 25. t Matth, xv, 11, 17, 18, 19, 20,

AGAINST POPERY, 197
delivers Christian religion from all those rites and observances,
which concerned legal cleanliness, which were very numerous.
3. Nor is there any symbolical presence of God under the
Gospel, which puts an end to the legal holiness of places and
things. God dwelt among the Jews in the temple at Jerusalem,
where were the symbols and figures of his presence. It was
God's house, and therefore a holy place, and every thing that
belonged to it had a legal holiness : for the holiness of things
and places under the law was derived from their relation to
God and his presence. This was the only place for their
typical and ceremonial worship, whither all the males of the
children of Israel were to resort three times a-year, and where
alone they were to offer their sacrifices and oblations to God :
the very place gave rirtue to their worship and sacrifices, which
were not so acceptable in other places ; nay, which could not
be offered in other places without sin, as is evident frora
Jeroboam's sin, in setting up the calves at Dan and Bethel for
places of worship, and the frequent complaints of the prophets
against those who offered sacrifices in the high places ; and
therefore the dispute between the Jews and Samaritans was,
which was the place of worship, whether the temple at
Jerusalem or Samaria, But Christ tells the woman of Samaria,
that there should be no such distinction of places in the
Christian worship : "Woman,* believe me, the hour cometh,
when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem,
worship the Father, — But the hour cometh, and now is, when
the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in
truth," Not as if the Father should not be worshipped,
neither at Jerusalem nor Samaria ; but that neither the temple
at Jerusalem nor Samaria should be the peculiar and appropri
ate place of worship ; that God's presence and worship should
no longer be confined to any one place ; that the holiness of the
place should no longer give any value to the worship; but those
who worshipped God in spirit and in truth, should be accepted
by him, wherever they worshipped him. Such spiritual worship
and worshippers shall be as acceptable to God at Samaria, as
at Jerusalem, and as much in the remotest corners of the earth
as at either of them : for God's presence should no longer be
confined to any one place, but he would hear our devout
prayers from all parts of the world, wherever they were put up
Ito him, and consequently the holiness of places is lost, which
consists only in some pecuhar Dirine presence, and with the
» John iv, 21, 23,

198 A PRESERVATIVE
holiness of places, the extemal and legal holiness of things
ceases also : for all other things were holy only with relation
to the temple, and the temple worship. For indeed, God's
typical presence in the temple was only a figure of the incar
nation. Christ's body was the true temple where God dwelt :
for which reason, he calls his body the temple, " Destroy this
temple, and I vrill raise it up in three days :" and the Apostle
assures us, that the fulness of the Godhead dwelt in Christ
bodily, triofiariKiijg, really and substantially, in opposition to
God's typical presence in the material temple : and therefore,
when Christ was come, who was the true Emmanuel, or God
dwelling among us, and had, by his incarnation, accomplished
the type and figure of the temple, God would no longer have a
typical and figurative presence.
I will not quarrel with any man, who shall call the Christian
churches, and the utensils of it, holy things ; for being em
ployed in the worship of God, they ought to be separated from
common uses, and reason teaches us to have such places and
things in some kind of religious respect, upon the account
of their relation, not to God, but to his worship ; but this
is a very different thing from the typical holiness of the
temple and altar, and other things belonging to the temple ;
and there are two plain differences between them, the first
with respect to the cause, the second with respect to the
effect. The cause of this legal holiness was God's pecuhar
presence in the temple, where God chose to dwell as in his
own house, which sanctified the temple, and all things belonging
to it : the effect was, that this holiness of the place sanctified
the worship, and gave value and acceptation to it. The first
needs no proof, and the second we learn from what our Sariour
tells the scribes and Pharisees : " Woe unto you, ye bhnd
guides, which say. Whosoever shaU swear by the temple, it is
nothing ; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple,
he is a debtor ! Ye fools and blind : for whether is greater, the
gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold ? And, Whosoever
shall swear by the altar, it is nothing ; but whosoever sweareth
by the gift that is upon it, he is guUty, Ye fools and bhnd : for
whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the
gift?"* So that it seeras, there was such a holiness in the
teraple and altar, as conveyed a holiness and sanctity to other
things, even to the oblations and sacrifices which were offerrd
there. But now, whatever holiness there is in Christian
* Matth, xxiii, 16, 17, 18, 19.

AGAINST POPERY. 199
churches and oratories, they are sanctified by the worship that
is performed there, not the worship sanctified by them. It is
the asserably of Christians themselves, that is the Church, the
house, the holy and living temple of God, not the building of
wood or stone, wherein they meet. God in Christ is peculiarly
present in the assemblies of Christians, though not by a figu
rative and symbolical presence ; and thus he is present in the
places where Christians meet, and which are consecrated and
separated to religious uses, and there is a natural decency in
the thing, to shew some peculiar respect to the places where
we solemnly worship God ; but the presence of God is not
peculiar to the place, as it was appropriated to the temple of
Jerusalem, but it goes along with the company and the worship ;
and therefore the place may be called holy, not upon account
of its immediate relation to God, as God's house, wherein he
dwells ; but its relation to Christians, and that holy worship
which is performed there ; and I suppose every one sees the
vast difference between these two : and thus all that vast
number of ceremonies, which related to this external and legal
holiness of places, vessels, instruments, garments, &c., have no
place in the Christian worship, because there is no typical and
symbolical presence of God, and consequently no such legal
holiness of places and things, under the Gospel.
4 , Nor are material and inanimate things made the recep
tacles of dirine graces and virtues under the Gospel, to convey
them to us merely by contact and external applications ; like
some amulets or charms, to wear in our pockets, or hang about
our necks. There was nothing like this in the Jewish
rehgion, though there was in the Pagan worship ; but under
the Gospel, Christ bestows his Holy Spirit on us, as the princi
ple of a new dirine hfe, and from him alone we must immedi
ately receive all dirine influences and virtues, and not seek for
these heavenly powers in senseless things, which can no more
receive, nor communicate divine graces to us, than they do
wit and understanding to those who expect grace from them.
For can grace be lodged in a rotten bone, or a piece of wood ?
or conveyed to our souls by perspiration in a kiss or touch ?
5, The Christian religion admits of no extemal or ceremonial
righteousness, " In Christ Jesus, neither circumcision availeth
lany thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature, and
lobedience to the commandment of God, and faith which worketh
by love:"* the great design of the Gospel, and of all our
* Galat. i. 6.

200 A PRESERVATIVE
Sariour's sermons, being to raake us truly holy, that we may
be partakers of the Dirine nature, haring escaped the corruption,
which is in the world through lust. There is nothing our
Lord does more severely condemn, than an external and
Pharisaical righteousness, which consisted either in observing
the external rites of the law of Moses, or their own superstitions
received by tradition from their forefathers, and he expressly
tells his disciples, " Except your righteousness exceed the
righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in nowise
enter into the kingdom of heaven," Now this cuts off every
thing which is external in religion, at a blow, because it cuts off
all hopes and reliances on an external righteousness, and I
believe men will not be fond of such superstitions, when they
know they will do them no good.
6. And hence it appears, that there can be no place for any
thing that is external in the Christian religion, but only for
sorae federal rites ; such as the two sacraments of the Gospel
are, baptism and the Lord's supper ; the first of which is our
admission into the new covenant ; the second, the exercise of
communion vrith Christ in this Gospel covenant. And such
rites as these are necessary in all instituted religions, which
depend upon free and voluntary covenants : for since mankind
has by sin forfeited their natural right to God's favour, they
can challenge nothing from him now, but by promise and
covenant ; and since such covenants require a mutual stipu
lation on both sides, they must be transacted by some risible
and sensible rites, whereby God obliges hiraself to us, and we
to him ; but these being only the signs or seals of a covenant,
are very proper for a religion, which rejects all external and
ceremonial righteousness and worship : for it is not our being
in covenant vrith God, nor the sacraments of it, that can avail
us, without performing the conditions of the covenant ; and
therefore this does not introduce an extemal righteousness.
Now whoever has such a notion and idea of the Christian
worship as this (and let the Church of Rome confute it if she
can), -will easily see, without much disputing, how unlike the
worship of the Church of Rome is, to true Christian worship.
For whoever only considers, the vast nuraber of rites and
ceremonies in the Church of Rome, must conclude it as ritual
and ceremonial a religion as Judaism itself; the ceremonies
are as many, more obscure, unintelligible, and useless ; more
severe and intolerable, than the Jewish yoke itself, which St,
Peter teUs tbe Jews, neither they nor their fathers were able

AGAINST POPERY. 201
to bear ; it is indeed almost all outside and pageantry, as unlike
the; plainness and simplicity of the Gospel worship, as show
and ceremony can make it.
It is true, external and visible worship must consist of
external actions ; and must be performed with such grave and
decent circumstances of time and place, and posture and habit,
as become the solemnity of religious worship ; this reason and
nature teaches ; and this the Church of England prudently
observes, whose ceremonies are not religious rites, but decent
circurastances of worship, few in number (as the necessary
circumstances of action are but few), and grave and soleran in
their use : but this is not to place religion in any thing that is
external, but only to pay an external homage and worship to
God, which differ, as worshipping God in a decent habit, differs
from the religion of consecrated habits and vestments ; or as
praying to God with an audible voice, differs from placing
religion in words and sounds which we do not understand, or
as kneeling at receiving the sacrament, differs from a bodily
worship of the host, in bowing the knee.
But though the bare number of external ceremonies, which
are always the seat of superstition, be a great corruption of
the Christian worship, yet the number of them is the least
fault of the ceremonies of the Church of Rome : as will appear,
if we consider a httle their nature.
For, 1 , Most of their external rites are professedly intended
as expiations and satisfactions for their sins. This is the doc
trine and practice of the Church of Rome, that notwithstand
ing the satisfaction made by Christ, every sinner must satisfy
for his own sins, or have the satisfaction of other men's applied
to him, out of the treasury of the Church, by the Pope's in
dulgences ; this is the meaning of all external penances in
whippings, fastings, pilgrimages, and other superstitious seve
rities ; their backs, or their feet, or their bellies, must pay for
their sins, unless they can redeem them out of their pockets too :
now it is plain, that these are such external superstitions, as
can have no place in the Christian religion, which allows of no
other expiation, or satisfaction for sin, but the blood of Christ,
2, Those distinctions between meats, which the Church of
Rome calls fasting (for a canonical fast is not to abstain from
food, but only from such meats as are forbid on fasting days),
can be no part of Christian worship, because the Gospel allows
of no distinction between clean and unclean things, and there
fore of no distinction of meats neither : for " meat commend-

202 A PRESERVATIVE
eth us not to God," 1 Cor, vui, 8, The Church of Rome in
deed, does not make such a distinction between clean and un
clean beasts as the law of Moses did, and therefore is the
raore absurd in forbidding the eating of flesh, or anything that
coraes of flesh, as eggs, or milk, or cheese, or butter, on
their fasting days, which is to irapose a new kind of Jewish
yoke upon us, when the reason of it is ceased. For there is
no imaginable reason why it should be an act of religion
merely to abstain from flesh, if flesh have no legal uncleanness ;
and if it had, we must all tum Carthusians, and never eat
flesh ; for how should it be clean one day, and unclean
another, is not easy to understand. I am sure St, Paul makes
this part of the character of the apostasy of the latter days,
that they shall command " to abstain from meats, which God
hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which
believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is
good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received vrith thanks
giving. For it is sanctified by the word of God, and prayer,"*
And, " Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink, —
Wherefore, if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of
the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject
to ordinances : (Touch not, taste not, handle not, which all are
to perish with the using,) after the commandments and doc
trines of men ?"f
And yet, though they do not own the legal distinctions be
tween clean and unclean things, their consecration would per
suade one that there were something more than a mere legal
uncleanness in all creatures, viz. that they are all possessed by
the deril and wicked spirits ; for when they consecrate salt
and water to make their holy water, they first exorcise both
the salt and water, to cast the devil out of them : and if such
innocent creatures are possessed, I doubt none can escape ;
which has made me sometimes wonder, that they durst eat
anything before it was first exorcised, for fear the deril should
take possession of them with their meat. It is certain, if the
Christian religion takes away all such distinctions between
meats and drinks, the mere abstaining from flesh can be no
part of Christian worship, much less so satisfactory and meri
torious as the Church of Rorae pretends, when such abstinence
is appointed as a satisfactory penance,
3, As for the rehgion of holy places, altars, vestments,
• 1 Tim, iv, 3, 4, 5, t Col, ii. 16, 20, 21, 22.

AGAINST POPERY, 203
utensils, the Church of Rome has infinitely outdone the
Jewish laws : instead of one temple at Jerusalem, they have
thousands to the full as holy and sacred as that, as may ap
pear from their rites of consecration. Though herein, I con
fess, they differ : that the temple of Jerusalem was only God's
house, and that alone made it a holy place, because God was
there peculiarly present ; but the Popish churches derive their
sanctity, not so much from the presence of God (for then
they would be all equally holy), as fr-om some great and emi
nent saint, who is pecuharly worshipped there. It is a great
argument of the opinion men have of the holiness of any
place, to go in pilgrimage to it, not merely in curiosity, but
devotion ; as if either going so far to see the place were in it
self an act of religion, or their prayers would be better heard
there, than if they prayed at home : thus they travel to Jeru
salem to visit the Holy Land and the sepulchre, and this may
be thought in honour of our Saviour, who lived and died, and
was buried there : but othervrise, I know not any church or
chapel, which the most devout pilgrims think worth visiting
merely upon the account of God or Christ : the several
churches or chapels of the Virgin, especially those which are
the most famed for miracles, or the churches where the relics
of some great and adored saints are lodged, have their frequent
visits for the sake of the Virgin, or of the saints ; but without
some saint, churches lose their sacredness and veneration,
which I suppose is the reason why they always take care of
some relics to give a sacredness to them, -without which no
church can be consecrated ; that is, its dedication to the wor
ship of God, cannot make it holy, unless some saint take pos
session of it by his or her relics.
This, I confess, is not Judaism, for under the Jewish law,
all holiness of things or places was derived from their relation
to God : now the names, and relics, and wonder-working
images of saints and the blessed Virgin, give the most pecu
liar and celebrated holiness ; and whether this be not at least
to ascribe such a divinity to thera, as the Pagans did to their
deified men and women, to whom they erected temples and
altars, let any impartial reader judge. Those must have a
good share of dirinity, who can give holiness to any thing else.
For since they must have holy places, and something to an
swer the Jewish superstition, who cried, "The temple of the
Lord, the temple of the Lord," I cannot blarae thera for
making choice of saints to inhabit their churches, and sanctify

204 A PRESERVATIVE
them with their presence, since, under the Gospel, God is no
more present in one place than in another : he dwelt indeed in
the temple of Jerusalem by types and figures, but that was but
a type of God's dweUing in huraan nature : the body of Christ
was the true temple, as he told the Jews, " Destroy this tem
ple, and in three days I wiU raise it up ;" which he spake of
the temple of his body : and now Christ is ascended into hea
ven, there is no temple on earth ; and therefore if they wiU
have temples, they must have the teraples of saints, for the
presence of God is now no more confined to a house, than his
providence is to the land of Judea, as it was in a very peculiar
manner, whUe the temple stood there, God dwells not on
earth now, as he did among the Jews, but his presence, viz.
our Lord Jesus Christ, is removed into heaven, and therefore
he has no house on earth to answer to the Jewish temple, as
the ancient Fathers asserted, that the Christians had neither
temples nor altars : the Christian Church indeed is a holy and
living temple, wherein the Holy Spirit dwells ; but that is
buUt not with stones or brick, but of living saints ; and there
fore the hohness of places and altars, and garments, &c, which
make up so great a part of the Roman religion, is a manifest
corruption of the simphcity of the Christian- worship. The
Jewish temple made that worship most acceptable to God,
which was offered th.ere, because it was a type of Christ, and
signified the acceptance of all our prayers and religious ser
rices, as offered up to God only in the name of Christ ; but to
think that any place is so holy now, that the bare visiting it,
or praying in it, should bestow a greater holiness upon us, and
all we do, should expiate our sins, or merit a reward, is no bet
ter than Jewish or Pagan superstition,
4, That the Church of Rome does attribute divine rirtues
and powers to senseless and inanimate things, is so erident
from that great veneration they pay to the relics, and those
great virtues they ascribe to them, from their consecrations of
their Agnus Bei, their wax-candles, oil, bells, crosses, images,
ashes, holy water, for the health of soul and body, to drive
away eril spirits, to allay storms, to heal diseases, to pardon
venial, and sometimes mortal sins, merely by kissing or touch
ing them, carrying them in their hands, wearing thera about
their necks, &c, that no man can doubt of it who can believe
his own eyes, and read their offices, and see what the daily
practice of their Church is. Whoever has a mind to be satis
fied about it, need only read Dr, Brerint's Saul and Samuel at

AGAINST POPERY, 205
.Endor, chap, xv. These things look more hke charms than
Christian worship, and are a great profanation of the Divine
grace and spirit ; indeed they argue, that such men do not
understand what grace and sanctification mean, who think
that httle images of wax, that candles, that oil, that water and
salt, that heUs, that crosses, can be sanctified by the Spirit of
God, and convey grace and sanctification by the sight, or
sound, or touch, or such external apphcations, Christ has
given his Holy Spirit to dweU in us, which works immediately
upon our rainds and rational powers, and requires our concur
rence to make his grace effectual to cleanse and purify our
souls, and to transforra us into the Divine image ; the grace of
the Spirit is to enhghten our minds, to change our wiUs, to
govern and regulate our passions, to instruct, to persuade, to
admonish, to awaken our consciences, to imprint and fix good
thoughts in us, to inspire us with holy desires, with great
hopes, with divine consolations, which may set us above the
fears of the world, and the allurements of it, and give greater
fervour to our devotions, greater strength to our resolutions,
greater courage and constancy in serving God, than the bare
powers of reason, though enforced with supernatural motives,
could do. This is all the sanctification the Gospel knows, and
he who thinks that inanimate things are capable of this sanc
tification of the Spirit, or can convey such sanctification to us
by some dirine and invisible effiuviums of grace, may as well
lodge reason, and understanding, and will, and passions in
senseless matter, and receive it from them again by a kiss or
touch. To be sure men who know what the sanctification of
the Spirit means, must despise such fooleries as these,
5, That all this encourages men to trust in an external
righteousness, is too plain to need a proof ; and therefore I
shall not need to insist long on it.
For, 1 . Such external rites are naturally apt to degenerate
into superstition, especially when they are very numerous :
the Jewish ceremonies themselves, their circumcision, sacri
fices, washings, purifications, temple, altars, new moons and
Sabbaths, and other festival solemnities, were the righteous
ness of the Scribes and Pharisees, and a cloak for their hypo
crisy and great immoralities, though they were never intended
by God for the justification of a sinner. For such external
rites are so much easier to carnal men, than to subdue their
lusts, and live a holy and virtuous life, that they are willing to
abound in such external observances, and hope that these will

206 A PRESERVATIVE
make expiation for their other sins ; and therefore when the
typical use of these ceremonies was fulfilled by Christ, the ex
ternal rites were abrogated, that men might no longer place
any hope or confidence in anything which is merely external :
and therefore that Church which fills up rehgion with external
rites and ceremonies, were there no other hurt in it, lays a
snare for men's souls, and tempts thera to put their trust in
an external righteousness, vrithout any regard to the internal
purity of heart and mind
Especially, 2. When such external rites are recommended as
very acceptable to God, as satisfactions for our sins, and meri
torious of great rewards ; and this is the use they serve in the
Church of Rome, as you have already heard. They assert
the necessity of human satisfactions ; and what are these
satisfactory works wherewith men must expiate their sins?
The principal of them are fastings, that is, abstaining from
flesh, and other acts of penance, as whippings, pilgrimages,
and some bodily severities, or prayers, that is, saying over
such a number of Ave Maries ; or alms, that is to pay for
indulgences, or to purchase masses for themselves or their
friends in purgatory, or to found some religious houses, or to
enrich those that are ; which are much more satisfactory and
meritorious than common acts of charity to the poor: all
which men may do, vrithout the least sorrow for sin, without
any true devotion to God, without mortifying any one lust.
They mightily contend for the merit of works ; but what are
their meritorious works ? Whoever reads the lives of their
canonized saints, will easily see what it was that made them
saints : their characters are usually made up of some Romish
superstitions, of their devotions to the Virgin Mary, and their
famihar conversations with her, the severities of their fasts,
and other external mortifications, their frequenting the mass,
the great numbers of their Ave Maries, pretences to raptures
and risions, and such wild extravagances as made them sus
pected of madness while they lived, and canonized them for
saints when they were dead : other things may be added to
fill up their stories, but these are the glorious accomphsh-
ments, especially of the more modern saints : for no man must
be a saint at Rome, who is not a famous example of Popish
superstitions- Monkery is thought the most perfect state of rehgion among
them, and has even monopolized the name, for no other per
sons are called " the rehgious," but those who belong to one

AGAINST POPERY, 207
order or other : and wherein does the perfection of monkery
consist? 1. In the vows of celibacy, poverty, and obedience
to the superiors of their order, which are all external things,
no virtues in themselves, and very often the occasion of great
vrickedness, 2, In the strictest observance of the external
rites and ceremonies of their religion ; of masses, and Ave
Maries, and fastings, and penances ; and many of them would
be glad, if they could go pilgrimages too, 'These things are
in perfection in their monasteries and nunneries, with such
additional superstitions as are peculiar to particular orders.
As for other true Christian virtues, they may as soon be found
vrithout the walls of the monastery as within.
Now when such external rites and observances shall be
judged satisfactions and expiations for sin ; shall be thought
the most highly meritorious ; shall be made the characters of
their greatest saints, and the most perfect state of religion ; I
cannot see how any true thorough-paced Romanist, can aim
at any thing but a ceremonial righteousness.
Indeed, the true reason why any thinking men are so fond
of an external and ceremonial righteousness, is to excuse them
from true and real holiness of life : all men know that if they
mortify their lusts, they need not affiict their bodies vrith fast
ings, and other severities ; that if they have their conversation
in heaven, they need not travel in pilgrimages to Jerusalem or
Loretto ; that if they take care to obey the laws of the
Gospel, they need no satisfactions for their sins, nor no works
of merit or supererogation which are nothing else but merito
rious and supererogating satisfactions ; for all men know that
in the offices of piety and virtue, they can never do more than
is their duty ; and therefore, as nothing can be matter of merit
which is our duty, so the true intention of all merits and
works of supererogation, are to supply the place of duty, and
to satisfy for their sins, or to purchase a reward, which they
have no title to, by doing their duty ; but a good man, who
by beliering in Christ and obeying him, has an interest in his
merits, and a title to the Gospel promises of pardon and
eternal life, needs none of these satisfactions, merits or supe
rerogations. Now would any man who believes that he cannot
be saved without mortifying his lusts, be at the trouble of
whippings and fastings, &c, not to mortify his lusts, but to
keep thera, and to make satisfaction for them ? Would any
man travel to Jerusalem, or the shrine of any saint, who be
lieves he shall not be forgiven unless he leaves his sins behind

208 A PRESERVATIVE
hira, which he might as well have parted with at home ? The
true notion of superstition is, when men think to make satis
faction for neglecting or transgressing their duty, by doing
something which is not their duty, but which they believe to
be highly pleasing to God, and to merit much of hira : now
no man who believes that he cannot please God without doing
his duty, would be so fond of doing his duty, and doing that
which is not his duty, nor pleasing to God, into the bargain.
3, And yet these meritorious and satisfactory superstitions
are very troublesome to most raen, and though they are
willing to be at some pains rather than part with their lusts,
yet they would be at as little trouble as possibly they can ;
and herein the Church of Rome, like a very indulgent mother,
has consulted their ease; for one man may satisfy for another,
and communicate his merits to him : and therefore those who,
by their friends or money, can procure a vicarious back, need
not whip themselves; they may fast, and say over their beads,
and perform their penances and satisfactions by another, as
well as if they did it themselves ; or they may purchase satis
factions and merits out of the treasury of the Church, that is,
they may buy indulgences and pardons ; or it is but entering
into some confraternity, and then you shall share in their
merits and satisfactions. This is an imputed righteousness
vrith a witness, and I think very extemal too, when men can
satisfy and merit by proxies,
4, And I think it may pass for an external righteousness
too, when men are sanctified and pardoned by rehcs, holy
water, consecrated beads, bells, candles, Agnus Bei's, &c.
And how unlike is all this to the religion of our Saviour, to
that purity of heart and mind the Gospel exacts, and to those
means of sanctification, and methods of piety and virtue it
prescribes ? Whoever considers what Christian religion is, can
no more think these observances Christian worship, than he
can mistake Popish legends for the Acts of the Apostles.
II, Let us now consider what kind of worship Christ has
prescribed to his disciples : and the general account we have of
it, John iv, 23, 24 : " But the hour cometh, and now is, when
the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in
truth, for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a
Spirit, and they that worship him, must worship him in spirit
and in truth," Now there are three things included in this
description of Gospel worship : 1 , That we must worship
God under the notion of a pure and uifinite Spirit, 2, That

AGAINST POPERY, 209
we must worship him under the character of a Father, 3.
That we must worship him with the mind and spirit.
First, We must worship God under the notion of a pure
and infinite Spirit, who has now confined his peculiar presence
to no place, as he formerly did- to the temple at Jerusalem ;
for this was the present dispute, whether God would be wor
shipped at the temple at Jerusalem or Samaria ; as I ob
served above : in opposition to which our Saviour tells the
woman, that God is a Spirit, and therefore not confined to
any place ; he is every where, and present vrith us every where,
and raay be worshipped every where by devout and pious
souls : that though, for typical reasons, he had a typical and
symbolical presence under the Jevrish dispensation, yet this
was not so agreeable to his nature, who is a Spirit, and
therefore he must not now be sought for in houses of wood
and stone.
And indeed the reformation of the Divine worship must
begin in rectifying our notions and apprehensions of God ; for
such as we apprehend God to be, such a kind of worship we
shall pay him ; as is evident from the rites and ceremonies of
the Pagan worship, which was fitted to the nature and history
of their gods ; for where there are no instituted rites of wor
ship, all mankind conclude that the nature of God is the best
rule of his worship, for all beings are best pleased with such
honours as are suitable to their natures, and no being can
think himself honoured by such actions as are a contradiction
to his own nature and perfections.
Now if God will be worshipped more like a pure and infi
nite Spirit under the Gospel, than he was under the law ; if
this be the fundamental principle of Gospel worship, that God
is a Spirit, and must be worshipped as a Spirit, I think it is
plain that nothing is more unlike a pure Spirit, than a material
image ; nothing more unlike an infinite Spirit, which can
have no shape or figure, than a finite and figured image, made
in the likeness of a man, or of anything in heaven and earth ;
nothing more unlike an infinite Spirit, which is life and mind,
and wisdom, than a dead and senseless image ; and if under
the law, where God suited his worship more to a typical
dispensation than to his own nature, he would not allow of
the worship of images, much less is this an acceptable worship
to him under the Gospel, where he wiU be worshipped as a
pure Spirit, for there is nothing in the world more unhke a
living, infinite, omnipotent, omniscient Spirit, than a httle
VOL, XI, F

210 A PRESERVATIVE
piece of dead senseless figured gold or silver, wood or stone,
whatever shape the carver or engraver please to give it, since
God has none. Now would any man who understands this,
that God is a Spirit, and vrill under the Gospel be worshipped
as a Spirit, should he go into many Popish churches and
chapels, and see a vast number of images and pictures there,
and people devoutly kneeling before them, suspect that these
were Christian oratories, or this Christian worship, imless he
knew soraething of the matter before ? For there you shaU
find the pictures of God the Father, and the ever-blessed
Trinity, in different forms and representations ; the pictures
of the blessed Virgin, and other saints and martyrs devoutly
adored and worshipped ; and would any man guess, that this
were to worship God as a pure and infinite Spirit ? A spirit
cannot be painted, and then to worship God as a Spirit, can
not signify to look upon any representation of God, when we
pray to him, which to be sure cannot give us the idea of
an infinite Spirit, He who worships God as a Spirit, can
have no regard to matter and sense, but must apply himself
to God as to an infinite mind, which no man can do, who
gazes upon an image, or contemplates God in the art and skill
of a painter ; for to pray to God in an image, and in the same
thought to consider him as a pure and infinite mind, is a con
tradiction; for though a man, who believes God to be a Spirit,
may be so absurd as to worship him in an image, yet an
image cannot represent a spirit to hira, and therefore either he
must not think at all of the image, and then methinks he
should not look on an image, when he worships God, for that
is apt to make him think of it ; or if he does think of the
image, while his mind is filled with such gross and sensible
representations, it is impossible in the same act to address to
God, as to a pure inrisible and infinite Spirit, Which shews
how unfit and improper images are in the worship of God ;
for they must either be wholly useless, and such as a man
must not so much as look or think on (which is very irrecon
cilable with that worship, which is paid to them in the
Church of Rorae), or whUe he is intent upon a picture or
image, his mind is diverted from the contemplation of a pure
and infinite Spirit, and therefore cannot, and does not worship
God as a Spirit,
And the same is true of the images of saints and the
blessed Virgin : for though to make pictures of men or wo
men, is no reproach to the Dirine nature, since they are not

AGAINST POPERY, 211
the pictures or images of God, who is a Spirit, but of those
saints, whom they are intended to represent, yet if all Chris
tian worship be the worship of God, it is evident, that the
worship of images, though they be not the images of God,
but of the saints, can be no part of Christian worship, because
God raust be worshipped as a Spirit, and therefore not by any
image whatsoever.
Now the Church of Rome will not pretend that the worship
of saints and their images is a distinct and separate worship
from the worship of God, but to justify themselves, they con
stantly affirm that they worship God in that worship which
they pay to the saints and their images ; for they know, that to
do othervrise, would be to terminate their worship upon crea
tures, which they confess to be idolatry, since all religious
worship must terminate on God ; and therefore, should they
give any religious worship to creatures, distinct and separate
from that worship they give to God, it were idolatry upon their
own principles.
Now if they worship God in the worship of saints and their
images, then they worship God in the iraages of saints, and that
I think is to worship him by images : the worship of a pure,
infinite, and invisible Spirit, will admit of no images, whether
of God or creatures, as the objects or mediums of worship.
But it may be said, that this is to graft our own fancies and
imaginations upon Scripture ; for though Christ does say that
God is a Spirit, and must be worshipped in spirit, he does not
say that to worship God in spirit is not to worship him by an
image ; but to worship God in spirit, in our Sariour's discourse
with the woman of Samaria, is not opposed to image-worship,
but to confining the worship of God to a particular place, such
as the temples at Jerusalem and Samaria were, as I observed
above. Now to this I answer : —
1 , To worship God as a Spirit, does, in the nature of the
thing, signify this ; for to worship God by any material or sen
sible representations, is not to worship God as a Spirit ; for an
infinite Spirit cannot be represented by matter, nor by any
shape and figure, because it neither is material, nor has any
figure. 2. If God -will not have his pecuhar presence confined to
any place under the Gospel, much less will he be worshipped
by images and pictures ; for it is not such a contradiction to
the nature of an infinite Spirit, to shew himself more pecuharly
present in one place than in another, as it is to be worshipped
p 2

212 A PRESERVATIVE
by sensible images and pictures. Though God fiUs all places,
there may be wise reasons why he should confine the acts of
worship to some peculiar place, and such typical reasons there
were for it under the law ; but there never can be any reason
why a Spirit should be represented and worshipped by an
image, which is such a contradiction and dishonour to the
nature of the Spirit ; and therefore, when God confined his
symbolical presence to the temple at Jerusalem, yet he strictly
forbade the worship of images, and much less then vrill he allow
of image-worship, when he will not so rauch as have a temple,
3, For we must observe farther, that what our Saviour here
says, God is a Spirit, and will be worshipped in spirit, is not a
particular direction how to worship God, but a general rule to
which the nature of our worship must be conformed ; and there
fore it is our rule, as far as the plain reason of it extends.
Under the law they were not left to general rules, but God
determined the particular rites and ceremonies of his worship
himself ; for under the law God had not so plainly discovered
his ovra nature to them, as he has done by his Son in the
Gospel, For "no man hath seen God at any time, but the
only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath
declared hira," And therefore the nature of God was never
made the rule of worship before. Though God was as much
a Spirit under the law as he is under the Gospel, yet this was
never assigned as a reason against image-worship, that God is
a Spirit : but either that they saw no likeness or simihtude io
the mountain, when God spake to them, Deut, iv. 15, 16; of
that he is so great and glorious a Being, that nothing in the
world is a fit representation of him. " To whom then vrill ye
liken God ? or what likeness vrill ye compare unto him ? It is
he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants
thereof are as grasshoppers ; that stretcheth out the heavens as
a curtain, and spreadeth thera out as a tent to dwell in," &c,*
But that God is a Spirit, who has no shape and figure, is a much
better argument against image-worship than all this ; but this
God had not so plainly declared to them ; and if God forbade
the worship of images, when he thought fit to give no other
reason for it, but that he had never appeared to them in any
hkeness or similitude, or that he was too great to be represented,
we ourselves may now judge how unfit it is to worship God by
an image, since our Saviour has declared that he is a Spirit,
* Isaiah xl, 18, 22, &c.

AGAINST POPERY. 213
who has no likeness or figure, and that now he expects to be
worshipped by us as a Spirit, and therefore without any image
or sensihle representation,
4, And yet some learned men think that our Saviour, in
these words, had as well respect to the worship of God by
iraages, as to his worship in the temple : for that he had respect
to the object as well as place of worship is erident, from what
he adds — " Ye worship ye know not what ; we know what we
worship, for salvation is of the Jews :"* wherein he informs
the woman, that though she inquired only of the place of
worship, the Samaritans were guilty of a greater fault than
setting up the temple at Samaria, in opposition to the teraple
at Jerusalem, viz. in a false object, or an idolatrous manner of
worship ; they worshipping a dove as the symbol and represen
tation of God : and thus to worship God in spirit, is expressly
opposed to worshipping God by images,
5, However, this comes much to one ; for if God being a
Spirit, his worship must not be confined to any place or sym
bolical presence, then he must not be worshipped by an image ;
for an image is a representative presence of God, or of the
saints ; for the use of images is to represent that Being whom
we worship as present to us : and therefore, if men consider
what they do, they go to images, as to divine presences, to
worship. Images, which are set up in churches and chapels
for the worship of God or of the saints, are confined to places,
and make those places as much appropriate and peculiar places
of worship as the Jewish temple was, excepting that the temple
was but one, and they are many. Heathen temples were the
houses of their gods, or of their images, which were the pre
sence of their gods ; and if we must not appropriate the presence
of God to any place, then we must not worship him by images,
which are of no use but to represent God as sensibly present
with the image, or in the place where the image is. If God
be better worshipped before an image than without one, then
the worship of God is more confined to that place where an
image is, than to those places which have no images, I can
not see how to avoid this, that if God must be worshipped
by images, then there must be appropriate places of worship,
viz, where the image is ; but if there be no appropriate places of
worship under the Gospel, like the temple at Jerusalem, then
God must not be worshipped by images ; for an image must be
* John iv. 22,

214 A PRESEBVATIVE
in some place ; and if God must be worshipped at or before his
image, then that is the proper and peculiar place of worship
where his image is ; nay, though the image be not fixed to any
place, but be carried about vrith us, yet if we must worship God
by images, the image is not only the object, but makes the
place of worship ; for there we must worship God, where his
image is, if we must worship hira before his image. It is im
possible to separate the notion of image -worship from the
notion of a peculiar and appropriate place of worship ; for the
image determines the place, as the presence of the object does:
and as under the Gospel we may worship God any where,
because he is an infinite Spirit, and fills aU places, and is
equally present vrith all devout worshippers, wherever they
worship him : so where the image is consecrated for a Dirine
presence, it is not only the object, but the pecuhar place of
worship, because God is peculiarly present there, or more
acceptably worshipped there, than where there is no image.
So that if a peculiar and appropriate place of worship be con
trary to the notion of an infinite Spirit, the worship of images
is much more so ; for besides that they are gross and corporeal
representations of a Spirit, they are dirine presences too, and
appropriate places of worship.
Secondly, As God must be worshipped under the notion of
a Spirit, so under the character of a Father : as our Sariour
expressly teUs us, " The hour cometh and now is, when the
true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in
truth, for the Father seeketh such to worship him ;"* and
therefore he taught his disciples to pray, " Our Father, which
art in heaven." Under the law God was worshipped as a
King, and that not so much the King of the whole world, but
as in a peculiar manner the King of Israel. "The Lord
reigneth, let the people tremble ; he sitteth between the cheru
bims (in his temple at Jerusalem), let the earth be moved.
The -Lord is great in Zion, and he is high above all the
people."f But under the Gospel the pecuhar character of God
is a Father, and that not only as he is the Maker of all men,
and so the Father of all, but as he is the Father of Christ, and
in hira the Father of all Christians, Now this makes a vast dif
ference in our worship, from what is daily practised in the
Church of Rome, For,
1 , When we pray to God as our Father, we must pray to
* John iv, 23, t Psalm xcix. 1, 2,

AGAINST POPERY. 215
him as dwelling in heaven : as our Saviour teaches us to say,
"Our Father, which art in heaven," For as a Father, heaven
is his house and habitation : " In my Father's house are many
mansions,"* that is, in heaven, which is his house as a Father,
as the teraple at Jerusalem was his palace, considered as the
King of Israel ; and this is one reason, our Sariour intimates,
why the presence of God shall no longer be confined to any
particular place or temple, because he shall be worshipped as
the universal Father, not as the King of Jewry : now when he
is to be worshipped as a Father from aU parts of the world, he
must have such a throne and presence to which all the world
may equally resort, and that can be no other than his throne in
heaven, whither we may send up our prayers from all comers
of the earth ; but had he confined his presence to any place on
earth, as he did to the temple of Jemsalem, the rest of the
world must have been vrithout God's pecuhar presence, could
have had no temple nor place of worship but at such a distance
that they could never have come at it : for though God fills all
places, it is a great absurdity to talk of more symbohcal pre
sences of God than one ; for a symbolical presence confines the
unhmited presence of God to a certain place, in order to certain
ends, as to receive the worship that is paid him, and to answer
the prayers that are made to him ; and to have more than one
such presence as this, is like having more Gods than one.
So that all our worship under the Gospel must be directed to
God in heaven, and that is a plain argument that we must not
worship God in images on earth, for they neither can represent
to us the majesty of God in heaven, nor is God present vrith
the iraage to receive our worship there. If God must now be
worshipped, as dwelhng in heaven, it is certain there can he no
object of our worship on earth ; for though God fill all places
with his presence, yet he vrill be worshipped only as sitting on
his throne in heaven ; and then I am sure he must not be wor
shipped in an image on earth, for that is not his throne in
heaven. This the mercy-seat in the holy of holies was an
emblem of ; for the holy of hohes, in the Jevrish temple, did
signify heaven, and the mercy-seat covered vrith cherubims sig
nified the throne of God in heaven, whither we must hft up our
eyes and hearts when we pray to him. For though it is
indifferent from what place we put up our prayers to God, while
we have regard to the external decency of religious worship,
* John xiv, 2.

216 A PRESERVATIVE
,yet it is not indifferent whither we direct our prayers ; for we
must direct our prayers to the throne of grace, that we may
obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need,* Now
the throne of grace is only in heaven, whither Christ is ascended
to make atonement for us ; for he is the true propitiatory, or
mercy-seat : and therefore, if to direct our prayers to God, to
his picture or image, or to the images of the Virgin Mary, or
any other saints, did not provoke God to jealousy, yet it would
do usno good, unless such images are God's throne of grace;
for all other prayers are lost, which are not directed to God on
his throne of grace, where alone he will receive our petitions.
If a prince would receive no petitions but what were presented
to him sitting on such a throne, all men would be sensible how
vain a thing it were to offer any petition to him elsewhere.
And yet thus it is here : a sinner dare not, must not approach
the presence of God, but only on his mercy-seat and throne of
grace; for any where else our God is a consuming fire, a just
and a terrible judge : now God has but one throne of grace,
and that is in heaven, as the mercy-seat was in the holy of
holies, which was a type of heaven ; thither Christ ascended
with his blood to sprinkle the mercy-seat, and to cover it -with
the cloud of incense, which are the prayers of the saints, as the
high-priest did once a year in the typical holy place. Which
is a plain proof, that all our prayers must be immediately
directed to God in heaven, where Christ dwells, who is our
true propitiatory and mercy-seat, who has sprinkled the throne
of God vrith his own blood, and has made it a throne of grace,
and where he offers up om- prayers as incense to God,
2. To worship God as our Father, signifies to worship him
only in the name and mediation of his Son Jesus Christ : for
he is our Father only in Jesus Christ, and we can call him
Father in no other name. By the right of creation, he is our
Lord, and our Judge, but he is the Father of sinners only by
adoption and grace, and we are adopted only in Christ : so that
if Christian worship be the worship of God as a Father, then
we must pray to God in no other name, but of his own eternal
Son : the Virgin Mary, though she were the mother of Christ,
yet does not make God our Father ; and then no other saint, I
presume, will pretend to it : which shews what a contradiction
the invocation of saints is to the nature of Christian worship,
and how unavailable to obtain our requests of God, If we
* Heb, iv, 16.

AGAINST POPEEY, 217
•must worship God only as our Father, then we must worship
him only in the name of his Son, for he owns himself our
Father in no other narae ; and if he vrill hear our prayers, and
answer our humble petitions only as a Father, then he will hear
only those prayers which are made to him in the name of his
Son : how great favourites soever the blessed Virgin and other
saints may be, if God hear prayers only as a Father, it is to
no purpose to pray to God in their names, for he hears us not,
3, "ro worship God as a Father, signifies to pray to him
with the humble assurance and confidence of children : this is
the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.* For
" because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his
Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father." f A dutiful son
does not question his Father's goodvrill to him, nor readiness
to hear and answer all his just requests ; he depends upon the
kindness of his Father, and his interest and relation to him,
and seeks for no other friends and favourites to recommend
him. And upon this account also the invocation of saints is a con
tradiction to the Gospel spirit of prayer, to that spirit of adop
tion, which teaches us to cry, Abba, Father ; for surely those
have not the hope, and assurance, and irappriaia of children,
who dare not go to their father themselves, but must send
their petitions to him by the hands of favourites and inter
cessors. To pray to God in the name of Christ, is only to
pray to him as sons, for it is in his name only that he owns us
for sons ; and this is the true spirit of adoption, in the name
and mediation of Christ, to go to God, as children to a father ;
but to pray to him in any other name, how powerful soever,
is not to go to him as a Father, but as to our liOrd and King,
who must be addressed to by the mediation of some great
favourites. To pray to God in any other name, which does
not make us his sons, is to distrust our relation to him, as our
Father in Christ ; and this is contrary to the spirit of adoption,
•which teaches us to call God Father, and gives us that assur
ance of his fatherly goodness to us in Christ, that we need and
desire no other advocates.
Thirdly, To worship God in spirit, is to worship him with
our mind and spirit ; for that is most agreeable to the nature
¦of God, who is a Spirit, God cannot be worshipped but by a
reasonable creature, and yet a beast may worship God as well
» Rom, viii, 15, t Gal. iv, 6,

218 A PRESERVATIVE
as a man who worships without any act of reason and imder
standing, or devout affections. To pray to God vrithout
knovring what we say, when neither our understandings nor
affections can join in our prayers, is so absurd a worship of a
pure mind, that transubstantiation itself is not more contrary
to sense, than prayers in an unknown tongue are to the essential
reason and nature of worship, I suppose no man will say,
that to pray to God, or praise him in words which we do not
understand, is to worship God in spirit, unless he thinks that
a parrot may be taught to pray in the spirit : what difference
is there between a man's not speaking, and speaking what he
does not understand? Just so much difference there is
between not praying, and praying what we do not understand:
and he honours God to the full as much, who does not pray at
all, as he who prays he knows not what, and, I am sure, he
affronts hira a great deal less : however, if Christian worship
be to worship God in spirit, prayers in an unknown tongue, in
which the raind and spirit cannot be concerned, is no Christian
worship. Sect. IV.
Concerning the Reformation and Improvement of Human
Nature, by the Gospel of Christ.
4. Another principal end and intention of the Gospel, was
to cure the degeneracy of mankind, and to advance human
nature to its utmost perfection : for as man fell from his
original happiness, by falhng from the purity and integrity of
his nature, so there was no restoring him to his lost happiness,
much less no advancing him to a more perfect state of happi
ness, not to an earthly, but to an heavenly paradise, vrithout
changing and transforming his nature, and renewing him after
the image of God. And therefore our very entrance into
Christianity is a new birth : " Except a man be bom of water,
and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God :
that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born
of the Spirit is spirit,"* And such a man is called a new
creature ; and a Christian hfe is a newness of life, and liring
after the Spirit, and walking after the Spirit :f and this new
nature is the Divine nature, the iraage of God, the new man,
which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness,
* John iii. 5, 6, t Rom. viii, 1,

AGAINST POPERY. 219
which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that
created him.*
So that there are two things, wherein this new nature
consists, knowledge, and righteousness, or true holiness, and I
doubt it will appear, that the Church of Rome is no great
friend to either.
I. Knowledge : now I suppose neither the Church of Rome,
nor any one for her, vrill pretend that she is any great friend
to knowledge : she is so horribly afraid of heresy, that she
endeavours to nurse men up in ignorance of their religion, for
fear they should prove heretics ; and indeed she has some
reason for it : for the Church of Rorae never was no trium
phant, as in the most ignorant and barbarous ages ; but as know
ledge broke in upon the world, so men turned heretics apace.
If there be any knowing Papists (as it would be very
hard if there should be none), they are not beholden to their
Church for it, which deprives them of all the means of know
ledge : for she will not allow them to believe their senses, which
is one way of knowing things, and the most certain we have :
and yet she commands us to believe transubstantiation, which
no man can do who believes his senses : and if I must not
believe my senses in so plain a matter as what is bread and
wine, I know no reason I have to beheve them in any thing,
and then there is an end of all knowledge that depends on
sense ; as the proof of the Christian religion itself does : for
miracles are a sensible proof, and if I must not trust my senses
I cannot rely on miracles, because I cannot know whether
there be any such thing as a real miracle.
The Church of Rome also forbids men the use of reason in
matters of religion, will not allow men to judge for themselves,
nor to examine the reasons of their faith ; and what knowledge
any man can have without exercising his reason and under
standing, I cannot guess ; for to know without understanding,
sounds to me like a contradiction.
She also denies Christians the use of the Bible, which is the
only means to know the revealed vrill of God : and when men
must neither believe their senses, nor trust their reason, nor
read the Scripture, it is easy to guess what knowing and
understanding Christians they must needs be.
But it may be said, that notvrithstanding this, the Church
of Rome does instruct her children in the true Catholic faith,
though she will not venture them to judge for themselves, nor
* Eph. iv. 24, Colos, iii, 10.

220 A preservative
to read the Scriptures, which is the effect of her great care of
them, to keep them orthodox : for when men trust to their
own fallible reasons, and private interpretations of Scripture, it
is a great hazard that they do not fall into one heresy or other :
but when men are taught the pure catholic faith vrithout any
danger of error and heresy, is not this much better, than to
suffer them to reason and judge for themselves, when it is great
odds but they will judge wrong ?
Now this would be something indeed, did the Church of
Rome take care to instruct them in all necessary doctrines, and
to teach nothing but what is true ; and could such men, who
thus tamely receive the dictates of that Church, be said to
know and understand their religion ? How far the Church of
Rome is from doing the first, all Christians in the world are
sensible but themselves, but that is not our present dispute ;
for though the Church of Rome did instruct her people in the
true Christian faith, yet such raen cannot be said to know and
understand their religion ; and to secure the faith by destroy
ing knowledge, is a direct contradiction to the design of the
Gospel, which is to raake men wise and understanding Chris
tians : for no man understands his religion, who does not in
some measure know the reasons of his faith, and judge whether
they be sufficient or not ; who knows not how to distinguish
between truth and error, who has no rule to go by, but must
take all upon trust, and the credit of his teachers ; who beheves
whatever he is told, and learns his Creed, as school-boys do
their grammar, vrithout understanding it : this is not an active,
but a kind of passive knowledge ; such men receive the impres
sion that is made on them, as wax does, and understand no
more of the matter ; now wUl any one call this the knowledge
and understanding of a man, or the discipline of a child?
But suppose there were some men so dull and stupid, that
they could never rise higher ; that they are not capable of
inquiring into the reasons of things, but must take up their
religion upon trust; yet vrill any man say, that this is the
utmost perfection of knowledge, that any Christian raust aim
at ? Is this the meaning of " the word of God dwelling in us
richly in all vrisdom?"* Is this the way to give au answer to
any one who asks a reason of the hope that is in us ? The
perfection of Christian knowledge is a great and glorious attain
ment ; to understand the secrets of God's laws, those depths
and mysteries of wisdom and goodness in the economy of
* Col. iii. 16.

AGAINST POPERY, 221
man's salvation ; to see the analogy between the law and the
Gospel, how the legal types and ancient prophecies received
their accomphshment in Christ, how far the Gospel has
advanced us above the state of nature, and the law of Moses ;
what an admirable design it was to redeem the world by the
incarnation, and death, and sufferings, and intercession of the
Son of God ; what mysteries of vrisdom and goodness the
Gospel contains ; the knowledge of which is not only the
perfection of our understandings, but raises and ennobles our
minds, and transforms us into the Dirine image : these things
were revealed, that they might be known, not that they should
be concealed from the world, or neglected and despised ; but
this is a knowledge which cannot be attained without diligent
and laborious inquiries, without using all the reason and under
standing we have, in searching the Scriptures, and all other helps
which God has afforded us.
Now if Christian knowledge be something more than to be
able to repeat our Creed, and to believe it upon the authority of
our teachers, if the Gospel of our Saviour was intended to
advance us to a true manly knowledge, Christ and the Church
of Rome seem to have two very different designs, our Lord in
causing the Gospel to be wrote and published to the world,
the other in concealing it as much as she can, and suffering no
body to read it vrithout her leave, as a dangerous book, which
is apt to make men heretics ; for it is hard to conceive, that
the Gospel was written that it might not be read, and then
one would guess, that he by whose authority and inspiration
the Gospel was written and those by whose authority it is
forbid to be read, are not of a mind in this matter,
1 , This I think in the first place is an evident proof, that
to forbid Christian people to read, and study and meditate on
the word of God, is no Gospel doctrine, unless not to read the
Bible, be a better way to improve in all Christian knowledge
and wisdom, than to read it : for that is the duty of Christians,
to grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and
Saviour Jesus Christ ; this was one great end of publishing
the Gospel to the world, to enlighten and improve men's
understandings, as well as to govern their lives ; and though
we grant, men may be taught the principles of Christian
rehgion, as children are, without reading the Bible, yet if they
vriU but grant, that studying and meditating on the holy Scrip
tures, is the best and only way to improve in all true Christian
knowledge ; this shews how contrary this prohibition of reading

222 A PRESERVATIVE
the Scriptures is to the great design of the Gospel, to perfect
our knowledge in the mysteries of Christ,
2, This is a mighty presumption also against transubstantia
tion, that it is no Gospel doctrine, because it overthrows the
very fundamental principles of knowledge, which is a direct
contradiction to the design of the Gospel, to advance dirine
knowledge to the utmost perfection it can attain in this world.
Whoever has his eyes in his head, must confess, that the
doctrine of transubstantiation is contrary to sense : for were
our senses to be judges of the matter, they would pronounce
the bread and wine after consecration, to be bread and wine
still ; and therefore whatever reason there may be to believe it
not to be bread and wine, but flesh and blood, yet it must be
confessed, that our faith in this matter contradicts our sense ;
for even Roman Catholics eyes, and noses, and hands, can see,
and feel, and smell nothing but bread and vrine : and if to our
senses it appears to be nothing but bread and vrine, those who
believe it to be the natural body and blood of Christ, believe
contrary to what they see.
Thus there is nothing more contrary to the natural notions we
have of things, than the doctrine we have of transubstantiation :
for if this doctrine be true, then the same individual body of
Christ is in heaven at the right hand of God, and on ten thou
sand altars, at a great distance from each other on earth, at the
same time. Then a human body is contracted into the compass
of a wafer, or rather subsists vrithout any dimensions, without
extension of parts, and independent on place.
Now not to dispute, whether this be true or false, my only
inquiry at present is, whether this do not contradict those
natural notions all men have of the properties of a human
body : let a man search his own mind, and try, if he find any
such notion of a body, as can be present at more places than
one at the same time : a body that is vrithout extension, nay,
that has parts without extension, and therefore without any
distinction too : for the parts of an organical body raust be
distinguished by place and situation, which cannot be, if they
have no extension ; a body which is present vrithout occupying
a place, or being in a place : if we have no such natural notion
of a body, as I am sure I have not, and I believe no man else
has, then let transubstantiation be true or false, it is contrary
to the natural notions of our minds, which is all I am at present
concerned for : thus let any man try, if he have any notion of
an accident subsisting vrithout any substance, of a white, and

AGAINST POPERY. 223
soft, and hard nothing ; of the same body, which is extended
and not extended, which is in a place, and not in a place at the
same time : for in heaven, I suppose they will grant, the body
of Christ fills a place, and has the just dimensions and pro
portions of a human body, and at the same time, in the host,
the very same body is present, without any extension, and
independent on place ; that is, the same body, at the same
time, is extended and not extended, fills a place and fills no
place, which, I suppose, they mean by being independent on
place ; now is and is not, is a contradiction to natural reason,
and I have no other natural notion of it, but as of a contradiction,
both parts of which cannot be true. Let us then briefly
examine, whether it be likely, that transubstantiation, which
contradicts the evidence of sense, and the natural notions of our
minds, should be a Gospel doctrine, considering the Gospel as
the most divine and excellent knowledge, and most perfective
of human understandings. For,
1. This doctrine of transubstantiation, is so far from
perfecting our knowledge, that it destroys the very principles
of all human knowledge : all natural knowledge is owing either
to sense or reason, and transubstantiation contradicts both, and
whoever believes it, must believe contrary to his senses and
reason, which if it be to believe like a Catholic, I am sure is
not to believe like a man; if the perfection of knowledge
consist in contradicting our own faculties, transubstantiation is
the most perfect knowledge in the world ; but, however, I
suppose no man vrill say, that this is the natural perfection of
knowledge, which overthrows the most natural notions we have
of things : and yet,
2. All supernatural knowledge must of necessity be grafted
upon that which is natural ; for we are capable of revealed and
supernatural knowledge, only as we are by nature reasonable
creatures, and destroy reason, and beasts are as fit to be
preached to as men : and yet to contradict the plain and most
natural notions of our minds, is to destroy human reason and
to leave mankind no rule or principle to know and judge by.
No man can know anything, which contradicts the principles
of natural knowledge, because he has only these natural prin
ciples to know by ; and therefore however his faith may be
improved by it, he forfeits his natural knowledge, and has no
supernatural knowledge in the room of it : for how can a man
know and understand that which is contrary to all the natural
knowledge and understanding he has ? There may be some

224 A PRESERVATIVE
revealed principles of knowledge superadded to natural princi
ples, and these things we may know to be so, though we have
no natural notion of thera, and this perfects, because it enlarges
our knowledge ; as the knowledge of three Divine persons
superadded to the natural belief of one supreme God ; which
does not overthrow the belief of one God, but only acquaints us,
that there are three Divine Persons in the unity of the God
head, which, whatever difficulty there may be in apprehending
it, yet overthrows no natural notion : this is an improvement
of knowledge, because we know all we did before, and we know
something more, that as there is one God, so there are three
Persons, who are this one God ; and though we have no natural
notion of this, how three Persons are one God, because we
know no distinction between person and essence in finite beings,
yet we have no natural notion, that there cannot be more
Persons than one in an infinite Essence ; and therefore this may
be known by revelation, because there is no natural notion
against it. But now I can never know that which is contrary to
all the principles of knowledge I have ; such men may believe it,
who think it a virtue to believe against knowledge : who can
believe that to be true, which they know to be false : for what
ever is contrary to the plain and necessary principles of reason,
which all mankind agree in, I know must be false, if my
faculties be true, and if my faculties be not true, then I can
know nothing at all, neither by reason nor revelation, because
I have no true faculties to know with : revelation is a principle
of knowledge as well as faith, when it does not contradict our
natural knowledge of things ; for God may teach us that which
nature does not teach ; and thus revelation improves, enlarges,
and perfects knowledge : in such cases, faith serves instead of
natural knowledge, the authority of the revelation instead of
the natural notions and ideas of our minds ; but I can never
know that by revelation, which contradicts my natural know
ledge ; which would be not only to know that which I have
no natural knowledge of, which is the knowledge of faith, but to
know that by revelation, which by reason and nature I know
cannot be ; which is to know that, which I know cannot be
known, because I know it cannot be.
So that transubstantiation, which contradicts all the evidence
of sense and reason, is not the object of any human knowledge,
and therefore cannot be a Gospel revelation, which is to im
prove and perfect, not to destroy human knowledge : I can
never know it, because it contradicts all the notions of my mind;

AGAINST POPERY. 225
and I can never believe it vrithout denying the truth of my
faculties, and no revelation can prove my faculties to be false ;
for I can never be so certain of the truth of any revelation, as
I am that my faculties are true ; and could I be persuaded
that ray faculties are not true, but deceive me in such things as
I judge most certain and erident, then I can no more believe
them as to any revelation, than I can as to their natural
reasonings, for the same faculties must judge of both ; and if
the faculty be false, I can trust its judgment in neither,
3, The doctrine of transubstantiation destroys all possible
certainty, what the true sense and interpretation of Scripture
is, and thereby overthrows all supernatural knowledge. The
Scripture we know is expounded to very different and con
trary senses, and made to countenance the most monstrous
and absurd doctrines ; vritness all the ancient heresies which
have been fathered on the Scriptures. Now what way have
we to confute these heresies, but to shew, either that the
words of Scripture vrill not bear such a sense, or at least do not
necessarily require it ; that such an interpretation is contrary
to sense, to reason, to the natural notions we have of God,
and therefore is in itself absurd and impossible? But if
transubstantiation be a Gospel doctrine, I desire any Papist,
among all the ancient heresies, to pick out any doctrine more
absurd and impossible, more contrary to sense and reason,
than the doctrine of transubstantiation is ; and then it is no
argument against any doctrine, or any exposition of Scripture,
that it is absurd and impossible, contrary to sense and reason,
for so transubstantiation is ; and if we may believe one absurd
doctrine, we may believe five hundred, how absurd soever they
be : and then what defence has any man against the most
monstrous corruptions of the Christian faith ? Is this the way
to improve knowledge, to destroy all the certain marks and
characters of truth and error, and to leave no rule to judge by?
If the design of the Gospel was to improve our rainds by a
knowing and understanding faith, transubstantiation, which
overthrows the certainty both of natural and revealed know
ledge, can be no Gospel doctrine.
3. The authority of an infallible judge, whom we must be
heve in every thing, vrithout examining the reasons of what he
aflfirms, nay, though he teaches such doctrine as appears to us
most expressly contrary to sense and reason, and Scripture, is
no Gospel doctrine, because it is not the way to make men wise
and understanding Christians, which is the great design of the
VOL, XI, a

226 A PRESERVATIVE
Gospel ; for to suspend the exercise of reason and judgment, is
not the way to improve men's knowledge. An infaUible
teacher, and an infaUible rule, do indeed mightily contribute to
the improvement of knowledge ; but such an infallible judge
as the Church of Rome boasts of, can only make raen ignorant
and stupid believers. For there is a vast difference between
an infallible teacher, and an infallible judge, which few men
observe, at least have not well explained; for an infallible
teacher is only an external proponent, and while men only
teach and instruct, how infallible soever they are, every man is
at liberty to use his ovm reason and judgment ; for though the
teacher be infallible, he that learns must use his own reason and
judgment, unless a man can learn without it. But now an
infallible judge is not contented to teach and instruct, which
is an appeal to the reason of mankind, but he usurps the office
of every man's private reason and judgment, and will needs
judge for all mankind, as if he were an universal soul, an uni
versal reason and judgment, that no man had any soul, any
reason or judgment but himself. For if every man has a pri
vate reason and judgment of his own, surely every man must
have a right to the private exercise of it ; that is, to judge for
hiraself ; and then there can be no such universal judge, who
must be that to every man, which, in other cases, his own pri
vate reason and judgraent is, which is to unsoul all raankind m
matters of religion. And therefore, though there have been a
great many infallible teachers, as Moses and the Prophets,
Christ and his Apostles, yet none ever pretended to be in
fallible judges but the Church of Rome ; that is, none ever
pretended to deny people a liberty of judging for themselves,
or ever exacted from them an universal subraission to their
infallible judgment, without exercising any act of reason and
judgment themselves, I am sure Christ and his Apostles left
people to the exercise of their own reason and judgment, and
require it of them; they were infallible teachers, but they did
not judge for all mankind, but left every man to judge for
himself, as every man must and ought, and as every man will
do, who has any reason and judgment of his own : but an
infallible judge, who pretends to judge for all raen, treats man
kind like brutes, who have no reasonable souls of their own.
But you vrill say, this distinction between an infallible
teacher and an infalhble judge, is very nice and curious, but
seems to have nothing in it ; for does not he who teaches in
falhbly, judge infallibly too? And must I not submit my

AGAINST POPERY, 227
private judgment, which aU men allow to be fallible, to a
public infaUible judgment, which I know to be infallible ? If I
know that I may be deceived, and that such a man cannot
be deceived, is it not reasonable for me to be governed by
his judgment, rather than my own ? I answer, aU this is cer
tainly true as any demonstration, but then it is to be con
sidered, that I cannot be so certain of any man's infallibihty,
as to make hira my infallible judge, in whose judgment I must
acquiesce, vrithout exercising any reason or judgment of my
own : and the reason is plain, because I cannot know that any
man teaches infallibly, unless I am sure that he teaches
nothing that is contrary to any natural or revealed law.
Whoever does so, is so far from being infallible, that he
actually errs ; and whether he does so, I cannot know, unless
I may judge of his doctrine by the light of nature, and by
revelation. And therefore, though there may be an infallible
teacher, there never can be any infallible judge, to whom I must
submit my own reason and judgment, because I must judge of
his doctrine myself, before I can know that he is infalUble.
As for instance, when Moses appeared as a prophet and a
lawgiver to the children of Israel, there was no written law, but
only the law of nature; and therefore those great miracles he
wrought, gave authority to his laws, because he contradicted
no necessary law of nature. But had any other person at
that time wrought as many miracles as Moses did, and withal
taught the worship of many gods, either such as the Egyptians,
or any other nations worshipped at that time, this had been
reason enough to have rejected him as a false prophet, because
it is contrary to the natural worship of one supreme G^d,
which the light of nature teaches.
When Christ appeared, there was a written law, the writings
of Moses and the Prophets, and all the miracles he wrought
could not have proved him a true prophet, had he contradicted
the Scriptures of the Old Testament ; and therefore his doc
trine was to be examined by them, and accordingly he appeals
to Moses and the Prophets, to bear testimony to his person and
doctrine, and exhorts them to search the Scriptures, which
gave testimony to him : and how the miracles he wrought
gave authority to any new revelations he made of God's vrill
to the world, since he did not contradict the old. The law of
nature, and the laws of Moses, were the laws of God ; and
God cannot contradict himself : and therefore the doctrine of
all new prophets, even of Christ himself, was to be examined,
Q 2

228 A PRESERVATIVE
and is to be examined to this day, by the law and the prophets ;
and therefore, though he was certainly an infallible teacher, yet
men were to judge of his doctrine, before they believed him ;
and he did not require them to lay aside their reason and
judgment, and submit to his infallible authority, vrithout exa
mination. So that all this while, there could be no infallible judge to
whom all men were bound to subrait their own private reason
and judgment, and to receive all their dictates as dirine oracles,
•without examination ; because they could not know them to
be such infallible teachers, till they had examined their doctrine
by the light of nature, and the law of Moses : and we cannot,
to this day, know that Moses and Christ were true prophets,
but in the same way.
Since the writing of the New Testament, there is a farther
test of an infallible teacher (if there be any such in the world),
that he neither contradict the hght of nature, nor the true
intent of the law of Moses, nor alter or add to the Gospel of
Christ ; and therefore there can be no infallible judge, because
be he never so infallible, we can never know that he is so, but
by the agreement of his doctrine with the principles of reason,
with the law and the prophets, and with the Gospel of Christ;
and therefore must examine his doctrine by these rules, aud
therefore must judge for ourselves, and not suffer any man to
judge for us, upon a pretence of his infallibUity,
Could I know that any man were infallible, without judging
of his doctrine, then indeed there were some reason to believe
all that he says, without any inquiry or examination ; but this
never was, never can be. And therefore, though there may
be an infalhble teacher, there can be no infallible judge to whom
I must submit my own reason and judgment, without asking
any questions. Which, by the way, shews how ridiculous that
sophism is, " the Church has not erred, because she is infal
lible ;" when it is impossible for me to know she is infallible,
till by examining her doctrine by an infalhble rule, I know
that she has not erred.
And the truth is, it is well there can be no infallible judge ;
for if there were, it would suspend and silence the reason and
judgment of all mankind : and what a knowing creature would
man be in matters of religion, when he must not reason, and
must not judge ? just as knowing as a man can be vrithout
exercising any reason and judgment. And therefore, not only
the reason and nature of the thing proves that there can be no

AGAINST POPERY, 229
infallible judge, but the design of Christ to advance human
nature to the utmost perfection of reason and understanding in
this world, proves that he never intended there should be any :
for to take away the exercise of reason and private judgment,
is not the way to make men wise and knowing Christians; and
if Christ allows us to judge for ourselves, there can be no in
fallible judge, whose office it shall be to judge for us all,
4, To pretend the Scripture to be an obscure or imperfect
rule, is a direct contradiction to the design of the Gospel, to
improve and perfect knowledge : for if the Scripture be so ob
scure in the essential matters of faith and Christian knowledge,
that we cannot have any certainty what the true sense and
interpretation of it is, without an infallible judge, then the
Scriptures cannot improve our knowledge, because we cannot
know what they are, we cannot understand their meaning, and
therefore can learn nothing from them.
Yes, you will say, we may know their meaning, when they
are expounded to us by an infallible judge : though the
Scriptures are so obscure, that we cannot understand them
without an infallible judge, yet we may certainly learn what the
sense of Scripture is from such a judge.
Now, in answer to this, I observe, that though such an
infallible judge should determine the sense of all obscure texts
of Scripture (which neither the Pope nor Church of Rorae
have ever done), yet this would not be to understand the
Scriptures, or to learn from the Scriptures, but only to rely on
this infaUible judge for the sense of Scripture, To under
stand the Scriptures, is to be able to give a reason, why I ex
pound Scripture to such a sense, as that the words signify so,
that the circumstances of the place, and the context and co
herence of the words require it ; that the analogy of faith, and
the reason and nature of things, will either justify such an in
terpretation, or admit no other. And an expositor, who can
thus open our understandings, and not only tell us what the
sense of Scripture is, but make us see that this is the true
sense and interpretation of it, does indeed make us understand
the Scripture, Thus Christ himself did, when he was risen
frora the dead, " He opened their understandings, that they
might understand the scriptures," Luke xxiv, 45, But to be
told that this is the true sense of Scripture, and that we must
beheve this is the sense, though we can see no reason why
it should be thus expounded, nay, though all the reason we
have teUs us that it ought not to be thus expounded, no man.

230 A PRESERVATIVE
vrill say that this is to understand the Scriptures, but to beheve
the judge. No man can learn anything from a book, which
he does not, and cannot understand ; and if men neither do,
nor can understand the Scriptures, it is certain they can learn
nothing from them : an infallible judge would teach as well vrith
out the Scriptures as vrith them, and indeed somewhat better,
because then no man could have a pretence to contradict him ;
and therefore if this be tme, the holy Scripture deserves all
those contemptible characters which the Romanists have given
}t ; for it is so far from improring and perfecting our know
ledge, that itself cannot be known, and therefore is good for
nothing. So that the obscurity of the Scripture makes it
wholly useless to the great ends and purposes of the Christian
religion, viz. to improve and perfect the knowledge of man
kind in the necessary and essential doctrines of faith ; and
therefore this can be no Gospel doctrine, because it makes the
Gospel itself, considered as written, of no use.
Thus, if the Scripture be an imperfect rule, as the Romanists
affirm, that it does not teach us the whole mind and will of
God, but that we must learn even some necessary docfrines
of faith from unwritten traditions, which nobody has the
keeping of but the Church of Rome : this, I say, contradicts
the great design of the Gospel, which is to improve and perfect
knowledge ; for an imperfect rule of faith is, I think, as bad
as no rule at all, because we can never trust it.
If you say, that though the Scripture itself be an imperfect
rule, yet we have a perfect rule, because the defects of the
Scripture are supplied by unwritten traditions ; and therefore we
have the whole Gospel, and all the Christian knowledge delivered
down to us, either in the written or unwritten rule: I answer,
1 . If tbe Scriptures be an imperfect rule, then all Christians
have not a perfect rule, because they have not the keeping of
unwritten traditions, and know not what they are, and never
can know what they are, till the Church is pleased to tell them;
and it seems, it was a very great while before the Church
thought fit to do it. For suppose that all the new articles of
the Council of Trent, which are not contained in Scripture,
were unwritten traditions, fifteen hundred years was some
what of the longest to have so considerable a part of the
rule of faith concealed from the world ; and who knows
how much of it is concealed still ? for the Church has not told
us, that she has published all her unwritten traditions ; there
may be a nest-egg left still, which in time may add twelve

AGAINST POPERY. 231
new articles to the Trent Creed, as that has done to the
Apostles' Creed.
So that if the Scripture be an imperfect rule of faith, the
Church never had a perfect rule till the Council of Trent ;
for a rule which is not known, is none at all, and nobody can
teU whether our rule be perfect yet ; whether some more un
written traditions may not start up in the next age, to make
our faith more perfect than the Council of Trent itself has
made it. Now if the design of the Gospel was to instruct
men in all divine knowledge, can we think that our Saviour has
given us such an imperfect rule, as needs to he supplied by
unwritten traditions in every age"? especially when we consider
that sorae of the greatest mysteries and most useful doctrines
of the Christian religion (if the Church of Rome be in the
right) were not written, or so obscurely, that nobody could
find them in the Scriptures, tUl they were discovered by the
help of unwritten traditions ; such as the supremacy of the
Pope, the infallibility of Popes and General Councils, the wor
ship of images, the invocation of saints, and the great glory
and prerogatives of the Virgin Mary, the doctrine of purgatory,
indulgences, the sacrament of penance, &c., as necessary doc
trines as any that are recorded in Scripture, and the denial of
which makes us all heretics and schismatics, as the Church of
Rome says. Though thanks be to God, as far as appears, we
are no greater heretics and schismatics than the Apostles were,
unless they are excused for not knowing these necessary articles
of faith, and we are heretics for denying them, since the
Church of Rome, in the CouncU of Trent, has decreed and
pubhshed them.
2. These unwritten traditions cannot supply the defects of a
written rule, because they are of uncertaui authority, and
therefore not the objects, much less the rule, of a certain faith
and knowledge. What is not written, but said to be delivered
down from age to age by oral tradition, and kept so privately,
that the Church of God' never heard of it for several hund-red
years, can never be proved but by miracles, and they must be
more credible miracles too, than the school of the eucharist,
and the legends of the saints furnish us vrith ; and yet I know
pf no better the Church of Rome has. It is impossible to
prove, that a private tradition cannot be corrupted ; it is un
reasonable to think that any thing which concerns the necessary
articles of faith, or rules of worship, should be a private and
secret tradition for several ages. Miracles themselves cannot

232 A PRESERVATIVE
prove any tradition which is contrary to the written rule, and
the catholic faith of Christians for several ages, as several of
the Trent doctrines are ; nay, no miracles can prove any new
article of faith, which was never known before, without proving
that Christ and his Apostles did not teach all things necessary
to salvation ; which will go a great way to overthrow the truth
and certainty of the Christian faith : for miracles themselves
can never prove, that Christ and his Apostles taught that
which the Christian Church never heard of before ; which is
either to prove that the whole world had forgot what they had
been once taught, which I doubt is not much for the credit of
tradition, or that the Church, for several ages, did not teach
all that Christ taught, which is no great reason to rely on the
teachings of the Church ; or to prove against matter of fact,
that Christ and his Apostles taught that which nobody ever
heard of, and I do not think a miracle sufficient to prove that
true, which everybody knows to be false, or at least do not know it
to be true, though they must have knovra it, if it had been tme.
And does not every body now see, how improper unwritten
traditions are, to supply the defects and imperfections of the
written rule ? For they can never make one rule, because they
are not of equal authority, A writing may be proved authen
tic, an obscure unwritten tradition cannot : and can any man
think, that Christ would have one-half of his Gospel written,
the other half unwritten, if he intended to perfect the know
ledge of Christians ? For they cannot have so perfect a know
ledge, because they cannot have so great certainty of the
unwritten, as they have of the -written Gospel, Writing is the
most certain way to perpetuate knowledge ; and if Christ
intended that his Church, in all ages, should have a perfect
rule of faith, we must acknowledge the perfection of the written
Tule, The truth is, I cannot but admire the great artifice of
the Church of Rome, in preaching up the obscurity and
imperfection of the Scriptures, for she has hereby put it into
her own power, to make Christian rehgion what she pleases ;
for if the Scriptures be obscure, and she alone can infallibly
interpret them ; if the Scriptures be imperfect, and she alone
can supply their defects by unwritten traditions ; it is plain,
that Christian religion must be what she says it is, and it shall
be what her interest requires it to be. But whether this be
consistent with our Sariour's design in publishing the Gospel,
or whether it be the best way of improving the knowledge of
mankind, let any impartial raan judge.

AGAINST POPERY, 233
5, An implicit faith, or believing as the Church beheves,
without knowing what it is we believe, can be no Gospel doc
trine, because this, to be sure, cannot be for the improvement
of knowledge. Some of the Roman doctors think it sufficient
that a man believes as the Church believes, vrithout an ex-
phcit knowledge of anything they beheve ; but the general
opinion is, that a man must have an exphcit belief of the
Apostles' Creed, but as for everything else it suffices, if he
beheves as the Church believes, vrithout knowing what the
faith of the Church is ; that is, it is not necessary men should
so much as know, what the new articles of the Trent faith are,
if they believe the Apostles' Creed, and resign up their faith
implicitly to the Church,
Now this is a plain confession, that all the doctrines in dis
pute between us and the Church of Rome, are of no use,
much less necessary to salvation ; for if they were, they would
be as necessary to be known, and explicitly believed, as the
Apostles' Creed : and I cannot imagine, why we heretics, who
believe the Apostles' Creed, and understand it as orthodoxly as
they, may not be saved vrithout believing the new Trent Creed ;
for if we need not know what it is, there seems to be no need
of believing it ; for I always thought, that no man can, and
therefore, to be sure, no man need, believe, what he does not
know. So that it seems, we know and believe all things, the
explicit knowledge and belief of which, by their own confes
sion, is necessary to salvation, except that one single point of
the infallibility of the Church of Rome : believe but that, and
ye need believe or know nothing more but the Apostles' Creed,
and yet go to heaven as a good Catholic : which makes an
imphcit faith in the Church of Rome, as necessary as faith in
Christ is.
But if the intent of the Gospel was to improve our know
ledge, then Christ never taught an implicit faith, for that does
not improve knowledge : and if the faith of the Church of
Rorae, excepting the Apostles' Creed, which is the common
faith of all Christians, need not be known, then they are no
Gospel doctrines, much less necessary articles of faith ; for
Christ taught nothing but what he would have known ; and
though the knowledge of all things which Christ taught, is
not equally necessary to salvation, yet it tends to the perfecting
our knowledge, and Christ taught nothing which a miin need
not know ; which I think is a reproach to meaner masters, and
much more to the eternal and incarnate Wisdom,

234 A PRESERVATIVE
Secondly, The improvement and perfection of human nature
consists in true holiness and virtue, in a likeness and confor
mity to God, and a participation in the Divine nature : and this
is the great end of the Gospel to advance us to as perfect holi
ness as is attainable in this life, Christ indeed has made expia
tion for our sins by his own blood, but then this very blood of
atonement does not only expiate the guilt of sin, but purges the
conscience from dead works, that we may serve the liring God ;
for no sacrifice, not of the Son of God himself, can reconcile
an impenitent and unreformed sinner to God, that is, can move
God to love a sinner who still loves and continues in his sins ;
which an infinitely holy and pure Being cannot do : indeed the
expiation of sin is but one part of the work of our redemption ;
for a sinner cannot be saved, that is, cannot be advanced to
immortal life in the kingdom of heaven, without being born
again, without being renewed and sanctified by the Holy Spirit,
after the image and likeness of God, For this new nature is
the only principle of a new immortal life in us : an earthly
sensual mind is no more capable of liring in heaven, than an
earthly mortal body. In both senses, " flesh and blood cannot
inherit the kingdom of God, neither can corruption inherit
incorruption," The Church of Rome, indeed, has taken great care about
the first of these, and has found out more ways of expiating
sin, and making satisfaction for it, than the Gospel ever taught
us ; whether they are so effectual to this purpose, let those
look to it who trust in thera ; but there is not that care taken
to inculcate the necessity of internal holiness and purity of
mind, and one would easily guess that there can be no great
need of it in that Church, which has so many easy ways of
expiating sin.
The true character of Gospel doctrines is, a doctrine accord
ing to godliness, the principal design of which is to promote
true goodness ; all the articles of the Christian faith tend to
this end, to lay great and irresistible obligations on us to
abstain from every sin and to exercise ourselves in everything
that is good, as we have ability and opportunity to do it : and
therefore all doctrines which secretly undermine a good life,
and make it unnecessary for men to be truly and sincerely rir-
tuous, can be no Gospel doctrines. That there are such
doctrines in the Church of Rome, has been abundantly proved
by the late learned and reverend Bishop Taylor, in his Dis
suasive from Popery ; which is so very useful a book, that I

had rather direct my readers to it, than transcribe out of it :
my design leads me to another method ; for if I can prove
that the doctrines and practices of the Church of Rome na
turally tend to evacuate the force of the Gospel itself, to make
men good and holy ; every one vrill easily see that that can
be no Gospel faith and worship, which sets aside the Gospel
itself. The whole doctrine of the Gospel either consists of the rules
of hohness, or of the motives and instruments of it ; for the
articles of the Christian faith are all of them so many motives
to a good life : let us then consider how the faith and worship
of the Church of Rome has made void the Gospel of our
Saviour, as the Pharisees made void the law of Moses, by their
tradition. 1. Let us begin then with the Gospel rules of holiness.
It would be an endless thing here to take notice of the loose
determinations of their famed and approved Casuists, of their
doctrine of probable opinions, of the direction of the intention,
by which means the very laws and boundaries of virtue and
rice are in a great measure quite altered ; and, it may be, this
would only make work for the Representer, and furnish out a
fourth part of the Papist Misrepresented, if we venture to
tell the world what has been the avowed doctrines of their
great divines and Casuists. But whether such definitions be
the doctrine of their Church or not, I am sure they are equally
mischievous, if they be the doctrines of their confessors who
have the immediate direction of men's conscience. Those
who have a mind to be satisfied in this matter, may find
enough of it in the Provincial Letters, the Jesuit's Morals, and
Bishop Taylor's Dissuasive. It sufficiently answers my present
design to take notice of some few plain things, which will
admit of no dispute.
I have already shewn what a great value the Church of
Rome sets upon an external righteousness, which is much more
meritorious than a real and substantial piety and virtue. Now
let any man judge whether this be not apt to corrupt men's
notions of what is good ; to persuade them that such external
observances are much more pleasing to God, and therefore,
certainly, much better in themselves, than true Gospel obedi
ence, than moral and evangelical rirtues ; for that which vrill
merit of God the pardon of the greatest immoralities, and a
great reward; that which supplies the want of true rirtue,
which compensates for sin, and makes men great saints, must

236 A PRESERVATIVE
needs be more pleasing to God, than rirtue itself is : and if
men can believe this, all the laws of holiness signify nothing,
but to let men know, when they break thera, that they may
make satisfaction by some meritorious superstitions.
Thus the doctrine of venial sins, which are hardly any sins
at all, to be sure, how numerous soever they are, or how fre
quently soever repeated, cannot deserve eternal punishments,
is apt to give raen very slight thoughts of very great erils : for
very great evils raay come under the notion of venial sins,
when they are the effects of passion and surprise, and the like.
Indeed this very notion of venial sins is so perplexed and
undetermined, that the priest and the penitent may serve them
selves of it to good purpose. I am sure this distinction is apt
to make men careless of what they think little faults, which
are generally the seeds and dispositions to much greater ; such
as the sudden eruptions of passion, some wanton thoughts, an
indecorum and indecency in words and actions, and what men
will please to call little venial sins, for there is no certain rule
to know them by : so that while this distinction lasts, men
have an excuse at hand for a great many sins, which they need
take no care of ; they are not obliged to aim at those perfec
tions of rirtue which the Gospel requires ; and if they keep
clear of mortal sins, they are safe, and that men may do, vrith
out any great attainments in virtue ; which does not look very
like a Gospel doctrine, which gives us such admirable laws,
which requires such great circumspection in our lives, such a
command over our passions, such inoffensiveness in our words
and actions, as no institution in the world ever did before.
Whatever corrupts men's notions of good and eril, as external
superstitions and the distinction between venial and mortal sins
is apt to do, is a contradiction to the design of the Gospel, which
is, to give us the plain rules and precepts of a perfect virtue.
Secondly, Let us consider some of the principal motives of
the Gospel to a holy life, and see whether the Church of
Rome does not evacuate them also, and destroy their force and
power. Now, 1. The fundamental motive of all, is the absolute
necessity of a holy life ; that " without holiness no man shall
see God," for no other argument has any necessary force with
out this. But the absolute necessity of a holy life to please
God, and to go to heaven, is many ways overthrown by the
Church of Rome, and nothing would more effectuaUy over
throw the Church of Rome, than to re-establish this doctrine

AGAINST POPERY, 237
of the absolute necessity of a good life. For were men once
convinced of this, that there is no way to get to heaven, but by
being truly and sincerely good ; they would keep their, money
in their pockets, and not fling it so larishly away upon indul
gences or masses ; they would stay at home, and not tire
themselves with fruitless pilgrimages, and prodigal offerings at
the shrines of some powerful saints ; all external, troublesome
and costly superstitions would fall into contempt ; good men
would feel that they need them not, and if bad men were
conrinced that they would do them no good, there were an end
of them ; for the only use of them is to excuse men from the
necessity of being good.
But this is most erident in their doctrine about the sacra
ment of penance, that bare contrition with the absolution of
the priest, puts a man into a state of salvation, I do not lay it
upon attrition, which is somewhat less than contrition, though
the Council of Trent, if I can understand plain words, makes
that sufficient with the absolution of the priest ; but because
sorae men will unreasonably wrangle about this, I shall insist
only on what is acknowledged by themselves, that contrition,
which is only a sorrow for sin, if we confess our sins to a
priest, and receive absolution, puts us into a state of grace.
Now contrition, or sorrow for sin, is not a holy life, and there
fore this doctrine overthrows the necessity of a holy life,
because men may be saved by the sacrament of penance vrith
out it, and then I know no necessity there is of mortifying
their lusts ; for if they sin again, it is only repeating the same
remedy, confessing their sins, and being sorry for them, and
receiring absolution, and they are restored to the favour of
God, and to a state of salvation again. Nay, some of the
Casuists tell us, that God has not commanded men to repent,
but only at the time of death, and then contrition with abso
lution will secure their salvation, after a whole life spent in
vrickedness, without any other good action, but only sorrow
for sin : and if men are not bound by the laws of God so much
as to be contrite for their sins, till they find themselves dying,
and incapable of doing any good, all men must grant, that a
holy hfe is not necessary to salvation,
2, More particularly, the love of God in giving his own
Son to die for us, and the love of Christ, in giving himself for
us, are great Gospel motives to obedience and a holy hfe ; but
these can only work upon ingenuous minds, who have already,
in some measure, conquered the love of sin ; for where the

238 A PRESERVATIVE
love of sin prevails, it is too powerful for the love of God ; but
the holiness, and purity, and inflexible justice of the Dirine
nature, is a very good argument, because it enforces the
necessity of a holy life ; for a holy God cannot be reconciled
to wicked men ; will not forgive our sins, unless we repent of
them, and reform them ; which must engage all men, who hope
for pardon and forgiveness from God, to forsake their sins,
and reform their lives : but the force of this argument is lost
in the Church of Rome by the judicial absolution of the priest:
for they see daily the priest does absolve them vrithout for
saking their sins, and God must confirm the sentence of his
ministers, and therefore they are absolved, and need not fear
that God -will not absolve them, when the priest has ; which
must either destroy all sense of God's essential holiness and
purity, and persuade them, that God can be reconciled to sin
ners while they continue in their sins, or else they must believe
that God has given power to his priests to absolve those
whora he could not have absolved himself : to be sure it is in
vain to tell men, that God will not forgive sinners while they
continue in their sins, if they believe the judicial authority of
the priest to forgive sins ; for they every day absolve men who
do not forsake their sins, and if their absolution be good, God
must forgive them too ; and thus the holiness, and inflexible
justice of God, loses its force upon good Catholics to reform
their lives ; and therefore were there no other arguments
against it, it is not likely that the judicial absolution of the
priest, as it is taught and practised in the Church of Rome,
should be a Gospel doctrine,
3, The death and sacrifice of Christ is another Gospel mo
tive to holiness of life ; not only because he has now bought
us vrith his own blood, and therefore we must no longer live
unto ourselves, but to him who died for us ; but because his
blood is the blood of the covenant, and the efficacy of his
sacrifice extends no farther than the Gospel covenant, which
teaches us to deny " all ungodliness and worldly lusts, and to
live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world,"
That is, no raan can be saved by the blood of Christ, but those
who obey the Gospel, which obliges all raen, who hope to be
saved by Christ, to the practice of an universal righteousness.
This the Church of Rome seems very sensible of, that none
but sincere penitents and tmly good men can be saved by the
sacrifice of Christ upon the cross ; which gives no hope to
sinners, who do not repent of their sins, and amend their

hves ; and therefore she has found out a great many other
ways of expiating sin, which gives more comfort to sinners.
The sacrifice of the mass has a distinct rirtue and merit frora
the sacrifice upon the cross ; it is a propitiatory sacrifice for the
living and the dead, to expiate especially the sins of those, for
whom it is particularly offered ; and thus those sins which are
not expiated by the death of Christ upon the cross, are ex
piated by the sacrifice of the mass, and that by the bare opus
operatum, by the offering this sacrifice of the mass itself, with
out any good motion in the person for whom it is offered : and
thus the sacrifice of the mass destroys the virtue of Christ's
sacrifice upon the cross, to obhge men to holiness of life ; for
though none but sincere and reformed penitents are pardoned
by the sacrifice of the cross, the sacrifice of the mass will ex
piate the sins of unreformed sinners, and then there is no need
to reform our lives. Thus I am sure all men understand it, or
they would never put their confidence in the mass-sacrifice ;
for if it does no more for us than Christ's death upon the cross,
it might be spared, for it gives no new comforts to impenitent
sinners. They are very sensible, that holiness of life is necessary to
entitle us to the pardon and forgiveness purchased by the death
of Christ ; but then the sacrifice of the mass, human penances,
and satisfactions, and merits, the indulgences, seem on pur
pose contrived to supply the place of holiness of life ; for no
body can imagine else what they are good for, Christ has by
his death upon the cross, made a perfect atonement for the
sins of all true penitent and reformed sinners ; and therefore a
true penitent, who according to the terms of the Gospel, denies
aU ungodliness and worldly lusts, and lives " soberly, righ
teously, and godly in this present world," needs no expiation
but the death of Christ : wiU they deny this ? by no means !
They grant, that aU our sins are done away in baptism, merely
by the application of Christ's death and passion to us; and
therefore the death of Christ is a complete and perfect satis
faction for aU sin, or else baptism, which derives its whole vir
tue from the death of Christ, could not wash away all sin :
what use can there be then of the new propitiatory sacrifice of
the mass, of human satisfactions, and merits, and indulgences ?
Truly none but this, that when our sins are expiated by the
death of Christ, and the pardon of aU our sins applied to us in
baptism, the Gospel exacts a holy life from us, and therefore
men forfeit the baptismal pardon of their sins by the blood of

240 A PRESERVATIVE
Christ, unless they either live very holy lives, or make some
other satisfaction for their not doing so : and for this purpose,
the sacrifice of the mass, human penances, and satisfactions
serve. It will not be unuseful, nor unpleasant, to draw a short
scherae of this whole matter, which will explain this great
mystery, and make it intelligible, which now appears to be
nothing but nonsense and confusion,
Christ then has made a perfect atonement and expiation
for sin : this is applied to us at baptism, wherein all our sins
are forgiven ; and while we continue in this state of grace, we
cannot be eternally damned, though we may be punished for
our sins, both in this world and purgatory. But every mortal sin
puts us out of the state of grace, which we were in hy baptism,
and till we be restored to the state of grace again, we must be
eternally damned, because we have no right to the sacrifice
and expiation of Christ's death : the only way in the Church
of Rome to restore us to the state of grace, is by the sacra
ment of penance, and the absolution of the priest, which
restores us to the same state which baptism at first put us into,
and therefore very well deserves to be thought a sacrament :
and thus we recover our interest in the merits of Christ's
death, and therefore cannot be eternally damned for our sins ;
but still it is our duty to live well, for the death of Christ
does not excuse us from holiness of life, which is the condition
of the Gospel ; and therefore if we are in a state of grace, and
thereby secured frora etemal damnation, yet if we live in sin,
we must be punished for it, unless we can find some other
expiation for sin than the death of Christ upon the cross,
which still leaves us under the obligations of a holy life, and
therefore cannot make such an expiation for sin, as shall serve
instead of a holy life : now here comes in the sacrifice of the
mass, human penance, satisfactions, indulgences :
For the sacrifice of the mass, as I observed before, does not
serve the same end, that the sacrifice of the cross does : the
sacrifice of the mass is a propitiatory sacrifice for the living
and the dead : but what sins is it a propitiation for ? For
such sms for which men are to satisfy themselves ; that is, for
all sins, the etemal punishment of which is remitted for the
sacrifice of the cross. This is evident from their making the
sacrifice of the mass a propitiatory sacrifice for the dead ;
that is, for the souls in purgatory, who suffer there the tem
poral punishments of sin, when the eternal punishment is
forgiven : the souls in hell are capable of no expiation, aud

AGAINST POPERY. 241
therefore an expiatory sacrifice for the dead, can be only for
the souls in purgatory, and that is for the temporal punish
ment of sin, for which the sacrifice of the cross is no expia
tion ; and the mass is in no other sense made a sacrifice for
the hring than for the dead ; and therefore is not to expiate
the eternal, but the temporal punishments of sin, as appears
from hence, that the saying masses, or hearing masses, or
purchasing masses, is reckoned among those penances men
must do for the expiation of their sins, and yet they can, by
all they do, only expiate for the temporal punishment of sin ;
and therefore masses for the liring are only for the expia
tion of those temporal punishments of sin, for which the
sacrifice of the cross made no expiation. And I shall be
so civil at present, as not to inquire how the sacrifice of
the cross, and the sacrifice of the mass, which are the very
same sacrifice of the natural body and blood of Christ, come
to serve such very different ends : that when Christ was sacri
ficed upon the cross, he expiated only for the eternal punish
ment of sin ; when sacrificed in the mass, only for the temporal.
I need add nothing to prove, that human penances, satisfac
tions, merits, indulgences, are only to expiate temporal
punishment of sin, because it is universally acknowledged.
Now if these temporal punishments be only in lieu of holiness
and obedience, which the Gospel requires to entitle us to the
expiation of Christ's death upon the cross, as I have already
shewn : then it is evident to a demonstration, that the Church
of Rome has overthrown the death and sacrifice of Christ upon
the cross, considered as an argument of a holy life, by setting
up the sacrifice of the mass, human penances, satisfactions,
merits, indulgences, instead of the Gospel terms of obedience
and holiness of life.
4, The intercession of Christ for us, at the right hand of
God, is another powerful motive to holiness of life : it gives
all the encouragement to true penitent sinners that can be de
sired ; for " if any man sin, we have an advocate with the
Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, who is also a propitiation
for our sins,"* But then Christ mediates only in rirtue of
his blood ; that is only upon the terms and conditions of the
covenant of grace, which was sealed by his blood ; that is, he
mediates and intercedes only for tme penitent sinners ; which
obliges us, as we hope to be heard by God, when we pray in
* 1 John ii. 2.
VOL. XI. B

242 A PRESERVATIVE
the name of Christ, truly and heartily to repent of all^ our
sins, and to live a new life.
This the Church of Rome also seems very sensible of, that
Christ, of his own accord, will not intercede for impenitent and
unreformed sinners ; that he who is the great Example, and
the great Preacher of righteousness, will not espouse the cause
of incorrigible sinners, who are very desirous of pardon, but
hate to be reformed ; and therefore they seem to think it as
hopeless a thing to go immediately to a holy Jesus, as to ap
pear before the tribunal of a just and righteous God, vrithout
a powerful advocate.
For this reason they have found out a great many otber ad
vocates and mediators, a great deal more pitiful and compas
sionate than Christ is, who by their interest in him, or their
great favour with God, may obtain that pardon, which otherwise
they could not hope for ; such as the Virgin Mary, who is
the mother of Christ, and therefore, as they presume, has as
great interest in and authority over him, as a mother has over
her son ; besides those vast numbers of meritorious saints,
whose intercessions cannot but prevail for those sinners whose
cause they undertake.
And that this is the true reason of their addresses to saints
and the Virgin Mary, though they vrill not speak out, is eri
dent to any considering man : for will they say, that Christ,
who became man for us, who suffered and died for us, who
was in all things tempted like as we are, yet without sin ;
who did and suffered all this on purpose that he might be a
merciful and compassionate High-Priest, and might give us the
highest assurance of his tenderness and compassion for us : I
say, can they suspect that such a High-Priest will not under
take to plead our cause, if we be such as, according to the
terms of the Gospel, it is his office to intercede for? No
Christian dare say this, which is such a reproach to our com
mon Sariour, who hath bought us with his own blood ; and
therefore no Christian who thinks himself within the reach
and compass of Christ's intercession, can need or desire any
other advocate : but those who are conscious to themselves of
so much wickedness, that they cannot hope the holy Jesus
will intercede for thera for their own sakes, have reason to pro
cure some other favourites to intercede for them with their
Intercessor ; and to countenance the matter, they must recom
mend it to the practice of all Christians, and more than so,
make it heresy to deny it. There is but one argument I know

of against this, that any should be so stupid, as to think that
the intercession of the Virgin Mary, or the most powerful
saints, can prevail with our Sariour to do that, which accord
ing to the laws of his own mediation, they know he cannot,
and vriU not do : and this, I confess, I cannot answer, but yet
so it is. And thus the intercession of Christ is made a very
ineffectual arguraent to make men good ; for though Christ
vrill intercede for none hut true penitents, the Church of Rome
has a great many other advocates that vrill, or at least she per
suades people that they will,
5, Another great Gospel motive to a holy life, is the hope
of heaven, and the fear of hell. As for the hope of heaven,
that is no otherwise a motive to holiness of life, but upon a
supposition of the necessity of holiness, that " vrithout holiness
no man shall see God ;" but this you have already heard, is
overthrown hy the Church of Rome : and if men may go to
heaven -without holiness, I know no need of it for that purpose
in this world.
But hell is a very terrible thing, to be condemned to end
less and etemal torments -with the deril and his angels ; but
then the doctrine of purgatory does mightily abate and take
off this terror : for though purgatory be a terrible place too,
not cooler than hell itself, yet it is not eternal ; yet men who
are mightily in love with their sins, vrill venture temporal
punishments, though somewhat of the longest, to enjoy their
present satisfactions ; especially considering how many easy
ways there are for rich men to get out of purgatory ; those
-who have money enough to buy indulgences while they live,
and masses for their souls when they die, need not lie long
there, if the priests are not out in their reckoning : and yet it
is so easy a thing for a good Catholic to get into purgatory ;
especially if he take care frequently to confess himself, and
receive absolution, or do not die so suddenly as to be surprised
in any mortal sin, that hell seems to be very little thought of,
or feared in the Church of Rome, Now I desire no better ar
gument, that all these are not Gospel doctrines, than that
they destroy the force of all those arguments the Gospel uses
to make men good ; that is, they are a direct contradiction to
the Gospel of Christ.
6. I shall name but one motive more, and that is the exani-
ples of good men : " To be followers of them, who, through
faith and patience, inherit the promises ;" that " being encom
passed with such a cloud of witnesses, we should lay aside
R 2

244 A PRESERVATIVE
every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and
let us run with patience the race which is set before us,"*
Now this is a powerful argument, because they were men as
we are, subject to the same temptations and infirmities ; and
therefore their examples prove, that holiness is a practicable
thing ; that it is possible for raen to conquer all the difficul
ties of religion, and all the temptations in this life ; and many
times in them we see the visible rewards of virtue in great
peace of mind, great assurances of the Divine favour, great
supports under all adversities, and such a triumphant death,
as is a blessed presage of a glorious resurrection.
But now in the Church of Rorae, if there be any great and
meritorious saints, as they call them, their extraordinary vir
tues are not so much for imitation, as for a stock of merits.
The more saints they have, the less reason other men have to
be saints, if they have no mind to it, because there is a greater
treasure of raerits in the Church to reheve those who have
none of their own. The extraordinary devotion of their mo
nasteries and nunneries (for so they would persuade the
world, that there is nothing but devotion there), is not for
imitation, and it is unreasonable it should, because nobody
sees it ; and it is impossible to imitate that recluse life, vrith
out turning the whole world into a monastery : but these re
ligious societies furnish the Church vrith a stock of merits, out
of which she grants indulgences to those who are not very
religious ; and it is plain, that if one man can merit for twenty,
there is no need that there should be above one in twenty good.
Herein indeed the members of the Church of Rome have the
advantage of all other Churches (especially if they enter them
selves into any religious confraternity, to partake in the merits
of the society), that others can merit for them ; and then if
we can share in the merits of the saints, we need not imitate
thera : a Church which has saints to merit for them on earth,
and to intercede for them in heaven, if she can but maintain
and propagate a race of such meriting saints (which is taken
care of in the institution and encouragement of monastic or
ders and fraternities), raay be very indulgent to the rest of her
members, who do not like meriting themselves. So that the
principal motives of the Gospel to a holy life, as appear
in these six particulars, lose their force and efficacy in the
Church of Rome, and certainly those cannot be Gospel
• Heb. xii. 1,

AGAINST POPERY. 245
doctrines, which destroy the great end of the Gospel, to make
men good.
3. Nor do the Gospel means and instruments of holiness
and rirtue, escape better in the Church of Rome : as will
appear in a very few words.
• Reading and meditating on the holy Scriptures, is one ex
cellent means of grace, not only as it informs us of our duty,
but as it keeps a constant warm sense of it upon our minds,
which nothing can so effectually do, as a daily reading of the
Scripture, which strikes the mind vrith a more sacred authority,
than any human discourses can do : but this is denied to the
people of the Church of Rome, who are not allowed to read
the Scriptures in the vulgar tongue for fear of heresy, which, it
seems, is more plain and obvious in the Scriptures, than Cathohc
doctrines : but they should also have considered, whether
the danger of heresy or sin be the greater ; whether an ortho
dox faith, or a good life, be more valuable ; and if denying the
people the use of the Bible be the way to keep them orthodox,
I am sure it is not the way to make them good ; true piety
vrill lose more by this, than the faith will get by it.
Thus constant and fervent prayer, besides that supernatural
grace and assistance it obtains for us, is an excellent moral
instrument of holiness : for when men confess their sins to God
with shame and sorrow, when with inflamed devotions, they beg
the assistances of the Divine grace, when their souls are every
day possessed vrith such a great sense, awe and reverence for
God, as he must have, who prays devoutly to him every day ;
I say, it is impossible such men should easily return to those
sins, which they have so lately confessed, with such shame and
confusion, and bitter remorse ; that those who so importunately
beg the assistance of the Dirine grace, should not use their best
endeavours to resist temptations, and to improve in grace and
rirtue, which is a profane mockery of God, to beg his assis
tance, that he will work in us, and with us, when we will not
work : that those who have a constant sense and reverence of
God, should do such things, as argue that men have no fear
of God before their eyes.
But this is aU lost in the Church of Rome, where men are
taught to pray they know not what, and when men do not
understand their prayers, it is certain such prayers cannot
affect their minds, what other good soever Latin prayers may
do thera ; and thus one of the most powerful instruments
of piety and rirtue, is quite spoiled by prayers in an unknown

246 A PRESERVATIVE AGAINST POPERY.
tongue, which can no more improve their virtue than their
knowledge. Sorrow for sin is an excellent instrument of true repentance,
as that signifies the reformation of our lives ; for the natural
effect of sorrow is, not to do that again, which we are sorry
for doing ; but in the Church of Rome, this contrition, or
sorrow for sin, serves only to qualify men for absolution, and
that puts them into a state of grace, and then they may expiate
their sins by penances, but are under no necessity of forsaking
them. The sacrament of the Lord's supper, besides those super
natural conveyances of grace, which are annexed to it by our
Saviour's institution, is a great moral instrument of hohness;
it representing to us the love of our crucified Lord, the merit
and desert of sin, the virtue of his sacrifice to expiate our
sins, and to purge our consciences from dead works, and re
quiring the exercise of a great many virtues ; an abhorrence
and detestation of our sins, great and' ardent passions of love
and devotion, firm resolutions of liring to him who died for us,
forgiveness of enemies, and an universal love and charity to
all men, especially to the members of the same body with us ;
but in the Church of Rome, this admirable sacrament is
turned into a dumb show, which nobody can be edified
vrith, or into a sacrifice for the liring and the dead, which
expiates sin, and serves us instead of a holy life, as I observed
before. Extemal mortifications, and severities to the body, fastings,
watchings, hard lodging, &c. are very useful instruments of
rirtue, when they are intended to subdue the flesh to the
spirit, and to wean our minds from sensual enjoyments ; but
when they are intended to satisfy for our sins, not to kill them;
to punish ourselves for our sins, that we may commit them
more securely again, this is not a means to break vicious habits,
and to conquer the love of sin, but only to conquer the fear of
committing it.
This is enough to shew, how far Popery is frora promoting
the great design of the Gospel, to improve and perfect human
nature and hohness, and were there no other argument against
it, this were sufficient to me to prove, that it cannot be the
religion of the Gospel of Christ.

A SHORT SUMMARY
OF THE
PRINCIPAL CONTROVERSIES
BETWEEN THE
CHURCH OF ENGLAND AND THE CHURCH OF ROME ;
BEING
A VINDICATION OP SEVERAL PROTESTANT DOCTRINES, IN
ANSWER TO A LATE PAMPHLET, ENTITLED, 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 par
ticular 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 is as much too little, as others too
big. He begins very regularly with the state of the controversy
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
Catholic Church for hers," What wiU be thought plain by
them, is a very hard matter to guess, when it seems, the second
commandment itself is not thought by them a plain Scripture
proof against image worship, and I despair of ever finding a

248 CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN THE CHURCHES
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 erident conse
quence, 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 thera, 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 public 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 iU
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 wUl 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 Scrip
ture, 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 expressly
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 tme reason of this is, that the Church of
England teaches the sufficiency of the holy Scriptures to salva
tion, which is the very title of this Article, and therefore aU
things necessary to be beheved to salvation must be contained
in express words in Scripture, or be proved thence by plain
and evident consequence ; which shews, that we are not strictly
* Answer to Request, p, 1,

OF ENGLAND AND ROME. 249
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 shew 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 do not see half
a consequence before them, think they have a mighty advan
tage of us, in demanding the sarae proofs from us to justify
our rejecting their doctrines, which we demand of them to
justify 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 shew me the law which makes this
necessary, he should answer, though he cannot shew such a
law, yet it may be necessary, unless I can shew him a law
which expressly 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 pro
duce 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 Scrip
ture 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 salva
tion, which are not contained in the Scriptures : unless we
think, that the Scripture must beforehand confute aU possi
ble heresies, which might arise in the Church, and teU us par
ticularly in aU points, what we must not beheve, as weU as what
we must.

250 CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN THE CHURCHES
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 beheve it is not there,
because we cannot find it there, and those who pretend it is
there, cannot shew 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 pre
ceding paragraph ; and first, he says, "that those of the Thirty-
nine Articles which are opposed to Catholic religion (so he caUs
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 pro
position, or that purgatory is a late and fond invention, which
is affirmative, what difference is there between thera ? 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 raan
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
suspense 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 nonsense 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 whoever 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

OP ENGLAND AND ROME, 25 1
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 suf
ficient 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 oppo
site 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 Scrip
ture, but repugnant to it ; but then a plain and evident con
sequence 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
vrill 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 reriew 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 in
quirer," In answer to this, I observed, that every plain text of Scrip
ture 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 testi
monies, which, I said, do by a very easy and natural conse
quence, prove the plainness of Scripture ; " for if the word of

252 CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN THE CHURCHES
God be a hght unto our feet, and a lamp unto our paths, then
it must be clear, if light be clear. Psalm cxix, 105 ; if it be
able to make men wise unto salvation, 2 Tim, iii, 15, then
it must be plain and intelligible in all things necessary to sal
vation :" to which he answers,* "that these texts do not reach
the proposition to be proved : for if the word were a hght to
the prophet Darid'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 risible to all raen 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 vrise the simple : the statutes of the Lord are
right, rejoicing the heart : the commandment of the Lord is
pure, enlightening the eyes," Psalm xix, 7, 8, Is this spoken
only of prophets too ? Are there no other souls to be con
verted, no other simple people to be made -vrise, no other
hearts to be rejoiced, no other eyes to be enlightened, but only
theirs ? And when St, Paul tells Timothy, " from a chUd
thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make
thee vrise unto salvation" (which was the place I cited), does
this prove, that none but a man of God (for which he ex
changes it, though that is not in the 15th but 17th 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 sal
vation ; for othervrise, 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 raust grant, that
at least all raen of parts, and learning, and industry, who are
sober and honest inquirers, may understand thera as well as
dirines, unless he -prill say, that dirines understand them not
by the use of their reason and vrise 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 ;
* Answer to Request, p. 2.

OP ENGLAND AND ROME. 253
for this is not spoke of St. 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 St, 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
teacher's 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
man, 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
weU as the Church of Rorae ; 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 perfectiorf
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 inteUigible, though an unlearned man cannot understand
it without a guide ; as mathematical demonstrations are
certainly plain, if anything be plain, though unskUful men
cannot understand them without a master ; but that is clear
and plain in itself, which can be explained to every ordinary
apprehension ; and such we assert the Scriptures to be in aU

254 CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN THE CHURCHES
necessaries. Learned men can by their o-wn 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 ourselves. Thus
our Saviour taught his disciples, "he opened their under
standings, that they might understand the Scriptures ;" thus
the Apostles and primitive doctors instructed the world, by
expounding the Scriptures to them, which does not signify
merely to tell them what the sense of Scripture is, and re
quiring them to believe it ; but shewing them out of the
Scriptures, that this is, and must bs the true sense of it; and
we need not fear, that Protestancy should suffer anything
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 myself, as ifl were under appre
hensions, and durst neither own nor reject this tenet ;" and
yet in my Answer,f I expressly shew, what the Church of
England means by the king's 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 ecclesiastic, above him ; for if there were, he
were not supreme," And this I said might be proved from
Romans xui, 1, "Let every soul be subject to the higher
powers :" to which he answers, that "this proves more than I
grant. It proves ministering the word and sacraments to
belong to the higher powers." How so ? Yes, this it does,
" unless ministering 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 ministering
the word and sacraments : but if every soul only signify every
man (vrithout excepting the Pope himself), then I suppose aU
ecclesiastics, as well as secular persons, are included in it ; and
if aU must be subject to the king, then the king is supreme
over aU ; but things are at a low ebb in the Church of Rome,
when such silly quibbles must pass for arguments,
III. "Justification by faith alone {viz. a persuasion that we
are justified), is a wholesome doctrine,"
* F- Prot. t Answer to Request, p. 3,

OF ENGLAND AND ROME, 255
In answer to this, I denied that our Church teaches that
justifying faith is a persuasion that we are justified. He
grants, that sorae 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 he done, they are very unjust both in him
and us ; we deny that we do any such thing, and have lately
abundantly vindicated ourselves from such an imputation ; let
him do as much for himself if he can. But Cranmer was of
his 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 1 1 th 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 allege Scripture for it ? And why then must
this be charged upon our Articles ? Though what some may
have done I cannot tell, but Antinomians do not 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 justification by faith alone, and of the 11th Article,"
Why are 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. ihat justification by faith only is a whole
some doctrine, and very full of comfort, which intimates no
necessity of repentance to justification, nor 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 hving 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 aU meritorious works, is a wholesome doctrine, and very
fuU of comfort.

256 CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN TBE CHURCHES
IV. " The substance of bread and vrine 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 rirtue 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 raust 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 expressly prove,
that the substance of bread does not remain at all after conse
cration: for the eucharist is Christ's body and blood, which if
substantially bread and vrine, 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 signify 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 signify 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 hira 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 stiU, 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 tran
substantiate the bread into the body of Christ ? For this does
not signify the bread, and therefore this is my body cannot signify
that the substance of bread is transubstantiated into Christ's

OF ENGLAND AND ROME. 257
body, I wonder our author is not ashamed at this time of day
to talk at this rate, after so many excellent books as have been
written upon this argument ; to save myself 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 raerely 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, vrith 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 says, " I assert our Lord's 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 entirely absent, our Lord must be present in the
eucharist by grace and influence only : what is there besides
substance and efficacy belonging to our Sariour's body and
blood ? No colour of Scripture is produced for this Zuinglian
proposition." If he will allow no medium between Christ's corporeal 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 in
fluence, as that is opposed to a corporeal presence. And all
men must allow this, who deny transubstantiation, or consub
stantiation. But " what is there besides substance and efficacy
belongmg to our Saviour's body and blood ?" I answer, there
can he nothing naturally belonging to any body besides its
substance, and natural rirtues and powers, which he calls its
efficacy ; but by institution there may; and we take the sacra
ment of the Lord's supper to be an institution, and therefore
^otto have a natural, but instituted virtue and efficacy. For
the very notion of an institution is, that aU the virtue and
efficacy of it is not owing to nature, but to the wUl and ap-
pomtment of God, Whatever is a natural power, is no insti-
* Answer to Request, p, 5,
VOL. XI, S

258 CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN THE CHURCHES
tution, no sacraraent ; for the effect there, is wholly ovring 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 what
ever efficacy and rirtue 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 blood shed for
us, by virtue of an institution, may be as effectual to all the
ends and purposes of a sacraraent, as his natural body could
be ; which can have no sacramental efficacy, but by rirtue 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 coramunications
of his grace and Spirit, and a right to iramortal hfe. Now I
would desire to know, whether these are the natural effects of a
corporeal eating Christ's natural body ? He pm-chased aUthis
for us, indeed, by his death and passion ; but is pardon of sin,
which is God's free and gracious act, incorporated vrith Christ's
natural body ? And will a corporeal eating of his body com
municate it to us ? Do the communications of grace, and
spiritual hfe, 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 sup
poses to be inherent in it? A natural efficacy, such as can belong
to human bodies, signifies nothing to the purposes of a sacra
ment, and there can be no other efficacy inherent in Christ's
natural body ; unless he vrill say, that pardon of sin, and
spiritual grace, and a power of making other bodies iramortal,
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 rirtues 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 vrill not allow, that we touch the body of Christ, no

OP ENGLAND AND ROME. 259
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 naturaUy eat it ; and then how can it naturally
communicate its virtues to us ?
So that though the natural body pf Christ were present in
the sacrament, those dirine 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 vrell 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 vrill be the same either wa,y. And when the
natural presence of Christ's body in the eucharist is so abso
lutely impossible, such a contradiction to the sense and reason
of mankind, and of no use to the purposes of a sacrament, but
what may as well be otherwise supplied ; and the sacramental
eatmg of Christ's body in efficacious signs is so easy and ii^-
telhgible, 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 Testanient, wh^t should
incline men to expound those words of our ,Sa-?iour, " This is
my body," of his natural body, contrary to all the sacrameiital
forms of speech used in Scripture, did they not think it meri
torious to beheve impossibUities and contradictions.
To return then a more direct answer to our author's question,
" what there is besides substance and efficacy belonging tp our
Sariour's body ?" I answer, by nature there is nothing else,
but by institution there is ; for there is the sacraraent 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.
ijAnd since he wants Scripture for this, I vrill give him a very
plaintext, 1 Cor. x. 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 conrmunioa of the body of
Christ?" Thus St. Paul explains -what our Sariour 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 vrine, do
communicate in the body and blood of Christ.
This is a different thing from the mere influences of his
igrace ; for it is our interest and communion in his sacrifice,
s 2

260 CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN THE CHURCHES
which is the meritorious cause and spring of all Divine influ
ences 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 there
fore it is called the coraraunion of the body and blood of
Christ ; because it is the sacraraent of our union to him,
whereby we communicate in his body and blood ; and if this
be Zuinghanism, I see no help for it, but we must be contented
to be Zuinglians.
VI. "Adoration of the eucharist {i.e. of our Sariour under
the species of bread and vrine), 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 vrine is idolatry : to adore our
Sariour is no idolatry, but to adore bread and wine for our
Saviour, may be as rauch idolatry, as to worship the sun for
God." Instead of answering this, he tell us, "This blasphemous tenet
is taught by our Church," and which is a little worse, is prac
tised by theirs. " For the majority of our pretended bishops
did vote for the test, and do all of them take it," and I hope
they 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 reUgion from Parliaments, and
thank God that we have it ; and since they are a General
Council, may they insist upon their infalhbUity. But what is
the matter with the test ? Why, " it declares our adoration of
the eucharist (which is the adoration of nothing but Jesus
Christ) to be idolatry." Is the eucharist then nothing but
Jesus Christ ? Does the CouncU of Trent say so ? Is this the
doctrine of any of their schoolmen, canonists, or dirines?
Nay, wiU this author venture to say, that the eucharist is
nothmg but Jesus Christ hiraself? Which is speck and span
new Popery, if this be the doctrine of the Church of Rome.
No I he does not, dares not say, that the eucharist is nothmg
but Jesus Christ ; but he says " that the adoration of the
eucharist, is the adoration of nothing but Jesus Christ." But
what palpable nonsense is this ? For if the eucharist be some-

OP ENGLAND AND ROME. 261
thing, 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 doc
trine 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 sacra
ment. For there can be no sacrament of the eucharist without
the species of bread and vrine : 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 vrine : 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 at this
sacraraent ; 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 vrine, under which is contained the body
and blood of Christ ; and therefore to adore the sacrament, is
not to adore nothing but Jesus 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 vrine ;
and thus the Church of England believes, and thus our General
Council the Parliament, which made the test, believed, and
thus aU 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 most learned divines
of the Church of Rome have been gnUty of this blasphemy,
and I should be glad to hear what our author's opinion is of
it. VII. "AH Christians, whenever they communicate, are
obhged to receive in both kinds."
For this I urged the express words of institution,t which
do as expressly command us to drink of the cup, as to eat of
liie bread ; so that if there be any command in Scripture to
receive the bread, there is the same command to receive the
* Council, Trid, Sess, 7, [Sess. 13,] de Eucharistia, cap, 5, [Labbe,
Concil, vol, 14, p, 806, Lut, Par, 1672.] t Answer to Request, p, 7.

262 CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN THE CHURCHES
cup : nay indeed, as if our Sariour had purposely intended to
prevent this sacrilegious taking away of the cup from the
people; whereas indeUvering the bread, he only says, "Take,
eat ;" when he blessed and delivered the cup, he expressly
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 complete sacrament vrithout 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 Lord's sacrament, by Christ's ordinance and com
mandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike."
What he means by this, I cannot guess ; for if he vrill 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 rae, what proof there can be of an institution, but the
words of institution : does this institution then contain a com
mand 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 coramand 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 sarae tirae, our
Church had reason to say, that both parts of the Lord's
sacraraent, by Christ's ordinance and commandment, ought to
be administered to all Christian men ahke. The Church of
Rome thinks the words of institution a plain and necessary
command to consecrate in both kinds, vrithout 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 aU that we have about this matter ;
and let them give rae a reason, how the sarae words come to
signify 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 forra of words, vrithout 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 com
munion in one kind with a non obstante to our Saviour's
* Concil, Constant, Sess, 13, [Ibid, vol, 12. p, 100,J

OF ENGLAND AND ROME. 263
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 aUowed it ? and where has he allowed it, unless in
the words of institution? and they prove more than an
allowance, even a command ; if, " Drink ye all of this" be of
the imperative mood.
VIII. " Chastity deliberately vowed, may be inoffensively
riolated." This, I said, is no doctrine of our Church, nor are Protes
tants now concerned in it, though some of the monks and
nuns at the beginning of the Reformation were : and though I
(lid not undertake a just defence of the marriages of such de
voted persons, yet I offered several things in apology for them;
and said so m.uch, 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 doc
trine of the Answerer's Church, except his be not the same
Church with Edward the Vlth's, or the 32nd Article have
another sense, than when composed by Cranmer : for all
bishops and priests, then in the Western Church, had dehbe-
rately vowed chastity, and the Article says, it is lawful for
them to marry, which certainly violates their vow. No Scrip
ture is alleged justifying a tenet, so impure, so perfidious."
Thus, by consequence, he proves " that it is the doctrine of
our Church, that chastity deliberately vo-wed, may be inoffen
sively violated ;" because in King Edward VI. and Archbishop
Cranmer's days, it was the doctrine of this Church, that the
bishops and priests then in being, who had dehberately vowed
chastity, might, notvrithstanding, 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 cehbacy (though evei-y priest, as a priest,
was not by the laws of this Church, bound to undertake such

264 CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN THE CHURCHES
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 differ
ent question. Indeed, in Queen Elizabeth's 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 godhness." But this Article
does not say, that those bishops and priests, who are entangled
with a vow of celibacy, 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 controversy 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 j for there never was any
synodical definition of it ; and therefore there is no need of
producing Scripture proofs for it. But yet notvrithstanding
this, I am far from condemning those bishops and priests, and
nuns and friars, who did then marry ; for I am sure a chaste
marriage is more acceptable to God, than an impure celibacy :
and those abominations which were discovered at the dissolu
tion 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 stUl better for priests to marry, than to
debauch their penitents or converts. Thus much for his "im
pure and perfidious tenet,"
IX, "Au Christian excellencies are commanded,''
This, I told him, I thought St, Paul had determined,
Philip, iv, 8. " Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things
are honest," &c, " think on these things," For if these gene
ral expressions do not comprehend all Christian excellencies,
I know not what does. To this he answers, " Unless, besides
comprehending, it command them, that Scripture vrill not
prove the tenet," And the mode of expression (that is, its
being in the imperative mood, " think on these things") does

OF ENGLAND AND EOME. 265
not prove it to be a command," because it is common to an ex
hortation, 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 com
mand ; and I desire one instance of an exhortation in Scrip
ture, which relates to things necessarily good or eril, which
does not include a command. Indeed the style of the Gospel
does not run in the form of laws, but of exhortatory com
mands, enforced vrith reasons and arguments to persuade ; 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 net the force of a command. .^^^^
But I observed farther, " that whatever rirtues are com
manded, we must always reckon, that the heights and perfec
tions of those virtues are commanded, for God can command
nothing less than a perfect rirtue ;" and if this be true, then
all Christian excellencies must be commanded ; unless they be
such excellencies as are no virtues, which I fear may be the
case. All Christian rirtues are commanded in Scripture, vrith
out any hounds or limitations set to our duty ; and I always
thought, that justice, and goodness, and charity, meekness
and humiUty, temperance and chastity, the love of God and
men, did signify perfect rirtues, 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 Dirine nature
itself our pattern and example : that we must be " followers of
God," fufiriToi, imitators of God, " hke 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 rirtue.
But then I added, that the attainment of the highest perfec
tions in virtue, is not made the necessary conchtion of our
salvation. Though a perfect rirtue be commanded, yet for
Christ's sake, a sincere, though imperfect, obedience shall be
accepted. But the more perfect and excellent rirtue, shaU
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 shaU be

266 CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN THE CHURCHES
much required." Which shews, 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 differ
ent men matter of strict duty.
This, our author says, " imports that proportion, not equahty,
must be in our accounts to our abUities." This I do not well
understand ; for an equal proportion is an equality. But this,
he says, " does not agree vrith this doctrine, that we must always
reckon the heights and perfections of rirtues as coraraanded."
His reason for it is this : " the account corresponds to our abih-
ties (so sure does the command), but aU abihties are not tbe
sarae in aU; how then can God's commands be so to all, as they
are, if he always enjoins 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 abihties, which is an
act of grace and favour, and ovring to the merits and inter
cession of Christ ; and therefore his commands too, which are
the eternal and unalterable rules of righteousness, must be
proportioned to our abUities ; as if God might not in grace
and mercy accept of less than in justice he can require ; or
as if it becarae a holy and perfect being to command less than
a, perfect rirtue.
" 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 men's abilities do ? How many several gospels, and
several laws then must we have ? And where do we find these
several commands proportioned to men's 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 that it should be so, that aU
men raay know, that they are bound to be as good as they
can ; and not absolve theraselves frora any degrees of rir
tue, as above their abilities ; and therefore not coraraanded
thera by God : this is what God will do himself, when he
coraes to judge the world : he vrill mercifully consider,, whether
men have done what they could, and wUl accept of a httle,
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 rirtue : which vrill 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 per-

OF ENGLAND AND EOME. 267
fections of rirtue absolutely necessary to the salvation of all
men, then he might have confuted me from our Sariour's rule
of proportion, " to whom much is given, of them shall be
much required :" but this I expressly denied, " that every man
should be damned, who does not attain to the highest perfec
tions :" and expressly affirmed, " that a sincere Christian shall be
saved, notwithstanding his many defects, but our rewards shall
be proportioned to our several degrees and attainments in -vir
tue." That the most perfect virtue shall have the most excel
lent reward. And this is enough to confound the pretence of
merit, and works of supererogation ; especially that senseless
doctrine of one man's meriting for another ; which is the foun
dation of Popish indulgences. For if the most perfect rirtue 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 things which are commanded you,
say. We are unprofitable servants." To this our author
answers, " If to supererogate did signify (with Catholics) to
profit God, then the 14th Article (condemning the teachers of
works of supererogation of arrogance and impiety) had been
sohdly founded on. When you have done all things that are
commanded 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 superero
gate, and deserve some thanks from him. It is true, God
being infinitely happy and perfect in himself, we can make
no addition to hira, and therefore cannot, in a strict sense,
profit ]iim ; nor therefore could our Sariour 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 super
erogate, or do more than is our duty ; and here our Sariour's
argument hes ; that when we have done all that is commanded
us, aU the good that we can possibly do, yet we must confess
ourselves unprofitable servants, because we have done nothing

268 CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN THE CHURCHES
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 supereroga
tion 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
moraent of this controversy, it will be necessary briefly to un
riddle it.
Of what consequence the doctrine of purgatory is in the
Church of Rome, is sufficiently known ; for a Church which
can persuade 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 etemal;
which is the only difference between them), must needs have a
greater 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 itself 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 supereroga
tion, 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 ourselves 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 excel
lencies 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 vriU be so un
comfortable a doctrine, that no man vrill trust to it, but wiU
think it his interest to live virtuously, that he may escape both
hell and purgatory, and go to heaven when he dies ; and then
the Church of Rome vriU 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 nowhere com
manded ; but whether these be Christian excellencies or no,
would bejconsidered. The monkish vows of poverty, celibacy,
and absolute obedience to their superiors, are thought a state

OP ENGLAND AND ROME, 269
of perfection and merit ; and if they be so, these are works of
supererogation indeed, for they are nowhere 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 hve above
this world, and to despise all the charms and flatteries of it ;
but what rirtue it is to renounce the possession of any thing in
this world I cannot tell : it is in itself no rirtue, that I know
of, to be poor, and therefore it can be no rirtue to choose po
verty, 'The world was made for the use of man, and to use it
weU is an argument of rirtue ; but merely to have nothing in
the world is none : to bear want vrith a patient mind, and a
quiet submission to the Dirine Providence is a virtue ; but to
choose want, is none : much less is it any virtue to renounce
our private possessions, to live plentifully upon a common
stock, and to be as intent in enriching a monastery, as any man
can be to advance his private fortunes ; which is no great argu
ment of a contempt of the world. And no more is it, to re
nounce all honest and industrious ways of liring, as some do,
and to tum imperious and godly beggars, and live deliciously
on the spoils and superstition of the people.
Celibacy itself is no virtue, for then marriage, which is the
ordinance of God, and a Popish sacrament, must be a rice.
For there is no rirtue, strictly so called, but is opposed to some
vice; and celibacy is opposed to nothing but marriage: and
therefore we must seek for the rirtues of celibacy, not merely
in a vow against marriage, which is no virtue ; but as it sig
nifies 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 virtue we attain to, shall receive a
proportionable reward : and thus celibacy, though it be not a
state of perfection itself, 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 celibacy, and to bum with lust,
and to practise all the impurities of the stews ; to renounce
marriage, and to defile vrives and virgins, and still to call this a
more perfect state than marriage, is a work of supererogation
indeed, but whether it be supererogating virtue or vice, God
-triU 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 reserring
to ourselves a judgment, whether what he commands be good

270 CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN THE CHURCHES
or eril, 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 expressly
contrary to our Sariour's precept, " But call no man Rabbi, for
one is your Master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren. And
caU no man your father upon earth ; for one is your Father,
which is in heaven. Neither be ye caUed masters ; for one is
your Master, even Christ," Matth, xxiu, 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 bhnd obedi
ence does not make men our masters in this forbidden sense,
I think nothing can. Thus voluntary and unnecessary seve
rities to the body, which serve no ends of mortification or de
votion ; saying over a great number of Ave-maries, going in
pilgrimage to Jerusalem, or Loretto, or to the shrine of any
other powerful saints ; to give all our estates for saying masses
for the dead ; to adore relics and iraages, to kiss the pavement
of such a church, or sorae cross drawn on it ; to say over some
particular prayers, so many tiraes a day, or to pray before such
a particular altar, and such-hke things, as by the liberahty of
Popes have so many thousand years indulgence for a reward,
are indeed works of supererogation, because God has not com
manded them ; but I doubt are no Christian exceUencies,
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
heU." In answer to this, I told him, that " the Scripture gives us
no account of any other places of rewards and punishraents in
the other world, but heaven and hell." And that this propo
sition, " that every soul, as soon as expired, is conveyed to
heaven or hell, is only an inference frora this doctrine ; that
we know of no other place they should go to after death, the
Scripture haring 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 parables of Dives and Lazarus, and St. 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 La-
zams, and St. Paul; and says, that this would prove some-

OP ENGLAND AND ROME. 271
thing, " if three souls be all, or all souls expire in either
Dives's fitness for hell, or Lazarus's and St. 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 wherever 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 St, 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 threatened against
bad men? and we have some examples of both recorded in
Scripture ; unless we expect the Scripture should give us a
complete catalogue of aU who were saved or damned in those

As for men's 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
aU 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 rice and rirtue, which may quahfy men for different
degrees of rewards and punishments, yet as we read in Scrip
ture 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 threatenings 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 etemal 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 controversy 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

272 CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN THE CHURCHES
nor hell ; and possibly those, who do not understand this con
troversy, raay 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 vrill be among thoughtfiil
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 iraposed on vrith sham
proofs, which are nothing to the purpose (as it is plain this
author intended to do in this article), it wUl be necessary
plainly to represent the doctrine of the Church of Rome con
cerning purgatory, that they may know what proofs to demand
of it.
Now the Council of Trent determines no raore, than that
" there is a purgatory, and that the souls, which are detained
there, are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but prmci-
pally by the raost acceptable sacrifice of the altar :" and com
mands " the bishops diligently to take care, that the wholesome
doctrine of purgatory,* delivered by the holy Fathers and
CouncUs, be believed, held, taught, and preached to Christ's
faithftil people."
The Fathers of this Council were very careful not to deter
mine what purgatory is, what the punishments of it are, where
the place of it is, but refer us to former Fathers and CouncUs
for it : and therefore among the rest, I suppose, they mean the
Council of Florence ; where this purgatory is expressly 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 BeUarmine did believe, that souls departed were
purged with fire, is abundantly erident from what he dis-
* Purgatorium esse, animasque ibi detentas, fidelium suffragiis, potissi-
mum vero acceptabili altaris sacriiicio juvari ; praecipit Sancta Synodus
Episcopis, ut sauam de purgatorio Doctrinam, h Sanctis patribus et
sacris conciliis traditam, Christi fidelibus credi, teneri, doceri, et ubique
pra;dicari diligenter studeant. Concil, Trid Sess, 25, Decret, de Purgat
[Labbe, Concil, vol, 14, p, 894, Lut, Par, 1672.]

OP ENGLAND AND ROME. 273
courses* on 1 Cor, iu. 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 itself; and they, Bellarmine teUs us, are to
expiate venial sins, or such mortal sins whose guilt is par
doned, but not the temporal punishment due to them ; for ac
cording to the doctrine of the Church of Rome,-f 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 reraains 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 complete 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 satisfy for, go
directly to heaven when they die ; and bad men, who are
under the guUt 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 complete satisfaction for these sins,
whUe 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 merely to bear that
temporal punishment which is due to sin, I For the Cardinal
industriously proves, that the souls in purgatory can neither
merit nor sin ; that they are perfect in charity, and conse
quently 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 punish
ment 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,
* De Purgat, 1, 1, cap. 5. [vol. 2. p. 331, &c, Prag. 1721.] cap, 10,
|[Ibid. p, 343, &c.] 1. 2. cap. 10, 11, 12. [Ibid. p. 371.]
t Cap. 11, [Ibid, p, 347,] X Idem. 1. 2, cap, 3, 4, [Ibid, p, 361, &c,]
§ Ibid, u, 14, [Ibid. p. 372.]
VOL, XI, T

274 CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN THE CHUECHES
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 hring, 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 shew
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 vrill be sufficient to secure them from the attacks
of their vrittiest adversaries. As to shew this paticularly:
First, to prove a middle state between death and judgment,
which is neither heaven nor hell, does not prove a Popish pur
gatory. Whoever 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. Irenseusf 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 shaU 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 op
position to those Gnostic heretics, who taught, that as soon as
they died, they should ascend above the heavens to him whom
they called the Father, which,J Irenseus says, is to exceed the
* Cap, 16, [Ibid, p. 374.]
f Irenseus,l. 5. contr. Hajres.c, 31, [vol, 1, p, 330, Venet, 1734.] Tert,
de Anima, cap, 55. [p. 304. Par, 1695.]
X Supergrediuntur ordinempromotionis justorum, et modos (al, motus)
meditationis ad incorruptelam ignorant. Ir. ibid.

OF ENGLAND AND ROME. 275
order of promoting just men, as being ignorant of the regular
gradations and advances to incorruption. And this he attri
butes to the denial of the resurrection of the flesh ; for it is no
wonder, that sueh men should not know the order of the resur
rection, who deny the resurrection. From whence it is plain,
that in Irenseus's opinion,* no man who believed the resur
rection of the flesh, could reasonably think that the souls of
good men did ascend into heaven, till the soul and body were
united at the resurrection ; since Christ himself did not ascend
into heaven, tUl 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 heretics.f That
this was the opinion of Justin Martyr, Lactantius, Hilary, St.
Ambrose, St. Chrysostom, and divers others, is at large proved
by the learned Mr. DaUly, J and -vindicated from the exceptions
of Cardinal Bellarmine.
But how this differs from a Popish purgatory, will appear in
these three particulars.
Fhst, That they affirmed this of all separate souls, that
none were received into heaven before the resurrection.
Patriarchs, prophets, apostles, whatever they were ; they con
tinue 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 St, 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 endure the temporal
punishments due to them in purgatory. Whereas the souls of
aU chUdren, 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
• Qui ergo universam reprobant resurrectionem, et quantum in ipsis est,
anferunt cam de medio, quid mimm est, si nee ordinem resurrectionis
sraunt, — Ibid,
t Quidam ex Ms, qui putantur recte credidlsse — haereticos sensus in se
habentes. Ibid,
t DaU,dePoenis et Satisf. 1, 5.
J El ouK dvidTarai to aSijia, aajtfdviarog 17 -^vxfi fikvei ffu, rrjg
HCKapioTtiTOS rijg kv ovpavotg.
t2

276 CONTEOVERSIES BETWEEN THE CHURCHES
Church of Rome, ascend directly into heaven ; which is
expressly denied by these ancient Fathers ; and was taught by
few in those days, but by such heretics as denied the resurrec
tion of the body.
Secondly, According to these ancient Fathers, this separate
state, wherein the souls of good men continue till the resurrec
tion, is not a state of punishment, as the Popish purgatory is,
but of joy and felicity. They were dirided indeed about the
place, where the souls of good men hved till the resurrection ;
some placed it in secret receptacles within the earth, and there
fore called it the Infemum, 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 hap
piness :* 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 men. The author of the " Questions and Answers to the
Orthodox," in Justin Martyr,f expressly tells us, that when
the soul goes out of the body, there is a great difference made
between the righteous and the vricked. For they are carried
by angels to such places, as are proper for them. The souls of
just raen into paradise, where they have the conversation and
sight of angels and archangels, and the rision {o-Kraaiav) of
our Saviour Christ ; as it is written, " being absent from the
body, we are present vrith 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 signify 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 re
surrection. 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 arch
angels, whom they see and converse with, as they do with one
another ; but when he speaks of Christ, he expressly makes a
distinction between their sight of and conversation vrith angels,
and Christ ; for this latter is only Kar oivTaaiav, by way of
rision, as we see things, which are absent, and at a distance ;
* Locum divince amoenitatis recipiendis sanctorum spiritibus destinatura,
Tert. Apol. cap. 47. [ut supra, p. 37.]
t Justin Martyr, 1. resp, ad Orth, qusest. 75. [p, 470, Par, 1742.]

OP ENGLAND AND EOME, 277
but yet this does so strongly affect them, that he thinks, that
of St, Paul may he 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 itself.
Thus St, Hilary* expressly asserts, that the state of souls
departed is a state of happiness ; and St, 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 ;f and yet neither bad souls are in the mean
time without punishment, nor the good without reaping some
fruits of their virtue : but I need not multiply quotations to
prove that which no modest man, who is acquainted vrith 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 purga
tory, 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 imraediately 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 expressly affirms, J that heaven is open to none,
while this earth lasts ; but the kingdom of heaven shall be
opened vrith the end of the world: and St, Chrysostom
observes, from the parable of Dives and Lazarus, that the
souls of men, after their departure out of these bodies, are
carried to a certain place, from whence they cannot go out
when they vrill, but there expect the terrible day of judgraent.
Which plainly shews what his belief was, that they raust con
tinue in that state, which they enter upon at death, till the
resurrection : and this, I think, is sufficient to shew the
difference between a Popish purgatory, and that middle state
between death and judgment, which the ancient Fathers
taught. • Hilar.inPsal, 2, [vol, l,p, 59, col. 1. Veron, 1730,] et in Psal, 120,
[Ibid. p. 422, col, 2.]
•f- Ergo dum expectatur plenitudo temporis, expectant animse Resurrec
tionem debitam. Alias manet poena, alias gloria, Et tamen nee iUae
; interim sine injuria, nee istse sine fructu, Ambr, de Bono Mortis, cap, 10.
[vol, 1, p, 408. Par, 1686,]
X Nulli patetcoelum, terra adhuc salva, ne dixerim clausa, cum transac-
itioneenim mundi reserabuntur regna coelorum, Tert. Apol. cap. 47. [De
Anima, cap, 55.] [ut supra, p.304.J Chrys. Hom, 29. in Matth. [vol, 7,
ip, 366, Par, 1727.]

1=1 ¦

278 CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN THE CHURCHES
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 thera
should be detained a longer or shorter time hi that last fire, tiU
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 uni
versally acknowledged, that I need not prove it by particular
quotations. But yet there is an irreconcUable difference
between this opinion and the Popish doctrine of purgatory ;
as wUl appear in these particulars.
1 . That the Popish purgatory is now, and has been in being,
at least, since the time of our Sariour; 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 Lactan
tius, HUary, Ambrose, and St. Augustine* himself: who ex
pressly 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 persuade us, is already kindled, and has been for
many hundred years.
Indeed, St, Augustine, though he ovras 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 haring 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 St, Augustine,
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 vrith St, Austin's writings ; when it has
been always rejected by the Greeks, as is erident from the
Council of Florence. But there are two things to be said to
this :
First, That St. Austin speaks very doubtfully about it,
* Aug, 1, 16, deC, D, c,24, [vol, 7, p, 438, Pai-. 1685,]

OF ENGLAND AND EOME. 279
That there may be such punishments after this Ufe (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 enjoy
ments, 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 : Non redargue, quia forsitan verum
est. Be C. B. I. 21, c, 25. And elsewhere he says, that
though such speculations may serve for his own, or other
men's 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 Rorae has done.f
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. iii. 11, 12,
13, 14, 15 : " For other foundation can no man lay, than that
is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon
this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay,
stubble ; every man's work shall be made manifest : for the
day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire ; and
the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is : if any
man's work abide, which he built thereupon, he shall receive a
reward. If any man's work shall be burnt, he shall suffer
loss ; but he himself shall be saved, yet 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 vricked soever their lives were,
should at last be saved by fire : this St. Austin vehemently
opposed, though it is very hke the doctrine or practice of the
Church of Rome, which sends all good Cathohc sinners, how
wicked soever their lives have been, to purgatory ; especiaUy
if they have had time to confess and receive absolution. They
* Tale aliquid etiam post banc ritam fieri incredibile non est, et utrum
ita sit, quseri potest ; et aut inveniri, aut latere, noimullos fideles per ignem
quendam Purgatorium, quanto magis minusve bona pereuntia dilexerunt,
tanto tardius, citiusve, salvari, Aug, Enchirid, c, 69, [Ibid. vol. 6. p.
222,] t Cum iis qute descripsimus, ita nostra vel aliorum exerceatur, vel
crudiatur, infirmitas, ut tamen in eis nulla velut canonica constituatur
authoritas, Aug, de octo Qusest, Dulcitii Qusest, 3, [Ibid, p, 131,]

280 CONTEOVEESIES BETWEEN THE CHURCHES
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. ri, 9, 10, "Neither forni
cators, 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 them
selves, that we cannot lose thera vrithout great trouble and
anxiety of raind : 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 affiicting ; dolor
urit, such sorrow burns their souls, and is a kind of purgatory
fire to thera 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 thera ; 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 loring this world too well, in those burning and purgatory
flames, which an inordinate love and grief vrill kindle in their
souls. This is what St, Austin understands by being saved by fire
in this world, that sorrow, vrith which those are bumt, 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 soraething like this,
aliquid tale, in the next world : that is, that after death, men
who loved this world too well, raay 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 aU
to a Popish purgatory, as every body vrill grant. So that
though St, Austin was doubtful, whether there may not be
sorae purgatory punishraents 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 of here, wUI not greatly afflict and
* Aug. Enchi i lion ad Laurent, Cap. 67, 68, 69, [Ibid, p, 221, 222.]

OP ENGLAND AND ROME, 281
bum 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 hiraself, must
pass through the fire : not St, Peter, nor St. Paul, nay, not
the blessed Virgin herself excepted. This is expressly asserted
by Lactantius, Hilary, Ambrose,* and raany others, "We
must all be tried by fire, whoever desires to return into para
dise, ideo unus ignem ilium sentire non potuit, qui est justitia
Bei, 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 flaraes of it a longer or
shorter time, as their purgation requires ; and that bad men
shaU sink for ever into those bottomless lakes of fire and
brimstone. But the Popish purgatory is neither for very good nor
very bad raen. 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 through 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
* Ambros, Serm, 20, in Psalm, 118, [ut supra, p. 1225,]

282 CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN THE CHURCHES
pardoned and cleansed from sin : which may seem a little odd
to those men, who remember that Christ has borne the punish
ment of our sins ; and who know no other end of punish
ments, 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 tbat
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 tmly purgatory, to purge us from aU 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
vrith our gold, that must be bumt and dissolved before we can
pass through this fire into heaven : now though this be very
unintelhgible also, how a material fire can purge and refine a
soul, yet it shews, how much this differs from the Popish pur
gatory, which burns and torments indeed, but does not purge
and refine, and therefore is very improperly caUed a purgatory
fire, Origen, indeed, whom Cardinal Bellarmine and others quote
for this purgatory fire, as they do also Plato and VirgU, did
believe a purgatory fire in a true and proper sense ; for he
beheved all punishments, whether in this world, or in the
next, were only purgatory ; that is, not merely for punishment,
but for the correction and amendment of those who suffered.
And therefore he did also believe, that the worst of men, nay,
the derils themselves, should at last be purged and cleansed by
fire, and restored to a state of happiness. The sura of his
opinion, in short, was this, that at the day of judgraent, Christ
vrill destroy this world vrith fire, as he is said, " to come in
flaming fire, taking vengeance on thera 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 sorae other
Fathers speak. Though I know some thought this fire to be
in the upper regions, so as to intercept our ascent into heaven
vrithout passing through it. This vrill try all men ; for aU
must pass through this fire, as the ancients believed ; and
those who had hay and 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.

OP ENGLAND AND EOME. 283
was the general opinion of the Fathers, as well as of Origen,
and therefore Origen' s purgatory fire is not the Popish purga
tory, because that is not kindled tiU the day of judgment. But
then Origen thought, that this purgation extended to the worst
of men, and to derils themselves ; that though they might he
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 sorae
degree tainted vrith 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 St. Jerome himself.
For though some would not allow of the final salvation of
derils, yet they believed this of all mankind, though never so
vricked; others thought this must be confined to all Christians;
others to all those Christians who were not guilty of heresy or
schism, how wicked soever they were otherwise. These opinions
are rejected and conderaed by the Romanists, as well as by
us, and therefore they ought not to allege 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 purga
tory 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, enriches 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 wUl
grant it is too |late to offer prayers and alms and masses, for
the redemption of ourselves 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

284 CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN THE CHURCHES
more or fewer sins to be purged away, and therefore here can
be no place for the suffrages and intercessions of the liring.
According to the Popish doctrine, those souls, who are re
deeraed out of purgatory, must be redeemed before the day of
judgment, and those who are not redeeraed 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 Chris
tians 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 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 Tertulhan and others
acknowledge ; and when it first came into the Church we can
not tell : that tender concern men have for the memory of
their dead friends, which the heathens themselves shewed in
their oblations and sacrifices, and funeral rites for the dead,
seems to have given occasion to it ; and those who were con
verted frora Paganisra 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 increased 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 tirae grew anniversary, and
were celebrated by their own friends and relations, not vrith
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 remembered
their ovra relations and friends ; and thus it became a custom,
without inquiring into the reasons of it ; till from this very

OP ENGLAND AND ROME, 285
custom, people began to conclude, that such prayers and com
memorations were 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 shews
us the easy progress of superstition ; that customs taken up
without any good reason, vrill find some reason, though a very
bad one, when they grow popular. Upon this Aerius con
demns the practice, and is reckoned among heretics 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 virtuously, if they had good pious friends, who would pray
for them when they are dead : Epiphanius undertakes to con
fute Aerius ; 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 easy 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 complete satisfaction for the temporal punishments due
to their sins, were to undergo this punishment in purgatory ;
and that they might be relieved, aud delivered from purgatory
by the prayers and alms of their liring 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 presump
tion, that he knew nothing of it ; and gives such other answers
as are no answer to Aerius,
Aerius demanded, what benefit the dead received by the
prayers of the living, whether they would obtain for thera 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 intercedes
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 signify, 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

286 CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN THE CHURCHES
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 herself; for
so the Church did, tUl praying for these saints and martyrs,
was turned into prayers and supphcations to them ; and yet I
suppose, no man vrill say, that they prayed for these glorious
saints, to pray them out of purgatory ; when the Church of
Rome herself 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 prajdng for
the dead, yet were made use of by the Fathers to explain the
meaning and use of it. Thus, as I have shewed you, the
Fathers beheved, that the souls of good men, after death, did
not immediately ascend into heaven, but were detained till the
resurrection of their bodies, in a place of rest and happiness,
which they called Abraham's Bosom, or Paradise : now their
happiness not being complete, they thought it very fit to re-
coraraend 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 tor
mented 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 et 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,f by
the water of rest, in the bosom of Abraham, vrith Isaac and
Jacob, that he would nourish them in a pleasant place by the
waters of rest :" that is, that he would continue and uicrease
this intermediate state of rest and happiness to them. For
they did not think it iraproper 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 araong them, was concerning the MUlenium,
or thousand years reign with Christ on earth, which was to be
before their admission into heaven, in the new Jerusalem,
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
• CyriUi Hierosol. Liturgia. [p. 328. Venet, 1763,]
t Syr, Orationis, Bibl, Patrum, T, 6,

. OF ENGLAND AND ROME. 287
and deserts : as Tertullian* particularly explains it. And as
the learned Mr. Dailly observes, several passages in their
prayers do plainly refer to this : as when TertuUianf directs a
widow to pray for her husband, primes resurrectionis consor
tium, a part in the first resurrection. And St. AmbroseJ prays
for Gratian and Valentinian, Te queeso, summe Beus, ut carissi-
mos juvenes matura resurrectione suscites, et resuscites : that
God would raise those beloved young men vrith an early
resurrection. The like may be seen in the Gothic Missal, § and
elsewhere ; and this I think has nothing to do -trith 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 beheved
all men must pass through, before they could enter into heaven,
and continue a longer and shorter time in it, as they had raore
or fewer sins to purge away : and therefore this last and ter
rible 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 men's different opinions, they had dif
ferent 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 St. Austin, and St. Chrysostom, though
they never dreamt of a Popish purgatory, yet speak very dif
ferently 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 St. 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 hira. Hence he makes three distinc
tions of souls departed, which the Church never heard of
before. From whence I doubt not, but the Church of Rorae
learnt their distinctions, and accordingly aUotted three different
states for these three sorts of men, heaven, purgatory, and
heU. For St. Austui taught, that some were so perfectly
• TertuU, contra Marcion, [lib, 3.] c. 24, [p. 412, Par, 1695,] DaiU,
de Pcenis et Satisf. 1, 5, c, 9, t Tert, de Monog, c, 10, [Ibid, p, 531.]
X Ambr, de Obitu Val, [vol. 2, p, 1196, Par, 1690,] % Bibl, Patr, T, 6.

288 CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN THE CHURCHES
good, that there was no need of prayers or oblations for them ;
others imperfectly good ; and for these, prayers were pro
fitable; others very bad, who cannot be redeemed by the
suffrages of the liring. The first of these the Church of Rome
places in heaven, the second in purgatory, the third m hell ;
and let us first see, whether St. Austui were of that mind ; for
if he were not, they cannot prove a purgatory from him, what
ever becomes of his prayers for the dead.
Now it is erident, that St. 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 expressly affirms of all souls, that
"during the time between death and the last resurrection, they
are kept in hidden receptacles,"* He dirides 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,f which
he calls Abraham's bosom, and teaches, that all departed souls,
either rejoice in Abraham's bosom, or are tormented in eternal
fire : and that by Abraham's bosora, 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 foun
dation of the world," (which he represents as the common
belief of all Christians, for he says, quis nescit ? Who knows
not this ?) yet we raay be there, where Dives saw Lazarus at
rest, viz. in Abraham's bosora, in illd requie certh securus, ex-
pectabis judicii diem,X in that rest you will securely expect
the day of judgment.
So that though St, 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 St, Austin thought of purgatory, you have
already heard, which has nothing like a Popish purgatory in
* Enchirid. ad Laurent, [ut supra, vol. 6. p, 237,]
t De Civit. Dei, 1. 12. c. 9. [Ibid. vol. 7. p. 308.]
X Idem, Tract. 10. in Ep. Joan. [Ibid, vol, 3. p 900.]

OF ENGLAND AND ROME, 289
it. He prayed for his mother Monica, that God would forgive
her all her sins, and shew mercy to her ; did he believe then,
that his mother was in purgatory ? By no means ; for he ex
pressly says, et credo, jam feceris quod te rogo, sed voluntaria
oris mei approba Bomine. " 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 vrith 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 St, 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, St, Austin was at a great loss between rindi-
cating the ancient practice of the Church in praying for souls
departed, and giring 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 them
selves 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 herself. This he knew not how to reconcUe, but by
saying, that when the Church prayed for saints and martyrs,
prophets and apostles, the meaning of her prayers was not to
intercede vrith God for them, but to praise God for their graces
and virtues ; but when she prayed for meaner Christians, her
prayers were intercessions for pardon and rest to their souls ;
and yet they were aU prayed for in the same form of words,
and the ancient Church made no such distinction between
them : and thus he reconcUes 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 expound
ing them contrary to the plain and natural signification of the
words : that the most direct and formal prayers to saints and
the Virgin for aU temporal and spiritual blessings, when they
VOL, XI, u

290 CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN THE CHURCHES
please, shall signify no more than a bare Ora pro nobis, pray
for us.
About this time, St, 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 CouncU of Florence ; which is a plain sign,
that though the Roman doctors think they have proved pur
gatory, if they can but prove that the ancient Church used to
pray for the dead (which nobody 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 shews, that though they prayed for the
dead, they did it for other reasons than the Church of Rome
now does.
And yet St. Chrysostom does not agree vrith St. Austin in
that distinction he makes of souls departed, which shews that
there was no certain tradition about this matter, but men of
wit and learning framed different hypothesis and schemes of
things to themselves, as they thought they could best give an
account of this practice : for this was the thing both St.
Austin and St. Chrysostom were intent on, to justify the pracr
tice of the Church, so that their prayers for the dead might
not be thought vain and hypocritical.
But whereas St. 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 vricked, that their estate is
irrecoverable, and so past the rehef of our prayers : St. Chry
sostom mentions but two sorts,* sincere good Christians ; and
infidels, and such as die vrithout baptism, and bad Christians,
whom he places in the same rank. As for the first, he exr
pressly tells us, that after death they are in a state of rest and
happiness, and upon this very account, condemns those extra
vagant 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 heU. As for others, he thmksf they
deserve our sorrow and compassion, and prayers and alms,
not that this can dehver them out of the state of the damned,
* Chrys. Serm, 3. in Philip, ed, Savil, tom. 4, p, 20, [vol 11 p 216
217, Par, 1734.] et in Hebr. Ser, 4, p, 453, [Ibid, vol. 12, p, 47 ]
t Chrys, Homil, 21, in Act, t. 4. p, 734,

OF ENGLAND AND ROME, 291
but that he thought it gave some Uttle ease and relief to their
torments. And this was not only the sense of St, Chrysos
tom, that the damned themselves were eased by the prayers of
the liring, but St, Austin seems to be of the same mind,* when
he says, that the suffrages of the liring are profitable, either
ut plena fiat remissio, aut tolerahilior sit ipsa damnatio ; to
obtain perfect forgiveness, or to make damnation itself more
tolerable. And I think what Basil of Seleucia relates con
cerning Thecla, that by her prayers she obtained the soul of
Falconilla, who died a Pagan, signifies, that he believed some
thing more than this ; that the prayers of the hring may not
only ease the torments of the damned, but deliver them out of
hell itself.
Now this the Church of Rome beUeves no more than we do.
They rejectj 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 pur
gatory ; 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 pur
gatory from the practice of the ancient Church in praying for
the dead ; vphich is all I intended to prove at this time.
XI. " Desiring the intercessions of the blessed, is more super
stitious, and derogatory to our Lord's mediatorship, than
entreating the prayers of holy men militant."
This I answered, -f "was as plain in Scripture, as that Christ
is our only Mediator in heaven, who alone (hke the high-
priest under the law, who was his type) is admitted into the
holy of holies, to make expiation, and to intercede for us. —
The sura 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 men, the man
Christ Jesus ;' and therefore we must not make more mediators
to ourselves, nor put our trust in the intercession of saints and
angels. Thus far we have plain Scripture proof; and then we
think comraon sense teaches us the rest : that it is an injury to
an only mediator to set up other mediators vrith him. That
good men on earth are not mediators hut supplicants, which
* Aug, Enchirid, ad Laurent, [ut supra, vol, 6, p, 238,]
t Answer to Request, p, 10, 11, u 2

292 CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN THE CHURCHES
is no encroachment on Christ's raediatorship ; and that samts
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 only mediatorship in
heaven," To this our author answers, page 7 : "It is not at all in Scrip
ture, 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
easy and kind to have naraed 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 anything 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 vrith it, without any reply ; but I
must be ciril to our author, and therefore vpiU try if I can
make him understand this matter.
The reader vrill easily see, that that text, " Thou shalt wor
ship 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 Ti
mothy ii, 5 : " There is one God, and one Mediator between
God and men, the man Christ Jesus," But says our author,
this does not prove that there is but one mediator of inter
cession. But why does it not prove this ? Is a mediator of
intercession a mediator ? If he be, and there be but one media
tor, then there is but one mediator of intercession ; for there
is but one mediator in aU, As for his distinction between a
mediator of redemption and intercession, there is no such dis
tinction to be found in Scripture ; and therefore when St, Paul
asserts vrithout any distinction, that there is but one Mediator,
I think we have reason to do so too ; for if we admit of un
scriptural 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 medi
ators of intercession ? For both here, and in 1 Cor, vui, 5,

OP ENGLAND AND ROME. 293
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 Jesus
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 dis
tinction 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 au
thority and interest to intercede arises, is of another consider
ation : and therefore St, John distinguishes between Christ's
being an advocate for us, and a propitiation for our sins,
1 John ii, 1, 2 : " If any man sin, we have an advocate with
the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous ; and he is the pro
pitiation 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 con
stitution and appointment of God, both these are united in one
person ; that he who is our only Redeemer, is our only
Advocate also ; but yet to redeem with his blood, and to inter
cede 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 virtue 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 Jesus ; would this have proved, that there are
no mediators of intercession, but only Christ ? or would they
StiU 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

294 CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN THE CHURCHES
redemption, and a mediator of pure intercession, that is, such
a mediator as mediates in rirtue 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 vrithout blood. For to mediate and
intercede, is not merely to pray for another, but it signifies
a ministerial authority to apply the virtues 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 araong men, is ordained for men in things per
taining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for
sins," Heb. v. 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 caUed
of God, as was Aaron," ver. 4. Since there is no reraission of
sins vrithout shedding of blood, without the atonement and
expiation of sacrifice ; there can be no mediation but in rirtue
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 between the prayers of good raen for themselves
and for each other, and the intercessions of a mediator ; we
must distinctly consider the rirtue 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 sacri
fice was slain instead of the sinner, and to bear the punish
ment of sin ; and without shedding of blood, there was no
remission. Prayers could not expiate sin -vrithout 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, wherever he made any stay, built an altar unto the
Lord, and called upon the name of the Lord j-j- that is, he
* Gen, viii, 2 t Gen, xii, 7, 8, xxvi, 25.

OP ENGLAND AND ROME. 295
offered sacrifices and prayers to God. The like we read of
Isaac and Jacob : so that an altar was the place of their
solemn devotions ; that is, they offered up their prayers to
God in virtue of a sacrifice. For sinners must not go directly
to God, vrithout 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 Jerusalem, 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 rirtue 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."f And
therefore the Evangelist observes, that "the whole multitude of
the people were praying vrithout at the time of incense :"J that
their prayers might ascend as incense.
Thus we expressly read in the Book of the Revelation, of
an angel, who stood at the altar, haring 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 up before God
out of the angel's hand."§
Which expressly applies these legal types to the state of the
Gospel, to that great sacrifice and great high-priest, who pre
sents our prayers to God. The death of Christ upon the
cross was the sacrifice for aU our sins ; in rirtue 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 virtue 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
»- Acts ui. 1. t Psal. cxli, 2, X Luke i, 10,
§ Rev, viii, 3, 4,

296 CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN THE CHURCHES
to God, in the virtue and efficacy of his own sacrifice, and
vrith the authority of a heavenly mediator and high-priest.
Now this plainly shews the difference between the prayers
of good men for theraselves and one another, and the inter
cession of a mediator. Good men are humble supplicants, but
they offered up their prayers to God, not in their own name,
but by the hands of the 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 vrith the atonement and expiation made
by the priest, who offered the blood of the sacrifice, and the
incense to God, The work of a raediator, is to present our
prayers and petitions, and to give value and efficacy to them,
and therefore we raust pray ourselves ; we must put up our
petitions to God, or our Advocate and Mediator cannot present
thera ; 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 ourselves, must be offered to God by the hands of our
Mediator, And this shews 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 join vrith us in our petition ; just as if
we should procure some persons of worth and note to sub
scribe 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 an
swered 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 also to
save them to the uttermost, 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 extemal and legal purity : much more is the medi
ation of Christ effectual ; for if it ever miscarried, he could
not be the object of our faith and hope, A supphcant may
heartily desire our good; but our Mediator, 'hy rirtue of his
* Heb, vii, 25.

OP ENGLAND AND ROME, 297
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
fly 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 vrithout 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 entreating the
prayers of holy men militant ; for to pray for one another in
this world, is as consistent vrith the mediation of Christ, as to
pray for ourselves ; but the intercession of saints for us in
heaven, is inconsistent vrith 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 con
sideration, 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
* See Answer to Papists protesting against Protestant Popery.

298 CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN THE CHUECHES
mediator, but only Christ, as they always do on the festivals
of their saints ; but to pray to saints also, is an additional
crirae ; it is giring the peculiar worship of God to creatures ;
which I told hira was expressly 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
frora it (this last text) any thing to this purpose, till it appear
that all prayer is Dirine worship, or that we pray to saints
just as we do to God," But now, methinks, tUl 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 rehgious 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 relics and representations of
our Lord and his saints, vrith that degree of reverence, as we
do the Gospels (commonly kissed and swom by), altar, and
other sacred utensils, is idolatry."
This I told him was ill represented ; for those who charge
thera vrith idolatry in worshipping the cross, and relics, and
images, charge them also with giving more rehgious honours
and worship to thera than that external respect, which we
allow to the Gospels and religious utensUs, as both the decrees
of their CouncUs, and the visible practice of their Church
proves. To this our author rephes : " Our General Councils teU
Protestantsf 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 caU General
Councils, have defined the worship of images and rehcs,
vritness the second Council of Nice, and the CouncU of Trent.
It is strange to me, that at this time of day, he can think to
impose upon Protestants vrith 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 " Vindica-
• See the Object of Religious Worship, part 1 . and the Answer to Papists
protesting against Protestant Popery, sect. 4.
t Protestancy destitute of Scripture Proofs, p. 8,

OF ENGLAND AND EOME. 299
tion 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
erajployed sometimes 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
sotne so uncharitably caU 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 con
clude them calumniators. We know what we profess and
practise, to be as the Catholic Church teaches ; we hear our
doctrine and practice confidently said, and solemnly subscribed
to be idolatry. Sure then we may conclude, that Protestants
beheve the proposition, ahd decent it is that they give a reason
of a faith so injurious to the Catholic Church, or henceforward
renounce it."
This still makes good my conjecture, that he has only heard
in general of such a charge as this, bnt never read the argu
ments, whereby some Protestants make good this charge, at
least as they apprehend : for methinks, had he known these
proofs, he should first have answered them before he had
caUed for more ; but I assure him, it vrill be an easier task to
conclude them calumniators, than to undertake to answer
them ; and therefore if he be vrise, let him stick to that ; if
they believe and practise, as the Church of Rome teaches
(which in defiance of common sense, he will call the Cathohc
Church), I am sure they give another kind of honour to the
cross, and rehcs, and images, than to the Bible ; but if he
thinks, that the Catholic Church always taught what the
Church of Rome now teaches, I would desire him to read a
late discourse, entitled " The Antiquity of the Protestant
Religion concerning Images," which wUl 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

300 CONTEOVEESIES BETWEEN THE CHUECHES
forbids the worship of images, and all representative objects,
and say that the words are so large as to comprehend all
manner of iraages, which are set up for worship, that the law
expressly forbids, vrithout any distinction of the end and inten
tion of doing it, all extemal acts of adoration, as bovring down
to thera, or before thera : that it does not merely forbid the
worship of images as gods ; for the heathen themselves were
never so senseless, as to beheve that their images of wood or
stone, or silver or gold, were gods, but only risible representa
tions of their inrisible deities. That it does not only forbid
the worship of the images of the heathen gods, but of the
Lord Jehovah ; for the reason whereby Moses enforces this
commandment is, that they saw " no simUitude on the day,
that the Lord spake to them in Horeb out of the midst of the
fire," Deut, iv, 15; and therefore they must take good heed
unto themselves, lest they corrupt themselves vrith iraages :
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 exceUency 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 xl, 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
Jehovah ; for they expressly call it, the God which brought
them out of the Land of Egypt ; and when Aaron himself
appointed a feast for the worship of this molten god, he said,
"T'o-morrow is a feast to the Lord," or to Jehovah, Exod,
xxxii, 4, 5 ; and therefore these Israelites are charged vrith
changing their glory {i, e, the Lord Jehovah, who was the
glory of Israel) "into the siraihtude of an ox, which eateth
grass," Psalm cri, 20, But how can this be^true, if they did
not intend this calf as a representation of the Lord Jehovah ?
And it is erident, 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.

OF ENGLAND AND ROME. 301
Up, make us gods, which shaU 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 vrith them, instead of Moses ;
who, when he was vrith them, was a kind of Dirine presence ;
God conversing familiarly vrith him, and by him giring 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
Jehovah, was idolatry.
The like may be said of the calves at Dan and Bethel, which
Jeroboam set up in imitation of the golden calf, and for sym
bolical representations of the God of Israel, For so he him
self tells them, "Behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought
, thee up out of the land of Egypt ;" that is, the Lord Jehovah,
whom Jeroboam did still own and worship. For he had no
intention to change their God, but only to prevent their going
up to Jerusalem three times in the year to worship there,*
according to the law ; which he feared might prove the destruc
tion of his new kingdom, .And therefore God himself makes
a great difference between the sin of Jeroboam and the sin of
Ahab,f who introduced the worship of Baal, a false god. And
therefore, though Jehu still preserved the golden calves, which
Jeroboam set up, yet he calls his zeal in destroying Baal, his
zeal for the Lord Jehovah, { Which is another Scripture
example of idolatry in worshipping the image, or representa
tion of the true God,
Another instance is the brazen serpent, which Moses set up
in the vrildemess, which was neither a god nor the image of a
god, neither of the Lord Jehovah, 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 vrith fiery serpents ; and
was preserved as a kind of holy relic, 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 Jehovah, 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 xriu. 4,
And yet I think I could make a much better apology for the
* 1 Kings xii, 28, t 1 Kings xvi, 31, 32, X 2 Kings x, 16.

302 CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN THE CHURCHES
worship of the brazen serpent, than of the cross. For that
was a type of Christ crucified, a type of God's own appoint
ment, a miraculous and wonder working type, which I should
think should as much deserve to be worshipped, as the picture
or iraage of the tree whereon our Sariour died. For if a
memorative sign of Christ deserve such dirine honours, let
thera give me a reason, if they can, why the type of a
crucified Saviour ought not as much to be worshipped by the
Jews in those days, as the figure of Christ's cross now.
Thus the Protestants argue against the worship of images
from the second coramandraent, and from the reasons and
authorities of the Old Testament ; and as for the New Testa
ment, they can find no alteration made in this law there : we
are commanded indeed to keep ourselves 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, spirituahty,
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 xvu. 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 shews it ; for they worshipped such kinds
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 symbohcal representations of
thera ; but the Apostle's arguraent is this, that it is a
ridiculous thing to make any image of God, when we cannot
make any thing hke him ; as foohsh a thing as it would be to
paint a sound ; and that it is an affront to so glorious a being,
* Maximus Tyrius, Dissert. 38.

OP ENGLAND AND ROME. 303
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 inrisibility and spirituahty of the
Divine nature does not conclude against making the iraages 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 are 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 rehgious worship : and to worship
God by an image, is to reproach his name, 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 ctf 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 Dirine 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 Sariour, which has less to
do vrith matter and sense, than the law had. Our Sariour
tells us, " That God is a spirit, and those who worship him,
must worship him in spirit and in truth," in opposition to the
extemal, 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,
vvhich is the most gross and material, and unmanly worship
that can be invented, shall be aUowed 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 Jews had of theirs, 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 fastened there, that they might be always present to at-

304 CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN THE CHURCHES
tend 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 teraples were dedicated, and where they believed
such gods dwelt ; according to that of Menander :

- TOV SiKaiov Sel S^ebv

OIkoi fj-eveiv aojtovra rovg Idpvfikvovg.
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 books against Celsus, and the thing
is so known, that I need not prove it ; a teifiple and an image
in the heathen theology were inseparably united ; an image to
represent their god, a temple as a house for him to dweU 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 have a risible presence among
thera, first in the tabernacle, and then in the temple at Jeru
salem ; but though he had his temple, yet he had no iraage,
which the heathen world thought essential to a teraple. 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 God 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 vin, 27, 28, &c, " But wUl God indeed dweU
on the earth ? Behold the heaven, and heaven of heavens can
not contain thee, how much less this house that I havebuilded?
Yet have thou respect unto the prayer of thy servant, and to
his supplication, O Lord ray God, to hearken unto the cry,
and to the prayer which thy servant prayeth before thee this
day : that thine eyes raay be open to this house night and
day," &c.
And therefore we may observe, that the temple was so con
trived, 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, ix, 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

OF ENGLAND AND ROME. 305
dwelt m the temple, was not confined to that material build
ing, but fiUed 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
thera at that time, as to confine his worship and pecuhar pre
sence to a certain place, had it not been for the sake of some
more dirine mystery. For God's 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
human body, or material temple, as St, John plainly intimates,
John i, 14 : " The Word was made flesh and dwelt araong us,
and we beheld his, glory, the glory as of the only begotten of
the Father, full of grace and truth ;" ktnciivbxrev ev fifuv, he
tabernacled araong us ; dwelt araong us, as God under the law
did in the tabernacle or temple ; and Christ expressly calls
his body the temple, John ii, 19 : "Destroy this temple, and
in three days I vriU raise it up," which the Evangelist tells us,
" he spake of the temple of his body," ver, 21 ; and he affirms
himself to be greater than the temple, Matth, xii, 6, he being
that in truth, of which the temple was a flgure ; God dweUing
among us, God dwelling in human nature. For this reason,
the worship of God was confined to the temple at Jerusalem,
to signify to us, that we can offer up no acceptable worship to
God, hilt in the name and mediation of Christ,
But now, under the Gospel, all these types and figures being
accomplished in the person of our Sariour, as their priest
hood and sacrifices, so their temple also had an end ; as Christ
expressly tells the woman of Samaria, who disputed with him
about the place of worship, whether it were the temple of
Jerusalem or Samaria : " Woman, believe me, the hour cometh,
when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem,
worship the Father," John iv, 21 ; which cannot signify that
they should worship God neither at Jemsalera nor Saraaria,
for there were famous churches planted 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 pre
sence of God should not be confined to a certain place, as then
it was to the teraple ; which occasioned that dispute between
the Jews and Samaritans, in which temple God was peculiarly
present ; but wheresoever they worshipped God in spirit and
in tmth, the place should make no difference in their accep
tation, as it did under the law ; which is not opposed to the
VOL, XI, X

306 CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN THE CHURCHES
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 iraages : which is
owned and answered by Origen against Celsus, hb, 8, Minutius
Felix, Amobius, Lactantius, &c.
The force then of the arguraent is this, if under the Gospel
God does not allow of so much as a temple, or symbohcal
presence, which he did allow of under the law, when he for-
laade images, much less certainly does he allow images now,
which he forbid 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 primi
tive 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 dis
putes 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 intro
duced 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 alleged 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 stUl in
force. But I shall not enlarge upon this, because it is so well
done in a late discourse concerning the antiquity of the Pro
testant Religion, part 2, concerning images, to which I refer
my reader,
XIII. " The Pope is Antichrist,"
I answered,* "This has been affirmed by some Protest
ants, 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 cha
racters of Antichrist and the Man of Sin, are much more apph
cable to him than the universal headship and infallibility,"
To this our author answers (p. 8.), " Do only some Protestants,
* Answer to Request, p. 12.

J .J

OF ENGLAND AND ROME. 307
and no homily (subscribed as containing a godly and whole
some doctrine necessary for these times. Article the fifty-fifth)
[though the Church of England owns but Thirty-nine Arti
cles;] affirm the Pope to be Antichrist ? Yet we meet vrith no
Scripture brought to prove this godly necessary doctrine,"
Now, though I could tell him, that every saying in a
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 expressly 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 opposi
tion 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 vrith his Spirit, From their pride
and arrogance in challenging an universal headship, and ad
vancing themselves above sovereign princes, or in the Scripture
phrase, " above all that is called God," and treating emperors
aud kings with the greatest insolence and scorn ; our Church con
cludes "that they had not the Spirit of God, but the spirit of
the deril ; that wheresoever ye find the spirit of arrogance and
pride, the spirit of envy, hatred, contention, cruelty, murder,
extortion, witchcraft, necromancy, &c, assure yourselves 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 vricked 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 nuraber of false
Christs, but does not make the Pope the Antichrist, It con
cludes with a prayer, " that God, by the comfortable Gospel of
his Son, would beat down sin, death, the Pope, the deril, 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 expressly called Antichrist.
And therefore, as for his demand of Scripture proof, let him
seek for it in those writers who expressly affirm the Pope to
be Antichrist, where it may be he will find more than he wUl
like, or can easUy answer, I told him before, that the Scrip
ture does not expressly 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
X 2

308 CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN THE CHURCHES
such actions as are contrary to the true spirit of the Gospel,
and that is reason enough for us to reject him,-
XIV, " Every prayer used in Divine offices must be in a lan
guage vulgar and inteUigible to every auditor," For the proof
of this I alleged St. Paul's discourse, 1 Cor, xiv, and must
now consider what he tells us is the Apostle's 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 osten
tation in such a case) was to be reserved till either the speaker
or sorae auditor could and did interpret, that the rest might
edify. 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 join and intend) be in the vulgar, or intelli
gible to every auditor ? It is enough (to comply with the
Apostle's doctrine) that all new extempore prayers, and instruc
tive or exhortatory discourse (by actions, ceremonies, or cir
curastances, or other way not interpretable) be, as they are, in
the vulgar. But for the fixed forras of Divine offices, that they
be in a language the most certain and the raost intelligible,
not only in Christendom, but in every auditory. Intelligible,
I say, where needful, to every one by either actions, ceremo
nies, and circumstances, or by custora, affinity with the vulgar,
or books interpreting and containing prayers correspondent to
every part wherein the auditory is concerned."
I have transcribed the whole, because it is as choice a para
graph 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 para
graph do not well agree. In the beginning he would confine
the Apostle's discourse against prayers in an miknown tongue,
to inspired and extempore prayers and sermons, but that not
withstanding this, the settled forms of Dirine offices may be in
an unknown tongue ; in the conclusion he would fain insinuate,
that though the pubhc offices of the Church of Rorae 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 intelli
gible, not only in Christendora, but in every auditory. It
seems he had some little qualra came over his conscience, some
secret convictions that men ought to understand their prayers ;
and therefore he roundly asserts, that Latin is the most intel-
* Prot, Dest, p. 9.

OP ENGLAND AND ROME. 309
hgible language, that is, the most knovra 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 un
known tongue ? what need of distinguishing between extempore
prayers, and settled forms of Dirine offices? we are all, it
seems, agreed, that public 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 EngUsh auditories believe themselves
that they do not understand Latin, but they may be mistaken
for ought any body knows ; let us then 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, ahd 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 triffing is this ? Do the people un
derstand Latin prayers, or do they not ? If they don't, then
the serrice is performed in an unknown tongue to them, which
St, Paul expressly 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 expres
sive of thoughts, than actions, and ceremonies, and circum
stances 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 can
not read? This is direct boy's 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 nobody to interpret, but the settled
forms of Divine offices may be in an unknown tongue for aU that.

310 CONTEOVEESIES BETWEEN THE CHURCHES
This is certainly as little as can be said, and as httle to the
purpose, for whoever considers the place, vrill find that all the
Apostle's 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 wor
ship, we must not use an unknown tongue in our settled and
ordinary devotions. There are three arguments the Apostle
uses, which, I think, wUl reach our ordinary devotions, as weU
as inspired gifts, 1 , That it is contrary to the edification of
the Church, 2, That it contradicts the natural use of speak
ing, 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 corae unto you, speaking with tongues, what
shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by reve
lation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?"*
That is, unless I speak something to you, which you can un
derstand, and which may inform your judgment ;f as he adds,
" In the Church I had rather speak five words with ray under
standing, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten
thousands words in an unknown tongue," Now if these extra
ordinary gifts of the Spirit were to be valued, and used only
for the edification of the Church, and to speak to the instruc
tion 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 edifica
tion 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 excep
tion, 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,
whora the Spirit inspires ; and yet we see the exercise of these
gifts was restrained to make them serviceable to the Church,
and not to be for mere pomp and ostentation. But for raen,
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 vrithout hfe giving
sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in
* 1 Cor, xiv, 6, t Ver, 19. x Vers. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,

OF ENGLAND AND ROME, 311
the sounds, how shaU it be known what is piped or harped ?
for if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare
himself to the battle ? So hkewise you, except ye utter by the
tongue words easy 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 is vrithout signification : therefore if I know not the
meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a bar
barian, 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 conver
sation, 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 vrithout vocal
words ; but the use of words is either to affect ourselves, and
then they must be such words as we ourselves understand ;
or to direct others in the raatter 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 public 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 reUgion,
3rdly, Another argument St, Paul uses against an unknown
tongue, is, that it is contrary to the nature of prayer aud reh
gious worship, which must be a reasonable service, and there
fore requires the exercise of the understanding, as well as affec
tions, "For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit
prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. What is it then,
I will pray vrith the spirit, and I will pray with the understand
ing also ; I vrill sing with the spirit, and I vrill sing vrith the
understanding also. Else when thou shalt bless vrith 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 clerks
in those days to say Amen for the whole congregation), " say

312 CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN THE CHURCHES
Amen at thy giring of thanks, seeing he understandeth not
what thou sayest ?"* And if the exercise of supernatural gifts
themselves, which the Apostle seems here to caU praying by
the Spirit, be not an acceptable worship to God, vrithout the
acts of our reason and understanding, certainly an unknown
tongue is much more unjustifiable 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 congre
gation should understand them.
But our author (though very timorously) insinuates an
answer or two to this one reason, why he thinks the settled
forras of Divine offices are tacitly 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 wiU presently see,
that it might have been spared: "To many of which (Di-rine
offices) there is no necessity that all specially join 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 join in, and therefore there is no need they should under
stand them.
1 . Now, in the first place, I desire to know why there should
be any such Divine offices in public worship, which the people
are not bound to join 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 edifica
tion, when people are not bound to join in them ; unless every
thing in public worship must be done for edification, and there
fore must be understood by the people who are to be edified by
it, the Apostle's 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 hira, that there was no
need that the whole congregation should understand these in
spired 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 edify 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,
* 1 Cor, xiv, 14, 15, 16,

OF ENGLAND AND ROME. 313
that the Spirit did not intend that every one should understand
them ; and that is reason to beheve, that the exercise of such
gifts was very fitting, though they were not understood. Let
our author try now how he can justify St. Paul's argument
against unknovm, though inspired tongues, upon the principle
which he has laid down, that the people are not bound to join
in all the offices of public worship ; that any thing may be
done in public worship, which is not for public edification : or
let hira try if he can say half so much for such settled forms of
Dirine offices, as people are not bound to join in, and therefore
not bound to understand, as may be pleaded for the occasional
exercise of iriiraculous and inspired gifts in an unknown tongue :
and if he cannot, then this answer he gives about such offices
as people are not bound to join in, is a better answer to St,
Paul, than it is to Protestants ; a much better rindication of
the exercise of such unknown tongues, than of the use of Latin
serrice where Latin 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
join 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 join in ; and his making this an
argument for serrice in an unknown tongue, that there are
many offices, which they are not bound to attend to, and there
fore not to understand (for there must be the force of his ar
gument, if it have any) ; supposes, that they must understand
what they must attend to, and join in : how then does this
justify the Latin serrice of the Church of Rome ? For their
whole service is in Latin, an unknown tongue ; and therefore,
according to his reason, the people are not bound to attend to,
or join in any part of their worship, because they understand
none of it. And is not that a pretty kind of public worship,
which nobody is bound to attend to, or join in ? Not the
priest himself, when he does not understand Latin, which, as
they say, too often happens in Catholic countries.
3rdly, Since our author says, that there are only many, not
«ZZ Divine offices, which the people are not bound to join in, he
would have done well to have given us some mark of distinc
tion, that we might have known what offices people must join
in, and what not. For I cannot for my life think of any act of
public Christian worship, which all Christians are not bound to
join in. I should think it very convenient, that all Christians

314 CONTEOVEESIES BETWEEN THE CHURCHES
should attend to, and join in the holy sacraments when they
are administered ; for if they must not bear their parts there
(which must be their own act, or it signifies nothing, it being
a raaking and renevring a solemn vow and covenant with God),
to be sure they can be concerned in nothing else : and there
fore the offices of baptism and the Lord's supper, ought to be
administered in the vulgar tongue, that every body may under
stand them.
Thus, if men are bound to pray to God, and to praise him,
surely they are bound to join in pubhc prayers and praises ;
and then, according to this rule, the public prayers and hymns
of the Church ought to be in the vulgar tongue. And I can
not 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 thera, 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 in
an office of religion, but what the people are concerned in, and
therefore must attend to it, and join in it, unless it be not their
duty to attend to and join in the worship of God : and there
fore our author, by insinuating this principle, that people must
understand what they are bound to attend to and join in
(which is so agreeable to common sense, that he could not
resist it), has effectually overthrown and condemned the Latin
service, unless he can prove, that people are not concerned to
join 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 join, 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
join in the same petitions, with the same devout affections, than
that they should only gaze upon the priest, and be not worship
pers, but mere spectators of rehgious worship ? Now if it be
better to understand our prayers, than not to understand thera,
to offer up a reasonable, than unreasonable service to God ; if
it be better to worship God, than raerely to see him worshipped ;
then how can he justify serrice 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

OF ENGLAND AND ROME, 315
hold against Latin serrice, 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
Latin, 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 where
about 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 public prayer, which is to offer up our common petitions to
God with our heart and mind. The use of words in public
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 join with him, and
these indeed are public and common prayers ; but now in the
Church of Rome, the priest reads the prayers, but the people
do not join 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 hiraself,
and the people, if they do pray, pray by themselves, and have
no other benefit of the public 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 indis
tinct, and enthusiastic 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, coraposed 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 practice in the world

316 CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN THR CHURCHES
more directly contrary to the sense of all mankind, than
prayers in an unknown tongue. There was no nation, nor
religion in the world ever professedly guilty of it, but the
Church of Rorae ; and there can be no reason imaginable,
why they should conceal their worship, unless they are ashamed
of it, or suspect that no disinterested raan 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,
XV, " A company of Christians voluntarily separating from
all other Christian societies, condemning their doctrines and
rites, destitute also of any risible correspondence with them in
the eucharist, in any religious assemblies or solemn devotions ;
can, notwithstanding this perverse, entire, and raanifest sepa
ration, be a mystical raeraber of Christ in cathohc unity, and
a charitable part of the catholic 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
vrith the Church of Rome in her corrupt worship, yet there
are many Christian Churches -with which we can and do com
municate ; and separate ourselves no farther from any society
of Christians, than they separate themselves from the Primitive
and Apostolic Church ; that if the Church of England be a
true Apostolic Church in faith, and worship and government,
and separates from other Churches only upon account of such
corruptions as vrill justify a separation, what should hinder her
from being a mystical meraber of Christ, in catholic unity,
and a charitable part of the cathoUc Church ? For a true
Apostohc faith and worship does certainly raake us the mystical
members of Christ's body, or else I desire to know what does?
That cathohc unity is not riolated by a just separation, and
dangerous corruptions in faith and worship are a just cause of
separation, " Come out frora among them, and be ye separate,
saith the Lord ; and touch not the unclean thing, and I vrill
receive you," 2 Cor, vi, 17,
All that our author rephes to this, is, that " this proposition
relates to matter of fact, which we affirm Protestants to have
done,t and desire them to raake out by Scripture the lawful
ness of it, and its consistency with catholic unity and charity,"
But I denied that we had done this, and gave him in short my
* Answer to Request, p, 13,
t Protestamcy destitute of Scripture Proofs, p. 10,

OF ENGLAND AND ROM,E. 317
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 catholic 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
catholic Church, and be separate from her ; less than this
vrill not reach the Protestant case, and so much as this vrill by
no means agree vrith one holy Church, wherein alone the
communion of saints, remission of sins, and hfe 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 catholic
Church ? He knows that we deny the Church of Rome to be
the catholic 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 struple at
aU to separate from them in such corruptions, and have the
whole Gospel to justify 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.
AU 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 readUy own, but deny that this
is schism, or separation from the catholic Church,
For till our author can prove, than the unity of the catholic
Church consists in subjection to the Bishop of Rome, it is
ridiculous to charge us with breaking catholic unity, by denying
that obedience which we do not owe ; and when he can prove
it essential to catholic unity, to submit to the Bishop of Rorae,
as the visible head of the Church, we vrill own ourselves to be
schisraatics. But then I must mind him what he has to prove,
viz, that by a Dirine institution the Bishop of Rorae is the
risible head of unity, to whora all Churches must submit ; for
nothing can be essential to the unity of the Church, but what

318 CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN THE CHURCHES
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 there
fore, though they cannot make good their claira to this uni
versal 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 raen can be judges of, what
ever jurisdiction or priraacy they pretend to, to have been
forraerly 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 justify 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. Catholic unity requires no superiority, or jurisdiction of
one bishop or one Church over another, but only mutual con
cord and brotherly correspondence ; and therefore a Church
which rejects any foreign jurisdiction, may yet maintain
catholic unity, as the African churches did in St, Cyprian's
days. The combination indeed of neighbour churches and
bishops, for the more convenient exercise of ecclesiastical
discipline and governraent, 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 are 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
rindicate their own rights and liberties, and cast off such an
intolerable yoke ?
No, you will say, when such a superiority and subordination
of churches is ordered and decreed by General CouncUs, which
is the supreme authority in the Church, no change nor
alteration can be made but by an equal authority ; and there
fore no particular bishops or churches can reject any such
jurisdiction, unless it be revoked by a General CouncU, vrithout
the guilt of schism.
Now in answer to this, let us consider, 1 , Suppose such an
* See Dr, Barrow's Treatise of Supremacy.

OP ENGLAND AND EOME, 319
aspiring bishop has usurped such an authority, as was never
originally granted him by any CouncU ; 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 juris
diction, and has enlarged his patriarchate beyond its original
bounds, raay not that be taken away without a General CouncU,
which was usurped indeed, but never given ?
2ndly, Suppose a General CouncU had granted what it had
no right to give ; as it must have done, if ever any General
Council had granted or confirmed the Pope's 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 itself, nor grant the whole
.entire 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 re-assume such rights,
though a General Council should give them away, because the
grant is void in itself,
Srdly, Especially when the regular means of redress is made
impossible by such usurpations ; when the Christian Church
is so enslaved 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 judge 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 overawed 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,
rindicate 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

320 CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN THE CHURCHES
be out-voted by other bishops ? I grant the less number of
bishops cannot make laws for the universal Church, in oppo
sition to the greater numbers ; whatever constitutions owe
their authority to mutual consent, must in all reason be con
firmed and over-ruled by the greater numbers : but the less
number, nay, any single bishop raay observe the institutions of
our Saviour, and exercise that authority which he has given
hira, without asking leave of General Councils, nay, in oppo
sition to them ; for the authority and institution of our Sariour
is beyond all the General Councils in the world,
4, Especially when we have the consent of much the greater
nuraber of bishops, without their meeting in a General CouncU,
All the Eastern bishops, which are much more nuraerous than
the Western, I cannot say have cast off the authority of the
bishop of Rorae, 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 justify ; 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
sorae new laws, but to declare ancient and original rights ; and
if we have their authentic 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 ourselves for want of the
forraality of a Western Council, who are interested parties.
Yes, you vrill say, at least the Church of England was subject
to the jurisdiction of the Western Patriarch, and therefore ought
not to have innovated vrithout 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 British 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 Enghsh
* See Dr. Stillingfleet's Origines Britan, p, 106, &c.

ot ENGLAND AND ROME, 321
bishops afterwards by fear or flattery, could never give such a
right as should oblige all their successors 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 shewn.
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 vrill hold com
munion with none upon any other terms, and will not be con
fined to a raere patriarchal jurisdiction, we must necessarily
renounce all subjection to him, to deliver ourselves frora his
usurpations ; when his pretended patriarchate is swallowed up
in his universal headship, he may thank hiraself, 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 itself, 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 unliraited authority,
to the oppression of the whole Christian Church in her essential
rights and liberties.
Fifthly, There is one thing more I would have observed for
the right stating of this dispute about schism, viz. the dif
ference between schism from the Catholic 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 there
fore it can be nothing less than a separation from the com
munion of the Church in things essential to faith, or worship,
or government ; for, in this sense, no man can be a schismatic,
without, in sorae degree or other, forfeiting his Christianity,
and his essential right to Christian coraraunion.
Ecclesiastical communion is the union of several distinct
churches into one ecclesiastical body, for mutual adrice and
counsel, and the more pure administration of discipline. When
VOL, XI. Y

322 CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN THE CHURCHES
several bishops, who have originally aU the same authority in
the government of their several churches, bestow different
powers on sorae bishops, whora they advance above others vrith
the title and authority of metropolitans, or patriarchs, with a
power of calling synods, and receiving appeals, and the prin
cipal authority of ordinations ; and govern their several churches
by such ecclesiastical laws, as are agreed on by common con
sent, 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 intrinsic unity of the cathohc
Church, and cuts off such a Church from the body of Christ,
For the unity of the catholic Church consists in one faith,
and worship, and charity, and such an extemal coraraunion,
when occasion offers, shews, that we are all the disciples of
the sarae common Lord and Saviour, and own each other for
brethren ; but the Church may be the one body of Christ,
vrithout being one ecclesiastical body, under one governing
head, which it is impossible the whole Christian Church should
be ; and therefore a Church which dirides itself frora 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 stiU may be a
member of the catholic Church, and still enjoy all the priri
leges of a true catholic Church, " the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins, and the promises of everlasting life :"
which shews us how the holy catholic Church in the Creed
may be one, notwithstanding all those dirisions of Christendom,
which are occasioned by the quarrels of bishops, and the dis
putes about ecclesiastical canons, and ecclesiastical jurisdiction.
Those who are the beginners, or fomentors of such dirisions,
shall answer it to their Lord and Judge, as they shall all their
other personal raiscarriages : but it would be very hard, if such
a Church, which in its faith and worship is truly catholic,
should be cut off frora the body of Christ, and all the raembers
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

OP ENGLAND AND EOME, 323
Rome ; that we have dirided ourselves 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
catholic 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 herself. 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 beheve as Christ has taught, and to worship
God as he has prescribed ? Is it possible that the true
catholic faith and worship should ever be a crime ? If it be
not, then it can be no fault to make the doctrines and institu
tions 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
beheved or practised otherwise, it is necessary to reform ; which
is not in a proper sense to reform the Church, or the Chris
tian faith and worship, but to reform ourselves. For the
Christian faith and worship is always the same ; and if there
be anything 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 catholic unity,
or a charitable part of the cathoUc Church ? The charge is
dravra up against her, under three heads, I, That she
voluntarily separates from all other Christian societies. 2.
Condemns their doctrines and rites. 4. Has no risible cor
respondence 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
y 2

324 CONTEOVEESIES BETWEEN THE CHURCHES
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 deny
ing, 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 centre of catholic
unity, as I observed before ; but considered as a Christian
Church, so I deny, that we separate frora the Church of Rome,
or any other Christian Church, as far as they are Christian,
and we are bound to communicate vrith them no farther.
For, I pray, consider what Christian communion is, which
certainly is nothing else but to communicate in the true Chris
tian faith and worship ; for to communicate in Judaism,
Paganism, Mahometism, or any unchristian doctrines or
practices, certainly is not Christian communion : and there
fore every Church is more or less perfect in Christian com
munion, 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 coraraunion
with all the Christian Churches in the world ; for she agrees
vrith thera in all that they believe or practise, which is truly
Christian, and Christian coraraunion extends no farther.
Well, but when the whole Church was agreed in faith and
worship, we broke this bond of unity by a pretended reforma
tion. 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 com
munion in those things which are not Christian : and there
fore the whole controversy 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 wUl 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 Mosaic law,
which was the standard of their religion and communion ?
Just so the Church of England separated from the Church of

OP ENGLAND AND ROME. 325
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 schismatics 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 Apostolic com
munion, by corrupting the Apostolic 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 justify our
Reformation, we are schismatics ; 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 demonstra
tion in Euclid, that no man can be a schismatic, 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 rites ; but do we condemn anything which ought not to
be condemned ? If we do, it is indeed a fault ; but if we do
not, why are we blamed for it ?
3, We have no risible correspondence vrith them in the
eucharist, nor in any religious assemblies, nor solemn devo
tions. How so ? We risibly receive the eucharist ourselves,
and perforra our solemn devotions in public 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
Egypt, and all other remote Churches to communicate with
them. No, but when their worship is brought home to us, we re
fuse to join with them ; right ! for, according to the laws of
cathohc communion, when they are in England, they ought
to comraunicate with us, not we with them, according to St,

326 CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN THE CHURCHES
Austin's rule, to observe the rites and usages of the Church,
whithersoever we come, as far as they are innocent ; if we
denied to receive them to our communion, they might vrith
better reason charge us vrith schism ; but we are not bound to
forsake the coraraunion of our ovra Church to follow foreign
custoras 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 vrith the Roman Church, but not vrith all other Chris
tian societies ; and the reason is because we beheve 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 wiU justify
our non-communion with thera ; if they be not, we are
schisraatics, and by this we are vrilling 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 vrith
schismatical doctrines and practices ; if we separate for the
sake of a corrupt faith or worship, we are schismatics indeed :
but if we separate, only because we vrill not profess any erro
neous doctrines, nor communicate in a corrupt worship ; unless
the true faith and true worship can make men schismatics, we
may very securely scorn such an accusation.
And it is as impertinent a question to ask us what Church
we joined in communion with, when we forsook the commu
nion of the Church of Rorae : for if, by joining in communion
with other Churches, they mean uniting ourselves in one
ecclesiastical body vrith them, putting ourselves under the
government of any other patriarch, so we joined in communion
vrith 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 ourselves, without appeahng
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 catholic unity and communion.
If in joming in communion with other Churches, they
mean, what other Churches we made the pattern of our Refor
mation, 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 apostolical Churches
our pattern, which we take to be a more infaUible du-ection

Of ENGLAND AND ROME, 327
than the example of any Church then or now : if we must
have been confined to the faith and practice 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 Rorae, which had the
most risible 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 practice, and then they were not concemed to inquire
whether any other Church did in all things believe and prac
tise 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 their doctrines and practices,
which they condemned in the Church of Rorae, were con
demned by other Churches also, though it may be those other
Churches raight have some less errors and corruptions of their
own. If the Scriptures and the example of the primitive
Churches, be a sufficient authority to justify a rcforraation,
then the Church of England is blameless, though no other
Church in the world followed this pattern but ourselves ;
for tbis 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 herself, 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 apostolic in the Church of Rome, and only rejected those
corruptions and innovations, which were introduced in several
ages, and confirmed altogether by the CouncU 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 catholic Church. We own the
two Christian sacraments, baptism and the Lord's supper,
which were expressly instituted by our Sariour himself,
and which the Church of Rome ovras. We worship one
God through Jesus Christ, who is that one Mediator between
God and men, as the Church of Rorae confesses, though she
brings in a great many other mediators by the help of a dis
tinction. Our public Liturgy 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 Comraon Prayer is taken out of the Mass-book ; our

328 CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN THE CHURCHES
litanies, collects, hymns, are many of them taken out of the
old Latin hturgies, 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 cor
rupted 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 foundation and building
as it was ; and if we have indeed retained all that is ancient
and apostolic in the Church of Rome, and rejected nothing
but innovations in faith, and corruptions in worship, they
need not inquire for a Church which believes all that we do,
for the Church of Rome herself 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 join with ; for we stayed 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 wholesome habitation, needs not inquire for a new house
to dwell in.
To conclude this argument, our positive faith and worship
is the same still vrith the Church of Rome's, and therefore
they cannot blame us for it ; and in those doctrines and prac
tices wherein we have forsaken the Church of Rorae, we have
the authority and practice of most other Churches to justify
us, which do not own the supremacy of the Pope, nor transub
stantiation, nor purgatory, nor communion in one kind, nor Latin
serrice, nor the worship of images, vrith several other of the Trent
innovations : so that, in truth, we are so far from separating
from aU Christian societies, that there are few things in our
Reformation, but what are owned and justified either by the
Church of Rome herself, 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.
XVI, "The whole clergy of the Catholic Church may apos
tatize from fundamental truth and holiness, whilst part of a
national laity may preserve both, discover the clergies' defec
tion, and depriving them, heap to theraselves teachers of their
own sending and instruction,"

OF ENGLAND AND ROME, 329
In answer to this I told him,* " that if by this he meant,
that the whole of the Christian world did at the tirae of the
Rcforraation maintain the doctrines of the Church of Rome,
which were rejected and condemned only by a major vote of a
Parhament of laymen in England, all the world knew how
false it is. For, 1 , There were many other Churches, and
better parts of the catholic 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 laymen ; so were the
German Reformers," who were originally Popish monks and
priests, and yet did not follow the laity, but led them the way
to the Reformation,
In reply to this, he says,f " I manifest myself 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 declare against lay-supremacy and other Protes
tant points, and for non-compliance therevrith, were almost all
deprived : the Queen and her lay-parliament enacting supre
macy, whereby she imposed new doctrines, displaced the
catholic clergy, and created prelatic ministers," And whether
he or I be most in the right, let the reader judge. For, 1 ,
It is plain I did not speak only of the clergy of England, but
of the whole clergy of the catholic Church, as he hiraself
stated the question ; and he answers only to the clergy of
England, and vrith what truth shall be examined presently :
for if the whole clergy of the catholic Church have not apos
tatized, 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 Catholic Church have apos
tatized from fundamental truth and holiness, for we are not
bound to prove that which is false ; but he who allows no
Catholic Church but the Church of Rome, must consequently
allow no clergy of the Catholic Church, but the Roman clergy,
but we grant neither one nor the other ; and yet, as I shewed,
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
• Answer to Request, t Protestancy destitute of Scripture Proofs.

330 CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN THE CHURCHES
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
convocations in Henry VIII,'s days, did acknowledge the
King's 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 pramunire, and
the King would not compound the business -with thera, 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) Catholic Church raay aposta*
tize frora fundamental truth and holiness, if they fall first into
a prcBmunire, and meet with a King who will take the advan
tage of it ; and are not the clergy then admirable guides to
follow ? especially if they can be so overawed, as not only to
make such a profession, but to write and dispute for it, and
use all variety of arguments to persuade people to believe it.
The Institution for the Necessary Erudition of a Christian
Man,f was agreed on in convocation, and published by autho
rity. 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 Durham,
wrote in defence of the King's proceedings to Cardinal Pole ;
and many sermons were preached by several bishops to the
same purpose ; out of which Dr. Burnet has collected the ar
guments used by thera, both against the power of the Pope,
and for the supreraacy of the King : and during that session
of Parliaraent, 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
prcemunire, which was pardoned in Parliaraent, a.d. 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
• Church Government, part 5, English Reformation, chap, 2. p, 21,
t Burnet's History of the Reformation, Part 1, Book 2, p, 137.

OF ENGLAND AND ROME, 331
those bishops who had wrote, or preached for it before, such
as Bonner, bishop of London, and Tonstal of Durham, 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 hi 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 vrithout the consent of the clergy, which were at first
made vrith 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 visitors gave
the Queen, is very different, that of 9,400 beneficed men in
England,* there were no more than fourteen bishops, six ab
bots, twelve deans, twelve archdeacons, fifteen heads of
colleges, 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 herself 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 cor
rupted both} by additions of their ovra," And therefore we are
not bound to prove, that the whole clergy of the Cathohc
Church may apostatize from fundamental truth and holiness ;
for we do not say they did.
All that he rephes to this, is, that " this apostasy (at the
least) is taught in the 19th and 21st 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 vrith idolatry, and idolatry is an apostasy
from fundamental trath and holiness. But if men may be
guilty of some kinds of idolatry, and of very great corraptions
in faith and worship, without denying any fundamental article
of the Christian faith, then idolatry itself does not prove such
an apostasy from fundamental truth. And this is the opinion
of those who own the Church of Rome a true, though a cor
rupt Church, notwithstanding they charge her vrith 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,
* Burnet's History of the Reformation, Part 2. 1. 3. p, 401,

332 CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN THE CHURCHES
though in an idolatrous manner. And I would adrise our
author not to insist too peremptorily on this, that idolatry is an
apostasy from fundamental truth, tiU 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 apostasy from fundamental
truth and hohness : 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 apostasy, or that
the Church may fall into such an apostasy. Those who say,
that idolatry is not such an apostasy, are not bound to prove
that the Church may fall into such an apostasy from funda
mental truth, to make good their charge of idolatry. Those
who say, that idolatry is such an apostasy, 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 tmth 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 eridence 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 indefectibihty or
infalhbihty of their Church, Their Church cannot err, be
cause the CouncU or Pope, or at least both of them together,
are infaUible : or, as others say, tradition is infaUible ; 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 guUty of
idolatry, because it cannot apostatize from fundamental truth
and holiness ; and so in other cases : and therefore the way

OP ENGLAND AND ROME. 333
they take with the 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 apostasy. Now not to shew at
present how vainly the Church of Rome challenges to herself
the title, privileges, and prerogatives of the Catholic Church,
and appropriates all those promises to herself, which were made
to the Church in general ; nor to examine the meaning of
those texts, whereon she founds this pretence of infallibihty, 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 apostasy, be sufficient
to satisfy any honest inquisitive man, who can read the Scrip
tures, and compare what the Church now believes and prac
tises, with the doctrines and institutions of our Sariour, For,
1 , When such errors and corruptions are notoriously evident,
though but in any one instance, to argue that the Church had
not erred, because she cannot err, is to dispute against matter
of fact, like the philosopher's disputing against the possibility
of motion ; and no argument whatsoever is good against matter
of fact. True, you will say, if it were notoriously evident that
the Church has erred, there were an end of her infallibihty ;
but this is matter of dispute, whether she have erred or not,
and then if you can prove that she cannot err, you effectuaUy
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, what
ever 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 in
fallible, 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 infallibihty ; for
actual error is a just confutation of infallibihty, but the pretence
of infalhbUity is not a just plea against the charge of actual
error ; because if I can prove my charge against them, that
they have erred, tbat disproves their infallibility, and then

334 CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN THE CHURCHES
nothing else can prove it: so that this infalhbility 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 tried by their infallibUity, 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 Church's infalhbility.
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 posi
tive proof against their infallibiUty ; but though it be as
certainly tme that an infallible Church cannot, and has not
erred, yet whatever proofs they bring of the Church's infal
libility, they are not a direct answer to that charge. That she has
actually erred, and can have no force to prove her infallibihty,
till that charge be answered, because there can be no proof
against matter of fact. And therefore when they begin with the
proof of infallibihty, 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 dehver
her from the charge of having erred, their labour is lost, and
therefore it is best to try that first ; which shews 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 tUl this be removed, it is an effectual bar
to all other proofs of infallibility. And thus their compendious
way of making converts, and confuting heretics, is nothing but
sophistry and a cheat ; and if men would be sincere and
honest converts, they must not flatter themselves vrith an
opinion of the Church's infallibility, but must examine the
particular disputes between us, and be thoroughly satisfied
that the Church of Rome has not erred, before they erabrace
her coraraunion,
2, For if it appear, that the Church of Rome has been
guilty of error or apostasy, this is a certain demonstration.

OP ENGLAND AND ROME, 335
that either those Scripture promises which she alleges, do
not belong to her, or do not signify what she brings them for ;
for whatever Christ promises, he vrill 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 Rorae, as the infallible guides of the
Church, especially when that eridence we have that the Church
has erred, is much more plain and notorious, than that Christ
has 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 ex
pound those obscure texts, from which some would prove that
she cannot err. Indeed it is very happy that no man believes
Christ has promised infaUibility to the Church of Rome, but
those who believe that she has not erred ; for if they did, it
would be a very dangerous sort 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 beheve, 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 infaUibility 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 infallibility, or disbelieve the
promise, because she has erred ? When both sides are equally
plain, and yet can never be reconcUed, it is a sore temptation
to believe neither, when I know not which to choose, and
cannot possibly beheve both. So that to urge the infallibUity
of the Church, that she cannot err, against the plainest eridence
that she has erred, may make some men infidels, but can make
no considering man a Roman Catholic,
But to return to our author, though I think I have not left
him aU this time, I gave a fourth answer to his request, which

336 CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN THE CHURCHES
he takes no notice of, viz, "If the first discovery of this defec
tion had been made by laymen, and afterwards acknowledged
by the clergy, who joined 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 laymen," For this
is the great grievance, that the clergy should apostatize, and a
national laity discover the clergy's 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 Parhament 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, especiaUy of
Christian Dirines ; for not to enter now into the history of the
Reformation, which those who please, may leam from Dr,
Burnet, who has published the authentic records of the raost
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 cor
ruptions, signifies no more than to profess the pure and un-
corrupted 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 of 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 practise as they teach,
unless our superiors will give us leave. How could the Gospel
have been 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 joined themselves to the
fellowship of the Apostles, they raust have continued Jews or
Pagans to this day. For as for what our author says, that
" such a change in religion ought to have some Scripture, or
Church Government, part 5, concerning the English Reformation.

OF ENGLAND AND ROME, 337
because extraordinary, should have miracles to countenance it :"
I answer, we have both, we have reformed according to the
Scriptures, and can justify 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
Apostohc 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 thera 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 mere piece of sophistry; for if they
have the power of declaring, and nobody must oppose them,
nor judge of their declarations, under the pretence of declaring
they raay 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 itself,
though it may silence those men's 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 itself is, has been abun
dantly proved in some late treatises.
This is enough to shew 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
* See the Authority of CouncUs, with the Appendix, in Answer to the
eight Theses of the Oxford writer, and the Judge of Controversies.
VOL. XI. Z

338 CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN THE CHURCHES.
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 sorae 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 Rcforraation was
perfected or finished by the regular authority of the Popish
clergy, though several of thera were zealous in it ; but we say
it is never the worse for that ; if tney can prove that what we
call a reformation is faulty upon other accounts, then we wUl
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 cor
ruptions 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 refor
mation 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 Parhament could
make the Reformed religion the national religion established by
law ; and this is all that we attribute to Kings and Parha-
raents. We do not justify our Reformation because it was
confirraed 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 stUl continue
it to us and to our posterity forever. Amen.

THE COUNCIL OF TRENT EXAMINED
AND
DISPROVED BY CATHOLIC TRADITION,
IN THE
MAIN POINTS IN CONTROVERSY BETWEEN US AND THE
CHURCH OP ROME ; WITH A PARTICULAR ACCOUNT OF
THE TIMES AND OCCASIONS OP INTEODUCING THEM. TO
WHICH A PREFACE IS PREFIXED, CONCERNING THE TRUE
SENSE OF THE COUNCIL OP TRENT, AND THE NOTION
OP TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

THE PREFACE.

There is, it seems, a train in controversies, as well as in
thoughts : one thing still giring a start to another ; conferences
produce letters, letters, books, and one discourse gives occasion
for another. For this follows the former as a necessary pur
suit of the same argument against Tradition.
J. Seijeant, in his last letter,* had vouched the authority of
the Council of Trent proceeding upon tradition, and he in
stanced in three points, Transubstantiation, Sacramental Con
fession, and Extreme Uaction;^ ¦ ~The^ exaraination of this I
thought fit to reserve for a discourse by itself ; wherein, instead
of confining myself to those three particulars, I intend to go
through the most material points there established ; and to
prove, from the most authentic testimonies, that there was no
true Catholic Tradition for any of them. And if I can make
good what I have undertaken, I shall make the Council of
Trent itself the great instance against the Infallibility of
Tradition. This is a new undertaking : which the impetuousness of our
adversaries setting up tradition for the ground of their faith,
* Third Letter, p. 64, Z 2

340 NO CATHOLIC TRADITION FOR
hath brought me to. But besides the shewing that really
they have not tradition on their side ; I have endeavoured to
trace the several steps, and to set down the times and occa
sions of introducing those points which have caused that
unhappy breach in the Christian world, whose sad effects we
daily see and lament : but have little hopes to see remedied,
till these new points be discarded, and Scripture, interpreted
by truly Cathohc tradition, be made the standard of Christian
communion. I do not pretend that all these points came in at one time,
or in the same manner ; for some errors and corruptions came
in far more early ; sorae had the favour of the Church of
Rorae in a higher degree ; some were more generaUy received
in the practice of the Church in later times than others ; and
sorae were merely school points before the Council of Trent,
but as far as the Thoraists and Scotists could be raade to
agree there against the Reformers, these passed for articles of
faith. For, this was one of the great arts of that Council, to
draw up their decrees in such terms, as should leave room
enough for eternal wranglings among themselves, prorided
they agreed in doing the business effectually against the
heretics, as they were pleased to call them. I therefore for
bear to urge these as points of faith, which have been freely
debated among themselves since the CouncU of Trent, vrithout
any censure. We have enough in the plain decrees and canons
of that Council, vrithout meddling vrith any school points.
And so I cannot be charged vrith misrepresenting.
The great debate of late hath been about the true exposition
of the points there defined ; and for my part, I am content to
yield to any just and reasonable methods of giving the trae
sense of them. And such I conceive these to be,
I. Where the Council of Trent makes use of words in a
strict and limited sense, there it is unreasonable to understand
them in a large and improper sense. As for instance, Sess.
6. c. 26. It decrees that justified persons do vere promerere,
truly merit eternal life ; and Can. 32, " there is an anathema
against him who denies true merit iu the good works of
justified persons, both as to increase of grace and etemal life,"
There is no one conversant in ancient writers, but knows that
there was a large and improper sense of the word merit ; but
how is it possible to apply that sense, where such care is taken
that it may be understood in a strict and limited sense ? If
the Council had left the word in its general sense, there might

TRADITIONS BEING A RULE OF FAITH, 341
have been reason to have given the fairest interpretation to it :
but when it is certainly knovra, that there had been a dif
ference of opinions in the Church of Rome about true and
proper merit, and that which was not (however it were caUed),
and the CouncU declares for the former, no man of under
standing can believe that only the improper sense was meant
by it. As in the point of the eucharist, when the CouncU
declares that the words of Christ, " This is my body," are
truly and properly to be understood : would it not be thought
Strange for any one to say, that the Council, notvrithstanding,
might mean that Christ's words may be figuratively under
stood ? And we must take the tme notion of merit, not from
any large expressions of the ancients, but from the conditions
of tme and proper merit among themselves. But of this at
large afterwards. So as to the notion of sacraments ; every
one knows how largely that word was taken in ancient writers ;
but it would be absurd to understand the CouncU of Trent
in that sense, when Sess, 6, Can, 1, de Sacramentis, it
denounces an anathema, not merely against him " that denies
seven sacraments ;" but against him " that doth not hold every
one of them to be truly and properly a sacraraent," And in
the Creed of Pius IV. one article is, that there are " seven true
and proper sacraments." How vain a thing then were it for
any to expound these sacraments in a large and improper
sense ?
II. Where the Council of Trent hath not declared itself,
but it is fully done in the Catechism made by its appointment,
we ought to look on that as the true sense of the Council.
As in the case of the sacraments ; the Council never declares
what it means hy true and proper sacraments ; but the
Catechism* makes large and full amends for this defect. For
after it hath mentioned the use of the word in profane and
sacred writers, it sets dovra the sense of it, according to their
dirines, " for a sensible sign which conveys the grace which it
signifies." And after a large explication of the nature of signs,
it gives this description of a true and proper sacrament, " that
it is a sensible thing, which by Divine institution, not only hath
the force of signifying, but of causing grace." And to shew
the authority of this Catechism for explicating the doctrine of
the sacraments, we need only to look into Sess. 24. c, 7, de
Reform, where it is required that the people be instructed in
* Catechism. Rom. Part. 2. [p. 126. Mechlin. 1831.]

342 NO CATHOLIC TRADITION FOR
the sacraments according to it. It is supposed, that the
Catechism was appointed to be made in the eighteenth session
at the instigation of Carolus Borromseus (since canonized), but
it was not finished while the Council sat, and therefore, Sess.
25, "it was referred to the judgment and authority of the
Pope." I confess, therefore, it hath not a ConciUar authority
stamped upon it, but it hath a sort of transfused infallibiUty,
as far as they could convey it ; and as much as a Council hath,
when it borrows it from the Pope's confirmation. It was
near two years hammering at Trent, viz. {vom 26th of Feb
ruary 1562, to December 1563, when the Council rose ; after
wards, it was preparing at Rome three years longer, and then
presented to the Pope to be approved, and pubhshed by his
authority, after it had been carefully reriewed by Cardinal
Sirlet, Borromeo, and others ; and hath since been universally
received in the Roman Church ; so that we can have no more
authentic exposition of the sense of the CouncU of Trent, than
what is contained in that Catechism.
III. Where the Council of Trent declares a thing in general
to be lawful and due, but doth not express the manner of it,
that is to be understood from the generally received and
allowed practices at that time. For otherwise, the Council
must be charged vrith great unfaithfulness in not setting down
and correcting public and notorious abuses, when it mentioned
the things themselves, and some abuses about them. As in
the 25th session, conceming purgatory, invocation of saints,
worship of images and relics ; it goes no farther than " that the
sound doctrine be taught, that saints are to be invocated,
images and relics to be worshipped ;" but never defines what
that sound doctrine is, what bounds are to be set in the
worship of saints, images and relics, which it is unlawful to
exceed. So that in this case, we have no other way to judge
of the meaning of the Council, but by comparing the public
and allowed practices of the Church vrith the general decrees
of the Council, And we have this farther reason for it, that
we are told by the latest expositors of it, that the sense of the
Church in speculative points is to be taken from public prac
tices. For, thus one of them expresses himself,* " Moreover,
even her speculative doctrines are so mixed vrith practical cere
monies, which represent them to the vulgar, and instruct even
the meanest capacities in the abstrusest doctrines, that it
* Reply to the Defence of the Exposition, &c, p, 13^1.

TRADITIONS BEING A RULE OF FAITH. 343
seems ever impossible to make an alteration in her doctrine
¦without abrogating her ceremonies, or changing her constant
practices." IV. Where the decrees of the Council are not sufficiently
clear, there we must take in the canons to make the sense more
plain. This rule I take from the Council itself, which in the
sixth session, just before the canons, saith, " that those are
added, that all may know not only what they are to hold and
foUow, but what they are to shun and avoid." As in the
famous instance of transubstantiation; suppose that the words
of the decree do not determine expressly the modus ; yet it is
impossible for any one to doubt of it who looks into the canon,
which denounces an anathema against him,* not only that
denies transubstantiation, but that " asserts the substance of
bread and wine to remain after consecration." Therefore he
that asserts transubstantiation, according to the Council of
Trent, must hold it in such a i manner, as thereby to under
stand that the substance of bread and wine doth not remain.
Otherwise he is under an anathema by the express canon of
the Council.
Therefore it is so far from being a " fatal oversight (as a late
author expresses it), to say that the Council of Trent hath
determined the modus of the real presence," that no man who is
not resolved to oversee it, can be of another opinion. And
herein the divines of the Church of Rome do agree vrith us,
viz, that the particular modus is not only determined by
the Council, but that it is a matter of faith to aU persons of
the communion of that Church. As not only appears from
the second canon, hut from the very decree itself, Sess. 13.
ch, 4,
" The holy Synod declares, that by consecration of the bread
and wine, there is a conversion of the whole substance of the
bread into the substance [of the body of Christ, and of the
whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood,
which conversion is fitly and properly by the holy Cathohc
Church called transubstantiation." In which words the Council
doth plainly express the modus of the real presence to be, not
by a presence of Christ's body together with the substance of
the bread, as the Lutherans hold, but by a "conversion of the
whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body,"
&c. And since there were different manners of understanding
* Sess. 13. Can. 2, [Labbe, ConcU, vol, 14, p. 808, Lut, Par, 1672,]

344 NO CATHOLIC TRADITION FOE
this real presence, if the Council did not espouse one so as to
reject the other as heretical ; then it is impossible to make thc
Lutheran doctrine to be declared to be heretical ; i. e, unless
the Council did determine the modus of the real presence.
For, if it did not, then, notvrithstanding the decrees and
canons of the Council of Trent, persons are at liberty to beheve
either transubstantiation, or consubstantiation, which I think
no Roman Catholic wUl allow.
But it is said, that the meaning of the decree is, " that the
real presence is not to be understood after a natural, but a
sacramental manner ;" but doth it not plainly tell us, how that
sacramental manner is to be understood, viz, " by a conversion
of the whole substance of the bread into the whole sub
stance of the body," &c. And if other ways be possible, and
all others be rejected, then this particular modus must be
determined, I grant, that the Council doth not say, there is an annihUa-
tion of the elements ; and I know no necessity of using that
term, for that which is supposed to be turned into another
thing, cannot properly be said to be annihilated (which is the
reducing it to nothing), but the Council doth assert " a total
conversion of one substance into another," and where that is,
that substance must wholly cease to be what it was ; and so,
there can be no substance of the elements remaining after con
secration. For, as Aquinas observes. Quod convertitur in
aliquid, factd conversione non manet.* If then the substance
of the elements doth not remain after consecration, by virtue
of this total conversion, then the Council of Trent, by its
decree, hath plainly determined the modus of the real presence,
so as to exclude any such manner as doth suppose the sub
stance to remain, whether it be by impanation or consubstantia
tion, or any other way.
What if Rupertus " thought the bread might become the
real body of Christ, by a union of the Word to it ?" AU that
can be inferred is, that the modus was not then so determined
as to oblige all persons to hold it. But what is this to the
Council of Trent ? Can any one hold the substance to remain,
and not to remain at the same time ? For he that holds with
Rupertus, must allow the substance to remain ; he that believes
a total conversion, must deny it. And he that can believe
both these at once, may believe what he pleases,
* 3 Q. 75. A. 2, [vol, 24. p. 290, col, 2, Venot. 1787,]

TRADITIONS BEING A RULE OF FAITH, 345
' " But the Council only declares the sacramental presence to
be after an ineffable manner," I say, it determines it to be by
a total conversion of one substance into another ; which may
well be said to be ineffable, since what cannot be understood,
can never be expressed.
Our dispute is not about the use of the word transubstan
tiation, for I think it proper enough to express the sense of the
Council of Trent ; but as the word consubstantial did exclude
all other modes how Christ might be the Son of God, and
determined the faith of the Church to that manner ; so doth
the sense of transubstantiation, as determined by the Council
of Trent, limit the manner of the real presence to such a
conversion of the substance of the elements into the substance
of Christ's body and blood, as doth imply no substance to remain
after consecration.
It is to no purpose to tell us, " the Council uses only the word
species, and not accidents ;" for whatever they are called, the
Council denounces its anathema against those " who hold the
substance to remain after consecration ; and denies the total
conversion of the substance of the bread and wine into the
substance of the body and blood of Christ," If the substance
be not there, the modus is to purpose determined. And what
ever remains, call it what you will, it is not the substance ; and
that is sufficient to shew, that the Council of Trent hath
clearly determined the modus of the real presence.
V. We must distinguish the school points left undetermined
by the Council of Trent, from those which are made articles of
faith. We never pretend, that it left no school disputes about
the points there determined ; but we say it went too far in
making some school points to be points of faith, when it had
been more for the peace of Christendom, to have left them to
the schools stiU. Thus in the point of transubstantiation, the
elder Schoolmen tell us, there were different ways of explaining
the real presence ; and that those which supposed the substance
to remain, were more agreeable to reason and Scripture than
the other ; and some were of opinion, that the modus was no
matter of faith then. But after the point of the real presence
carae to be warmly contested in the time of Berengarius, it
rose by degrees higher and higher, tUl at last the particular
modus came to he determined vrith an anathema by the CouncU
of Trent.
When Berengarius, a.d, 1059, was forced to recant by
Nicholas II, with the assistance of 113 bishops; no more

346 NO CATHOLIC TRADITION FOR
was required of hira, " than to hold that the bread and vrine
after consecration, are not only the sacrament, but the true
body and blood of Christ, and that it is sensibly handled and
broke by the priest's hands, and eaten by the communicants,"
Here is no denying the substance of bread to remain ; and Job.
Parisiensis observes, that the words cannot be defended but by
an assumption of the bread ; for, saith he, " if the body of
Christ be truly and sensibly handled and eaten, this cannot be
understood of Christ's glorious body in heaven, but it must be
of the bread really made the body of Christ after consecra
tion," The sense which the Canonists put upon the words of this
recantation is absurd, viz, "that they are to be understood of
the species ;" for Berengarius's opinion related to the substance
of Christ's body, which he denied to be in the sacrament. And
what would it have signified for him to have said, " That Christ
was sensibly broken, and eaten under the species of bread and
wine ?" i,e. that his body was not sensibly broken and eaten,
but the species were. It had signified something, if he had
said, " there was no substance of bread and wine left, but only
the species," But all the design of this recantation was to
make him assert the " sacrament to be made the true and real
body of Christ," inj as strong a manner as the Pope and his
brethren could think of. And although the Canonists think,
if strictly taken, it implies greater heresy than that of Beren
garius ; yet, by their favour, this form was only thought fit
to be put into the canon law, as the standard of, the faith of
the Roman Church then ; and the following abjuration of
Berengarius, was only kept in the register of Gregory Vllth's
epistles. For about twenty years after, by order of Gregory VII,,
Berengarius was brought to another abjuration, but by no
means after the same forra with the former. For by this
he was required to declare, " that the bread and vrine are sub
stantially converted into the true and proper flesh and blood
of Christ, and after consecration are the true body of Christ,
bom of the Virgin, and sacrificed upon the cross, and that sits
at the right hand of the Father ; and the true blood of Christ,
which was shed out of his side, not only as a sacramental sign,
but in propriety of nature and reality of substance,"
This was indeed a pretty bold assertion of the substantial
presence. And so much the bolder, if the commentary on
St. Matthew be Hildebrand's. For there he saith, " the

TRADITIONS BEING A EULE OF FAITH. 347
manner of the conversion is uncertain," But .as far as I can
judge, by substantial conversion he did not then mean as the
Council of Trent doth, a total conversion of one substance into
another, so as that nothing of the former substance remains ;
but that there was a change by consecration, not by making
the body of Christ of the substance of the bread, but by its
passing into that body of Christ which was born of the Virgin.
For, upon comparing the two forms, there we shall find lies
the main difference. Pope Nicholas went no farther than to
the tme body of Christ ; which it might be as well by assump
tion, as conversion ; Gregory VII. went farther, and thought
it necessary to add, that the change was into the substance of
that body which was born of the Virgin, &c. And so this
second form excludes a true body merely by assumption, and
asserts the change to be into the substance of Christ's body in
heaven ; but it doth not determine, that nothing of the sub
stance of the elements doth remain. For when he puts that
kind of substantial conversion which leaves nothing but the
accidents, and the body of Christ to be under them, which
belonged to the substance of the elements ; he declares this
matter to be uncertain. Which shews, that however a change
was owned into the substance of Christ's body, yet such a
total conversion, as is determined by the Council of Trent,
was not then made an article of faith.
But from this supposition made by HUdebrand, it appears,
that the doctrine of substance and accidents was then well
known; and therefore the introducing Aristotle's Philosophy
frora the Arabians afterwards, could raake no alteration in .this
matter. For the words of HUdebrand are as plain as to the
difference of substance and accidents, as of any of the School
men ; and that the accidents of the bread and wine might be
separated from the substance of them ; but this was not then
made a matter of faith, as it was afterwards.
But the case was remarkably altered, after the Lateran
CouncUt under Innocent III. For transubstantiation being
adraitted there among the articles of faith ; and so entered in
the canon law in the very beginning of the Decretals ; this
did not merely become a School term, but by the inquisitors of
that time it was accounted heresy to deny it. It may be suffi
ciently proved by the Schoolmen and Canonists, that a dif
ference of opinions, as to the modus, did stiU continue (but
that belongs to a more proper place), and Job, Parisiensis
declares (p, 103), "that the Lateran Council, in his opinion.

348 NO CATHOLIC TRADITION FOB
did not make transubstantiation a point of faith ; or at least
that substance was not to be taken for the matter, but the
suppositum ;" but the inquisitors went more briskly to work,
and made it downright heresy to assert, " that the substance
of the elements did reraain after consecration,"
Of this, we have fuU evidence in the register of Courtney,
archbishop of Canterbury (which is no inrisible manuscript).
For there we read, fol, 25, that he called a select convocation
of bishops, divines and canonists. May 17, a,d, 1382, to
declare some propositions to be heretical, and some to be
erroneous and contrary to the determination of the Church,
Among the first, these two are set down in the first place,
" 1 , That the material substance of the bread and wine
doth remain in the sacrament of the altar, after consecration,"
" 2, That the accidents do not remain without their subject
in that sacrament after consecration,"
After this, the Archbishop sent forth his mandate to all his
suffragans, not only to prohibit the preaching of that doctrine,
but to inquire after those who preached it. And June 12,
Robert Rygge, chancellor of Oxford, and Thomas Brightwell,
appeared before him, and were examined upon these propo
sitions ; which they declared to be heretical : who thereupon
required the publication of them as such in the University ;
and the proceeding against those who were suspected to favour
them. The ground the Archbishop went upon, was, that these had
been already condemned by the Church, and therefore ex
abundanti, they declared them to be so condemned ; as ap
pears by the monition given to Robert Rygge himself, as too
much suspected to favour the contrary doctrine ; as well as
Nicholas Hereford, Philip Reppyndon, D,D,, and John
Ashton, B,D,
Against these, the Archbishop proceeded as Inquisitor
Hcereticce Pravitatis per totam suam Provinciam, as it is in
the record ; who appearing, desired a copy of the several
propositions, and then they were required to give in their
judgment upon them, Ashton refused, but the others promised,
which they perforraed soon after ; and to these two propo
sitions, their answers were,
" To the first, that as far as it was contrary to the decretal,
Firmiter Credimus, it was heresy,"
To the second, "that as far as it was contrary to the
decretal Cum Marthce, it was heresy,"

TRADITIONS BEING A RULE OF FAITH, 349
These answers were judged insufficient, because they did
not declare what that sense was. . And the Archbishop put
this question to them, " Whether the same numerical material
bread, which before consecration was set upon the altar, did
remain in its proper substance and nature after consecration,"
but they would give no other answer at that time. But after
wards Reppyndon abjured, and was made Bishop of Lincoln.
From hence it appears, that it was then thought that the
modus was so far determined by the Lateran Council, that the
contrary doctrine was declared not merely erroneous in faith,
but heretical.
In the first convocation held by Th, Arundel, archbishop of
Canterbury, a,d. 1396,* a complaint was brought, that several
dirines, and others of the University of Oxford, held some
heretical and erroneous opinions ; the first whereof was,
" That the substance of bread doth remain after consecration ;
and doth not cease to be bread ;" which is there affirmed to be
heresy, speaking of material bread.
The second, " that the court of Rome, in the Can, Ego
Berengarius, had determined that the sacrament of the eucharist
is naturally true bread,"
It is very hard to say, how this came to be then accounted
heretical doctrine, when no less a man than Durandus in the
same age affirms, " that the Canonists grant that the opinion
of the ceasing of the substance was grounded on the Can.
Firmiter Credimus, i.e, on the Lateran Council ; but that of
the remaining of the substance on that. Ego Berengarius,"
But however, it passed for heretical, or at least very erroneous
doctrine here ; but the main heresy was to hold that the
substance remained.
For A,D, 1400, (as appears by the Register, p, 2, f, 179),
William Sawtre, alias Chatris, a parochial priest in London,
was summoned before the same Archbishop in convocation,
upon an information of heresy ; and one of the main articles
gainst him was, that he held the substance of the bread to
remain in the sacrament of the altar after consecration ; and
that it doth not cease to be bread, Sawtre answered, that he
believed, " that after consecration, the bread did remain vrith
the body of Christ ; but it doth not cease to be simply bread,
but it remains holy and true the bread of life and body of
Christ," The Archbishop examined him chiefly upon this
* Regist, f 47,

350 NO CATHOLIC TRADITION FOR
article ; and because he did not answer home to the point, he
was condemned for a heretic, and was the first who was burned
for heresy in England. And yet his answer was, " that he
could not understand the matter ;" then the Archbishop asked
him, " if he would stand to the Church's determination ;" he
said, " he would so far as it was not contrary to the vrill of
God." Upon which he was declared an heretic, and delivered
over to the secular power.
In the same convocation, John Pervey made an abjuration of
heresy, and the first he renounced was, " that after consecration
in the sacrament of the altar, there neither is, nor can be an
accident without a subject, and that the same substance and
nature of bread remained, which was before."
In the examination of William Thorp by Thomas Amndel,
archbishop of Canterbury, a.d, 1407 (which is not in the
Register, being defective, but the account is preserved from his
own copy), the Archbishop declared, " that the Church had
now determined, that there abideth no substance of bread after
consecration in the sacrament of the altar. And that if he
believed otherwise, he did not believe as the Church beheved."
Thorp quoted St. Augustine and Fulgentius, to prove that the
substance remained ; and the very mass on Christmas-Day.
The Archbishop still pressed him with the Church's determi
nation. Thorp said, "this was a School nicety, whether
accidents could be without a subject." No, said the Arch
bishop, " it is the faith of the Church I go upon." Thorp
replied, " it was not so for a thousand years after Christ."
In the examination of the Lord Cobhara, a.d, 1412, by the
same Archbishop, we find that he owned the real presence of
Christ's body as firmly as his accusers ;* but he was con
demned for heresy, because he held the substance of bread to
remain. For the Archbishop declared this to be the sense of
the Church ; " that after consecration, remaineth no material
bread or wine which were before, they being turned into
Christ's very body and blood." The original words of the
Archbishop, as they are in the Register, are these :
" The faith and the determination of holy Church, touching
the blestfuU sacrament of the auter, is this, that after the
sacramental words ben said by a prest in his masse, the
material bred that was before, is turned into Christ's veray
body. And the material wyn that was before, is turned into
* Regist, Arundel, p, 2. f. 143.

TRADITIONS BEING A EULE OF FAITH, 351
Christ's veray blode, and so there leweth in the auter, no
material brede ne material wyn, the vrich wer ther byfore the
saying of the sacramental words."
And the bishops afterwards stood up and said; " it is manifest
heresy to say, that it is bread after the sacramental words be
spoken; because it was against the determination of holy
Church." But to make aU sure, not many years after. May 4, a,d.
1415, the CouncU of Constance, session 8, declared the two
propositions before mentioned to be heretical ; viz. " to hold
that the substance doth remain after consecration, and that the
accidents do not remain without a subject,"
Let any impartial reader now judge, whether it be any fatal
oversight to assert, that the modus of the real presence was
determined by the CouncU of Trent, when there were so many
leading determinations to it, which were generaUy owned and
received in the Church of Rome, But there were other
disputes remaining in the Schools relating to this matter ;
which we do not pretend were ever determined by the Council
of Trent, As,
(1 ,) Whether the words of consecration are to be under
stood in a speculative or practical sense ? For, the Scotists
say, in the former sense, they do by no means prove transub
stantiation; since it may be tmly said, "This is my body,"
though the substance of bread do remain ; and that they are to
be understood in a practical sense, i.e, for converting the
bread into the body, is not to be deduced ex vi verhorum, from
the mere force of the words, but from the sense of the Church,
which hath so understood them. Which in plain terms is to
say, it cannot be proved from Scripture, but from the sense of
the Church; and so Scotus doth acknowledge, but then he
adds, " that we are to judge this to be the sense of Scripture,
because the Church hath declared it. Which he doth not
think was done before the Council of Lateran," So that this
Council must be believed to have had as infalhble a spirit in
giving this sense of Scripture, as there was in the writing of it ;
since it is not dravra from the words, but added to them. On
the other side, the Thoraists insist on the force of the words
themselves ; for if, they say, from the words be inferred that
there is a real presence of the substance of Christ's body, then it
follows thence, that there is no substance of the bread remaining;
for a substance cannot be where it was not before, but it must
either change its place, or another must be turned into it ; as

352 NO CATHOLIC TEADITION FOE
fire in a house must either be brought hither, or some other
thing must be turned into fire ; but, say they, the body of
Christ cannot be brought from heaven thither, for then it raust
leave the place it had there ; and must pass through all the
bodies between ; and it is impossible for the same body to be
locally present in several places ; and therefore the body of
Christ cannot othervrise be really and substantially present, but
by the conversion of the substance of the bread into it.
(2.) In what manner the body of Christ is made to be
present in the sacrament ? The Scotists say, it is irapossible
to conceive it otherwise than by bringing it from the place
where it already is ; the Thomists say that it is irapossible,
since that body raust be divided frora itself by so raany other
bodies interposing. The forraer is said to be an adductive
conversion, the latter a productive ; but then here lies another
difficulty, how there can be a productive conversion of a thing
already in being. But ray business is not to give an account
of these School disputes ; but to shew how different they were
from the point of transubstantiation ; and that both these
disputing parties did agree, that the modus of the real
presence was defined to be, by changing the substance of the
elements into the body and blood of Christ ; but they still
warraly disputed about the modus of that modus ,- viz. how a
body already in being could be present in so many places,
without leaving that place where it was already. And no man
who hath ever looked into these School disputes, can ever
imagine that they disputed about the truth of the doctrine of
transubstantiation, but only about the manner of explaining it.
Wherein they do effectually overthrow each other's notions,
without being able to establish their own ; as the Elector of
Cologne truly observed of their debates about this matter in the
Council of Trent,
VI, Where the sense of words hath been changed by the
introducing new doctrines, there the words ought to be under
stood according to the doctrine at that time received. Of this
we have two remarkable instances in the Council of Trent :
The first is about indulgences, which that Council, in its
last session, never went about to define : bnt made use of the
old word, and so declares both Scripture and antiquity for the
use of them. But there had been a mighty change in the
doctrine about thera, since the word was used in the Christian
Church, no doubt there was a power in the Church to relax
canonical penances in extraordinary cases ; but what could

TEADITIONS BEING A RULE OE FAITH, 353
that signify when the canonical discipline was laid aside, and a
new method of dealing with penitents was taken up, and
another trade driven vrith respect to purgatory pains ? For
here was a new thing carried on under an old name. And
that hath been the great artifice of the Roman Church ;
where it hath evidently gone off from the old doctrines, yet to
retain the old names, that the unwary might still think the
things were the same, because the names were. As in the pre
sent case, we deny not the use of indulgences in the Primitive
Church ; as the word was used for relaxations of the canonical
discipline ; but we utterly deny it as to the pains of purgatory.
And that this was the sense then received in the Church of
Rome, appears from the Papal Constitutions of Boniface VIII,,
Clemens VI,, and Leo X. But of these, more hereafter.
The other instance is in the word species, used by the
Council of Trent, sess, 3, can. 2, where "an anathema is
denounced against him that denies the conversion of the
whole substance of the elements into the body and blood of
Christ, the species of bread and wine only remaining."
Now a controversy hath been started in the Church of
Rome, what is to be understood by species, whether real acci
dents, or only appearances.
Some of the Church of Rome, who have had a taste of the
new philosophy, reject any real accidents, and yet declare
transubstantiation to be a matter of faith, and go about to
explain the notion of it in another manner. Among these,
one Emanuel Maignan,* a professor of divinity at Toulouse,
hath at large undertaken this matter. The methods he takes
is this :
(1.) He grants, that nothing remains of the bread after con
secration, but that whereby it was an object of sense ; because
that which is really the being of one thing, cannot be the being
of another. And he confesses that the modus, as to the
not being of the substance after consecration, is determined by
the Councils of Constance and Trent,
(2,) He asserts, that real accidents, supposing them separ-
, able from the substance, are not that whereby the elements
are made the objects of sense ; because they do not make the
conjunicton between the object and the faculty.
(3,) Since he denies that accidents have any real being dis
tinct from the substance they are in, he grants, that it is as
* Maignan Philosophia Sacra. Part. 2, Append, 5.
VOL. XI, 2 A

354 NO CATHOLIC TRADITION FOR
much a matter of faith, that there are no real accidents after •
consecration, as that there is no real substance ; and he brings
the authorities of the Councils of Lateran, Florence, and Trent
to prove it,
(4,) As the substance did by Dirine concourse so act upon
the senses before, as to make it be an object of sense ; so after
consecration, God, by his immediate act, makes the same
appearances, although the substance be gone. And this, he
saith, is the effect of this miraculous conversion, which is con
cealed from our senses, by God's immediate causing the very
same appearances, which carae before from the substance.
Which appearances, he saith, are the species mentioned by
the Council of Trent, and other elder Councils and Fathers,
Against this new hypothesis, a famous Jesuit, Theophilus
Raynaudus, opposed himself vrith great vehemency ; and
urged these arguments against it :
(1,) That it overthrows the very nature of a sacrament,
leaving no external risible sign ; but a perpetual illusion of
the senses, in such a manner, that the error of one cannot be
corrected by another.
(2.) That it overthrows the design of the sacrament, which
is to be true and proper food, " My flesh is meat indeed," &c.
John ri. Which, he saith, is to be understood of the sacra
ment, as well as of the body of Christ, and therefore cannot
agree vrith an iraaginary appearance.
(3.) It is not consistent vrith the accidents which befall the
sacraraental species, as " to be trod under foot, to be cast into
indecent places, to be devoured by brutes, to be putrified,"
&c. If the body of Christ vrithdraws, there must be some
thing beyond mere appearances.
(4.) He makes this doctrine to be heretical, because the
Council of Constance condemned it as an heretical proposition,
to affirm, " that in the eucharist, accidents do not remain
without their subject ;" and because the Council of Trent uses
the word species in the sense then generaUy received, and so
it signified the same vrith accidents. Which, saith he, far
ther appears, because the CouncU speaks of the species
remaining ; but if there be no real accidents, the species doth
not remain in the object ; but a new appearance is produced.
And it seems most reasonable to interpret the language of the
CouncU according to the general sense wherein the words were
understood at that time.
VII, What things were disputed and opposed by some in

TRADITIONS BEING A RULE OF FAITH. 355
the Council, without being censured for it, although they
were afterwards decreed by a major party, yet cannot be said
to have been there received by a catholic tradition. Because
matters of faith, which have been universally received in the
Church, can never be supposed to be contested in a Council
without censure ; but if it appears that there were heats and
warm debates among the parties in the Council itself, and
both think they speak the sense of the catholic Church ; then
we must either allow that there was then no known catholic
traditions about those matters, or that the divines of the
Church of Rome, assembled in Council, did not understand
what it was. And what happens to be decreed by a majority,
can never be concluded from thence to have been the tradition
before, because there was a different sense of others concerning
it. And since in a dirision, a single person may make a ma
jority, it will be very hard to believe, that he carries infalli
bility and catholic tradition along with him.
But I think it reasonable in the inquiry after catholic
tradition, to take notice of the different opinions in the Coun
cU ; and among the Schoolmen before it ; and not only to
observe, what was the sense of the Roman Church, but of the
Eastern Churches too ; and where the matter requires it, to go
through the several ages of the Church, up to the Apostolical
times : that I may effectually prove, that in the main points
in controversy between us, which are established by the Coun
cU of Trent, there cannot be produced any Catholic and
Apostolical Tradition for them.

There are two things designed by me in this treatise :
1 , To shew that there is no such thing as universal tradi
tion for the main points in controversy between us and the
Church of Rome, as they are determined by the Council of
Trent, 2. To give an account by what steps and degrees, and on
what occasions those doctrines and practices came into the
Church. But before I come to particulars, I shall lay down some
reasonable posiulata.
1 . That a Catholic Tradition must be universally received
among the sound members of the Catholic Church.
2, That the force of Tradition lies in the certainty of con
veyance of matters of faith from the Apostolical times. For
2 A 2

356 NO CATHOLIC TRADITION POR
no new doctrines being pretended to, there can be no matter
of faith in any age of the Church, but what was so in the pre
cedent, and so up to the Apostles' times,
3, That it is impossible to suppose the divmes of the Cathohc
Church to be ignorant, what was in their own time received
for Catholic Tradition. For, if it be so hard for others to
mistake it, it vriU be much more so for those whose business is
to inquire into, and to deliver matters of faith.
These things premised, I now enter upon the points them
selves ; and I begin with,
I. "Traditions being a rule of faith equal with Scriptures,
This is declared by the CouncU of Trent, as the groundwork
of their proceedings.
The words are, Sess, 4, " That the Council receives traditions,
both as to faith and manners,* either dehvered by Christ
himself with his own mouth, or dictated by the Holy Ghost,
and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continual succes
sion, vrith equal piety of affection and reverence, as the proofs
of holy Scripture,"
Where the Council first supposes there are such traditions
from Christ and the Holy Ghost, distinct from Scripture,
which relate to faith ; and then it declares equal respect and
veneration due to them. No one questions but the word of
Christ, and dictates of the Holy Ghost, deserve equal respect,
howsoever conveyed to us ; but the point is, whether there
was a cathohc tradition before this time for an unwritten
word, as a foundation of faith, together vrith the written word,
1 . It is therefore impertinent here to talk of a tradition
before the written word ; for our debate is concerning both
being joined together to make a perfect rule of faith : and yet
this is one of the common pleas on behalf of tradition,
2, It is hkevrise impertinent to talk of that tradition, whereby
we do receive the written word. For the Council first sup
poses the written word to be received and embraced as the
Word of God, before it mentions the unwritten word ; and
therefore it cannot be understood concerning that tradition
whereby we receive the Scriptures, And the Council affirms,
" that the truth of the Gospel is contained partly in books
that are written, and partly in unwritten traditions," By the
* Necnon traditiones ipsas, tum ad fidem tum ad mores pertinentes,
tanquam vel ore tenus a Christo vel a Spiritu sancto dictatas, et contiuua
successione in Ecclesia Catholica conservatas, pari pietatis affectu ac reve
rentia suscipit et veneratur, [Labbe, Concil, ut supra, p, 746,]

TRADITIONS BEING A RULE OF FAITH. 357
truth of the Scriptures they cannot mean the Scriptures being
the word of God, but that the word was contained partly in
Scripture, and partly in tradition ; and it is therefore imperti
nent to urge the tradition for Scripture to prove tradition to
be part of the rule of faith, as it is here ovraed by the Council
of Trent.
3. The Council doth not here speak of a traditionary sense
of Scripture, but of a distinct rule of faith from the Scripture,
For of that it speaks afterwardsrin the decree about the use
of Scripture ; where it saith, " No man ought to interpret
Scripture against the sense of the Church, to whom it belongs
to judge of the true sense and meaning of Scripture, nor
against the unanimous consent of the Fathers," Whereby it
b erident, the Council is not to be understood of any conse
quences drawn out of Scripture concerning things not expressly
contained in it ; but it clearly means an unwritten word dis
tinct from the written, and not contained in it ; which, together
vrith that, makes up a coraplete rule of faith. This being the
true sense of the CouncU, I shall now shew that there was no
cathohc tradition for it.
Which I shall prove by these steps :
1 . From the proceedings of the Council itself.
2. From the testimony of the divines of that Church before
the CouncU for several centuries.
' 3. Frora the canon law received and allowed in the Church
of Rorae.
' 4. From the ancient offices used in that Church.
5. From the testiraony of the Fathers.
1 . From the proceedings of the Council about this matter.
By the postulata it appears, that a catholic tradition is
such as must be known by the sound merabers of the Church,
and especially of the dirines in it. But it appears by the most
allowed histories of that Council, this rule of faith was not so
received there. For Cardinal Pallaricini tells us, that it was
warmly debated, and canvassed even by the bishops thera
selves. The Bishop of Fano (Bertanus) urged against it,* that
" God had not given equal firmness to tradition as he had
done to Scripture, since several traditions had failed." But
the Bishop of Bitonto (Mussus) opposed him, and said,
" though all truths were not to be equally regarded, yet every
word of God ought, and traditions, as weU as Scripture, were
* Hist, Concil, Trident, 1, 6, c, 14, n, 3, [vol, 1, p, 588, Antv, 1670,]

358 NO CATHOLIC TRADITION FOE
the word of God, and the first principles of faith ;" and the
greater part of the CouncU followed him. It seeras, then,
there was a division in the CouncU about it ; but how could
that be, if there were a catholic tradition about this rule of
faith? Could the bishops of the cathohc Church, when
assembled in Council to determine matters of faith, be no
better agreed about the rule of faith ; and yet must we believe
there was at that time a known catholic tradition about it,
and that it was impossible they should err about such a tradi
tion ? Nay, farther, the same author tells us, that although
this Bishop had gained the greatest part of the Council to him,
yet his own heart raisgave him, and in the next congregation
himself proposed, that instead of equal, it might be put a like
veneration; and yet we must believe there was a catholic
tradition for an equal veneration to Scripture and tradition.
But the Bishop of Chioza (Naclantus), he saith, "inveighed
more bitterly against this equality, and in the face of the
Council charged the doctrine vrith impiety ;"* and he would
not allow any Dirine inspiration to tradition, but that they
were to be considered only as laws of the Church, It is true,
he saith, he professed to consent to the decree afterwards, but
withal, he tells us, that he was brought under the inquisition
not long after, upon suspicion of heresy ; which shews they
were not well satisfied with his submission. We are extremely
beholden to Cardinal Pallaricini for his information in these
matters, which are passed over too jejunely by F, Paul,
2, I proceed to the testimony of the dirines of the Roman
Church before the Council of Trent, It is observed by some
of them, that when the Fathers appealed to the tradition of
the Church in any controverted point of faith, they made their
appeal to those who wrote before the controversy was started ;
as St, Augustinef did against the Pelagians, &c. This is a
reasonable method of proceeding, in case tradition be a rule of
faith : and therefore must be so even in this point, whether
tradition be such a rule or not. For the divines who wrote
before, could not be ignorant of the rule of faith they received
among themselves.
Gabriel Biel lived in the latter end of the fifteenth century,
and he affirms, J " that the Scripture alone teaches aU things
* N. 4. [Ibid, p, 589,] t Aug. 1. 2. u. Julian.
X Et CBetera nostrae saluti necessaria, qua; omnia sola docet sacra
Scriptura. Lection, in Canon. iWissae 71. [fol. cxlvi. p. 1. col. 2 Lugd.
1511.] ^

TEADITIONS BEING A RULE OP FAITH, 359
necessary to salvation ;" and he instances " in the things to be
done and to be avoided, to be loved and to be despised, to be
believed, and to be hoped for," And again :* "That the vrill
of God is to be understood by the Scriptures, and by them
alone we know the whole will of God," If the whole vrill of
God were to be known by the Scripture, how could part of it
be preserved in an unwritten tradition? And if this were
then part of the rule of faith, how could such a man, who was
Professor of Dirinity at Tubing, be ignorant of it ? I know
he saith he took the main of his book from the lectures of
Eggelingus, in the cathedral church at Mentz ; but this adds
greater strength to the argument, since it appears hereby, that
this doctrine was not confined to the Schools, but openly
delivered in one of the most famous churches in Germany,
Cajetan died not above twelve years before the Council, who
agrees with this doctrine of Biel or Eggehngus (and he was
accounted the oracle of his time for divinity), for he affirms,t
" that the Scripture gives such a perfection to a man of God
(or one that devoutly serves hira), that hereby he is accom
plished for every good work," How can this be, if there be
another rule of faith quite distinct from the written word ?
Bellarmine indeed grants,! "that all things which are
simply necessary to the salvation of aU, are plainly contained
in Scripture," by which he yields, "that the Scripture alone
is the rule of faith as to necessary points ;" and he calls the
Scripture, § "the certain and stable rule of faith, yea,|| the
most certain, and most secure rule,"^ If there be then any
other, it must be less certain, and about points not necessary
to salvation ; i. e. it must be a rule where there is no need of
* Haec autem in sacris Scripturis discuntur, per quas solas plenam
inteUigere possumns Dei voluntatem, ib,
t Ecce quo tendit utilitas diviuEe Scripturse ad perfectionem hominis Dei
(hoc est, qui totum seipsum Deo dat), perfectionem inquam talem ut sit
perfectus ad omne bonum exercendum. In 2, ad Tim, iii, 16,
J Dico iUa omnia Scripta esse ab Apostolis qua sunt omnibus neces -
saria, et quae ipsi palam omnibus vulgo prsedicaverunt. BeUarm, de Verbo
Dei, 1. 4, c, 11, [vol. 1, p, 124. col, 1, Prag. 1721.]
§ IUud imprimis statuendum erit, Propheticos et Apostolicos libros
juxta mentem Ecclesise CathoUcae verum esse verbum Dei, et certam ac
stabilem Regulam fidei. Id, 1, 1, c, 1, [Ibid, p, 1. col. 2,]
II At sacris Scripturis quae Propheticis et ApostoUs Uteris continentur,
nihil est notius, nihil certius. Id, c, 2, [Ibid, p, 2. col. 2,]
If Quare cum sacra Scriptura regula credendi certissima tutissimaque
sit, [Ibid, p, 3, col, 1.]

360 NO CATHOLIC TRADITION FOE
a rale. For if men's salvation be sufficiently prorided for
by the written rule, and the Divine revelation be in order to
men's salvation, what need any other revelation to the Church,
besides what is written ?
He asserts farther,* " that nothing is de fide, but what God
hath revealed to the Prophets and Apostles, or is deduced from
thence," This he brings to prove, "that whatsoever was received
as a raatter of faith in the Church, which is not found in
Scripture, must have come from an Apostohcal tradition,"
But if it be necessary to salvation, according to his own con
cession, it must be written ; and if it be not, how comes it to
be received as a matter of faith ? unless it be first proved, that
it is necessary to salvation to receive an unwritten rule of faith,
as well as a written : for, either it must be necessary on its
own account, and then he saith it must be written ; and if not,
then it can be no otherwise necessary than because it is to be
beheved on the account of a rule, which makes it necessary.
And consequently that rule must be first proved to be a neces
sary article of faith : which Bellarmine hath no where done ;
but only sets down rules about knovring tme Apostolical
traditions frora others in matters of faith, wherein he wisely
supposes that which he was to prove.
And the true occasion of setting up this new rule of faith,
is intimated by Bellarmine himself, in his first rule of judging
true Apostohcal traditions. Which is, "when the Church
believes any thing as a doctrine of faith, which is not in Scrip
ture, then," saith he, " we must judge it to be an Apostolical
tradition." Why so ? "Othervrise the Church must have
erred in taking that for a matter of faith which was not," And
this is the great secret about this new rule of faith ; they saw
plainly several things were imposed on the faith of Christians,
which could not be proved from Scripture ; and they must not
yield they had once mistaken, and therefore this new, addi
tional, less certain rule for unnecessary points raust be
advanced, although they wanted tradition among theraselves
to prove tradition a rule of faith ; which I shaU now farther
make appear, from their own School dirines, before the CouncU
of Trent,
We are to observe among them, what those are which they
strictly caU theological truths, and by them we shall judge,
what they made the rule of faith. For they do not make a
* L. 4. c. 9. [Ibid. p. 118. col. 1.]

TEADITIONS BEING A EULE OF FAITH, 361
bare revelation to any person a sufficient ground for faith ; but
they say,* "the revelation must be public, and designed for
the general benefit of the Church ;" and so Aquinas deter-
mines,t " that our faith rests only upon the revelations made
to the Prophets and Apostles ; and theological truths, are such
as are immediately deduced from the principles of faith," i. e.
from public Dirine revelations, owned and received by the
Church, The modern Schoolmen, J who follow the Council
of Trent, make " theological truths to be deduced from the
unwritten, as well as the written word ;" or else they would not
speak consonantly to their own doctrine. And therefore, if
those before them deduce theological truths only from the
written word, then it will follow, that they did not hold the
unwritten word to be a rule of faith,
Marsilius ab Inghen§ was first Professor of Divinity at
Heidelberg (at the latter end of the fifteenth century, saith
BeUarmine, but Trithemius saith the fourteenth), and he
deterraines, " that a theological proposition is that which is
positively asserted in Scripture, or deduced from thence by
good consequence ; and that a theological truth, strictly taken,
is the truth of an article of faith, or something express in the
Bible, or deduced from thence." He mentions Apostolical
traditions afterwards, and joins them with ecclesiastical
histories and martyrologies. So far was he from supposing
thera to be part of the rule of faith.
In the beginning of the fifteenth century, lived Petrus de
AUiaco,|| one as famous for his skill in divinity, as for his
dignity in the Church : he saith, " that theological discourse
is founded on Scripture, and a theological proof must be
drawn from thence ; that theological principles are the truths
contained in the canon of Scripture ; and conclusions are such
as are drawn out of what is contained in Scripture." So that
he not only makes the Scripture the foundation of faith, but
of all sorts of true reasoning about it. He knew nothing of
Cardinal Pallavicini's two first principles of faith.
* Et quantum ad ea quae piroponuntur omnibus credenda, quae pertinent
ad fidem, 2. 2. q. 171. prol. [vol. 23. p. 234. col. 1, Venet, 1787,]
t 1, q. 1. a, 5. [Ibid. vol. 20. p. 4, col. 1.]
X Melch, Can. 1. 12. c. 3. [p. 566. Colon. Agr. 1605.]
I Marsil, in, 4, Ub, Sentent. 1. 1, Prooem, q. 2. art. 2. [fol. 11. p, 2,
col. 1, 2. Argent. 1501.]
II Pet, de AlUaco in Sent. 1, 1. q. 1. a. 3, [fol. xlix. p. 2. col. 2. Par,
sine Anno,]

362 NO CATHOLIC TEADITION FOR
To the same purpose speaks Gregorius Ariminensis,* about
the raiddle of the fourteenth century ; he saith, " aU theologi
cal discourse is grounded on Scripture, and the consequences
from it ;" which he not only proves from testimony, but ex
communi omnium conceptione, from the general consent of
Christians, For, saith he, " aU are agreed, that then a thing is
proved theologically, when it is proved from the words of
Scripture," So that here we have plain tradition, against
traditions being a distinct rale of faith, and this delivered by
the general of an order in the Church of Rome, He affirms,
that the principles of theology are no other than the truths
contained in the canon of Scripture ; and that the resolution
of all theological discourse is into thera : and that there can
be no theological conclusion, but what is drawn from Scripture.
In the former part of that century lived Durandus,* he
gives a threefold sense of theology, " 1 , For a habit whereby
we assent to those things which are contained in Scripture, as
they are there dehvered, 2, For a habit whereby those things
are defended and declared, which are delivered in Scripture, f
3, For a habit of those things which are deduced out of ar
ticles of faith ; and so it is all one with the holy Scripture," J
And in another place he affirms, " that all truth is contained
in the holy Scripture at large ;|| but for the people's conve
niency, the necessary points are summed up in the Apostles'
Creed." In his preface before his book on the Sentences, he highly
comraends " the Scriptures for their dignity, their usefulness,
their certainty, their depth;" and after all, concludes, "that in
matters of faith, men ought to speak agreeably to the Scrip
tures ; and whosoever doth not, breaks the rule of the Srip-
tures," which he calls "the measure of our faith," What tradi
tion did appear then for another rule of faith in the fourteenth
century ?
But before I proceed higher, I shall shew the consent of
others vrith these school dirines in the last three centuries before
the Council of Trent, In the middle of the fifteenth, lived
Nicolaus Panormitanus, one of mighty reputation for his skUl
in the Canon Law. In the chapter Significasti primo. 1. de
Electione, debating the authority of Pope and Council, he
* Greg, Arimin. q. 1, a, 2,
t Durand, prol, q. 5, n, 9, [fol, u, p, 2. col, 1. Par. 1508.]
X A. 13. [Ibid.] § N. 21. [Ibid, col. 2,]
II L, 3, Dist, 25, q. 2. [Ibid, fol, ccxciii. p. 1. col. 1.]

TEADITIONS BEING A EULE OF FAITH, 363
isaith,* " if the Pope hath better reason, his authority is greater
than the Council's ; and if any private person in matters of
faith, hath better reason out of Scripture than the Pope, his
saying is to be preferred above the Pope's," Which words do
plainly shew, that the Scripture was then looked on as the
only rule of faith ; or else no man's grounding himself on
Scripture, could make his doctrine to be preferred before the
Pope's ; who might allege tradition against hira, and if that
were an equal rule of faith, the doctrine of one rule could not
be preferred before the other.
At the same tirae lived Tostatus, the famous bishop of
Avila, one of infinite industry and great judgment, and there-
ft)re could not be mistaken in the rule of faith. In his preface on
Genesis, he saith,f " that there must be a rule for our under
standings to be regulated by, and that rule must be most cer
tain : that Dirine faith is the most certain, and that is con
tained in Scripture, and therefore we must regulate our under
standings thereby." And this he makes to be the measure of
truth and falsehood. If he knew any other rule of faith be
sides the Scriptures, he would have mentioned it in this place;
and not have directed men only to them, as "the exact mea
sure of truth and falsehood."
In the beginning of this century, Thomas Walden (Con
fessor to our Henry V, saith Trithemius), disputed sharply
against Wickliffe ; but he durst not set up the Church's au
thority, or tradition, equal with the Scriptures. For when he
mentions tradition after Scriptures, he utterly " disclaims any
such thought as that of equality between them ;"J but he de
sires a due distance may be kept between canonical Scripture,
and ecclesiastical authority, or tradition. In the first place,
he saith, " we ought to believe the holy Scriptures ; then the
definitions and customs of the cathohc Church ;"§ but he
* Nam in concementibus fidem, etiam dictum unius privati esset prae-
ferendum dicto Papae, si ille moveretur melioribus rationibus novi et veteris
Testamenti quam Papa?,
t Cum ergo in omni veritate Veritas divina sit certior et immutabilior,
ergo omnes aUae debent regulari per illam, et in quantum conformantur
ilU, sunt verse ; in quantum autem deviant ab ilia, deviant a natura veri
tatis. Sacra autem Scriptura Veritas divina est, ideo judicium nostrum
debemus regulare per illam applicando ad earn, &c, Tostat. in Ep,
Hieron. c. 6. p, 28, D, [fol. 16. p, 2. col, 2. Venet. 1596.]
X Non quod in auctoritate aequantur, absit ; sed sequantur ; non
quidem in subsidium auctoritatis CanonicaB, sed in admouitionem poste-
rorum. 1. 2. Art. 2. u, 22. § C. 28,

364 NO CATHOLIC TEADITION FOE
more fully explains himself in another place, where he plainly
asserts,* "that nothing else is to be received by such faith as
the Scripture and Christ's symbolical Church; but for all
other authorities, the lowest degree is that of cathohc tradi
tion ; the next of the bishops, especially of the Apostohcal
Churches, and the Roman in the first place ; and above aU
these, he places that of a General Council ;" but when he hath
so done, he saith, " all these authorities are to be regarded but
as the instructions of elders, and admonitions of fathers," So
that the chief opposers of Wickliffe had not yet found out this
new rule of faith.
Much about the same time lived Job, Gerson,f whom Car
dinal Zabarella declared, in the CouncU of Constance, to be
the greatest divine of his time, and therefore could not be ig
norant of the true rule of faith. He agrees vrith Panormitan
in this, •' that if a man be well skilled in Scripture, his doctrme
deserves more to be regarded than the Pope's declaration; for,"
saith he, " the Gospel is more to be believed than the Pope, and
if such an one teaches a doctrine to be contained in Scripture,
which the Pope either knows not, or mistakes, it is plain whose
judgment is to be preferred." Nay, he goes farther, "that if in
a General Council, he finds the majority inchne to that part
which is contrary to Scripture, he is bound to oppose it," and
he instances in Hilary. And he shews, " that since the canon of
Scripture is received by the Church, no authority of the
Church is to be equalled to it."{ He allows a judgment of dis
cretion in private persons, and a certainty of the literal sense
of Scripture attainable thereby. He makes, § "the Scripture
the only standing infallible rule of faith for the whole Church
to the end of the world. And whatever doctrine is not agree
able thereto, is to be rejected either as heretical, suspicious, or
impertinent to religion," If the Council of Trent had gone by
this rule, we had never heard of the Creed of Pius IV,
In the beginning of the fourteenth century lived Nicolaus de
* C. 27.
t Joh. Gerson, Exam. Doctr. p. 540. [Par. 1606.] Part 1, Cons, 5.
X Cons. 6. [Ibid.]
§ Nihil audendum dicere de divinis, nisi quae nobis a sacra sci-iptura
tradita sunt. Cujus ratio est, quoniam scriptura nobis tradita est tan
quam regula sufiiciens et infalUbiUs, pro Regimine totius Ecclesiastici
corporis et membrorum usque in finem seculi. Est igitur talis Ars, taUs
regula, vel exemplar, cui se non conformans alia Doctrina, vel abjicienda
est ut haereticaUs, aut suspecta, aut impertinens ad Religionem prorsus est
habenda. Exam. Doctr. Part. 2. Consid, 1, [Ibid, p. 541.]

TEADITIONS BEING A EULE OP FAITH, 365
Lyra,* who parallels the Scriptures in matters of faith with
first principles in sciences ; for " as other tmths are tried in thera
by their reduction to first principles, so are matters of faith by
their reduction to canonical Scriptures, which are of Dirine
revelation, which is impossible to he false," If he had knovra
any other principles which would have made faith impossible
to be false, he would never have spoken thus of Scripture alone.
But to return to the school divines.
About the sarae time lived Joh, Duns Scotus,f the head of
a school, famous for subtlety ; he affirms, " "That the holy
Scripture doth sufficiently contain all matters necessary to sal
vation ; because by it we know what we are to beheve, hope for,
and practise," And after he hath enlarged upon thera, he
concludes in these words, Patet quod Scriptura sacra suffi-
cienter continet doctrinam necessariam viatori." If this be
understood only of points simply necessary, then however it
proves, that all such things necessary to salvation, are therein
contained ; and no man is bound to inquire after unnecessary
points. How then can it be necessary to embrace another rule
of faith, when all things necessary to salvation are sufficiently
contained in Scripture ?
But Thomas Aquinas is more express in this matter ; for he
saith, J " that those things which depend on the will of God,
and are above any desert of ours, can be known no otherwise by
us than as they are delivered in Scripture, by which the wUl of
God is made known to us,"
This is so remarkable a passage, that Suarez § could not let
it escape without corrupting it ; for instead of Scripture, he
makes him to speak of Dirine revelation in general, viz. under
"Scripture he comprehends all, that is, under the written word,
he means the unwritten." If he had meant so, he was able to
have expressed his own mind more plainly ; and Cajetan appre
hended no such meaning in his words. But this a matter of
so great consequence, that I shall prove from other passages in
him, that he asserted the same doctrine, viz. that the Scrip
ture was the only rule of faith,
1, He makes "no proofs of raatters of faith to be sufficient,}]
* Lyra, Praefat, ah lib. Tobiae.
t Scot, in Sentent. Prolog. Q. 2. n. 14. [p, 13, col. 2. Venet. 1597.]
X Ea enim quae ex sola Dei voluntate supra omne debitum Creaturae,
nobis innotescere non possunt, lusi quateuus in sacra Scriptura traduntur,
per quam Divina voluntas nobis innotescit, 3. q, 1, a, 3. in C, [ut supra,
vol, 24, p, 4. col, 2,]
« Suarez, in 3, p, 117. [vol, 16, p, 102, col, 1. Venet, 1745.]
y Authoritatibus autem Canonicse Scripturse utitur proprie ex necessi-

366 NO CATHOLIC TRADITION FOR
but such as are deduced frora Scripture ; and all other argu
ments from authority to be only probable ; nay, although such
persons had particular revelations," How can this be consistent
with another rule of faith distinct from Scripture ? For if he
had owned any such, he must have deduced necessary argu
ments from thence as well as frora canonical Scriptures, But
if all other authorities be only probable, then they cannot raake
anything necessary to be believed,
2, He affirms,* " that to those who receive the Scriptures,
we are to prove nothing but by the Scriptures, as matter of
faith." For by authorities, he means nothing but the Scrip
tures ; as appears by the forraer place, and by what follows,f
where he mentions the canon of Scripture expressly.
3. He asserts, J "That the articles of the Creed are all con
tained in Scripture, and are drawn out of Scripture, and put
together by the Church only for the ease of the people," From
hence it necessarily follows, that the reason of beliering the
articles of the Creed is to be taken from the written word, and
not frora any unwritten tradition. For else he needed not to
have been so careful to shew that they were all taken out of
Scripture, 4, He distinguisheth the matters of faith in Scripture :
" some to be believed for themselves," which he calls "prima
credibilia " these, he saith, § "every one is bound explicitly to
believe ; but for other things he is bound only implicitly, or in
tate argumentando ; autoritatibus autem aliorum Doctorum Ecclesiae,
quasi arguendo ex proprns sed probabUiter, Innititur enim fides nostra
Revelationi ApostoUs et Prophetis factisp, qui Canonicos libros scripserunt ;
non autem Revelationi si qua fuit aliis Doctoribus facta. 1. q. 1, a. 8. ad 2,
[ut supra, vol. 20. p. 6. col. 1.]
* Quae igitur fidei sunt, non sunt tentanda probari nisi per autoritates
his qui Autoritates suscipiunt. 1 q. 32. a. 1. u. [Ibid, p. 157. col. 1.]
t Si autem ad veritatem eloquiorum, sc. sacrorum respicit, hoc et nos
Canone utimur. Ib.
X Dicendum quod Veritas fidei in Sacra Scriptura diffuse continetur
— ideo fuit necessarium ut ex sententiis Sacrffi Scripturae aUquid mani-
festum aummarie colUgeretur, quod proponeretur omnibus ad credendum ;
quod quidem non est additum Sacrae Scripturae, sed potius ex Sacra
Scriptura sumptum. 2. 2. q. 1. a. 9. ad primum. [Ibid. vol. 22. p. 9.
col. 2.]
§ Quantum ad prima CredibiUa, quae sunt ArticuU fidei, tenetur homo
explicite credere, sicut et tenetur habere fidem. Quantum autem ad alia
credibilia non tenetur homo explicite credere, sed solum impUcite, vel in
praeparatione animi in quantum paratus est credere quicquid Scriptura
continet ; sed tunc solum hujusmodi tenetur explicite credere, quando hoc
ei constiterit in Doctrina fidei contineri. 2, 2, q. 2, a, 5, c, [Ibid, p, 15,
col, 1.]

TRADITIONS BEING A EULE OF FAITH, 367
a preparation of mind, to believe whatever is contained in Scrip
ture ; and then only is he bound to believe explicitly when it is
made clear to him, to be contained in the doctrine of faith,"
Which words must imply the Scripture to be the only rule of
faith ; for othervrise, implicit faith must relate to whatever is
proved to be an unwritten word.
From all this it appears, that Aquinas knew nothing of a
traditional rule of faith, although he lived after the Lateran
Council, A, D, 1215, being born about nine years after it.
And Bonaventure, who died the same year with him,
affirms,* " that nothing was to be said (about matters of faith),
but what is made clear out of the holy Scriptures,"
Not long after them, lived Henricus Gandavensis ; and he
delivers these things, which are very material to our purpose,
1 , " That the-f reason why we believe the guides of the
Church since the Apostles, who work no miracles, is, because
they preach nothing but what they have left in their most
certain writings, which are delivered down to us pure and
uncorrupt, by an universal consent of all that succeeded to our
times," Where we see he makes the Scriptures to be the only
certain rule, and that we are to judge of all other doctrines by
them, 2, " That truth is more certainly'preserved in Scripture than
in the Church ; J because that is fixed and immutable, and
men are variable, so that multitudes of them may depart from
the faith, either through error or malice ; but the true Church
will always remain in some righteous persons," How then can
tradition be a rule of faith equal with Scriptures, which
depends upon the testimony of persons who are so very
faUible ?
I might carry this way of testimony on higher still, as when
Richardus de St, Victore saith, in the thirteenth century,
* Et nihU nobis dicendum est, praeter ea quae nobis ex sacris eloqmis
clarent, Bonav. in 3, Sent. Dist. 1, Art, 2, q. 2,
t Quod autem credimus posterioribus circa quos non apparent -virtutes
divinae, hoc est, quia non praedicant alia qu^m quae ilU in scriptis certis-
simis reUnqu^runt, quae constat per medios in nullo faisse -ritiata ex con-
sensione concordi in eis omnium succedentium usque ad tempora nostra.
Hen. Gandav. Sum, Art. 9. q. 3. n. 13. 2.
X Quia Veritas ipsa in Scriptura immobiUter et impermutabiUter semper
custoditur. — In personis autem Ecclesiae mutabiUs est et variabUis, ut dis-
sentire fidei possit multitude iUorum, et vel per errorem, vel per malitiam
4 fide discedere licet ; semper Ecclesia in aliquibus justis stabit. Art, 8,
q, 1, n, 5,

368 NO CATHOLIC TRADITION FOE
" that every truth is suspected by him, which is not confirmed
by holy Scripture ;"* but mstead of that, I shaUnow proceed
to the Canon Law, as haring raore authority than particular
testimonies, 3, As to the Canon Law, collected by Gratian, I do not
insist upon its confirmation by Eugenius, but upon its universal
reception in the Church of Rome, And from thence I shall
eridently prove, that tradition was not allowed to be a rule of
faith equal with the Scriptures,
Bist. 9, c, 3, 4, 5, 7, S, 9, 10, [p, 15, 16. Colon, Munat,
1 670.] " The authority and infallibility of the holy Scripture is
asserted above all other writings whatsoever ; for all other
writings are to be examined, and men are to judge of them as
they see cause."
Now Bellarmine tells us,f " that the unwritten word is so
called, not that it always continues unwritten, but that it was
so by the first author of it," So that the unwritten word
doth not depend on mere oral tradition, according to him, but
it may be found in the writers of the Church ; J but the
Canon Law expressly excludes all other -writings, let them
contain what they vrill, from being admitted to any competi
tion with canonical Scripture ; and therefore, according to that,
no part of the rule of faith was contained in any other than
canonical Scriptures,
Bist. 37. c, Relatum. A man is supposed to "have an entire
and firm rule of faith in the Scriptures." §
Caus. 8. q. 1, c. Nee sufiieere.\\ " The Scriptures are said
to be the only rule both of faith and life,"
And the Gloss on the Canon Law there, owns the Scripture
to be the rule for matters of faith ; but very pleasantly
applies it to the clergy, and thinks images enough for the
laity. Caus. 24. q. 1, c, Non afiferamus. [Ibid, p, 849.] The
Scriptures are acknowledged to be the true balance ; and that
we are not so much to weigh what we find there, as to
* Suspecta est mihi omnis Veritas, quam non confirmat Scripturanim
Auctoritas. Rich, de S. Victore, De Praspar. Animi ad Contempt, Part,
1. c. 81. [p. 147. Venet. 1692.]
t De Verbo Dei, 1. 4. c. 2. [ut supra, p. 100. col. 2.] X C, 12.
§ Cum enim ex divinis Scripturis integram quis et firmam Regulam
veritatis susceperit. [p. 125. Colon. Munat. 1670.]
II Quibus sacris Uteris unica est credendi pariter et vivendi Regula prae. .
scripta. [Ibid. p. 519,]

TRADITIONS BEING A RULE OP FAITH. 369
own what we find there already weighed. Which must imply
the Scripture alone to be that measure we are to trust to,
Bist. 8, c, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, [Ibid, p. 13, 14,] It is there
said, " that custom must yield to truth andreason, when that is
discovered, and that for this reason, because Christ said, I am
truth, and not custom," Now, if tradition be an infallible rule
of faith, custom ought always to be presumed to have truth
and reason of its side. For, if we can once suppose a custom
to prevail in the Church against truth and reason, it is impos
sible that tradition should be infallible ; for what is that but
ancient custom ?
Caus. 11, q. 3. c. 101, Si is quiprceest. [Ibid, p, 584,]
" If any one commands what God hath forbidden, or forbids
what God hath commanded, he is to be accursed of all that
love God. And if he requires any thing besides the will of
God, or what God hath evidently required in Scripture, he is
to be looked on as a false vritness of God, and a sacrilegious
person," How can this be, if there be another infallible way
of conveying the will of God, besides the Scriptures ?
Caus. 24, q. 3. c. 30, c. Quid autem.* In matters of doubt
it is said, " that men are to fly to the written word for satisfac
tion, and that it is folly not to doit," It is true, men's own
fancies are opposed to Scripture, but against men's fancies no
other rule is mentioned, but that of the written word,
Joh. 22, Extravag. c. Quia quorundam. Tit. 14, makes his
appeal to Scripture in the controversy then on foot about use
and property ; Bicant nobis ubi legunt, ^c. and he shews,f
" that if it were a matter of faith, it must be contained in Scrip
ture, either expressly, or by deduction ; otherwise the Scripture
would be no certain rule ; and by consequence, the articles of
faith, which are proved by Scripture, would be rendered doubt
ful and uncertain,"
The Glosser there saith, " Whence comes this consequence?"
and refers to another place, where he makes it out thus;
"that faith can only be proved by the Scripture, and therefore
if the authority of that be destroyed, faith would be taken
* Sed in banc insipientiam cadunt, qui cum ad cognoscendam veritatem
ahquo impediuntur obscuro, non ad Propheticas voces, non ad Aposto-
licas Uteras, nee ad EvangeUcas auctoritates, sed ad seipsos recurrunt,
[Ibid, p, 871,]
t Nee quasi hoc sacra Scriptura contineat, quo negato tota Scriptura
sacra redditur dubia ; et per consequens articuli fidei, qui habent per
Scripturam sacram probari, redduntur dubii et incerti, [Ibid, p, 308.]
VOL. XI. 2 B

370 NO CATHOLIC TRADITION POR
away."* The Roman editors, for an antidote, refer to Cardinal
Turrecremata,f who doth indeed speak of cathohc tmths,
which are not to be found in the canon of Scripture ; and he
quotes a passage in the Canon Law for it, under the name of
Alex. 3. c. cum Marthce. \_Marte'] Extrav. de Celebr. Missce.
but in truth it is Innoc. 3. Becretal. I. 3, Tit. 41; and yet
this will not prove what he aims at : for the question was
about the author of the words added in the Eucharist to those
of Christ's institution ; and he pleads that many of Christ's
words and actions are omitted by the Evangelists, which the
Apostles afterwards set down ; and he instances in St, Paul, as
to those words of Christ, "It is more blessed to give than to
receive ;" and elsewhere. But what is all this to catholic
truths not being contained in Scripture, either in words, or by
consequence ? The Cardinal was here very much to seek, when
he had nothing but such a testimony as this to produce in so
weighty and so new a doctrine. The best argument he pro
duces,! ^s ^ horrible blunder of Gratian' s, where St, Augustine
seems to reckon the Decretal Epistles equal with the Scriptures,
Bist. 1 9 . c, in Canonicis ; which the Roman correctors were
ashamed of, and confess that St. Augustine speaks only of
Canonical Epistles in Scripture. So hard must they strain,
who among Christians would set up any other rule equal vrith
the written word.
4 . I proceed to prove this from the ancient Offices of the
Roman Church,
In the Office produced by Morinus,§ out of the Vatican MS,
which he saith was very ancient ; the Bishop, before his con
secration, was asked, " if he would accommodate all his pru
dence to the best of his skill, to the sense of holy Scripture ?"
"Resp. Yes, I vrill with all my heart consent, and obey it in
all things,
"Inter. Wilt thou teach the people by word and example,
the things which thouleamest out of holy Scriptures?
"Resp.lvAW."
And then immediately follows the examen about manners.
In another old Office of St, Victor's, || there are the sarae
questions in the sarae manner,
* Extrav. Joh. 22. Cum inter Gloss, per consequens,
t Turrecrem, de Ecclesia, 1. 4. Part. 2. c. 9. [fol. 382. p. 1. Venet,
1561.] X Turrecrem. 1. 2. c. 18. [c. 108.] [Ibid, fol, 251, p, 2,1
§ Morin, de Ordinat. Sacris, p. 275. [Par, 1655,]
II Morin, [Ibid.] p. 333.

TRADITIONS BEING A EULE OF FAITH, 371
And so in another of the Church of Rouen, lately produced
by Mabillon,* which he saith, was about William the Con-
iqueror's time, there is not a word about traditions ; which
crept into the Ordo Romanus, and from thence hath been
continued in the Roman Pontificals, But it is observable tbat
the Ordo Romanus owns that the examen was originally
taken out of the GaUican Offices (although it does not appear
in those imperfect ones, lately pubhshed at Rome by Thoma-
sius) and therefore we may justly suspect that the additional
questions about traditions, were the Roman interpolations, after
it came to be used in that Pontifical.
And the first Office in Morinus, was the tme ancient Gal-
Ucan Office. But if tradition had been then owned as a rule
of faith, it ought no more to have been omitted in the ancient
offices, than in the modern.
And the ancient writers about ecclesiastical Offices, speak
very agreeably to the most ancient Offices about this matter,
Amalariusf saith, " the Gospel is the fountain of wisdom ;
and that the preachers ought to prove the evangelical truth
out of the sacred books." Isidore : J " that we ought to think
nothing (as to matters of faith) but what is contained in the
two Testaments." Rabanus Maurus :§ " that the knowledge
of the Scriptures, is the foundation and perfection of pru
dence. That truth and wisdom are to be tried by them ; and
the perfect instruction of life is contained in them," Our
Venerable Bedejj agrees vrith them, when he saith, " that the
true teachers take out of the Scriptures of the Old and New
Testament, that which they preach : and therefore have
their minds employed, in finding out the true meaning of
them," 5, I now come to the Fathers,^ wherein I ara in great mea
sure prevented by a late discourse, wherein it is at large shewed,
that the Fathers made use of no other rule but the Scrip
tures, for deciding controversies ; therefore I shall take
another method, which is to shew, that those who do speak
* MabiUon Analect, to, 2, p, 468, [Par, 1675,]
t Amalarius de OflBciis, 1, 3, c, 5, [Apud Hittorp, De Divin, Cath-
Eccles, Officiis, p, 401. Par. 1610.1
X Isidor. de Offic. 1. 2. c 23. [p. 410. col. 2. Colon. Agr. 1617,
% Rab. Maur, de Inst. Cler, 1, 3, u, 2. [Apud Hittorp, ut supra, p,
628.] 1. 2. c, 53, [Ibid, p. 617,]
II Bed, in Cant, 1, 5, [vol. 4. p. 785, Colon. Agr. 1612.] De Taherna-
culo, 1, 1, c, 6, f Vindic. of the Answ. to some late Papers.
2 B 2

372 NO CATHOLIC TRADITION FOR
most advantageously of tradition, did not intend to set up
another rule of faith distinct from Scripture,
And here I shall pass over all those testimonies of Fathers
which speak either of tradition before the canon of Scripture,
or to those who did not receive it, or of the tradition of Scrip
ture itself, or of some rites and customs of the Church, as
wholly impertinent. And when these are cut off, there re
main scarce any to be considered, besides that of Vincentius
Lerinensis, and one testimony of St, BasU,
I begin with Vincentius Lerinensis, who by some is thought
so great a favourer of tradition ; but he saith not a word of it
as a rule of faith distinct from Scripture ; for he asserts the
"canon of Scripture to be sufficient of itself for all things,"*
How can that be, if tradition be a rule of faith distinct from it ?
He makes, indeed, catholic tradition the best interpreter of"
Scripture ; and we have no reason to decline it in the points in
dispute between us, if Vincentius's rules be followed,
1 , If antiquity, universality, and consent be joined,
2, If the difference be observed between old errors aud new
ones. For, saith he,t when they have had length of time,
truth is more easily concealed by those who are concerned to
suppress it. And in those cases we have no other way to deal
with them, but by Scripture and ancient Councils. And this is
the rule we profess to hold to.
But to suppose any one part of the Church to assume to
itself the title of Catholic, and then to determine what is to be
held for catholic tradition by all members of the Cathohc
Church, is a thing in itself unreasonable, and leaves that part
under an impossibility of being reclaimed. For in case the
corrupt be judge, we may be sure no corruptions will be ever
owned. Vincentius grantsj that Arianism had once extremely
the advantage in point of universahty, and had many Councils
of its side ; if now the prevailing party be to judge of cathohc
tradition, and all are bound to submit to its decrees without
farther examination, as the author§ of the Guide in Contro
versies saith upon these rules of Vincentius ; then, I say, all
men were then bound to declare themselves Arians, For if " the
guides of the present Church are to be trusted and relied upon
for the doctrine of the Apostolical Church do-wnwards ;" how
* Commonit, 1. c. 2. Cum sit perfectus Scripturarum Canon, sibique ad
omnia satis superque sufiiciat,
+ C. 39. t C. 6. § Of the Necessity of Church Guides, p, 201

TRADITIONS BEING A RULE OF FAITH, 373
was it possible for any members of the Church then to oppose
Arianism, and to reform the Church after its prevalency ? To
say " it was condemned by a former Council,"* doth by no
means clear the difficulty; for the present guides must be
trusted, whether they were rightly condemned or not ; and
nothing can be more certain, than that they would be sure to
condemn those who condemned them. But Vincentius saith,
" Every true lover of Christ preferred the ancient faith, before
the novel betraying of it ;" but then he must choose this an
cient faith against the judgment of the present guides of the
Church, And therefore that, according to Vincentius, can
be no infallible rule of faith.
But whether the present universality dissents from antiquity,
whose judgraent should be sooner taken than its ovra ? saith the
same author. This had been an excellent argument in the
mouth of Ursacius, or Valens, at the Council of Ariminum ;
and I do not see what answer the Guide in Controversies could
have made. But both are parties, and is not the Council's
judgment to be taken rather than a few opposers ? So that, for
all that I can find by these principles, Arianism having the
greater number, had hard luck not to be established as the
Cathohc faith. But if in that case, particular persons were to
judge between the new and the old faith, then the same reason
will still hold, unless the guides of the Church have obtained a
new patent of infallibility since that time.
The great question among us, is, where the true ancient
faith is ; and how we may come to find it out ? We are wUling
tp follow the ancient rules in this matter. The Scripture is
allowed to be an infallible rule on all hands ; and I am proving
that tradition was not allowed in the ancient Church, as dis
tinct frora it. But the present question is, how far tradition is to
be allowed in giving the sense of Scripture between us. Vincen
tius saith, " We ought to follow it when there is antiquity,
universality, and consent :" this we are vrilling to be tried by.
But here coraes another question, who is to be judge of these ?
"The present guides of the Catholic Church?" To what pur
pose then are all those rules ? Will they condemn theraselves
Or, as the Guide admirably saith, f " If the present universality
be its own judge, when can we think it will witness its depar
ture from the true faith?" And if it vrill not, what a case is
the Church in, under such a pretended universality ?
* P, 199, t P- 193-

374 NO CATHOLIC TRADITION FOE
The utmost use I can suppose then, Vincentius's mle
can be of to us now, is in that case which he puts, when cor
raptions and errors have had time to take root and fasten
themselves ; and that is, "by an appeal to Scripture and ancient
CouncUs," But because of the charge of innovation upon us,
we are content to be tried by his second rule, " By the consent
of the Fathers of greatest reputation, who are agreed on all
hands to have lived and died in the communion of the cathohc
Church : and what they delivered freely, constantly and unani
mously, let that be taken for the undoubted and certain mle in
judging between us," But if the present guides must come in
to be judges here again, then all our labour is lost, and Vincen
tius's rules signify just nothing.
The testimony of St, BasU is, by Mr. White, magnified
above the rest,* and that out of his book de Spiritu Sancto,
above all others, to prove that the certainty of faith depends on
tradition ; and not merely on Scripture. The force of it is
said to lie in this, " that the practice of the Church, in saying,
-srith the Holy Spirit, though not found in Scripture, is to de
termine the sense of the article of faith about the dirinity of
the Holy Ghost." But to clear this place, we are to observe,
1. That St. Basil doth not insist on tradition for the proof
of this article of faith, for he expressly disowns it in that book:
"It is not enough," saith he, f "thatwe have it by tradition
frora our Fathers ; for our Fathers had it from the will of God
in Scripture, as appears by those testimonies I have set down
already, which they took for their foundations." Nothing can
be plainer, than that St. Basil made Scripture alone the
foundation of faith as to this point. And no one, upon all
occasions, speaks more expressly than he doth, as to the suffi
ciency of Scripture for a rule of faith ; J and he was too great,
and too vrise a man to contradict himself.
2. That there were different forms of speech used in the
Church concerning the Holy Ghost, § some taken out of Scrip
ture, and others received by tradition from the Fathers, fl
• Tabulae Suifragial, p. 54,
t 'AXX' ov tovto tip,iv kKapKei, 'on rSiv Trarkpoiv r/ TrapaSoaig,
KUKeXvoL ydp Tip j3ovXi']p.aTi rijg ypa<prjg ^KoXovSrijaav, Ik tHiv p,apTV-
pidv, Hg piKp(p irpoadev -vfiXv ek Trjg ypatprjg TrapeSrkne^a, rag dp-
Xdg Xajiovreg. De Sp, Sancto, c. 7. [vol. 3. p. 18, Par, 1839,]
} De Vera Fide, p, 386. A, C, p, 391, C,
§ Ascet. Reg, 26, Reg. 80. c, 22.
II De Sp. .Sanct. c. 9.- [Ibid. vol. 3. p. 25, 26.]

TEADITIONS BEING A RULE OP FAITH. 375
When he proves the divinity of the Holy Ghost, he appeals to
Scripture, and declares, that he would neither think nor speak
othervrise than he found there.* But it was objected, that the
form St. Basil used was not found in Scripture ;f he answers^
that the equivalent is there found ; and that there were sorae
things received by tradition, which had the same force towards
piety. And if we take away all unwritten customs, we shall
do wrong to the Gospel, and leave a bare name to the public
Jjreaching. And frora thence he insists on some traditionary
rites, as the sign of the cross, praying towards the east, &c.
His business is to shew, that to the greater solemnity of Chris
tian worship, several customs were observed in the Church,
which are not to be found in Scripture. And if other ancient
custoras were received, which are not commanded in Scripture, J
he sees no reason that they should find such fault vrith this.
And this is the whole force of St. Basil's reasoning, which can
never be stretched to the setting up tradition as a rule of faith
distinct from Scripture.
Having thus shewed that there was no catholic tradition for
this new rule of faith, I am now to give an account how it came
into the Church.
The first step that was made towards it, was by the second
CouncU of Nice. For, although the Emperor, in the synodical
Epistle, proposed to them the true ancient method of judging
the Councils, " by the books of Scripture placed on a throne in
the middle of the Council :" yet they found, they could by no
means do their business that way ; and therefore, as BeUar
mine observes, they set up tradition in the sixth and seventh
sessions, and pronounced anathemas against those who rejected
unwritten traditions. But although there were then almost
as little pretence for tradition, as Scripture, in the matter of
images ;§ yet there having been a practice among them, to set
up and to worship images (which Richerius thinks came first
into the Church, from the reverence shewed to the Emperor's
statues), they thought this the securest way to advance that
which they could never defend by Scripture.
But this prevailed very little in the Western Church, as is
well known by the rejection of that synod ; however. Pope
Hadrian joined with them, and produced a wretched tradition
* C. 10. [Ibid. p. 28.] t C, 21. [Ibid. p. 60,]
X C. 29, [Ibid, p, 83,]
§ Richer, Hist, Cone, General, 1, l,c, 11, n, 13.

376 NO CATHOLIC TRADITION POR
about Sylvester and Constantine, to justify their proceedings ;
as appears by the acts of that CouncU, And from the time
that images were received at Rome, the force of tradition was
magnified ; and by degrees, it came to be made use of to justify
other practices, for which they had nothing else to plead.
Hitherto tradition was made use of for matters of practice,
and the Scripture was generally received as the rule of faith ;
but sorae of the Schoolraen found it irapossible to defend some
doctrines held in the Church of Rome by mere Scripture, and
therefore they were forced to call in the help of tradition. The
most remarkable of these was Scotus, who, although in his
prologue he asserted, as is said already, " that the Scripture
did sufficiently contain all things necessary to salvation ;" yet
when he came to particular points, he found Scripture alone
would never do their business. And especiaUy as to the
sacraments of the Church, about which, he saw the Church of
Rome then held many things which could never be proved
from thence,* And this was the true occasion of traditions
being taken in for a partial rale.
For after the Council of Lateran had declared several things
to be of faith, which were in no former Creeds, as Scotus con-
fesses,f and they were bound to defend them as points of
faith, the men of vrit and subtlety, such as Scotus was, were
very hard put to it, to find out ways to prove those to have
been old points of faith, which they knew to be very new.
Then they betook themselves to two things, which would serve
for a colour to blind the common people ; and those were,
1 , That it was true, these things were not in Scripture ; but
Chiist said to his disciples, " I have many things to say unto
you," &c, and among those many things, they were to believe
these new doctrines to be some,
2, When this would not serve, then they told them, though
these doctrines were not explicitly in Scripture, yet they were
implicitly there ; and the Church had authority to fetch them
out of those dark places, and to set them in a better hght.
And thus Scotus helped himself out in that dark point of
transubstantiation,! First, he attempts to make it out by
tradition ; but finding that would not do the business effec
tually, he runs to the authority of the Church, especially in
the business of sacraments, and " we are to suppose," saith he,
* Scot. in. 1, 1, Sent, Dist, 11. f L, 4, Dist, 11. n, 15,
X N. 13.

TEADITIONS BEING A RULE OF FAITH, 377
" that the Church doth expound the Scriptures vrith the sarae
Spirit which indited them," This was a brave supposition
indeed, but he offers no proof of it.
If we allow Scotus to have been the introducer of tradition,
as to some points of faith, yet I have made it appear, that his
doctrine was not received in the schools. But after the
CouncU of Constance had declared several propositions to be
heretical, which could not be condemned by Scripture, there
was found a necessity of holding, that there were catholic
truths not contained in Scripture, The first proposition there
condemned was, " That the substance of bread and wine
remains in the sacrament of the altar :" the second, " That
the accidents do not remain vrithout their subject:" now how
could such as these be condemned by Scripture ? But although
only some were said to be heretical, yet all were said to be
against catholic truth. But where is this catholic truth to be
found? Cardinal Cusanus thought of a current sense of
Scripture,* according to the Church's occasions ; so that
though the Church's practice should be directly contrary, yet
the Scripture was to be understood as the Church practised.
This was a very plain and effectual way, if it had not been too
gross ; and therefore it was thought much better by Cardinal
Turrecremata, to found catholic verities on unwritten tradition,
as well as on Scripture.
After this, Leo X. in his famous bull against Luther,
Exurge Bomine, made a farther step ; for the 22nd proposition
condemned therein, is, " That it is certain that it is not in the
power of the Church or Pope to appoint new articles of faith."
It seems then the Pope or Church have a power to constitute
new articles of faith ; and then neither Scripture nor tradition
can be the certain rule of faith, but the present Church or
Pope. This had put an end to the business, if it would have taken;
but the world being vriser, and the errors and corruptions com
plained of not being to be defended by Scripture, tradition
was pitched upon as a secure way ; and accordingly several
atterapts were made towards the setting of it up, by some
prorincial Councils, before that of Trent. So in the CouncU
of Sens, 1527, can. 53, it is declared to be a pernicious error
* Scripturas esse ad tempus adaptatas et varie inteUectas, it^ ut uno
tempore secundum currentem universalem ritum exponerentur, mutate
ritu iterum sententia mutaretui. Cusan. ad Bohem, Epist, 2, [p, 833.
Basil, 1565,]

378 NO CATHOLIC TRADITION FOR THE
to receive nothing but what is deduced from Scripture, because
Christ delivered many things to his Apostles which were
never written. But not one thing is alleged as a matter of
faith so conveyed ; but only some rites about sacraments and
prayer ; and yet he is declared a heretic as well as schismatic,
who rejects thera. Indeed, the Apostles' Creed is mentioned,
but not as to the articles contained in it, but as to the authors
of it. But what is there in all this, that makes a man guilty
of heresy? Jod, Clicthoveus, a doctor of Paris, the next year wrote an
exphcation and defence of this Council, but he mistakes the
point ; for he runs upon it as if it were, " whether all things to
be believed and observed in the Church, were to be expressly
set down in Scripture?" whereas a just consequence out of it is
sufficient. And the greatest strength of what he saith to the
purpose, is, " that the other opinion was condemned in the
Council of Constance."
And from no better a tradition than this, did the Council of
Trent declare " the unvrritten word to be a rule of faith equal
with the Scriptures."
II. About the Canon of Scripture, defined by the Council
of Trent.
This is declared by the Council of Trent, Sess. 4, and
therein the books of Tobias, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon,
Ecclesiasticus, Maccabees and Baruch are received for canonical,
with the twenty-two Books in the Hebrew canon, and an ana
thema is denounced against those who do not. And presently
he adds, " that hereby the world might see what authorities the
CouncU proceeded on for confirming matters of faith, as
well as reforming manners,"
Now to shew that there was no catholic tradition for the
ground of this decree, we are to observe,
1 , That these canonical books are not so called in a large
sense for such as have been used or read in the Church ; but
in the strict sense for such as are a good foundation to buUd
matters of faith upon,
2, That these books were not so received by all, even in the
Council of Trent, For what is received by -rirtue of a catholic
tradition, must be universally received by the members of it.
But that so it was not, appears by the account given by both
the historians,* F. Paul saith, "that in the congregation
* Hist, of the Council of Trent, 1, 2, p, 154, [p, 144. Lond, 1676.]

COUNCIL OF Trent's canon of sceiptuee, 379
there were two different opinions of those who were for a par
ticular catalogue ; one was to distinguish the books into three
parts, the other to make all the books of equal authority ; and
that this latter was carried by the greater nuraber," Now if
this were a catholic tradition, how was it possible for the
Fathers of the Council to divide about it ? And Cardinal
PaUavicini himself saith,* "that Bertanus and Seripandus
propounded the putting the books into several classes, some to
be read for piety, and others to confirra doctrines of faith ; and
that Cardinal Seripando wrote a most learned book to that
purpose," What ! against a catholic tradition ? It seems, he
was far from believing it to be so. And he confesses,-]- " that
when they came to the anathema, the legates and twenty
Fathers were for it ; Madrucci and fourteen were against it,
because some Catholics were of another opinion," Then
certainly, they knew no catholic tradition for it.
Among these. Cardinal Cajetan is mentioned, "who was,"
saith Pallavicini, " severely rebuked for it by Melchior Canus ;"
but what is that to the tradition of the Church ? Canus doth
indeed appeal to the CouncU of Carthage, J Innocentius I,, and
the Council of Florence ; but this doth not make up a catholic
tradition against Cajetan ;§ who declares that he follows St.
Jerome, who cast those books out of the canon, vrith respect
to faith. And he answers the arguments brought on the
other side, by this distinction, that they are canonical for
edification, but not for faith, || If therefore Canus would have
confuted Cajetan, he ought to have proved that they were
owned for canonical in the latter sense. Cajetan, in his
epistle to Clement VII. before the historical books, owns the
great obligation of the Church to St. Jerome, for distinguishing
canonical atid apocryphal books ; and saith, " that he hath
freed it from the reproach of the Jews, who said the Christians
made canonical books of the Old Testament, which they knew
nothing of," And this was an argument of great consequence ;
but Canus takes no notice of it, and it fully answers his
objection, " that men could not know what books were truly
canonical, viz. such as were of Dirine inspiration, and so re
ceived by the Jews," Catharinus saith, in answer to Cajetan,^
* Ibid. 1, 6, c. 11, p, 4, [n, 4.] [voL 1, p, 573, Antv, 1670,]
t P. 8, [n, 8.] [Ibid, p, 575.]
X Can. Loc, Theol, 1, 2, c. 11, [p, 69, Colon, Agr. 1605,]
^ Cajet. in Eccles. fine. || Ad Esther, c, 10, ad fin,
"I Annot, in Cajet. L 1. p. 37. [Par. 1535.]

380 NO CATHOLIC TEADITION FOE THE
" that the Jews had one canon, and the Church another,"
But how comes the canon to be received as of Divine inspi- ¦
ration, which was not so received among the Jews ? This
were to resolve all into the Church's inspiration, and not into
tradition, Bellarmine grants,* " that the Church can by no means
make a book canonical which is not so, but only declare what
is canonical ; and that, not at pleasure, but from ancient
testimonies, from similitude of style with books uncontro-
verted, and the general sense and taste of Christian people."
Now the case here relates to books not first written to Christians,
but araong the Jews, from whom we receive the oracles of
God committed to them. And if the Jews never believed
these books to contain the oracles of God in them, how can
the Christian Church embrace them for such, unless it assumes
a power to make, and not merely to declare canonical books ?
For he grants we have no testimony of the Jews for thera.
But Catharinus himself cannot deny that St, Jerome saith,
" that although the Church reads those books, yet it doth not
receive them for canonical Scriptures," And he makes a
pitiful answer to it. For he confesses, "that the Church
taken for the body of the faithful, did not receive them ; but
as taken for the governors, it did," But others grant that
they did receive them no more than the people ;f and as to
the other, the cause of tradition is plainly given up. And in
truth, he resolves all at last into the opinion of the Popes
Innocentius, Gelasius, and Eugenius IV, But we are obhged
to hira for letting us know the secret of so much zeal for these
apocryphal books, J viz. " that they are of great force against
the heretics ; for purgatory is no where so expressly mentioned,
as in the Maccabees," If it had not been for this, St, Jerome
and Cajetan might have escaped censure, and the Jevrish
canon had been sufficient.
But to shew, that there hath been no catholic tradition
about the Tridentine Canon, I shaU prove these two things :
1 . That there hath been a constant tradition against it in the
Eastern Church,
2, That there never was a constant tradition for it in the
Western Church,
1 , That there hath been a constant tradition against it in the
* De Verb, Dei, 1, 1, c. 11. [c. 10.] [vol. I, p, 19. col, 2, Prag, 1721,]
t Jul. Ruger. de Libris Canonicis, p, 80. X P. 41.

COUNCIL OF TEENT S CANON OF SCEIPTUEE. 381
Eastern Church, which received the Jewish canon, without the
books declared canonical by the Council of Trent. We have
very early eridence of this, in the testimony of Melito, bishop
of Sardis, who lived not long after the middle of the second
century, and made it his business to inquire into this matter, and
he delivers but twenty-two books of the Old Testament. The
same is done by Origen in the next, who took infinite pains, as
Eusebius* saith, in searching after the copies of the Old Tes
tament. And these testimonies are preserved by Eusebiusf in
the following century ; and himself declares, " that there was
no sacred book among the Jews from the time of Zerubbabel ;" J
which cuts off the books canonized by the Council of Trent.
In the same age we have the testimonies of Athanasius, § St.
Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, St, Basil, St, Gregory Nazian
zen, Amphilochius, and St, Chrysostom, It is not to be ima
gined that a tradition should be hetter attested in one age than
this was, by so considerable men in different Churches, who
gave in the testimony of all those Churches they belonged to.
And yet besides these we have in that age a concurrent testi
mony of a Council of bishops at Laodicea, || from several pro-
rinces of Asia ; and which is yet more, this canon of theirs
was received into the code of the cathohc Church ; and so
owned by the Council of Chalcedon, which, by its first canon,
gives authority to it. And Justinian allows the force of laws
to the canons which were either made or confirmed by the four
General Councils, But it is the point of tradition I am upon ;
and therefore Justinian's Novel^may at least be a strong evi
dence of that in the sixth century. In the seventh, Leontius**
gives his ovra testimony, and that of Theodoras, In the
eighth, Damascen expressly owns the Hebrew canon of twenty-
* Euseb, 1, 4, u, 25, 1, 6, c. 25. [p. 225, 226, Par, 1659,] Phi-
local, c. 3.
t Euseb, Demonstr, 1. 8. p, 368, [Colon, 1688,]
X Chronic, Gr, p, 172,
§ Athanas, Ep. 39. [vol. 2. p. 44. Heidelb. 1600,] Cyril. Catech. 4,
[p, 69, Venet, 1763.] Epiph, de Mensuris et Ponder. [voL 2.p. 161, 162.
Colon. 1 682.] Basil, in Origen, Philocal, Greg, Nazianzen, in Carm,
Amph. in Canon. Ep. apud Balsam. St. Chrysost. in Gen. hom. 4. [vol, 4,
p. 32. Par, 1837.]
II Cone. Laodicen, c, 59, [Labbe, Concil, vol, 1, p, 1515, Lut,
Par, 1674,]
1 Novel, 131. .
*• Leont, de Sectis Act. 2, Damascen, de Fide, 1. 4. c, 18, [c. 17,]
[vol. 1, p, 283. Par. 1712.]

382 NO CATHOLIC TEADITION FOE THE
two books, and excludes by narae some of the books made cano
nical at Trent, In the ninth, we have the testiraony of Nice-
phorus,* patriarch of Constantinople, if he be the author of
the Laterculus, at the end of his Chronography ; but if he be
not, he must be an author of that age, being translated by
Anastasius Bibliothecarius,f In the twelfth, Balsaraon and
Zonaras refer to the Council of Laodicea, and the Greek Fathers,
In the fourteenth, Nicephorus Callistus reckons but twenty-two
books of the Old Testaraent. And in this age, we have the clear
testiraony of Metrophanes (afterwards patriarch of Alexandria),
who saith, " there are but twenty-two canonical books of the
Old Testament ; but the rest," i. e. Tobit, Judith, Wisdom,
Ecclesiasticus, Baruch and Maccabees are useful, and therefore
not wholly to be rejected, but the Church never received them
for canonical and authentical, as appears by many testimonies,
as, among others, of Gregory the Divine, Amphilochius and
Damascen ; and therefore we never prove matters of faith out
of them.
2. Let us now compare this tradition with that of the
Western Church, for the new canon of Trent, It cannot be
denied, that Innocentius I, and Gelasius, did enlarge the
canon, and took in the Apocryphal books (unless we call in
question the writings under their names) ; hut granting them
genuine, I shall shew that there is no comparison between
this tradition, and that of the Eastern Church, and therefore
there could be no possible reason for the Council of Trent to
make a decree for this tradition, and to anathematize all who
did not submit to it. For,
1 , This tradition was not universally received at that time,
Innocentius's epistle is supposed to be written a,d. 405, Was
the Western Church agreed before or after about this matter ?
This epistle was written to Exuperius, a GaUican bishop (to
whom St. Jerome dedicated his commentaries on_ Zechariah);
but now it unluckily falls out, that the tradition' of the Gal
ilean Church was contrary to this ; as appears by St, HUary*
(who could not be ignorant of it, being a famous bishop of that
Church), and he tells us, "there were but twenty-two canoni
cal books of the Old Testament." I confess, he saith, "some
were for adding Tobit and Judith ;" but it is very observable,
-* Niceph. Chronogr. p. 419,
t Anastas. Hist. p. 189, Not. in Can. 27. Carthag. Niceph. in Epigram.
Metroph. Confess, c. 7. p. 82. PhU. Cyprii Chronic. Eccles. Gra-c. p. 459.
X Hilar. Prolog, in Psalm, [p. 10. Veron. 1730.]

COUNCIL OF TEENT's CANON OF SCRIPTURE. 383
that he saith, " that the other account is most agreeable to
ancient tradition," which is a mighty argument against Inno
centius, who brings no tradition to justify his canon. When
St, Augustine produced a place out of the Book of Wisdom,*
the divines of Marseilles rejected it ; because the book was not
canonical. Therefore in that time Innocent's canon was by no
means received in the GaUican Church ; for by it this book
was made canonical. But St. Jerome, who had as much
learning as Pope Innocent, f vehemently opposed this new
canon, raore than once or ten times ; and not only speaks of
the Jevrish canon, but of the canon of the Church. " The
Church," saith he, "reads the books of Tobit, Judith, and
Maccabees, but the Church doth not receive them among
canonical Scriptures.'' What Church doth he raean ? Not
the Synagogue certainly. Pope Innocent saith, "Those books
are to be received into the canon ;" St, Jerome saith, " The
Church doth not receive them, but that they are to be cast
out :" where is the certainty of tradition to be found ? If
Innocent were in the right, St, Jerome was foully mistaken,
and in plain terms, belied the Church, But how is this con
sistent vrith the saintship of St, Jerome ? Or -with common
discretion, if the Church did receive those books for canonical ?
For every one could have disproved him. And it required no
great judgment, or deep learning, to know what books were
received, and what not. If St. Jerome were so mistaken
(which is very hard to believe), how came Ruffinus not to
observe his errors and opposition to the Church ? Nay, how
came Ruffinus himself to fall into the very same prodigious
mistake ? For he not only rejects the controverted books out
of the canon, but saith, "he followed the ancient tradition
therein.''! What account can be given of this matter ? If
Innocent's tradition were right, these men were under a gross
delusion ; and yet they were learned and knovring persons, and
more than ordinarily conversant in the doctrines and traditions
of the Church.
2. This opinion was not received as a tradition of the Church
afterwards. For, if it had been, how could Gregory I.§ reject
the Book of Maccabees out of the canon, when two of his pre
decessors took it in ? It is somewhat hard, to suppose one
* DePrffidest, Sanctor, cl4, [vol, 10. p. 1371. Par. 1838.]
t Prolog. Gal. Prolog, in Ub. Salom, ad Paul, et Eust, ad Chromat,
X Ruffin. in Symbol, p, 188, 189, [Oxon. 1682.]
§ Greg. Moral, in Job. 1. 19. c, 17,

384 NO CATHOLIC TRADITION FOR THE
Pope to contradict two of his predecessors about the canon ot
Scripture : yet I see not how to avoid it ; nor how it is con
sistent with the constancy of tradition, much less with the
pretence to infalhbility. He did not merely doubt, as Canus
would have it thought,* but he plainly excludes them out of
the canon, Catharinus thinks he followed St, Jerome, What
then ? Doth this exclude his contradicting his predecessors ?
Or was St, Jerome's judgraent above the Pope's ? But it was
not St, Gregory alone, who contradicted the former Pope's
canon ; for it was not received either in Italy, Spain, France,
Germany, or England ; and yet, no doubt, it was a very catho
lic tradition.
Not in Italy ; for there Cassiodore,f a learned and devout
man, in the next century to them, gives an account of the
canon of Scripture, and he takes not any notice either of Inno
cent or Gelasius, He first sets down the order of Scripture
according to St, Jerome ; and then according to St, Augustine ;
and in the last place according to the old translation, and the
LXX, ; and where hiraself speaks of the Apocryphal books
before, he follows St, Jerome's opinion, " that they were writ
ten rather for manners than doctrine." He confesses there
was a difference about the canon : but he goes about to excuse
it. But what need that, if there were a catholic tradition
then in the Church concerning it, and that enforced by two
Popes ?
But it may yet seem stranger, that even in Italy, one
canonized for a saint by Clement VII, should follow St,
Jerome's opinion in this matter, viz, St, Antoninus,J bishop
of Florence. Who, speaking of Ecclesiasticus received into
the canon of the two Popes, he saith, "it is oiUy received by
the Church to be read, and is not authentic to prove anything
in matters of faith." He that writes notes upon him saith,
" that he follows St, Jerome, and must be understood of the
Eastern Church : for the Western Church always received
these books into the canon," But he speaks not one word of
the Eastern Church ; and by the Church he could understand
nothing but what he accounted the cathohe Church, Canus§
• Can, Loo. Theol, 1, 2. u. 11. ad 4. [p. 69. Colon. Agr. 1605.] Cath,
ds Canonicis Scrip, in Opuscul. p. 302.
t Cassiodor. de Instit. Divin, liter, c, 12, 13, 14, c, 6, [p, 458, 459,
452, Colon, AUob, 1656,]
X St, Antonin. Sum. Hist, P, 1 . Tit, 3, c, 4, [p. 65, col, 1, Ludg, 1586.]
§ Can. Loc. Theol. 1. 2. c. 11,

COUNCIL OF Trent's canon of scripture, 385
allows Antoninus to have rejected these books ; but he thinks
the matter not so clear, but that they might doubt concerning
it. Then there was no such eridence of tradition to conrince
men. But Antoninus hath preserved the judgment of a
greater man concerning these books,* even Thomas Aquinas,
who in 2, 2c?«, he saith, "denied these books to have such
authority as to prove any matter of faith by them :" which is
directly contrary to the Council of Trent, If this passage be
not now to be found in him, we know whom to blame for it.
If Antoninus saw it there, we hope his word may be taken for
it. In Spain, we have for the Hebrew canon, the testimonies of
Paulus Burgensi8,t Tostatus,J and Cardinal Ximenes,§
In France, of Victoriuus, Agobardus, Radulphus Flariacen-
sis, Petrus Cluniacensis, Hugo de St, Victore, and Richard de
St, Victore, Lyra, and others.
In Germany, of Rabanus Maurus, Straho, Rupertus, Her-
mannus Contractus, and others.
In England, of Bede, Alcuin, Sarisburiensis, Ockam, Wal-
densis, and others. Whom I barely mention, because their
testimonies are at large in Bishop Cosins's Scholastical History
of the Canon of Scripture, and no man hath yet had the
hardiness to undertake that book.
These, I think, are sufficient to shew, there was no catho
lic tradition for the decree of the Council of Trent, about the
Canon of Scripture,
I now proceed to shew on what pretences and colours it came
in, and by what degrees and steps it advanced,
1 , The first step was, the esteem which some of the Fathers
expressed of these books, in quoting of passages out of them.
We do not deny that the Fathers did frequently cite them ;
even those who expressly rejected them from being canonical,
and not as ordinary books, but as such as were useful to the
Church, wherein many wise sayings and good actions are re
corded. But the many quotations the Fathers do make out
of thera, is the only plausible pretence which those of the
Church of Rome have to defend the putting them into the
canon, as appears by Bellarmine and others. The book of
* Pai-t, 3, Tit. 18. c, 6, sect. 2, et 3.
+ Bur. in Addit. ad Lyram. ad c. 1, Esther, et 7.
t Tostat. in Matt. Praef, q, 1, 2, [fol. 1, 2. Venet. 1596.]
§ Xim Praif. ad Bib, Comp,
VOL, XI, 2 C

386 NO catholic tradition por the
Tobit, they tell us, is mentioned by St, Cyprian, St, Ambrose,
St, Basil, and St, Augustine, Of Judith, by St, Jerome, who
mentions a tradition, that it was allowed in the Council of
Nice ; but certainly St, Jerome never believed it, when he
declares it to be apocryphal, and not sufficient to prove any
matter of faith. The Book of Wisdom, by St, Cyprian, St.
Cyril, and St, Augustine, Ecclesiasticus, by Clemens Alexan-
drinus, St, C)rprian, Epiphanius, St. Ambrose, and St, Augustine.
The Maccabees, by Tertullian, Cyprian, Clemens Alexandrinus,
Origen, Eusebius, St. Ambrose, St, Augustine, But all these
testimonies only prove that they thought soraething in those
books worth alleging, but not that they judged the books
themselves canonical. And better arguments frora their cita
tions, might be brought for the books of the Sibyls, than for
any of these. We are not then to judge of their opinion of
canonical books by bare citations, but by their declared judg
ments about thera.
2. The next step was, when they came to be read in
churches ; but about this, there was no certain rule. For the
Councils of Laodicea and Carthage, differed chiefly upon this
point. The former decreed, " that none but canonical Scrip
ture should be read under the name of holy writings ;" and
sets down the names of the canonical books then to be read
(and so leaves out the Apocalypse), The latter, from their
heing read, inferred their being canonical ; for it agrees with
the other, that none but canonical should be read, and because
these were read, it reckons them up with the canonical books ;
for so the Canon concludes, "we have received from our
fathers, that these books are to be read in churches,"
But the Council of Carthage was not peremptory in this
matter ; but desired ' ' it might be referred to Boniface, and
other bishops beyond the seas :" which shews, that here was no
decree absolutely made, nor any certainty of tradition ; for
then, to what purpose should they send to other churches to
adrise about it ?
3. When they came to be distinguished from Apocryphal
writings. Whence those who do not consider the reason of it,
conclude them to have been Canonical, But sometimes Apo
cryphal signified such books as were not in the canon of faith,
as in the authors before raentioned ; sometimes such books
which were not allowed to be used among Christians, This
distinction we have in Ruffinus, who saith, there are three sorts
of books ; Canonical, as the twenty-two of the Old Testament ;

council op Trent's canon of sceiptuee, 387
Ecclesiastical, of which sort he reckons Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus,
Tobit, Judith, and Maccabees, and these, he saith, were per
mitted to be read in churches, but no arguraent could be
brought out of them for matter of faith ; Apocryphal are such,
which by no means were permitted to be read. And thus In
nocentius's words may well be understood : for he concludes
with saying, " that other writings were not only to be rejected,
but to he condemned." And so his meaning is to distinguish
them from such counterfeit Divine writings as were then
abroad. For these were not to be wholly rejected, and in that
large sense he adtnits them into the canon, taking Ecclesias
tical writings which were read in churches into that number.
And in this sense St. Augustine used the word Apocryphal,
when the Book of Enoch is so called by him,* and such other
counterfeit writings under the names of the Prophets and
Apostles ; but elsewhere he distinguishes between the Canoni
cal books of Solomon, and those which bare his name ; which
he saith, " the more learned know not to be his, but the Western
Church had of old owned their authority." But in the case of
the Book of Enoch, he appeals to the Canon, which was kept
in the Jewish temple ; and so falls in vrith St. Jerome ; and
he confesses it is hard to justify the authority of those which
are not in the Hebrew Canon. Of the Maccabees he saith, "it
is distinguished from the writings called Canonical ; but it is
received by the Church as such."f What ! to confirm matters
of faith ? No, but for " the glorious sufferings therein recorded ;"
and elsewhere he saith, J "it is useful, if it be soberly read."
St, Augustine knew very well, that all books were not received
alike; and that many were received in some parts of the
Western Church from the old translation out of the LXX.
which were not received in the Eastern ; and therefore, in his
books of Christian Doctrine, § he gives rules in judging of
Canonical books ; to follow the authority of the greatest
number of catholic Churches, especially the Apostolical ; and
that those which were received by all, should be preferred
before those which were only received by some. But he very
weU knew, that the Hebrew Canon was universally received,
and that the controverted books were not ; and therefore, ac-
* Aug, de Civ. Dei, 1. 15, u, 23, [voL 7, p, 651. Par. 1838,] L 17.
c, 20, [Ibid, p, 763, 764,]
t Aug, de Civ, Dei, 1, 18. c. 36, [Ibid, p, 833,]
X C. Gaudent, c. 29. [Ibid, vol. 9. p. 1001,]
§ De Doctr, 1, 3, c, 8, [Ibid, vol, 3, p. 86.]
2c 2

388 NO catholic tradition against
cording to his rule, these could never be of equal authority
vrith the other,
4 , When the Roman Church declared that it received the
controverted books into the Canon, This is said to have been
done by Gelasius, with his Synod of seventy bishops (and yet it
is hard to understand, how Gregory, so soon after, should con
tradict it). The title of it in the old MS, produced by Chif-
fletius, and by him attributed to Horraisdas, is, " The Order of
the Old Testament which the holy Catholic Roman Church
receives and honours, is this,"* But whether by Gelasius or
Horraisdas, I cannot understand, why such a decree as this
should not be put into the old Roman Code of Canons, if it had
been then made. That there was such a one, appears by the
copies of it in the Vatican, mentioned by the Roman correctors
of Gratian, and by mention of it by the canon Si Romanorum,
Dist, 1 9, and Be Libellis, Dist, 20 ; and by the latter, we under
stand what canons of CouncUs, and decrees of Popes are in it,
among whom are both Gelasius and Horraisdas, This they
agree to be the same vrith that published by Wendelstin at
Mentz, 1525, The epistle of Innocentius to Exuperius, vrith
the canon, is there published ; but not the other ; and so is
the canon of the Council of Carthage ; but that of Laodicea is
cut off; and so they are in that published by Dionysius Exi-
guus, and Quesnell (Justellus's ancient copy was imperfect
there), but both these canons being in the Roman Code, are an
argument to me, that the controverted books were received by
the Roman Church at that time ; but in such a manner, that
St, Jerome's prologues still stood in the vulgar Latin Bible,
vrith the commentaries of Lyra, and additions of Burgensis,
which were stiff for the Hebrew Canon ; and St, Jerome's au
thority prevailed more than the Pope's, as appears fully by
what hath been already produced,
5, To advance the authority of these books one step higher,
Eugenius IV, declared them to be part of the Canon in the in
struction given to the Armenians, Which the Roman writers
pretend to have been done in the Council of Florence ; but
Naclantus, bishop of Chioza, in the CouncU of Trent, as PaUa-
ricini saith, " denied that any such decree was made by the
CouncU of Florence,f because the last session of it ended 1439,
* Not, in VigU, Taps, p, 150. [Div. 1664.]
t Hist. ConcU, Trident, 1, 6, c, 11, n, 12, [vol, 1, p, 577, Antv.
1670,]

the scripture in a known tongue, 389
and that decree was signed Feb, 4, 1441 ," To this the legate
replied, "that this was a mistake occasioned by Abraham Cre-
tensis, who pubUshed the Latin version of it, only tUl the
Greeks' departure; but the CouncU continued three years
longer, as appeared by the extracts of Augustinus Patritius,"
since pubhshed in the tomes of the Councils, But he never
mentions the Canon of Scripture ; however, because Cerrinus
affirms, that he saw the original signed by the Pope and Cardi
nals, we have no reason to dispute it. But then it appears how
very little it signified, when Antoninus, the bishop of Florence,
opposed it, and Cardinal Ximenes, and Cardinal Cajetan
slighted it ; and all who embraced the CouncU of Basil, looked
on Eugenius's decree as void ; and, after all, that very decree
only joins the Apocryphal books in the same Canon as the
Council of Carthage had done ; but it was reserved as the pe
culiar honour of the Council of Trent, to declare that matters
of faith might be proved out of them, as well as out of any
Canonical Scriptures.
III. About the free use of the Scripture in the vulgar lan
guage, prohibited by the Council of Trent.
To understand the sense of the Council of Trent in this
matter, we must consider,
1. That it declares the vulgar Latin to he authentic; i. e.
that no man, under any pretence, shall dare to presume to
reject it. Suppose the pretence be, that it differs from the
original ; no matter for that, he must not reject that which the
Council hath declared authentic, i. e. among the Latin editions.
But suppose a man finds other Latin translations truer in some
parts, hecause they agree more vrith the original text, may he
therein reject the vulgar Latin ? By no means, if he thinks
himself bound to adhere to the Council of Trent, But the
Council supposes it to agree with the original. And we must
believe the Council therein. This is indeed the meaning of the
Council as far as I can judge. But what catholic tradition was
there for this ? Yes, for a thousand years after Gregory's
time. But this is not antiquity enough to found a catholic
tradition upon. If there were no more than a thousand from
Gregory, there were six hundred past before him ; so that
there must he a more ancient tradition in the Church, wherein
this version was not authentic ; and how came it then to be
authentie by virtue of tradition? Here then tradition must be
given up ; and the CouncU of Trent must have some other

390 NO catholic tradition against
ground to go upon. For I think the traditionary men will not
maintain the vulgar Latin to have been always authentic.
2. That it referred the making the index of prohibited books
to the Pope ; and in the 4th rule of that index, " all persons
are forbidden the use of the Scripture in the vulgar tongue,
without a particular license, and whosoever presumes to do it
without a faculty, unless he first gives up his Bible, he is not
to receive absolution."
My business is now to inquire what catholic tradition the
Pope and CouncU went upon in this prohibition. But as to the
testimony of Fathers, I ara prevented by sorae late discourses
on this subject. Instead thereof, therefore, I shall,
1. Shew from their own writers, that there could be no
catholic tradition for such a prohibition.
2. Prove the general consent of the catholic Church from
public acts, as to the free use of the Scripture,
Thomas Aquinas grants, that the Scripture was proposed to
all, and in such a manner, that the most rude might under
stand it,* Therefore there was no prohibition of such persons
reading it,
Cajetan there uses two arguments for the Scriptures using
metaphors and similitudes, 1 . Because God provides for all ;
2. Because the Scripture is tendered to all. And the common
people are not capahle of understanding spiritual things vrith
out such helps. If the Scripture were intended for all, how
comes a prohibition of the use of it ?
Sixtus Senensisf grants, that in former times the Scripture
was translated into the vulgar languages, and the people did
commonly read it, to their great benefit. Then a prohibition
of it must alter the Church's practical tradition.
Alphonsus a CastroJ yields to Erasmus, that the Scriptures
were of old translated into the vulgar tongues, and that the
Fathers, such as St. Chrysostom, and St, Jerome, persuaded
people to the reading them. But the case is altered now, when
such mischief comes by the reading the Scriptures, And yet
the tradition of the Church contmues the same, and is impos
sible to be changed.
Azorius§ puts the case fairly ; he grants that the Scriptures
* Sum, 1, q, 1, a, 9, [ut supra, vol, 20, p, 6. col. 2,]
t Sixt, Senens, Biblioth. 1. 6. u. 152. [p. 489. col, 2, Colon. 1586.]
t Alphons. h Castro, 1, 1, u, 13, § Azor, Instit, Moral. 1, 8, c, 26.

the sceiptuee in a known tongue. 391
were at first written and pubhshed in the comraon language ;
that St. Chrysostom admits all to read the Scriptures ; and
that the people did so then ; but they do not now. But he
saith the people then understood Greek and Latin, and now
they do not. If it were their own language, they might well
understand it ; hut why should not the Scripture now be in a
language they may understand ? For Greek and Latin did not
make the common people one jot vriser or better ; and yet this
man calls it a heresy now, to say the Scriptures ought to be
translated into vulgar languages. How much is the faith of the
Church changed?
2. I am now to prove the general consent of the catholic
Church in this matter from public acts, i. e. that all parts of it
have agreed in translations of Scripture into vulgar languages,
without any such prohibition.
If there had been any such thing in the Primitive Church,
it would have held against the Latin translation itself. For I
hope none will say it was the original, however authentic it be
made by the Council of Trent. How then came the originals
to be turned into the common language ? (as I suppose Latin
vrill be allowed to have been the common language of the
Roman empire.) There is no objection can now be made
against any modern translations, but would have held against
the first Latin version. Who the author of it was, is utterly
unknown; and both St. Augustine* and St. Jerome say,
" there was a great variety araong the old translations, and
every one translated as he thought fit." So that there was no
restraint laid upon translating into the comraon language.
And unless Latin were an infallible guide to those that under
stood it, the people were as liable to be deceived in it, as either
in Enghsh or French.
But it was not only thus in the Roman empire, but where-
ever a people were converted to Christianity in all the elder
times, the Scripture was turned into their language.f The
ecclesiastical historians mention the conversion of the Goths,
and upon that, the translation of the Bible into their language
by UlphUas, their bishop. Walafridus Straho J adds to this,
* Aug. de Doct. Christian. 1. 2. c, II. [ut supra, vol, 3, p. 50.] Hier.
Prjef. in Josuam.
t Socr. 1. 4. c. 33, Soz, 1, 6, c, 37, Niceph, 1. 11. c. 48, Isid, in
Chron, Gothorum, [p, 274. col. 1. Colon. Agr, 1617,]
X Walaf, Strab. de Reb, Eccl, t. 7. [Apud Hittorp, De Divin, Eccl,
Off, p. 667, Par, 1610,]

392 NO catholic tradition aoainst
" that, besides the Bible, they had aU public offices of religion
performed in their own language,"
How soon the Churches in Persia were planted, it is impos
sible for us now to know ; but in the MS, Ecclesiastical History
of Abulpharagius (in the hands of Dr. Loftus), it is said,
" that a disciple of Thaddseus preached the Gospel in Persia,
Assyria, and the parts thereabouts ; and that by another disci
ple of his, 360 churches were settled there in his tirae ; and
that he came to Seleucia, the metropolis of the Persians, and
there established a church, where he continued fifteen years,"
And frora him there was a succession of the patriarchs of
Seleucia, which continues still in the East ; for upon the de
struction thereof by Almansor, they reraoved first to Bagdad,
aud after that to Mozal over against Ninive, where their resi
dence hath been since ; and this patriarch had universal juris
diction over the Eastern Churches, as far as the East Indies,
as appears by Morinus's Books of Ordinations in the East, and
the proceedings with the Christians of St, Thomas in the very
end of the last century.
But we are certain from the Greek historians, that in Con-
stantine's time the Christians in Persia were so numerous,
that he wrote to the king of Persia on their behalf.
Eusebius* saith, that Constantine was informed, " that the
churches were much increased there, and great multitudes
were brought into Christ's flock ;"-|- and Constantine himself, in
his letter to Sapores, saith, " the Christians flemished in the
best parts of Persia ; and he hoped they might continue so to
do." But after Constantine's death, a terrible persecution
befel them, wherein, Sozomen saith, J "the names of 16,000
martyrs were preserved, besides an innumerable multitude of
unknown persons," The sharpest part of the persecution fell
upon the bishops and presbyters ; especially in Adiabene,§
which was almost wholly Christian, which Ammianus Mar-
cellinus saith, || " was the same with Assyria, wherein were
Ninive, Ecbatane, Arbela, Gaugaraela, Babylon (or Seleucia)
and Ctesiphon," of which Sozomen^ saith Symeon was then
archbishop. And he names above twenty bishops who suf
fered besides, and one Marcabdes a Chorepiscopus, with 250 of
his clergy. After the tirae of Sapores, several sharp perse-
• Euseb, de Vit, Const, 1, 4, c, 8, [Hist, Eccl, p, 530, Par, 1659,]
t C, 13, [Ibid, p. 532,] X Soz, 1, 2, c. 14, § C, 12,
II Ammian, MarceU, 1, 23, [vol, 1. p, 351, Bipont, 1786,]
i[ Soz. 1. 2. c. 9.

the sceiptuee in a known tongue. 393
cutions fell upon those churches in the times of Vararanes
and Isdigerdes, of which the Greek historians take notice, and
one of them, saith Theodoret,* lasted thirty years. This I
raention, to shew what mean thoughts those have of the
Catholic Church, who confine it to the Roman communion.
'Theodoretf and St. Chrysostom both affirm, "that the Persians
had the Scriptures then in their own language ;" and Sozomen
vsaith, " that Symeon, archbishop of Seleucia and Ctesiphon,
before his own martyrdom, encouraged the rest to suffer out
of the holy Scripture ;" which supposes them well acquainted
vrith the language of it, and it is not very likely they should be
either with the Hebrew, Greek, or Latin ; but the other tes
timonies make it clear that it was in their own tongue.
The anonymous writer of St. Chrysostom'sJ life, affirms,
" that while he stayed in Armenia, he caused the New Testa
ment to be translated into the Armenian tongue, for the benefit
of those churches." And this tradition is allowed by
several leamed men in the Church of Rome. But the
Armenians themselves say,§ " the whole Bible was translated
into the Armenian language by Moses Grammaticus, David,
and Mamprseus, three learned men of their own, in the time
of their patriarch Isaac, about St. Chrysostom's time." Theo
doret, in the place already cited, mentions the Armenian
translation, as a thing well knovra ; and he was near enough
to understand the truth of it.
Jacobus de Vitriaco, a Roman Cardinal, saith, " that the
Armenians, in his time, had the Scriptures rea,d to them in
their own language." ||
The Syriac version, for the use of those in the Eastern
parts who understood not Hebrew or Greek, is allowed by all
leamed men to have been very ancient. I mean the old
siraple version out of the originals, and not that out of the
LXX. of the Old Testament. As to the New, the tra
dition of the Eastern people is, " that it was done either in the
Apostles' times, or very near them." Abraham Ecchellensis^
shews, from the Syriac writers, that "the complete translation
of the Bible was made in the time of Abgarus, king of Edessa,
* Theod. 1. 5, c, 39,
t Theod, de Cur, Graec, affect, Serm, 5, p, 555. Serm, 9, p, 615,
Chrys, in Joh, Hom. 2, p, 561, [vol, 8, p, 11. Par. 1836.]
X Vit, Chrys. c. 113, § Cone, Eccl, Armen, cum Rom. c, 7, p, 63,
II Hist, Orient, c, 79, [p. 153, Duac, 1597,]
i Abr, EccheU, not, in Ebed, Jesu. [p, 239, Rom, 1653.]

394 NO CATHOLIC TRADITION AGAINST
by the means of Thaddsens, and the other Apostles ;" and as
to the time of Thaddaeus, Gregorius Malatiensis* confirms it.
Postellus quotes an ancient tradition (which my adversaries
ought to regard), " that St. Mark himself translated, not only
his own Gospel, but all the books of the New Testaraent into
the vulgar Syriac." It is sufficient to my purpose, to shew
that there was such an ancient translation ; which is owned by
St. Chrysostom,t St. Ambrose,! ^*^' Augustine,§ Diodorus||
and Theodoret :^ which makes me wonder at Cardinal Bel
larmine' s affirming vrith so much confidence, that none of the
Fathers speak of the Syriac version,** when Theodoret alone
mentions it so often in his Commentaries.
Although the Greeks in Egypt might very well understand
the Greek of the Old and New "Testament (especially if
that which is called the LXX. were done by the Alexan
drian Jews, as some imagine), yet those who knew no other
than the old Egyptian language, could not make use of it.
And therefore a Coptic translation was made for them ;-|-f
which Kircher thinks to have been 1300 years old. And he
withal observes, that their ancient Liturgies were in the Cop
tic language.
That it might not be suspected that Kircher iraposed upon
the world, he gives a particular account of the books he had
seen in the Vatican hbrary, and elsewhere, in the Coptic
tongue. " The Pentateuch, in three tomes, distinguished into
paragraphs by lines. The four Gospels, by themselves, St,
Paul's Epistles, and three canonical Epistles, vrith the Acts, in
another volume. The Apocalypse by itself, and the Psalter.
The Liturgy of St. Mark, with other daily prayers. The
Liturgy of St, Gregory, vrith the prayers of St, Cyril, in the
Coptic language ; and a Liturgy of St, BasU, with Gregory
and Cyril, with several other rituals, missals, and prayers, all
in the same tongue. All these," he saith, " are in the Vatican
library," And in that of the Maronites' coUege, he saith, JJ " is
an old Coptic Martyrology, about 1300 years standing, by
which he finds, that the chief employment of the old Egyp-
* Greg, Hist, Dynast, 6, f St, Chrysost, Hom, 2, in Joh, [ut supra,]
X Ambros. Hex. 1, c, 8,
§ Aug, de Civit, Dei, 1, 15, c, 13, [ut supra, vol, 7, p. 626.1
II Diod. ad Gen. 27, 27.
f Theod, in Psal. 3, 4, in Psal, 103, 26, in Psal, 112, 1, in Psal, 115,
** De Verb, Dei, 1, 2, u, 4, [ut supra, p. 44. col, 1,]
¦It Prodr, Copt, c, 8, [p, 186, Rom, 1636.] JJ P, 186, [Ibid.]

THE SCEIPTUEE IN A KNOWN TONGUE. 395
tian monks, was to translate the Bible out of the Hebrew,
Chaldee, and Greek, into the Coptic tongue,"
Morinus saith,* " that in the Oratorian library at Paris,
they had the Coptic Gospels brought from Constantinople
by Monsieur de Sancy."
Petrus k Valle,-f a nobleman of Rome, and a great traveller,
saith, " he had several parts of Scripture in the Coptic lan
guage, which were turned into Arabic, when the old Coptic
grew into disuse."
Petrseus had in the Eastern parts ' ' a Coptic Psalter, J with an
Arabic version, which he designed to publish."
The Congregation de propaganda Fide at Rome, had several
Coptic MSS. sent to thera out of Egypt ; among the rest,
the Coptic Book of Ordination, § translated and printed by
Rircher; and since reprinted by Morinus.
Seguier, the late Chancellor of France, had, in his hbrary,
the consecration of a patriarch in Coptic and Arabic, " and seve
ral translations of the Bible, and prayers, in both languages."
The .^thiopic translation || bears date with the conversion of
the nation, according to their own tradition, which some make
to be in the Apostohcal times, and others in the time of Con
stantine ; and their public offices are performed in their ovra
tongue. The Chancellor Seguier, had not only many parts
of the Bible, but prayers and offices, in the .^thiopic
tongue. I shall add but one thing more to this purpose, which is taken
frora the want of antiquity in the Arabic versions ; which is
confessed by the learned critics on aU sides. And even this
tends to prove my design. For when the Saracen empire
prevailed, the people grew more acquainted with the Arabic
than with the ancient Syriac or Coptic ; and therefore the
Scripture was then translated into Arabic (as Vasseus saith
it was done in Spain, after the Moors came thither, by a bishop
of Seville) ; and this was the true reason why the Arabic ver
sions have no greater antiquity. For Gabriel Sionita^
observes, " that the Arabic is become the most vulgar lan
guage in the Eastern parts." And because it was so in Syria
* Dissert. Epist, 13, t Epist, 14,
X Hottinger, Methurgem, p, 189,
§ De Ordinat, Sacris, p, 504, Catal, MSS, p, 131,
II Lndolph, Hist, .ffithiop, 1, 3, c, 4,
if Gabr, Sionita de Arab, c, 12, [c, 13,] [p, 62, Amst, 1635,]

396 NO CATHOLIC TEADITION AGAINST
as well as Egypt, there are different Arabic versions ; the one
called Codex Antiochenus, and the other Alexandrinus.
Thus I have proved that there was a cathoUc tradition
directly contrary to that established by order of the CouncU of
Trent, And now I proceed to give an account of the methods and
steps by which this decree came to its ripeness,
1 . The first step was the declension and corruption of the
Latin tongue in the Western Church. It is observed by Poly-
bius,* "that from the tirae of the first league between the
Romans and the Carthaginians, the Latin tongue was so much
changed, even in Rome itself, that very few could understand
the words of it," And Festus in Latinb loqui saith, " that
the language was so altered, that scarce any part remained
entire," Scaliger thinks these words were added to Festus by
Paulus Diaconus ; which seeras much more probable, since he
lived in the time of Charlemagne, At which time we may
easily suppose the Latin tongue to have been very much cor
rupted by the writers, and not so easy to be understood any
where by the common people in sudden discourse, as it had
been before. Which appears erident by the Latin sermons
made to the people in the several provinces in the Roman
empire ; as in Africa by St, Augustine and Fulgentius ; in
Italy by Petrus Chrysologus, Laurentius Novariensis, Gau-
dentius Brixiensis, Ennodius Ticinensis ; in Spain by Isidore,
Ildephonsus, and others ; in Gaul by Csesarius, Eucherius,
Eligius, and several others, whose Latin sermons to the people
are still extant. In the Council of Tours,f in the time of
Charlemagne, particular care is taken " that the Homihes should
be translated by their bishops either into the rustic Roman or
the German, that the people might the easier understand
them," These Homilies were either those which Charlemagne
caused to be taken out of the Fathers, and applied to the
several Lessons through the year, as Sigebert observes, J or of
their own composing ; however, they were to be turned hy the
bishops either into rustic Roman, or German, as served best
to the capacities of the people. For the Franks then either
retained the original German, or used the rustic Roman ; but
this latter so much prevailed over the other, that in the solemn
? Polyb, 1, 3,
-t Cone, Turon, 3, c. 17, [Labbe, ConcU. vol. 7. p. 1263. Lut, Par,
1671.] X Sigeb, ad An, 807, [p, 61, Par, 1513.]

THE SCEIPTUEE IN A KNOWN TONGUE. 397
oaths between Lewis and Charles, upon parting the dominions
of France and Germany, set down in Nithardus,* the rustic
Roman was become the vulgar language of France, and these
were but the grandchildren of Charlemagne. Marquardus
Freherust thinks that only the princes and great men re
tained the German, but the generality then spoke the rustic
Roman ; as appears by the oath of the people ; which begins
thus :
Si Lodwigs Sacrament que Son Fradre Carlo jurat con-
servat,\ et Carlus meo Sendra de suo part non lo stanit, si jo
returnar non lint pois, ne io, ne veuls cui eo returnar int pois,
in nulla ajudha contra Lodwig non Ii iver.
By which we may see what a mixture of Latin there was in
the vulgar language then used by the Franks, and how easy
it was for the jpeople then to understand the public Offices
being constant ; but the sermons not being so, there was greater
necessity to turn them into that corrapt or rustic Roman,
which was thoroughly understood by them. In Spain the
Latin was less corrupted before the Gothic and Arabic, or
Moorish words were taken into it. Lucius Marineus§ saith,
" that had it not been for the mixture of those words, the
Spaniards had spoken as good Latin as the Romans did in the
time of TuUy ;" and he saith, " that to his time he had seen
epistles written in Spanish, wherein all the nouns and verbs
were good Latin." In Italy the affinity of the vulgar prevail
ing language and the Latin continued so great, that the diffe
rence seemed for sorae hundred years, no more than of the
learned and common Greek, or of the English and Scotch ; and
so no necessity was then apprehended of translating the correct
tongue into a corrupt dialect of it.
But where there was a plain difference of language, there
was some oare even then taken, that the people might under
stand what they heard, as appears by these things,
1, Alcuinusjl gives an account why one day was called
Sabbatum in 12 Lectionibus, when there were but six
lessons, and he saith, " it was because they were read both in
* Nithard, 1, 3, [Du Chesne, Hist, Franc, Scriptor, vol, 2. p, 374. Lut,
Par, 1636,]
t Freher, in Exposit. Foederis inter Lud. et Car.
X V.Capitul. CaroU Calvi. Tit. 8. [p. 76, 77. Par. 1623.]
^ Marineus Sicul. de Rebus Hisp. 1. 5, c. 4.
il Alcuin, de Divin. Offic. c. 29. [Apud Hittorp. De Divin. Cathol.
: Eccles, Officus, p. 265, Par. 1610.]

398 NO CATHOLIC TRADITION AGAINST
Greek and Latin, they not understanding each other's lan
guages," Not because the Greek was a holy tongue, but
quia aderant Grceci, quibus ignota erat lingua Latina ; which
shews that the Church then thought it a reasonable cause to
have the Scripture in such a language, which might be under
stood by the people. The same reason is given by Amalarius,*
2, In the German churches there were ancient translations
of Scripture into their own language, B, Rhenanusf attributes
a translation of the Gospels, to Waldo, bishop of Freising, " as
soon as the Franks received Christianity ;'' and he saith, " it
was the immortal honour of the Franks, to have the Scripture
so soon translated into their own language ; which," saith he,
" is of late opposed by some dirines :" so httle did he know
of an universal tradition against it, Goldastus mentions the
translation in rhyme by Ottofridus Wissenburgensis, J published
by AchiUes Gassarus, the Psalter of Notkerus, Rudolphus ab
Eeras's Paraphrase of the Old Testament. Andreas du Chesne
hath published a preface before an old Saxon book,§ wherein it
is said, " that Ludoricus Pius did take care that all the people
should read the Scripture in their own tongue, and gave it in
charge to a Saxon to translate both Old and New Testament
into the German language ; which," saith he, " was performed
very elegantly."
3. In the Saxon churches here, it was not to be expected
that the Scripture should be translated, till there were persons
learned both in the Saxon, and the other languages. Bede, in
his Epistle to Egbert, puts him upon instructing the comraon
people in their own language, especially in the Creed and
Lord's prayer ; and to further so good a work, Bede|| hiraself
translated the Gospel of St, John into the Saxon tongue, as
Cuthbert saith in the epistle about his death, in the Life of
Bede, before his Saxon history. It appears by the old canons
of churches, and the epistles of .^Ifric, saith Mr. Lisle, " that
there was an old Saxon^ canon for the priest to say unto the
people, the sense of the Gospel, in English ;" and j3<llfric saith
of hiraself, " that he had translated the Pentateuch, and sorae
of the historical books." The New Testament was translated
* Amalar. de Offic. 1. 2. c, 1, [Ibid, p, 373,]
t Rhenan. Rer. German, p. 112. [p. 201, Argent. 1610.]
X Rer.Alem.to. I.p.l20.to.2.p. 119. [vol. l.p.l98,393,Franc, 1606,]
§ Hist. Franc, to, 2, p. 326. [Lut. Par, 1636.]
II Bed. Epist, ad Egbert, p. 65,
% Saxon Treatise of the Old and New Testament,

THE SCEIPTUEE IN A KNOWN TONGUE. 399
by several hands ; and an ancient Saxon translation hath been
lately pubhshed vrith the Gothic Gospels, And there were
old Saxon Glosses upon the Gospels ; of Aldred, Farmen, and
Owen, The last work of King Alfred was the translating the
Psalter ; and if the MS, history of Ely deserves credit, he
translated both the Old and New Testament,
4, It is not denied either by Bellarmuie* or Baronius,t " that
the Slavonians in the ninth century had a permission upon their
conversion to Christianity, to enjoy the Bible, and to have
public offices performed in their own language," But they
tell us, " it was because they were then children in the faith,
and to be indulged (but methinks children were the most in
danger to be seduced) ; or there were not priests enough to
officiate in Latin at first :" but this was no reason then given,
as appears by the Pope's own letter published by Baronius,
wherein he "gives God thanks for the invention of letters
among them by Constantine a philosopher :" and he expressly
saith, "that God had not confined his honour to three lan
guages, but all people and languages were to praise him ;" and
he saith, " God himself in Scripture had so commanded ; and
he quotes St, Paul's words for it." One would wonder those
great men should no better consider the Pope's own reasons ;
but give others for him, which he never thought of, " It is
true," he adds, " that he would have the Gospel read first in
Latin, and then in Slavonian, and if they pleased, he would
have the mass said in Latin ;" but the Slavonians continued
their custom, and the Pope was willing enough to let them
enjoy it, for his own convenience as well as theirs. For there
was a secret in this matter, which is not fully understood.
AventinusJ saith, that Methodius invented their letters,
and translated the Scriptures into the Slavonian tongue, and
persuaded the people to reject the Latin service ; but this I see
no ground for. But the truth of the matter was, the Slavo
nians were converted by the means of Methodius and Cyril
(otherwise called Constantine), two Greek bishops, and the
Christian religion was settled among them by their means, and
they translated the Scriptures and offices of worship into their
own language. The Pope had not forgotten the business of
the Bulgarians, and he could not teU but this might end in
* BeU. de Verbo Dei,l. 2. f Bar. ad An. 880, n, 16,
X Aventin. Annal. 1, 4, p, 434, [Ingolst. 1554.]

400 NO CATHOLIC TEADITION AGAINST
subjection to another patriarchal see ; and therefore he endea
vours to get Methodius and CyrU to Rome, and haring gained
them, he sends a sweetening letter to the prince, and makes the
concession before mentioned. For he could not but remember
how very lately the Greeks had gained the Bulgarians from
him;* and lest the Slavonians should foUow them, he was
content to let them have what they desired, and had already
established araong theraselves vrithout his perraission. AU
this appears frora the account of this matter given by Constan-
tinus Porphyrogenetus, compared with Diocleas's Regnum Sla-
vorum, and Lucius's Dalmatian History,
It is sufficient for my purpose, that Diocleas owns that Con
stantine (to whora Andreas Dandalus, duke of Venice, in his
MS, history cited by Lucius,t saith, the Pope gave the narae
of Cyril ), did translate the Bible into the Slavonian tongue,
for the benefit of the people, and the public offices out of Greek,
according to their custom. And the Chancellor Seguier had
in his library both the New Testament and Liturgies, in the
Slavonian language,J and in Cyril's character ; and many of
the Greek Fathers' coraraentaries on Scripture in that tongue,
but not one of the Latin,
2, The next step was, when Gregory VII,§ prohibited the
translation of the Latin offices in the Slavonian tongue. And
this he did to the King of Bohemia himself, after a peremptory
manner ; but he saith, it was the request of the nobility,
that they might have dirine offices in the Slavonian tongue,
which he could by no means yield to. What was the matter ?
How comes the case to be so much altered from what it was
in his predecessor's time ? The true reason was, the Bohemian
churches were then brought into greater subjection to the
Roman see, after the consecration of Dithmarus Saxo to be
their archbishop ; and now they must own their subjection, as
the Roraan prorinces were wont to do, by receiving the
language. But as his predecessor had found Scripture for it,
so Gregory pretends he had found reason against it, viz. "The
Scripture was obscure, and apt to be misunderstood and des
pised," What ! more than in the time of Methodius and
Cyril ? If they pleaded primitive practice, he plainly answers,
¦" that the Church is grown vriser, and hath corrected many
* Bar, A. 869. n. 80.
¦I- Luci. de Regno Dalmatise, 1. 2. u. 3. [p. 67, Amst, 1668,]
t Catal. MSS. p. 33, 34. % Greg, Registl, 7, Ep, 11,

THE SCEIPTUEE IN A KNOWN TONGUE, 401
things that were then allowed."* This is indeed to the
purpose; and therefore by the authority of St. Peter, he
forbids him to suffer any such thing, and charges him to
oppose it -with all his might.
But after all, it is entered in the Canon Law Be Officio Jud.
Ord. 1, 1. Tit. 31, c, Quoniam, as a decree of Innocent III, in
the Lateran Council, that where there were people of different
languages, the bishop was to proride persons fit to officiate in
those several languages. Why so ? If there were a prohibi
tion of using any but the Latin tongue. But this was for the
Greeks, and theirs was a holy tongue. That is not said ;
nor if it were, would it signify any thing ; for doth any
imaginary holiness of the tongue sanctify ignorant devotion ?
But the canon supposes them to have the same faith. Then
the meaning is, that no man must examine his religion by the
Scripture, but if he resolves beforehand to believe as the
Church believes, then he may have the Scriptures, or prayers,
in what language he pleases. But even this is not permitted
in the Roman Church. For,
3. After the Inquisition was set up by the authority of
Innocent III. in the Lateran Council, no lay persons were per
mitted to have the books of the Old and New Testament, but
the Psalter, or Breriary, or Hours, they might have ; but by
no means in the vulgar language. This is called by D'Achery
and Labhef the Council of Toulouse, but in truth it was
nothing else but an order of the Inquisition, as vrill appear to
any one that reads it. And the Inquisition ought to have the
honour of it, both in France and Spain. Which prohibition
hath been so grateful to some divines of the Church of Rome,
that CochlseusJ calls it pious, just, reasonable, wholesome and
necessary ; Andradlus§ thinks the taking of it away would be
destructive to faith ; Ledesma saith, j] the true Catholics do
not desire it, and bad ought not to be gratified vrith it, Petrus
Sutor,^ a Carthusian doctor, calls the translating Scripture
into the -vnlgar languages, a rash, useless, and dangerous
* Ciim primitiva Ecclesia multa dissimulaverit quse h Sanctis Patribus
postmodum firmata Christianitate, et ReUgione crescente, suhtiU examina-
tione correcta sunt,
t Lahh, ConcU, to, 11, p, 427, [Lut. Par, 1672,]
t Cochl. c, Alex, Alesium, A,D, 1533,
§ Andrad, Defens. Concil, Trident. 1. 4,
II Ledesma de Div, Script, quavis lingua non leg, p. 155, [Colon,
1574, not paged,]
II Pet, Sutorde Tralatione Bibliee, p, 99, p, 96, [Par, 1525,]
VOL, XI, 2d

402 NO CATHOLIC TEADITION FOE
thing ; and he gives the trae reason of it, viz. " that the
people wiU be apt to murmur when they see things required as
from the Apostles, which they cannot find a word of in Scrip
ture." And when all is said on this subject that can be, by
men of more art, this is the plainest and honestest reason for
such a prohibition ; but I hope I have made it appear it is not
built on any catholic tradition,
IV, Of 'the Merit of Good Works.
The CouncU of Trent, Sess, 6, c, 16, declares, that the
good works of justified persons do traly deserve eternal life ;
and can, 32, an anathema is denounced against him that denies
them to be meritorious, or that a justified person by them
doth not truly merit increase of grace, and happiness, and
eternal life.
The Council hath not thought fit to declare what it means
by truly meriting ; but certainly it must be opposed to an im
proper kind of meriting, and what that is, we must leam from
the divines of the Church of Rome,
] , Some say, that sorae of the Fathers speak of an iraproper
kind of raerit, which is no more than the due means for the
attaining of happiness as the end. So Vega* confesses they
often use the word merit, where there is no reason for merit,
either by way of congruity or condignity. Therefore, where
there is trae merit, there must be a proper reason for it. And
the Council of Trent being designed to condemn some pre
vailing opinions at that time, among those they called heretics,
this assertion of true merit must be levelled against sorae
doctrine of theirs ; but they held good works to be necessary
as raeans to an end, and therefore this could not be the
meaning of the Council.
Suarez saith,f "the words of the Council ought to be
specially observed, which are, that there is nothing wanting in
the good works of justified persons, ut vere promeruisse eense-
antur ; and therefore no metaphorical or improper, but that
which by the sense of the Church of Rome was accounted true
merit, in opposition to what was said by those accounted
heretics, must be understood thereby."
2, Others say, that a mere congruity arising from the
promise and favour of God, in rewarding the acts of his grace
in justified persons, cannot be the proper merit intended by the
Council, And that for these reasons,
* Vega de Justif 1. 8. c, 8, [p, 188, Colon, 1572,]
t Suarez de Grat. 1. 12. c. 1, ii, 8. [vol, 8,p, 393, col, 1. Venet, 1741,]

THE MERIT OP GOOD WORKS. 403
Suarez observes,* that although the CouncU avoids the
terms ex condigno, yet because it still uses the words vere
mereri, it implies something more than mere congruity ; and
because it speaks of meriting the increase of grace, and not the
first grace ; now a congruity is allowed for the first grace,
which it excludes by mentioning the increase. And withal,
it brings places to prove that the giring the reward must be a
retribution of justice, and if so, the merit must be more than
that of congruity.
2. Because God's promise doth not give any intrinsic value
to the nature of the act ; no more than his threatening doth
increase the nature of guUt. If the King of Persia had
promised a province to him that gave him a draught of water,
the act itself had been no more meritorious ; but it only shewed
the munificence of the prince ; no more do God's promises of
eternal life add any merit to the acts of grace, but only set
forth the infinite bounty of the Promisor.
3, In the conference at Ratisbon (the year this decree
passed by the Emperor's order), the Protestant party did
yieldjf that by virtue of God's promise, the reward of etemal
life was due to justified persons ; as a father promisuig a great
reward to his son for his pains in studying, makes it become
due to him, although there be no proportion between them.
And if no more were meant by merit of congruity, than that
it was very agreeable to the Di-rine nature to reward the acts
of his own grace, vrith an infinite reward, they would yield
this too.
4. Cardinal PaUaricini gives us the plain and true meaning
of the Council, J viz. " that a merit de congruo was allowed
for works before justification ; but for works after, they all
agreed," he saith, "that there was a merit de condigno in
them, both for increase of grace, and etemal glory." By
merit de condigno, is meant such an intrinsic value in the
nature of the act, as makes the reward in justice to be due
to it.
Some call one of these, meritum secundum quid;^ which is
the same vrith de congruo ; which really deserves no reward,
* Suarez de Grat, 1. 12, c, 1, n, 12, [Ibid. p. 394, col, 1.]
t Disputat, Ratishonse, An, 1546, p, 568,
t Hist, Cone, Trid, 1, 8, c, 4. n, 4, [vol, 1, p. 719, Antv. 1670,]
§ Rich, de Media ViU, in 1, 2, Sent, Dist, 17. [Dist, 27.] art, 2, q, 1,
[fol, 114, p, 2, col. 1. Venet, 1509.] Nich. deOrbelUa in 3, [2,] 1, Sent,
Dist, 27, [Hagen, 1503, not paged,]
2 D 2

404 NO CATHOLIC TEADITION FOR
but receives it only from the liberality of the giver ; and this
hath not truly, say they, the notion of merit ; but that which
makes the reward due, is simple and true merit, when it doth
not come merely from the kindness of the giver, but from
respect to the worthiness of the action and the doer, and this is
de condigno.
Let us now see what catholic tradition there was for this
doctrine, and whether this were taught them by their Fathers
in a continued succession down from the Apostles' times.
But that there was a change as to the sense of the Church
in this matter, I shall prove in the first place frora au office
which was allowed in the Church before, and forbidden after.
It was an office with respect to dying persons, wherein are
these questions,
" Q. Dost thou believe that thou shalt come to heaven, not
by thy own merits, but by the rirtue and merit of Christ's
passion ?*
" A. I do believe it,t
" Q, Dost thou believe that Chiist died for our salvation, and
that none can be saved by their own merits, or any other way
but by the merits of his passion ? J
"A. I do believe it," §
Now when the Indices Expurgatorii were made in pursuance
to the order of the Council of Trent, this passage was no
longer endured. For, in the Roraan Index, the Ordo baptizandi,
wherein this question was, is forbidden till it were corrected.
But the Spanish Indices explain the mystery ; that of Cardinal
Quiroga saith expressly, "those questions and answers must
be blotted out ;" and the like we find in the Index of Soto
Major and Sandoval, What now is the reason that such
questions and answers were no longer permitted, if the Church's
tradition continued still the same ? Was not this a way to know
the tradition of the Church by the offices used in it? This
was no private office then first used, but although the prohibi
tion mentions one impression at Venice (as though there had
been no more), I have one before me, printed by Gryphius at
Venice two years before that ; and long before with the Pre-
ceptorium of Lyra, a,d, 1495, where the question to the dying
* Credis non propriis meritis, sed passionis Domini nostri Jesu Christi
virtute et merito ad gloriam pervenire ? [Ind, Libr, Prohib, p, 816, 817,
Madrit, 1667.] t Credo,
X Credis quod Dominus noster Jesus Christus pro nostra Salute mortuus
sit ; et quod ex proprus meritis, vel aUo modo nuUus possit salvari nisi
in merito passionis ejus ? [Ibid, p, 817.] § Credo.

THE MERIT OF GOOD WOEKS, 405
person is in these words, "Si credit se merito passionis
Christi et non propriis ad gloriam pervenire ? Et respondeat.
Credo." And the same questions and answers I have in a
teere^o^aZe jRomareMw, printed by Nicohnus at Venice, 1585.
Cardinal Hosius* says, that he had seen these questions and
answers in the Sacerdotale Romanum, and in the Hortulus
AnimcB ; and that they were believed to be first prescribed by
Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury, On what account now,
come these things to be prohibited and expunged, if the
Church's doctrine and tradition about this matter be still the
very same ? No doubt it was beheved that the Council of
Trent had now so far declared th^ sense of the Church another
way, that such questions and answers were no longer to be
endured. But before the Council of Trent, the canons of Colen,f
against Hermannus, their bishop, when he pubUshed his Refor
mation, declare, that God's giring etemal life upon good
works, is ex gratuita dignatione sua dementia, from the
favour which God vouchsafes to them. Which, to my appre
hension, is inconsistent vrith the notion of true merit in the
works theraselves ; for if there be any condignity in thera, it
cannot be mere grace and favour in God to reward them.
The same canons in their Enchiridion, J some years before,
when they joined with their bishop, call it stupidity to think
that good works are rewarded with eternal hfe for any dignity
in the works themselves. And if there be no dignity in them,
there can be no true merit ; as the Council of Trent determines
with an anathema.
Pope Adrian VI, § gives such an account of the merit of our
works, that he could never imagine any condignity in them to
eternal life. For, saith he, "our merits are a broken reed,
which pierce the hand of him that leans upon them ; they are
a menstruous cloth, and our best actions mixed vrith impuri
ties ; and when we have done all that we can, we are un
profitable servants,"
Petrus de Alliaco,|| cardinal of Cambray, attributes no
other effect to good works, than of a causa sine qua non ; and
saith, " that the reward is not to be attributed to any virtue in
• Hos, Confess, Petricovi, c, 73, p. 144.
t Antididagma Colon, f. 16. 2, [Colon, 1544.]
X Enchirid, Colon, f, 176. 2, [Colon, 1537,]
$ Adrian, de Sacr, Euchar, f, 61,
II Pet, de AHiaco, in4, 1, Sent, q, 1, art. 1, f, 225, c. [Par, no date,]

406 NO CATHOLIC TRADITION FOE
them, but to the wUl of the giver." Which I think overthrows
any true merit.
Gabriel Biel* attributes the merit of good works, not to any
intrinsical goodness in them, but to God's acceptation. Which
is in words to assert merit, and in truth to deny it ; for, how
can there be true merit in the works, if all their value depends
upon Divine acceptance ?
Thomas Waldenf charges Wickliffe vrith asserting the
doctrine of merit, and encouraging men to trust in their own
righteousness, and he quotes Scriptures and Fathers against it ;
and he blames the use of the term of merit, either ex congruo,
ex condigno ; which, he saith, was an invention of sorae late
Schoolmen, and was contrary to the ancient doctrine of the
Church. As he proves, not only from Scripture and Fathers,
but from the ancient offices too ; as in the Canon of the Mass,
Non eestimator meriti, sed Venice qucesumus, largitor, ^c,
Fer. 4. Pass. Tit qui de meritorum qualitate diffidimus, non
judicium tuum sed misericordiam consequamur. Dom. 2. Adv.
Ubi nulla suppetunt suffragia meritorum, tuce nobis indul-
genticB succurre prcesidiis. How comes the doctrine, con
demned in Wickliffe, to be estabhshed in the CouncU of Trent ?
For he was blamed for asserting true merit, and the Council
asserts it with an anathema to those that deny it. And yet we
must believe the very sarae tradition to have been in the
Church all this while.
Vega saith, J that Walden speaks against merits without
grace ; but any one that reads him, vrill find it othervrise.
For he produces those passages out of the Fathers against
merits, which do suppose Dirine grace, as it were easy to shew;
but Friar Walden thought the notion of merit inconsistent
with the power and influence of Dirine grace necessary to our
best actions. " God," saith he, " doth not regard merit either
as to congruity or condignity, but his own grace, and will, and
mercy." MarsUius de Ingen,§ who lived before Walden, reckons up
three opinions about merit ; the first, of those who denied it,
and of this, saith he, Durandus seeras to be, and one Joh. de
Everbaco. The second, of those who said that our works
have no merit of themselves, but as informed by Dirine grace,
* Biel, inl, 2, Sent, Diss, 27. art. 1, not, 3, [BasU. 1512, not paged.]
+ Walden de Sacram. Tit, 1, c, 7. X Vegain Opusc, Qu. 4.
§ MarsU. in 1, 2, Sent, q, 18. [ai-t. 4. fol, ccc, p. 1, col, 2, Argent.
1501,] ^

THE MEEIT OF GOOD WOEKS, 407
and from the assistance of the Holy Ghost, so they do truly
merit eternal hfe ; and of this opinion, he saith, was Thomas
de Argentina. The third was, of those who granted that true
merit doth imply an equaUty, but then they distinguish equality
as to quantity, and as to proportion ; and in this latter sense,
they asserted an equaUty. And of this opinion, he saith, was
Petrus de Tarantasia. But he deUvers his ovra judgment in
these conclusions.
1 . That our works either considered in themselves, or vrith
Divine grace, are not meritorious of eternal hfe ex condigno,
which he proves both from Scripture and reason, vis. because,
1. No man can make God a debtor to him ; for the more grace
he hath, the more he is a debtor to God. And, 2. He cannot
merit of another by what he receives from him. And, 3. No
man can pay what he owes to God, and therefore can never
merit at his hands. 4. No man can merit here so much grace,
as to keep him from falUng away from grace ; much less then
eternal life.
2. These works may be said to be meritorious of eter
nal life ex condigno, by Divine acceptation originally pro
ceeding from the merit of Christ's passion, hecause that makes
them worthy. But this is Christ's merit, and not the true
merit of our works.
3. Works done by grace, do merit etemal life de congruo
from God's liberal disposition, whereby he hath appointed so
to reward them : it being agreeable to him to give glory to
them that love him. But this is an iraproper kind of merit,
and can by no means support the tradition of true merit.
Durandus * utterly denies any true merit of man towards
God ; he doth not deny it in a large improper sense for such
a condignity in our actions as God hath appointed in order to
a reward; which is by the grace of God in us: but as it is
taken for a free action to which a reward is in justice due ; be
cause whatever we do is more ovring to the grace of God, than
to ourselves ; but to make a debtor to us, we must not only
pay an equivalent to what we owe, but we must go beyond it ;
but to God and our parents, we can never pay an equivalent,
much less exceed it.f And we can never merit by what God
gives us, because the gift lays a greater obligation upon us.
And he saith, the holding the contrary, is temerarious and
blasphemous. * Durand. in Sent. 1. 2, Dist, 27, q. 2, [fol, cc, p. 1, Par, 1508,]
t N. 14. [Ibid.]

408 NO CATHOLIC TRADITION FOE
The two grounds of holding merit were, the supposing a
proportion between grace and glory, and an equality between
Divine grace and glory in virtue, grace being as the seed of
glory ; and to both these he answers.
To the first. That the givmg a reward upon merit is no part
of distributive, but commutative justice, because it respects
the relation of one thing to another, and not the mere quality
of the person.
To the second. That the value of an act is not considered
with respect to the first mover, but to the immediate agent :
and as to grace being the seed of glory, it is but a metaphorical
expression, and nothing can be drawn from it. So tbat Du
randus concludes trae merit vrith respect to God to be temera
rious, blasphemous, and impossible.
Ockam declares,* that after all our good works, God may,
vrithout injustice, deny etemal life to them who do them ; be
cause God can be debtor to none ; and therefore whatever he
doth to us, it is out of mere grace. And that there can be
nothing meritorious in any act of ours, but from the grace of
God freely accepting it. And therefore he must deny any true
merit. Gregorius Ariminensis saith,f that no act of ours, though
coming from grace to never so great a degree, is meritorious
with God ex condigno of any reward, either temporal or eter
nal ; because every such act is a gift of God ; and if it were at
all meritorious, yet not as to eternal life, because there is no
equivalency between them, and therefore it cannot in justice be
due to it ; and consequently if God gives it, he must do it
freely. But, saith he, God is said to be just when he gives
bona pro bonis, and merciful when he gives bona pro malis ;
not but that he is merciful in both, but because his mercy
appears more in the latter, and in the other, it seeras like jus
tice in a general sense from the conformity of the raerit and
the reward; but in this particular retribution it is mere
mercy. Scotus affirms, J that aU the meritoriousness of our acts de
pends on Divine acceptation in order to a reward ; and if it did
depend on the intrinsic worth of the acts, God could not in
* Ockam in 4, Sent, q, 3, ad secundum. In 1, 1, Dist, 17, q, 1, in 1, 1.
Dist, 17, q. 2,
t Greg, Arim, in 1, 1. Sent, Dist. 17art. 2,
X Scot, in 1, 1, Sent, Dist, 17, q, 3, n, 24. [Oper. vol, 5, p, 964, Lugd,
1639,]

THE MERIT OF GOOD WORKS. 409
justice deny the reward, which is false ; and therefore it wholly
depends on the good will and favour of God.
Bellarmine* is aware of this, and he confesses this to be the
opinion of Scotus, and of other old schoolmen. But how then
do they hold the doctrine and tradition of trae merit ? He
holds, that good works are properly and truly good. So do
we, and yet deny merit. But he grants, that he denies that
they bear any proportion to eternal life ; and therefore they
cannot be truly meritorious of it. Bellarmine hiraself asserts,
that vrithout the Divine promise, good works have a proportion
to eternal life, and this he saw was necessary to defend the doc
trine of the Council of Trent ; but then he adds, that there is
no obligation on God's part, to reward in such a manner, vrith
out a promise. Now here are two hard points : 1 . To make it
appear that there is such a meritoriousness in good works,
vrithout a Dirine promise. 2. That if there were so, there is
no obligation on God to reward such acts in point of justice.
The former is so much harder to do from what he had proved
before, ch. xiv. vis. " that they are not meritorious vrithout a
promise ;" and here he proves that they have no proportion to
the reward, from Scripture, Fathers, and reason ; because there
is no obhgation on God to do it, either from commutative or
distributive justice ; and because we are God's servants. These
are good arguments against himself ; for how can such acts
then become meritorious vrithout a promise ? If there be no
proportion or equality on man's part, no justice on God's part
to reward, how can they possibly be meritorious ? But this is
too deep for me to comprehend. My business is tradition, and
I have evidently proved that there was no tradition even in the
Church of Rome for the true merit defined by the CouncU of
Trent. It were easy to carry this point higher, by shewing
that the Fathers knew nothing of this doctrine, but that hath
been done by many already, and it is needless in so plain a
case. But I am now to give an account by what steps and occa
sions this doctrine came to be established.
1 . From the common use of the word merit with the Fathers
and others, in another sense than it signified at first.-j- The
original signification of it is wages paid in consideration of ser
rice ; and from thence soldiers were said merere (as Budaeus
* BeU, de Just, L 5. c, 17, [vol, 4. p, 580, Prag, 1721.]
t Jos. ScaUg, in Varr, de L, L, p, 172, Bud, iu Pandect, p, 362.
Plin, Ep, 1, 1, 8,

410 NO CATHOLIC TEADITION FOE
observes, and then comes the word merces), who traly deserved
their pay by their labour and hazard ; but by degrees it came
to signify no more than merely to attain a thing ; which is
sometimes used by good authors ; but in the declension of the
Latin tongue, no sense of this word was more common than
this, especially among ecclesiastical writers. Who frequently
used it in a sense wherein it was impossible to understand it in
its original signification ; and it cannot imply so much as digne
consequi, as in the instance brought by Cassander ;* when St.
Cyprian renders those words of St. Paul, Misericordiam merui,
which we render, " I obtained mercy ;" but the CouncU of Trent
allows there could be no true merit here. And St. Augustinef
saith of those who murdered the Son of God, Illi veniam me
ruerunt qui Christum occiderunt. And so the vulgar Latin
often uses it, Gen.iv. \3,major est iniquitas mea quam ut veniam
merear. Jos. xi. 20, et non mererentur ullam elementiam.
And in that sense it hath been used in the Hymns and other
offices of the Church, as in that expression, Ofelix culpa quce
talem ac tantum meruit habere Redemptorem ! Where it cannot
be denied that the word is used in an improper sense.
2. When the School dirines set themselves to explain the
mysteries of theology, this plain and easy, but improper sense
of merit, would not go down vrith some of them ; but they
endeavoured to make out the notion of merit vrith respect to
God, in its proper and original sense. The last considerable
writer, before the scholastic age, was St. Bernard, and he pre
tended not to find out any such proportion between the best
works and eternal hfe, "that God should be bound injustice
to bestow it as a recompense for them :" J and the reason he
gives is plain and strong, " because those things men pretend
to merit by, are themselves the gifts of God's grace, and so by
them they are more bound to God than God to them," but
besides, " what are all men's merits to eternal glory ?" St. Ber
nard doth not speak of merits vrithout grace, but with the
supposition of it ; and Bellarmine vrisely left out the latter
part, that he might seem to answer the foimer.
* Cassand. in Hymn. EccL p. 179, [Par, 1616,]
•t Aug, in Joh, Tr, 31, u, 9, [vol, 3, p, 2021, Par, 1836,]
X Neque enim taUa sunt hominum merita, ut propter ea vita setema
deberetur ex jure, aut Deus injuriam aUquam faceret, nisi eam donaret.
Nam ut taceam quod merita omnia Dona Dei sunt, et ita homo magis
propter ipsa Deo debitor est, quam Deus homini, quid sunt merita omnia
ad tantam gloriam? Bernard, Serm, 1, de Annun, BeUarm, de Justif,
1, 5, t, 6, [ut supra, p, 563, col, 2.]

THE MEEIT OF GOOD WOEKS. 411
Hugo de Sancto Victore* lived in the same age, who first
shewed the way to school dirinity, and upon the same place
which St. Bernard speaks of, Non sunt condignee, &c. he
puts the question, how any temporal acts can merit that which
is etemal ? And he denies any condignity, because there is
more in the reward, than there was in the merit ; but then he
adds, that there may be a threefold comparison of things ;
either as to themselves, as a horse for a horse, money for
money, or according to equity, either in punishments or re
wards ; or by pact or agreement, as when a good sum is pro
mised for a Uttle work ; " and this," saith he, " God hath
made knovra to mankind, as to future rewards and punish
ments." Which plainly shews he understood nothing of the
proportion between acts of grace, and an eternal happiness;
but resolved all into the favour and mercy of God.
Peter Lombard,t called the Master of the Sentences, saith,
" Nothing of any condignity or proportion is in our works to
the reward ; but," he saith, " they are themselves God's gifts,
and that the reward itself is from the grace of God," and
quotes the noted saying of St. Augustine, " Cum coronat Beus
merita nostra, nihil aliud coronat quhm dona sua," But still
this is nothing but grace and favour in God, first in enabUng
us to do good works, and then in rewarding them.
Bandinas wrote a book of the Sentences much about the
time Peter Lombard did, vrith so much agreement of method
and expressions, that it is not known which took from the
other. Genebrard J hath produced this passage out of him,
" Bebet, inciviliter de Beo dicitur, quia nihil omnino nobis
debet, nisi ex promisso," If it be so rude to say, " God owes
any thing to his creatures but by promise," he could not
imagine any condignity in good works, to which a reward is
due in justice. And Genebrard thinks he had reason to deny,
" that God can be made a debtor to us by any of our works."
Robertus Pullus,§ who wrote another book of the Sentences
about the same time, mentioning that place, Non sunt condignee,
&c. he saith, " because our works are not sufficient, being
small and temporal, God by his mercy makes it up ;" which
not only shews that God doth reward beyond our merit, but
* Hugo de S. Vict, Annot, Elucidator. in Rom,
¦^ Lomb, Sent, 1, 2, Dist, 27, [fol, 201, p, 2, Colon, Agr. 1576.]
t Genebrard. de Trinit. 1. 3, p, 312.
J PuU, Sentent, Part, 1, c. 13,

412 NO CATHOLIC TRADITION POR
that there is no proportion between the best works and eter
nal glory.
But by the tirae of Gulielmus Antissiodorensis,* there were
two parties in the Church about this point ; " some," he saith,
" denied any merit of etemal life, ex condigno, and others as
serted it ;" and after laying down the arguments on both sides,
he concludes for the affirmative ; but in answer to the place,
non sunt condignes, etc, he saith, " they are not ad proportion-
aliter merendum, hut they a,i-e ad simpliciter merendum j" so
that still he denied any proportion, though he held simple
merit. But Thomas Aquinas coming after him,t denies that there
can be any simple raerit vrith respect to God, because that
cannot be where there is so great inequality ; and so there can
be no equal justice between thera, but according to a propor
tion ; which he afterwards explains, viz, as to the substance
and freedom of our good works there is only a congruity ; but
as they proceed from Divine grace, so they are meritorious of
eternal life, ex condigno.^
This doctrine had some followers in the schools, but not
many in comparison of those who opposed it, as appears by
what is said already.
Richardus de Mediarilla,§ though a Franciscan, follows
herein the doctrine of Aquinas, and asserts, that by acts of free
vrill, informed by grace, a raan may merit eternal life ex con
digno, and he adds somewhat more, potest certissime ; and he
uses the same answers to the objections which the other did.
And Nich, de Orbellis|| follows Richardus, so that Aquinas' s
doctrine had prevailed beyond his own school.
But it was as vehemently opposed by others of that
fraternity, among whom Cardinal Hosius^ mentions Stephauus
Bmlifer, who raaintained, " that no act of grace, how good
soever, was worthy of etemal life,"
Paulus Burgensis,** though he is said to have been converted
frora being a Jew by reading Aquinas, yet utterly dissented
from him in this matter : for he saith, " that no man can, by
* GuBel, Antis, 1, 3, tr, 12, q, 2, de Merito Virt, [fol, 200, Par, 1500,]
t 1, 2, q, 114. art. 1, [vol, 21, p, 528, col, 1, Venet, 1787,]
X Art, 3, [Ibid, p. 529. col. 2.]
§ Richard, in Sent. 1, 2, Dist. 27, art, 2. q. 3,
II Nich, d'Orb, in Sent, 1. 2. Dist. 27, [ut supra,]
If Hos. Confess, Petrico, c, 73, p, 141,
** P, Burg, addit, ad Lyram in Ps, 35,

THE MERIT OF GOOD WORKS, 413
the ordinary assistance of grace, merit etemal life ex condigno,
and therefore the mercy of God is most seen in heaven."
However the reputation of Aquinas might gain upon some,
yet this was very far then from being a catholic tradition.
But no Council ever interposed its authority in this matter,
till the Council of Trent, which resolved to carry the points in
difference to the height, and to estabUsh every thing that was
questioned. Nothing had been more easy than to have given
satisfaction in this matter, considering what Pighius and Con-
tarenus, and even Genebrard, had yielded in it ; but there the
mle was, that every thing that was disputed, must be deter
mined first, and then defended.
And so it hath happened with this decree, which, lest we
should think the matter capable of softening, hath been since
asserted in the highest manner, Bellarmine * asserts " good
works of themselves, and not merely by compact, to be merito
rious of eternal life, so that in them there is a certain propor
tion and equality to eternal Ufg.."
Costerusf saith, " that in works of grace, there is an equa
lity between the work and the reward,"
Suarez, J "that they have an intrinsical dignity whereby
they become worthy of eternal life."
Vasquez,§ " that there is an equality of dignity between
good works and etemal life, vrithout which, a promise could
not make true merit."
The Rhemists say,l| "that good works are truly and pro
perly meritorious, and justly worthy of everlasting life ; and
that thereupon heaven is the just due, and just stipend, crown
or recompense, which God by his justice oweth to the persons
so doing by his grace."
And again, " that good works are meritorious, and the very
cause of salvation, so far that God should he unjust, if he ren
dered not heaven for the same."^
Phil. Gamachseus,** a late professor of dirinity in the
Sorbonne, speaks it roundly, that the Council of Trent did
• BeU-'de-Justif. 1. 5, c, 17. [ut>upra.]
t Coster, Enchirid, p, 294. [Colon. 1599. ]
X Suarez, de Grat, \, 12, c, 1, n, 18,- [vol, 8, p, 395, coL 1, Venet,
1741.] ^ Vasquez in 1. 2, Disp. 213. c. 5.
II Rhemists on 2 Tim. iv. 8. [fol, 389, p, 2. Lond, 1589,]
ir On Heb, vi. 8. [10.] [Ibid. fol. 402. p, 2,]
** ^Gamach. in 1. 2. Th. Q, 114, c. 2. ConcU. 2, Omnes CathoUci
fatentur justos suis bonis operibus mereri gloriam de condigno.

414 NO CATHOLIC TRADITION, ETC.
plainly mean to estabUsh merit ex condigno, and that all
CathoUcs are agreed in it.
The last defender of the Council of Trent vrithin these few
years, saith, " that there is an intrinsical condignity in good
works, whereby they bear a proportion commensurate with the
glory of heaven. And vrithout such doctrine as this, he doth
not think the Council of Trent can be defended in this
matter," *
If, after all, it be said, that this is a mere subtilty concerning
the proportion an act of grace bears to the state of glory ; I
answer, the more to blarae they, who have made and imposed
it as a matter of faith, as the Council of Trent has done vrith
an anathema, and that without any pretence from cathohc
tradition. But what made the CouncU of Trent so much concemed for
a scholastic subtilty ? There was a deep mystery lay in this ;
they were vrise enough to frame the decree so as to avoid offence,
and to make it appear plausible, but it was enough to the people
to understand that the merit of good works was aUowed, and
they were to believe the priests, both as to the good works they
were to do, and as to the putting them into a state of grace, to
make them capable of meriting. And this was the true reason
of the anathema, against those who should deny the tme
merit of good works.
* Aug. Reding Defens, Cone, Trident, Tr, 4, sect, 2, ad Sess, 6, c, 1,

END OF VOL, XI,

u. NORMAN, PRINTER, MAIDEN LANE, CDVENT OARDEK,

. 'r ¦'/' >

.K

-¦<•%

^•4
m