not be thought vain and hypocritical But whereas S. Austin distinguishes Souls departed into three orders those who are so perfectly good that they need not our Prayers others less perfect to whom our Prayers are beneficial and a third sort so wicked that their estate is irrecoverable and so past the relief of our Prayers S. Chrysostom mentions but two sorts sincere good Christians and Infidels and such as die without Baptism and bad Christians whom he places in the same rank As for the first he expresly tells us that after Death they are in a state of Rest and Happiness and upon this very account condemns those extravagant expressions of sorrow at their Funerals and therefore he never thought of a Popish Purgatory for I think we have great reason to lament those who are in Purgatory a place of torment though not Hell. As for others he thinks they deserve our Sorrow and Compassion and Prayers and Alms not that this can deliver them out of the state of the damned but that he thought it gave some little ease and relief to their torments And this was not only the sense of S. Chrysostom that the damned themselves were eased by the Prayers of the living but S. Austin seems to be of the same mind when he says that the suffrages of the living are profitable either ut plena fiat remissio aut tolerabilior sit ipsa damnatio to obtain perfect forgiveness or to make damnation it self more tolerable And I think what Basil of Seleucia relates concerning Thecla That by her Prayers she obtained the Soul of Falconilla who died a Pagan signifies that he believed something more than this that the Prayers of the living may not only ease the torments of the damned but deliver them out of Hell it self Now this the Church of Rome believes no more than we do They reject all the reasons for which the Ancients prayed for the Dead and have invented some new reasons which the ancient Fathers never thought of viz. to Pray Men out of Purgatory and therefore though they still Pray for the Dead and we do not yet they no more Pray for the Dead in the sense of the ancient Church than we do however I think from hence it appears that they cannot prove a Popish Purgatory from the practice of the ancient Church in Praying for the Dead which is all I intended to prove at this time XI Desiring the Intercessions of the blessed is more superstitious and derogatory to our Lord's Mediatorship than intreating the Prayers of holy Men Militant This I answered Was as plain in Scripture as that Christ is our only Mediator in Heaven who alone like the high Priest under the Law who was his Type is admitted into the Holy of Holies to make expiation and to interceed for us The summ of what we teach about this matter is this That we must worship none but God and therefore must not Pray to Saints and Angels as our Saviour teaches Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve That there is but one Mediator between God and man the man Christ Jesus and therefore we must not make more Mediators to our selves nor put our trust in the Intercession of Saints and Angels Thus far we have plain Scripture proof and then we think common sense teaches us the rest That it is an injury to an Only Mediator to set up other Mediators with him That good Men on Earth are not Mediators but Supplicants which is no encroachment on Christ's Mediatorship and that Saints in Heaven according to the Church of Rome Pray as Mediators and Intercessors who appear in the presence of God for us and this is not reconcilable with Christ's Onely Mediatorship in Heaven To this our Author answers Page 7. It is not at all in Scripture that our Saviour is our only Mediator of Intercession therefore this proposition is not plain there If such an only Mediatorship of Intercession be plain in Scripture it had been easie and kind to have named such a plain Scripture Yet none is brought unless the Answerer meant Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God c. for such a one Truly I see not how he can deduce from it any thing to his purpose till it appear that all Prayer is Divine Worship or that we Pray to Saints just as we do to God. This is all his answer and I think I might trust every ordinary Reader with it without any reply but I must be civil to our Author and therefore will try if I can make him understand this matter The Reader will easily see That that Text Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and what he has concealed in an c. as if he were afraid to let his own People who possibly may read his Book know what follows and him only shalt thou serve was never intended to prove that Christ is our only Mediator of Intercession The proof I insist on is in 1 Timothy 2. 5. There is one God and one mediator between God and men the Man Christ Iesus But says our Author this does not prove that there is but one Mediator of Intercession But why does it not prove this Is a Mediator of Intercession a Mediator if he be and there be but one Mediator then there is but one Mediator of Intercession for there is but one Mediator in all As for his distinction between a Mediator of Redemption and Intercession there is no such distinction to be found in Scripture and therefore when S. Paul asserts without any distinction that there is but one Mediator I think we have reason to do so too for if we admit of unscriptural distinctions I know no Article of our Faith but what may be distinguished away When the Apostle says There is but one God why may not a Heathen distinguish upon this That it is very true there is but one Supreme and Sovereign God though there are many inferior Deities as well as a Papist say That there is but one Mediator indeed of Redemption but there may be many Mediators of Intercession For both here and in 1 Cor. 8. 5. The Apostle makes Christ the one Mediator just as God is the one God and that sure signifies the only God and the only Mediator For though there be that are called Gods whether in Heaven or in Earth as there be Gods many and Lords many but to us there is but one God the Father of whom are all things and we in him and one Lord Iesus Christ by whom are all things and we by him Where as one God is opposed to the multitude of Heathen Gods so one Lord or one Mediator as Baalim and Lords signified those mediating powers between the Gods and Men is opposed to the many Lords and Mediators among the Heathens Indeed as there is no foundation in Scripture for this distinction between a Mediator of Redemption and Intercession so there is no sense in it
PAPERS lately printed concerning the Authority of the Catholick Church in Matters of Faith and the Reformation of the Church of England Quarto A Vindication of the Answer to SOME LATE PAPERS concerning the Unity and Authority of the Catholick Church and Reformation of the Church of England Quarto An Historical Treatise written by an AUTHOR of the Communion of the CHURCH of ROME touching TRANSUBSTANTIATION Wherein is made appear That according to the Principles of THAT CHURCH This Doctrine cannot be an Article of Faith. Quarto A CATECHISM explaining the Doctrine and Practices of the Church of Rome with an Answer thereunto By a Protestant of the Church of England Octavo A Papist Represented and not Misrepresented Being an Answer to the First Second Fifth and Sixth Sheets of the Second Part of the Popish Representer and for a further Vindication of the CATECHISM truly representing the Doctrine and Practices of the Church of Rome Quarto In 3. Discourses The Lay-Christian's Obligations to read the Holy Scriptures Quarto The Plain Man's Reply to the Catholick Missionaries 24 o. The Protestant's Companion Or an Impartial Survey and Comparison of the Protestant Religion as by Law established with the main Doctrines of Popery Wherein is shewn that Popery is contrary to Scripture Primitive Fathers and Councils and that proved from Holy Writ the Writings of the Ancient Fathers for several hundred Years and the Confession of the most Learned Papists themselves Quarto Mr. Chillingworth's Book called The Religion of Protestants a safe way to Salvation made more generally useful by omitting Personal Contest but inserting whatsoever concerns the Common Cause of Protestants or defends the Church of England With an Addition of an Useful Table and also of some genuine Pieces of the same Author never before Printed viz. about Traditions against the Catholicism and Infallibility of the Roman Church And an Account of the Arguments which moved him to turn Papist with his Confutation of the said Arguments Quarto A Discourse of the Holy Eucharist in the two great points of the Real Presence and the Adoration of the Host. In Answer to the Two Discourses lately printed at Oxford on this Subject To which is prefixed a large Historical Preface relating to the same Argument Quarto The Pillar and Ground of Truth A Treatise shewing that the Roman Church falsly claims to be That Church and the Pillar of That Truth mentioned by S. Paul in his First Epistle to Timothy Chap. III. Vers. 15. Quarto A Brief Discourse concerning the Notes of the Church with some reflections on Cardinal Bellarmin's Fifteen Notes Quarto An Examination of the Cardinal's First Note concerning The Name of Catholick His Second Note Antiquity His Third Note Duration His Fourth Note Amplitude or Multitude and variety of Believers His Fifth Note The Succession of Bishops His Sixth Note Agreement in Doctrine with the Primitive Church His Seventh Note Union of the Members among themselves and with the Head His Eighth Note Sanctity of Doctrine The rest will be published Weekly in their Order A Defence of the Confuter of Bellarmin's Second Note of the Church Antiquitr against the Cavills of the Adviser Quarto The Peoples Right to read the Holy Scriptures asserted In Answer to the 6th 7th 8th 9th and 10th Chapters of the Popish Representer Second Part Two Discourses Of Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead Quarte A Short Summary of the Principal Controversies between the Church of England and the Church of Rome Being a Vindication of several Protestant Doctrines in Answer to a late Pamphlet intituled Protestancy destitute of Scripture-Proofs FINIS Ans. to request p. 1. Answer to Request p. 2. F Prot. Answer to Request p. 3. Answer to Request p. 5. Council Trid. Sess. 7. de Eucharistia cap. 5. Answer to Request p. 7. Concil Corstant Sess. 13. Purgatorium esse animasque ibi detentas fidelium suffragiis potissimum vero acceptabili altataris sacrificio juvari praecipit Sancta Synodus Episcopis ut sanam de purgatorio Doctrinam à sanctis patribâ—s sacris conciliis traditam Christi fidelibus credi teneri doceri ubique predicari diligenter studeant Concil Trid. Sess. 25. decret de purgat De purgat l. 1. cap. 5. cap. 10. l. 2. cap. 10 11 12. Cap. 11. Idem l. 2. cap. 3 4. Ibid. c. 14. Cap. 16. Irenaeus l. 5. contr haeres c. 31. Tert. de anima cap. 55. * Supergrediuntur ordinem promotionis justorum modos al. motus meditationis ad incorruptelam ignorant Ir. ibid. Qui ergo universam reprobant resurrectionem quantum in ipsis est auferunt eam de medio quid mirum est si nec ordinem resurrectionis sciunt Ibid. Quidam ex his qui putantur recâ—e credidisse baereticos sensus in se habentes Ibid. Dall de poenis satisf l. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Locum divinae amoenitatis recipiendis sanctorum spiritibus destinatâ—m Tert. Apol. cap. 47. Iustin Martyr l. resp ad Orth. quaest 75. Hilar. in Psal. 2. in Psal. 120. Ergo dum expectatur plenitudo temporis expectant animae Resurrectionem debitam Alias manet poena alias gloria Et tamen nec illae interim sine inâ—â—iâ nec istae sine fructu Ambr. de bono mortis cap. 10. Nulli patet coelum terra adhuc salva ne dixerim clausa cum transactione enim mundi reserabuntur regna coelorum Tert. Apol. cap. 47. Chrys. Hom. 29. in Matth. Aug. l. 16. de C. D. c. 24. Tale aliquid etiam post hanc vitam fieri incredibile non est utrum ita sit quaeri potest aut inveniri aut latere nonnullos fideles per ignem quendam Purgatorium quanto magis minusve bona pereuntia dilexerunt tanto tardius eitiusve salvari Aug. Enchirid. c. 69. Cum iis quae descripsimus ita nostra vel aliorum exerceatur vel erudiatur infirmitas ut tamen in eis nulla velut canonica constituatur authoritas Aug. de octo Quaest. Dulcilii Quaest. 3. Aug. Enchiridion ad Laurent cap. 67 68 69. Ambros. Serm 20. in Psal. 118. Cyrilli Hierosol liturgia Syr. orationes Bibl. patrum T. 6. Tertull. contra Marcion c. 24. Dall de poenis satisf l. 5. c. 9. Tert. de monog c. 10. Ambr. de obitu Val. Bibl. Patr. T. 6. Enchirid. ad Laurent De civit Dei l. 12. c. 9. Idem Tract 10. in Ep. Ioan. Chrys. Serm. 3. in Philip. ed. Savil. Tom 4. p. 20. in Hebr. Ser. 4. p. 453. Chrys. Homil. 21 in Act. T. 4. p. 734. Aug. Enchirid. ad Laurent Answer to Request p. 10 11. Genes 8. 20. Genes 12 7 8. Ch. 26. 25. 35. Act. 3. 1. Psal. 141. 1. Luke 1. 10. Revel 8. 3 4. Hebr. 7. 25. See Answer to Papists protesting against Protestant Popery See the Object of Religious worship Part 1. and the Answer to Papists Protesting against Protestant Popery Sect. 4. Protestancy destitute of Scripture-Proofs p. 8. 1 Kings 12. 28. 1 Kings 16 31. 32. 2 Kings 10. 16. Maximus Tyrius Dissert 38. Answer to Request p. 12. Prot. dest p. 9. 1 Cor. 14. 6. 19. Vers. 7 8 9 10 11. Vers. 14 15 16. Answer to Request p. 13. Protestancy destitute of Scripture Proofs p. 10. See Dr. Barrows Treatise of SuPremacy See Dr. Stilling fl Origines Britan. p. 106. c. Answer to Request Protestancy destitute of Scripture Proofs Church Government Part. 5. English Reformation ch 2. p. 21. Burnets History of the Reformation part 1. book 2. p. 137. Burnets Histo ry of the Reform part 2. l. 3. p. 401. Church Government Part. 5. concerning the English Reformation See the Authority of Councils with the Appendix in Answer to the eight Theses of the Oxford Writer And the Judge of Controversies
more than what we give to the Bible ibid. The reasons why some Protestants have charged the worship of Images with Idolatry 88 No alterations made in the Law against worshipping Images in the New Testament 92 The reasons of the Second Commandment Moral and Eternal 93 No material Temple much less an Image allowed under the Gospel 95 The Primitive Church always understood the Worship of Images to be forbid under the Gospel 99 XIII Whether the Pope be Antichrist and whether this be taught in the Homilies of the Church of England ibid. XIV Concerning Prayers and Divine Offices in the Vulgar tongue 101 The self-contradictions of this Author 102 Whether S. Paul in 1 Cor. 14. only forbid inspired and extempore prayers in an unknown tongue not the setled forms of Divine Offices 104 All the Apostles arguments in that place against speaking in an unknown tongue concern our ordinary devotions 105 As 1. That it is contrary to the edification of the Church ib. 2. That it contradicts the natural end and use of speech 106 3. That it is contrary to the nature of Prayer and religious worship which must be a reasonable Service 107 Whether the people are bound to joyn in all the offices of publick worship 108 Whether the people understand their prayers though they are in Latin which they do not understand 112 XV. Concerning Schism and Separation 114 Separation from the Errors of the Church of Rome is not a Separation from the Catholick Church 116 Renouncing the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome no Schism ibid. Such a supremacy not essential to Catholick Unity 117 Concerning the Ecclesiastical combinations of neighbour Churches and Bishops into one body ibid. In what cases a particular Church may break off from such a body 118 The Popes Supremacy such an usurpation as may be renounced without the authority of a general Council ibid. The Church of England not originally subject to the Bishop of Rome as the Western Patriarch 121 The difference between Schism from the Catholick Church and the breach of Ecclesiastical Communion 122 To reform errors and corruptions in Faith and Worship can never be a fault 125 That the Church of England does not separate from all other Christian Societies 126 Concerning Communion in the Eucharist and other religious Assemblies 129 What Church we joyned in Communion with when we forsook the Communion of the Church of Rome 130 What Church we made the pattern of our Reformation 131 In what sense the Church of Rome her self was the pattern of our Reformation 132 XVI Concerning the defection and apostasie of the Clergy of the Catholick Church and the Reformation of the Laity 134 Whether the whole Clergy were against the Reformation 135 The Popish Clergy in the Reign of King Henry the Eighth did own the King's Supremacy and wrote for it 136 c. We do not assert That the Church of Rome has apostatized from fundamental Truth and Holiness 138 Whether all kind of Idolatry be an Apostasie from fundamental Truth and Holiness 139 The nature of that argument to prove That a thing is not because it cannot be when there is all other possible evidence to prove That it is 140 As that the Church of Rome has not erred because she cannot err 141 c. If the Reformation be good there can want no authority to reform 147 The Supreme Authority of any Nation has a regular Authority to declare what shall be the established Religion of that Nation which is all that we attribute to Kings and Parliaments in such matters 250 ERRATA PAG. 53. l. 4. for now r. non p. 123. l. 33. r. as shows p. 14â— l. 14. dele upon Some faults there are in Pointing which I must leave to the Reader to correct A VINDICATION OF SEVERAL Protestant Doctrines BEING AN ANSWER TO A LATE PAMPHLET ENTITULED Protestancy destitute of Scripture-Proofs THAT I have taken so little an occasion to write so big a Book I hope the Reader upon his perusal will pardon There is indeed a remarkable difference between us and our Roman Adversaries in this matter they can answer great Books in two or three Sheets if they vouchsafe to give any answer at all which they begin to be weary of we answer two or three Sheets in large Books but then we have very different ends in writing too they to make a show of saying somewhat to put by the blow by some few insignificant cavils we not only to answer our Adversaries which might be done in very few words but to instruct our people which requires a more particular Explication of the reasons of things But I shall make no Apology for my Book till I hear that it wants it for it may be some may think it as much too little as others too big He begins very regularly with the state of the Controversie between us to prove sixteen Protestant Tenets as he calls them by plain Scripture Scriptures but so plain to us for their Doctrines as they require to be yielded them by the Catholique Church for hers What will be thought plain by them is a very hard matter to guess when it seems the second Commandment it self is not thought by them a plain Scripture-proof against Image-worship and I despair of ever finding a plainer proof in Scripture for or against any thing But I told him in Answer to his request p. 17. that we desire no other proofs from them but what we are ready to give either the express words of Scripture or plain and evident consequence or the silence of Scripture to prove that any Doctrine is not in it And though they may reasonably demand of us what we demand of them yet they cannot reasonably demand more and whether I have not done him justice in this way shall be examined again under the several Articles of his request In the next Paragraph he mightily despises the Answer and concluded the pamphlet unworthy a publick or special notice and expected if not more pertinent yet at least more plausible replies to follow and I can assure him that he was very ill advised that he did not despise and expect on for his reply has given some credit and authority to that Answer and has now produced a Book which if he be wise he will despise too though I hope it will convince him that Protestants do not mean to expose their profession by silence which I do not find them much inclined to at present But let us consider the state of the question In answer to the Request to prove some Protestant Tenets by plain Scripture I told him this was a false representation of our Doctrine for though we do make the Scripture the rule of our Faith yet we do not pretend to own no Doctrine but what is contained in the express words of Scripture Our Church teaches us Art. 6. that Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to Salvation so that whatsoever is not read therein nor may be proved
thereby is not to be required of any Man that it should be believed as an Article of Faith or be thought requisite or necessary to Salvation Where our Church distinguishes between what is read in the Scripture that is contained in express words there and what may be proved thereby that is by plain and necessary consequence from what is expresly taught in Scripture and yet confines such Proof as this only to Articles of Faith or what is thought requisite or necessary to Salvation And the true reason of this is that the Church of England teaches the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures to Salvation which is the very Title of this Article and therefore all things necessary to be believed to Salvation must be contained in express words in Scripture or be proved thence by plain and evident consequence which shows that we are not strictly obliged to prove any thing from Scripture but what we teach for an Article of Faith or as necessary to Salvation This is the reason why we demand a Scripture-proof from the Church of Rome for the new Articles of the Trent Faith for if the belief of them be necessary to Salvation as they say they are then either the Scriptures do not contain all things necessary to Salvation or they are bound to show where these Doctrines are contained in Scripture For this reason the Church of England which owns the sufficiency of the Scripture to Salvation rejects all those Doctrines which the Church of Rome without any Proof from Scripture teaches as necessary to Salvation and this we think reason enough to reject them that they are not contained in Scripture which contains all things necessary to Salvation Now our Author and some of his size who don 't see half a Consequence before them think they have a mighty advantage of us in demanding the same Proofs from us to justifie our rejecting their Doctrines which we demand of them to justifie their belief of them that is to say as we demand of them a Scripture-Proof that there is such a place as Purgatory they think they may as reasonably demand of us a Scripture-Proof that there is no such place as Purgatory just with as much reason as if one should tell me that by the Laws of England every Man is bound to Marry at twenty years old and when I desire him to show me the Law which makes this necessary he should answer though he cannot show such a Law yet it may be necessary unless I can show him a Law which expresly declares that it is not necessary whereas nothing is necessary but what the Law makes so and if the Law has not made it necessary there is no need of any Law to declare that it is not necessary Thus the Protestant Doctrine of the sufficiency of Scriptures to Salvation requires us to produce a plain Scripture-Proof for every thing which we believe necessary to Salvation but it does not require a Scripture-Proof that that is not necessary to Salvation which the Scripture has not revealed nor made necessary to Salvation for if the Scriptures contain all things necessary to Salvation it is a sufficient Proof that such Doctrines are not necessary to Salvation which are not contained in the Scriptures Unless we think that the Scripture must before-hand confute all possible Heresies which might arise in the Church and tell us particularly in all points what we must not believe as well as what we must This I observed was the case as to those Articles of the Church of England which are opposed to the Corruptions and Innovations of the Church of Rome that they are negative Articles and a negative Article only rejects such Doctrines from being Articles of Faith as are not contained in Scripture and it is ridiculous to demand a plain Scripture-Proof that such a Doctrine is not in Scripture We believe it is not there because we cannot find it there and those who pretend it is there cannot show it there which is proof enough and all that the Subject is capable of This is what our Author attempts an Answer to in the preceding Paragraph and first he says that those of the thirty nine Articles which are opposed to Catholick Religion so he calls the Popish Corruptions of Christianity contain Affirmative propositions or may be resolved into equivalent affirmatives What then Is the dispute about the terms wherein the Article is conceived whether they be Negative or Affirmative or about the reason why it is either affirmed or denied viz. that such a Doctrine is not taught in Scripture for this is all I meant by a negative Article that we deny such a Doctrine to be contained in Scripture Now suppose I should say There is no such place as Purgatory which is a negative Proposition or that Purgatory is a late and fond invention which is affirmative what difference is there between them when they both resolve into this that Purgatory is not taught in Scripture and therefore the question is still the same whether the Article be expressed affirmatively or negatively and no Man can be bound to prove by plain and express Scripture that Purgatory is not taught in Scripture Well! but though for a Negative or every non-assent or suspence of assent a reason may not be given or required yet for belief for a solemn profession subscription and swearing of that belief whether it be of negatives or affirmatives a reason may be assigned and required What glorious and triumphant Nonsence is here How does a negative Article and non-assent come to be the same thing For we Protestants use to give our assent to negative Articles And why are not Men bound to give a reason of their non-assent as well as of their assent And how are they more bound to give a reason of their profession and swearing their non-assent than they are of their bare non-assent And who ever dreamt that Men are not bound to give a reason of their non-assent and of their profession of non-assent and lastly what is all this to the purpose of demanding express Proofs of Scripture that such Doctrines as suppose Purgatory or the Invocation of Saints c. are not taught in Scripture And why is it not a sufficient reason of a non-assent or declared and professed denial of such Doctrines that it does not appear that they are taught in Scripture But the Request he says proposed only affirmatives and they have been considered and answered already and his Defence shall be considered again without any Fencing or Tergiversation But the Thirty nine Articles not only declare that the opposite affirmatives are not in Scripture for they may not be there and yet be true but if they be not there we cannot know they are true much less can they be Articles of Faith and necessary to Salvation but also that they are rather and plainly repugnant to Scripture this I confess does require a Scripture-Proof that a Doctrine is not only not in the Scripture
both parts of the Lords Sacrament by Christ's ordinance and commandment ought to be ministred to all Christian Men alike what he means by this I cannot guess for if he will not allow an express institution to be a Scripture-Proof I despair of ever finding a Scripture-Proof for any thing unless he can tell me what proof there can be of an institution but the words of Institution does this Institution then contain a command to receive the Eucharist if it does not how does he prove that all Christians are bound to receive the Eucharist if it does then Take Eat is a command to receive the Bread and by the same reason Drink ye all of this is a command to all to receive the Cup and both these being a part of the same Feast and commanded at the same time our Church had reason to say that both parts of the Lord's Sacrament by Christ's ordinance and commandment ought to be administred to all Christian Men alike The Church of Rome thinks the words of Institution a plain and necessary command to consecrate in both kinds without which they grant it is not a Sacrament now what other command have they for consecrating than we have for receiving in both kinds the words of Institution are all that we have about this matter and let them give me reason how the same words come to signifie consecration but not receiving in both kinds nay they grant that the Priest who consecrates must receive as well as consecrate in both kinds and yet the Institution is in the same form of words without making any distinction between the Priest and the People and how the same words should command the Priest to receive in both kinds and not the People is somewhat mysterious I am apt to think that the Fathers of the Council of Constance who decreed the communion in one kind with a non obstante to our Saviour's Institution did suspect that there was a Scripture-Proof for communion in both kinds or there had been no need to have made an exception to our Saviour's Institution and to have set up the authority of the Church against it The Church of Rome allows that it is lawful for the People to communicate in both kinds and have reserved this authority of granting such a liberty to the Pope now how can it be lawful unless Christ has allowed it and where has he allowed it unless in the words of institution and they prove more than allowance even a command if Drink ye all of this be of the Imperative Mood VIII Chastity deliberately vowed may be inoffensively violated This I said is no Doctrine of our Church nor are Protestants now concerned in it though some of the Monks and Nuns at the beginning of the Reformation were and though I did not undertake a just defence of the Marriages of such devoted persons yet I offered several things in Apology for them and said so much that our Author did not think fit to make any reply to it but only answers to my denial that this is a Doctrine of our Church He says This proposition is a Doctrine of the Answerers Church except his be not the same Church with Edward the Sixths or the thirty second Article have another sense than when composed by Cranmer For all Bishops and Priests then in the Western Church had deliberately vowed chastity and the Article says It is lawful for them to marry which certainly violates their vow No Scripture is alledged justifying a Tenet so impure so persidious Thus by consequence he proves that it is the Doctrine of our Church that chastity deliberately vowed may be inoffensively violated because in K. Edward the Sixth and Archbishop Cranmer's days it was the Doctrine of this Church that the Bishops and Priests then in being who had deliberately vowed chastity might notwithstanding marry But suppose this was not the Doctrine in King Edward's days what becomes then of his consequence and yet this is the truth of the case For the Article then only taught that Bishops Priests and Deacons are not commanded to vow the state of single life without marriage neither by God's Law are they compelled to abstain from Matrimony but there is not one word whether those who were Bishops and Priests at that time and were under the vow of Coelibacy though every Priest as a Priest was not by the Laws of this Church bound to undertake such a vow though they were forbid by the Canons to marry might marry or not For though the Article asserts that they were not compelled by God's Law to abstain from Matrimony yet it does not say that they could not debar themselves this liberty by voluntary vows or that if they had done so they might inoffensively break those vows which is a very different question Indeed in Queen Elizabeths Reign in the Convocation held at London 1562. this Article is enlarged Bishops Priests and Deacons are not commanded by God's Law either to vow the estate of single life or to abstain from marriage Therefore it is lawful also for them as for all other Christian Men to marry at their own discretion as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness But this Article does not say that those Bishops and Priests who were entangled with a vow of Coelibacy might lawfully marry but only their being Bishops and Priests was no hindrance to their Marriage Whether there was any other impediment it concerned them to consider but these obligations of Vows which any of them were then under being a personal thing the present decision of that Controversie was not thought fit to be made an Article of Religion So that though some particular Persons were at that time concerned in this question yet the Doctrine of our Church never was concerned in it for there never was any Synodical definition of it and therefore there is no need of producing Scripture-Proofs for it But yet notwithstanding this I am far from condemning those Bishops and Priests and Nuns and Friers who did then marry for I am sure a chast Marriage is more acceptable to God than an impure Coelibacy and those Abominations which were discovered at the Dissolution of Monasteries were enough to make Men abhor such vows of Chastity as he calls them and I am very much of the opinion that it were still better for Priests to marry than to debauch their Penitents or Converts Thus much for his impure and perfidious Tenet IX All Christian excellencies are commanded This I told him I thought S. Paul had determined Philip. 4. 8. Whatsever things are true whatsoever things are honest c. think on these things For if these general expressions do not comprehend all Christian excellencies I know not what does To this he answers Unless besides comprehending it command them that Scripture will not prove the Tenet And the mode of expression that is its being in the Imperative Mood Think on these things does not prove it to be a command
Temple at Ierusalem but though he had his Temple yet he had no Image which the Heathen World thought essential to a Temple For though a symbolical Presence was no confinement of God nor injurious to his Majesty yet a material Image was And yet Solomon in his Prayer of Dedication took care to prevent the Heathen notion of a Temple as if Cod were confined to it for he owns his Omnipresence that he fills both Heaven and Earth only he prays that he would have a more particular regard to that place and to those Prayers which should be offered up there 1 Kings 8. 27 28 c. But will God indeed dwell on the earth Behold the Heaven and Heaven of Heavens cannot contain thee how much less this house that I have builded Yet have thou respect unto the Prayer of thy Servant and to his Supplication O Lord my God to hearken unto the cry and to the Prayer which thy Servant prayeth before thee this day That thine eyes may be open to this House night and day c. And therefore we may observe that the Temple was so contrived as to be a figure of the whole world For the Holy of Holies was a figure of Heaven into which the High Priest entered once a year Heb. 9. 24. and therefore the rest of the Temple signified this earth and the daily worship and Service of it which plainly signified to them that that God who dwelt in the Temple was not confined to that material Building but filled Heaven and Earth with his Presence though he was pleased to have a more peculiar regard to that place and to the Prayers and Sacrifices which were offered there And yet it seems that God would not so far have indulged them at that time as to confine his Worship and peculiar Presence to a certain place had it not been for the sake of some more Divine Mystery For Gods Symbolical and Figurative Presence in the Tabernacle and Temple was only a Type of the Incarnation of the Son of God of his dwelling among us in a humane Body or material Temple as St. Iohn plainly intimates 1 Iohn 14. The word was made flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld his Glory the Glory as of the only begotten of the Father full of Grace and Truth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he Tabernacled among us dwelt among us as God under the Law did in the Tabernacle or Temple and Christ expresly calls his Body the Temple 2. Iohn 19. Destroy this Temple and in three days I will raise it up which the Evangelist tells us he spake of the Temple of his Body 21. v. and he affirms himself to be greater than the Temple 12. Matth. 6. he being that in Truth of which the Temple was a Figure God dwelling among us God dwelling in human Nature For this Reason the Worship of God was confined to the Temple at Ierusalem to signifie to us that we can offer up no acceptable Worship to God but in the Name and Mediation of Christ. But now under the Gospel all these Types and Figures being accomplished in the Person of our Saviour as their Priesthood and Sacrifices so their Temple also had an end as Christ expresly tells the Woman of Samaria who disputed with him about the place of Worship whether it were the Temple at Ierusalem or Samaria Woman believe me the hour cometh when ye shall neither in this Mountain nor yet at Jerusalem Worship the Father John 4. 21. which cannot signifie that they should Worship God neither at Ierusalem nor Samaria for there were famous Churches planted by the Apostles at both these places where they Worshipped God in Spirit and in Truth but it signifies that there should be no material Temple that the Presence of God should not be confined to a certain place as then it was to the Temple which occasioned that Dispute between the Iews and Samaritanes in which Temple God was perculiarly present but wheresoever they Worshipped God in Spirit and in Truth the place should make no difference in their Acceptation as it did under the Law which is not opposed to the erecting of decent and separate places of Worship under the Gospel but only to the Notion of a Temple That this was the sense of the Primitive Christians that they had no material Temples as the Heathens had is evident from their Writings for the Heathens made this objection against them that they had no Temples nor Images which is owned and answered by Origen against Celsus lib. 8. Minutius Faelix Arnobius Lactantius The force then of the Argument is this If under the Gospel God does not allow of so much as a Temple or Symbolical Presence which he did allow of under the Law when he forbad Images much less certainly does he allow Images now which he forbad under the Law. But Protestants have another Argument to prove that the Worship of Images is forbid by the Gospel as well as by the Law and that is that the Primitive Church always understood it so as is evident from the Writings of the Ancient Fathers who condemned the Worship of Images and urged such Arguments against it in their Disputes with the Heathens as had easily been retorted upon themselves had they practised the same thing and yet this was never objected against them by their wittiest Adversaries in that Age though when Image Worship began to be introduced into the Church it was presently objected against the Christians both by Jews and Heathens and which is more than this besides all the other Arguments which they used they alleadged the Second Commandment as the Reason why they could not Worship Images which is a certain Proof that they then thought the Second Commandment was still in force But I shall not enlarge upon this because it is so well done in a late Discourse concerning the Antiquity of the Protestant Religion Part 2. concerning Images to which I refer my Reader 13. The Pope is Antichrist I answered This has been affirmed by some Protestants but is no Article of our Church and therefore we are not bound to prove it but when we have a mind to it No Man ever pretended that there is any such Proposition in Scripture as that the Pope is Antichrist but some think that the Characters of Antichrist and the Man of Sin are much more applicable to him than the Universal Headship and Infalibility To this our Author answers p. 8. Do only some Protestants and no Homily subscribed as containing a Godly and wholsom Doctrine necessary for these times Article the Fifty fifth though the Church of England owns but Thirty nine Articles affirm the Pope to be Antichrist Yet we meet with no Scripture brought to prove this Godly necessary Doctrine Now though I could tell him that every saying in an Homily has not the Authority of an Article yet I need not enter into that Dispute for I am pretty confident it is no where expresly asserted in any of
Infallibility they are not a direct Answer to that charge That she has actually erred and can have no force to prove her Infallibility till that charged be answered because there can be no Proof against matter of fact And therefore when they begin with the Proof of Infallibility they begin at the wrong end for when the Church is charged with Error if they would not lose their labour they must prove that she has not erred before they prove her to be infallible for otherwise after all the pains they have taken to prove her Infallibility if they cannot deliver her from the charge of having erred their Labour is lost and therefore it is best to try that first which shows what a Sophistical Argument it is to prove that the Church has not erred because she is infallible and cannot err for they must first prove that she has not erred before they can prove her to be infallible for till this be removed it is an effectual Bar to all other Proofs of Infallibility And thus their compendious way of making Converts and confuting Hereticks is nothing but Sophistry and a Cheat and if men would be sincere and honest Converts they must not flatter themselves with an Opinion of the Churches Infallibility but must examine the particular Disputes between us and be thoroughly satisfied that the Church of Rome has not erred before they embrace her Communion 2. For if it appear that the Church of Rome has been guilty of Error or Apostacy this is a certain Demonstration that either those Scripture-promises which she alledges do not belong to her or do not signifie what she brings them for for whatever Christ promises he will certainly perform and therefore if the Church of Rome has erred he never promised she should be infallible To be sure when the Sense and Application of such Texts of Scripture are disputed as they are between Protestants and Papists that side must have the advantage which is confirmed by the Event and matter of Fact and therefore if it appear the Church of Rome has erred the Protestant Interpretations of those Texts Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church and such like are to be preferred before the Popish Interpretations which apply them to the Bishops of Rome as the Infallible Guides of the Church especially when that evidence we have that the Church has Erred is much more plain and notorious then that Christ has promised that she shall not Err when the Scripture Proofs that the Church of Rome has Erred in several Doctrines and Practices which she now teaches are much plainer than those Texts are by which they prove that she cannot Err if I can prove by plain Texts that she has Erred this shall teach me how to expound those obscure Texts from which some would prove that she cannot Err. Indeed it is very happy that no Man believes Christ has promised Infallibility to the Church of Rome but those who believe that she has not Erred for if they did it would be a very dangerous State of Temptation and a very ill Argument in the hands of an Infidel against Christianity for they would rather charge Christ with a breach of his Promise which would destroy his Authority than believe contrary to the plainest and most convincing Evidence that the Church of Rome has not erred and indeed it would stagger the Faith of a Christian if the pretended Promises of Infalibility to the Church of Rome were as plain as her Errors are for what should any Man do in that case believe that she has not erred because of the Promise of Infalibility or disbelieve the Promise because she has erred When both sides are equally plain and yet can never be reconciled it is a sore Temptation to believe neither when I know not which to choose and cannot possibly believe both So that to urge the Infallibility of the Church that she cannot err against the plainest evidence that she has erred may make some Men Infidels but can make no considering Man a Roman-Catholick But to return to our Author though I think I have not left him all this time I gave a fourth Answer to this Reqnest which he takes no notice of viz. If the first discovery of this Defection had been made by Lay-men and afterwards acknowledged by the Clergy who joyned in the Reformation I should not have thought the Reformation ever the worse for it For if the Clergy corrupt Religion we have reason to thank God if he opens the Eyes of honest and disinterested Lay-men For this is the great grievance that the Clergy should Apostatize and a National Laity discover the Clergies Defection and reform it This is now the fashionable way of Disputing against the Reformation of the Church of England that it was not regularly done by the consent of the Major part of the Clergy in a National Synod which first ought to have been obtained before the Queen and the Parliament had made any Laws about it which is the whole design of a late Oxford Book against the Reformation Now this I confess seems to me a very strange way of Reasoning unworthy of Christians especially of Christian Divines for not to enter now into the History of the Reformation which those who please may learn from Dr Burnet who has Published the Authentick Records of the most material Transactions in it yet I say 1. If the Reformation be good and necessary there can want no Authority to reform and my Reason is because it is Established by the Authority of Christ and his Apostles which is a good Authority to this day for to Reform Abuses and Corruptions signifies no more than to Profess the pure and uncorrupted Faith and Worship of Christ and I desire to know whether Christ have not given sufficient Authority to every Man to do this or whether there be any Authority in Church or State which can de jure forbid the doing it and make it unlawful and irregular to do so if there be truly Christ and his Apostles have preached the Gospel to very little purpose if we must not believe or practice as they teach unless our Superiors will give us leave How could the Gospel have been at first planted in the World upon these Principles Jews and Heathens had a regular Authority among them to determine matters of Religion and this Authority opposed and condemned the Faith of Christ and therefore unless particular Men had reformed for themselves and joyned themselves to the Fellowship of the Apostles they must have continued Jews or Pagans to this day For as for what our Author says that sueb a change in Religion ought to have some Scripture or because Extraordinary should have Miracles to countenance it I answer we have both we have reformed according to the Scriptures and can justifie our Faith and Worship by the Scriptures and a Scripture Reformation is confirmed by Miracles because the Doctrine of the Gospel is so
but repugnant to it but then a plain and evident consequence from something else which is taught in Scripture is all the proof which can be expected in such cases and this we are ready to give when our Author shall demand it And now would not any one wonder how from these premises he concludes that he has shewn Protestants obliged to give Scripture-reasons for their belief of Negatives that is if he will speak to the purpose that we are obliged to prove from plain and express Texts of Scripture that those Doctrines which we reject as unscriptural are not contained in Scripture we must prove from Scripture that that is not in Scripture which we say is not in it which may be done indeed by a negative Argument from the silence of Scripture about it but is not capable of a direct and positive Proof Let us now take a review of his several Protestant Doctrines for which he demands a Scripture-Proof and see wherein the Answer was defective I. Scripture is clear in all necessaries to every sober Inquirer In answer to this I observed that every plain Text of Scripture proved its own plainness and that as it needs no other Proof no more than we need a proof that the Sun shines when we see it so if we did not find it plain no other argument or testimony could prove it to be plain But this he takes no notice of but only endeavours to weaken two Scripture testimonies which I said do by a very easie and natural Consequence prove the plainness of Scripture for if the word of God be a light unto our feet and a lamp unto our paths then it must be clear if light be clear Psalm 119. 105. if it be able to make men wise unto salvation 2 Tim. 3. 15. then it must be plain and intelligible in all things necessary to salvation to which he answers that these Texts do not reach the proposition to be proved For if the word were a light to the Prophet David ' s feet if all Scripture be given that the Man of God may be perfect yet a perspicuity of Scripture in all necessaries to every sober Inquirer cannot be deduced thence except every sober Inquirer be a Prophet or a Man of God or at least subject to such As if none but Prophets or Apostles could understand the Scripture But I thought light had been visible to all Men that have eyes in their Heads and I am sure the same Prophet tells us that the Law of the Lord is perfect converting the Soul the Testimony of the Lord is sure making wise the simple the Statutes of the Lord are right rejoycing the heart the Commandment of the Lord is pure enlightning the eyes Psalm 19. 7 8. Is this spoken only of Prophets too Are there no other souls to be converted no other simple people to be made wise no other hearts to be rejoyced no other eyes to be enlightned but only theirs And when S. Paul tells Timothy from a Child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures which are able to make thee wise unto Salvation which was the place I cited does this prove that none but a man of God for which he exchanges it though that is not in the 15. but 17. verse can understand the Scriptures when it seems Timothy understood them when he was a Child However thus much he must grant in his own way that the Scriptures are very intelligible in all things necessary to Salvation for otherwise a man of God the Pastors and Teachers of the Church could not understand them if they be not so plain that they may be understood and if the Scriptures be plain and intelligible in themselves then he must grant that at least all Men of Parts and Learning and Industry who are sober and honest Inquirers may understand them as well as Divines unless he will say that Divines understand them not by the use of their reason and wise consideration but by Inspiration and Prophecy and then it is not the Scripture but the inspired interpretation of it which makes Men wise unto Salvation At least he must grant that the Scriptures can make any other Man of God perfect as well as the Pope for this is not spoke of S. Peter and his Successors only but of Timothy and any other Man of God and therefore there is no need that all other Bishops and Pastors should depend on the Pope as an infallible Oracle Nay if the Scriptures are able to make the man of God perfect in the discharge of his Ministry of which S. Paul here speaks for Doctrine for Reproof for Correction for Instruction in Righteousness then the people also who are to be taught may be made to understand the Scriptures the Doctrines Reproofs and Instructions of it for as the Scripture is the Teachers Rule so it is his Authority too and if the people cannot be taught to understand the Scriptures in things necessary to Salvation they cannot know that such things are in Scripture which destroys the Divine Authority of the Preacher For what he teaches without Scripture can only have his own authority or the authority of other Men like himself and yet no Man can tell whether what he teaches be in the Scripture who cannot in some measure understand the Scripture himself and if a Divine Faith must be founded upon the Authority of Scripture which is the only Divine Authority we now have and no Man can believe upon the Authority of Scripture who cannot understand it then it is as necessary that all things necessary to Salvation should be so plain in Scripture that all persons at least with the help of a Guide should understand them as it is that all even the meanest Men should know all things necessary to their Salvation For it is a Scandal to the Protestant profession to say that we reject the Authority of Church Guides which we own as well as the Church of Rome only with this difference That the Church of Rome will have Men believe their Guides without reason or understanding we have Guides not merely to dictate to us but to teach us to understand As the Masters in other Arts and Sciences do who explain the reasons of things to their Scholars till they attain to a great Mastery and perfection of knowledge themselves And if by the help of such a Teaching not an Imposing Guide Men may understand the Scripture in all things necessary to Salvation then the Scripture is plain and intelligible though an unlearned Man cannot understand it without a Guide as Mathematical demonstrations are certainly plain if any thing be plain though unskilful Men cannot understand them without a Master but that is clear and plain in it self which can be explained to every ordinary apprehension and such we assert the Scriptures to be in all necessaries Learned Men can by their own studies and inquiries understand the true sense of them and the Unlearned can be taught to
should incline Men to expound those words of our Saviour This is my Body of his Natural Body contrary to all the Sacramental forms of speech used in Scripture did they not think it meritorious to believe impossibilities and contradictions To return then a more direct Answer to our Author's question what there is besides Substance and Efficacy belonging to our Saviour's Body I answer by Nature there is nothing else but by Institution there is for there is the Sacrament of the Lord's Body which is neither the natural Substance nor the natural Efficacy of his Body but a Sacramental Communion in the merits and Efficacy of his Death and Passion which is a spiritual eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood of Christ. And since he wants Scripture for this I will give him a very piain Text 1 Cor. 10. 16. The cup of Blessing which we bless is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ the Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ. Thus S. Paul explains what our Saviour said This is my Body and This is my Blood by this is the Communion of Christ's Body and Blood That is that those who by Faith partake of the Sacramental Bread and Wine do communicate in the Body and Blood of Christ. This is a different thing from the mere influences of his Grace for it is our interest and Communion in his Sacrifice which is the meritorious cause and spring of all Divine Influences and Communications We must be mystically and spiritually united to Christ to have Communion in the Sacrifice of his Body and Blood and then we receive the fresh supplies of Grace from him which are the purchase of his Death and the effect of our Union to him and this Communion with the Body and Blood of Christ we receive in the Lord's Supper which is instituted by Christ for that very purpose and therefore it is called the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ because it is the Sacrament of our Union to him whereby we communicate in his Body and Blood and if this be Zuinglianism I see no help for it but we must be contented to be Zuinglians VI. Adoration of the Eucharist i. e. of our Saviour under the species of Bread and Wine is Idolatry I answered There was no such proposition as this taught in the Church of England We teach indeed that Bread and Wine in the Eucharist remains Bread and Wine after Consecration and that to adore Bread and Wine is Idolatry To adore our Saviour is no Idolatry but to adore Bread and Wine for our Saviour may be as much Idolatry as to worship the Sun for God. Instead of answering this he tells us This blasphemous Tenet is taught by our Church and which is a little worse is practised by theirs For the majority of our pretended Bishops did Vote for the Test and do all of them take it and I hope will keep it too That it is a Canon of our General Council the Parliament and therefore it is very good Law and that is all we desire for our Religion from Parliaments and thank God that we have it and since they are a General Council may they insist upon their Infallibility But what is the matter with the Test Why it declares our Adoration of the Eucharist which is the Adoration of nothing but Iesus Christ to be Idolatry Is the Eucharist then nothing but Jesus Christ does the Council of Trent say so Is this the Doctrine of any of their Schoolmen Canonists or Divines Nay will this Author venture to say that the Eucharist is nothing but Jesus Christ himself Which is speck and span New Popery if this be the Doctrine of the Church of Rome No! he does not dares not say that the Eucharist is nothing but Jesus Christ but he says that the Adoration of the Eucharist is the Adoration of nothing but Iesus Christ. But what palpable nonsence is this For if the Eucharist be something which is not Jesus Christ then the Adoration of the Eucharist must be the Adoration of something which is not Jesus Christ. And yet though we should suppose the Doctrine of Transubstantiation to be true yet the natural Flesh and Blood of Christ according to the Doctrine of the Council of Trent though it be present in the Sacrament is not the Sacrament For there can be no Sacrament of the Eucharist without the species of Bread and Wine and yet the Council of Trent decrees that the worship of Latria which is due to the true God be given to this most Holy Sacrament And that we might know what they meant by the Sacrament they tell us it is that which is instituted by Christ to be received or eaten which certainly is the species of Bread and Wine For they being sensible how absurd it is to worship what we eat to prevent this they tell us that it is nevertheless to be adored because it is instituted to be received or eaten The reason indeed they give for it is because Christ is present in this Sacrament but though the presence of Christ be the reason of this Adoration yet the whole Sacrament is the object which is not merely the natural Body and Blood of Christ but the species of Bread and Wine under which is contained the Body and Blood of Christ and therefore to adore the Sacrament is not to adore nothing but Iesus Christ for the Sacrament is somewhat more But then if the Doctrine of Transubstantiation be false they have no other object of their worship but Bread and Wine and thus the Church of England believes and thus our General Council the Parliament which made the Test believed and thus all Men who dare trust their own Senses and Reason believe and if it be blasphemy to teach that the worship of Bread and Wine is Idolatry some of the mâ—st Learned Divines of the Church of Rome have been guilty of this Blasphemy and I should be glad to hear what our Authors opinion is of it VII All Christians whenever they communicate are obliged to receive in both kinds For this I urged the express words of institution which do as expresly command us to drink of the Cup as to eat of the Bread so that if there be any command in Scripture to receive the Bread there is the same command to receive the Cup nay indeed as if our Saviour had purposely intended to prevent this Sacrilegious taking away of the Cup from the People whereas in delivering the Bread he only says Take Eat when he blessed and delivered the Cup he expresly commanded Drink ye all of it And I further argued from the nature of the Eucharist which as it was instituted in both kinds so it is not a compleat Sacrament without it and yet our Author rubs his forehead and confidently tells his Readers Nor for this point can a Scripture command be discovered in the Answer Though the thirtieth Article affirms that
Shrine of any other powerful Saints to give all our Estates for saying Masses for the Dead to adore Reliques and Images to kiss the Pavement of such a Church or some Cross drawn on it to say over some particular Prayers so many times a day or to pray before such a particular Altar and such like things as by the liberality of Popes have so many thousand years Indulgence for a reward are indeed works of Supererogation because God has not commanded them but I doubt are no Christian excellencies Such things as these make Men Saints and enrich the Church with Merits and much good may do them with it X. Every Soul as soon as expired is conveyed to Heaven or Hell. In Answer to this I told him that the Scripture gives us no account of any other places of rewards and punishments in the other World but Heaven and Hell. And that this proposition that every Soul as soon as expired is conveyed to Heaven or Hell is only an Inference from this Doctrine that we know of no other place they should go to after death the Scripture having not told us of any other That our Church though She rejects Purgatory yet has not determined against an intermediate State between Death and Judgment Though Christ's Parable of Dives and Lazarus and S. Paul's desire to be dissolved and to be with Christ look fairly towards proving that good Men go to Heaven and bad Men directly to Hell when they die He takes notice only of this last passage of Dives and Lazarus and S. Paul and says that this would prove something if three Souls be All or All Souls expire in either Dives ' s fitness for Hell or Lazarus ' s and S. Paul ' s for Heaven But he should have taken the whole proof together that there is no mention made in Scripture of any other place of rewards or punishments in the next World but Heaven and Hell and that whereever we have any account of the state of Men after Death we either hear of them in Heaven or Hell. As Dives when he died was immediately tormented in Hell and Lazarus was conveyed into Abraham's bosom and S. Paul expected when he died to go immediately to Heaven and to be with Christ but we read of no Man who went to Purgatory when he died and what other proof can we have of this but that Heaven is promised to good Men and Hell threatned against bad Men and we have some examples of both recorded in Scripture unless we expect the Scripture should give us a compleat Catalogue of all who were saved or damned in those days As for Mens fitness for Heaven or for Hell when they die I know not well what he means by it For Men may be fit as he calls it for Hell who are not as wicked as Dives and we all have reason to hope that those may be fit for Heaven who are not so holy as St. Paul was Though there are different degrees of Vice and Vertue which may qualifie Men for different degrees of rewards and punishments yet as we read in Scripture but of two states in the other World Heaven and Hell so we read but of two distinctions of Men in this World the good and the bad to whom these promises or threatnings belong Now every Man when he dies must be one of these either a penitent or an impenitent sinner for the Scripture knows no medium between them If he be a penitent sinner by the gracious terms of the Gospel he has a right to pardon of sin and eternal life and why is not that Man fit for Heaven who has a Covenant-right to it and what should detain him in Purgatory who has an immediate right to Heaven if he be an impenitent sinner Hell is his portion and he must have it But after all this is no controversie between us and the Church of Rome whether every Soul as soon as expired is conveyed to Heaven or Hell but whether those who shall finally be saved must suffer the pains of Purgatory in the other World before they shall be received into Heaven Our Author has a mind to confound these two and seems to think it proof enough that there is a Purgatory if there be a middle state between death and judgment which is neither Heaven nor Hell and possibly those who do not understand this Controversie may be deceived with such pretences and therefore it will be convenient briefly to state this matter There have been I confess very different opinions among some of the Fathers about the state of Souls departed both before and since the Resurrection of Christ from the dead as you shall hear more presently and there may be very different opinions about it still and I believe will be among thoughtful and inquisitive Men and no great hurt done neither while they are not made Articles of Faith nor the foundation of some new and unscriptural worship But that our People may not be imposed on with sham-proofs which are nothing to the purpose as it is plain this Author intended to do in this Article it will be necessary plainly to represent the Doctrine of the Church of Rome concerning Purgatory that they may know what proofs to demand of it Now the Council of Trent determines no more than that there is a Purgatory and that the Souls which are detained there are helpt by the suffrages of the faithful but principally by the most acceptable Sacrifice of the Altar and commands the Bishops diligently to take care that the wholesome Doctrine of Purgatory delivered by the holy Fathers and Councils be believed held taught and preached to Christ's faithful People The Fathers of this Council were very careful not to determine what Purgatory is what the punishments of it are where the place of it is but refer us to former Fathers and Councils for it and therefore among the rest I suppose they mean the Council of Florence where this purgation is expresly affirmed to be by fire and to be a state of punishment Cardinal Bellarmine who wrote since the Council of Trent understood Fathers and Councils and the sense of the Roman Church as well as any Man and therefore I shall briefly shew what he thought of this matter That Bellarmine did believe that Souls departed were purged with fire is abundantly evident from what he discourses on 1 Cor. 3. and from those testimonies of the Fathers which he abuses to this purpose But for what end these punishments serve is as considerable as Purgatory fire it self and they Bellarmine tells us are to expiate venial sins or such mortal sins whose guilt is pardoned but not the temporal punishment due to them For according to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome there are some venial sins which in their own nature do not deserve eternal but only temporal punishments and as for mortal sins when the guilt of them is pardoned by the Sacrament of Penance by
the Church of Rome truly represented the Answer to Monsieur de Meaux or to Papists Protesting against Protestant Popery nor the Vindication of the Catechism truly representing the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome in answer to the first and second Sheets of the second Part of the Papist Misrepresented and Represented Is our Author then one of those who are employed some times to do a little job at Writing but are not permitted to read any of our Books but what and when their Superiors please This gives an account of that Mystery how they can so confidently urge such things as all the World now laughs at for poor Men they know no better and what some so uncharitably call impudence is only ignorance He proceeds Their Test and Homily call the honour we pay to sacred persons and things Idolatry We must either then challenge Protestants to prove this proposition or conclude them calumniators We know what we profess and practise to be as the Catholick Church teaches we hear our Doctrine and Practice confidently said and solemnly subscribed to be Idolatry Sure then we may conclude that Protestants believe the proposition and decent it is that they give a reason of a Faith so injurious to the Catholick Church or henceforward renounce it This still makes good my conjecture that he has only heard in general of such a charge as this but never read the Arguments whereby some Protestants make good this charge at least as they apprehend for me-thinks had he known these proofs he should first have answered them before he had called for more but I assure him it will be an easier task to conclude them Calumniators than to undertake to answer them and therefore if he be wise let him stick to that if they believe and practise as the Church of Rome teaches which in defiance of common sence he will call the Catholick Church I am sure they give another kind of honour to the Cross and Reliques and Images than to the Bible but if he thinks that the Catholick Church always taught what the Church of Rome now teaches I would desire him to read a late Discourse intituled The Antiquity of the Protestant Religion concerning Images which will better inform him But since he calls so importunately for proofs it may be thought very uncivil to deny him and therefore I shall briefly represent to him the reasons why some Protestants have charged the Church of Rome with Idolatry in worshipping the Cross and Images and shall be very glad for the sake of the Church of Rome to see them well answered They lay their charge in the second Commandment which forbids the worship of Images and all representative objects and say that the words are so large as to comprehend all manner of Images which are set up for worship that the Law expresly forbids without any distinction of the end and intention of doing it all external acts of adoration as bowing down to them or before them that it does not meerly forbid the worship of Images as Gods for the Heathens themselves were never so senseless as to believe that their Images of Wood or Stone or Silver or Gold were Gods but only visible representations of their invisible Deities That it does not only forbid the worship of the Images of Heathen Gods but of the Lord Iehovah for the reason whereby Moses enforces this commandment is that they saw no similitude on the day that the Lord spake to them in Horeb out of the midst of the fire Deut. 4. 15. and therefore they must take good heed unto themselves lest they corrupt themselves with Images that they saw no Image of God is a good argument against their making and worshipping the Image of the true God but it is no direct argument against the Images of Heathen Gods and therefore this must be a prohibition of worshipping the true God by Images Another Scripture argument against Image-worship is from the infinite perfections and excellency of the Divine Nature that no Image can be made of God but what must be a reproach and debasement of his Majesty To whom then will ye liken God or what likeness will ye compare to him c. Isaiah 40. 18 c. and this surely is an argument against making and worshipping any Image of the true God. They consider farther that Aaron's Calf was not an Image of a false God but a Symbolical representation of the Lord Iehovah For they expresly call it the God which brought them out of the Land of AEgypt and when Aaron himself appointed a Feast for the Worship of this Molten God He said toâ—morrow is a Feast to the Lord or to Iehovah Exod. 32. 4 5. and therefore these Israelites are charged with changing their glory i. e. the Lord Iehovah who was the Glory of Israel into the similitude of an oxe which eateth grass Psalm 106. 20. But how can this be true if they did not intend this Calf as a Representation of the Lord Iehovah And it is evident that they made this Calf only as a Divine presence to go before them in the absence of Moses For while Moses delayed to come down out of the mount the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron and said unto him Up make us gods which shall go before us for as for this Moses the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt we know not what is become of him Verse 1. So that they did not think of changing their God but only wanted a Visible and Symbolical presence of God with them instead of Moses who when he was with them was a kind of Divine presence God conversing familiarly with him and by him giving them directions and orders what to do and yet the worship of this Calf which was not worshipped as a God or the Image of a false God but as a Symbolical Representation of the Lord Iehovah was Idolatry The like may be said of the Calves at Dan and Bethel which Ieroboam set up in imitation of the golden Calf and for Symbolical representations of the God of Israel For so he himself tells them Behold thy Gods O Israel which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt that is the Lord Iehovah whom Ieroboam did still own and Worship For he had no intention to change their God but only to prevent their going up to Ierusalem three times in the Year to Worship there according to the Law which he feared might prove the destruction of his new Kingdom And therefore God himself makes a great difference between the sin of Ieroboam and the sin of Ahab who introduced the worship of Baal a false God. And therefore though Iehu still preserved the golden Calves which Ieroboam set up yet he calls his Zeal in destroying Baal his Zeal for the Lord Iehovah Which is another Scripture-example of Idolatry in worshipping the Image or Representation of the True God. Another instance is the
Western Patriarch and therefore ought not to have innovated without the Patriarchal Authority and a Patriarchal Council nor to have rejected the Patriarchal Authority which was confirmed by ancient Councils Now not to dispute this at present Whether England were subject to the Bishop of Rome as the Western Patriarch which it is certain our Brittish Bishops when Austin the Monk came into England would not own and which was never granted by any ancient General Council and the Submission of the English Bishops afterwards by Fear or Flattery could never give such a Right as should oblige all their Successours for future Ages yet I say this Patriarchal Authority is not the Dispute between the Church of England and the Church of Rome Our Reformers took no notice of the Patriarchal Authority but the Universal Headship and Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome as is evident from the Articles of our Church in which there is no mention of it And this was such an Usurpation as might be renounced without the Authority of any Council as I have already shown Indeed his Patriarchal Authority if he had any necessarily fell with it For when he challenges such an exorbitant Power so far exceeding the Bounds and Limits of a Patriarchal Authority and will exercise all if he exercise any and will hold Communion with none upon any other terms and will not be confined to a meer Patriarchal Jurisdiction we must necessarily renounce all Subjection to him to deliver our selves from his Usurpations when his pretended Patriarchate is swallowed up in his Universal Headship he may thank himself if he forfeits what he might with a better Appearance make some Pretence to by challenging so much more than ever was his right And the Patriarchal Authority it self could he have made any pretences to it which he never could over the Church of England which was originally a free and independent Church being but a human Constitution may be renounced without Schism when necessity requires it and certainly if ever there can be any necessity for such a Rupture it becomes necessary then when it swells into a boundless and unlimited Authority to the Oppression of the whole Christian Church in her essential Rights and Liberties 5ly There is one thing more I would have observed for the right stating of this Dispute about Schism viz. the difference between Schism from the Catholick Church and the Breach of Ecclesiastical Communion between different Churches In the first Sense Schism cuts us off from the Body of Christ and consequently puts us out of a state of Salvation and therefore it can be nothing less than a Separation from the Communion of the Church in things essential to Faith or Worship or Government for in this sense no man can be a Schismatick without in some Degree or other forfeiting his Christianity and his essential Right to Christian Communion Ecclesiastical Communion is the Union of several distinct Churches into one Ecclesiastical Body for mutual Advice and Counsel and the more pure Administration of Discipline When several Bishops who have originally all the same Authority in the Government of their several Churches bestow different Powers on some Bishops whom they advance above others with the Title and Authority of Metropolitans or Patriarchs with a Power of calling Synods and receiving Appeals and the principal Authority of Ordinations and govern their several Churches by such Ecclesiastical Laws as are agreed on by common Consent or the major Vote This is a very useful Constitution and of great Antiquity in the Church if it had not its beginning in the Apostles times and for any Bishop or Church causelessly to break such a Confederacy as this is a very great Evil and has the Guilt and Crime of Schism but yet it does not seem to be such a Schism as divides the intrinsick Unity of the Catholick Church and cuts off such a Church from the Body of Christ. For the Unity of the Catholick Church consists in one Faith and Worship and Charity and such an external Communion when occasion offers shows that we are all the Disciples of the same common Lord and Saviour and own each other for Brethren but the Church may be the one Body of Christ without being one Ecclesiastical Body under one governing Head which it is impossible the whole Christian Church should be and therefore a Church which divides it self from that Ecclesiastical Body to which it did once belong if it have just and necessary Reasons for what it does is wholly blameless nay commendable for it if it have not it sins according to the nature and aggravation of the Crime but still may be a Member of the Catholick Church and still enjoy all the Priviledges of a true Catholick Church the Communion of Saints the Forgiveness of Sins and the Promises of everlasting Life Which shows us how the holy Catholick Church in the Creed may be One notwithstanding all those Divisions of Christendom which are occasioned by the Quarrels of Bishops and the Disputes about Ecclesiastical Canons and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Those who are the Beginners or Fomentors of such Divisions shall answer it to their Lord and Judge as they shall all their other personal Miscarriages but it would be very hard if such a Church which in its Faith and Worship is truly Catholick should be cut off from the Body of Christ and all the Members of it put out of a State of Salvation because the Bishops and Pastors of such Churches think fit to divide themselves from that Ecclesiastical Body to which they were united by Custom or ancient Canons Now this is the most they can make of our forsaking the Ecclesiastical Communion of the Church of Rome That we have divided our selves from the Bishop of Rome to whom by Custom or some pretended Canons we owed Obedience and Subjection which I have proved to be very innocent in us because it was necessary But suppose it were a causeless and criminal Separation yet it is only an Ecclesiastical Schism which does not separate us from the Catholick Church though it does from that Ecclesiastical Body of which the Bishop of Rome makes himself the Head. This I think is a sufficient Justification of the Church of England in rejecting the Authority of the Church of Rome and her reforming the Errors and Corruptions of Faith and Worship needs no defence at all though there were never a pure and reformed Church in the World besides her self For I would desire our Author to tell me whether it be a fault to reform the Corruptions of Faith and Worship Can it be a fault then to believe as Christ has taught and to worship God as he has prescribed Is it possible that the true Catholick Faith and Worship should ever be a Crime if it be not then it can be no fault to make the Doctrines and Institutions of our Saviour the Rule of our Faith and Worship and that is all that we mean by reforming not
must grant So that still this whole Controversy issues in this whether the Terms of their Communion be not sinful if they be this will justifie our Non-communion with them if they be not we are Schismaticks and by this we are willing to stand or fall So that this charge of Schism upon the Church of England is very absurd and ridiculous unless they can charge us with Schismatical Doctrines and Practices if we separate for the sake of a Corrupt Faith or Worship we are Schismaticks indeed but if we separate only because we will not profess any Erroneous Doctrines nor Communicate in a corrupt Worship unless the true Faith and true Worship can make Men Schismaticks we may very securely scorn such an Accusation And it is as impertinent a Question to ask us what Church we joyned in Communion with when we forsook the Communion of the Church of Rome For if by joyning in Communion with other Churches they mean uniting our selves in one Ecclesiastical Body with them putting our selves under the Government of any other Patriarch so we joyned in Communion with no other Church and there was no reason we should for we were Originally a free independent Church which owed no Subjection to any other Church but had a plenary Power to decide all Controversies among our selves without appealing to any foreign Jurisdiction and when we had delivered our selves from one Usurper there was no reason to court a new one this not being necessary to Catholick Unity and Communion If by joyning in Communion with other Churches they mean what other Churches we made the Pattern of our Reformation we freely confess we made no Church of that Age our Pattern but I think we did much better for we made the Scriptures our Rule and the Primitive and Apostolick Churches our Pattern which we take to be a more Infallible direction than the Example of any Church then or now If we must have been confined to the Faith and Practise of other Churches then in being without regard to a more Infallible Rule and a more unquestionable Authority I confess I should have chose to have continued in the Church of Rome which had the most visible and flourishing Authority of any other Church at that time but our Reformers did believe and very rightly that no Church had any Authority against the Scriptures and Primitive Practise and then they were not concerned to enquire whether any other Church did in all things believe and practise as they taught but what the Faith and Practice of the Apostles and their immediate Successors was and yet they very well know that most of those Doctrines and Practises which they condemned in the Church of Rome were condemned by other Churches also though it may be those other Churches might have some less Errors and Corruptions of their own If the Scriptures and the Example of the Primitive Churches be a sufficient Authority to justifie a Reformation then the Church of England is blameless though no other Church in the World followed this Pattern but our selves for this is the Rule and Pattern which they ought all to follow and if they do not it is not we are to blame but themselves And yet what if I should say that our Reformers made the Church of Rome her self the Pattern of our Reformation and indeed this is the plain truth of the Case For we framed no new Creeds no new Articles of Faith no new Forms of Worship no new Models of Government but retained all that is Ancient and Apostolick in the Church of Rome and only rejected those Corruptions and Innovations which were introduced in several Ages and confirmed all together by the Council of Trent Our Faith is contained in the Apostles Nicene Athanasian Creeds which are all owned by the Church of Rome and were the Ancient Faith of the Catholick Church We own the two Christian Sacraments Baptism and the Lords Supper which were expresly Instituted by our Saviour himself and which the Church of Rome owns We Worship one God through Jesus Christ who is that one Mediator between God and Man as the Church of Rome confesses though she brings in a great many other Mediators by the help of a distinction Our publick Liturgie is so conformed to the Ancient Liturgies of the Roman Church that it has been often objected to us though very peevishly and absurdly by Dissenters that our Common Prayer is taken out of the Mass Book Our Litanies Collects Hymns are many of them taken out of the old Latin Liturgies only we have changed the Popish Legends into Lessons out of the Old and New Testaments and have left out Prayers to Saints and all the Corruptions of the Mass and other Superstitions So that in Truth the Church of England is the exact Resemblance of the Church of Rome in her state of Primitive Purity before her Faith and Worship were corrupted with new and superstitious Additions and it is plain that this was the Rule of our Reformation not to form and model a new Church but only to Purge the Church from all new Corruptions and to leave the old Foundations and Building as it was and if we have indeed retained all that is Ancient and Apostolick in the Church of Rome and rejected nothing but Innovations in Faith and Corruptions in Worship they need not enquire for a Church which believes all that we do for the Church of Rome her self does so and if they believe more than they should it is no fault that we do not believe all that they do and therefore we had no need to seek for any other Church to joyn with for we staid where we were and did not leave our Church but Reform it and a Man who does not pull down his House but only cleanses it and makes it a more wholsom Habitation needs not inquire for a new House to dwell in To conclude this Argument our positive Faith and Worship is the same still with the Church of Romes and therefore they cannot blame us for it and in those Doctrines and Practices wherein we have forsaken the Church of Rome we have the Authority and Practice of most other Churches to justifie us which do not own the Supremacy of the Pope nor Transubstantiation nor Purgatory nor Communion in one kind nor Latin Service nor the Worship of Images with several other of the Trent Innovations So that in truth we are so far from separating from all Christian Societies that there are few things in our Reformation but what are owned and justified either by the Church of Rome her self or by some other Churches not to take notice now that there are few things in our Reformation but what some Doctors of the Roman Communion have either justified or spoke modestly of 16. The whole Clergy of the Catholick Church may Apostatize from Fundamental Truth and Holiness whilst part of a National Laity may preserve both discover the Clergies defection and depriving them heap to themselves Teachers
of their own sending and instruction In Answer to this I told him that if by this he meant that the whole Clergy of the Christian World did at the time of the Reformation maintain the Doctrines of the Church of Rome which were rejected and condemned only by a Major Vote of a Parliament of Lay-men in England all the World knew how false it is For 1. There were many other Churches and better parts of the Catholick Church than the Church of Rome which did not own those Doctrines and Corruptions which we reject 2. Nay the whole Clergy of the Roman Church did not for many of our English Bishops and Clergy were as Zealous for the Reformation as any Lay-men so were the German Reformers who were Originally Popish Monks and Priests and yet did not follow the Laity but lead them way to the Reformation In reply to this he says I manifest my self meanly versed in the Story of my own Party or no friend to Ingenuity and Truth For it is certainly true and attested by Protestant Historians and Records that all the Bishops and the whole Convocation declared against Lay-supremacy and other Protestant Points and for Non-compliance therewith were almost all deprived the Queen and her Lay-Parliament enacting Supremacy whereby she imposed new Doctrines displaced the Catholick Clergy and created Prelatick Ministers And whether he or I be most in the right let the Reader Judg. For 1. It is plain I did not speak only of the Clergy of England but of the whole Clergy of the Catholick Church as he himself stated the Question and he answers only to the Clergy of England and with what Truth shall be examined presently For if the whole Clergy of the Catholick Church have not Apostatized whatever the Clergy of the Church of Rome has done he loses the very Foundation of his Request to us to prove that the whole Clergy of the Catholick Church have Apostatized from Fundamental Truth and Holiness for we are not bound to prove that which is false but he who allows no Catholick Church but the Church of Rome must consequently allow no Clergy of the Catholick Church but the Roman Clergy but we grant neither one nor t'other and yet as I showed the Roman Clergy themselves were the first Reformers and therefore what he insinuates cannot be true that the whole Roman Clergy opposed the Roman Laity in the Reformation 2. As for the English Reformation he confines it in his Answer only to the Story of Queen Elizabeth and what was done in her Reign but the Article he would have proved and the Answer I gave to it has no such limitation and I must still repeat that all the World knows and the Histories and Records of our Church assure us that the Popish Bishops and Convocation in Henry the Eight's days did acknowledg the Kings Supremacy and in higher Terms than Queen Elizabeth would challenge it Indeed the late Oxford Writer or rather Publisher of Books charges this upon that force they were under that is that the Clergy was taken in a Praemunire and the King would not compound the Business with them unless they acknowledged him to be the Head of the Church But does this prove that they did not make this Recognition if force or flattery can corrupt the whole Clergy then it seems the whole Clergy of the Roman Catholick Church may Apostatize from Fundamental Truth and Holiness if they fall first into a Praemunire and meet with a King who will take the Advantage of it and are not the Clergy then admirable Guides to follow especially if they can be so over-awed as not only to make such a Profession but to Write and Dispute for it and use all variety of Arguments to perswade People to believe it The Institution for the necessary Erudition of a Christian man was agreed on in Convocation and published by Authority Bishop Gardiner wrote a Book de vera Obedientia to which Bonner prefixed a Preface upon the same Argument Stokesly Bishop of London and Tonstal Bishop of Duresm wrote in defence of the Kings Proceedings to Cardinal Pool and many Sermons were preached by several Bishops to the same purpose out of which Dr. Burnet has collected the Arguments used by them both against the Power of the Pope and for the Supremacy of the King And during that Session of Parliament which took away the Power of the Pope in the year 1534. A Bishop preached every Sunday at St. Paul's Cross and taught the People that the Pope had no Authority in England Was all this matter of force too and fear of the Praemunire which was pardoned in Parliament Anno 1531. three years before Let us now consider what passed under Queen Elizabeth And methinks what was good Doctrine in King Henry's time should be good Doctrine still and yet it is true that many Bishops then did protest against the Act for Supremacy and refused the Oath when it was offered them and that many of those Bishops who had wrote or preached for it before such as Bonner Bishop of London and Tonstal of Duresm which seems to lessen their Authority in this matter and when the Nation had so lately had the sense of the whole English Roman Clergy in this Point their present obstinacy to confirm their former Opinions without answering their former Reasons was no sufficient cause why a Lay-Parliament should not renew such Laws without the consent of the Clergy which were at first made with it not a Bishop dissenting excepting Fisher Bishop of Rochester And whereas he talks in such a strain as if this were opposed by the whole Clergy and that they were almost all deprived for it the account which the Visiters gave the Queen is very different that of 9400 beneficed Men in England there were no more but fourteen Bishops six Abbots twelve Deans twelve Archdeacons fifteen Heads of Colledges fifty Prebendaries and eighty Rectors of Parishes that had left their Benefices upon account of Religion which is a very inconsiderable number to the whole 3. I answered farther That we do not say that the Roman Church her self has apostatized from fundamental Truth and Holiness We do grant that they have retained the true Faith and Worship of Christ though they have fatally corrupted both by Additions of their own And therefore we are not bound to prove that the whole Clergy of the Catholick Church may apostatize from fundamental Truth and Holiness for we do not say they did All that he replies to this is That this Apostacy at the least is taught in the 19 and 21 Articles and Homilies against the Peril of Idolatry That is to say for I suppose that is his meaning that the Church of England charges the Church of Rome with Idolatry and Idolatry is an Apostacy from fundamental Truth and Holiness But if men may be guilty of some kinds of Idolatry and of very great corruptions in Faith and Worship without denying any
fundamental Article of the Christian Faith then Idolatry it self does not prove such an Apostacy from fundamental Truth And this is the opinion of those who own the Church of Rome a true though a corrupt Church notwithstanding they charge her with idolatrous Practices For they consider that the Jewish Church was guilty of Idolatry in the Worship of the Golden Calf and the Calves at Dan and Bethel and yet were a true Church still because they worshipped only the true God the God of Israel though in an idolatrous manner And I would advise our Author not to insist too peremptorily on this That Idolatry is an Apostacy from fundamental Truth till he is sure that he can clear himself and his Church from the charge of Idolatry I know very well what he aims at to disprove the charge of Idolatry because Idolatry is an Apostacy from fundamental Truth and Holiness and thus the Church cannot apostatize and therefore cannot commit Idolatry which is like their proving that the Church has not erred because it cannot err Whereas if de facto it appears that the Church has erred that is a Demonstration that it can err Thus if de facto it appears that the Church is guilty of Idolatry this is a Demonstration that either Idolatry is not such a fundamental Apostacy or that the Church may fall into such an Apostacy Those who say that Idolatry is not such an Apostacy are not bound to prove that the Church may fall into such an Apostacy from fundamental Truth to make good their charge of Idolatry Those who say that Idolatry is such an Apostacy are bound to prove either directly that the Church is not guilty of Idolatry or by consequence that she cannot be because she cannot apostatize from fundamental Truth so that the Proof lies on their side not on ours we are not bound to prove that the Church may apostatize from fundamental Truth and Holiness because we have no occasion to say it may but they are bound to prove that the Church cannot so apostatize because it is the best defence they have against the charge of Idolatry But I cannot pass on without briefly considering the nature of this Argument to prove that a thing is not upon a pretence that it cannot be when there is all other possible evidence to prove that it is which is now the modish and popular way of disputing and the very last refuge of the Church of Rome If you charge them with Errors and Corruptions in Faith and Worship and prove your charge beyond the possibility of a fair Reply they presently take sanctuary in the Indefectibility or Infallibility of their Church Their Church cannot err because the Council or Pope or at least both of them together are infallible Or as others say Tradition is infallible for the Church must believe to day as it did yesterday and to morrow as it does to day and so from one Generation to another and therefore it is impossible there ever should be any change in the Faith of the Church The Church cannot be guilty of Idolatry because it cannot apostatize from fundamental Truth and Holiness and so in other cases And therefore the way they take with their new Converts is not to dispute particular Controversies but instruct them well in this one Point which puts an end to all other Disputes That the Church cannot err and cannot apostatize from fundamental Truth and Holiness and then it is certain whatever she teaches she cannot err and whatever she does is not Apostacy Now not to show at present how vainly the Church of Rome challenges to her selfe the Title Priviledges and Prerogatives of the Catholick Church and appropriates all those Promises to her self which were made to the Church in general nor to examine the meaning of those Texts whereon she founds this pretence of Infallibility I shall only consider whether this Plea the Church cannot err therefore she has not erred the Church cannot apostatize from fundamental Truth and Holiness therefore she is not guilty of Idolatry which say they is such an Apostacy be sufficient to satisfie any honest inquisitive man who can read the Scriptures and compare what the Church now believes and practises with the Doctrines and Institutions of our Saviour For 1. When such Errors and Corruptions are notoriously evident though but in any one instance to argue that the Church has not erred because she cannot err is to dispute against matter of fact like the Philosophers disputing against the possibility of Motion and no Argument whatsoever is good against matter of fact True you 'l say if it were notoriously evident that the Church has erred there were an end of her Infallibility but this is matter of dispute whether she have erred or not and then if you can prove that she cannot err you effectually prove that she has not erred No such matter for if she be charged with Errors and plain evidence brought that she has actually erred unless you can as plainly take off this evidence it weakens and overthrows all the Proofs for Infallibility whatever they are and therefore the pretence of Infallibility is of no use in this dispute but to cheat the ignorant and unwary for if I can prove that such Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome are Errors and Corruptions till I am satisfied that they are not I can never believe that Church to be infallible which I can prove has erred and therefore while any charge against the Errors of the Church of Rome remains unanswered it is too soon to talk of her Infallibility for actual Error is a just confutation of Infallibility but the pretence of Infallibility is not a just Plea against the charge of actual Error because if I can prove my charge against them that they have erred that disproves their Infallibility and then nothing else can prove it So that this Infallibility can do them no service at all in this Dispute whether they have erred or not for if I can prove that they have erred I overthrow all their Proofs of Infallibility and whether they have erred or not is not to be tryed by their Infallibility but by the Rule of Truth and Error which are the Holy Scriptures so absurd it is to think to determine all the Controversies now in dispute among us by the Churches Infallibility It is indeed a most certain Truth that if the Church be infallible she cannot err and therefore she has not erred and it is as certainly true that if the Church has erred she can err and therefore is not infallible The Romanists assert the first the Protestants the second but there is this difference between these two Pleas That if we can make good our charge against them that they have actually erred this is a direct and positive Proof against their Infallibility but though it be as certainly true that an infallible Church cannot and has not erred yet whatever Proofs they bring of the Churches