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
yet we may supererogate and deserve some thanks from him It is true God being infinitely happy and perfect in himself we can make no addition to him and therefore cannot in a strict sense profit him nor therefore could our Saviour understand it in this sense but as that Servant may be said to profit his Master and to deserve thanks who does more than is his duty so might we be said to be profitable Servants could we also supererogate or do more than is our duty and here our Saviour's argument lies that when we have done all that is commanded us all the good that we can possibly do yet we must confess our selves unprofitable Servants because we have done nothing but what was our duty and if the Apostles themselves did and could do no more than was their duty I think our Church might very well charge these Teachers of works of Supererogation with Arrogance and Impiety if to advance themselves above the Apostles be Arrogance and to make God a debtor to them be Impiety But that our People may a little understand the weight and moment of this Controversie it will be necessary briefly to unriddle it Of what consequence the Doctrine of Purgatory is in the Church of Rome is sufficiently known for a Church which can perswade People that without her help they must be damned for some hundred or thousand Years for Purgatory is nothing else but a Temporal Damnation as Hell is Eternal which is the only difference between them must needs have a great authority over all sorts of persons who are conscious to themselves that they do not live so innocently as to be out of danger of Purgatory But the Doctrine of Purgatory it self could do the Church no service had she not the power of Indulgence to remit the pains of Purgatory and yet Indulgences are owing to the stock of Merits which the Church has the keeping and disposal of and yet there can be no Merits without some works of Supererogation and there can be no Works of Supererogation if no Man can do more than what is commanded than what is his duty to do For when we do no more than our duty we must confess our selves to be unprofitable Servants as that is opposed to Merit For no Man merits merely by doing his duty And this occasions this Dispute whether all Christian excellencies are commanded for if we can do no good thing but what is commanded there is no room left for Merits nor Works of Supererogation and then there can be no stock of Merits to be the Fund of Indulgences and then Purgatory will be so uncomfortable a Doctrine that no Man will trust to it but will think it his interest to live vertuously that he may escape both Hell and Purgatory and go to Heaven when he dies and then the Church of Rome will lose her Authority and her gainful Trade together This is the plain state of the case and therefore to do the Church of Rome Right she principally attributes Merit to such good Works as she calls them which God has no where commanded but whether these be Christian excellencies or no would be considered The Monkish vows of Poverty Coelibacy and absolute Obedience to their Superiors are thought a state of Perfection and Merit and if they be so these are works of Supererogation indeed for they are no where commanded by God but I confess I cannot understand the excellency of them especially not as practised in the Church of Rome It is an argument of a great and excellent mind to live above this World and to despise all the Charms and Flatteries of it but what Vertue it is to renounce the possession of any thing in this World I cannot tell It is in it self no Vertue that I know of to be Poor and therefore it can be no Vertue to choose Poverty The World was made for the use of Man and to use it well is an Argument of Vertue but merely to have nothing in the World is none To bear want with a patient mind and a quiet submission to the Divine Providence is a Vertue but to choose want is none Much less is it any vertue to renounce our private Possessions to live plentifully upon a common Stock and to be as intent in inriching a Monastery as any Man can be to advance his private Fortunes which is no great argument of a contempt of the World. And no more is it to renounce all honest and industrious ways of living as some do and to turn imperious and godly Beggars and live deliciously on the spoils and superstition of the people Coelibacy it self is no Vertue for then Marriage which is the Ordinance of God and a Popish Sacrament must be a Vice. For there is no Vertue strictly so called but is opposed to some Vice and Coelibacy is opposed to nothing but Marriage and therefore we must seek for the vertues of Coelibacy not merely in a vow against Marriage which is no Vertue but as it signifies a great mortification to all bodily Pleasures and is a means to advance us to a more Divine and heavenly state of Mind and every degree of Vertue we attain to shall receive a proportionable reward And thus Coelibacy though it be not a state of Perfection it self yet may advance us to a more perfect State and if we are the better Men for it we shall have the greater reward But to vow Coelibacy and to burn with Lust and to practise all the impurities of the Stews to renounce Marriage and to defile Wives and Virgins and still to call this a more perfect State than Marriage is a work of Supererogation indeed but whether it be supererogating Vertue or Vice God will judge who has forbid all uncleanness and instituted Marriage not only for the propagation of mankind but as a remedy against Lust. To vow absolute obedience to any Creature without reserving to our selves a judgment whether what he commands be good or evil is so far from being a State of Perfection that it is an encroachment upon the Divine Prerogative and gives such obedience to Men as is due only to God. This is expresly contrary to our Saviour's precept But call no Man Rabbi for one is your Master even Christ and all ye are Brethren And call no Man your Father upon earth for one is your Father which is in Heaven Neither be ye called Masters for one is your Master even Christ Matthew 23. 8 9 10. which does not oppose the use of these names in common Speech but forbids us to ascribe such an Authority to any Man on Earth as is due only to God and Christ And if a vow of blind obedience does not make Men our Masters in this forbidden sense I think nothing can Thus voluntary and unnecessary severities to the Body which serve no ends of Mortification or Devotion saying over a great number of Ave Maries going in Pilgrimage to Ierusalem or Loretto or to the
very differently of these matters from those who went before them For in their days they began to call upon the Saints and to beg their help and then S. Austin thought it very improper to pray for those whose help they themselves expected According to that known saying of his That he is injurious to a Martyr who prays for him Hence he makes three distinctions of souls departed which the Church never heard of before From whence I doubt not but the Church of Rome learnt their distinctions and accordingly allotted three different States for these three sorts of Men Heaven Purgatory and Hell. For S. Austin taught that some were so perfectly good that there was no need of Prayers or Oblations for them others imperfectly good and for these prayers were profitable others very bad who cannot be redeemed by the suffrages of the living The first of these the Church of Rome place in Heaven the second in Purgatory the third in Hell and let us first see whether S. Austin were of that mind for if he were not they cannot prove a Purgatory from him whatever becomes of his prayers for the dead Now it is evident that Saint Austin was of the same mind with those Fathers who went before him concerning the state of souls departed viz that none were received into Heaven till the Resurrection as he expresly affirms of all souls that during the time between death and the last Resurrection they are kept in hidden receptacles He divides the Church into two parts that which is still on Earth or that which after death rests in the secret receptacles and seats of souls Which he calls Abraham's Bosom and teaches that all departed souls either rejoyce in Abraham's Bosom or are tormented in eternal Fire And that by Abraham's Bosom he does not mean Heaven is evident from what he elsewhere says that though after this life we shall not go to that place where the Saints shall be when it shall be said to them Come ye blessed of my Father receive the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundations of the world which he represents as the common belief of all Christians for he says quis nescit Who knows not this yet we may be there where Dives saw Lazarus at rest viz. in Abraham's Bosom in illâ requie certè securus expectabis judicii diem in that rest you will securely expect the day of Judgment So that though S. Austin thought that some souls were so good and perfect that there was no need to pray for them yet he did not think that the most perfect souls ascended immediately into Heaven as the Church of Rome now teaches but were happy and at rest in Paradise or Abraham's Bosom till the Resurrection Nor did he think that those for whom he says our prayers are available those who are imperfectly good did after this life go into Purgatory there to bear the punishment of their sins For what S. Austin thought of Purgatory you have already heard which has nothing like a Popish Purgatory in it He prayed for his Mother Monica that God would forgive her all her sins and show mercy to her did he believe then that his Mother was in Purgatory by no means for he expresly says credo jam feceris quod to rogo sed voluntaria oris mei approba domine I believe thou hast already done what I now pray for but accept O Lord the free-will offerings of my mouth He believed his Mother was in a state of rest but hoped that God would accept his pious affection for his Mother and that she was not yet so perfect but she might receive some benefit by it To be sure the Church of Rome can never reconcile this prayer with their Doctrine for they teach that sins are not pardoned in Purgatory but those who are pardoned before they die suffer the temporal punishment of their sins in Purgatory whereas S. Austin does not Pray that his Mother may be delivered from the pains of Purgatory but that God would forgive her sins The truth is S. Austin was at a great loss between vindicating the ancient practice of the Church in Praying for Souls departed and giving a reasonable and justifiable account of it the Church did pray for Souls departed and therefore there must be some reason given of it or else these Prayers are vain and hypocritical if they serve no good end And yet in his days they began to think and he himself was of that mind that there were a great many Saints and Martyrs who did not want their Prayers who were fitter to be Intercessors themselves for those on Earth than to receive any benefit from their Intercessions and yet the Church prayed for all for the most perfect Saints for the Apostles and Martyrs and the blessed Virgin her self This he knew not how to reconcile but by saying That when the Church prayed for Saints and Martyrs Prophets and Apostles the meaning of her Prayers was not to intercede with God for them but to praise God for their Graces and Vertues but when she prayed for meaner Christians her Prayers were Intercessions for Pardon and Rest to their Souls and yet they were all prayed for in the same form of words and the ancient Church made no such distinction between them and thus he reconciles the matter by expounding the same words to two different and contrary senses as they are applied to different subjects which has taught the Church of Rome when occasion serves to soften her Prayers by expounding them contrary to the plain and natural signification of the words that the most direct and formal Prayers to Saints and the Virgin for all Temporal and Spiritual Blessings when they please shall signifie no more than a bare Ora pro nobis Pray for us About this time S. Chrysostom also in the Greek Church defended this practice of Praying for the Dead and yet the Doctrine of Purgatory never was received in the Greek Church as appears from the Council of Florence which is a plain sign That though the Roman Doctors think they have proved Purgatory if they can but prove that the ancient Church used to Pray for the Dead which no Body denies yet the Greek Church did not and does not to this day think this a good consequence for they Pray for the Dead but deny a Popish Purgatory Which shows that though they prayed for the Dead they did it for other reasons than the Church of Rome now does And yet S. Chrysostom does not agree with S. Austin in that distinction he makes of Souls departed which shows that there was no certain tradition about this matter but Men of Wit and Learning framed different Hypotheses and Schemes of things to themselves as they thought they could best give an account of this practice For this was the thing both S. Austin and S. Chrysostom were intent on to justifie the practice of the Church so that their Prayers for the Dead might
submit for nothing can be essential to the Unity of the Church but what Christ himself has made so and what is not absolutely essential may be changed and altered when there is absolute necessity for it without a sinful breach of Unity and therefore though they cannot make good their claim to this Universal Supremacy not so much as by Ecclesiastical Canons and Constitutions and ancient Customs as has been often proved by Learned Protestants yet to shorten that Dispute which to be sure none but Learned Men can be judges of whatever Jurisdiction or Primacy they pretend to have been formerly granted by Ancient Councils to the Bishop of Rome may be retrenched or denied without the Guilt of Schism when it proves a manifest Oppression of the Christian Church and serves only to justifie and perpetuate the most Notorious and Intolerable Corruptions of the Christian Religion And the Reason is very plain because all human Constitutions are alterable and what is alterable ought to be altered when the indispensable Necessities of the Church and of Religion require it Catholick Unity requires no Superiority or Jurisdiction of one Bishop or one Church over another but only Mutual Concord and Brotherly Correspondence and therefore a Church which rejects any Foreign Jurisdiction may yet maintain Catholick Unity as the African Churches did in St. Cyprians days The Combination indeed of Neighbour Churches and Bishops for the more convenient Exercise of Ecclesiastical Discipline and Government we grant was very Ancient and is of great use to this day but if such Combinations as these degenerate from their first Institution and by the Tyranny and Encroachments of some usurping Bishops is improved into a Temporal Monarchy and invasion upon the inherent Rights and Liberties of all other Bishops and Churches I would desire to know why these Oppressed Bishops and Churches may not vindicate their own Rights and Liberties and cast off such an intolerable Yoak No you 'l say when such a Superiority and Subordination of Churches is Ordered and Decreed by general Councils which is the Supream Authority in the Church no change nor alteration can be made but by an equal Authority and therefore no particular Bishops or Churches can reject any such Jurisdiction unless it be revoked by a general Council without the guilt of Schism Now in Answer to this Let us consider 1. Suppose such an aspiring Bishop has usurped such an Authority as was never Orginally granted him by any Council that he has improved a Primacy of order which yet is more than the Nicene Canons granted to the Bishop of Rome into a Supremacy of Jurisdiction and has enlarged his Patriarchate beyond its original Bounds may not that be taken away without a general Council which was usurped indeed but never given 2ly Suppose a general Council had granted what it had no right to give as it must have done if ever any general Council had granted or confirmed the Popes Pretensions of being the Universal Bishop and visible Head of the Church and the Fountain of all Ecclesiastical Authority and granted away these Rights and Powers which are inherent in every Church and inseparable from the Episcopal Office. For it is not in Ecclesiastical as it is in Civil Rights Men may irrevocably grant away their own Civil Rights and Liberties but all the Authority in the Church cannot give away it self nor grant the whole intire Episcopacy with all the Rights and Powers of it to any one Bishop If Bishops will not exercise that Power which Christ has given them they are accountable to their Lord for it but they cannot give it away neither from themselves nor from their Successors for it is theirs only to use not to part with and therefore every Bishop may reassume such Rights though a general Council should give them away because the grant is void in it self 3ly Especially when the Regular means of Redress is made impossible by such Usurpations when the Christian Church is so inslaved to the Will and Pleasure of one Domineering Bishop that there can be no general Council unless he call it and preside in it and confirm it by his own Authority and how impossible it is this way to cast off such an usurping Power when the Usurper must be the Judg in his own Cause I need not prove especially when Christian Princes and Bishops are so devoted to the See of Rome either linked to it by secular Interests or over-awed by Superstition that it is in vain to expect that such a Council should Redress such Abuses as they themselves are fond of or if they would have them Redressed if they could yet dare not venture to attempt it must all Bishops now and Churches quietly submit to such Usurpations because the greatest number of them will not or dare not vindicate their own Rights Is it then unlawful for Christian Bishops to Exercise that Authority which Christ has given them and of which they must give an Account if they happen to be out-voted by other Bishops I grant the less number of Bishops cannot make Laws for the Universal Church in opposition to the greater numbers whatever Constitutions owe their Authority to mutual Consent must in all reason be confirmed and over-ruled by the greater numbers but the less number nay any single Bishop may observe the Institutions of our Saviour and exercise that Authority which he has given him without asking leave of general Councils nay in opposition to them for the Authority and Institution of our Saviour is beyond all the general Councils in the World. 4. Especially when we have the consent of much the greater number of Bishops without their meeting in a general Council All the Eastern Bishops which are much more numerous than the Western I cannot say have cast off the Authority of the Bishop of Rome because they never owned it but yet they oppose and reject his Authority as much as the Bishops of England do and therefore our Reformers in casting off the Pope did nothing but what they had the Authority of the whole Eastern Church to justifie which I take to be as good as a Council of Western Bishops though they may call it General For the Business of a Council in such cases is not to consent to some new Laws but to declare ancient and original Rights and if we have their authentick Declarations in this matter we need no more For we do not so much want their Authority as their Judgment in this Point It is a very daring thing to oppose the universal Consent of the whole Christian Church and no private Bishops nor National Combination of Bishops would be able to bear up against such a Prejudice but when we have the concurrent Opinions of the greatest number of Christian Bishops we need not much concern our selves for want of the Formality of a Western Council who are interested Parties yes you 'l say at least the Church of England was subject to the Jurisdiction of the
to mend Christian Religion but to return to Primitive Christianity To cast such Doctrines out of our Creed as Christ never taught and to reject all new and suspected Worships And if it be always a Duty to profess what Christ and his Apostles have taught and to practise as they have commanded then if ever we believed or practised otherwise it is necessary to reform which is not in a proper sense to reform the Church or the Christian Faith and Worship but to reform our selves For the Christian Faith and Worship is always the same and if there be any thing to be reformed it must be our own Errors and Mistakes What then is the Fault of the Church of England Why cannot she be a mystical Member of Christ in Catholick Unity or a charitable part of the Catholick Church The Charge is drawn up against her under three Heads 1. That she voluntarily separates from all other Christian Societies 2. Condemns their Doctrines and Rights 3. Has no visible Correspondence with them in the Eucharist nor in any religious Assemblies nor solemn Devotions Let us consider these distinctly 1. The Church of England voluntarily separates from all other Christian Societies This I told him was false as to matter of Fact for there are a great many Christian Societies which we can and do hold Communion with as opportunity serves and he can never make good this Charge but by denying that there are any other Christian Societies besides the Church of Rome which I suppose is what he intends Well! we do separate he says and that voluntarily from the Church of Rome that is from all Christian Societies Now I grant we do separate from the Bishop and the Church of Rome considered as the Principle and Center of Catholick Unity as I observed before but considered as a Christian Church so I deny that we separate from the Church of Rome or any other Christian Church as far as they are Christian and we are bound to communicate with them no farther For I pray consider what Christian Communion is which certainly is nothing else but to communicate in the true Christian Faith and Worship for to communicate in Judaism Paganism Mahumatism or any unchristian Doctrines or Practices certainly is not Christian Communion And therefore every Church is more or less perfect in Christian Communion according to the Purity and Perfection of her Faith and Worship If then the Church of England professes the true Christian Faith and worships God according to the Gospel of his Son without any corrupt Mixtures and Innovations as far as true Faith and Worship reaches she is in Communion with all the Christian Churches in the World for she agrees with them in all that they believe or practise which is truly Christian and Christian Communion extends no farther Well but when the whole Church was agreed in Faith and Worship we broke this Bond of Unity by a pretended Reformation Suppose this the Question still is Whether this Unity of the Church was a Christian Communion for if it were not it is no Separation from the Christian Church to leave its Communion in those things which are not Christian And therefore the whole Controversie will still turn upon this Point whether the Reformation of the Church of England be a true Gospel Reformation for if we reformed nothing but what ought to be reformed then we separated no farther than we ought to separate and such a Separation if you will call it a Separation I hope is no Crime Did Elias separate from the Jewish Church because he broke their Unity in the Worship of Baal and reduced them to the Institutions of the Moisaick Law which was the Standard of their Religion and Communion Just so the Church of England separated from the Church of Rome by rejecting those Articles of Faith and Forms of Worship which are not Christian. Some kind of Separation indeed there must be between a pure and a corrupt Church but if you would know on which side the Separation is criminal you must consider on which side the corruption is for necessary Truths can never make a criminal Separation The Church which forsakes the Truth is always guilty of the Separation not the Church which forsakes Errors and therefore it is a ridiculous thing to charge those with the Schism who only forsake the Company when those are the Schismaticks who forsake the Truth And yet this is the only pretence for the Church of Rome to charge us with Schism That they did not leave us but we left them they kept where they were and we went out from among them and forsook their Communion but it was because they had first forsaken the Apostolick Communion by corrupting the Apostolick Faith and Worship They were the Deserters and Separatists we only returned to the true Christian Communion and were very sorry to leave them behind us The short of it is this if we cannot justifie our Reformation we are Schismaticks if we can we are none And I would desire all Protestants to take notice of this short Answer and stick to it for it is as certain as any Demonstration in Euolid that no man can be a Schismatick who forsakes no Society of Christians any farther than they forsake the Truth 2. The next charge is that we condemn their Doctrines and their Rights but do we condemn any thing which ought not to be condemned if we do it is indeed a fault but if we don't why are we blamed for it 3. We have no visible Correspondence with them in the Eucharist nor in any Religious Assemblies nor Solemn Devotions How so we visibly receive the Eucharist our selves and perform our Solemn Devotions in Publick Assemblies and this is to Communicate with the whole Christian Church in the same Sacraments and Worship and the only way that distant Churches have to Communicate with each other in Sacraments and Worship unless he thinks the Church of England must travel into France and Spain and Italy into Greece and AEgypt and all other remote Churches to Communicate with them No but when their Worship is brought home to us we refuse to joyn with them right for according to the Laws of Catholick Communion when they are in England they ought to Communicate with us not we with them according to St. Austins Rule to observe the Rights and Usages of the Church whither soever we come as far as they are Innocent if we denied to receive them to our Communion they might with better reason charge us with Schism but we are not bound to forsake the Communion of our own Church to follow Foreign Customs at home But when we do come where their Worship is the Established Religion we still refuse to Communicate with them we do so indeed with the Roman Church but not with all other Christian Societies and the Reason is because we believe their Worship is sinful and no Christian is bound to Communicate in a sinful Worship as they themselves
must grant So that still this whole Controversy issues in this whether the Terms of their Communion be not sinful if they be this will justifie our Non-communion with them if they be not we are Schismaticks and by this we are willing to stand or fall So that this charge of Schism upon the Church of England is very absurd and ridiculous unless they can charge us with Schismatical Doctrines and Practices if we separate for the sake of a Corrupt Faith or Worship we are Schismaticks indeed but if we separate only because we will not profess any Erroneous Doctrines nor Communicate in a corrupt Worship unless the true Faith and true Worship can make Men Schismaticks we may very securely scorn such an Accusation And it is as impertinent a Question to ask us what Church we joyned in Communion with when we forsook the Communion of the Church of Rome For if by joyning in Communion with other Churches they mean uniting our selves in one Ecclesiastical Body with them putting our selves under the Government of any other Patriarch so we joyned in Communion with no other Church and there was no reason we should for we were Originally a free independent Church which owed no Subjection to any other Church but had a plenary Power to decide all Controversies among our selves without appealing to any foreign Jurisdiction and when we had delivered our selves from one Usurper there was no reason to court a new one this not being necessary to Catholick Unity and Communion If by joyning in Communion with other Churches they mean what other Churches we made the Pattern of our Reformation we freely confess we made no Church of that Age our Pattern but I think we did much better for we made the Scriptures our Rule and the Primitive and Apostolick Churches our Pattern which we take to be a more Infallible direction than the Example of any Church then or now If we must have been confined to the Faith and Practise of other Churches then in being without regard to a more Infallible Rule and a more unquestionable Authority I confess I should have chose to have continued in the Church of Rome which had the most visible and flourishing Authority of any other Church at that time but our Reformers did believe and very rightly that no Church had any Authority against the Scriptures and Primitive Practise and then they were not concerned to enquire whether any other Church did in all things believe and practise as they taught but what the Faith and Practice of the Apostles and their immediate Successors was and yet they very well know that most of those Doctrines and Practises which they condemned in the Church of Rome were condemned by other Churches also though it may be those other Churches might have some less Errors and Corruptions of their own If the Scriptures and the Example of the Primitive Churches be a sufficient Authority to justifie a Reformation then the Church of England is blameless though no other Church in the World followed this Pattern but our selves for this is the Rule and Pattern which they ought all to follow and if they do not it is not we are to blame but themselves And yet what if I should say that our Reformers made the Church of Rome her self the Pattern of our Reformation and indeed this is the plain truth of the Case For we framed no new Creeds no new Articles of Faith no new Forms of Worship no new Models of Government but retained all that is Ancient and Apostolick in the Church of Rome and only rejected those Corruptions and Innovations which were introduced in several Ages and confirmed all together by the Council of Trent Our Faith is contained in the Apostles Nicene Athanasian Creeds which are all owned by the Church of Rome and were the Ancient Faith of the Catholick Church We own the two Christian Sacraments Baptism and the Lords Supper which were expresly Instituted by our Saviour himself and which the Church of Rome owns We Worship one God through Jesus Christ who is that one Mediator between God and Man as the Church of Rome confesses though she brings in a great many other Mediators by the help of a distinction Our publick Liturgie is so conformed to the Ancient Liturgies of the Roman Church that it has been often objected to us though very peevishly and absurdly by Dissenters that our Common Prayer is taken out of the Mass Book Our Litanies Collects Hymns are many of them taken out of the old Latin Liturgies only we have changed the Popish Legends into Lessons out of the Old and New Testaments and have left out Prayers to Saints and all the Corruptions of the Mass and other Superstitions So that in Truth the Church of England is the exact Resemblance of the Church of Rome in her state of Primitive Purity before her Faith and Worship were corrupted with new and superstitious Additions and it is plain that this was the Rule of our Reformation not to form and model a new Church but only to Purge the Church from all new Corruptions and to leave the old Foundations and Building as it was and if we have indeed retained all that is Ancient and Apostolick in the Church of Rome and rejected nothing but Innovations in Faith and Corruptions in Worship they need not enquire for a Church which believes all that we do for the Church of Rome her self does so and if they believe more than they should it is no fault that we do not believe all that they do and therefore we had no need to seek for any other Church to joyn with for we staid where we were and did not leave our Church but Reform it and a Man who does not pull down his House but only cleanses it and makes it a more wholsom Habitation needs not inquire for a new House to dwell in To conclude this Argument our positive Faith and Worship is the same still with the Church of Romes and therefore they cannot blame us for it and in those Doctrines and Practices wherein we have forsaken the Church of Rome we have the Authority and Practice of most other Churches to justifie us which do not own the Supremacy of the Pope nor Transubstantiation nor Purgatory nor Communion in one kind nor Latin Service nor the Worship of Images with several other of the Trent Innovations So that in truth we are so far from separating from all Christian Societies that there are few things in our Reformation but what are owned and justified either by the Church of Rome her self or by some other Churches not to take notice now that there are few things in our Reformation but what some Doctors of the Roman Communion have either justified or spoke modestly of 16. The whole Clergy of the Catholick Church may Apostatize from Fundamental Truth and Holiness whilst part of a National Laity may preserve both discover the Clergies defection and depriving them heap to themselves Teachers
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
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
Gold that must be burnt and dissolved before we can pass through this Fire into Heaven now though this be very unintelligible also how a material Fire can purge and refine a Soul yet it shows how much this differs from the Popish Purgatory which burns and torments indeed but does not purge and refine and therefore is very improperly called a Purgatory Fire Origen indeed whom Cardinal Bellarmine and others quote for this Purgatory Fire as they do also Plato and Virgil did believe a Purgatory Fire in a true and proper sense for he believed all punishments whether in this World or in the next were only Purgatory that is not meerly for punishment but for the correction and amendment of those who suffered And therefore he did also believe that the very worst of Men nay the Devils themselves should at last be purged and cleansed by Fire and restored to a state of happiness The summ of his Opinion in short was this That at the Day of Judgment Christ will destroy this World with Fire as he is said to come in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God. And this Fire which shall burn the World at the last Day seems to be that Purgatory Fire of which Origen and some other Fathers speak Though I know some thought this Fire to be in the upper Regions so as to intercept our ascent into Heaven without passing through it This will try all Men for all must pass through this Fire as the Ancients believed and those who had Hay or Stubble or any combustible matter about them who had any remains of corruption to be purged away must stay in it a longer or shorter time till they were thoroughly purged from their sins this as you have heard was the general opinion of the Fathers as well as of Origen and therefore Origen's Purgatory Fire is not the Popish Purgatory because that is not kindled till the Day of Judgment But then Origen thought that this purgation extended to the worst of Men and to Devils themselves that though they might lie many Ages in this Fire before they are perfectly purged yet they should be purged at last and restored to the favour and enjoyment of God. For which he was generally condemned by the Ancient Christians and principally by the Fifth general Council And yet there were other Fathers who were in some degree tainted with this opinion For there are plain marks of it in Gregory Nyssen if his works were not corrupted by the Origenists as some suspect and in S. Hierome himself For though some would not allow of the final Salvation of Devils yet they believed this of all Mankind though never so wicked others thought this must be confined to all Christians others to all those Christians who were not guilty of Heresie or Schism how wicked soever they were otherwise These opinions are rejected and condemned by the Romanists as well as by us and therefore they ought not to alledge such Authorities as these which are nothing to their purpose For that there will be such a fire at the day of Judgment does not prove that there is one already kindled and a Purgatory fire which cleanses and purges our sins does not prove that there is such a Purgatory Fire as is only to punish those whose sins are already pardoned and cleansed Fourthly There is another considerable difference between this Popish Purgatory and the fire at the day of Judgment that there is no redemption out of this by the Prayers and Alms and Masses of the living which is the most considerable thing in the Popish Purgatory and that for which I fear the Church of Rome does principally value it For this sets a good price upon Indulgences gives great Authority to their Priests inriches their Monasteries and is the great support of the Roman Hierarchy But as the Fathers say not one word about this so the account I have already given of their opinions is a demonstration that they could not think of any such thing because this fire is not till the day of Judgment and then I suppose when we all come to be judged you will grant it is too late to offer Prayers and Alms and Masses for the Redemption of our selves or others from these Purgatory flames The Fathers thought that we must all undergo this purgation by fire which would be longer or shorter as we had more or fewer sins to be purged away and therefore here can be no place for the suffrages and intercessions of the living According to the Popish Doctrine those Souls who are redeemed out of Purgatory must be redeemed before the day of Judgment and those who are not redeemed before are on course redeemed then for the Roman Purgatory must end at the day of Judgment though the Purgatory fire the Fathers speak of does but begin then Thirdly This gives occasion to another observation That the ancient practice of Praying for Souls departed does not prove that there is a Popish Purgatory or that those ancient Christians did believe that there was That this was a very ancient practice I readily grant as all Men must do who know any thing of these matters and yet from what I have discoursed it is evident that they never dreamt of such a Purgatory as the Church of Rome has now made an Article of Faith of and therefore they could have no regard to the Redemption of Souls out of Purgatory in their Prayers for the dead because they did not know of any such place But to what original then shall we attribute this custom of praying for the Dead Truly that is hard to say there is not the least footsteps of it in the Canonical Scripture neither of the Old nor New Testament as Tertullian and others acknowledge and when it first came into the Church we cannot tell that tender concern Men have for the memory of their dead Friends which the Heathens themselves showed in their Oblations and Sacrifices and funeral Rites for the Dead seem to have given occasion to it and those who were converted from Paganism to Christianity might still believe that the Dead challenged some part of our care and regard which at first was tempered with a due respect to the Laws of Christianity but soon encreased into greater excesses as it is the Nature of all Superstitions to do Prayers for the Dead seem at first to be used only at their Funerals in time grew Anniversary and were celebrated by their own Friends and Relations not with Propitiatory Sacrifices but with some offerings for the relief of the Poor and thus by degrees it crept into the service of the Church and at the Celebration of the Eucharist the Bishop or Priest made mention of the names of Martyrs and Confessors and Bishops and those who had deserved well of the Church and particular Christians in their private Devotions remembred their own Relations and Friends and thus it became a Custom without inquiring into the reasons of
it till from this very custom people began to conclude that such Prayers and Commemorations were very profitable to the Dead and that those who had not lived so well as they should do might obtain the pardon of their sins by the Prayers and Intercessions of the living Which I confess was a very natural thought and shows us the easie progress of Superstition that customs taken up without any good reason will find some reason though a very bad one when they grow popular Upon this Aërius condemns the practice and is reckoned among Hereticks for it Though he only desired to know for what reason the names of dead Men are recited in the Celebration of the Eucharist and prayers made for them whether by this means those who died in sin might obtain the pardon of their sins which he thought if it were true would make it unnecessary for Men to live vertuously if they had good pious Friends who would pray for them when they are dead Epiphanius undertakes to confute Aërius and we may easily perceive by him that they were not so well agreed about the reason of it as they were in the practice Had he understood the Popish Doctrine of Purgatory how easie had it been to answer it that the reason of it was that those who had died in a state of Pardon but had not made compleat satisfaction for the Temporal punishment due to their sins were to undergo this punishment in Purgatory and that they might be relieved and delivered from Purgatory by the Prayers and Alms of their living Friends This answer no doubt Epiphanius would have given had he known it but he says not one word of this matter which is a strong presumption that he knew nothing of it and gives such other answers as are no answer to Aërius Aërius demanded what benefit the dead received by the prayers of the living whether they would obtain for them the pardon of their sins or not to this Epiphanius says not one word but gives such reasons for it as respect the living not the dead As that it signifies our belief that those who are dead to this World do still live in another State are alive to God That it signifies our good hopes of the happy state of those who are gone hence and to make a distinction between Christ and all other good Men For we pray for all but him who interceeds for us all Very worthy reasons of praying for the dead but however what is all this to a Popish Purgatory The two first reasons do utterly overthrow it which signifie what good hopes we have of the happy and blessed state of our deceased Friends not that they are tormented in Purgatory but that they rest in the Lord And so does the third which declares that they prayed for all but Christ himself For Patriarchs Prophets Apostles Martyrs and the blessed Virgin her self for so the Church did till praying for these Saints and Martyrs was turned into Prayers and Supplications to them and yet I suppose no Man will say that they prayed for these Glorious Saints to pray them out of Purgatory when the Church of Rome her self will grant that they were never in it There were some opinions in the ancient Church which if they were not the first original of this custom of praying for the Dead yet were made use of by the Fathers to explain the meaning and use of it Thus as I have showed you the Fathers believed that the souls of good Men after Death did not immediately ascend into Heaven but were detained till the Resurection of their Bodies in a place of Rest and Happiness which they called Abrahams Bosom or Paradise Now their Happiness not being complete they thought it very fit to recommend them unto God in their Prayers and beg God to remember them which supposes that they were not in the immediate presence of God for it would be absurd to beg God to remember them who constantly attend his Throne and Presence And therefore they pray not for souls who are tormented in Purgatory but qui dormiunt in somno pacis who sleep in peace qui requieverunt in fide who dying in the true Faith are gone to Rest qui dormierunt quieverunt in fide who sleep and rest in the Faith as we find in the ancient Liturgies And yet they pray that God would give them rest by the water of rest in the bosom of Abraham with Isaac and Iacob that he would nourish them in a pleasant place by the waters of rest that is That he would continue and increase this intermediate state of Rest and Happiness to them For they did not think it improper to pray for what they knew the souls departed already enjoyed no more than we do in this State to pray for such blessings as we already have Another opinion among them was concerning the Millennium or thousand Years Reign with Christ on Earth which was to be before their admission into Heaven in the new Ierusalem which comes down from Heaven Now during these thousand Years they thought that all just Men should rise again but some sooner and others later according to their different merits Some at the beginning of the thousand Years others two or three hundred Years after others nearer the conclusion of them according to their different merits and deserts as Tertullian particularly explains it And as the Learned Mr. Dally observes several passages in their Prayers do plainly refer to this As when Tertullian directs a Widow to pray for her Husband primae Resurrectionis consortium a part in the first Resurrection And S. Ambrose prays for Gratian and Valentinian Te quaeso summe Deus ut carissimos suvenes matura Resurrectione suscites resuscites That God would raise those beloved young Men with an early Resurrection The like may be seen in the Gothick Missal and elsewhere and this I think has nothing to do with the Popish Purgatory Another opinion they had regard to in their prayers for the dead was the fire of the day of Judgment which they believed all Men must pass thorough before they could enter into Heaven and continue a longer or shorter time in it as they had more or fewer sins to purge away And therefore this last and terrible Judgment being yet to come they prayed that God would forgive their sins and be merciful to them and deliver them in the day of Judgment of which there are some remains still in the Roman Offices for the Dead Thus according to Mens different opinions they had different intentions in their prayers for the dead which is a sign as I observed before that though they were agreed in the practice the original reasons of this practice were not known but Men guessed at them as they could and altered their reasons as they changed their opinions Hence it is that S. Austin and S. Chrysostom though they never dreamt of a Popish Purgatotory yet speak
our Homilies that the Pope is Antichrist The most that looks that way is in the Second Part of the Homily for Whitsunday where from their opposition to some Gospel Doctrine and preferring their own Decrees before the express Word of God it is proved that they are not of Christ nor yet possessed with his Spirit From their Pride and Arrogance in challenging an Universal Headship and advancing themselves above Soveraign Princes or in the Scripture Phrase above all that is called God and treating Emperors and Kings with the greatest insolence and scorn Our Church concludes that they had not the Spirit of God but the Spirit of the Devil that wheresoever ye find the Spirit of Arrogancy and Pride the Spirit of Envy Hatred Contention Cruelty Murder Extortion Witchcraft Necromancy c. assure your selves that there is the Spirit of the Devil and not of God albeit they pretend outwardly to the World never so much Holiness that such wicked Popes as these are worthily accounted among the number of false Prophets and false Christs so that at most the Homily does but reckon these Popes in the number of false Christs but does not make the Pope the Antichrist It concludes with a Prayer That God by the comfortable Gospel of his Son would beat down Sin Death the Pope the Devil and all the Kingdom of Antichrist where I confess the Pope is put in very ill Company and a fair intimation given that he may have some relation to the Kingdom of Antichrist but yet he is not expresly called Antichrist And therefore as for his demand of Scripture Proof let him seek for it in those Writers who expresly affirm the Pope to be Antichrist where it may be he will find more than he will like or can easily answer I told him before that the Scripture does not expresly name who is Antichrist or the Man of Sin but gives such Characters of him as some think the Pope of Rome has the best claim to It is enough for us to know that he usurps such an Authority as Christ never gave him preaches such Doctrines as Christ never taught encourages such Actions as are contrary to the true Spirit of the Gospel and that is reason enough for us to reject him 14. Every Prayer used in Divine Offices must be in a Language vulgar and intelligible to every Auditor For the Proof of this I alleadged St. Paul's Discourse 1. Cor. 14. and must now consider what he tell us is the Apostles mind in it viz. that whoever had the gift of a Tongue strange to all the Auditory should forbear to dictate therein Extempore Sermons Prayers c. containing matter as well as the Tongue inspired into the Speaker I say this gift of no use but used for ostentation in such a case was to be reserved till either the Speaker or some Auditor could and did interpret that the rest might edifie Now will it follow from hence that all the settled Forms of Divine Offices to many of which there is no necessity that all specially joyn and intend be in the vulgar or intelligible to every Auditor It is enough to comply with the Apostles Doctrine that all new Extempore Prayers and Instructive or Exhortatory Discourse by Actions Ceremonies or Circumstances or other way not interpretable be as they are in the Vulgar But for the fixt Forms of Divine Offices that they be in a Language the most certain and the most intelligible not only in Christendom but in every Auditory Intelligible I say where needful to every one by either Actions Ceremonies and Circumstances or by Custom Affinity with the Vulgar or Books intepreting and containing Prayers correspondent to every part wherein the Auditory is concerned I have Transcribed the whole because it is as choice a Paragraph as we shall ordinarily meet with The only difficulty I see in it is to know at which end to begin to answer for if I understand him the beginning and conclusion of this Paragraph do not well agree In the beginning he would confine the Apostles Discourse against Prayers in an unknown Tongue to inspired and extempore Prayers and Sermons but that notwithstanding this the setled Forms of Divine Offices may be in an unknown Tongue in the conclusion he would fain insinuate that though the Publick Offices of the Church of Rome be in Latin which is not the Vulgar Tongue now in any Nation yet they are in a Language the most certain and the most intelligible not only in Christendom but in every Auditory It seems he had some little Qualm came over his Conscience some secret Convictions that Men ought to understand their Prayers and therefore he roundly asserts that Latin is the most intelligible Language that is the most known and best understood of any Language in Christendom and to every Auditory Now if this be so what need all this Dispute about Service in an unknown Tongue what need of distinguishing between extempore Prayers and setled Forms of Divine Offices we are all it seems agreed that Publick Prayers ought to be in an intelligible Language and that which is intelligible to every Auditor the only difference is whether Latin be as well understood in all the Auditories in England as English is Well but this is a very great Riddle and requires some skill to make it out for our English Auditories believe themselves that they do not understand Latin but they may be mistaken for ought any body knows let us than see how our Author makes it out Intelligible I say where needful to every one by either Actions Ceremonies and Circumstances or by Custom Affinity with the Vulgar or Books interpreting and containing Prayers correspondent to every part wherein the Auditory is concerned that is as we use to say you must know their meaning by their gaping and thus forsooth Latin is a very intelligible Language to those who do not understand one word of it What shuffling and trifling is this do the People understand Latin Prayers or do they not if they don't then the Service is performed in an unknown Tongue to them which St. Paul expresly condemns and whatever they understand about the Business yet they do not understand their Prayers which is the Dispute between us If these dumb Signs can teach People their Prayers then it is lawful for them it seems to know their Prayers and then why may they not pray in a Language which they understand for Words are more expressive of Thoughts than Actions and Ceremonies and Circumstances can be which can only tell in general what we are about not what we say and as for Books to interpret our Prayers what need we go so far about Why may we not pray in the Vulgar Tongue as well as interpret Prayers in a Vulgar Tongue And what shall those do who have no Books and cannot read This is direct Boys play to make an offer of giving something but to pull back your hand if any one offers to
take it Let us then consider how he can adjust this Matter with St. Paul and the sum of what he says is this that St. Paul only forbids Inspired and Extempore Prayers in an unknown Tongue where there is no body to interpret but the setled Forms of Divine Offices may be in an unknown Tongue for all that This is certainly as little as can be said and as little to the purpose for whoever considers the place will find that all the Apostles Arguments are against an unknown Tongue for this very Reason because it is unknown and not understood and then if we must not use an unknown Tongue in Religious Worship we must not use an unknown Tongue in our setled and ordinary Devotions There are three Arguments the Apostle uses which I think will reach our ordinary Devotions as well as inspired Gifts 1. That it is contrary to the Edification of the Church 2. That it contradicts the natural use of speaking 3. That it is contrary to the nature and end of Prayer 1. It is contrary to the Edification of the Church Now Brethren if I come unto you speaking with Tongues what shall I profit you except I shall speak to you either by Revelation or by Knowledge or by Prophecying or by Doctrine That is unless I speak something to you which you can understand and which may inform your Judgment as he adds In the Church I had rather speak five words with my Understanding that by my voice I might teach others also than ten thousand words in an unknown Tongue Now if these extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit were to be valued and used only for the Edification of the Church and to speak to the Instruction of others is to be preferred before speaking in an unknown Tongue by Inspiration then certainly the ordinary Service and Worship of God which is instituted on purpose for the Edification of the Church must be in a known Tongue when the extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit themselves must give place to Edification For if the Apostle would have made any exception methinks he should have excepted these extraordinary Gifts For one would think whenever the holy Spirit inspires men they ought to speak whatever Language it be in for it seems strange that any man should forbid these to speak whom the Spirit inspires and yet we see the Exercise of these Gifts were restrained to make them serviceable to the Church and not to be for meer Pomp and Ostentation But for men who have no pretence to any such Inspiration to affect to speak in an unknown Tongue that they may not be understood is to deprive the Church of the Edification of Religious Offices without any pretence for doing so 2. To speak in an unknown Tongue contradicts the natural end and use of Speech For even things without life giving sounds whether Pipe or Harp except they give a distinction in the sounds how shall it be known what is piped or harped For if the Trumpet give an uncertain sound who shall prepare himself to the Battel So likewise you except ye utter by the Tongue words easie to be understood how shall it be known what is spoken for ye shall speak into the Air There are it may be so many kinds of Voices in the World and none of them without signification therefore if I know not the meaning of the Voice I shall be unto him that speaketh a Barbarian and he that speaketh shall be a Barbarian unto me Is this Argument only against inspired Tongues or against the use of all unknown Tongues among Persons who do not understand them For this relates to the use of Speech in common Conversation as well as in the Offices of Religion and if Speech was given us to communicate our Thoughts to each other if it be so vain and absurd and useless a thing to talk to men in a Tongue which they do not understand it is much more absurd in Religion which does more straitly oblige us to mutual Edification For the use of words even in Prayer is not for the sake of God but men God knows our thoughts and therefore a mental Prayer is as acceptable to him without vocal words but the use of words is either to affect our selves and then they must be such words as we our selves understand or to direct others in the matter and form of their Prayers and then they must be such words as they understand or to unite the Affections and Desires of the whole Congregation at the same time in the same Petitions which is essential to publick Worship and then they must be such words as we all understand but to speak words which no body understands is to speak to no purpose which is absurd in common Conversation but profane in Religion 3ly Another Argument St. Paul uses against an unknown Tongue is That it is contrary to the nature of Prayer and religious Worship which must be a reasonable Service and therefore requires the exercise of the Understanding as well as Affections For if I pray in an unknown Tongue my Spirit prayeth but my understanding is unfruitful What is it then I will pray with the spirit and will pray with the Understanding also I will sing with the Spirit and I will sing with the Understanding also Else when thou shalt bless with the Spirit how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned that is every ordinary Christian who has not this gift of Tongues or of interpreting Tongues for there were no Clarks in those days to say Amen for the whole Congregation say Amen at thy giving of thanks seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest And if the Exercise of supernatural Gifts themselves which the Apostle seems here to call praying by the Spirit be not an acceptable Worship to God without the acts of our Reason and Understanding certainly an unknown Tongue is much more unjustifyable in our ordinary Devotions If the whole Congregation must say Amen to those Prayers which are offered to God and it be a ludicrous thing to say Amen to what we do not understand then whether the Prayers be inspired or composed it is necessary that the whole Congregation should understand them But our Author though very timerously insinuates an Answer or two to this one Reason why he thinks the setled Forms of Divine Offices are tacitely excepted by the Apostle and need not be performed in the vulgar and intelligible to every Auditor comes in in a Parenthesis and indeed was as fit for a Parenthesis as any thing could be for he will presently see that it might have been spared To many of which Divine Offices there is no necessity that all specially joyn and intend By which I suppose he means that there are several Offices in the Church of Rome which People are not bound to attend to nor joyn in and therefore there is no need they should understand them 1. Now in the first place I desire to know why
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
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