Evidence of those places of Scripture from which they deduced them 5. Since those of that Communion object a National Synod to the Protestants this may be turned back on them with greater advantage in some points established by Councils which they esteem not only General but Infallible In the Third Council of the Lateran it was decreed That all Princes who favoured Hereticks did forfeit their Rights and a Plenary Indulgence was granted to all that fought against them In the Fourth Council at the same place it was decreed That the Pope might not only declare this forfeiture but absolve the Subjects from their Oaths of Obedience and transfer their Dominions upon others In the First Council at Lions they joyned with the Pope in thundring the Sentence of Deposition against the Emperour Frederick the First which in the preamble is grounded on some places of Scripture of which if they were the Infallible Expositors then this power is an Article of Faith And in the last pâ—ace the Council of Constance decreed That the Faith of a Safe-Conduct was not to be kept to an Heretick that had come to the place of Judgement relying on it even though he would not have come without it When Crueltâ— Rebellion and Treachery were thus decreed in Courts which among them are of so sacred an authority It is visible how much greâ—ter advantages we have of them in this point than any they can pretend against us 6. For the Synod of Dort I will not undertake the Apology neither for their Decrees nor for their Assertions and will not stick to say that how true soever many of their Conclusions may be yet the defining such mysterious matters as the order of the Divine Decrees and the Influences of Gods Grace on the wills of men in so positive a manner and the imposing their Assertions on all the Ministers of their Communion was that which many as sincere Protestants as any are have ever disliked and condemned as a weakening the Union of the Protestant Church and an assuming too much of that authority which we condemn in the Church of Rome For though they supposed that they made their definitions upon the grounds of Scripture so that in this sense the authority of the Synod was meerly Declarative yet the question will still recur Whether they understood the passages which they built on right or not And if they understood them wrong then according to Protestant principles their Decrees had no such binding authority that the receding from them could make one guilty either of Heresie or Schism The Sixth Method IS to shew them that the Roman Church or that Church which acknowledges the Pope or the Bishop of Rome the Successor of S. Peter to be her Head all the World over is the true Church Because there is no other besides her that has that undoubted mark which is a perpetâ—al Visibility without Interruption since Christ's time to this day This is a Method common to all the Catholicks and is very well and briefly set forth in the little Treatise of the true Church joyned to that of the Peaceable Method This is that of which S. Austin makes most frequent use against the Donatists and chiefly in his Book of the Vnity of the Church and in his Epistles of which the most remarkable passages relating to this matter are gathered together by the late Arch-bishop of Rouen in the first Book of his Apology for the Gospel in which he handles this matter excellently well One may add to this Method the Maxims of which Tertullian makes use in his Treatise of Prescriptions against the Hereticks and also Vincentius Lyrinensis in his Advices It is enough to say on this occasion that those two Treatises may satisfie any that will read them without prepossession in order to their forming a just Iudgement of the true Church of Iesus Christ and of all those Societies that would usurp that name Remarks THis Method is so common that there was no reason in any sort to give Mr. Maimbourg the honour of it unless it was that the Assembly intended to do him this publick honour to ballance his disgrace at Rome But let us examine it 1. This asserts that no other Church has a perpetual Succession without interruption but that which derives it from Rome which is so contrary to what every one knows that Mr. Maimbourg was certainly inspired with the Spirit of his Order when he writ it Do not all the Greek Churches and all the Churches that have their Ordination from them all from the Northern Empire of Muscovy to the Southern of the Abassines together with all those in the East derive from the Apostles by an uninterrupted series For till the Authority of the Church of Rome is proved which is the thing in question their being declared Schismaticks or Hereticks by it does not interrupt this Succession 2. The Church of England has the same Succession that the Church of Rome had in Gregory the Great 's time to wave the more ancient pretensions of the Brittish Churches and the Bishops of this Church being bound by one of their Sponsions made at their Consecration according to the Roman Pontifical to instruct their flock in the true Faith according to the Scriptures they were obliged to make good this promise Nor can it be pretended that they have thereupon forfeited their Orders and by consequence their Succession 3. The Succession of the Church of Rome cannot be said to be uninterrupted if either Heresie or Schism can cut it off It is well known that Felix Liberius and Honorius to name no more were Hereticks and if Ordinations by Schismaticks or unlawful Usurpers be to be annulled which was judged in the case of Photius and was often practised at Rome then the many Schisms and unjust usurpations that have been in that See will make the Succession of their Orders the most disputable thing that can be especially during that Schism that lasted almost forty years all the Churches of that Communion having derived their Orders from one or other of the Popes and if the Popes at Avignon were the Usurpers then let the Gallican Churches see how they can justifie the series of their Ordinations To all which may be added the impossibility of proving a true Succession in Orders if the Vertue of the Sacraments depends on the Intention of him who officiates since secret Intentions are only known to God 4. The ground on which the Donatists separated from the Orthodox Churches being at first founded on a matter of Fact which was of the pretended Irregularity of those who ordained Cecilian which they afterwards defended upon this that the Church could be only composed of good men and that the Sacraments were of no Vertue when dispensed by ill hands all that S. Austin says is to be governed by this Hypothesis against which he argues And it being once granted that the Church was not corrupted neither in Doctrine nor Worship we are very ready
guilty of which is to worship that as a God which we do believe is only a piece of Bread 2. In this very Article it is plain that our Opinion is the surer side For as to the Spiritual efficacy of the Sacrament and due preparation for it which is all that we hold concerning it by their own Confession there can be no sin in that whereas if their opinion is false they are guilty of a most horrid Idolatry So there is no danger in any thing we do whereas there may be great danger on their side all the danger that is possible to be on our side is that we do not adore Christ if he is present which may be thought to be want of Reverence But that cannot be reasonably urged since we at the same time adore him believing him to be in Heaven and if this objection against us had any force then the Primitive Church for twelve hundred years must have been in a state of damnation for none of them adored the Consecrated Elements nor has the Greek Church ever done it 3. It is clear this general Maxime of taking the surer sidâ— is against them There is no sin in not worshipping Images whereas there may be a sin in doing it They confess it is not necessary to invocate the Saints and we believe it is sinful They do not hold that it is necessary to say Masses for redeeming Souls out of Purgatory and we believe that it is an impious profanation of the Sacrament They do not hold it is necessary to take away the Cup in the Sacrament we think it Sacrilegious They do not think those Consecrations by which Divine Vertues are derived into such a variety of things to be necessary we look on them as gross Superstitions They do not think the Worship in an unknown tongue necessary whereas we think it a disgrace to Religion So in all these and many more particulars it is clear that we are of the surer side 4. We own that Maxime That nothing is necessary to Salvation but what is plainly set down in the Scriptures but this is not to be carried so far as that it should be impossible by sophistry or the equivocal use of words to fasten some other sense to such passages in Scripture for then nothing can be said to be plain in any Book whatsoever But we understand this of the genuine meaning of the Scriptures such as a plain well-disposed man will find out if his mind is not strongly prepossessed or biassed with false and wrong measures 5. The Confidence with which any party proposes their opinions cannot be a true Standart to judge of them otherwise the Receipts of Mountebanks will be always preferred to those prescribed by good Physicians and indeed the modesty of one side and the confidence of the other ought rather to give us a biass for the one against the other especially if it is visible that Interest is very prevalent in the confident party The Third Method IS to confer amicably with them and to shew them our Articles in the Scriptures and Tradition as the Fathers of tbe first Ages understood both the one and the other without engaging in reasonings or the drawing out of Consequences by Syllogisms as Cardinal Bellarmin and Perron and Gretser and the other Writers of Controversie have done which ordinarily beget endless disputes It was in this manner that the General Councils did proceed and thus did S. Austin prove Original sin against Julian To this end says he O Julian that I may overthrow thy Engines and Artifices by the opinions of those Bishops who have interpreted the Scripture with so much glory After which he cites the passages of the Scripture as they were understood by S. Ambrose S. Cyprian S. Gregory Nazianzene and others Remarks 1. WE do not deny but amicable Conferences in which matters are proposed without the wranglings of Dispute are the likeliest ways to convince people And whenever they shew us their doctrines directly in the Scripture and Tradition we will be very unreasonable if we do not yield upon that Evidence When they give us good authorities from Scripture and Tradition for the Worship of Images and Saints for adoring the Host for dividing the Sacrament for redeeming Souls out of Purgatory for denying the people the free use of the Scriptures for obliging them to worship God in a Tongue not understood by them we will confess our selves very obstinate men if we resist such Conviction 2. The shewing barely some passages without considering the whole scope of them with the sense in which such words were used in such ages and by such Fathers will certainly misguide us therefore all these must be also taken in for making this Enquiry exactly Allowances also must be made for the heats of Eloquence in Sermons or warm Discourses since one passage strictly and philosophically expressed is stronger than a hundred in which the heat of Zeal and the Figures of Rhetorick transport the Writer And thus if the Fathers disputing against those who said that the Humane Nature of Christ was swallowed up by his Divine Nature urge this to prove that the Humane Nature did still subsist that in the Sacrament after the Consecration in which there is an Union between the Elements and the Body and Blood of Christ they do still retain their proper nature and substance such expressions used on such a design leâ—d us more infallibly to know what they thought in this matter than any thing that they said with design only to beget Reverence and Devotion can do 3. The Ancient Councils were not so sollicitous as this Paper would insinuate to prove a Tradition from the Fathers of the first Ages They took great care to prove the truth which they decreed by many arguments from Scripture but for the Tradition they thought it enough to shew that they did innovate in nothing and that some Fathers before them had taught what they decreed We have not the acts of the two first General Councils but we may very probably gather upon what grounds those at Nice proceeded by what S. Athanasius wrote as an Apology for their Symbol in particular for the word Consubstantial which he proves by many consequences drawn from Scripture but for the Tradition of it he only cites four Fathers and none of those were very ancient They are Theognistus Denis of Alexandria Denis of Rome and Origen and yet both that Father Hilary and S. Basil acknowledge that Denis of Alexandria wavered much in that matter and it is well known what advantages were taken from many of Origen's expressions So here we have only two undisputed Fathers that conveyed this Tradition We have the Acts of the third General Council yet preserved and in them we find a Tradition indeed alledged but except S. Cyprian and S. Peter of Alexandria they cite none but those that had lived after the Council of Nice and Pope Leo's Letter to Flavian
to which the Council of Chalcedon assented is an entire contexture of authorities drawn from Scripture without so much as any one citation of any Father It is true there is added to the end of that Letter a Collection of some sayings of six Fathers Hilary Ambrose Nazianzene Chrysostome Austin and Cyril who had all except one lived within sixty years or a little more of that time So it is certain they founded their Faith only on the Scripture and not on Tradition otherwise they had taken more pains to have made it out and had not been so easily satisfied with what a few late Writers had said And thus it may be presumed that all the end for which they cited them was only to shew that they did not broach new and unheard of opinions And S. Austin could noâ— think that S. Cyprian's opinion alâ—ne was a sufficient proof of the Doctrine of the first three Centuries for Original Sin and yet he citeâ— no other that lived in those Ages Noâ— could S. Ambrose and Nazianzene that had lived in his own time be cited tâ— prove the Tradition of former Ages And whereas it is insinuated that he cited others one would expect to finâ— a Catalogue of many other Fatherâ— wrapt up in this plural whereas alâ— resolves into Hilary alone And we have a more evident Indication of S. Austin's sense as to the laâ—t resort in matters of Controversie than this they offer in that celebrated saying of his when he was writing against Maximinus the Arian Bishop But neither may I make use of the Nicene Council nor you that of Arimini as that which ought to pre-judge us in this matter for neither am I held by the authority of the one nor you by the authority of the other Let the one side and cause and their reasons be brought against the other from the authorities of the Scriptures that do not belong to either side but are Witnesses common to both The Fourth Method IS to tell them that their Ministers can never do this nor shew in the Scriptures any of their Articles that are controverted and this is very true For example they can never bring any formal Text to prove that Original Sin remains as to the guilt of it after Baptism that we receive the Body of Iesus Christ only by Faith that after the Consecration the Sacrament is still Bread that there is no Purgatory and that we do not merit any thing by our good works And to this it may be added that among all those passages that are on the Margent of their Confession there is not one that says that which they cite it for either in express or equivalent terms or in the same sense This is the Method of Mr. Veron which he took from S. Austin who says to the Manichaeans Shew me that that is in the Scripture and in another place Let him shew me that that is to be found in the Holy Scripture We must then boldly tell them That they cannot prove any of their Articles that are in dispute nor dispute against any of ours by any passages of Scripture neither in express terms nor by sufficient consequences so as to make their Doctrine be received as the Faith and ours pass for Errour Remarks THe first part of this Article proceeds upon Veron's Method of putting us to prove our Doctrines by express words of Scripture but some more cautious person has added in the conclusion a Salvo for good consequences drawn from them upon which we yield that this is a very good Method and are ready to joyn issue upon it If they intend still to build upon that notion of express words we desire it may be considered that the true meaning of all passages is not to be taken only from the bare words but from the contexture of the Discourse and the design upon which they are made use of and that Rule of Logick being infallibly true That what things soever agree in any third thing they do also agree among themselves it is certain that a true consequence is as good a proof as a formal passage Thus did our Saviour prove the Resurrection from the Scriptures by a very remote consequence since God was said to be the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob and was the God of the Living and not of the Dead So did the Apostles prove Christ's being the promised Messias and the obligation to observe the Mosaical Ceremonies to have ceased upon his coming by many consequences but not by the express words of Scripture All the arguings of the Fathers against the Heretiâ—ks run on Consequences drawn from Scripture as may appear in all their Synodical Letters more particularly in that formerly cited of Pope Leo to Flavian to which the Fourth General Council assented This Plea does very ill become men that pretend such reverence to Antiquity since it was that upon which all the Ancient Hereticks set up their strength as the most plausible pretence by which they thought they could cover themselves So the Arians at Arimini give this reason for rejecting the word Consubstantial because it was not in the Scriptures The Macedonians laid hold of the same pretence Nestorâ—us gives this as his chief reason for denying the Virgin to be the Mother of God And Eutyches covered himself also with this question In what Scripture were the two Natures of Christ to be found And his followers did afterwards insist so much on this Plea that Theodoret wrote two large Discourses on purpose to shew the weakness of this pretence So that after all the noise they make about the Primitive Church they follow the same tract in which the Hereticks that were condemned by the first four General Councils went and they put us to do the same thing that the Hereticks then put on the Orthodox But we make the same answer to it which the Fathers did That the sense of the Scriptures is to be considered more than the words So that what is according to the true sense is as much proved by Scripture as if it were contained in it in so many express words And yet this Plea had a much greater strength in it as it was managed by those Hereticks for those contests being concerning mysteries which exceed our apprehensions it was not an unreasonable thing at first view to say that in such things which we cannot perfectly comprehend it is not safe to proceed by deductions or consequences and therefore it seemed safer to hold strictly to Scripture Phrases but in other points into which our understandings can carry us further it is much more absurd to exact of us express words of Scripture 2. Most of the points about which we dispute with the Church of Româ— are additions made by them to the simplicity of the Christian Religion So much as we own of the Christian Religion they own likewise In the other particulars our Doctrine with relation to them is made up of Negatives