the Article which he is here defending is founded and consider one passage therein which perhaps he might before overlook And then I shall proceed to conder the latter part of this Article The Passage is this the Council doth there declare That Concupiscence doth still remain even in those that are baptized and doth further declare that St. Paul did sometimes call this Concupiscence Sin. But though the Apostle did so yet the Council tells us That the Catholick Church no doubt the Roman Catholick did never think it to be so And if any one think otherwise let him be Anathema In the beginning of this Decree the Council pretends to have the assistance of the Holy Ghost whether they had or no is not easie to be granted but it is confessed on all hands that St. Paul was inspired from above and if so then how comes the Council and he to be at odds in this matter Either the Apostle or the Council were in the wrong for both parts of a Contradiction cannot be true Now whether the Authority of St. Paul or that of the Council of Trent be the better one would think were no very hard Question St. Austin I am sure did not think it was for if he had he would not have been so positive as he was Aug ad Hieron Epist 19. when he said The Authority of St. Paul is to me instead of all the Fathers and above all the Fathers to him I flee and to him I appeal from all other Doctors whatsoever II. Concerning Justification he gives us an account of what the Council of Trent hath defin'd in Four particulars 1. That Men are justified by an intrinsecal Justice And this he founds upon Two places of Scripture viz. Tit. iij. 7. where it is said That being justified by his Grace we should be made Heirs according to the hope of Eternal Life Which Grace saith he is in Men. And for this he quotes 2 Tim. i. 6. where it is said I put thee in mind to stir up that Grace which is in thee So he renders it but it is more properly translated I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the Gift of God which is in thee by the putting on my Hands Which last words he leaves out To this I answer What St. Paul here means by being justified by his Grace he himself very well explains in another place where he saith Rom. iij. 24. Being justified freely by his Grace through the Redemption that is in Jesus Christ Where to be justified Freely and to be justified by Grace are Synonymous Expressions and imply no more but that God did freely and without any merit of ours send his Son to die for sinners and by his Death to make satisfaction to divine Justice for our sins and by that means to obtain such Grace and Favour with God that our Sins might be Pardoned and we Justified before him whence it is very plain That by the Grace of God we are not to understand any intrinsecal Righteousness of our own but the free Grace and Favour of God in accepting the Righteousness of Christ instead of ours and imputing the same to us through Faith for our Justification And therefore St. Paul after he had a little more Explain'd himself Vers 28. concludes saying Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by Faith without the Deeds of the Law. As for his other Scripture which he brings in as an Auxiliary Proof it is quite foreign to the matter in hand for the Apostle there doth not speak of Justifying Grace nor indeed of any Grace if we take the word strictly for the word there is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in the other but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies not Grace but a Gift And the Gift which he there puts him in mind to stir up was the Gift of preaching As if he should have said Be sure couragiously to preach the Gospel and exercise that Ministerial Function which thou hast received by the Imposition of my Hands But I find this Gentleman is under a great mistake he takes Justification and Sanctification to be one and the same thing but I cannot much blame him for it because I know he is led into it by an Authority which he thinks to be Infallible and consequently Indisputable viz. the Council of Trent which teacheth him Sess 6. c. 7. That Justification consists not only in Remission of Sins but in Sanctification also and the renewing of the inward Man by a voluntary susception of Grace and Gifts by which of Vnrighteous a Man is made Righteous and of an Enemy a Friend that he may be an Heir according to the Hope of Eternal Life This is a far different Notion from that which the Church of England and the Holy Scriptures give us of Justification They teach us That by Justification we are to understand only Absolution or Remission of Sins but the Church of Rome confounds Justification with Sanctification and the Remission of Sins with the Renovation of our Minds And indeed in this Channel runs the main difference between us and them through the whole Controversie The Church of England delivers her Sentiments touching Justification thus Art. 11. We are accounted Righteous before God only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith and not for our own works or deservings Wherefore that we are justifyed by Faith only is a most wholesome Doctrine and very full of comfort And for a farther Explication thereof she refers to the Homily of Justification where she declares That by Justification 2 Hom. of Justificat part 1. she means the Forgivness of our Sins and Trespasses That this being received of God's Mercy and Christ's Merits embraced by Faith is taken and allowed of God for our perfect and full Justification That nothing on the behalf of Man doth contribute to this Justification but only a true and lively Faith which Faith is also the Gift of God Yet doth not this Faith exclude Good-works nor the necessity of them in Justified Persons but only shuts them out from the Office of Justifying This is the Doctrine of the Church of England and for this she hath good Authority both in Scripture and Fathers but I must not now enter upon this Controversie lest I lose the Vindicator therein I shall therefore proceed to his next particular 2. He tells us That the Council of Trent hath defin'd That all Works of the Just are not Sins This saith he is evident in Scripture as Luke i. 6. where 't is said of Zacharias and Elizabeth They were both Righteous before God walking in all the Commandments and Ordinances of the Lord blameless And 1 John v. 18. Whosoever is born of God sineth not Which likewise proves That the Commandments are not impossible to be kept as the same Council declares To this I answer If the Premisses be good the Inference therefrom I confess is natural For if Justified
that I was sometimes a Monk a mad Papist so drunk so drown'd in Popery that I was ready to kill every one or assist and consent to their death if in any things they differed therefrom c. I hold That there is a Purgatory and that the Souls there detain'd are help'd by the Prayers of the Faithful THE Vindicator here tells us that he doth verily believe and is fully satisfied that there is a Purgatory but where it is or whether there be a true and proper Fire there or how long that punishment lasts these are no Articles of his Faith. He might have added Or what it is For the Council of Trent upon which he builds his Faith doth not tell him that So that to subscribe to this Article is in effect to subscribe to he knows not What nor Where nor Whether nor How long nor indeed Why. It may not be amiss therefore to acquaint you what the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is concerning Purgatory which I shall do out of their most Authentick Record viz. The Council of Trent Sess 25. Decret de Purgator Wherein it is declared That there is a Purgatory and that the Souls detain'd there do receive assistance from the suffrages of the Faithful but especially from the acceptable Sacrifice of the Altar And all who do not believe the same are by that Council anathematized which makes it a necessary Article of Faith. For thus the Council determineth If any one shall say that after a Man hath received the Grace of Justification the guilt of his Sin Sess 6. Can. 30. and the eternal punishment due thereto is so remitted that there remains no temporary pain to be satisfied for by him either in this World or in Purgatory before he can enter into the Kingdom of Heaven let him be Anathema And in another place the same Council tells us Sess 22. cap. 2. That the Sacrifice of the Mass is a truly propitiatory Sacrifice for the Living and for the Dead who are not yet throughly purged And to confirm this there is a Canon of that Council in the same Session in these words Can. 3. If any one shall say that the Sacrifice of the Mass is only a Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving or a bare Commemoration of the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross and not a propitiatory Sacrifice Or that it is profitable only to him that receives it and ought not to be offered up for the sins pains satisfactions and other necessities both of the quick and the dead let him be Anathema And the Catechism ad Parochos which always speaks the sence of that Council teacheth the same Doctrine telling us Part. 1. Art. 2. n. 5. That there is a Purgatory Fire wherein the Souls of the Godly being tormented for a certain time are expiated that so the Gates of the eternal Country may be opened unto them into which nothing defiled can enter This is the Doctrine of the Romish Church touching Purgatory which we are required to subscribe unto in this Article wherein we are taught and it is expected that we should steadfastly believe 1. That there is a middle state for the reception of Souls departed which is neither Heaven nor Hell. 2. That this state is a state of pain and punishment 3. That in this state they are to satisfie for some temporary punishments which were not accomplished nor accounted for in this life 4. That those tormented Souls may be assisted and relieved by the Prayers and Alms-deeds of their Friends here but especially by the acceptable Sacrifice of the Altar Now this Doctrine we cannot subscribe to having as we think great reason to reject it For 1. We do not find in holy Scripture any mention made of any other place for the reception of Souls departed besides Heaven and Hell and therefore we look upon it as a fond thing vainly invented 2. Nor do we find any the least footsteps of a Popish Purgatory among the Primitive Fathers nor for many hundred years after Christ In lib. advers Luther There own Martyr Roffensis deals plainly with us telling us That so long as there was no care of Purgatory which fairly implies that there was a time when Purgatory was either not known or not much cared for no Man sought after Indulgences for upon that depends all the opinion of Pardons If you take away Purgatory wherefore should we need Pardons Since therefore Purgatory was so lately known and received of the whole Church viz. not till the time of Boniface VIII about the Year 1300. who can wonder that there was no use of Indulgences in the beginning of the Church But though there was not then there is great use made of them now and would you know for what reason Erasmus in a witty Expression of his will give you a true account They do wonderfully affect the Fire of Purgatory because it is so profitable for their Kitchins But the Vindicator will tell us That both Roffensis and we are mightily out in our Calculation for he hath found very plain Footsteps of this Purgatory both in Scripture and Antiquity Which whether he hath or no is the thing now to be examined He produceth only one Scripture viz. Matth. xij 32. where it is said Whosoever shall speak against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven him neither in this World nor in the World to come Whence he thinks it follows by a necessary consequence That there are some Sins which shall be forgiven in the next World though not in this To this I answer 1. That if we should allow him this Exposition yet will it not thence follow that there must of necessity be a Purgatory Fire in which the Souls departed must be purged and have their sins pardoned For 1st Whether there be any true and proper Fire there this Gentleman knows not it is no Article of his Faith. 2. The Purgatory they speak of is not a place of pardon but of pain and punishment For according to their Doctrine Sin is already pardoned before the Souls enter into Purgatory only they are to remain there for some time to make up some satisfaction which was not completed in this Life But 2dly We cannot allow him this Exposition for it is so far from being a necessary consequence from these words that a contrary one seems to be plainly designed therein It shall not be forgiven neither in this World nor in the World to come i. e. It shall never be forgiven but shall certainly be punished both in this Life and in that to come So that whether we allow or disallow of this his Exposition this Scripture will not serve his purpose His Argument from Antiquity makes indeed a greater shew which is built upon these Foundations 1. That the ancient Fathers did frequently speak of an Intermediate State between Death and Judgment 2. That they did often make mention of a Purgatory and a Purgatory Fire which was to be
honour that we can do them But that they are to be invocated call'd upon or pray'd unto we cannot consent because we have no warrant for it either in the Word of God or any good Antiquity Whether they do offer Prayers to God for us as it is not very certain so is it not any part of the question between us nor if it be granted will it warrant our praying to them As for their Relicks those that are truly such viz. their Sepulchres their Memories their Writings and their good Examples we have a great Veneration for them and do think that they ought not only not to be exposed to any contempt or disgrace but that a very great respect and regard ought to be paid them But that all those things which the Church of Rome tells us are the Relicks of Saints are really such we cannot agree nor can we go along with them in paying them that Veneration which they do we cannot repose any confidence in them nor expect any help or assistance from them nor hope to have our Prayers heard in this place rather than in another upon the account of some Relicks being there As for their Images and the honour and veneration due to them it had been well if either Pope Pius or his Vindicator had thought fit to explain themselves and told us what kind of honour and veneration they mean. The Vindicator indeed saith That they being things relating to God it must be another kind of Regard Honour and Veneration than is usually given to prophane things But whether this is or ought to be called a Religious Honour is matter of dispute but no matter of his Faith. And that as for the manner or external profession of it it ought to be measured from the intention of the Church so that we are still as far to seek for the meaning of it as before Now where can we hope to find what the intention of the Church is unless it be in the Council of Trent and its Catechism out of which Pope Pius extracted these New Articles It may not be amiss therefore before we proceed any further to see what that Council hath determined in these two points viz. The Invocation of Saints and the worship of Images which are the two things promoted in these two Articles and which this Gentleman hath here undertaken to vindicate from Novelty I. Touching the Invocation of Saints The Council hath defin'd That the Saints reigning with Christ do offer their Prayers unto God for us But is this all No it farther declares Concil Trident. Sess 25. Decret de Invocatione c. That it is a good and profitable thing for us in an humble manner to pray unto them But is this all yet No We must have recourse to their Prayers Aid and Assistance Nor is this all for the Bodies of Holy Martyrs and others now living with Christ which have been the living Members of Christ and Temples of the Holy Ghost veneranda sunt are to be worshipped or had in veneration And it expresly damns all those who teach That Veneration and Honour are not due to the Relicks of the Saints or that it is not profitable to honour these Relicks and other sacred Monuments of the Saints or that it is in vain to frequent the Memories of the Saints and that eorum opis impetrandae causâ to obtain their help and assistance Thus far the Council which is seconded by the Catechism which saith We pray to God either to give us good things Catech. ad Parochos Part 4. Tit. Quis sit Orandus or to deliver us from evil but because the Saints are more acceptable to him than we are we beg of them to undertake our cause and to obtain for us those things we stand in need of From whence it comes to pass that we use two very different Forms of Prayer for to God the proper manner of speaking is Have pity on us Hear our Prayer whereas we only desire the Saints to pray for us But then it follows Though it be lawful on another account to pray to the Saints that they would have pity on us for they are mighty merciful And in another place it saith Invocandi sunt c. They are to be prayed unto because they are continually in God's presence and most willingly take upon them patrocinium salutis nostrae the patronage of our Health and Safety which is committed to their care II. Concerning the Worship of Images that Council hath also defin'd That the Images of Christ of the Virgin-Mother of God and of other Saints Sess 25. Decret de Invocatione c. are to be had and retained in Churches But is this all No All due honour and veneration is to be given to them And how is this to be given By kissing those Images uncovering the Head and prostrating our selves before them And is all this for no other end but only to excite in us the remembrance of those they represent Certainly the Council intended something more for it builds this Definition upon the second Council of Nice Concil Nicaen 2. Action 3 4 6. Catech. ad Parochos part 3. de cultu Invocat Sanct. in which it was ordained That the Images of Christ of the blessed Virgin Mary and of the Saints should not only be received into places of Adoration but also should be adored and worshipped And so the Catechism explains it for we are there told That to make and honour the Images of Christ the Lord of his most holy and immaculate Mother and of other Saints is an holy and most certain argument of a grateful mind But is this all No. It is not only lawful to have Images in Churches and to give Honour and Worship to them provided that Honour which is given to them be referred to their Prototypes but also it is for the greatest good and benefit of the Faithful so to do But is this all yet No. The Images of Saints are placed in Temples ut colantur that they may be worshipped This is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in these two Articles as it is delivered by the Council of Trent and the Catechism ad Parochos out of which these and the other new Articles were collected by Pope Pius IV. Which Doctrine we can by no means comply with nor subscribe to For I. As for the Invocation of Saints 1. We look upon it as a fond thing vainly invented grounded upon no warranty of Scripture but rather repugnant to the word of God. 2. We think it to be highly derogatory to the Mediatorial Office of Jesus Christ 3. We look upon Prayer as an eminent Act of Religious Worship which we think to be due to God alone and ought not to be given to any Creature And II. As for the Worship of Images We think that it is an absolute breach of the second Commandment which forbids the worship of Images and that in words so large
and comprehensive that there is no room left for Evasion For 1. It forbids all external acts of Adoration as bowing down to them or before them 2. It doth not only forbid the Worship of Images as Gods but as Images and Representative Objects 3. It doth not only forbid the Worship of the Images of Heathen Gods but of the Lord Jehovah But all this notwithstanding the Vindicator thinks he hath found out both Scripture and Antiquity wherewith to defend both these Articles For the Invocation of Saints he alledgeth Gen. xlviij v. 16. where Jacob blessing Joseph's two Sons saith The Angel that delivered me from all evil bless the Lads To this I answer That by Angel here is generally understood the Angel of the Covenant viz. Christ the Son of God. But if we should grant him that it is to be understood of an Ordinary Angel yet can he not thereupon avail himself any thing in this case for God being pleased often to make use of the Ministry of Angels in sending succor and relief to good Men Jacob prayed not unto the Angel but to God as may be seen in the 15 Verse that he would appoint the same Blessed Angel that administred unto him in all his streights to be the Instrument of his good providence to those two Sons of Joseph whom he had now made his own and caused them to be called after his name He alledgeth also Rev. i. 4. Rev. v. 8. and Rev. viij 9. The first of these Texts is nothing to his purpose for the most that can be made of it is only this John prays that God would send his Grace to the seven Churches by the Ministry of the seven Spirits there mentioned and what is all this to the matter in hand or how will this warrant our praying to Saints departed Nor will his next Scripture do him any more service for it is generally understood to be either a Representation of the Church below offering up prayers by her Pastors who are the mouths of the Congregation to God or else a Representation of the whole Church of Christ both in Heaven and Earth joining together in their Doxologies and Praises to God for the Victories of the Lamb and the Redemption of the World by his Blood. And this latter seems to be warranted by the very next words where it is said And they sung a new song saying Thou art worthy to take the Book and to open the seals thereof for thou wast slain and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred and tongue and people and nation v. 9. Nor will his other Text any more avail him the 9th verse which he quotes is nothing to the purpose but I suppose he meant v. 4. where it is said That the smoak of the incense which came with the prayers of the Saints ascended up before God out of the Angels hand That by Angel here we are to understand Christ the Angel of the Covenant they themselves dare not deny For the Angel that offered up the Prayers of the Saints in v. 3. is called another Angel different both in Nature and Office from those other seven Angels mentioned v. 2. But if Scripture will not do his business Antiquity he thinks will for that he says is very express in all the Doctrine of this Article And as witnesses of what he says he names St. Cyril Alex. St. Ambrose St. Augustin St. Gregory Nyssen and St. Jerome but without any direction where to find their evidence recorded Only in the Margin he tells us That these Quotations may be seen cited at large in Nubes Testium To all which I shall only return him this Answer That all these Quotations may be seen answered at large in The Antiquity of the Protestant Religion c. First and Second Parts and in another Treatise intituled Veteres Vindicati and in the Answer to the Compiler of Nubes Testium For the Worship of Images All that he offers to prove is no more than this 1. That the making and having of Images in Churches or private Houses is not unlawful 2. That some respect and veneration is due to them both which we readily grant But whether the Veneration and Honour that is due to them ought to be called a Religious Honour This he tells us is a Dispute among Divines but no matter of his Faith. But if this be no matter of his Faith yet it is the only matter of Debate between us and them in this point and that it is the intention of his Church from which he tells us we are to take our measures as to the manner and external profession of this Honour hath been plainly made appear from the Council of Trent and the Catechism ad Parochos out of which this Article is gathered If therefore he doth not prove this as indeed he doth not pretend to do he is so far from vindicating the Doctrine of this Article that he proves nothing at all Not finding therefore any thing in his proofs that tends this way I see no reason either to give my self or the Reader a needless trouble by a tedious examination of them But if there be any thing wherein this Gentleman desires a further satisfaction I would recommend to his perusal if he be permitted to read them two or three small Treatises which have lately been published upon this Subject viz. A Discourse concerning the Object of Religious Worship c. An Answer to a Discourse intituled Papists protesting against Protestant Popery c. A Discourse of the Worship of the blessed Virgin and the Saints c. In which if he doth not find full satisfaction in this matter I must dispair of giving him any I believe that the power of Indulgences has been given and left by Christ to his Church and that the use of them is very beneficial to the Faithful THE Council of Trent hath indeed asserted the Doctrine of Indulgences Contin Sess 25. Decret de â—â—â—ulg but not explain'd it It damns all those with an Anathema who either affirm them to be unprofitable or deny that the Church hath power to grant them And all this without once letting us know what it means by Indulgences The Bishop of Meaux in his Exposition c. would perswade us that all that is intended by Indulgences is only a Relaxation of Canonical Penance and in complyance with him the Vindicator here seems to be of the same opinion for that is all that he advanceth for the Vindication of this Article That such a power as this was given and left by Christ to his Church and that the due administration of it is very beneficial to the Faithful we willingly grant And that this godly Discipline was anciently used by the Church of Christ we deny not For it is most certain that it was the practise of the Church to enjoin penance to her offending Members and if they did humbly and patiently submit thereunto and prove penitent under them she
Mystical Union between Jesus Christ and his Church and not the Union between the Husband and the Wife For having said This is a great Mystery that we might not think that he spake of the Mystery of Marriage he addeth But I speak concerning Jesus Christ and his Church But the Vulgar Translation of this Text calls it a Sacrament we grant it but doth this prove Marriage to be a Sacrament Will the Vindicator own all those things which in the Vulgar Translation are called Sacraments to be Sacraments of the Church of Rome Then the great Whore mentioned in the Revelations must be one of their Sacraments for so the Vulgar Translation calls her Rev. xvij 7. And the seven Stars mentioned Rev. i. 20. must be another for so they are there called And Dreams and Visions must be a third for so they are three times called Dan. ij 18 30 47. And Piety is called a great Sacrament 1 Tim. iij. 16. I suppose he will not own these to be Sacraments of the Church of Rome and yet in their Authentick Translation they are called Sacraments as well as Marriage But that Marriage is no Sacrament of the New Law instituted by Jesus Christ among many others we have these reasons to satisfy our selves I. Because it was not instituted by Jesus Christ for it was in the World before his time If after his coming the blessed Jesus did change the nature of it and make it a Sacrament then let them shew us when and where he did it II. Because as it hath no word of Institution so neither hath it any visible Sign or outward Element for neither the words nor the actions are Elements and unless there be an Element to which the word of Institution is joined it can be no Sacrament III. Because there is no promise of Grace annexed to any outward Element for though the state of Matrimony be a sign of that Mystical Union between Christ and his Church having some Analogy with it ye we do not know that the entrance into this state hath the promise of any Grace to join or preserve us in that Union with Christ and his Church And for these reasons we exclude it from the Sacraments of the New Law instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ with all the requisites of a Sacrament properly so called And for our so doing we do not want Authorities among the eminent Doctors of the Roman Church I shall only give you two instances Their own Durandus delivers his opinion in plain terms telling us Durand in sentent l. 4. Dist 26. q. 3. Cajetan Annot. in loc That strictly and properly speaking Marriage is not a Sacrament And Cardinal Cajetan upon this place of Scripture cited by the Vindicator hath these words Prudent Reader thou learnest not here of St. Paul that Marriage is a Sacrament for he saith not This Sacrament but this Mystery is great and in truth the Mystery of those words is great Thus it appears that neither from Antiquity nor the written Word of God any of these five Additional Sacraments of the Church of Rome viz. Confirmation Penance Extream Vnction Order and Matrimony can with any justice plead the same title to be Sacraments of the New Law instituted by Christ and necessary for the Salvation of Mankind as it is confessed on all hands Baptism and the Lord's Supper may I do also receive and admit of all the received and approved Ceremonies of the Catholick Church used in the Administration of the above-mentioned Sacraments 1 Cor. xiv 40. THAT all things are to be done decently and in order we own to be an Apostolical precept and that in point of duty we stand obliged to yield Obedience thereunto We also acknowledge that the Superiors in every Society are the proper Judges of that Decency and Order And that it always hath been and still is the practice of all well-ordered Societies to submit to the Determination of their Superiors therein And that to invert this Order or for private persons to take upon them to dictate to their Governours in this case is the only way to introduce Anarchy and Confusion Which is all or at least the substance of all that the Vindicator here offers in behalf of this Article But after this Concession there are some things still stick with us which will not suffer us to subscribe thereunto viz. I. Because we are required to receive it not only as an Article of Communion but as an Article of Faith under the penalty of an Anathema though it only concern Ceremonies which are things mutable at the pleasure of the Church II. Because the Ceremonies here spoken of or some of them neither are nor ever were received nor approved by the Catholick Church III. Because the Roman Catholick Church as they call it is but a particular Church and hath no more power to impose Ceremonies or Usages upon any other Church than that other hath to impose upon Her. For Par in parem non habet imperium IV. If any Ceremonies imposed by the Church of Rome or any other Church be such as that the Members of that Church cannot comply with them without sin and danger the general rule of the Apostle doth not in that case bind to blind Obedience For then there is an Apostolical pattern which must take place Whether it be better to obey God or man judge ye Acts iv 19. I embrace and receive all and every thing which in the Holy Council of Trent hath been defin'd concerning Original Sin and Justification IN defence of this Article and to perswade us to a compliance therewith the Vindicator proceeds in this method I. He undertakes to give us an account of what the Council hath defin'd in these two points And II. To vindicate those their Definitions Now whether he hath been faithful in his account or whether the Definitions of the Council or his Vindication of them be such as may oblige us to comply with him and the Council therein are the things we are now to enquire into I. As touching Original Sin it must be acknowledged that the Vindicator hath faithfully set down the Doctrine thereof as it is defin'd by the Council of Trent But notwithstanding the Authority of this Council or the strength of the Proofs which indeed are weak enough whereby he endeavours to defend its Definition of this point yet there are some things we cannot comply with and till we are convinc'd by better Arguments than are here offered we cannot embrace all and every thing which in the Council of Trent hath been defin'd in this point But because the difference here is not very great and no new matter offered but only such as hath been over and over again considered and refuted and because there are matters of greater moment still behind Concil Trident. Sess 5. Decret de peccat Origin Can. 5. I shall only desire the Vindicator once more to read over that very Decree upon which this part of
the reasons of it are expressed at large in the Epistle of that Council to Pope Coelestinus Thus have I considered the Proofs brought for Vindication of this important Article and having laid them in the Balance have found them all too light But he hath yet one Authority more not from Antiquity but from a Modern Author and one of our own viz. the Reverend and learned Doctor Sherlock This I confess Disc of the Knowl of Jes Christ p. 163. I did not expect for who would ever have thought that that worthy Gentleman should ever have been brought upon the Stage as an Advocate for the Popes Supremacy But this Gentleman thinks that whatsoever is said by any Body touching Order and Discipline in the Church and the necessity of subjection and obedience to the Governors thereof must needs terminate in the Pope who they say is the Center of Unity though in so saying they do but beg the Question For we can with great cheerfulness and willingness subscribe to all that Dr. Sherlock hath there said and yet think our selves never a jot the more obliged to swear Obedience to the Bishop of Rome I undoubtedly receive and profess all other things delivered defined and declared by the Sacred Canons and General Councils and particularly by the Holy Council of Trent and I condemn reject and anathematize all things contrary thereunto and all Heresies whatsoever the Church hath condemned rejected and Anathematized THIS he tells us is the consequence of that Doctrine of our Creed wherein we profess to believe The Holy Catholick Church But how comes this to be the consequence of that Doctrine Very naturally for the Church of Rome is this Catholick Church 'T is boldly said but how doth this appear Very plainly for there are the greatest reasons in the world to believe it So that now we must either show our selves to be unreasonable Men or else of necessity we must subscribe this Article But are we obliged to take all this upon the bare word of the Vindicator May we not look into and consider these reasons whether they be so great and good as he talks of Surely we may or else he would not have exposed them to publick view Well then let us see what they are R. 1. His first Reason is Because the Church of Rome has continued in a visible Succession of Pastors from Christ's time till now Ans The point of Succession hath been already considered and I think enough said to show the unreasonableness of that Plea. But because he so much insists upon the visible Succession of Persons in the same place let me ask him two or three questions 1. Who was the Bishop of Rome next by Succession to Peter who the second who the third who the fourth For in this they are not yet well agreed Some say Linus was the second others say Clemens Some say Anacletus was the third others say Clemens Some say Anacletus was the fourth others say Anacletus 2. Whether an Heretick or a Necromancer or a Blasphemer being in the Chair be the true Successor of St. Peter and if not whether that do not break the Line of Succession 3. Whether when there was no Pope for some Years the visible succession of Pastors in that Church was not discontinued 4. When there were three or four Popes at one and the same time and not known who was the true one there was not an apparent interruption of their visible succession R. 2. Because the Church of Rome never went out of or separated from any precedent Church but all other separate Congregations have gone out from her Ans If by going out of or separating from any precedent Church he mean departing from the Doctrine and renouncing the Discipline of that Church which he must do if he mean any thing then we say That in both these the present Church of Rome hath gone out of and separated from the Primitive Church as hath been plainly made appear in this Discourse And that those who separate from her do not separate from the Church but from the corruptions of that particular Church which they are well warranted to do by St. Paul who having told the Corinthians That there can be no fellowship between Righteousness and Unrighteousness no Communion between Light and Darkness no Concord between Christ and Belial nor any Agreement between the Temple of God and Idols at last thus inferrs Wherefore come out from among them and be ye separate saith the Lord and touch not the unclean thing and I will receive you 2 Cor. vi 14 15 16 17. Because the Church of Rome hath sent Apostles abroad and converted all Heathen Nations to Christianity R. 3. Ans This is so notoriously false and so well known to be so to every one that hath but looked into Church History in which we have an account of most Nations when and by whom they were converted that I cannot but wonder at the Confidence of this Gentleman in asserting it But if we should grant him this would it thence follow That the Church of Rome is the Catholick Church Might I not as well reason thus The Scribes and Pharisees compass Sea and Land to gain Proselytes therefore those two Sects were the whole Jewish Church Because the Church of Rome in publick Synods has opposed and condemn'd in all Ages arising Heresies R. 4. This is as notoriously false as the former Ans as is plain from those two Instances of the Milevitan and African Councils which I mentioned in the precedent Article and might easily be made more plainly appear by Instances of other Councils which have not only not desired but rejected the Authority of the Church of Rome when it would have inposed But the thing is so well known that I shall not need to do it These are all the Reasons he alledgeth and these he tells us are the greatest in the World. If they be so the World is in an ill condition and men like the great Nebuchadnezzar may be sent now to graze amongst the Beasts of the Field having lost their Reason I am of Doctor Sherlock's mind That Men cannot own the Authority and Government of Christ till they submit to the publick Instructions Authority and Discipline of the Church But what is all this to the Church of Rome's being the Catholick Church 'T is plain he doth not say it and I am well assured he never meant it I subscribe to St. Austin's Judgment That particular Councils Aug. de Bapt. cont Don. l. 2. c. 9. must yield to General because the whole is deservedly preferred before a part But did ever any Council either particular or General decree a part to be the whole or a particular Church to be the Catholick Church If not I do not see how the Vindicator can avail himself of this passage nor for what end he did produce it Thus it appears that the New Articles in Pope Pius
properly so called as necessary to be received and believed by all Men in order to their Salvation as the Articles of Pope Pius IV. Bulla Pii 4ti apud Concil Trid. are declared to be or else the force of his Argument is quite lost For if they be only Articles of Communion such as are necessary only for our admittance into and our peaceable and orderly living in that Society of which we are Members then are they no Additions to the Apostles Creed which only contains Articles of Faith. And that they are so will evidently appear if the Church of England may be but allowed to speak for her self Art. VI. She will tell us That the Holy Scripture contains all things necessary to Salvation so that whatsoever is not read therein nor may be proved thereby is not to be required of any Man that it should be believed as an Article of the Faith or be thought requisite or necessary to Salvation Art. VIII And she will further tells us That the Three Creeds the Nicene the Athanasian and that commonly called the Apostles Creed ought throughly to be received and believed for they may be proved by most certain Warrants of holy Scripture But when she speaks of her own Articles she tells us they were agreed upon and designed for this end and purpose viz. For the avoiding of diversities of Opinions and for the establishing of Consent touching true Religion It is a scandal therefore upon the Church of England to say that she ever thought it lawful to add to the Apostles Creed or that it was in hers or in the power of the Church of Rome or of all the Churches in the World to make or coin any one new Article of Faith. Which if it be true then will it be a very hard task indeed to justifie Pope Pius IV. who hath added XII new Articles as necessary to be received and believed by all Men in order to their Salvation To bring off this Prelate as well as he can our Vindicator tells us That these Articles were collected by him at that time in opposition to the then broach'd Errors of Luther and Calvin that in so doing he is warranted by Primitive practices and that the Articles do not contain any new Doctrine but only a Declaration of that to be the true and Orthodox Doctrine of the Church which was really so antecedent to that Declaration And therefore saith he We have now only to enquire Whether the Doctrine propos'd in the profession of Pius IV. be according to Scripture and the sence of the Primitive Fathers if it be not they do well that reject it but if it be the noise of Additional Articles will be but a weak justification of those that have made a breach in the Church on this score That these Articles were collected in opposition to some pretended Errors of Luther and Calvin and that it was the practice of the Primitive Church when any Error or Heresie was raised against any point of received Doctrine to condemn the Error or Heresie and the Abettors of them and to declare the opposed Doctrine to be Orthodox is readily granted But Whether the Doctrine delivered in these Articles be new or old is the thing now in question The Vindicator undertakes to prove that it is according to Scripture and the Sence of the Primitive Fathers which if he do then we must own our selves to blame but if he fail in it then notwithstanding this his Vindication he must if he be ingenuous acknowledge that we have just cause to withdraw from their Communion upon that score The Profession of Pope Pius IV. I steadfastly admit and embrace Apostolical and Ecclesiastical Traditions and other Observances and Constitutions of the Church IN this Article there are III. things which we are required to admit and embrace I. Apostolical Traditions II. Ecclesiastical Traditions III. Other Observances and Constitutions of the Church As for the first of these viz. Traditions truly Apostolical and universally own'd for obligatory through all ages we are ready with all due Veneration and profound Reverence to admit and embrace them We are well assured that the Apostles were Men divinely inspired and whatsoever Doctrine was delivered by them or whatsoever Rules of practice they did prescribe to be perpetually observed in the Church were no less than the Dictates of unerring Wisdom and therefore to contravene or not comply with them if they be sufficiently propounded to us would be great impiety But if we do not receive every thing as a Tradition truly Apostolical which is pretended to be so we ought to be excused by the Imposers If we are told as we have been by some of the Romish Writers That the whole Canon word by word as it is now used in the Mass came directly from the Apostles Or That the Apostles appointed their Orders of Monks Or That Christ was the Captain and Standard-bearer of Monastick life Or That private Mass Half-Communion Purgatory Pardons Indulgences and I know not what else are all from the Apostles This will want a confirmation and till we have it we must beg leave to suspend our belief and crave their pardon if we do not admit or embrace it as a Tradition truly Apostolical The next thing we are required to admit and embrace are Ecclesiastical Traditions Now those are either such as have been universally received by the Church in all Ages or are recommended to us by the present Church only The former of these we have a very great regard and reverence for are willing to admit and embrace them Sess 4. de Canon Script Contra Crescon Gram. l. 2. c. 31. Aug. ad Hieron Epist 19. and to give them the next place in our esteem to Scripture Tradition But we cannot be so complaisant nor so far comply with the Council of Trent to receive them with equal affection and reverence We think with St. Aug. That it is no injury to St. Cyprian to distinguish his Writings from the Canonical Authority of the holy Scriptures And with the same holy Father We think That the Jugdment of St. Paul alone is to be preferred before that of all the Fathers taken together The latter of these viz. The Traditions of the present Church though we have a very great esteem and value for them yet without a strict examination how far they agree with Scripture and Universal Tradition we cannot so readily admit and embrace them For as St. Hierom in his time said so we say now Those things which Men invent of themselves Hieron in 1. c. Agg. Proph. as it were by Apostolical Tradition without the Authority and witness of the holy Scriptures are confounded by God. The third thing we are here required to admit and embrace are All other Observances and Constitutions of the same Church If by Church here be mean the Catholique Church of all Ages whatsoever is made appear to have been an Observance or Constitution thereof we shall
have a mighty regard for it but how shall we know what the Observances and Constitutions of the Church have been if they be not conveyed unto us by an uninterrupted and unquestionable Tradition and if we do not know them how can we admit or embrace them But it is remarkable That the Observances and Constitutions mentioned in this Article are things different from what hath been delivered to us either by Apostolical or Ecclesiastical Tradition else why are they called other And it is as observable That by Church here he doth not mean the Church of all Ages but the present Church only not the Catholick but the Roman Catholick Church whose Observances and Constitutions we are required to admit and embrace Otherwise why doth he restrain it to the same Church which word same the Vindicator hath thought fit to leave out Now there are many Observances and Constitutions in the Church of Rome which we think she hath no authority to impose upon other Churches nor have they any reason to admit and embrace But notwithstanding all this our Vindicator hath undertaken to prove That not only this but all the Articles in the Profession of Pope Pius IV. are according to Scripture and the sence of the Primitive Fathers How well he hath acquitted himself in this undertaking I shall now examine and observing his own method shall consider his proofs of every Article severally He begins his proof of this Article by Scripture and then fortifies it by the Testimony of the Fathers His first Scripture proof is taken out of 2 Thes 2.15 Where St. Paul saith Brethren stand fast and hold the traditions which ye have been taught whether by word or our epistle Here he observes That there are two ways of delivering the sacred Truth one by writing the other by Word of Mouth and that the Doctrine is to be held fast whether it be delivered the one way or the other All which we readily grant him provided it be made appear That the Tradition as it stands distinguished from the written Word be Apostolical or that what is so delivered be Truth or a Doctrine agreeable to the written Word For certainly St. Paul did not preach one thing and write another and if he did not then all that can be made of this Text will amount only to this Hold fast the self same substance of Religion and Doctrine that I have taught you either by Word or Writing i. e. either by preaching unto you in person when present or instructing you by my Epistle Niceph. l. 2. c. 45. when at a distance Thus Nicephorus understands it telling us That those things which St. Paul had plainly taught by preaching when present the same things being absent he was desirous to recal to their memories by a compendious recapitulation of them in Writing Hieron in 2 Th. 2. And the Annotator under St. Hierom's name saith Quando sua vult teneri non vult extranea superaddi And if thus we are to understand this place it will do but little service for the support of Romish Traditions Many I wish I might not say most of which are besides if not against the written word But doth not St. Chrysostome understand this place of Scripture otherwise Chrysost in 2 Th. 2.15 Hom. 4 the Vindicator thinks he doth and therefore hath produced him as an evidence against us Well let us hear what he saith They the Apostles have not delivered all in their Epistles who denies it but many things also without writing who doubts of it which are likewise to be believed yes if we knew what they were But all things worthy of belief and which ought to be believed when known are not necessary nor indeed possible to be believed before they are known John 21.25 Those many other things which Jesus did and were never written of which St. John speaks would all be worthy of belief and ought to be believed if they were known but not being known they are not necessary to be believed nor are we obliged to believe any one who tells us This or That was one of them the Scripture being silent therein But St. Chrysostome adds Let us therefore esteem the Tradition of the Church worthy of Credit 'T is a Tradition enquire no farther We grant the Tradition of the Church is worthy of Belief and when any is made appear to be so we will seek no farther But then it must be the Tradition not of the present Church only but of the Church in all Ages and such a Tradition as from hand to hand and Age to Age brings us up to the times and persons of the Apostles and our Saviour himself and so is confirmed by all those Miracles and other arguments whereby they convinced their Doctrine to be true But I know none can better acquaint us with the mind and meaning of St. Chrysostome than St. Chrysostome himself who in the same Homily out of which these words are taken Chrysost ibid. hath these other All those things that are in the holy Scriptures are right and clear all that which is necessary is therein clear and manifest And if so then those Traditions that are not in the Scripture are unnecessary things In Ps 95. And the same Father in another place tells us When we say any thing without the Scripture the thoughts of the Hearers are uncertain The Traditions therefore which St. Chrysostome here speaks of are such as are either contained in or may be warranted by the written word and if so then he will stand the Vindicator in little stead His next Scripture Proof is taken out of 2 Tim. c. 2. v. 2. where St. Paul thus directeth Timothy The things that thou hast heard of me among many Witnesses the same commit thou to faithful men who shall be able to teach others also Whence he observes That St. Paul takes care that what he had taught the faithful though only heard from him might be observed and conveyed down to Posterity by their teaching of others How well this Gloss doth agree with the Text needs no other evidence than comparing the one with the other But if we would know St. Paul's design in these words let us consider for what end he besought Timothy to abide still at Ephesus when he himself went into Macedonia which he tells us was That he might charge some to teach no other Doctrine 1 Tim. 1.3 i. e. None other but what he himself had delivered to the Ephesians for there were certain false Apostles which did endeavour to draw the Ephesians to the observation of Legal Rites and Jewish Traditions as necessary to salvation saith their own Lyra upon the place The business therefore which Timothy had to do as Governour of that Church was That none but only faithful and able men should be admitted by him to preach unto them And this is that which St. Paul again charges him to do in this place so their own Lyra upon the
and Interpretation of Scripture and we are not to admit of it but according to Her Sence then it will be necessary to know which is the Church and whether that which pretends to be so be indeed the true Church for without that we cannot with any certainty depend upon Her Judgment But how shall we know that but by the Scriptures Nullo modo cognoscitur quae sit vera Ecclesia Christi nisi tantummodo per Scripturas Chrysostom in opere imperfect Hom. 49. Ecclesiam Christi sicut ipsum Caput Christum in Scripturis Sanctis Canonicis debemus agnoscere Aug. de Vnitat Eccl. c. 66. St. Chrysostome saith It is impossible to know it otherwise And St. Augustine for the discovery of the true Church directs us to the sacred Scriptures And indeed how is it possible to know this or that to be a True Church i. e. of a sound Judgment and pure in the Faith unless we first know the Rule of Faith which is the Word of God But how shall we know either the one or the other but by making use of our own Reason and judging for our selves of those Evidences which are produced So that in fine If we should grant all that the Church of Rome requires of us yet must we make use of our own Reason to understand that Sence and Interpretation which she gives us of the Holy Scriptures Which is no more nor less than resolving all at last into a private Judgment And that all Christians not only may but ought in this manner and in these cases thus to judge for themselves we have good warrant and Authority from the Word of God in which we are advised Not to believe every Spirit but to try the Spirits whether they be of God because many false Prophets are gone out into the World 1 John iv 1. And to prove all things but to hold fast that which is good 1 Th. v. 21. And to be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh us a reason of the hope that is in us 1. Pet. iij. 15. And our Saviour tells us If the blind lead the blind both shall fall into the ditch Matth. xv 14. And he severely reproves those who did not receive his Doctrine saying And why even of your selves judge ye not what is right Luke xij 57. But notwithstanding all this and much more which hath been told them oftentimes oyer and over yet the Vindicator like a stout Champion of his Church undertakes to prove That this Article and every Branch of it is according to Scripture and the Sence of the Primitive Fathers Let us see now how he acquits himself in this undertaking This he tells us is founded upon the Doctrine delivered by St. Peter 2 Ep. i. 20. No Prophecy of the Scripture is of any private Interpretation From whence he thus argues And if it be not of private Interpretation private persons must apply themselves for the true Sence of it to some others and to whom but unto those whom God hath put over them whom he hath commanded them to hear to submit to and obey c. When Men by their own diligence and industry cannot attain to the true sence and meaning of Holy Scripture or after all their care and pains in the use of all proper means are not satisfied therein that in such a case they should apply themselves to those whom God hath set over them as their Spiritual Guides we think to be a method not only safe and reasonable but very necessary But whether this be deducible from or can be built upon this Text of Scripture I take to be very questionable or rather that it is out of question that it cannot And therefore before we proceed any farther let us make a stand a while and take a view of the Apostle's design in this place and of the full and genuine importance of these words St. Peter having faithfully discharged his duty in preaching the Gospel and now finding the time of his departure hence near at hand he commits to writing the substance of what he had preached that so those to whom he had preached might always have it in remembrance so little did he rely upon Tradition That this was his design appears plainly from the 12 13 14 and 15 Verses of this Chapter And that he might not burthen their memories too much he gives them a short Summary of what he had preached unto them viz. The power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ v. 16. And to assure them of the truth and certainty thereof he lays before them two undeniable Arguments I. A voice from Heaven saying This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased This was at his Transfiguration in the Mount at which time Peter James and John were with him and were Eye-Witnesses of his Majesty and Ear-Witnesses of that Heavenly Voice vers 16 17 18. II. But lest they should distrust them or look upon this as an illusion or a dream and fancy of their own he furnisheth them with another Argument which he was well assured would not be rejected by them and that is taken from the Prophetical Writings for which those of the Dispersion viz. the coverted Jews had a mighty regard saying We have also a more sure word of Prophecy whereunto ye do well that ye take heed c. v. 19. meaning that Prophecy of holy David Ps ij 7. Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee And then he adds Knowing this first that no Prophecy of the Scriptures i. e. no Prophecy contained in the Scriptures of the Old Testament to distinguish it from the dreams of those Men who pretended to prophesie but had neither Mission nor Commission from God so to do is of any private Interpretation i. e. proceeds from any private or uninspired person or is an invention of Man. And that this is the full importance of this Expression the Apostle himself seems plainly to intimate in the very next words where he saith For the Prophecy came not in old time by the Will of Man i. e. The Prophets of old did not prophesie either what they pleased or when they pleased but holy Men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost i. e. they published nothing but what was dictated to them by the Holy Ghost nor at any time but when they were moved by him v. 21. And if we consult the Original words they cannot well be construed otherwise for what in the 20 verse is rendred Of any private Interpretation in the Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and may be rendred thus All Prophecy of the Scripture is not made of their own Explication which is the same which the Apostle afterwards saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Prophecy came not in old time by the Will of Man. And for this sence of the Words if that will weigh any thing with them we have the Authority of their own Lyra upon
the Scriptures when we do that which has seem'd good to the whole Church And who denies it We have too great a Veneration for the Doctrine and Practice of the Vniversal Church to suspect that there can be any ill in them let but any thing be made appear to have been universally received or universally practised by the Church in all Ages and we will readily admit and embrace it we will acquiesce in it and seek no farther Thus far do we perfectly agree with this holy Father nor do we dissent from him in the rest Which Church says he is commended to us by the Authority of the Scriptures Well then by his Rule we must understand the Scriptures before we can know the Church Now the Scriptures they themselves confess do not consist in the Letters and Words but in the Sence and meaning And if so then we must understand the sence and meaning of Scriptures antecedent to the Churches Interpretation of them But he goes on To the end says he that because Holy Writ cannot deceive whosoever is afraid of being deceived by the difficulty of this question may consult the Church concerning it which without leaving room to doubt the holy Scripture demonstrates And here I cannot but remarque I. That according to St. Austin Holy Writ is the only infallible rule to judge by for it cannot deceive II. That by this rule we are to find out the true Church for without any ambiguity or leaving room to doubt it plainly demonstrates it to us III. That having by this means found out the true Church we ought in all questions which are too hard and difficult for us to consult her about them All which we readily agree to Now let the Vindicator once more put on his spectacles and seriously review this place of St. Austin and I dare appeal to himself or any man of sence whether it do not directly conclude against this Article which he undertakes to prove by it But perhaps he may have better luck with his next Authority let us therefore consider that too which he cites out of the same Father de Vnitat Eccles c. 19. whence he quotes these words If we had any wise man whose Authority was recommended to us by Christ himself we could no ways doubt of following his judgment having consulted him upon this point lest in refusing we should not so much seem obstinately to withstand him as Jesus Christ our Lord by whose testimony he was recommended to us Who doubts of all this If it had pleased our Blessed Saviour to have given such testimony to the Church of Rome or any other Church we should never have doubted to follow the judgment of that Church and when they can make it appear that he hath done so we shall without any the least scruple submit to it But St. Austin goes on Christ hath given testimony of his Church True but where is it not in the holy Scriptures and if so then we must understand them before we can be satisfied concerning this Testimony and as this Church directs you ought with all readiness obey Right but first we must know which is this Church and that according to St. Austin we cannot do but by the Scriptures And if you will not 't is not to me you are disobedient or any man but most perversly to the prejudice of your own Soul you withstand Christ himself because you refuse to follow the Church which is recommended by his Authority whom you judge it a wickedness to resist All this we can readily subscribe to for when by the Holy Scripture we have once found out which is the true Church we ought with all readiness to yield obedience thereunto because it is recommended to us by the Authority of Jesus Christ whom to resist in any thing we account a great wickedness But where shall we meet with this Authoritative Recommendation except in the holy Scriptures So that still we must understand the Scriptures before we can know which is that Church that is recommended to us by Christ And now pray'e what is all this to the proof of this Article That it belongs to the Church to judge of the true sence and interpretation of Scripture and that we are not to admit Scripture to be Scripture but according to that sence which she gives of it And yet all this while we cannot according to St. Austin know the Church but by the Scripture I do also profess that there are truly and properly seven Sacraments of the new Law instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ and necessary for the salvation of Mankind though all be not necessary for every one to wit Baptism Confirmation Eucharist Penance Extream Vnction Order and Matrimony that they conferr Grace and that three of them Baptism Confirmation and Order cannot be reiterated without Sacrilege HERE the Vindicator tells us That the holy Scripture no where assigns the number of the Sacraments either of their being two or seven Neither doth it give us the definition of a Sacrament and the word is not so much as named in the English Translation and only once in the Vulgar viz. Ephes v. 32. speaking of Matrimony All that we believe therefore in this point we receive from the Church as it hath been delivered founded upon the Doctrine of the Fathers and the Sence of the Scripture To this I answer That it is not more plain that in Scripture there is no mention of Sacraments than that in the Fathers there is no mention of seven The determination of the number is of so late a date Cassand Consult Art. 13. de numero Sacram. An. 1439. that their ingenuous Cassander freely confesses That it is not easie to find any man before Peter Lombard who lived in the twelfth Century which hath set down any certain and definite number of Sacraments The Council of Florence indeed insinuates this number of seven Sacraments as Suarez contends But it was never determined till the late Council of Trent in the last Age and therefore must needs be a great Novelty An. 1546. But to vindicate the Doctrine of seven Sacraments as it is now taught in the Church of Rome and summ'd up in this Article from the imputation of Novelty This Gentleman undertakes to prove that it is founded upon the Doctrine of the Fathers and the sence of the Scripture wherein how well he acquits himself we shall now consider But because he tells us that the Holy Scripture gives us no definition of a Sacrament It will be necessary to state the notion of the thing and to agree what it is before we dispute how many of them there be To the constitution of a Sacrament properly so called we say that these three things must of necessity concurr viz. the word of Institution a visible Sign or outward Element Aug. in Joan. Tract 80. and a promise of invisible Grace annexed thereunto Which is the same that St. Austin saith Accedat verbum ad
the Eucharist an unbloody Sacrifice i. e. A Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving His last Reserve is St. August who l. 9. Confess c. 13. speaks of his Mother Monica desiring to be remembred at the Altar after her death because she knew that thence was dispens'd the Holy Victim by which was cancelled the Hand-writing which was contrary unto us And Serm. 32. de Verb. Apost where he speaks of a propitiatory Sacrifice and Alms offered for Souls departed and of commemorating the Dead at the Sacrifice and of a Sacrifice being offered for them That Christians did usually meet to celebrate the memorial of Holy Martyrs and others departed in the Faith of Christ and that some kind of prayers were in St. Austin's time used for the dead we deny not But these are not the things in question but whether in the Mass there be offer'd a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice for the living and the dead To prove this he produceth these passages of St. Austin wherein he seems to call the Eucharist the holy Victim and the Sacrifice Now what St. Austin meant by these words he himself shall tell you In his Book of Faith he calls it A Sacrifice of Bread and Wine offered in Faith and Charity August ad Petr. Diac. c. 19. and A Commemoration of the Flesh of Christ which he offered for us and of the Blood which he shed for us Id. de Civ Dei l. 17. c. 17. And in another place To eat the Bread in the New Testament is the Sacrifice of Christians And again This Flesh and Blood of Christ was promised before his coming Id. contr Faustum l. 20. c. 21. by the resemblance of Sacrifices in the Passion of Christ it was truly exhibited After the Ascention of Christ it is celebrated by the Sacrament of Commemoration Id. Epist ad Bonifac 23. And again Was not Christ once sacrificed in his Body and yet he is sacrificed to the people in a sacred sign every day Id. de Civ Dei l. 10. c. 5. And again That which we call a Sacrifice is a sign or representation of the true Sacrifice Thus doth St. Austin explain himself and if thus explain'd the Vindicator can any way avail either himself or his cause by his testimony he hath free liberty so to do I believe and profess That in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist is truly really and substantially the Body and Blood together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ and that there is a change or conversion of the whole Substance of the Bread into the Body and of the whole Substance of the Wine into the Blood which Conversion or Change the Holy Church calls Transubstantiation THIS Doctrine he saith is founded in the express words of Christ who said This is my Body This is my Blood. To this I answer These and the other words of Institution having been considered already and no new matter here offered I shall not need to trouble my self nor the Reader with the Repetition of what hath been already said And this being the only Scripture proof he here alledgeth I shall only referr you to what I have said of it in the foregoing Article and so wait upon the Vindicator to his Authorities The Authorities which he here produceth if they be any thing to his purpose must be acknowledged to be ancient and the Authors of good Credit Whether therefore they will serve the end which he aims at we shall now enquire His first Evidence is St. Ignatius Martyr in Ep. ad Smyrn where speaking of some Hereticks of his time he saith They do not allow of Eucharists and Oblations because they do not believe the Eucharist to be the Flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ which suffered for our Sins and which the Father in his mercy raised again from the dead These words are indeed thus cited by Theodoret Dial. 111. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They do not receive the Eucharists and Oblations But in the Copy of this Epistle which is to be seen in the Florentine Library and is generally thought to be the most genuine we find this passage thus worded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They recede or abstain from Eucharists and Prayer But this only by the bye the stress of his Argument lies not in this but in the reason of their recession and refusal which was Because they did not confess that the Eucharist was the Flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ which suffered for our Sins and was raised again These words at first sight to an unthinking Man may seem to conclude the point but if we consider who they were that refused the Eucharist for this reason it will much abate the force of them That they were Hereticks the Vindicator owns and what their Heresie was Ignatius will tell us They denied Christ to be a perfect Man they held that he had not a true humane but only a fantastical Body That he did not really but in appearance only suffer upon the Cross and rise again from the Dead Against these the holy Martyr in the beginning of this Epistle bends his whole discourse his whole business being to make it appear That Christ was truly born of the Virgin Mary truly baptized of John in Jordan truly suffered under Pontius Pilate and was truly raised again from the Dead Now what wonder is it that those who did believe that he never had any real Body should refuse and reject with scorn his Sacramental Body when offered to them For what Sacrament what Sign what Remembrance what Representation can there possibly be of that which in truth never had any Being The whole importance therefore of these words is only this These Hereticks would not believe the Eucharist to be the Sacramental Body of Christ because they did not believe that ever he had any real Body St. Chrysostome speaking of some such in his time who would not believe that Christ really suffered Chrysost in Matth. Hom. 83. tells us in what manner they used to convince them When they say How may we know that Christ was offered bringing forth these Mysteries we stop their mouths For if Christ died not whose Sign and Token is this Sacrifice Where he calls the Eucharist a Mystery a Sign and a Token i. e. A Representation of the Death of Christ and in this sence are we to understand the Holy Martyr Ignatius in this place His next witness is St. Hilary l. 8. de Trinit where he saith My Flesh is Meat indeed and my Blood is Drink indeed There 's no place left for doubting of the Reality of his Flesh and Blood for now both by the Profession of Christ himself and by our Faith 't is truly Flesh and truly Blood. Is not this Truth It may indeed not be true to them who deny Christ to be God. To this I answer That the words which St. Hilary here quoteth are in John vi 55. In which whole Chapter our Saviour speaketh not
did frequently relax some part of their penance And if this be all that is intended by Indulgences we shall not much quarrel with him about them but I am apt to think that this Gentleman will find but few of his own Communion who will be so ready to comply with him herein as we are There are two eminent persons of his own Church if he has any acquaintance with them viz. Greg. de Valentia Greg. de Valentia de Indulg c. 2. Bellarm. de Indulg l. 1. c. 7. and Cardinal Bellarmine who if he please to consult them in this matter will tell him another tale The former will assure him That this opinion differs not from that of the Hereticks and makes Indulgences to be useless and dangerous things And the latter will inform him That if this opinion be true then there will be no need of the Treasure of the Church and that Indulgences will be rather hurtful than profitable It is plain That these Doctors had a far different notion of Indulgences from that which the Vindicator here would perswade us to But it may be he will appeal from them as private Doctors which if he do whither will he send us to learn the Intention of the Church in this matter The Council is silent and gives us no Definition of the thing established by it and their chief Pastor who by the Bull of Pope Pius IV. is made the sole Interpreter of that Council hath not by any publick Act that we ever yet heard of declared the sence of the Council in this Decree So that we are still left either to spell out the intention of the Church in the Writings of their approved Doctors or else to guess at it by the practices of their supreme Pastors As to the former I have already given you a taste in two eminent Instances and might without any great trouble furnish you with many more And for the latter we need go no farther than the Tax of the Apostolick Chamber and the Bullarium in the former of which you may find Rates set which being paid an Indulgence may be had for almost any kind of Sin. And in the latter you have an account of several Bulls of Indulgence by several Popes Vide Bullar Tom. I. p. 204. Tom. III. p. 74 Tom. IV. p. 86. wherein a plenary and most plenary Remission of Sins and of all Sins is granted Which certainly must amount to more than a bare Relaxation of some part of Canonical Penance or else the poor People who purchased them were horribly cheated both of their Money and Expectations And if this be their notion of Indulgences we do not believe that any such power was ever given or left by Christ to his Church or that the use of it is at all beneficial to the Faithful I acknowledge the Holy Catholick and Apostolick Roman Church the Mother and Mistress of all other Churches and I promise and swear true Obedience to the Bishop of Rome Successor of St. Peter Prince of the Apostles and Vicar of Jesus Christ. THE Vindicator foreseeing what Objection might be made to the Catholicism of the Roman Church begins his defence of this Article with an explanation of that Title telling us That as the Catholick or universal Church signifies a Church consisting of all particular Churches united in the Communion of the same Faith and Sacraments and submission to the same Ecclesiastical Government the Church of Rome is not the universal or Catholick Church but a part of it but as it imports a Church which is universal in its influence and by a singular privilege hath Authority over all other particular Churches and is the Center of their Communion the Church of Rome in this sence is the Catholick or universal Church and is rightly stiled the Mother and Mistress of all other particular Churches This Notion of the Catholick Church is liable to as many if not more Objections than the other For 1. Where or by whom was ever the Catholick or Universal Church understood to import a particular Church endowed with universal Influence 2. By what singular privilege hath any particular Church this universal Influence or Authority over all other particular Churches seeing par in parem non habet imperium 3. Whence had the Church of Rome this singular Privilege Was it from God or of Men If from God let her produce her Charter if of Men then those who gave it were superior to her to whom it was given and certainly they did not give away their own Superiority and if not then the Church of Rome instead of being a Mother and Mistress must own her self to be a Daughter and Handmaid to another 4. When where or by whom was the Church of Rome ever made or owned to be the Center of Catholick Union or Communion These Questions I doubt will not be quickly answered and till we are satisfied in these and some others we shall hardly be perswaded to subscribe this Article But why not The Vindicator assures us This was the Doctrine of the first Ages of the Church and if so then ought we rather to suspect our own Judgments than distrust theirs To this I answer That if this was the Doctrine of the first Ages then Pope Gregory the Great who certainly was as Infallible as any other Pope was mightily mistaken For when John Bishop of Constantinople did arrogantly assume to himself the Title of Oecumenic or Vniversal Bishop Gregory sharply reproves him for it and tells him Gregor l. 4. Epist 38 39. c. It is a New Name a wicked profane insolent Name the general plague of the Church a corruption of the Faith against Canons against the Apostle Peter and against God himself And he farther adds That never any Godly Man never any of his Predecessors used those Titles and whosoever doth or shall use them is the very Fore-runner of Antichrist From whence it is plain that before his time which was about Six hundred Years after Christ there never was any pretence made to it But the Vindicator says there was and that it was the Doctrine of the first Ages Now whether Gregory or this Gentleman be in the right is the thing in question The Vindicator to make good his ground urgeth us with the Authority of Irenaeus l. 3. c. 3. adv Haer. where he saith That the Church of Rome is the greatest and most ancient of all others founded and established there by the Two most Glorious Apostles Peter and Paul. 'T is necessary that every Church should recurr to this by reason of its more powerful principality To this I answer That Irenaeus in that Book writeth against Valentinus Cerdon and Marcion who contrary to the Doctrine of the Apostles had devised certain strange Heresies for trial whereof he appeals to those Churches which the Apostles had planted saying The Church of Ephesus first instructed by St. Paul and afterward continued by St. John is a sufficient witness of the Apostles
learning Polycarpus being converted and taught by the Apostles instructed the Church of Smyrna and all the Churches of Asia follow it Yet none of all these Churches ever allowed or received your strange Doctrine Yea the very wild Barbarous Nations that have received the Faith of Christ at the Apostles hands only by hearing without any Book or Letter if they should hear of these Heresies they would stop their Ears Here he appeals to the Church of Ephesus of Smyrna and all the Churches of Asia But then he adds It would be too tedious to reckon up the Sucession of all Churches and for that reason being himself a Western Bishop he appeals to that Church which was of Apostolical plantation in the West viz. the Church of Rome Which he calls the greatest most ancient and known to all Men. Not the most Ancient of all other Churches as the Vindicator renders it for it is well known that Jerusalem Antioch and several others were more ancient but it was then the most famous Church in the West To this Church therefore he appeals and thinks it necessary that in such cases all other Churches i. e. all other Churches in the West should do the same and that for two Reasons 1. Because of the more powerful principality 2. Because in this Church the Tradition of the Apostles hath ever been kept The latter of these which is the principal the Vindicator leaves out and he had reason for it for with that he could not serve the end he aim'd at At that time the Tradition i. e. the Doctrine of the Apostles was look'd upon to be the best Trial and Rule of Faith. Which Doctrine in those early days was exactly observed in Rome without corruption and for that reason was that Church had in Reverence and Estimation above others And if the Church of Rome at this day did as faithfully keep the Traditions and Doctrine of the Apostles as she did then we would never scruple to yield her that same Honour that Irenaeus gives to the ancient Church of Rome But he makes sure not to forget the other reason viz. The more powerful principality And yet he will be as little able to avail himself of this as of the other for the Principality which Irenaeus here means is the Civil Dominion and Temporal State of the City of Rome which was then the Imperial City For if we consider that this was in the Reign of Commodus the Emperor who was an Heathen and a Persecutor we cannot imagine that the Church was then possessed of any powerful Principality But as in every Province there was a Metropolis or chief City so it was usual with the Fathers to call the Church planted there the chief or principal Church And it is well known Concil Constant 6. that upon that very account the Patriarch of Constantinople was by a general Council declared to have equal Privileges and Authority with the Patriarch of Rome And that this was all the principality that Irenaeus dream'd of will appear plainly if we consider that when Victor Bishop of Rome was angry with the Churches of Asia for not celebrating the Feast of Easter at the same time Euseb Histor Eccles l. 5. c. 23. and in the same manner as they did at Rome and would have Excommunicated them for it Irenaeus opposed his design and sharply reproved him as a disturber of the Church's peace Which certainly he would not have done had he thought that the Church of Rome had been the Mother and Mistress of all Churches and that Obedience to her Bishop was necessary for every Christian in order to his Salvation His next witness is Optatus Milevitanus lib. 2. adv Parm. Where he speaks of St. Peter's Chair being erected at Rome to the end that Unity might be preserved and that they are Schimaticks and Sinners and Sacrilegious who set up themselves in defiance against the Chair of Peter To this I answer That Optatus there writes against Parmenianus the Donatist Now the Donatists were a certain Sect of Christians broken off from the Unity of the Catholick Church confining it to a corner of Africa where they themselves dwelt as our Neighbours of the Roman Communion do now to Rome To convince these People of their folly and madness and to reduce them if possible into the bosom of the Church Optatus doth as Irenaeus before him had done appeal to those Churches which were planted by the Apostles and particularly to the Church of Rome blaming them for departing from that Faith and Doctrine which was there kept and taught and telling them that they could not belong to the Church of Christ so long as they continued in a state of separation from that Church He doth not therefore require their Union and Communion with the Roman Church as with the Mother and Mistress of all other Churches but as with the keeper of the Apostolick Faith. Nor doth he require them to acknowledge the Bishop of Rome as the universal Head and Monarch of all Churches for there is not one word to be found in all Optatus tending that way His next Evidence is St. Cyprian Epist 40. There is one God and one Christ and one Church and one Chair founded upon Peter by the Word of God. The design of St. Cyprian in this Epistle is to give an account to those to whom he wrote of the Schismatical Sedition raised by Felicissimus and Five other Presbyters in the Church of Carthage and against him their Bishop and by warning them against it to preserve them in Peace and Unity To that end he lays down these words There is one God c. And immediately adds Another Altar cannot be set up nor a new Priesthood made besides that one Altar and one Priesthood Whosoever gathereth elsewhere scattereth It is Adulterous it is Wicked it is Sacrilegious to make way for humane Inventions by the violation of a divine Constitution Whence it is plain That by the one Church here he meant the One Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church and by the One Chair the Episcopal Chair Obedience whereunto preserves Unity and Disobedience begets Schism and Sedition in the Church But the force of his Argument lies here That this One is founded upon Peter and that not by any humane but by divine Authority Voce Domini by the Word of the Lord i. e. as the Margin of St. Cyprian directs us those Words of our Saviour Matth. xvi 18. where our Saviour saith Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it To this I answer 1. That there are some who read these words of St. Cyprian not super Petrum but super petram not upon Peter but upon the Rock not upon Peter's person but upon his profession or as others upon Christ who is the spiritual Rock upon which St. Peter himself was builded But 2. Suppose we should grant that St. Cyprian speaks of St. Peter's person