Can. 14 Or that these satisfactory works are not the Worship of God but men's Traditions 4 Can. 15. Or that the Keys of the Church were not given to bind to this effect and therefore that the Priests who enjoyn these punishments use not the Keys to a right end and according to Christs institution or that it is a fiction that after the Remission of the Eternal punishment there most commonly does remain a Temporal the payment of which the Church in its exercise of the Keys ought to see to 5 Sess 6. Can. 30. Or that every fault and punishment is so wholly remitted to every Justified and Penitent man at the time of death that there remains no pain to be endured in Purgatory before an entrance is opened to him into Heaven All which Anathema's are denounced without the least warrant of Scripture rather in opposition to it And now in all this you see I have waved the charge of those abuses which are too apparent in each of these practices SECT IX Of the Sacraments COncerning Sacraments in general the Church of England Art 25. holds That they are more than badges of our Profession or than representative signs of Grace being sure witnesses and effectual signs of it by which God does invisibly work in us and seems to allow them Instruments of the Holy Ghost for it says of Baptism that thereby as by Art 27. an Instrument we are grafted into the Church of Christ Only as to that which renders them effectual to us we differ in two things for they seem to leave out that which we make absolutely necessary and on the other side make something of absolute necessity which we deny to be such The Church of England necessarily requires Faith in the receivers and the rest of those preparations which the Scriptures require in those that come unto them The Roman Church teaches that they confer Grace by vertue of the words which are pronounced and the exteriour action which is performed upon condition that we put not any impediment by not being rightly disposed But in that many of that Church have since explained themselves that when they say the Sacraments do confer Grace ex opere operato they do not mean to exclude the necessity of repentance faith and all other necessary qualifications in the receiver but only that the Sacraments have a virtue in them from Christ's institution which virtue is not barely the effect of faith in him that receives but also of the promise of Christ annext to that work this Controversie seems to be chiefly about words and their ill and offensive manner of expressing themselves for we as we require faith and other qualifications in the receiver do also in owning these Sacraments to be Christ's Institution acknowledge their virtue from that Institution though those qualifications are requisite in us to partake of their efficacy according to the Divine Promise What they on the other side require as absolutely necessary is the intention of the Priest to do what the Church intends without which the Sacrament is not effectual This is by us rejected in that since no man has assurance of securing the Priest's intention if this were absolutely necessary to produce the effect there could be no assurance of its ever coming to effect upon us We therefore say that the Sacraments being of Christ's Institution and taking effect by his promise all that preparedly come to wait on him in the Ordinances of his Church have warrant of their effect from that promise be the Minister's intention what it will As to the necessity of these Sacraments we that allow their virtue and efficacy from Christ's promise to work in us the graces of the Holy Ghost and communicate the benefits of our blessed Saviour's death cannot be thought to think them necessary or that the neglect of them in any is not the neglect of their salvation But then as to the number of them we find another difference The Church of Rome counts seven Baptism Eucharist Penance Confirmation Orders Matrimony and Extream Unction The Church of England acknowledges but two Baptism and the Eucharist Artic. 25. i. e. as ordained of Christ in the Gospel and as generally necessary to salvation the other five she counts not Sacraments of the Gospel being such as have grown partly from the corrupt following of the Apostles partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures but yet have not like nature with the other two for that they have not any visible sign ordained by God There might indeed have been an easie end put to this dispute if both sides had but considered one anothers meaning and the Church of Rome had not put so great a bar to this consideration by denouncing Anathema against all that should say the Sacraments are more or less than Seven without sufficiently explaining the difference that is really between them For the word Sacrament in the general may says our Homily be attributed to Hom. of Common Prayer and Sacraments any thing whereby an holy thing is signified but in a strict acceptation or according to the exact signification of a Sacrament it means a visible sign expresly commanded in the New Testament whereto is annext the promise of free forgiveness of sins and of our union with Christ and in this sense our Church acknowledges but two and there acquaints us with the reasons why she does not receive the other Sacraments necessary to salvation and in what manner she does receive them Absolution she owns to have the promise of forgiveness of sins yet since this promise is not by any express words in the New Testament annext to the visible sign Imposition of hands used with it she counts it not a Sacrament as the other That though there be a grace by promise annext to the exercise of it yet there is no particular visible sign of necessity to be used in it to which that promise is confined as to Water in Baptism That though Order has both a visible sign and a promise of grace yet it has not the promise of forgiveness of sins i. e. it has a promise of grace only to a particular effect not to the general effect of the Gospel That Confirmation used in examining persons in the Christian faith and joyning thereto the Prayers of the Church for them also Matrimony Visitation of the Sick are still retained by the Order of the Church and ought to be though not as properly Sacraments yet either as states of life worthy to be set forth by publick action and by the Ministry or as such Ordinances as make for the instruction comfort and edification of Christ's Church Supposing hereby undoubtedly that they want not grace to their proper effects in what the general promise of God to hear the Prayers of his Church may give them leave to hope from those Prayers that are used with them And it is not without reason that our Church maintains this distinction
An Advertisement WHen the late Answer to the Bishop of Meaux came forth this was just finished but laid by as useless till upon an after View it was thought it might be serviceable because of a more particular Explication of the Church of England ' s Sentiments in it and likewise a more full Expression of the Romish Doctrines from the Publick Acts of that Church and its direct answering M. Condom ' s Reasons which the other Author does not propose to himself AN ANSWER TO THE Bishop of Condom Now of MEAVX His Exposition of the Catholick Faith c. Wherein the DOCTRINE of the Church of Rome Is DETECTED And that of the Church of England EXPRESSED FROM THE Publick Acts of both CHURCHES To which are added Reflections on his Pastoral Letter LONDON Printed by H. C. for R. Kettlewel and R. Wells at the Hand and Scepter against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleet street 1686. Imprimatur Guil. Needham R mo in Christo Patri ac D. D. Wilhelmo Archi-Ep Cantuar. a Sacr. Domest Ex Aedib Lambeth Jun. 4. 1686. THE PREFACE HIM that shall think fit to answer this Treatise M. Condom desires pag. 51. to consider that to accomplish his intent 1st He must not undertake to refute the Doctrine contained in it it not being his design to prove but only to propose it in this Book But I hope if in persuing the design of his Book in some places I observe the falshood or danger of some of these Doctrins or the insufficience of his Reasons given to establish them it may be allowed especially if they are but such hints as are as necessary for the subverting the Design of the Treatise as his Reasons given to establish the Doctrine are for the explication of it 2ly That it would be a quitting the design of this Treatise to examine the different Methods which Catholick Divines have used to explicate the Doctrine of the Council of Trent and the different consequences which particular Doctors have drawn from it But with his leave if himself be no other than a Particular Doctor for we can allow him to be no more as yet till those Approbations collected in the Advertisement from several of the most principal Divines and others in the Church and at last from the Pope himself which are pleaded for his greater authority come to be considered it can be no quitting the design of his Book if any part of it be the Exposition of the Doctrine of that Council to take notice if there be occasion of any different Explication which others have given of it For though their Explication being different does not prove his not to be contained in it yet first it assures us that the words which are used by the Council to express its Doctrine are ambiguous since different explications pretend equally to be explications of the Council And thereby 2ly we are left uncertain in what sense the Church holds the Doctrine which we have no reason to take from him unless upon examination it shall hereafter appear that he has a greater authority to declare the sense held by the Church than the other had 3ly That to urge any thing solid against this Book and which may come home to the Point it must be proved That the Churches Faith is not here faithfully expounded and that by Acts which the Church has obliged her self to rceeive This last clause may either plead for my proving that he himself has not expounded it faithfully by such Acts or that my proof of the falsity of his Exposition must in all things be made out by such Acts. In the former case I shall hold my self obliged when I oppose him to do it from those Acts produced by himself or others as much owned by the Church In the latter presumptive proofs that conclude with greater probability for the falshood than his for the truth of his Exposition are the utmost that ought to be required there being no reason that he should oblige me to proofs of another nature than what he brings himself Or else 4ly That it must be shewn that this Explication leaves all the Objections in their full force and all the Disputes untouched Herein I shall be especially careful since he has expresly obliged me to it to consider what Objections are in force and what Disputes remain 5ly Or in fine It must be precisely shewn in what this Doctrine subverts the foundations of Faith Of this likewise I shall be careful but suppose in some cases it appear that in all probability though not precisely it subverts the Faith certainly a Church that ought to provide for the preservation cannot justifie her self in commanding things that in every mans judgment tend to the destruction of the Faith and if it appear that this Doctrine does and experience testifie it has greatly prejudiced the foundations of Faith shall the whole world be obliged to forbear providing for their common Christianity till all its Foundations be totally overthrown The Author though he seems to acquaint us with his design yet has not positively express'd the end he aims at but so far as I can dive into it it is this 1st To take off that false Idea which Protestants have framed to themselves of the Church of Rome for such he takes notice they have p. 1. upon which he thinks it beneficial to explicate to them what the Church has defined in the Trent Council upon the main Points in controversie And thereby 2ly to gain a good opinion in the Reformers of the Churches innocence 3ly By this explication of their Doctrine to shew that the main Disputes are not so material as they have been thought and that many of them are at an end 4ly That the Matters from which the first grounds of Separation were taken by this Explication being cleared and appearing not so ill as they have been judged they are no longer justifiable Causes of a Separation whereby we are concluded under a necessity of joining with the Church of Rome The first of these he intimates as his aim when he tells us he had observed many had a false Idea of their Church whereupon he took a resolution to explicate their Doctrine p. 1. The third and fourth are implied in the two effects proposed to himself from this Exposition p. 2. The conclusion that our distance is no longer justifiable is not positively inferred by M. Condom But the Advertisement as it sometimes calls for the Removal of our false Conceptions sometimes for a better opinion of the Church sometimes challenges that an end is put to the main Disputes does also in this clearly discover it self and tell us That we may hereupon be justly afraid Ado. p. 9. to persist in a Schism which is manifestly founded upon false Principles even in the most principal Points Now no man will oppose the first intent it being most just that every man be willing to lay aside his false or prejudicate Opinions Nor the second for the same
have said of the Popes Infallibility and his being the only Judge of Controversies is true p. 410. and that himself does hold them as truths de Fide p. 425. He tells us likewise in the Chapter entituled Calumniae â—lutae That some not of the unlearned only but learned too had clancularly aspersed him as if he had said it was not matter of Faith That the Church could not err That she was not the supream and only Judge That the Pope was not Head of the Church That he sought the union of Religion by remitting part of the Faith The cry of this was so great that he tells us he set forth a publick Programma in his own vindication wherein he declares his assent to those things which he was supposed to have denied and says they are Veritates Fidei Truths belonging to the Faith though not defined by the Council Ipsissimis terminis and that he did not intend by any of his Explications any such diminution of their Faith as his accusers mistook him to intend but only used this as a necessary method to reduce such as were gon astray He often taxes them to shew wherein he had expresly impugned those Truths which they thought him to have betray'd and tells them their oversight lay in this that when he said such and such Truths were not de fide Catholica they mistook him as though he had denied them to be necessary Truths which he denies himself to have the least implied and declares his own belief of the Popes Infallibility adding withal that the Explication which he had given of himself in this instance he would have understood with respect to all the Matters he had handled as Transubstantiation Merits Images Adoration of the Eucharist c. This he look'd upon he tells us p. 315. as the most expedient Method to propose only those Doctrines which the Council expresly commanded to be held and pass the rest in silence when they expect to win Runnagates to the Faith whom if they can bring first to the admission of this there will be opportunity gained to prevail with them in the rest I will not take the advantage given me by this mans fraud to accuse M. Condom of the like but only infer in part from hence that the Doctrine of this Exposition which differs not from Verone's has been look'd on with a jealous eye among themselves whatever approbation it may have now and again that the Gentlemen have no reason to be angry since themselves have made the detection if we fear to swallow abait that may conceal a hook What was done to remedy those Abuses which were in vain complained of will be better justifiable after examination of the particulars when we shall be capable to consider on whom the Schism and the miseries consequent upon it may be most justly charged I thank the Advertiser that he forbears reproaches though he says he could find ground enough for them in abuses that are among us for which although I hope he could find but few yet I shall hold my self indebted to him the forbearance of all Invectives and the silence of those Abuses which shall any way appear to be disallowed by their Church I likewise beg of God that they may read without bitterness and may that God from whom alone is all success who knows the progress of Error and its increase through mens making his Religion subservient to their own ambition intrests and hypocrisies so effectually touch the hearts of all that all parties may act and with their utmost strength endeavour all which true sincere Piety and a zeal for God and his glory free from all other ends and intrests does oblige them to for healing the Wounds of his afflicted Church CONSIDERATIONS ON THE Late Bishop of Condom's BOOK ENTITULED An Exposition of the Catholick Faith in Matters of Controversie SECT I The Design of his Treatise considered AS to this first Section wherein he mentions his Design having considered it in part already I have little more to add I confess it very expedient to consider the Grounds of the first Separation and the necessity of a Right Explication of their Churches Tenents and that these ought to be taken from the publick Acts of the Church and not from particular Doctors for the reason quoted out of M. Daille That the sentiments of particular persons ought not to be imputed to the whole body only here is one thing wanting which we desire might be declared that all Tenents of particular Doctors contrary to any of this which shall be delivered as the sense of the Church are false and disowned by it for to say it is implied is not sufficient when a Church pretends to declare her self to her Adversaries who charge her with other Doctrines maintained by her But for what he adds from Mr. Daille That no separation ought to be but upon the account of Articles authentickly estabished to the belief and observance of which all persons are obliged I must here observe That this Concession does not affect the Church of England till it be proved that by Reforming her self she has departed either from the true Faith or from some authority to which she was lawfully subject not that I hold National Churches less obliged to preserve the unity of the whole than every particular member that of the Church wherein he lives but that I maintain a Church that is not dependent upon others can never be said to have done any thing to prejudice the unity of the Catholick Church by reforming abuses within her self and taking the best expedients to preserve the foundations of Faith and promote good life so that all 39 Artic. of the Church of England things be done to edifying as it is express'd by the Church of England Artic. 34. Whereas he says that what he writes shall be approved of in the Church and be conformable to the Doctrine of the Council I could wish he had promised that it should be the true and only Sense of the Council and that it should likewise be the whole Doctrine of the Church in the Particulars he treats of Another thing is necessary for me to premise here that what Advantages he may take from the Principles of some Reformists in these Disputes I think my self not much concerned in having declared that I will oblige my self only to the Consequences that may be drawn from the Principles of the Church of England SECT II. Concerning the Church of Rome's embracing all the Fundamentals of Religion THis Section premiseth That the Church of Rome believes and professes all the Fundamental Articles of Faith particularly those in the Apostles Creed which we are so far from denying that we plead and challenge it being sure it will give us this Advantage that they can never charge us with Innovation nor with departure from the Faith if these are all the Fundamental and Principal Articles But M. Condom pretends that they also can draw from hence great
to God himself The Lutherans on the contrary knowing the Sacrament to consist of two things the one earthly the other heavenly direct their Adoration not to the Elements that remain lest worshiping them they should be found Worshippers of a Creature but to Christ alone God and Man who in that Action gives them his Body and Blood Secondly That the Romanists when they plead for the Adoration and worship of the Sacrament do not principally intend that Christ God and Man should be adored in the Action or Vse of his divine Institutions but labour to establish an Adoration of the bread at other times than in the use commanded by Christ namely when they carry it about in Processions which the Council of Trent does in the very Chapter wherein it commands the Adoration of the Sacrament And then afterwards he fully informs us of the manner of the Lutheran's worship viz. That they look not upon Christ as locally present in the bread or that there is any personal union between the bread and the body of Christ but that Christ hath promised in that action his presence by his grace after a peculiar manner Therefore as the Israelites worshipp'd not the Wood nor Gold nor the Cherubims that were upon the Ark of the Testimony but God alone who promised his presence there so the Adoration which they give to Christ in the Sacrament is to be understood to be directed to him only not at all to the outward Elements And the reason why they did not worship him out of the Sacramental exercise he says was because the promise of Christ's presence cannot be extended beyond the intent and action which he instituted So that there appears a visible and most considerable difference between these two the one cannot be Idolatrous because it directs not any worship to a creature the other certainly is if the creatures remain because their worship is terminated in the Sacrament as its object Again whereas M. Condom further endeavours to persuade us That their Sacrifice is a consequent Doctrine upon the real Presence and that the Lutherans understand not themselves so well as they in that they have not admitted it The Reader may judge which have the better understanding if he does but consider that the reason upon which the Lutherans reject the Sacrifice is the same upon which they reject Adoration out of the Sacramental Action namely because we have no warrant to promise our selves Christ's Presence in the Eucharist but only in that Action which he commands and for those ends for which he instituted it This I remember is that which Chemnitius pleads at large in his Book de Sacrificio Missae SECT XVI Of Communion in both kinds UPon this point the Church of England declares The Cup Art 30. of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-People for both the parts of the Lord's Sacrament by Christ's Ordinance and Commandment ought to be administred to all Christian men alike And certainly nothing can be more plain from our Lord's institution of this Sacrament when he blessed both bread and wine and said Take eat drink do this in remembrance of me that all that are obliged to any part of it are obliged to the whole There being not the least limitation of the Lawgiver's intent in the precept itself nor in any other part of Scripture nor which is more in the practice of the Church originally under the Apostles or generally throughout Christendom Now because we are so frequently desired by these Gentlemen to take special notice of the first grounds of the separation I am obliged to take notice here that this was one of the principal causes of it their with-holding the Cup being that which was universally complained of that which was most expresly desired and Petitioned for both to Pope and Council but in vain We therefore may reasonably expect something satisfactory in this Point To answer our expectation M. Condom lets us know That under one Species all that is essential to the Sacrament is received in that there being now no real separation betwixt the Body and the Blood we receive entirely him who is solely capable to satiate us And this he tells us is the solid foundation upon which his Church interpreting the precept of Communion has declared we may receive the satisfaction which this Sacrament carries with it under one sole Species and has reduced her Children to it But now if this be the foundation she builds upon and it be solid too we may well seek for it in the Apostles or in Christ himself but certainly neither of these support the building nay the foundation which Christ has laid is rejected and laid aside hereby For to what purpose does this Doctrine serve but to make it appear that our Lord instituted this Sacrament in both kinds to no end since as much must needs be received in one as in both But whereas he endeavours to ground this Doctrine upon the real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament it 's certain that if he be really present by virtue of the Consecration he can be present only according to it if therefore his words This is my body make his body present in the bread and the other This is my blood render his blood present instead of the wine then his blood can be no more present in the bread than his body in the wine neither can any thing more be present under bread than his body nor under wine than his blood according to their Principles which found the necessity of his presence upon the literal sense of the words And to how little purpose has M. Condom laboured to persuade us that it is a Sacrifice because the word of God is the spiritual Sword which makes a mystical Separation betwixt the body and blood of Christ if now at last there be no sacramental Separation of his blood from his body but they are both together under one species But the Church says he has not thus reduced her Children to one Species out of dis-esteem of the other but on the contrary to hinder those irreverences which the confusion and negligence of the People had occasioned in these later Ages Had he told us what Irreverencies had been occasioned that could not have been prevented but by this means he had said something that possibly might have shewn the care of his Church but because he has not been so kind I shall transcribe the many and those said to be great and important Reasons which she gives as the account of her so doing to her Children in her Catechism First Because special care ought to be taken that the blood of Cat. Trid. sub Titulo Euch. Sac. quando sumend the Lord be not spilt on the ground which cannot easily be avoided in administring to a great multitude Secondly Because the Eucharist being to be kept for the sick it was greatly to be feared that the Species of the wine would not keep but might sour
reason any further than to prevent the swallow of their Errors with this bait What I intend is to evidence that there are Matters of that weight in controversie notwithstanding the pretence of this Book to have discussed and answered the most material as will abundantly justifie the Reformed in their distance from the Church of Rome and which is more conclude them under a necessity of maintaining that distance as things now stand THE ADVERTISEMENT TO THE Bishop of Condom's Book Considered THE Advertisement begins with a Supposition which it thinks we must necessarily allow That M. Condom has faithfully expounded the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in this Treatise from his beng a Bishop in the Church whose Understanding therefore and Sincerity ought not to be suspected and afterwards from his being called to be Praeceptor to the Dauphin Son to so great a King and Defender of the Catholick Religion But yet he tells us Though the sincerer part of the Reformed acknowledged it would take away great Difficulties if approved and owned for their Doctrine yet they would never believe it such or that it would be approved at Rome being prepossessed with Prejudice and false Opinion But without reflecting either upon the Bishop's Understanding or Sincerity we have a great deal of reason to expect he shew us an Authority that warrants him to give us this Exposition and declare it to us as the faithful and true Sense and only Doctrine of the Church since the Pope hath peremptorily forbidden Bulla Pii quarti super Confirm Concil Trid. all Prelates of whatever Order Condition or Degree to set forth any Exposition of the Doctrine of the Trent-Council reserving it to the Apostolical See Setting then his Authority as questionable for the present aside I am no more convinced by the Nature of the Exposition that it is the genuine Sense of the Church of Rome in all points than those who first saw the Book Whether it be Prejudice or Prepossession that blinds my Understanding will not appear till after the Discussion of Particulars Pag. 2. He tells us of two Answers to this Treatise and that both of them agreed in questioning M. Condom's Authority to expound the Council and that his Exposition agrees not with the Decisions of the Council nor with their Profession of Faith Concerning these things I shall determine nothing till I come to the Particulars But whereas he saies Pag. 3. That one of them has drawn a wrong Conclusion from those Softnings of M. Condom to confirm themselves in a better Opinion of the Reformation I do not think the Inference altogether so absure as the Advertizer pretends it for do not they in a great measure justifie the Reformed who call for the Reformation of those Abuses which the Church of Rome herself pretends to condemn but will not or has not rectified The next Thing it endeavors is to prove p 4. That this Exposition of M. Condom's is the true Sense of the Church which is grounded first upon the general Approbation his Book received throughout the whole Church testified by Lerters from all sorts of People not in France only but at Rome especially in Eight Letters concerning it from Cardinals and others of great Merit But taking it for granted without any further Examination That all these Men by their Approbations of this Book do consent that this Exposition is the true Sense of the Church which is more than need be granted since some only say it is a Method very ingenious and good to force the Calvinists to confess the atholick Faith yet this will not suffice where there are so many Writers of as great Authority and Eminence in the Church as any of these that have though not perhaps undertook to expound the Council as this Author yet to declare and defend a Doctrine much different from this from the same Council and in behalf of the same Church And suppose the Number that approved it great yet Cardinal Bona's Letter informs us that some found fault with it and those he must mean of their own Church when he gives this Reason that he does not wonder at it Because all Works great and above the common Level find Persons still to contradict them And be the Number what it will I suppose he will not as it is not reasonable seek for the Churches Doctrine by counting Noses Then for the Letter of Cardinal Sigismond which says the Advertizer shews how ill grounded that Scruple is against this Exposition from the Pope's Prohibition to explicate the Council To me it rather shews how well it is grounded for his Words are Certainly it was never his intention to give the interpretation of the Tenets of the Council but only to deliver them in his Book rightly explicated in such sort that Hereticks may be convinced and especially in those things which the holy Church obliges them to believe Which if it signifie any thing must be That his Exposition is not an interpretation of the Council obliging any to believe it as Matter of Faith but a Design of explicating it in such sort as he judged useful for convincing Hereticks But if this will not content we have an Approbation from the Pope himself after which 't was needless to mention others says the Advertizer and let me add without which his others signifie little to his Point The Gentleman calls it a Breve wherein the Pope gives his Approbation and that so express as to leave no further doubt and in the most authentick manner that could be expected I have considered it and yet my Doubt is not vanished and when the least that could have been expected in reason on Account of the difficulty of believing it express'd by the Reformed five or six years before the Date of this Breve from the Pope as also from the Nature of the thing which being an exposition of Faith ought to be so received by all that not one man hold Tenets different from it as also from the former Pope's Prohibition of all Explication of this Council is that the Pope should have declared that this Exposition did perfectly contain the true and whole Faith of the Church in the Points expounded and that it should be lookt upon as authentick as if made by the Apostolick See it self We may have that Charity for the Advertizer as to think its his good desire to have it made authentick that makes him look upon it as such and suppresses all his Doubts But we who desire no less than he that it were so have yet some peculiar Reasons to see to our selves that we are not imposed on and therefore to examine what Authority this Approbation gives it All which the Pope here saies to approve it is no more than this That it contains such Doctrine and is composed in such a Method and with so much Prudence that it is thereby rendred proper to instruct and to extort even from the unwilling a Confession of the Catholick Faith
but he does not in all this say that it is the true and only Sense of the Council And further That for these Reasons he does not only think it worthy his Commendation but to be read and esteemed by all He does not say nor mean esteemed for the only Sense of the Council as is plain by the Latine Copy And further We hope this Work by the Grace of God will bring forth much Fruit and will not a little help to propagate the Orthodox Faith In all which he neither declares it for the Sense of the Council nor confirms it as such nor does any thing to make it authentick if that be to authorize it as a Truth throughout the whole Church which yet is the least that could be lookt for in this Case for the Reasons given The utmost therefore that can be made of it is only that it has the commendation of his private Judgment for a prudent useful good Book likely to work no small Effects for the propagation of the Catholick Faith So that this will be no great prejudice to any Proofs that shall be made against M. Condom where I may attempt in opposition to him to shew that he has not fully given the Doctrine of his Church But the Advertizer raising himself on this Foundation that this Exposition is as true and as authentick as he pretends it and laying on this Presumption further that it has most effectually served the Ends it aims at insults over the Reformed as if the Day was clearly gained boasting the pretended Victory not over the Answerers only but all Reformers What particular Advantages he pretends over the Answerers I meddle not with wanting both opportunity to procure and capacity to understand their Books if French nor will I be obliged to concern my self with any pretended to be gotten over any Numbers of the Reformed either for their false Opinions Doctrines or Concessions in any Cases but where the like may seem pretended from like Doctrines or Concessions of the Church of England Whether he has such real Cause to Boast will not appear till the End But what of his is added to back M. Condom shall be considered under their particular Heads in the Exposition Pag. 18. He goes on to vindicate M. Condom First That he has done well to propose the true Tenets of the Council and their Church and distinguish them from those that are falsly imputed to her No body will blame his Aim in this God forbid that any should refuse to hear what may inform them and remove their Prejudices Secondly That he has done but just in taking the Doctrine of the Church from the Council of Trent Nor will any blame him for this or require him to justifie the Council from the great suspitions that are justly had of it for be the Council what it will it 's sufficient for the Exposition that the Doctrine of it is universally received throughout their Church Nor shall Father Pont's History because he here is said to be a profess'd enemy to the Council of Trent either prejudice me against its Doctrines or make me call its Decisions ambiguous without apparent grounds for it Thirdly That his choice was not amiss in pitching upon those Points from which the subject of the Reformation was taken But however if new Matters have been added by themselves since which make the distance wider those may well be added as Obstacles to a present Union and without reflecting on the Bishops sincerity or accusing him to have on purpose left out the greatest difficulties it may be allowed me to produce others so far as they are material to shew that some great Objections are yet in force and many great Disputes untouched But whether he has been so faithful to his promise as to affirm nothing to make the Council better understood which is not approved of in the Church and manifestly conformable to it will appear when the particulars are examined There is one thing more that will greatly affect me as well as the other Answers against whom it 's urged p. 23. That it 's to no purpose to object against this Exposition the Bull of Pius the Fourth for that the design of this Book says the Advertiser has nothing of those Glosses and Commentaries which with great reason that Pope condemned some of which usually fill'd the Margins with their own Imaginations and gave them for the Text it self and such for the conservation of Unity the Pope was obliged not to permit nothing of which nature is in this Exposition But he need not have taken all this pains if himself durst have relied on his former proof of its authentickness yet to make this of any strength to back what he had said before he should have told us by what authority he declares what sort of Comments and Glosses the Pope forbids in that Bull or the Reasons upon which he did it Let this be one reason yet what shall hinder but Father Paul's may be another that it was to withstand the checks which the Council might be said to give to the Papal power and disable all from using it to the prejudice of the Court of Rome To believe which we have greater grounds than Father Paul's bare assertion but much less to believe the Advertiser since the Bull in express words forbids not only such Interpretations as Comments and Glosses but all Annotations Scholia's and every kind of interpretation whatsoever decreeing likewise all such as any should attempt to make wittingly or ignorantly with or by whatsoever authority void and null Whereas in the conclusion p. 24. he says That suppose we call for the Reformation of Abuses it is one way of suppressing them to shew the Truth in purity not excluding other means I shall here take occasion to remember out of M. Verone in his Epitome of his Methods part of whose method M. Condom exactly follows how little we can propose to our selves from these fair pretences of representing the truth in purity towards this effect which will also shew in part upon what grounds this Doctrine of the Exposition may find that approbation which it has amongst them and yet be far from being so truly and universally received as is pretended This M. Vernone is most eminent for the use of this Method to separate the Decrees of the Council from the Opinions of all particular persons whatsoever and the Doctrine he would perswade as the Churches sense seems in all things as moderate as this of M. Condom He says they do no further honor Images than as they use outward respect to the Bible and other sacred Utensils and speaks of Transubstantiation Merits c. much after the same moderation and will not have the Infallibility of the Pope to be matter of the Catholick Faith And yet this Person though he Verone's Epit. 〈…〉 Convin â—…et declares the Doctrine of their Church in a way fair to appearance tells us nevertheless that what other Doctors
Advantages which we seek to deprive them of by saying they destroy those Articles by interposing others contrary to them Thus much is said and yet is more than need be said for if we say only that they have added others to them which are not necessary parts of Faith this alone is enough to bar them all Advantages which they may promise themselves from holding the Fundamentals But M. Condom foreseeing that it would be urged against him that those Doctrines which the Church of Rome hath added to the Faith do by evident consequence destroy those which it acknowledges as the necessary and fundamental Truths endeavours to prevent us this Advantage by objecting That M. Daille has owned in behalf of the Lutherans and it is a thing in it self evident that the Consequences of a Doctrine ought not to be attributed to a Church that formally rejects those Consequencs which Answer he concludes will easily defend them when they are charged with Consequences distructive of the Truth I likewise own the Maxime so far as it is grounded upon Reason but in Reason we ought to distinguish between the Persons that own such Consequences and those who do not Which Distinction will enforce at least thus much that we who being separate from the Church of Rome do evidently see such Consequences naturally following any of their Doctrines can never with safety receive them For though we should grant those Consequences which the Church of Rome rejects are not to be charged upon her yet it were to be granted only upon this very reason that she professes not to see them and she were to be allowed innocent only so far as she sees them not So that the self same Reason that would exempt her from the Charge would bring us deeply under it if acknowledging of such Consequences we should embrace the Doctrines whence they flow and the Church of Rome is therefore utterly inexcusable in enjoyning such things on those who profess they see such Consequences in them as destroy the Faith and is less excusable in its own holding them the greater Means and Opportunities she has had to discern their pernicious Effects Again Reason does oblige us to distinguish between Consequences which are only Inferences that may be drawn by remote Arguments from an Opinion and such as have a real Influence upon our Practice An Instance will explain my Meaning Suppose for the present the Doctrine of Justification by Faith alone did by consequence infer good Works unnecessary he ought not to be charged with this Consequence who disowns it and disowning it shews that he thinks them necessary and therefore does them But if any holding this Opinion should neglect them out of a dependance on his being justified without them I do not think M. Condom would account it Calumny to charge him with the Consequence And therefore the Reason M. Daille gives upon which they refused not to joyn Communion with the Lutherans because their Opinion has no Poyson in it is not so contemptible for they who joyned Communion with them joyned not in their Error nor in any evil Practice consequent upon it And be Christ's humane Nature never so essential to Religion yet the Lutheran Opinion did never cause them to deny the verity of his humane Nature nor reach to what the Church of Rome does whilst it commands the Worship of that which we cannot think a lawful Object for us to give it to So that perhaps it may be a greater difficulty to defend the Church of Rome in this respect than M. Condom is willing to believe But this Gentleman has put us to a needless trouble hitherto if he make good his further Promise and shew by his Exposition that the Church of Rome is so far from ruining the fundamental Articles of Faith either directly or indirectly that on the contrary she establishes them after so solid and evident a manner that no one can question her right understanding them without great Injustice I hope he means such a right understanding them as that she holds nothing directly or indirectly prejudicial to them and hereupon I shall go on with him to the Particulars SECT III. Concerning Religious Worship as due to God alone MR. Condom's Title of this Section is Religious Worship is terminated in God alone But if he had said it is due to God alone it had been more consistent with his first Article that he is pleased to own for Fundamental Sect. 2. But that Adoration which is due to God alone he says the Church of Rome teaches to consist in believing him to be the Creator and Lord of all things and in adhering to him with all the powers of our Soul by Faith Hope and Charity as to him alone who can render us happy by the communication of an infinite Good which is himself The Church of England teaches and challenges the same as a Truth that indispensably binds us to have recourse in all our Necessities to him alone who is the Creator and Lord of all things to adhere to him alone with all the powers of our Soul without dividing our Hearts to any other to place our Hope and Confidence in him only who is that infinite and eternal Good which alone can satisfie us to love him above all things who hath first loved us with a Love so far passing all understanding out of which Love he hath created redeemed preserves us and hath provided such Rewards for them that love him This interior Adoration he says has its exterior Marks of which the principal is Sacrifice which cannot be offered to any but God because a Sacrifice is established to make a publick Acknowledgment and a solemn Protestation of God's Sovereignty and our absolute Dependance Granting but this true that this internal Adoration has some exterior Marks as Sacrifice for instance which cannot be given but to God alone it will be very difficult in my Judgment to prove that Invocation Prostration or any other exterior Forms of Adoration which are commonly used in Religious Worship are not thus peculiar to God alone For if the Reason why Sacrifice is thus peculiar to him be this its being established to make a publick Acknowledgment and solemn Protestation of God's Sovereignty and our absolute Dependance since he cannot argue it thus peculiar barely from God's establishment of it Sacrifice being the exterior part of his Worship before the Law of Moses and doubtless as much his Peculiar then as after so that it depends upon the Reason of its establishment which indeed is solid its having been used and determined by the practice of the whole World for a publick Acknowledgment of God's Sovereignty c. This will conclude no less for any external Signs of Adoration used and determined by the like universal consent and practice to express the same Sentiment and declare the like Dependance For though external Actions signifie as the inward Sentiments determine them yet in all reason general Use and Custom ought to
determine them beyond the Sentiments of private men and whatever that shall have determined to be given to God as Signs and Acknowledgments of the Worship due unto him alone I cannot see how it can be lawful for any upon private Sentiments to direct to another signification especially in actions of Religious Worship since by so doing they not only scandalize and give offence to all those who have appropriated and determined those external Characters to express this Acknowledgment they make to God but do interpretatively also rob God of his Honour whilst they appear to men to give those Expressions of Honour to others which the rest of the World have determined to this peculiar purpose of expressing their Acknowledgments of that Honour which is God's incommunicable Right Nor will it avail much to say such Tokens may be and are used for Civil Purposes in the Honour of Superiors or the like for the only reason why they may be so is because they are so and to that determined by consent and practice as universal as that which has appropriated them to Religious Worship so that hereby Offence is neither given nor taken because all consent neither can it interpretatively tend to the diminution of God's Honour because all men know them to express a different intent which cannot be so distinctly known when they are used in the way of Religious Worship of which God only is by the whole World look'd on as the proper Object M. Condom goes on saying The Church of Rome teaches us that all Religious Worship ought to terminate in God as its necessary end But we say it ought to be given only to him as its necessary and immediate object and upon this point moves the principal difficulty Again he says That if the Honour which he renders to the blessed Virgin and to the Saints may in some sense be called Religious it is for its necessary relation to God But we say if in any sense it be Religious That they have chosen a wrong object and that the Honour of the Virgin and the Saints has no such necessary relation to God's Honour as can oblige us to give them any Religious Worship That therefore if they have made the Honour of these necessary to God's Honour it is without warrant that likewise if in their own intentions they direct the Honour given to these to terminate in God as its necessary end it is not enough to justifie them that they intend and direct that to him which he has not required especially if this has or may tend to the diminution of that which he does require But in our way to the particulars we meet an observation which M. Condom makes as very useful for his purpose viz. That those of the Reformation oblig'd by the strength of truth begin to acknowledg that the custom of Praying to Saints and Honouring their Relicks was established even in the Fourth Age of the Church That it was established is more than any acknowledg that I know of that something of this nature was in use at that time has been ever acknowledged But if he obliged by the strength of truth will acknowledg it not to have been in use before we shall not envy him the best advantages he can make of it M. Daille says he grants thus much in his Book against the Tradition of the Latin Church about the object of Religious Worship and accuses St. Basil Ambrose Hierome Chrysostome Augustin and especially Nazianzen of having altered in this point the Doctrine of the foregoing Ages He cannot expect that we should judg of M. Daille's accusations of these famous Men unless he had produced the particulars wherein I presume M. Daille has vindicated himself But it would be a great wonder to me if any Man that has read that Learned Word of M. D. should not be convinced that no such custom nor any thing like it was established in the Three first Ages of the Church which he proves by Arguments insoluble First from their constant Universal Declaration that God alone is to be Worshipped and Adored which he evidences by one instance as remarkable as any the Church affords the Argument of Athanasius against Arrius in which cause the whole Church was engaged that Adoration is peculiar to God alone whereby he proved that Christ is God because otherwise he could not be Worshipped as he has always been of the Christian World Lib. 1. cap. 2. from a concession as Universal that no Created Being is to be Worshipped or Adored particularly evidenced from the remarkable Disputations of Origen against Colsus c. 4. from the imputation of Atheism charged on Christians by the Heathen for rejecting their multitude of Deities which they never vindicated but by this answer That they Worshipped the true and only God cap. 12. for that the Jews who were most jealous of Images and the Adoration of any but one God are never sound to have objected against the Christians the Worship of any such or of any other but one God the Case of the Trinity excepted c. But when he tells us M. Daille does at last grant its being in use in the fourth Age he should have told told us likewise what more is proved in the same place cap. 17. how its shewn to have found a constant opposition in those beginnings and e're since ascending from the times of Luther up to that Age sometimes before him by the Valdenses in Bohemia in the Year 1512. by the Taborites the same sort of People Anno 1430. by Wickliffe and his Followers in England 1372. That Images were opposed by Leo Isaurus and several other Emperors with the consent of all the Eastern Churches in the eighth Century and in the sixth by Severus whose Fact in breaking Images though Gregory of Rome did not approve yet he consented in this that by all means we were to avoid the Worship of them That in the beginning of the fifth Age not only Images were opposed by Epiphanius but the Worship of the Dead by his sharp reproof of the Collyridians Women that offered Cakes to the Virgin Mary That even in St. Augustin himself it appears that the Honour then in use at least by the Churches approbation was quite different from what is now pretended who says of the Saints Honorandi propter imitationem non adorandi propter Religionem This I have taken liberty to transcribe that we may know the reason upon which M. Daille grants its growing into use in the fourth Age and challenges it to evidence by this opposition which he shews it to have found in its first beginning and all succeeding times that it could not be in use in those first Ages which are silent in it and that it was but then beginning when it met with its first opposition When he presses M. Daille with the improbability of his knowing the sentiments of former Ages better than they who immediately succeeded them As it s not allowable that he that
Desires and all men obliged upon this account to invocate them Fifthly Whether particular Persons that do not alwayes maintain this distinct intention of the Church are not chargeable even with direct Idolatry Sixthly Whether if this Distinction has not been alwayes maintained by all Persons or be difficult to be maintained the Church which teaches this from Scripture does not prejudice the Foundations of Faith Now if to the Points thus collected we subjoyn the Sentiments of the Church of England we shall see what this Exposition will make against us and what Differences it hath left untouched Touching the First then The Church of Rngland declares Homily of Prayer Par. 2. That the Saints have no such Knowledge as to make them capable of Invocation that they have no special Knowledge of the Desires or Necessities of particular men the Scripture saying Abraham is ignorant of us and that the inward Desires in which Prayer chiefly consists are only known to God As to the Second She does not say what the Sentiments of the Hom. against peril of Idolatry part 3. Church of Rome are or that some of them may not direct their Intentions as they pretend but that others of them have not done it she argues by their appropriating to particular Saints the Tutelarship of certain Countries and Defence of distinct Cities to others the Protection of several Arts and Professions to others the Cure of particular Diseases all which she looks upon as derogating from Gods Providence and Evidence of peculiar Trust in Saints But that supposing this Intention of theirs kept entire their use of external Adoration and such Forms as are only applicable to God does make them guilty of Idolatry it sayes not only in general that external Adoration is peculiar to God and that it should not be given to any thing else and upon what Ground equivocal Gestures expressive of that Adoration ought not to be given to any other in Religious Worship I have shewed Sect. 3. Concerning the Third Our Church has said That Invocation Hom. of Prayer part 2. meaning thereby Prayer as an Act of Devotion is proper only to God But in this Point M. Condom hath left us without sufficient Explication of the Sense of his Church he has told us to what end the Council commands us to pray unto them and that it teaches the profitableness of it and that it pretends not to exclude Christ when it teaches us to have this recourse to the Saints but he has not told us what Degrees or Measures our Desires are confined to I presume their Church must mean another manner of Desire than that used to our Brethren upon Earth because the Council decrees Invocation a Word never used to express any Request made to Man it also requires this to be made after an humble manner and even with Mental Supplication but it gives no Bounds to these Desires And I must and do maintain that he that prays to Saints though holding the Supposition that they pray to God for him yet if he prays with the same Intention of Mind to these as he does to God either intending to do that to these which they do to God for us or which himself does to God when he prays unto him comes so near to an Idolater that no man can possibly distinguish them But as we cannot judge how far the Intent of a man's Desire goes by any outward Expressions it is God only that can pass this Censure however the Church has not sufficiently provided Means to preserve this Distinction in all its Members in that it has left the Desires of men to go in this Worship of Saints as far as Superstition a blind zeal can carry them As to the Fourth It denies it to be any part of Faith that the Saints departed have any certain knowledge of humane Affairs as I have shewed before and consequently denies it in the Churches power to make it such or to oblige any to invocate them upon this account To the Fifth Such as have not maintained this distinct Intention but have reposed Trust in the Saints and relied upon Hom. against Idolatry pa. 2. them for Protection the Church of England plainly declares to be Idolaters And if this distinction of the Intention be that which makes their Church not to command absolute Idolatry the thing which M. Condom Pleads for then all those that do not preserve and maintain this distinction are Idolaters when they let it go So that our Church has cast no reproach upon them falsly in all her Homily against Idolatry unless she has falsified Matters of Fact which we have reason to think she has not till they disprove them since she professes to relate them as things done in that time the knowledge whereof she may be well presumed to have and since they are also no other than such as very probably flow from such Principles And such as these she also declares to destroy apparently Christ's Mediatorship who approach the Saints out of a particular dependance on their Merits To the Sixth The Church of England says of Setters up of Ibid. par 3. Images intending no less I suppose of Promoters of Devotion to Saints if they are Bishops or such as have the Care of Souls it is to shew themselves to have no regard to the Church of Christ and to account the multitude of Souls redeemed by him vile and not worthy their Care And undoubtedly the Church of Rome is so far criminal in this respect and the Idolatries or other Abuses are particularly chargeable upon her as First She teaches that for profitable Doctrine and beneficial to Salvation which is in all probability the contrary and which Experience has shewed otherwise Secondly As she has not in the judgment of any reasonable man sufficiently secured that all her Members shall preserve that infinite distance between God and his Saints and Angels of whom they demand the same Effects which if they do not at all times maintain they are Idolaters as the Heathens were And how can it be presumed that ignorant Christians in the Devotions of their Hearts understand that distance between God and his Creatures which is not signified in their Words which their Teachers can hardly find out a Distinction to difference Thirdly So far as it has contributed to raise the Reverence of Christian People towards the Saints above the Grounds that our Christianity has revealed for tho' I should in part allow the Distinction in the Roman Catechism Cat. Rom. de Cultu Invocat about the Angel's Refusal of the Worship tendered him by St. John that he refused only the Worship due to God alone yet it is plain in that place Rev. 22. 6 9. that St. John knew the Angel that shewed him the Vision to be distinct from God that sent him which is also clear throughout the whole Vision and yet he that had questionless a clear apprehension of one God tendred the
do are but so many gifts of his Grace That the first of these may give some abatement to their Doctrine of Justification so as to make it not absolutely destructive of the Faith I have already owned but that it should give the like to their Opinion of the Merit of good Works there is not the same necessity upon me to acknowledge And then it is not material to the Point to say all the good works they do are but the Gifts of his Grace unless it be added that they merit through Grace withal i. e. not of the intrinsick Grace that wrought them but of the free Grace of God that accepts them to that reward which they are not deserving of The Pharisce in the Parable that trusted in his own Righteousness did yet acknowledge it not of his own working alone for he thanks God that he was not an Extortioner c nor as other Men and yet he was not justified because he had not recourse to God's Mercy But not to conceal any thing that may encline us to a favourable Construction I must also take notice that the Council of Trent at first proposes Eternal Life as a Recompence which is faithfully rendred to the good works and merits of God's Children in virtue of his Promise And had it staid there I am obliged to confess it had not decreed any thing prejudicial to the Faith for having respect unto the Promise it does thereby respect the Grace as promising though not as bestowing the Gift But when it comes afterwards to declare an intrinsick value in our works and that eternal Life is truly merited by them its Eye is taken wholly off both from the Promise and the Grace for if it had intended to have shewn that they merit by virtue of the Promise it must have acknowledged that though they had an intrinsick and real worth yet it was not such as could render them acceptable for so great a reward not supposing God's Promise Those therefore who speak of good works as meritorious by virtue of God's Promise only though they use an unfit Expression cannot be said to destroy the Grace of God But which of these two Opinions shall be said to speak the Sense of the Council Both are indeed allowed but those who hold the Extream are the prevailing part if Bellarmine may be believed Bell. de Justif lib. 5. cap. 16. in relating Matter of Fact The Works of just men are meritorious of eternal Life ex condigno this is the common Opinion of Divines and it is most true But then will not the Church of Rome have a great advantage of us by this Concession Perhaps not near so great as they imagine when it is considered First That this Church allows though not absolutely enjoyns a Doctrine to be maintained that is contrary to the Faith and injurious to God's Grace which it cannot justifie as a Church Secondly That it likewise has given occasion by its own Definitions to this Doctrine which in words clearly express it which renders it more inexcusable Lastly In that it has further taken upon it to decree an Anathema against him that shall say That the good works Conc Trid. Sess 6. Can. 32. of a man justified do not truly merit encrease of Grace and eternal Life as also encrease of Glory Which no man can avoid acknowledging that will profess with the Scriptures that the gift of God is eternal Life and that he saves us not by the works of Righteousness which we have done but of his own Mercy What M. Condom inserts by the way That our Hope and Confidence in Christ does not wholly extinguish Fear on account of our selves I am not obliged to gainsay that I know of by any Doctrine of the Church of England provided I disallow that which is decreed Can. 16. If any say or believe that he shall certainly have by certainty of infallible Faith the gift of Perseverance to the end unless he know and have learned it by special Revelation let him be Anathema For though a careful and awful Fear does intermix with a Christians Confidence yet it may be such as may exclude all doubt without Revelation having no other foundation than that upon which St. Paul declares That nothing shall be able to separate Christians from the Love of God neither Tribulation nor Persecution c. because out of a certain knowledge of the sincerity of their own hearts and the certainty of God's never-failing Promise that he will never forsake those who forsake not him they may be certain that nothing shall be able to separate them from their Duty As to that great Advantage therefore which he may be thought to have gotten of us in that the real Difference between us in these two Points of Justification and the Merit of Works may not appear so great as it was thought and pleaded by the first Reformers who declared it one of the principal causes of their Separation I answer That I have evidenced a Doctrine generally held in the Church of Rome and exprest in the Words of the Council in the Point of Merit of good Works whilst they are taught to be deserving of eternal Life of their own intrinsick worth to be destructive of the Faith and injurious to the Grace of God however in that the Council in one place does mention God's Promise to accept of them I am unwilling to charge it expresly on the Council though it seems afterwards to leave the Promise and plead a real worth in our works which are wrought by Grace however those who say they merit ex condigno do certainly destroy the Faith which are the greater number of their Divines So in the Point of Justification I have shewn too great appearance that their Doctrine taken in the most favourable Sense does prejudice the Faith Again having produced the Doctrine of the Church of England on both Points she holds no other than she always did and still maintains the same neither does it that I know of cast any greater reproach on the Roman Church on this account than what the very Doctrine of the Council will maintain it in and therefore I see no reason to be ashamed of our Doctrine or think the worse of our Reformation for this being a part of it Again there 's none in the least versed in the History of the Reformation abroad but knows it to have been occasioned by Luther's writing against Indulgences which brought in the Disputes of Merits and Justification Purg tory Penance the Authority of the Pope and General Councils with amany others and although Luther published his Opinions in these points yet did he not separate from the Church immediately Bull. Leonâ— 10. An. 1520. but desired a Reformation instead of which Pope Leo excommunicates him and condemns 42 Articles extracted out of his Books on these and other points so that whoever may have pleaded this as the principal could never conceive it the only Point that
other ground in Christian Discipline than as means for the cure of sin which the Church being obliged to see to the performance of that Christianity men profest with good authority obliged those to undergo who had visibly fallen from that profession not as Punishments satisfactory to Gods Justice but as Medicines to work their cure and to recover them to the state of Grace and God's Favour which the Communion of the Church ought to suppose them in And therefore as they were debarred of that Communion when they were fallen from Grace the Church would not re-admit them to it 'till by submitting to such works of Humiliation as were likely to produce Repentance they had given reasonable Evidence to her of their having recovered the state of Grace and thereby a right to her Communion Now those Penitents indeed who shewed some extraordinary zeal and fervour in these works of Humiliation or by some other eminent acts of Piety shewed themselves to have truly repented and that the love of God had taken place in their hearts were many times admitted to the Communion before their performance of all those acts that had been enjoyned them and loosed from the further severities of that Discipline that cure of sin appearing to be wrought in them which the Discipline intended But for Penances imposed to make satisfaction to the Divine Justice and relaxations from them by the application of a stock of Merits in the Church there is not the least appearance After this laying open the foundation we must likewise examine the building and enquire what their Doctrine is in these points In that of satisfaction it 's evident they hold those Penitential Works to be satisfactory and that to God's Justice inasmuch as they design them for payments of a Debt of Temporal Punishment but then after what nature they satisfie is not so fully exprest The Council of Trent uses the words cited by M. Condom in the former Section which I have shewn not clear for they say These Works of Penance have a vertue though drawn from Jesus Christ and we are still in doubt whether they count them satisfactions upon account of their intrinsick value being performed by the help of Grace if so they give them a worth which they ought not Their Catechism seems to confirm this sense saying That from Christ through our good actions we obtain two great benefits one that we merit the rewards of everlasting glory the other that we can satisfie for our sins And this it says illustrates the satisfaction of Christ whose Grace is herein more abundant that not only those things are communicated to us which himself alone but those also which as head over his Members he hath merited and pay'd for his Saints upon which account it 's evident that the good actions of the Pious are of great weight and dignity And this also their very accounting them satisfactions to the Divine Justice requiring this Temporal Punishment does most strongly imply And if so then all M. Condom's Maxims will not clear them from depending on these works for that which is not in them But if we must take his word that after all what they call satisfaction is only the application of the infinite satisfaction of Christ we hope to find nothing inconsistent with it But here we meet with another Doctrine that one man may satisfie for another thus their Catechism tells us That those Cat. Trid. sub Titulo Quae ad verum satisfact who are endued with Divine Grace may in another's stead pay that which is owing to God so that after a sort we bear one anothers burthens And these works by which men satisfie for others are commonly called works of Supererogation which the Church of England declares cannot be taught without arrogancy Art 14. of the the Church of England and impiety inasmuch as by them men declare that they not only render to God as much as they are bound but that they do more for his sake than of bounden duty is required whereas Christ saith plainly When ye have done all that ye can say that you are unprofitable servants She likewise deplores that gross Superstition that had crept into the World by which men were lead Hom. of good Works Part 3. to place righteousness in Vows Meats Drinks c. out of which the People were told of a stock of merits in the Church of which others made their Markets And herein I shall not fear to maintain what is said by her upon the reasons given and more namely that this conceit of one man's satisfying for another and that thereby there is a stock of merits which the Church by Indulgences may allow to the account of those to whom it grants them is not only without warrant from Scripture or the practice of the Primitive Church but is also prejudicial to the faith and injurious to the merits of Christ whose merits are the only consideration of all Pardon and Mercy Nor will it avail to say the merits of the Saints are not such but through him for then it would be enough to apply his only to that effect but whilst his are infinite those who shall pretend to joyn others with them when God has only proposed his both as the consideration of his giving mercy and the foundation of our hope do plainly derogate from Christ and delude the People who hearing of other merits than those of Christ vainly purchase them as a new means to place themselves in God's favour But M. Condom speaks here very sparingly of Indulgences telling us The Council of Trent proposes nothing else to be believed concerning them but that there is a power in the Church from Jesus Christ to grant them and that the use of them is beneficial to salvation and does withall intimate that these principally regard Discipline which it seeks to prevent from being reassumed by an over-great facility in granting them But still it teaches all this without warrant no power of Indulgences to such purposes as they pretend to grant them being ever given to the Church by Jesus Christ nor any such beneficial use of them to be learnt from him upon this score Nor is it material to observe that the Council intimates them to regard Discipline unless we knew how far their Ecclesiastical Discipline does extend If it reach to the imposing Punishments for the satisfaction of Gods Justice for the debt of Temporal Punishment Concil Trid. Sess 14. c. 8. which is mentioned as the ground of their exacting these satisfactions and which the Priest is to have regard to and to enjoyn them ad vindictam castigationem it 's a Discipline the Church never had All the World knows that Luther in the first breach about Indulgences did not deny them as to the relaxing of Canonical Penances but inveighed against the pretences of those that advanced them to a further purpose and that one of his greatest objections against them was That the Pope
could Pardon no Punishments 95. Theses Lut. Anno 1517. but what himself in the Church imposed and pleads against his Adversary that he designed to Pardon no other So that had the Pope then declared their grant to no further purpose we might have had some reason to have credited M. Condom's exposition But when the Council coming to the decision of this which being the first occasion of the breach ought if any thing to have been particularly discussed has only declared That there is a Power of granting them in the Church and commended their use but not determined to what effect whether to that which Luther owned or that which his Adversaries pretended what can we conclude less than that it allows them to the effects pretended by those Agents that dispersed them Wherein Bellarm. fully confirms us saying Those Catholicks are not in the right who think Bellar. Lib. de Indulg c. 7. Indulgences to be no other than Remissions of Ecclesiastical Discipline Whose Authority I use not here only as great upon the reasons he gives for his Opinion as First That if they were to no other effect than this there would be no need of a stock of merits Secondly That the Church would herein greatly deceive her Children whilst freeing them from pains in this life it sends them to those of Purgatory That Thirdly They could not be granted for the dead that are not under nor in need of the Churches Discipline But chiefly upon the matter of fact that he relates How many when they receive Indulgences confess and perform their satisfactions that sometimes the Popes in their Briefs of Indulgence require the Priests to impose Penitential satisfactions that therefore in the Judgment both of the Popes and People they are principally and chiefly beneficial to remit the pains of Purgatory But possibly they may tell us however this Council did something considerable in abolishing those unlawful gains that were made by the markets of them This indeed might have been something had they designed it to abolish the Penitential Tax issued out of the Apostolick Chamber sometime before which rates sins at certain sums or had it taken effect to that end but instead thereof we know those faculties to have been since renewed and still confirmed Concerning Purgatory the pretended foundation of it is this That those who depart this life indebted to the Divine Justice some pains which it reserved are to suffer them in another life that hereupon they offer Prayers for such by these kind of satisfactions to win God to be more mild to them in those Chastisements In opposition to this our Church has delivered herself thus That the Scripture doth acknowledg but two places after Hom. of Prayer Part. 3. this life the one proper to the Elect and Blessed of God the other proper to the Damned Souls That a Art 22. therefore the Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory and Pardons relating to it 〈◊〉 a â—ond thing vainly invented without warrant from Holy Scripture and rather repugnant to it It 's vain in that it wants a warrant from Scripture and is likewise very repugnant to it in that we are encouraged in our Christian course by the Scripture from the shortness of our afflictions to all which an eâ—…s put by death after which all that die in the Lord are blâ—… in this that they rest from their labours I must therefore deny this to be the ground of those Prayers which were made for the â—…d in the Primitive Church and am by this alone sufficiently warranted to deny it that those Prayers were made for the Patriarchs and Prophets the Apostles and Martyrs as well as for all others that departed in the Communion of the Church and therefore could not relate to any intent of easing them from any pains they were believed to suffer but rather to the Resurrection that time of refreshment Acts 3. 19. that shall come from the presence of the Lord. Whereas M. Condom pretends to argue from that which is done by God's Servants many of whom afflict themselves for the sins of all the People as well as for their own out of a zeal to God and charity to their Brethren affections that all ought to express That God out of a delight to gratifie these his friends accepts of their Mortifications in abatement of the Punishments he has prepareed for others I cannot but admire to see a Man write so much without Book as to infer from hence a power in the Church to apply these services to particular Persons in Indulgences and that these shall be available to ease men of those Punishments they suffer for their sins after death for to these ends he must say this or else he says nothing for it 's nothing to his purpose what respect God may have to the Prayers Fastings and Humiliations of the faithful to with-hold his Judgments from a sinful Nation And if said upon those other accounts it 's altogether without warrant from his Christianity We see then apparently the differences that are unresolved by any thing said in this explication of M. Condom viz. 1. That the Church of Rome has advanced a new Article of Faith upon which it grounds these Doctrines and Practices 2. That it abuses the Penances used in the Church to ends not warranted from Christianity neglecting that upon which they take place in it 3. That in pretending to do things in satisfaction to the Divine Justice they have not cleared themselves from the scandal given to their Christian Brethren by such a bold pretence 4. That by setting up a stock of merits out of the supererogatory works of others they are manifestly injurious to Christ whose merits are proposed by God for our only trust they even void in my judgment the terms of the Covenant of Grace which requires That every man prove his own work in that as to God Gal. 5. v. 6. every man shall bear his own burthen 5. That it pretends to grant Indulgences to purposes which they never served in the Christian Church of the first Ages and to an effect even beyond the present life 6. That it teaches an unknown state after the present life wherein we are to lie under the severity of God's Wrath for an uncertain time to the manifest discouragement of us in our Christian course notwithstanding their pretence to the contrary to the destruction of our confidence in God's mercy and our Saviours merits and to the apparent prejudice of that Christianity they pretend to advance of which hereafter 7. And lastly That as if these things were not enough they Concil Trid. Sess 14. â— have decreed Anathemas 1 Can. 12 Against him that shall say When God remits the sin he always remits the punishment 2 Can. 13 Or that we do not satisfie for our sins in abatement of the Tempoporal punishment by works voluntarily undertaken or enjoyned for that end but the best Penance is a new life 3
there being so vast a difference between those Sacraments which by virtue of our blessed Saviour's peculiar Institution are Seals exhibitive of all the promises of the Gospel and which take effect to this purpose from that Institution and others that are only means of particular graces to this or that particular effect some of which also can be hoped to take effect only in consideration of the Prayers of the Church and have no other virtue than what these Prayers can be hoped to produce Baptism About Baptism in particular I know but one material difference for the Church of England sufficiently presses its efficacy and necessity and has provided what she can that none may want it only she dares not determine it of that absolute necessity as to deny salvation to those Infants that dye without it The Romanists themselves allow the desire of it to supply the want of it to Justification in the adult and when St. Peter tells us that it is not the washing away the filth of the flesh but the answer of a good conscience towards God that saves us in Baptism why therefore they should not think the design of Christian Parents dedicating them to God's service and the profession of Christianity should not as well supply the want of it in case of necessity as it does render the washing effectual in the use of it I cannot apprehend Confirmation Confirmation is not in the least rejected by us but used with solemnity becoming such an Exercise and intended to the utmost effect that the Bishops Prayer and the Suffrages of the whole Congregation joyned with it can be hoped to procure of that grace which may enable all that come thereto both to will and to do what before their coming to that action they are taught they must then resolve upon viz. the prosession of Christianity in their own names undertaking to abide by it with their lives Penance Touching Penance we believe that Christ having committed to his Church the power of binding and loosing mens sins for edification and likewise committed to her the dispensation of the Mysteries of the Gospel Baptism and the Eucharist has given her authority as of admitting to so of casting out of the Church so that when it shall appear that any have visibly transgress'd that profession upon which they were admitted members of the Christian Church by Baptism she has full authority to call such to an account and to exclude them in part or altogether from her communion till they shall have submitted to and peformed such acts of humiliation as may both warrant her to admit them to her communion again by some assurance of their true repentance and recovery of the state of grace which alone entitles to it and likewise satisfie the Church for the scandal given by their Apostasie Likewise we believe that all who being baptized have made profession of Christianity are by that profession obliged to submit themselves to this discipline which the Church exercises for the cure of sin Further we prove that when the Church proceeds aright in the exercise of this authority excluding those from her communion who are visibly faln from the state of grace and admitting them again into it after it has wrought the cure of sin by enjoyning such acts of humiliation as have wrought a true repentance she acts according to Christs commission and what she does is valid and ratified by him to so great effect that what she binds on earth is bound in heaven and what she looses on earth is loosed in heaven We further say That God having provided this means for the procuring and assuring the pardon of sin by his Church does both teach private Christians what course they ought to take for the working in themselves a true repentance by acts of mortification and self-denial and invite them to bring their secret sins unto the Church so far as they shall be convinced within themselves that the Ministry of the Church may be beneficial to them by her Prayers or Discipline to work this effect But we declare on the other side That though we believe the Church has full authority thus to act in the cure of sin yet it has no authority to pardon sin till after it has wrought the cure so that if it shall absolve any from their sins in whom it has not first wrought a true repentance that act is null for the Church which is only ministerial to procure can have no authority to abate that condition which the Gospel requires to the remission of sins true Repentance And therefore 2ly we further declare That though the Churches Discipline be of great efficacy to procure this condition necessary to the remission of sins yet inasmuch as it is possible for men to work it in themselves without it by their earnest Prayers Humiliation and other Endeavours assisted by God's grace that the sins of such are pardoned by God without this discipline of the Church And therefore 3ly we also declare That whatever benefit may be in mens laying open their secret sins to the Church in obtaining the pardon of their sins yet there is no absolute necessity on them so to do for that their sins shall assuredly be forgiven without it so they be truly penitent Also out of a due apprehension of the exceeding usefulness of this Discipline i. e. Publick Penance in the Church of Christ and the great decay of Christian Piety sensibly fell through the want of it our Church laments its loss and the abominable abuses that crept into it of which the iniquity of the age took so great advantage as has for the present rendred it almost impracticable but to the utmost effect she can she does exercise it and to the best for the edification of her children But whilst we thus lament that this Discipline left by our blessed Saviour in his Church is in so great a measure lost and become impracticable yet there will not be so much reason to repent of our Reformation upon this account It was not the Reformation that cast off this necessary and saving Discipline but the corruptions of former ages that had brought in abuses to that excess that rendred it not possible for the Reformation at the removal of them to maintain it in the authority it ought to have had To what degree those abuses were arrived we shall be able to guess when we have considered those that are still maintained in Concil Trid. Sess 14. the Church of Rome which teaches thus 1 Cap. 1. That those who fall from grace after Baptism have need of another Sacrament to restore them and therefore our Saviour instituted this of Penance 2 Cap. 3. Can. 4. That the Form of this Sacrament consists in the words I absolve thee the matter of it is Contrition Confession Satisfaction condemning those who say Penance is no other than a Conscience terrified for its sins and faith to lay hold on Christ for forgiveness
effects I suppose the Church of England does allow the help of the Elders of the Church useful to the sick and therefore has provided that none lack this assistance but inasmuch as the Promises relating to these effects are different the Promise to one effect being perpetual and common to the Church in all ages to the other temporary whilst God empowered it to work such effects the Church which thinks she can only ground her Faith upon God's promises does still retain and declare her power in the cure of sin having a continued promise of God's grace to go along with its Ministry in effecting of it but not being assured nor having any promise to assure it that its Ministry shall be effectual to the recovery of bodily health it dares not warrant it to her children and therefore does not think fit to use the Ceremony of anointing the sick with oyl which was then used as a sign effective of their recovery Not that she is not ready to pray for this on their behalf grounding herself upon the general promise God has pride to hear the Prayers of his Church but not having any sure word of promise to ground a firm Faith upon as to the absolute recovery of the sick and it being the Prayer of Faith to which the Apostle here attributes this recovery as Faith indeed and that special and extraordinary was always necessary to all miraculous effects she therefore thinks she cannot use that sign which was then applied to the sick to assure him of his recovery by that power which God was then pleased to give for the working such cures That this Reason is not inconsiderable the Church of Rome herself is forced to allow and thereupon is greatly perplexed to find out a Reason why the first of these effects the Forgiveness Cat. Trid. sub Titulo Extrem Vnct. qua praep of Sins being provided for by the Sacrament of Penance there should be another Sacrament provided for this purpose To solve which she has invented a Distinction not to be found in the Apostles words I am sure that the Grace of this Sacrament is to extinguish our Venial Sins the other being chiefly provided for the forgiveness of Deadly Sins No less is she perplexed as to the other for seeing de facto that the Ministry of the Church does not take effect to the bodily recovery and withal knowing it necessary that all who come to a Sacrament ought to come with a Faith that they shall receive the Benefit tendred by it she orders that the Priest shall labour to perswade Ibid. the Sick to offer himself to this Unction with no less a Faith than those tendred themselves who were miraculously cured by the Apostles That if the Sick reap not so much Benefit Ibid. by it at this time as of old this must not be ascribed to any defect in the Sacrament but we are to believe it so happens for this cause rather that Faith is weaker in the greatest part of those that are anointed with this sacred Oyl or in those that administer it the Gospel telling us that our Lord did not many mighty works in his own Country because of their Vnbelief And yet for all this at last she is forced to confess the true Reason That Miracles do not seem so necessary now since Christianity has taken so wide and deep a root as they were in the beginning of the Church Which Reason as it shews that we ought not to expect the like effects now as then does likewise fully justifie the practice of the Church of England in not using Vnction to warrant the recovery of the Sick tho' she be ready to assist them with her Prayers which may be hoped effectual in an ordinary way to all that is consistent with the Divine Will Marriage Whereas our Blessed Saviour was pleased to reduce this State of Marriage to its first Institution and to make the Bond of it insoluble we do believe it the Concern yea the Duty of the Church to see that its Members joyned together in this holy State do preserve this Bond inviolable And the preserving it thus requiring as all other Christian Duties the assistance of God's Grace our Church thinks herself obliged as to see to the Marriages that shall be contracted between its Members so to implore a Blessing on them at their entrance into that State begging the Assistance of the Divine Grace to enable them to live as Christians ought in the State of Wedlock And whereas the Apostle has thought fit to represent to us the near Conjunction and inseparable Union of Christ with his Church by that near and inseparable Union which this State supposes we forget not the Thanks we owe our blessed Lord who is thus pleased to unite himself to his Church nor the Concern that lies on us the Members of it to preserve an Vnion with him inviolable But we cannot think that because the State of Matrimony is a Sign of that Mystical Union between Christ and his Church having some analogy with it that therefore the entrance into this State has the promise of any Grace to joyn or preserve us in that Union with Christ and his Church and for that reason we exclude it from the Sacraments of Christ's Church as these are Signs effective of Grace Order We allow the Necessity of ordaining Ministers for the Service of Christ's Church and acknowledge not only the Ceremony of Imposition of hands in that Action to be of Apostolical Institution but also that there is a Promise of Grace annex'd to enable persons so ordain'd to act according to their several Functions and that with effect to those Ends which their Ministries serve in the Church of Christ But we admit it not properly a Sacrament as I said before because the Grace promised does peculiarly relate to their Office and the Benefit of the Church not particularly to the Salvation of him that receives it Neither do we allow the Grace here promised to belong to any but those Orders that we find from the Beginning in the Church of Christ viz. Bishops Priests and Deacons SECT X. Of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist NOW we are come to the great Points that are in dispute about the Eucharist wherein M. Condom has greatly enlarged himself as confident of the Victory Here in the first place he tells us The Real Presence of the Body and Blood of our Saviour is established by the Words of the Institution which they understand literally and therefore are not to give Reasons for so doing but expect Reasons why they should not We should take this Gentleman off a great Advantage which he presumes himself to have if we should deny theirs to be the Literal Sense and plead ours to be it and oblige them to give Reasons for their imposing a new construction upon them However leaving that in question for a time I must at present examine the Reasons he gives to
introduce the Sense he intends The ground he proceeds on I confess is such as must not be rejected as vain in this Dispute neither must it on the other side be allowed to conclude necessarily for though the correspondence between the Old and New Testament ought to be greatly regarded yet of itself it is not sufficient ground to build matter of Faith upon Again in whatever it be allowed to conclude it must be according to the difference between the Old and New Testament which must still be maintained and which is undeniably this That as Israel under the Old Testament were the Israel according to the Flesh and those under the New are the Israel according to the Spirit so the correspondence between the Law and Gospel may conclude from things that were carnally under the Law that the same are spiritually fulfilled under the Gospel but never that they are now to be fulfilled carnally because they were then For instance when the Apostle argues from Abraham's leaving his own Country to go into a strange Land that thereby also he sought an heavenly Country it may with the like force be argued that we who travel after God's Promises shall certainly arrive to the possession of that heavenly Country but not that we shall as certainly possess an earthly Canaan by the way So when he argues from Adam's being made a living Soul that the second Adam is a quickning Spirit we cannot certainly think him to be a quickning Spirit in that sense that the first Adam was a living Soul but in a much more spiritual manner This being premised I shall consider his Arguments First then he says That as the Jews did not in Spirit only partake of the Victim that was sacrificed for them but did in reality eat of the sacrificed Flesh which was to them a Mark of their partaking of that Oblation so Christ becoming our Victim would have us really eat his Flesh to assure us in particular that it was for us he gave it Thus much I allow the correspondence between the Old and New Testament may prove that whereas Christ has given us Bread as a representation of his sacrificed Body to partake of that he thereby intended to make us partakers of his Flesh to assure us that for us it was sacrificed but not that it shall hence follow that because the Jews eat carnally of the Flesh of their Sacrifices we must also eat of his after the like manner Who sees not upon the difference between the Law and the Gospel premised that the contrary does necessarily follow that they being the Israel after the Flesh did necessarily partake of the Flesh of their Sacrifices after a carnal manner those therefore that are the Israel after the Spirit must partake of their Sacrifices not as the others but spiritually Let then God's prohibiting the Jews to eat of the Sin-Offering because of their Sins not being expiated by those Sacrifices conclude that now our blessed Saviour having made himself an Offering for Sin we ought to partake of this Sacrifice to assure us that the Remission of sins is accomplished for us yet this shall not conclude against our partaking of this Victim after a spiritual manner As for God's prohibiting the Children of Israel to eat Blood because it was given for the expiation of Souls it being a prohibition of eating Blood in general as well as the particular blood of their Sacrifices if it conclude any thing it is chiefly for the eating Blood in general the reason of its being forbidden being ceased but yet neither for this doth it conclude necessarily for then the Apostles could not by their Decree have required the Gentiles to abstain from Blood But suppose it to conclude for our drinking the Blood of our Sacrifice yet it does not in the least prove that we are to drink it in a carnal and not in a spiritual manner but it will prove if it be allowed conclusive what will not at all please the Church of Rome that she cannot now with-hold the Sacramental Blood from us since our Sins are fully expiated by the Blood of Christ for a reason contrary to that upon which it was prohibited the Jews because this Blood being shed has wrought a full Remission of Sins Therefore upon so little that has been yet said to the purpose I admire the Gentleman should tell us That our Saviour to free us from the horror of eating humane Flesh and drinking Blood in their proper species thought fit to cloath them under another species but that the consideration that obliged him to this did not oblige him in the least to deprive us of the reality of his Substance For by what Authority does he presume to tell us what considerations moved our Saviour or how far this or that consideration shall oblige him Or how has he proved that it was ever the intent of our blessed Saviour to give us the Real as that signifies the fleshly Substance of his Body to be by us carnally received To accomplish then the ancient Figures we confess our blessed Saviour does give us his Body and Blood to possess us of the Sacrifice offered for our Sins but to maintain the difference between the Law and the Gospel our eating must be spiritual not carnal It matters not whether it be the plainness of our Saviour's Words alone or as joyned with other things that are said concerning it in Scripture that forceth us to confess and acknowledge what we do we need no forcing for we most readily acknowledge all we conceive the Scripture does oblige us to in it and the Question is whether any thing said therein will oblige us to take their Sense or does not oblige to the contrary I shall not enter into Dispute of what the power of Christ can do or whether his Dominion over universal Nature can make his Body present in several places at once and under several Extents and not destroy the properties of a Body in it his Omnipotence having nothing to do herein any further than it appears his intent to bring something to pass by it We may therefore without questioning what can be wrought by his omnipotent power expect an Evidence that what they pretend him to bring to pass thereby was by him intended to be brought to pass before we are obliged to believe it Whether therefore these Words This is my Body will conclude it to be our Saviours intent to make that Bread to be no longer Bread but to become the very Substance of his Body is the thing in question which cannot be presumed before we have considered the whole Discourse of our Saviour and also what other things are said of it by his Apostles Matth. 26. 26. we find it set down thus Whilst they were eating Jesus took Bread and having blessed broke and gave it to his Disciples and said Take Eat this is my Body and taking the Cup and blessing gave to them saying Drink all of this for this is my Blood
Institution of our Lord who blessed Bread and Wine for this only purpose that we might take eat and drink and thereby partake of his Body and Blood in that it not only lays aside the End of his Institution but sets up a new Action of a greater value as is pretended in that also whilst it pretends to apply the Benefits of Christ's Death by this new means it takes off the necessity of using that of our Saviour's own appointment and occasions men to be wholly careless of it when hereby they are warranted to partake of all his Benefits and incur not the danger they would if they should come to partake of the Sacrament with impenitent hearts in that likewise it pretends this Sacrifice propitiatory for men after Death thereby in a great measure voiding the necessity of a Christian Life especially considering that Doctrine which is commonly taught in that Church that this Sacrifice avails ex opere operato that all the Benefits of Christ are derived upon the People by the very external Work done the people not being concerned in or assisting to the Sacrifice either in their Prayers or participation and withal their practice of sacrificing for any whatever dying within their Communion to free them from the pains of Purgatory SECT XI Of his Reflections BY the Grounds then upon which I have proceeded I am little concerned with the Explication he gives of the Epistle to the Hebrews to shew that their Doctrine of the Sacrifice ascribing all the virtue wholly to the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross does not impeach or prejudice its efficacy which the Apostle there pleads Which if it were granted as that it cannot well be for that they have set up a Sacrifice which shall make God more propitious to us than the Sacrament which does possess us of all the Benefits of Christ's Death yet this could no way justifie them in setting up a Sacrifice representative of Christ's Death to Effects which he had not appointed pretending thereby to make application of his Sacrifice on the Cross which he has not warranted them to apply by such means and to such persons also as they cannot from Scripture warrant it beneficial to However notwithstanding M. Condom seems to remove all Equivocation in the Word Offer he either still uses it equivocally or expresses not the Sense of those of his Communion for Bellarmine places not the Sacrifice only in presenting to God Christ crucified but in destroying the Elements that were there before and making Christ present under their Species as dead on the Cross And the Catechism favours this Sense when it says The Priests that sacrifice act not in their own persons but in the person of Christ when they make to be present his Body and Blood So that if we consider this especially if joyned with the Doctrine of Eckius that those Representations which the Church makes of Christ as dead by making his Body as such to appear before God and his Blood as separate from it by these Ceremonies that are used in this Action are the things that constitute the Sacrifice Against whom Chemnitius disputes so largely from this Epistle to the Hebrews If this be considered it will be evident that in this Epistle was not made use of to such impertinent purpose against them as this Gentleman pretends In his Reflections there is little material for me to consider the Grounds of all their Doctrine being overthrown But because he presses it so earnestly I must take notice of the main thing in it Here then he would first perswade us that the main difference between us is that of the Real Presence This we indeed allow That their Error in this Point is the Foundation of the Doctrines they build upon it but this makes it not necessary that their consequent Doctrines and Practices shall not be judged more prejudicial to Christianity than their first Error There scarce ever was a Heresie but pretended to deduce all its Errors from some Doctrine that had appearance of Truth and that did not in itself expresly contradict or prejudice the Faith though by the progression they drew from it the whole Faith has been subverted But then he farther argues That the Real Presence is owned by the Lutherans though they consider not the consequences of it That the Calvinists themselves have declared the Lutheran Doctrine to have no poyson in it and that it does not subvert the Foundations of Faith That further some Calvinists have said that the Catholicks reason better and more consequently than the Lutherans whence he concludes It is an established Truth that the Roman Doctrine in this point contains nothing but the Doctrine of the Real Presence rightly understood An Inference that has not the least coherence with the Premises Can any man of Sense allow this a rational Argument The Lutherans hold a Real Presence the Calvinists say There is no Poyson in their Doctrine The Lutherans admit not such Consequences as we do the Calvinists say we reason better than the Lutherans therefore it is an established Truth that our Doctrine contains nothing but the Real Presence rightly understood But to answer it so far as it may seem any way to give him an advantage The Lutherans do indeed hold a Real Presence in a Sense different from that I have explained but then they do no obtrude their Sense upon others as a necessary condition of Communion so that we may communicate with them without professing their error nor do they hold such a Local Presence as the Church of Rome nor does their Opinion lead them to the Worship of any Creature nor do they acknowledge any Presence of Christ therein but only in the act and to the end of his Institution of this Sacrament and if this has led some to a Declaration that the Lutheran Opinion does not subvert the foundation of Faith upon this account that it proceeds not to any further Effects destructive of it shall this be taken for an acknowledgment that the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which obliges to such practices upon it as are inconsistent with the Faith is not such as ought to break communion with her And suppose it to have been said that the Catholicks reason better and more consequently than the Lutherans if it has been said by any of those that allowed Communion with the Lutherans it 's manifest that when they said so they did not think but that the Roman Doctrine was much more inconsistent with Christianity And that the World may see it is so I shall transcribe the difference which a Lutheran gives us between the Adoration they tender Christ in the Eucharist and that which is given by the Church of Rome He places the difference chiefly in two Particulars First that the Church of Rome requires that the Sacrament Gerhard Loc. Com De sacra Caena de Vener it self or all that which according our Lord's Institution we receive should be adored with the honour due
a thing very greatly to be feared whilst the substance under it is the blood of Christ. Thirdly Many men cannot abide the taste nor smell of wine wherefore that that which was ordained for spiritual health might not prejudice the health of the Body it was very wisely enacted by the Church that all her faithhful Children should receive one kind alone To this may be added other reasons That in some Countries wine is scarce and cannot be gotten without long and tedious Journeys But that which is most of all to the purpose the Heresie of such was to be rooted out as declared whole Christ to be under both Species and said the Body only was contained in the bread and the blood in the wine But he further tells us That the Church has reserved to her self the re-establishment of both kinds according as it should become more advantagious to Peace and Unity 'T is well she has kept to herself a Power of re-establishing that which she never had Power to dis-establish but how forward she has been to do any thing towards Peace and Unity all the World sees by her sirst occasioning so great a breach by this very thing And to me her last reason that she gives makes it evident that she still maintains and justifies her Sacriledg which robs Christians of their Birthright to the apparent prejudice of Peace yea to the rendring Unity impossible unless men will part with their Christianity But it 's most ridiculous when he comes to conclude from the concession of some Protestants That bread alone might be administred in case a man made protestation of a natural aversion to wine that therefore according to the Principles of the Reformed the matter in question regards not Faith and so is altogether in the Power of the Church For without determining whether their decision be right or wrong can it be argued from them that allow the Church may administer it only in one Species in case of such necessity that therefore the Church has authority to refuse administring it in both wheresoever she pleases to refuse it Can it be said that those who allow her a Power to dispense with some in case of absolute necessity do thereby allow her any Power to prohibit all People who are not comprehended in the case and being not comprehended look upon themselves greatly injured by being thus deprived of it And whereas he infers from hence that it regards not Faith his argument is as strong as if because the Jews were not circumcised in the Wilderness it should be said the Synagogue might have dispensed afterwards with that Law and said that Circumcision was not essentially necessary to a Jew because in a case of necessity where it could not be used Jews had lived without it SECT XVII Of the written and unwritten Word WHereas he says That the unwritten Word was the first Rule of Christianity and when the Writings of the New Testament were added this did not lose its Authority so that whatever was taught by the Apostles by Writing or Word of Mouth is to be received with equal veneration and that it is a sign that a Doctrine comes from the Apostles when it is universally received by all Christian Churches without any possibility of shewing its beginning I must not admit it but with these limitations First That nothing shall be imposed on us as a Doctrine coming from the Apostles but what shall evidently appear to have been universally received by all Christian Churches without beginning and that as fully to in all the parts of it that shall now be pleaded for For it is in vain to tell us that some things were delivered by the Apostles by Word of Mouth and those that have been from the beginning so received in the Christian Church universally throughout all Ages and Places ought to be looked upon as such unless what ever they would have us submit to as such be made appear so to be Secondly That these Traditions be not acknowledged of themselves sufficient to build any matter of Faith upon and this for two Reasons one because we cannot have that certainty of these as ought to be had to ground any thing as necessary to salvation of this all the Scriptures are an evident proof for undoubtedly the Apostles wrote not any thing to their Churches which they had not by preceding instructions gave them ability to understand notwithstanding which we see those instructions are now in great part lost though the Scriptures are preserved and they were so soon gone out of the Church that in a few Ages after the Apostles we find men giving them divers interpretations The other because we are told The Scriptures are able to make us wise unto salvation 2 Tim. 3. 15. which though spoken of the Writings of the Old Testament yet since none can deny the Divine Providence to have had the same end in ordering and inspiring the Writers of both namely that the Scriptures should be written for our Learning is as undeniable a Truth with reference to the New as Old Testament so that whatsoever is necessary to salvation must be either contained in or deducible from them Whereupon the Church of England professes That Holy Scripture containeth Art 6. all things necessary to salvation so that whatsoever is not read therein nor may be proved thereby is not to be requiredof any man that it should be believed as an Article of Faith or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation These exceptions which were necessary in respect of the premises laid down are altogether needless if we look to the Conclusion inferred viz. That we ought not to wonder if they being careful to gather all their Fathers left them should conserve the Deposition of Tradition as well as that of the Scriptures Certainly no man ever blamed the Church of Rome for keeping the Tradition she received from the Apostles but for setting up Traditions that were never deposited with her much less with the whole Church The Council of Trent indeed in its first Decree is very reserved concerning Traditions and speaks cautiously thus The Holy Synod finding Christ's Truth and Holy Discipline partly in Scriptures and partly in unwritten Traditions which either were taken from Christ's Mouth by the Apostles or were Sess 4. delivered by the Apostles themselves inspired by the Holy Ghost and have passed as it were from hand to hand to us and following the example of the Orthodox Fathers doth with the like Religious affection receive all the Books of the New and Old Testament as also the Traditions themseves pertaining to Faith and Manners But under this fair pretence of receiving Traditions either taken from Christ's Mouth or delivered by the Apostles themselves and passed from hand to hand unto them they make their Decrees by Traditions of a quite different nature Traditions of yesterday such as appear neither always nor universally received abusing likewise their more ancient to justifie all the abuses time
the whole Church were submitted to upon the certain testimony of those parts of it wherein they had been kept those which had not so evident a testimony being laid aside and received only according to the evidence that appeared of their being Divine Inspirations Nevertheless when they come to be received from the hands of such particular Churches who knew themselves to have had them from Authors known to be divinely inspired there might be some expressions in them which might appear not altogether so agreeable with our common Christianity when they came first to know them which from the beginning they had not And this was certainly the case of Luther in refusing St. James's Epistle notwithstanding the scorns cast upon him for it as of Erasmus in questioning the Epistle to the Hebrews But yet there is always means of redressing such a mistake either in any part of the Church or in any particular member of it so long as there remains means to certifie them from what hand they have been received and how derived from persons in whom the Church was assured the holy Ghost spoke but to set up the Churches bare Authority for this is indeed what our Adversaries desire but what destroys all the nature of the holy Scriptures and makes them to be believed for another reason than this that they are the Dictates of the holy Ghost But in fine he tells us It can only be from this authority that we receive the whole body of the Scripture which all Christians accept as divine before their reading of it has made them sensible of the Spirit of God in it But that there is some little difference between those that are educated in the Christian Church and others that turn Christians at years of understanding he might even as well have said whether the Spirit of God be in it or not in it For if the authority of the Church be that which principally determines them to reverence as Divine Books and upon that authority a man be obliged to receive the whole body of Scripture before he know the Spirit of God to be in it he shall upon the same grounds be obliged still to hold the same whether he find it there or not I am sorry that he thinks all Christians so blind as himself that they build their belief of the Scriptures on no firmer a foundation than he seems to do and am therefore obliged to shew him the ground whereon I build my own belief concerning them When therefore I first seek whereon to ground this belief I enquire after the Testimony not the Authority of the Church i. e. of all those that make profession of Christianity whose consent I look after concerning the Scriptures and when I have found what Writings they agree upon and admit for such the next enquiry is upon what grounds they submit unto them as such and this I find to be their having received them from former Ages successively together with their Christianity then must I trace this successive reception of them from one time to another till I come to those who first received them and there I find the reason upon which they submitted to them to be the evident proofs which the Writers of them had given to shew themselves inspired by God and commissioned to teach his will to the obedience of which they ought to give up themselves whereupon they who had seen God bearing them witness with divers Miracles and Gifts of the Holy Ghost became obliged as to obey their Doctrine so to acknowledge their Writings for the Word of God they being Records of those miraculous Actions which they saw wrought and of those Truths which were taught and proved to be the Will of God And here the very same Motives cause my belief of the Scriptures which caused those first Christians to receive them and submit unto them so that the same reason that moves me to be a Christian resolves me to believe the Scripture But if a man shall ask me since I believe the Scriptures only upon the works done by those Holy Writers which testifie them to have had his Spirit how I am assured that those works were really done I am not afraid to confess my Belief of this to rely on the Credit of God's People all Ages of Christ's Church which have born testimony of it successively so that I submit not my Faith to any Authority that can command it but I see it reasonable to allow my Belief to the Credit of the Church as so many men of common Sense attesting the Truth of those Reasons which the Gospel tenders why they ought to believe Neither is my Faith in either of these Respects a humane Faith but the work of Gods Spirit for as it is that Spirit only which after I have seen the Motives to Christianity inclines me to believe and become a Christian so it is the same Spirit which having shewn me the Evidence that the Scriptures were written by the Messengers of God that works in me an acknowledgment of and submission to them as the Word of God He goes on Being inseparably bound as we are to the holy Authority of the Church by means of the Scriptures which we receive from her hands we learn Tradition also from her and by means of Tradition we learn the true Sense of the Scripture upon which account the Church professes she tells us nothing from herself and that she invents nothing new in her Doctrines she does nothing but declare the divine Revelation according to the interior direction of the Holy Ghost which is given to her as a Teacher I profess all the Skill I have cannot make this hang together If by his first words he means we are so inseparably bound to the Authority of the Church by receiving the Scriptures from her that we ought thereupon to receive all that shall be commanded by that Authority I that have shewn we do not believe the Scriptures upon her Authority as a Church but upon her Testimony witnessing the Motives of Faith as a number of men that would not conspire to testifie an Untruth can never own it to have an Authority of itself to command our Faith Indeed as we receive the Scriptures upon her Testimony we learn from the Scriptures that she has an Authority but such an Authority as perhaps will not content M. Condom which being derived from the Scriptures can never have power to act against them and being established only for the Maintenance of Christianity which was before it can never have power to make that a part of Christianity which was not so before the Church was in being Then again though we learn Tradition from her and that Tradition be useful to interpret the Sense of the Scriptures yet we receive not any Tradition upon her Authority as making them Traditions of the Apostles but upon her Testimony shewing that she has received them from them and again those Traditions she does deliver ought not certainly
innovation seeing she not only submits herself to the Holy Scriptures but has obliged herself to interpret them in what relates to Faith and Manners according to the sense of the holy Fathers from which she promiseth never to depart declaring in all her Councils and in all the Professions of Faith she has published that she does not receive any Doctrine which is not conformable to the Tradition of all preceding ages If it be really so that she does in all things thus submit herself what need he have given us all this trouble to prove that she ought against his vain endeavours to exempt her from it Then all that we have depending is only Tryal of Matters of Fact whether she has really contained herself within the bounds she professes ought to limit her decisions and this claim of infallibility ought to be by them wholly laid aside otherwise the World will never believe she has confined herself to bounds that she endeavours to claim a power of exceeding as I cannot think this Gentleman in conscience knows her to have acted only within them when he takes so much pains to create her an authority above them But to what purpose does M. Condom tell us No one prudent man amongst us but if he found himself the only man of a perswasion though it appeared to him never so evident but would be ashamed of that singularity for is this the case of the Reformed part of the Christian World are they but as one man But since he wishes us to consult with prudence we may desire him to do the like and consider what prudence it is for a man blindly to give up his judgments to others and be of a Religion because he has many companions refusing out of idleness either to examine or come to a tryal of that Religion or fearing the event of such a tryal resolving before he enter upon it on a ground from which he will never be dispossessed such as I have too great cause to fear himself has resolved on that what he cannot by his skill make good from Scripture and Truth he will still believe upon the Authority of the Church And I think this reason if any thing may be grounded upon humane prudence concerning God's commands does more evidently shew that God has never required us to give up a blind obedience to any authority of man than that given by him that God has set up an authority to which every private man must subject his understanding in all truths though appearing never so evidently unto him SECT XIX Of the Sentiments of the Reformed about the Authority of the Church ALthough I need not concern my self with several Objections which M. Condom makes from several determinations of Synods in France about the Authority of the Church yet having shewn the Church to have no such absolute and infallible Authority as he claims for it I ought to set down the Church of England's Sentiments and consider whether any thing in them is liable to those Objections She then supposes that a Church may err even in matters of Faith and 1 Artic. 19. declares several to have thus erred nevertheless she claims 2 Art 20. for the Church Power to decree Rites or Ceremonies and even Authority in Matters of Faith though however it be not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word nor so to expound one place of Scripture that it be repugnant to another nor inasmuch as she is a keeper of Holy Writ ought she to decree any thing against the same or besides the same to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation 3 Art 21. And even General Councils may err and have erred even in things pertaining to God wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority unless it may be declared that they be taken out of Holy Scripture Now herein you see our Church claims a power to decree Rites and Ceremonies and even an authority in Matters of Faith but then she confines it so within the limits of God's Word that she can decree nothing against the same nor impose any thing besides the same to be believed of necessity to salvation And herein till it be proved that she has exceeded those limits which truth obliges her to own prescribed unto her by God's Word I see but two Objections that will lie against her The first How not claiming Infallibility she claims Authority in Matters of Faith To which I answer That God having left means in his Church when Matters of our common Faith shall become disputable to end and decide them she that has proceeded according to those means may well require submission to her Authority whilst she shews herself to all to have proceeded aright in the use of those means which God has left in his Church and there is no more necessity that she should be infallible upon this account to make her Authority received than that she should be able actually and immediately to forgive sins when she requires a subjection to her Ministry in working their cure The second That if she be not infallible in her decisions then they may be subject to the examination of every private man and being so any one may find fault with them and so away is open for the introducing as many Religions as men To which I answer first That it is one thing to clear the Truth another to answer an Objection and if I should not be able to give satisfaction to this Objection yet the Truth that I have cleared will stand firm till the contrary be proved by evident Principles of our Christianity To this I say then secondly That it 's an Objection of that absurdity that it can never rationally be used by any considering man View it but in other instances a Father may command a Son to do wickedness the Son certainly is not bound to obey him though he be to obey his Father any Son may under this pretence refuse obedience to commands just and good but to avoid this inconvenience shall it be made a necessary Truth that a Father cannot command an unlawful act Or go to a greater case All the World knows we have had a Leviathan that has pleaded that the Supream Magistrate ought to be obeyed in all his commands that the Scriptures are not Laws to a People till the Laws of the Land have made them so that the sense of them is to be interpreted by the Civil Magistrate that man may even deny Christ with his mouth so he believe in his heart at the command or compulsion of his Superior and all upon this ground because otherwise if men may pretend any Laws of God to exempt them from obedience to their King any man may use this pretence and so under a pretence of conscience all government may be destroyed unless the commands of the Supream Magistrate be allowed such as are absolutely to
pleases to reform herself need not fear this Crime she may remove those Laws that prejudice the salvation of the Members of her Communion establish those for herself that tend to the exceeding benefit of Christianity as well as the Peace of Christ's Church and thereby provide for the Purity of Faith and Unity of the Church withal And I see no reason why the Church of England being a part of the Church Catholick but no way subject to the Church of Rome may not adventure to desire them to consider the things that belong to their own Salvation as well as the Peace of Christ's Church and how much they are concerned and obliged by all the commands and bonds of Unity that are obligatory upon Christians as to lay aside their claim to an Authority over all the Churches of Christ which is not given them of God and which they chiefly challenge to maintain what they cannot otherwise defend so especially to reform all those Customs Laws and Practices that have been experienced prejudicial to the Faith and establish such as may advance and promote it since by doing this which is otherwise their duty they may procure that which themselves pretend so earnestly to seek and which we acknowledg and pray for as the greatest blessing next to Purity of Faith the Peace and Union of the Church of Christ Reflections upon his Pastoral Letter THere can be but two aims as I apprehend in dispersing this Letter among us one to persuade us that there is no such Persecution of Protestants in France as is pretended the other that the Reasons upon which such multitudes are Proselyted to the Church of Rome or those at least which M. Meaux gives in this Letter are so convincing as to oblige the rest of the World to follow their example What he affirms in relation to the first that not one among them had suffered violence either in Person or Goods is so notorious a falshood that I may leave all those to believe him that can For none certainly can admit the belief of it but such as can force themselves to believe against all the evidence of their senses and reason Waving this therefore I shall content my self to examine the main thing that concerns us Whether there be any thing of solidity in the motives he gives to confirm his Proselytes Though herein I shall not concern myself with what particularly relates to the French Protestants or with any advantages that he may seem to have over them but only with such as may be supposed of equal force against the Reformed Church of England my business being only to oppose the design that seems aimed at in their dispersing this Letter among us The first thing considerable is what he says pag. 4. That himself and his other Colleagues have this glory which they will not suffer to be taken from them that they have never condemned their Predecessors and Preached no other Doctrine than what they received from them Whereas the Bishops of England c. at their going off from the Church of Rome manifestly renounced the Doctrin of their Predecessors Now no man will envy them this glory that they have obstinately retained those Errors and Corruptions which their Predecessors had admitted The glory of the Bishops of England is this that having purged themselves from those corruptions which time and superstition and base intrests had brought into the Church of God they now retain the Doctrine of the Apostles and Primitive Christians from which the Romanists pretending to follow their Predecessors are greatly deviated For though M. Meaux has the face to say That we cannot produce any one instance of a change in Doctrine and that those changes we pretend are rightly called Insensible because we cannot make them out Yet the pitiful defence he has made for his Church in those particulars wherein we charge them with Innovations does sufficiently shew them to be such and the inconsistency of those Doctrines with Christianity does likewise evidence that though they may have been called insensible changes because insensibly introduced yet now they are visibly and palpably destructive of the Faith It 's true indeed as he says The succession of Pastors and Doctrine ought not to be separated and blessed be God our Church of England as it now holds the Christian truth in the Purity of it has also enjoyed as uninterrupted a succession of Pastors as any Church whatever But the Romanists pretences to a succession of Pastors is vain so long as the Christian Doctrine is not preserved entire which an uninterrupted succession of Pastors proves not to be so preserved whilst there is a possibility for those Pastors to admit Innovations agreeable to their own Opinions or Interests The next considerable thing that he urges is the Authority of St. Cyprian from whom he cites several passages pretended to conclude us under a necessity of holding Communion with the Church of Rome and to render all that separate from it guilty of Schism Wherein since he blames others for not taking his Doctrine entire he ought to have been sincere himself and not have caught up fragments of him here and there to adorn his deceitful discourse In the first place cited St. Cyprian does indeed say That to manifest the unity of his Church our Saviour said to Peter single Thou art Peter c. but he says likewise That he gave to all his Apostles equal power but this M. Meaux thought best to leave out His words are The Lord said unto Peter Thou art Peter and upon this rock will I build my Church c. and I give unto thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and Loquitur Dominus ad Petrum Ego tibi dico quia tu es Petrus super istam Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam portae inferorum non vincent eam Et tibi dabo claves regni coelorum c. Et iterum eidem post Resurrectionem dicit Pasce oves â—â—as Super unum aedificat Ecclesiam Et quamvis Apostolis omnibus parem potestaâ—… triona dicat sicut misit me Pater Ego mitto vos c. tamen ut unitatem manifestaret unitatis ejuâ—…m originem ab aâ—o incipientem sua auctoritate disposuit Hoc erat utique ceteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus pari consortio pra diti honoris potestatis sed Exordium ab unitate proficiscitur ut Ecclesia una monstretur Cyp. Lib. de unitate Ecclesie also after his Resurrection feed my sheep He builds his Church upon Vnity And though he gave to all his Apostles equal power saying As my Father sent me so send I you c. yet that he might manifest the Vnity he dispenses his Authority to one as the original of Vnity That therefore which Peter was the same were the rest of the Apostles joyned in the same fellowship of Honour and Authority but the beginning of it proceeds from Vnity that it might evidence the Church
to be one It 's evident therefore that St Cyprian did not hereby intend to acknowledg St. Peter to be the Head of the rest of the Apostles or that they derived their Authority from him since he says That they had an equal Power and Authority given them by Christ His meaning then can be only this that to evidence the necessity of Unity in the Church our Saviour gave that Authority first to Peter single which he afterwards gave to all together to shew them that they ought in their several functions to aim all at the same thing the Vnity of his Church He says indeed that Episcopacy is one but he adds what M. Meaux thought best for his Cujus à singulis in solidum Pars tenetur Ibid. purpose to leave out Whereof every one holds a part with full and ample Power He says likewise Adulterari non potest sponsa Christi incorrupta est Pudica but he does not say it for any such reason as this Gentleman pretends lest we should imagine some cases might happen in which it might be lawful to separate from the Church or reform her Doctrine as thought it were impossible for a Church to fall into error or to have need of being reformed The coherence of the Discourse makes them bear a different meaning viz. That the true Spouse of Christ cannot admit this Vnity to be interrupted will not be corrupted to division This Father further says That he that separates himself from the Church has no part in Christs promises c. We readily affirm the same of such as do it without a cause But no advantage can be hence taken against us 'till M. Meaux has first proved that the Church of Rome is this only true Church of Christ He would have gained a great point indeed if we were obliged to take it for granted that the Roman is this only true Church of Christ and if the true Church was not to be sought and known by an examination of her Doctrines and their consistency with the Faith But he grosly abuses this good Father when he would persuade us that St. Cyprian would not suffer men to enquire after the true Church by examining her Doctrine but to know her first and then believe we cannot have salvation out of her For so far as I can observe he does not give the least intimation of any such thing in his Book De unitate Ecclesiae And if he should I see no reason that any have to subscribe to him when indeed the Church being a Society professing the Faith of Christ and subsisting for the maintenance of it there can be no means of knowing which is that Church but by knowing first the Faith of Christ and also that this Church professes and holds the same But I need not dispute about that for which he falsly pretends this Authority It 's true in this Book De Vnitate St. Cyprian only urges the Unity of the Church and the Crime of those that break it but there would be no reason to look upon his Arguments so strong if the Church he defends had done any thing to the prejudice of the Faith and therefore in other places he defends the cause of the Church in this case by the righteousness of it by proofs from Scripture of the innocency and lawfulness of that which was imputed to her as a Crime And therefore I most of all admire that he could have the face to abuse those other words of St. Cyprian in his Epistle to Antonian to so false an intent as if he had used them to forbid an enquiry after mens Doctrine and to oblige us to submit to that which the Church holds without enquiry Whereas not only the case St. Cyprian writes upon is utterly different but even the method he takes in this very Epistle to satisfie Antonian and the connection of his Discourse shew his sense to be as different from what M. Meaux would impose on us as possibly can be For in the beginning of the Epistle he tells him That his careful and Epist 51. ad Anton. solicitous enquiry after the truth was not to be blamed tho' he was in part blamable in that he wavered in the Resolution he had first taken and certified him and Cornelius of that he would not communicate with Novatian After which he proceeds to give him an account of the cause of the Church upon what account they admitted lapsed persons to the Communion which was charged as a crime on the Church by Novatian relating the matter of fact the reasons of it and its consistency with Christian Discipline proving it out of the holy Scriptures Then he further gives account of the Election of Cornelius to the Bishoprick of Rome of his Manners and Life and purges him from the scandal his Adversaries had thrown upon him And then indeed he says As for that which concerns the person of Novatian since you desire to be informed what Heresie he has introduced you must know before all things that we need not curiously enquire what he has taught since he hath taught out of the Church who or what soever he be he can be no Christian being out of the Church of Christ. But in the following words he gives the reason of it because he had broke the Vnity of the Church by ambitiously aspiring to the Bishoprick and getting himself made Bishop by some deserters and to make a greater party setting up several other salse Bishops in those Provinces and Cities wherein were already seated Bishops of an approved Faith and tried Constancy Whereupon he indeed says It was no matter whether Novatian introduced any Heresie or not solong as he was the Author of so great a Schism Whereby it appears that he is far from supposing what M. Meaux pretends he only telling Antonian That it was no matter what Doctrine Novatian taught because he had shewn himself unchristian by breaking the Vnity of the Church and making a Schism without cause So that the case supposed is that of man breaking the Unity of the Church be his Doctrine what it will tho' the same which the Church teaches not a case wherein the Church needs a Reformation and the adverse party has Truth and Scripture of his side as it must have been to be applicable to the Church of Rome and the Reformed It 's true St. Cyprian likewise says The promise of our blessed Saviour to be in the midst where two or three are gathered together supposes them assembled in Christ which he thinks they cannot be whilst they are seperate from the Church of Christ But this is begging the Question to use this against us till it appears that the Church of Rome is the only True Church of Christ But M. Meanx says The Church of which this holy Martyr speaks is that which acknowledges at Rome the head of her Communion and in the Place of Peter the eminent degree of the Sacerdotal Chair which there acknowledges the Chair
things represent which we look not upon as any derogation from God and therefore should not account their use of Images such To which I answer First That the Cases are very different the one though a solemn Action yet not being any part of God's ordinary worship as the other is That secondly Though an Oath be indeed a calling God to witness the Truth yet we never find that he prescribed any Rules concerning or forbid the use of any Ceremonies in it but has left it to the liberty of men to use it with what Ceremonies they please That therefore this cannot be drawn into consequence where the case is not parallel That again it does not appear that this custom of swearing upon the Gospel did ever occasion that dishonour of God that palpable Idolatry in some and danger of it in others which the use of Images in Religious worship has that if it did appear I should think it unlawful to be used any longer But to the pitiful evasion That an Image is but another manner of writing that therefore this Scripture of Images should be as venerable as that which is made upon Paper Paper and Letters being the work of mens hands as well as Sculpture and Painting I shall only say this That if such honour and worship were given to the Paper and Prints of the Bible as they give to Images I see no reason why it should not be thought highly offensive to God Besides he that shall look upon this as conclusive that we may as well use these in Gods Service as the writings of Scripture might conclude by the same reason that it was as lawful for the Jews to make Images and set them up in their Temples for God's worship as to use the Books of the Law and Prophets therein But why says he should you be more scrupulous of making your Prayers to Christ before an Image than before a Pillar or a Wall He might have forborn this Question unless he had professed the case to be the same that the Church of Rome matters not if we give no more respect to these than to the Wall or Pillar we kneel by but this I believe he dares not affirm in Behalf of his Church He further tell us It is Superstition to fear that our Devotions should terminate in the Image when we direct them to Christ. Now I would willingly know what it would terminate in if Christ should refuse to accept it and whether he can secure us that an intention to do this or that in honour to Christ shall be accepted by him though it be not what he directs us to for his honour but an invention of our own But what I most of all admire is that he should have the Face to call it Superstition for us to fear lest in honouring Images we should have our hearts drawn from honouring Christ and fix them upon these he might as well have called it Folly in God Almighty to suffer Image-worship to be the provocation of his Jealousie for if there be no reason for us to fear its drawing off our hearts from God there can be none for God to be jealous of us upon that score There will be some reason for his limiting the Commandment that forbids to make or bow down to Images only to the doing this in the Spirit of Pagans believing them filled with a divine virtue or that the Divinity is incorporated with them when he shall shew what he says he easily can That the Philosophers that bore above the common Error of Mankind and declared that they did not worship the Image but used them only to put them in mind of God did indeed notwithstanding their Declaration to the contrary put their trust in the Images themselves But till then for the same Reasons that the Scriptures call the Pagans worshippers of Stocks and Stones though they declared otherwise of themselves we can account those of the Church of Rome but little better whilst some of less understanding have been known to place a Trust and Confidence in the Images they use and the more intelligent tho' professing otherwise have relapsed into it in some kind and confirmed the Impiety of the publick Worship in adhering to and commanding of it For it is but a pitiful shift to say that the abuse of this Practice among particular persons if it be tolerated yet it is not approved by the Church since the Church continues to command that which has been the occasion of it Wherefore though I dare not with M. Meaux pass so severe a censure or pronounce any man accursed of God yet I am sure he is more likely to be accursed of him who defends a Practice that has been experienced to be the occasion of Idolatry and labours notwithstanding to seduce men to it than those who refuse submission to a Practice so manifestly destructive of God's true Worship and make it their business to prevent others from the danger of such Snares As to their Ceremonies which he seeks to defend by the use of some such in the Church of England I have before observed that it is the multitude of them that makes them so dangerous because they are hereby apt to take up the greatest part of Religion and draw men off from the spiritual Worship of God and those that spend too great a Zeal upon them will be apt to look upon them as all the Services they need pay to God and thereupon neglect the principal Duties of Religion Whereas he will have it a Calumny on their Church that they conceal the Mysteries of Religion from the People whilst they perform the Service of God in the Latine Tongue that very Decree which he thinks to get off his Church by does indeed make it the more culpable For if it be necessary lest the little ones want Bread that the Pastors explain to them some part of the Mysteries This very Reason proves that the whole Service of God ought to be performed in the vulgar Tongue that they may at all times and in all particulars understand and joyn in the Services of God to his Honour and their own growth and encrease in Grace and Virtue But at length he comes to the Doctrine of the Sacrament and herein compares us to Socinus and the Disciples of Paulus Samosatenus because we follow our humane Sense and Reason and are resolved to believe that Bread and Wine remain because they appear to our Senses But before he had fixt this Charge upon us he should have shewn us as clear a Revelation for the proof of their feigned Transubstantiation as there is for Christ's being God as well as Man and as clear a Command for us to worship the Sacrament as there is for us to worship Christ God and Man The difference betwixt the Lutheran Worship of Christ in the Sarament and that of the Adoration of the Sacrament itself which is the Roman Doctrine has been already stated p. 87. For that the