from that which animated the Church in the former and best ages The Reverend Prelates say in their Letter That they hold the same Faith with their Predecessors If this were true in all points it were indeed very hard to write an Apology for those that have separated from them I shall not engage in a long discussion of the sentiments of the Ancient Bishops of the Gallican Church yet that the Reader may not be too much wrought on by the confidence and plausibleness of this expressionâ— I shall only give a taste of the Faith of the first of all the Gallican Clergy whose works are yet preserved and that is Irenaeus I shall instance it in two particulars the one is the hinge upon which all our other Controversies turn that is whether the Scriptures or Oral Tradition is to be appealed to for determining matters of Controversie The other is the most material point in difference among us concerning the presence of Christ in the Sacrament whether in it we really receive the substance of Bread and Wine or only the Accidents As to the first he directly appeals to the Scriptures which he says were the Pillar â—nd ground of Truth and adds that the Valentinians did appeal to Oral Tradition from which he â—urns to that Tradition that was come from the Apostles on which he insists very copiously and puts all the authority of Tradition in this That it was derived from the Apostles And therefore says that if the Apostles had delivered nothing in Writing we must then have followed the Order of Tradition And after he has shewed that the Tradition to which the Valentinians pretended was really against them and that the Orthodox had it derived down from the Apostles on their side he returns to that upon which he had set up the strength of his cause to prove the truth from the Scriptures Now the Scriptures being the foundation on which the Protestants build and Oral Tradition together with the authority of the Church being that on which the Church of Rome builds it will be easie to every one that considers those Chapters referred to in Irenaeus to gather upon which of those he grounded his belief As for the other particular he plainly calls the Sacrament that Bread over which thanks have been given and says our flesh is nourished by the body and blood of Christ and concludes that our flesh by the Sacrament has an assurance of its Resurrection and Incorruptibility More particularly he says Our blood is encreased by the blood of Christ and that he encreases our body by that bread which he has confirmed to be his body and that by these the substance of our body is encreased and from thence he argues that our bodies receive an encrease not by any internal or invisible way but in the natural way of nourishment and so concludes that our bodies being nourished by the Eucharist shall therefore rise again Every one that considers the force of these words must conclude that he believed our bodies received in the Sacrament a real substance which nourished them and not bare Accidents If then upon this essay it appears that the first Writer of all Gallican Bishops does agree with the Protestants both in that which is the foundation upon which they build their whole cause and also in that particular opinion which is believed to be of the greatest importance then the Reader has no reason to believe that the present Bishops of France hold the same Faith which their Predecessors taught who first preached the Christian Religion in that Kingdom But now I come to answer the main Question which is indeed the whole substance of the Letter Why have they made the Schism If such a Letter with such a demand in it had come from the Abassin or Armenian Churches or perhaps from the Greek Churches whose distance from us is such and the oppressions they groan under are so extreme that they have little heart and few opportunities to enquire into the affairs or opinions of others it could not have been thought strange but to hear it from these among whom those live who have so often both in Writings and Discourses answered this question so copiously is really somewhat unaccountable Yet this is not all but it is added That the Protestants upon trial finding they could not shake their Doctrine have charged them only for their ill lives as if that were the ground of the Separation This it must be confessed had better become the affected Eloquence of a Maimbourg than the sincerity of so many eminent men of whom the mildest censure that can be past in this particular is That some aspiring Priest being appointed to pen this Letter that was better accustomed to the figures of a clamorous Rhetorick than the strict measures of Truth gave it this turn hoping to recommend himself by it and that the Bishops signed it in haste without considering it well Who of all the Protestants have made that Experiment and found that the Faith of the Church of Rome was not to be attackt and that she can only be accused for the ill lives of some in her Communion If this were all we had to object we do not deny but that all that the Fathers retorted on the Schismaticks particularly the Donatists did very justly fall on us and that we could neither answer it to God to the World nor our own Consciences if we had separated from their Church on no other account And this is indeed so weak a Plea that the Penner of the Letter shewed his skill at least if he was wanting in his sincerity to set up a pretence which he knew he could easily overthrow though the reasons he brings to overthrow it are not all pertinent nor convincing But this in conclusion is so managed as to draw an occasion from it to complement the present Pope some way to make an amends for their taking part with their King against him All that is to be said on this Head is That Protestants are not so unjust as to deny the Pope that now reigns his due praises of whose vertue and strictness of life they hear such accounts that they heartily wish all the Assembly of the Clergy from the President down to the Secretaries would imitate that excellent Pattern that he sets them A Zeal for converting Hereticks does not very well become those whose course of life has not been so exemplary that this can be imputed to an inward sense of Religion and to the motives of Divine Charity But in this point of the corruption of mens lives we may add two things more material The one is if a Church teaches ill Morals or at least connives at such Casuistical Doctrines as must certainly root out all the principles of moral vertue and common goodness out of the minds of men then their ill Morals may be improved to be a good argument for a Separation from them How much the Casuistical Doctrine of those
Gâ—neral In which I intend to shew that they have departed from the Tradition of the Church much more evidently than they can pretend that we have done And this is concerning the Popes power oâ— Deposing Kings which they who live under so mighty a Monarch have very prudently renounced But whether they have not more plainly contradicted the Tradition of the Church than the Reformers did shall appear by the sequel of this Discourse In order to which I shall lay down two grounds that seem undeniable in their own principles The one is That the Tradition of any Age or Ages of the Church when it is universal and undisputed is of the same authority with the Tradition of any other Age whatsoever For the promises made to the Church last continually and have the same force at all times And therefore a Tradition for these last six hundred years is of as strong an authority as was that of the first six Ages The second is That a Tradition concerning the measures of mens Obedience and actions is of the same authority with a Tradition concerning the measures of their Belief The one sort are practical and the other are speculative points and as more are concerned in a practical truth than in a speculative point so it has greater effects and more influence on the World therefore it is as necessary that these be certainly handed down as the other And by consequence a Tradition concerning any Rule of Life is as much to be received as that concerning any point of Belief for the Creed and the Ten Commandments being the two Ingredients of the positive part of our Baptismal Vow it is as necessary that we be certainly directed in the one as in the other and if there were any preference to be admitted here certainly it must be for that which is more practical and of greater extent Upon these two grounds I subsume that all the Characters of Oral Tradition by which they can pretend to find it out in any one particular agree to this Doctrine of the Popes power of deposing Princes that are either Hereticks or favourers of them The way sof searching for Tradition are these four First what the Writers and Doctors of the Church have delivered down from one age to another The second is what the Popes have taught and pronounced ex Cathedrâ which to a great part of that Communion is Decisive their authority being held Infallible and to the rest it is at least a great Indication of the Tradition of such an Age. The third is what such Councils as are esteemed and received as Oecumenical Councils have decreed as General Rules The fourth is the late famous Method of Prescription when from the received Doctrine of any one Age we run a back-scent up to the Apostles upon this supposition that the Doctrine of the Church chiefly in a visible and sensible thing could not be changed These are all the ways imaginable to find out the Tradition of past Ages and they do all agree to this Doctrine All the Writers for five or six Ages both Commentators on Scripture the School-men the Casuists and Canonists agreed in it so that Cardinal Perron had reason to challenge those of the contrary persuasion to shew any one Writer before Calvin's time that had been of another mind We do not cite this as a proof because Cardinal Perron said so but because the thing in it self cannot be disproved and in the Contests that fell in between the Popes and those Princes against whom they thundred no Civilian nor Canonist ever denied the Popes power of deposing in the case of Heresie It is true when the Popes pretended to a Temporal Dominion and that all Princes were their Vassals some were found to write against that other Princes contended about the particulars laid to their charge and denied that they were either Hereticks or favourers of Hereticks But none ever disputed this position in general that in a manifest case of Heresie the Pope might not depose Princes and it is too well known what both the Sorbonne determined in the case of Henry the Third and likewise how the body of the Clergy adhered to Cardinal Perron in the opposition he made to the condemnation of that opinion The next mark of Tradition is the Popes pronouncing an opinion ex Cathedrâ that is in a solemn Judiciary way founding it on Scripture and Tradition If Popes had only brutally made War upon some Princes and violently thrust them out of their Dominions this indeed were no mark by which we could judge of a Tradition But when we find Gregory the Seventh and many Popes since his time found this authority on passages of Scripture as that of the Keys being given to S. Peter Jeremiah the Prophet's being set over Kingdomes to root out to pluck up and destroy and that all power in Heaven and Earth was given to Chrâ—st and his bidding his Disciples to buy a Sword we must look on this as the declaring the Tradition of the Church So that it must eitâ—er be confessed that they are not faithful conveyers of it or that this is truly the Tradition of the Church And this has been done so often these last six hundred years that it were a needless imposing on the Readers patience to go about the proving it The Third Indication of Tradition is the Declaration made by Synods but chiefly by General Councils I need not here mention the many Roman Synods that have concurred with the Popes in the Depositions which they thundered out against Kings or Emperours since we have greater authorities confirming it The Third Council of Lateran declared that all Princes that favoured Heresie fell from their Dominions and they granted a Plenary Indulgence to all that fought against them The Fourth Council of the Lateran vested the Pope with the power of giving away their Dominions if they continued for a year obstinate in that their merciful disposition of not extirpating Hereticks The first Council of Lions concurred with the Pope in the deposition of the Emperour Frederick the Second which is grounded in the preamble on the power of binding and loosing given to S. Peter After these came the Council of Constance and they reckoning themselves superiour to the Pope lookt on this as a power inherent in the Church and so assumed it to themselves and therefore put this Sanction in many of their Decrees particularly in that for maintaining the Rights of the Church and in the Passports they granted which had been often added in the Bulls that confirmed the foundations of Monasteries that if any whether he were Emperour King or of what Dignity soever he might be opposed their Order he should thereby forfeit his Dignity The Council of Sienna confirmed all Decrees against Hereticks and the favourers of them that had been made in any former Councils and by consequence those of the Third and Fourth Councils in the Lateran The Council of Basil put
to which the Council of Chalcedon assented is an entire contexture of authorities drawn from Scripture without so much as any one citation of any Father It is true there is added to the end of that Letter a Collection of some sayings of six Fathers Hilary Ambrose Nazianzene Chrysostome Austin and Cyril who had all except one lived within sixty years or a little more of that time So it is certain they founded their Faith only on the Scripture and not on Tradition otherwise they had taken more pains to have made it out and had not been so easily satisfied with what a few late Writers had said And thus it may be presumed that all the end for which they cited them was only to shew that they did not broach new and unheard of opinions And S. Austin could noâ— think that S. Cyprian's opinion alâ—ne was a sufficient proof of the Doctrine of the first three Centuries for Original Sin and yet he citeâ— no other that lived in those Ages Noâ— could S. Ambrose and Nazianzene that had lived in his own time be cited tâ— prove the Tradition of former Ages And whereas it is insinuated that he cited others one would expect to finâ— a Catalogue of many other Fatherâ— wrapt up in this plural whereas alâ— resolves into Hilary alone And we have a more evident Indication of S. Austin's sense as to the laâ—t resort in matters of Controversie than this they offer in that celebrated saying of his when he was writing against Maximinus the Arian Bishop But neither may I make use of the Nicene Council nor you that of Arimini as that which ought to pre-judge us in this matter for neither am I held by the authority of the one nor you by the authority of the other Let the one side and cause and their reasons be brought against the other from the authorities of the Scriptures that do not belong to either side but are Witnesses common to both The Fourth Method IS to tell them that their Ministers can never do this nor shew in the Scriptures any of their Articles that are controverted and this is very true For example they can never bring any formal Text to prove that Original Sin remains as to the guilt of it after Baptism that we receive the Body of Iesus Christ only by Faith that after the Consecration the Sacrament is still Bread that there is no Purgatory and that we do not merit any thing by our good works And to this it may be added that among all those passages that are on the Margent of their Confession there is not one that says that which they cite it for either in express or equivalent terms or in the same sense This is the Method of Mr. Veron which he took from S. Austin who says to the Manichaeans Shew me that that is in the Scripture and in another place Let him shew me that that is to be found in the Holy Scripture We must then boldly tell them That they cannot prove any of their Articles that are in dispute nor dispute against any of ours by any passages of Scripture neither in express terms nor by sufficient consequences so as to make their Doctrine be received as the Faith and ours pass for Errour Remarks THe first part of this Article proceeds upon Veron's Method of putting us to prove our Doctrines by express words of Scripture but some more cautious person has added in the conclusion a Salvo for good consequences drawn from them upon which we yield that this is a very good Method and are ready to joyn issue upon it If they intend still to build upon that notion of express words we desire it may be considered that the true meaning of all passages is not to be taken only from the bare words but from the contexture of the Discourse and the design upon which they are made use of and that Rule of Logick being infallibly true That what things soever agree in any third thing they do also agree among themselves it is certain that a true consequence is as good a proof as a formal passage Thus did our Saviour prove the Resurrection from the Scriptures by a very remote consequence since God was said to be the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob and was the God of the Living and not of the Dead So did the Apostles prove Christ's being the promised Messias and the obligation to observe the Mosaical Ceremonies to have ceased upon his coming by many consequences but not by the express words of Scripture All the arguings of the Fathers against the Heretiâ—ks run on Consequences drawn from Scripture as may appear in all their Synodical Letters more particularly in that formerly cited of Pope Leo to Flavian to which the Fourth General Council assented This Plea does very ill become men that pretend such reverence to Antiquity since it was that upon which all the Ancient Hereticks set up their strength as the most plausible pretence by which they thought they could cover themselves So the Arians at Arimini give this reason for rejecting the word Consubstantial because it was not in the Scriptures The Macedonians laid hold of the same pretence Nestorâ—us gives this as his chief reason for denying the Virgin to be the Mother of God And Eutyches covered himself also with this question In what Scripture were the two Natures of Christ to be found And his followers did afterwards insist so much on this Plea that Theodoret wrote two large Discourses on purpose to shew the weakness of this pretence So that after all the noise they make about the Primitive Church they follow the same tract in which the Hereticks that were condemned by the first four General Councils went and they put us to do the same thing that the Hereticks then put on the Orthodox But we make the same answer to it which the Fathers did That the sense of the Scriptures is to be considered more than the words So that what is according to the true sense is as much proved by Scripture as if it were contained in it in so many express words And yet this Plea had a much greater strength in it as it was managed by those Hereticks for those contests being concerning mysteries which exceed our apprehensions it was not an unreasonable thing at first view to say that in such things which we cannot perfectly comprehend it is not safe to proceed by deductions or consequences and therefore it seemed safer to hold strictly to Scripture Phrases but in other points into which our understandings can carry us further it is much more absurd to exact of us express words of Scripture 2. Most of the points about which we dispute with the Church of Româ— are additions made by them to the simplicity of the Christian Religion So much as we own of the Christian Religion they own likewise In the other particulars our Doctrine with relation to them is made up of Negatives
to subscribe to every expression of his and do freely acknowledge that the making a rent in a Church that is pure both in Doctrine and Worship upon any particular or personal account is a sin that cannot be sufficiently detested and condemned I shall not enter into a particular discussion of every passage of S. Austin's but if in some he seems to go too far for the authority of the Church I shall only offer two general considerations concerning these The first is That it is a Maxime with Lawyers That general words in Laws are to be restricted to the preambles and chief design of these Laws And if this is true of Laws that are commonly penned with more coldness and upon greater deliberation it is much more applicable to warm discourses where the heat of Contradiction and the Zeal of a Writer makes that things are ofâ—en aggravated and carried too far but still all those expressions are to â—e molliâ—ied and restricted to that which was the subject matter of the debate therefore those expressions of S. Austin's supposing that the Church was still sound in her Doctrine and Worship are to be governed by that Hypothesis The second is That many of those who urge these passages on us do not deny but S. Aâ—stin in the disputes about Grace and Original Sin was carried too far though those were the subjects on which he employed his latest years with the greatest application If then it is confessed that he wrote too warmly against the Pelagians and in that heat advanced some propositions that need a fair construction is it unreasonable for us to say that he might have done the same writing against the Donatists 5. As for Tertullian he that might have conversed with many that could have known S. Polâ—carp who was both instructed and ordained by the Apostles so that he might have been the third person in the conveyance of the sense of what the Apostles had left in Writing could reasonably argue as he did against the Hereticks but certainly no man that considers the distance we live at from those ages and the many accidents that have so often changed the face of the Church can think it reasonable to argue upon that ground now And yet it were easie to bring many citatious out of that very Book of Tertullians to shew that he grounded his Faith only on the Doctrine of Christ delivered in the Scriptures how much soever he might argue from other Topicks against the Hereticks of his time who indeed were bringing in a New Gospel into the World We willingly receive the Characters that Vincentius Lyrinensis gives of Tradition that what the Church has at all times and in all places received is to be believed and are ready to joyn issue upon this and when they can prove that the Church at all times and in all places has taught the Worshipping of Images the Invocation of Saints and Angels the adoring the Sacrament and the dividing of it with many more particulars we will yield the whole cause and confess that we have made a Schism in the Church The Seventh Method IS to let them see that those who at first pretended to Reform the Church in which they were amongst us neither had nor could have any Mission either Ordinary or Extraordinary to bring us any other Doctrine but that which was then taught and that by Consequence none ought to believe them since they had no authority to Preach as they did How can they Preach if they are not sent This is the ordinary Method that puts the Ministers to the necessity of proving their Mission which is a thing that they can never do This cuts off all disputes and is one of the Methods of Cardinal Richelieu Remarks 1. IF the first Reformers had delivered a new Doctrine which was never formerly taught it had been necessary for them to have had a very extraordinary Mission and to have confirmed it by very extraordinary signs but when they grounded all â—hey said upon that very Book which was and is still received as the unalterable Law of all Christians then if every man is bound to take care of his own Salvation and is in Charity obliged to let others see that same light that guides himself then I say an extraordinary Mission was not necessary when the thing in dispute was not a new Doctrine but the true meaning of those Writings which were on all hands acknowledged to be Divine 2. If notwithstanding the necessity of not raising War in Civil Government without an express Commission from the Prince or Supream Authority yet in a General Rebellion when the ways of intercourse with the Prince are cut off if it be not only a lawful but a commendable action for any subject even without a Commission to raise what force he can for the service of the Prince Then if it be true that the Western Churches had generally revolted from the rules of the Gospel that was a sufficient warrant for any person to endeavour a Reformation 3. The nature of the Christian Religion is to be well considered in which all Christians are a Royal Priesthood And though it be highly necessary for all the ends of Religion to maintain peace and Order and to convey down an authority for sacred administrations in such a way as tends most to advance those ends yet this cannot be lookt on as indispensable and absolutely necessary Among the Iews as there were many services in which none but Priests and Levites could officiate so the Succession went in the natural course of Descent But in the Christian Church there are no positive Laws so appropriated and therefore in cases of extream and unavoidable necessity every Christian may make use of that dormant priviledge of being a Royal Priest and so this difficulty must be resolved by examining the merits of the whole cause for if the necessity was not extream and unavoidable we acknowledge it had been a Sacrilegious presumption for any that was not called in the ordinary manner to meddle in Holy things 4. It is but a small part of the Reformed Churches that is concerned in this Here in England our Reformers had the ordinary Mission and in most places beyond Sea the first Preachers had been ordained Priests And it will not be easie to prove that Lay-men yea and Women may baptize in cases of necessity when that is often but an imaginary necessity and that yet Priests in a case of real necessity may not ordain other Priests For all the Rules of Order are superseded by extraordinary cases and in Moral as well as in Natural things every Individual has a Right to propagate its kind and though it may be reasonable to regulate that yet it can never be wholly cut off The Eighth Method IS to tell them You do not know that such or such a Book of the Scripture is the Word of God but by the Church in which you were before your Schism So that you cannot know
Inâ—allibility was not so obstinately lodged with them that a company of lewd and wickeâ— Prieâ—ts could not mis-leaâ— the people aâ— they did in the Doctrine concerning the Messias From all which it may be well inferred that how large soever the meaning of those disputed passages that relate to the authority of the Church may be supposed to be yet a tacite condition must be still implyed in them That while Church-men continue pure and sincere and seek the truth in the methods prescribed by the Gospel they shall not err in any point of Salvation And it is not reasonable to expect that our Saviour should have left a more effectual provision against Errour than he has done against Sin since the latter is certainly more pernicious and destructive of those ends for which he came into the World So that as he has only left sufficient means for those who use them well to keep themselves from Sin in such a manner that they shall not perish in it so has he likewise provided a sufficient security against Errour when such means of Instruction are offered that every one who applies himseâ—f to the due use of them shall not err damnably 4. Another foundation on which they build is Oral Tradition which â—hey reckon was handed down in every Age since the Apostles days This some explain so as to make it only the conveyance of the Exposition of the Scriptures though others stretch it further as if it might carry down Truths not mentioned in Scripture And for finding this out two Methods are given The one is Presumptive when from the Doctrine of the Church in any one age it is presumed from thence that those of that age had it from the former and the former from those who went before them till we run it up to the Apostles days The other Method is of particular proof when the â—onveyance in every age appears from the chief Writers in it I shall not here run out to shew upon either of these hypotheses the unfitness of this way of conveying Doctrines nor the easie door it opens to fraud and imposture but shall only shew that they cannot prove they have a competent Evidence of Oral Tradition among them And first it is certain that we have not handed down to us a general exposition of the Scriptures and that almost all the Ancient Expositors run after Allegories according to the way of the Greek Philosophers For some whole ages we have not above two or three Writers and those lived very remote and what they say chiefly in the passages that are made use of in the later Disputes fall in oft on the by and seem rather to have dropt from them than to have been intended by them so that this cannot be thought decisive And when it is likewise confessed that in their Disputes with the Hereticks of their days they have not argued so critically from those places of Scripture which they considered more narrowly It will not be reasonable to conclude too positively upon those things that rather fell in their way occasionally than were the designed subjects of their enquiries So that it is not possible to prove an Oral Tradition by the Instances of particular Writers in all the ages and corneâ—s of the Church For almost an age and a half we have not one copious Latine Writer but Tertullian and Cyprian that both lived in Carthage And it is not very clear of what persuasion the former was when he wrote the greatest part of his Treatises That he was a Heretick when he wrote some of them is past dispute Now can one think â—hat if God had intended that the Faith should have passed down by such a conveyance there would have been such uncertain prints left us by which we might trace it out As for the other Method of Presumption or Prescription it is certainly a false one for if in any one particular it can be made appear that the Doctrine of the Latin Church has been in these latter ages contradictory to that of the primitive times then this of Prescription is never to be any more alledged and of this I shall give two Instances that seem demonstrative The first is about the worshipping departed Saints or Martyrs which has been the practice of the Lâ—tin Church for several ages And yet in the second Century we have the greatest evidence possible that it was not the Doctrine of that age and that not in any occasional word let fall by some single Writer but in a Letter writ by the Church of Smyrna concerning the Martyrdom of their late Biship S. Polycarp In which there appears that warm affection for his person and honour for his memory that we cannot think they would have been wanting in any sort of respect that waâ— due to the ashes of so great a Saint And what they say to this purpose is deliberately brought out for it being suggested by the Iew that had set on the Heathens against that Martyr that it was necessary to destroy his Body lest the Christians should worship him They reject that imputation in these words They being Ignorant say they that we can never forsake Christ who died for the salvation of the World nor worship any other for we adore him as the Son of God But for the Martyrs we do worthily love them as the Disciples and Followers of our Lord for their unconqâ—ered love to their King and Master and therefore dâ—sâ—re to be their Partneâ—s and Disciples To this I shall add another Instance that is no lesâ— evident which is concerning the presence of Christ in the Sacrament The Tradition of the Church can be best gathered from the Liturgies which are the publickest the most united and most solemn way in which she expresses her self In S. Ambrosâ—'s time or whosoever else was the Author of the Book of the Sacraments that goes under his name we find that the Prayer of Consecrations as it is cited by him differs in a very essential point from that which is now in the Canon of the Mass In the former they called the Sacrifice that they offered up in it the figure of the Body and Blood of Christ but since that time they have changed that phrase and instead of it they pray that It may be to us the Body and Blood of Christ. We cannot tell in what age this change was made but we may certainly conclude that the Latin Church in S. Ambrose's time had a very different opinion concerning the presence of Christ from that which is now received among them and that then she only believed a Figurative Presence And thus it is certain that the Presumptive Method for finding out Oral Tradition is a false one and that the particular proof of Tradition by enquiring into the Doctrine of every age is impossible to be made 5. I shall enlarge a little further upon one particular Instance which is concerning one of those propositions lately condemned by the Assembly
guilty of which is to worship that as a God which we do believe is only a piece of Bread 2. In this very Article it is plain that our Opinion is the surer side For as to the Spiritual efficacy of the Sacrament and due preparation for it which is all that we hold concerning it by their own Confession there can be no sin in that whereas if their opinion is false they are guilty of a most horrid Idolatry So there is no danger in any thing we do whereas there may be great danger on their side all the danger that is possible to be on our side is that we do not adore Christ if he is present which may be thought to be want of Reverence But that cannot be reasonably urged since we at the same time adore him believing him to be in Heaven and if this objection against us had any force then the Primitive Church for twelve hundred years must have been in a state of damnation for none of them adored the Consecrated Elements nor has the Greek Church ever done it 3. It is clear this general Maxime of taking the surer sidâ— is against them There is no sin in not worshipping Images whereas there may be a sin in doing it They confess it is not necessary to invocate the Saints and we believe it is sinful They do not hold that it is necessary to say Masses for redeeming Souls out of Purgatory and we believe that it is an impious profanation of the Sacrament They do not hold it is necessary to take away the Cup in the Sacrament we think it Sacrilegious They do not think those Consecrations by which Divine Vertues are derived into such a variety of things to be necessary we look on them as gross Superstitions They do not think the Worship in an unknown tongue necessary whereas we think it a disgrace to Religion So in all these and many more particulars it is clear that we are of the surer side 4. We own that Maxime That nothing is necessary to Salvation but what is plainly set down in the Scriptures but this is not to be carried so far as that it should be impossible by sophistry or the equivocal use of words to fasten some other sense to such passages in Scripture for then nothing can be said to be plain in any Book whatsoever But we understand this of the genuine meaning of the Scriptures such as a plain well-disposed man will find out if his mind is not strongly prepossessed or biassed with false and wrong measures 5. The Confidence with which any party proposes their opinions cannot be a true Standart to judge of them otherwise the Receipts of Mountebanks will be always preferred to those prescribed by good Physicians and indeed the modesty of one side and the confidence of the other ought rather to give us a biass for the one against the other especially if it is visible that Interest is very prevalent in the confident party The Third Method IS to confer amicably with them and to shew them our Articles in the Scriptures and Tradition as the Fathers of tbe first Ages understood both the one and the other without engaging in reasonings or the drawing out of Consequences by Syllogisms as Cardinal Bellarmin and Perron and Gretser and the other Writers of Controversie have done which ordinarily beget endless disputes It was in this manner that the General Councils did proceed and thus did S. Austin prove Original sin against Julian To this end says he O Julian that I may overthrow thy Engines and Artifices by the opinions of those Bishops who have interpreted the Scripture with so much glory After which he cites the passages of the Scripture as they were understood by S. Ambrose S. Cyprian S. Gregory Nazianzene and others Remarks 1. WE do not deny but amicable Conferences in which matters are proposed without the wranglings of Dispute are the likeliest ways to convince people And whenever they shew us their doctrines directly in the Scripture and Tradition we will be very unreasonable if we do not yield upon that Evidence When they give us good authorities from Scripture and Tradition for the Worship of Images and Saints for adoring the Host for dividing the Sacrament for redeeming Souls out of Purgatory for denying the people the free use of the Scriptures for obliging them to worship God in a Tongue not understood by them we will confess our selves very obstinate men if we resist such Conviction 2. The shewing barely some passages without considering the whole scope of them with the sense in which such words were used in such ages and by such Fathers will certainly misguide us therefore all these must be also taken in for making this Enquiry exactly Allowances also must be made for the heats of Eloquence in Sermons or warm Discourses since one passage strictly and philosophically expressed is stronger than a hundred in which the heat of Zeal and the Figures of Rhetorick transport the Writer And thus if the Fathers disputing against those who said that the Humane Nature of Christ was swallowed up by his Divine Nature urge this to prove that the Humane Nature did still subsist that in the Sacrament after the Consecration in which there is an Union between the Elements and the Body and Blood of Christ they do still retain their proper nature and substance such expressions used on such a design leâ—d us more infallibly to know what they thought in this matter than any thing that they said with design only to beget Reverence and Devotion can do 3. The Ancient Councils were not so sollicitous as this Paper would insinuate to prove a Tradition from the Fathers of the first Ages They took great care to prove the truth which they decreed by many arguments from Scripture but for the Tradition they thought it enough to shew that they did innovate in nothing and that some Fathers before them had taught what they decreed We have not the acts of the two first General Councils but we may very probably gather upon what grounds those at Nice proceeded by what S. Athanasius wrote as an Apology for their Symbol in particular for the word Consubstantial which he proves by many consequences drawn from Scripture but for the Tradition of it he only cites four Fathers and none of those were very ancient They are Theognistus Denis of Alexandria Denis of Rome and Origen and yet both that Father Hilary and S. Basil acknowledge that Denis of Alexandria wavered much in that matter and it is well known what advantages were taken from many of Origen's expressions So here we have only two undisputed Fathers that conveyed this Tradition We have the Acts of the third General Council yet preserved and in them we find a Tradition indeed alledged but except S. Cyprian and S. Peter of Alexandria they cite none but those that had lived after the Council of Nice and Pope Leo's Letter to Flavian
what is the true sense of those passages that are in dispute but by that same Church which conveys it to you This is S. Austin's method in many places but above all in his Book De utilitate Credendi and in his Book Contra Epistolam fundamenti In which he says I would not believe the Gospel if the authority of the Church did not oblige me to it This Method is handsomely managed in the Treatise of the true Word of God joyned to the Peaceable Method Remarks 1. GReat difference is to be made between the conveyance of Books and an Oral Tradition of Doctrine It is very easie to carry down the one in a way that is Morally Infallible An exact copying being all that is necessary for that Whereas it is morally impossible to prevent frauds and impostures in the other in a course of some Ages especially in times of Ignorance and Corruption in which the Credulity of unthinking people has made an easie game to the Craft and Industry of covetous and aspiring Priests Few were then at the pains to examine any thing but took all upon Trust and became so ready of belief that the more incredible a thing seemed to be they swallowed it down the more willingly 2. If this way of reasoning will hold good it was as strong in the mouths of the Iews in our Saviours time for the High Priest and Sanhedrim might have as reasonably pretended that since they had conveyed down the Books in which the Prophecies of the Messiah were contained they hâ—d likewise the right to expound those Prophecies 3. A Witness that hands a thing down without Additions is very different from a Judge that delivers things on his own Authority We freely own the Church to be such a Witness that there is no colour of reason to disbelieve the Tradition of the Books but we see great cause to question the credit of her decisions 4. In this Tradition of Books we have not barely the Tradition of the Church for it We find in all ages since the Books of the New Testament were written several Authors have cited many and large passages out of them We find they were very quickly translated into many other Languages and diverse of those are conveyed down to us There were also so many Copies of these Books every where that though one had resolved on so Sacrilegious an attempt as the corrupting them had been he could not have succeeded in it to any great degree Some additions might have been made in some Copies and so from those they might have been derived to others but these could not have bâ—en considerable otherwise they had been discovered and complained of and when we find the Church engaged in contests with Hereticks and Schismaticks we see both sides appealed to the Scriptures and neither of them reproached the other for violating that Sacred Trust. And the noise we find of the small change of a Letter in the Aâ—ian Controversie shews us how exact they were in preserving these Records As for the Errours of Transcribers that is incident to the Nature of Man and though some Errours have crept into some Copies yet all these put together do not alter any one point of our Religion so that they are not of great consequence Thus it appears how much reason we have to receive the Scriptures upon the credit of such a Tradition But for Oral Tradition it is visible how it might have been so managed as quickly to change the whole Nature of Religion Natural Religion was soon corrupted when it passed down in this Conveyance even during the long lives of the Ancient Patriarchs who had thereby an advantage to keep this pure that after ages in which the life of Man is so shortned cannot pretend to We also see to what a degree the Iewish Tradition became corrupted in our Saviours time particularly in one point which may be called the most essential part of their Religion to wit concerning their Messias what the nature of his Person and Kingdome were to be So that they all expected a Great Conquerour a second Moses or a David so ineffectual a mean is Oral Tradition for conveying down any Doctrine pure or uncorrupted The Ninth Method IS to tell them the Church in which they were before they made the Separation was the true Church because it was the only Church so that they could not Reform the Doctrine without making another Church For then she must have fallen into Errour and by consequence the Gates of Hell must have prevailed against her which is directly contrary to the Promise of Iesus Christ that cannot fail The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against her Remarks 1. A Church may be a True Church and yet be corrupted by many Errours for a â—rue Church is a Society of men among whom are the certain means of Salvation and such was the Iewish Church in our Saviours time For their Sacrifices had still an Expiatory Vertue and the Covenant made with that people stood still and yet they were over-run with many Errours chiefly in their notions of the Messias And thus as long as the Church of Rome acknowledges the Expiation made by the Death of Christ and applied to all that truly believe and amend their lives so long she is a True Church So that those of that Communion who adhere truly to that which is the great fundamental of the Christian Religion may be saved But when so many things were added to this that it was very hard to preserve this fundamental truth pure and entire then it was necessary for those who were better enlightned to call on others to correct the abuses that had crept in 2. It is hard to build a great super-structure on a figurative expression of which it is not easie to find out the true and full sense And in this that is cited there are but three terms and about every one of them great and just grounds of doubting do appear 1. It is not certain what is meant by the Gates of Hell which is an odd figure for an assailant If by Gates we mean Councils because the Magistrates and Courts among the Iews sate in the Gates then the meaning will be that the Craft of Hell shall not prevail against the Church that is shall not root out Christianity or if by Gates of Hell or the Grave according to a common Greek Phrase Death be to be understood it being the Gate through which we pass to the Grave then the meaning is this that the Church shall never die or be extinguished Nor is there less difficulty to be made about the signification of the word Church Whether it is to be meant in general of the body of Christians or of the Pastors of the Church and of the majority of them The Context seems to carry it for the Body of Christians and then the meaning will be only this That there shall still be a Body of Christians in the World And