or Services performed by their Friends afterwards whereby simple Souls must necessarily be entangled in the Snares of their Sins there being so great likelihood that Pardon being held forth upon such undue grounds the corruption of our Nature will take hold of and presume upon it when we have not wrought in our selves a true Repentance That in those things which they call Sacraments they will not suffer us to distinguish either in that Grace which the Ceremony signifieth or in the Force whereby they concur to the obtaining of it whereas our Christianity requires us to distinguish between Graces given to this or that particular effect and those that are given for the general and perpetual subsistence of Christianity and likewise between those Offices that are effective of Grace by virtue of a peculiar and special promise to those effects and others that are only used by the Church out of a hope that our Prayers shall be heard to those effects That they conceive Christ present in the Eucharist after such a manner as it does no way appear he promised his Presence therein that hereupon it is required that Adoration due to God alone be given to the Sacrament which if the Elements remain is by themselves confessed to be Idolatry and therefore may justisiably by us who know them to remain be so accounted That without warrant they make the Eucharist a Sacrifice as distinct from a Sacrament and of a greater virtue as a Sacrifice than when it is received as a Sacrament according to our Saviour's Institution That they warrant it propitiatory for those who use it not according to his Institution whereby they frustrate the End of his blessing Bread and Wine and commanding it to be received and likewise void the necessity of a Christian Life applying the Benefits of Christ's Sacrament to such as come not worthily to partake of it and pretending it efficacious to ease them of punishments which they are to suffer for sins after Death That whilst they with-hold the Cup from the Laity they void Christ's Institution who enjoyned and appointed both they likewise rob Christians of their Birthright and cannot warrant one part of this Sacrament beneficial to all those effects for which Christ was pleased to bless both Bread and Wine That whilst they plead for Traditions they thereby endeavour to obtrude upon us their own Corruptions and by these instead of interpreting pervert the Scriptures and by Traditions of men have indeed in many things made void the Comandments of God That by claiming an Authority for the Church above the Scriptures which they do to justifie what the Church of Rome has decreed against them they do indeed advance an Authority that may destroy our common Christianity That in pleading their Pope universal Bishop not to speak of their Ambition in this Aim they require us to submit to an Authority for the sake of Unity which is not only none of God's Ordinance but such as Experience has shewn to have almost wholly destroyed that Christianity which Unity should preserve Having shewn I say the danger of these Doctrines in particular and their inconsistence with Christianity when I reflect upon them all together and find that our Union with the Church of Rome requires submission to them all must conclude that whatever allowance might be made in some one of them provided that the rest of that Christian Truth which they hold did so prevail over the Error that it did not take effect in their practices to God's Dishonour or the subversion of a Christian Life yet to submit to them all as we must do if we will have peace with the Church of Rome is to redeem the Communion of the Church by transgressing that Christianity which the Church is appointed to maintain and absolutely to prostitute our own and the Souls committed to our Charge The Case is little otherwise in those other things which M. Condom lets alone as things of themselves not sufficient matter of Separation these if taken together though singly they may not be very considerable render the Means of Salvation very difficult since the Substance of Christianity being overwhelmed and choaked with a deal of Rubbish Opinions Customs Observations Ceremonies c. it is a thing very difficult for simple Christians to discern the Substance from the Shadow and almost impossible to pass through such a multitude of Observations Customs and Ceremonies which create so much business in the Practice of Religion and upon which so great Zeal is spent without Superstion and Will-Worship and a fond Opinion of those Services placing their hope of God's Favour upon these carnal Observations and humane Inventions which indeed are nothing to the Reality of Religion So that these at least must be allowed to add to that Mass of Corruption which they seek to obtrude upon us though of themselves they are not of such a poysonous Nature But though we cannot joyn with them without manifest prejudice to our Christianity yet it is most easie for them to come to us and would be for the great advantage of our Christian Religion as even themselves must and do acknowledge For first Those Doctrines which are established by the Church of England at least such as concern the Foundation of Faith have been in all Ages professed by the Church of Rome itself This M. Condom allows as to Fundamentals That the Church of Rome holds all which the Reformers do They further agree with us That we are to pray unto God through Christ That God may be worshipped in Spirit without an Image That we may have recourse to him in all our Necessities without seeking the Relicks of Saints That Jesus Christ is the meritorious cause of our Justification That men may do good Works and shall never fail of Salvation through not confiding in them That there be two Sacraments which have the Promise of Grace That Christ is really and spiritually received by some in the Lord's Supper That Christ made an Oblation of himself upon the Cross for the Redemption Propitiation and Satisfaction of the whole World And where they with hold the Cup from the Laity and forbid the Administration of the Sacraments in the vulgar Tongue yet even in these they condescend to us for the Lawfulness of the Practice even in respect to the Law of God and oppose them only in regard of their necessity and conveniency and for that the Church of Rome hath otherwise ordained They acknowledge likewise the Authority of written word of God and the Design of Providence in their being written for our Learning They acknowledge the Church does and ought to act in deciding Controversies of Faith according to the Scripture committed to her and to tell us nothing from herself and invent nothing new in her Doctrine Again secondly The Truths we hold even by the judgment of several of the Learned Writers of the Church of Rome have been in all ages deemed sufficient to salvation so that we reject no
has read the many convincing evidences throughout that whole Book on which M. Daille grounds himself should urge against him only a bare improbability of his understanding the sentiments of foregoing Ages without the least confutation of the things on which he grounds himself So neither is it directly to the question for this does not necessarily suppose that M. Daille should know the sentiments of foregoing Ages better than they for they might know their sense well enough and yet embrace opinions which themselves thought probable and not presently apprehend wherein they contradicted the sentiments of their Predecessors As for that he says to make it still less credible that M. Daille has quoted in his Book several express Texts by which it 's shewn that they pretended in Praying to Saints to follow the example of their Predecessors It 's idle either to expect a satisfactory answer to such an uncertain Discourse or to hope to gain belief when he has not given us the particulars by which only it can be judged how far it does conclude But now the advantage he takes at present from this consent of this being in use in the fourth Age is only this That he hopes those of M. Daille's Communion will have more respect to these Men than with him in derision to give them the name of Reliquarists and that as they dare not accuse those of Idolatry by Praying to Saints or of destroying that trust which Christians ought to put in Jesus Christ so he hopes henceforwards that they will not cast the like reproaches on the Church of Rome when they consider they cannot do it without accusing at the same time those excellent Men. This he may promise himself that we shall not shew any thing like derision of those excellent Men nor give them reproachful names But what he further aims at depends upon the truth of his supposition that by accucusing the Church of Rome as Idolatrous in this respect we cast the same reproach on those famous Men A thing that he who knows the mighty difference we plead between the practice first growing into a custom and those gross extravigancies to which it is since encreased should not have supposed without shewing the practises to be the same Which how they first began and by what degrees encreased to their present height as First From Mens desires to one another to be mindful of them after-their departure Secondly From an opinion that some help was communicated to the Church from the fellowship between the Militant and the Church-Triumphant grounded upon a supposition that if Souls departed were mindful of any thing they bore the same affection to their Members as when on Earth and so would intercede with God for them which Thirdly Begun to be more confirmed by some miraculous effects which God was pleased to work in places where the memory of the Martyrs was had in Reverence Which Fourthly Gave occasion to those Prayers which were made upon a faint supposition of their knowing things below which Prayers were rather Wishes than Prayers as Cassander Vtinam Sancti orent And so grew by degrees as Men willing to justifie themselves in what they had gave entrance to persuaded themselves more of the probability by framing suppositions to themselves of God's wanting not means to make known their desires to them 'till it came at last to be received that God really did make them known by ways best known to himself which is now made matter of Faith and the practise thus encreased absolutely commanded Those who are willing to see particular information I refer to that excellent Book of Bishop Vsher's Answer to the Jesuits Challenge and for the degrees by which the publick Forms now in use got possession in the Liturgies to Dr. Chaloner's Progress of Heresie This Digression in me I hope is pardonable since M. Condom himself led me out of the way with whom I now return to follow the design SECT IV. Concerning Invocation of Saints HEre in the first place he acknowledges That the Church of Rome does teach them that it is profitable to pray to Saints Now this the Church of England declares to be 39 Articles of the Church of England Article 22. unprofitable and a vain invention not grounded upon any Warrant in Scripture but rather repugnant to the Word of God But he goes on and says The Church of Rome teaches them to pray to Saints in the same spirit of charity and according to the same order of fraternal society which moves us to demand assistance from our brethren here on earth whence their Catechism concludes that if Christ's mediatorship receive no prejudice from the intercession made to the faithful who live with us neither does it from the intercession made to the Saints But here we must take leave to observe that if the ground upon which they found this Doctrine be as he intimates that Relation and Fellowship which Saints departed have with the Church here as we the living members have one with another as I confess may be implied in the instances given in that Catechism of Job's praying for his friends c. mention'd before it insers the conclusion here spoken of yet it cannot be said that this Church teaches men to pray after no other manner to the Saints than to their brethren that are living nor with no Concil Trid. Sess 25. Dec. de Invocat greater confidence of success since the Council expresly decrees for the Invocation of them and also for Mental Supplication and M. Condom acknowledges a peculiar acceptableness of these with God upon account of their virtues p. 9. and their Catechism Cat. Rom. de Culen Inv. expresly teaches that God confers many benefits upon us for their sake and merit He passes on to shew us from their Catechism the difference between their imploring the aid of Saints and the assistance of God that they pray to Saints to undertake their cause with God but to God to give them the things they ask and therefore their Forms are different that where they are not the intention of the Church reduces them all to this difference Not denying for the present but the intention of the Church may be to reduce them to this distinction yet it shall remain questionable whether it may lawfully use such Forms as according to their nature are proper only to God and by which themselves express desires that ought to be peculiar to him to the Saints with a different intention For a further confirmation of the sense delivered he produces the injunction of the Council to the Bishops what they ought to teach the people concerning Invocation of Saints That the Saints who reign with Jesus Christ offer up to God their prayers for men that it is good and profitable to invocate them after an humble manner and to have recourse to their prayers aid and assistance to obtain of God his benefits through our Lord Jesus Christ his Son who is our sole Saviour
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
Angel such as Worship as he refused to receive and there can be no Reason to think but that if the Extasie of a Vision carried this Apostle so much beyond himself wise as well as ignorant through a blind Zeal acted by a carnal Spirit may be carried to the like excess in respect of the Saints or any other Object of Religious Worship Now how far the Church of Rome may be vindicated in the first of these Respects which render her liable to the Idolatries of her Members must be left to the Jugdment of those who without all prejudice will consider what is said by the Roman Church for the profitableness of this Practice to Salvation from Grounds only proper to Christianity Matters of Christian Religion being determinable only from them And what is said on the other side of the unprofitableness and danger of it and of its inconsistency with Christianity How far she is excusable in the second by considering whether the Means if she has provided any be sufficient to preserve in all a just and constant apprehension of the infinite distance between God and his Creatures whilst they have recourse to those in their Necessities as well as unto him In the third by conparing the Limits if she has set any to this Worship of Saints with what has been done on the other side by Bulls and Indulgences from the Head of the Church that I may not mention any things of particular persons tending to this purpose who have published many things of the same Nature with that fulsom Book of Contemplations on Holy Mary lately sent out among us to raise the Devotions of Christians to so far above all grounds from our common Faith My further Business is only to consider what of these things in difference are taken off either in part or in the whole by this Explication which M. Condom has given us of his Churches Sense in this Point Concerning the first of them he only intimates a possibility of God's giving them such a Knowledg though he supposes it certain that they have it yet whilst he tells us the several Methods by which God can make such Desires known to them but dares not six upon any by which he does it it shews they have no Assurance from their Christianity that God has given them any such Knowledge nor indeed has M. Condom offered any Grounds for it from thence To the Second he says That we ought to understand them to reduce all such Forms to the Sense by them declared But let that go as far as it will to excuse them from Idolatry it will never justifie them in the Use of such Forms to the Scandal of their Christian Brethren and to the Reproach even of Christianity it self whilst they give Religious Worship to the Saints as well as God fly to them in their Necessities with the same Expressions of their Desires as to God himself The Third he is altogether silent in neither telling us what that Invocation is nor how far the Desires of our Hearts are to be enlarged in those Prayers to them As to the Fourth he has shewed us that their Church teaches that the Saints do pray for us and that we are to invocate them and to fly to their Prayers Aid and Protection and condemns those who teach a contrary Doctrine but says nothing here to justifie it but something in the End of the next Section Of which in its Order The Fifth he mentions not neither will any of his Reasons given to free those from Idolatry who maintain such a distinct Intention as he argues upon ever justifie or clear those who have not always maintained it In the sixth he only vindicates his Church in part in that she has let her people know by her Catechism a difference between their prayers to God and to the Saints but he does not shew us wherein the Church has declared what manner of desires which are required to be humble our prayers to them for these purposes are to be made with nor any bounds that she has set to them nor wherefore such methods have been taken by the Head of the Church as well as particular members to advance the Reverence of Christians to Saints above the grounds taught by our Christianity nor does he shew us the least warrant from Scripture upon which their Church teaches this and commands it as a practice beneficial to salvation which in it self is so dangerous and destructive SECT V. Of Images and Reliques AS for Images he says the Council of Trent forbids the believing any virtue or divinity in them and the demanding any favour from them or putting any trust in them and ordains the honour given to them to be referred to what they represent Yet it commands an honour to be given to them tho' with a further reference and thereby either decrees an honour to be given to the Images themselves if not for their own sakes yet for the sake of them they represent or at least first to be given to them though not terminated or stayed there but directed further to what they represent All these words of the Council are as so many Characters he says to distinguish them from Idolaters in that they ascribe no other virtue to their Images than that of exciting the remembrance of those they represent If these are the only Characters that distinguish them we may from themselves conclude that those who give them any other virtue are Idolaters But then to confirm this the only ground on which they honour Images he endeavours to shew us by examples First he says the figure of Christ crucified excites in us a more lively remembrance of him who died for us upon which remembrance they are moved to testifie by some exteriour signs how far their gratitude bears them and by humbling themselves before the Image they shew their submission to their Saviour so that in the Ecclesiastical style their intention is not so much to honour the Image as the person whom it represents in presence of it for which he cites the Council of Trent which says the honour we render to Images has such a reference to those they represent that by the means of those Images which we kiss and before which we kneel we adore Jesus Christ and honour the Saints whose Types they are But under favour if he only humbles himself before the Image to shew what respect he has for his Saviour and does not withal give some respect to the Image it self he does not answer the Sess 25. Decret de 〈◊〉 Council of Trent which first decrees that honour be given to the Images themselves and then adds this which he has cited as the reason of that Decree not as an explication of it And thus the Catechism commands the teaching that it is not only Româ—… Câ—… lawful to have Images in Churches but also to give honour and worship to them when the honour which is established or given to them is
being so great a proneness in Man's nature to Idolatry and so great strength in an Image to draw carnal minds to it Concerning the second it takes notice only of what Naclantus has said upon it whose Doctrine it sticks not to call Idolatry That we are not only to Worship before the Image as some too cautiously speak but to Worship the Image and that with the same Worship that is to be given to the Prototype But what the Church decrees in this point we have seen that though it be not what Naclantus professes yet it 's more than M. Condom is willing to confess and is altogether without any warrant from our Christianity As to the third our Church says not any where that I have observed that to Worship before an Image is Idolatry nor does it say that sort which the Council has decreed is Idolatry but it says in general that the use of Images in Religious Worship necessarily leads to Idolatry and let me add that which the Council decrees does lead somewhat more to it than the other in that it 's more difficult to give a Worship to the Image and at the same instant direct it to the object it represents naâ— this creates so great a difficulty that it shall be very hard for a Man to preserve himself from it in his Devotions to the Saints by their Images as it 's no easie matter for a Man to preserve so many distinct intentions as are necessary to the directing a Reverence to and yet not fixing it on the Image but directing it with his Devotions to the object it represents which must not stay there neither if that object be any other than God or Christ so as to fix any trust upon it but must go further to God in whom alone their trust is to be reposed But then as to the practises of particular Persons she sticks not to call them Idolatrous and fears not to determine it from what she relates of their Pilgrimages to Images their repairing to them to be healed of Diseases their hanging up Crutches before them to shew the vertue they had found by and from them Wherein if she relates true matter of Fact as that we have great reason to believe we need not fear that she can be justly taxed by any as fixing Calumnies upon the Roman Church when she speaks of so many Idolatries practised in it To the last our Church has said that for Bishops whose is the care of Souls to maintain or set up Images in Churches is to shew themselves to be careless Pastors that have no respect to the Souls for which they are to be accountable And undoubtedly the Idolatries or other Crimes of particular Persons in this practice are highly chargeable on the Church of Rome which commands that as a practice beneficial to salvation and condemns those who reject it which creates such difficulties in the Worship of God as make Idolatry almost unavoidable especially in the simple sort for whom Who will or can undertake that they shall preserve the Devotions of their hearts so entire as they ought for God alone among such diversity of Objects and Relations It will be to little purpose to say the Council has taken care to prevent abuses when it has enjoyned a practice so liable to them unless the necessity of using them were as evident as the danger Besides those remedies as they have taken but little effect so neither are they likely whilst the Church is so far from Cat. Rom. de Cultu Venerat seeing or owning any such abuses that she commands her Pastors to teach the People not only that it is lawful to have Images in Churches and to give Honour and Worship to them when the Honour is referred to the Prototype but that it has been done with exceeding good and benefit to the People unto this very day Now what satisfactory defence has M. Condom made for his Church in all or in part of these points when first he presumes it lawful to use Images and that in Churches and Religious Worship and acknowledges the Church of Rome to command Honour to be given to them for the sake of their Prototypes this at least it does command though he is not willing to own so much but yet shews us not the least warrant from Holy Scripture upon which this command is founded When also those very reasons which he has used to vindicate his Church from commanding direct Idolatry do necessarily involve all those in it who ever have conceived any vertue in Images or terminated any Worship on them and likewise shew it extreamly difficult to avoid Idolatry and almost impossible but that the vulgar should be ensnared thereby But M. Condom goes on and says That after the same manner we ought to understand that Honour which they pay to Relicks but this he says without citing the Council which Concil Trid. Sess 25. had he look'd into it would have taught him that it ought to be after a quite different manner It s decree indeed is only general that they are to be venerated by the faithful but when it comes to its Anathema it not only condemns them that say veneration ought not to be given to the Relicks of Saints or that these and other their Monuments are unprofitably Honoured but those likewise that shall say their Memories or Relicks are in vain frequented for imploring of their help So that if this be allowed to interpret the veneration it enjoyns to be given to Relicks it is far different from the Honour given to Images not only in M. Condom's sense but even in the sense of the Council for it declared no vertue to be in no trust to be reposed nothing to be hoped for from Images But in these it supposes some vertue something that may contribute help and encourages Recourse yea Pilgrimages to them for that purpose And this the Catechisms confirms so perfectly that the only argument it brings upon this Subject is to confirm the People in a confidence of help by them for it says If the Vestments Towels yea the Shadow of Cat. Rom. de Cultu Venerat the Saints when living did drive away Diseases and restore Health Who dares deny that God by the sacred Ashes Bones and other Relicks of his Saints does miraculously work the same effects with more to the same purpose And having shewn this I need not say any thing to what reasons are brought by M. Condom to justifie that which is not the declared sense of the Council yet so far as they may seem to relate to it I shall consider them in short after a necessary reflection on what is said by the Catechism to build up the People in a vain and pernitious confidence of help from them To this I say therefore it is not for them to ask us Who can deny but God may do this or that but to shew us that he does No Man will pretend to limit
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
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
great advantages by his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Calvinists in this point I thought my self unconcerned with his Objections the Church of England not having tyed her Faith to Calvin or any other but grounded it on the Scriptures Only that no man may suspect them to be of any force against the Doctrine held by the Church of England I saw it necessary to set down and explain her Doctrine and see whether any thing here urged can conclude it to be in the least absurd or inconsistent with the Holy Scriptures or with itself The Church of England then teaches 1 Catech. That the Body and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Prayer 2 Exhortation at the Communion That we therein spiritually eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood we dwell in Christ and Christ in us we are one with Christ and he with us 3 Art 28. The Bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ and likewise the Cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ 4 Homily of the Sacrament That we must be sure to hold that there is no vain Ceremony no bare sign no untrue figure of a thing absent But as the Scripture saith the table of the Lord the bread and cup of the Lord the memory of Christ the annunciation of his death yea the Communion of the body and blood of the Lord in a marvellous Incorporation which by the operation of the Holy Ghost the very bond of our conjunction with Christ is through Faith wrought in the souls of the faithful whereby not only their souls live to eternal life but they trust also to win their bodies a resurrection to immortality Therefore 5 Prayer of Consecration she prays that in partaking of these his Creatures of bread and wine we may be partakers of his most blessed body and blood 6 Catech. That the benefits that we receive by thus partaking of the body and blood of Christ are the strengthning and refreshing of our souls by these as our bodies are by the bread and wine 7 Homily of the Sacrament Ibid. That thus much the faithful see hear and know herein the favourable mercies of God sealed the satisfaction of Christ confirmed and the remission of sins established 8 Art 28. That nevertheless there is no Transubstantiation or Change of the substance of bread and wine in the Lord's Supper 9 Hom. Ib. Wherefore we are not to regard specially the earthly Creatures which remain but always to hold fast and cleave by Faith to Christ the Rock 10 Art 28. Whose body is given taken and eaten in the Supper only after an heavenly and spiritual manner 11 Hom. Ib. Wherefore it is well known the meat we seek is spiritual heavenly and not earthly invisible and not bodily a ghostly substance and not carnal 12 Art Ib. The means therefore whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith 13 Hom. Ib. So that to think that without Faith we may enjoy the eating his body or drinking his blood is but to dream a gross and carnal feeding basely binding our selves to the Elements and Creatures As for those then that hold it no more than a bare sign and the Celebration and Communion thereof barely the renewing our Profession or a remembrance only of Christ Crucified whom it representeth they are wide from the Church of England on the one side as the Church of Rome on the other Nor do those who only hold it a sign effective to apply the benefits of the death of Christ not supposing it to tender Christ as present to us and to be received by us before we partake in the benefits of his death express exactly in my judgment the sense of our Church Although there is so near a conjunction of Christ with his benefits that one cannot well be apprehended without the other I conceive therefore that in the sense of our Church not only the benefits of Christ but Christ himself is tendred to us in this Holy Sacrament and is to be eaten by us before we partake of his benefits not that we are bodily to partake of him for this end but in that it seems to be the intention of our blessed Savour under these Elements to give us himself and to put us in the actual possession of himself so that in the use of this ordinance as verily as a man does bodily receive the earthly Creatures so verily does he spiritually receive the body and blood of Christ For our better apprehension of which Mystery it will be necessary more particularly to consider what it is which we do hereby receive and in what manner we are made partakers of it Concerning the first the truth which we hold you see is this that we do not here receive only the benefits that flow from Christ but the very body and blood of Christ i. e. Christ himself Crucified for as the bread and wine avails not to our bodily sustenance unless the substance of those Creatures be first received so neither do we partake of the benefits of Christ to our spiritual relief except we have first a Communion with Christ himself This the words of our blessed Saviour Joh 6. 57 Encline me to believe where he says that he that eateth him shall live by him intimating that we must be partakers of him before we can have life from him So the words of St. Paul 1 Cor. 10. 16 The bread which we break Is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ evidently imply that we are therein to partake of Christ himself This I take to be that great mystery of our union with Christ whereby we are made members of his body of his flesh and of his bones And this I look upon to be that 〈◊〉 the flesh and drinking the blood of the Son of God in the 6th of St. John But now if it be demanded how we can eat the flesh of Christ and partake of his body and blood to conceive this eating in a carnal sense is as gross an imagination as that of those Joh. 6 who asked within themselves How can this man give us his flesh to eat we must not think then that we cannot truly feed on Christ unless we receive his substance into our bellies but must consider that the eating and drinking our Saviour speaks of must be spiritual according to the nature of his Gospel and therefore we must enquire therein what it is to eat and drink spiritually Now then if we consider what appetites are in our souls and what those appetites crave or ought at least to long after we shall easily discern what it is to eat and drink spiritually Now we know that in the 5th of St. Matthew our Saviour intimates to us that we ought to have a spiritual hunger and thirst after righteousness which
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
and superstition brought in Thus they pretend their Decree for the Worship of Saints and Relicks and the use of Images according to the Tradition or received Practice of the Catholick Church in the first times and consent of Fathers and Decrees of Councils when yet M. Condom contents himself with Tradition but from the fourth Century if we would allow it him And so the Gentlemen do well to plead that we should receive a Doctrine as coming from the Apostles when it is universally received without possibility of shewing its beginning by all Christian Churches thereby to obtrude that which had no beginning in it for three hundred years Thus they Decree Indulgences to have been in use in the Church in the most ancient times when yet they could not but be sensible that the use of them was perverted to a quite different purpose from its antient end and notwithstanding their desire that they might be restored to ancient Custom yet we know the Novel is still the modern practice Thus for Purgatory the Council commands that sound Doctrine be taught concerning it from the ancient Fathers when no such thing appears either anciently or universally in the Church And yet at another time that which Christ himself hath taught and was delivered both to and from the Apostles shall not serve to make it necessary Thereupon it Decrees Sess 21. cap. 1. That though Christ instituted the Sacrament under both kinds and delivered it in both to his Apostles yet this does not bind all men to receive it in both Now then for these men to press Traditions on us when they will neither let us know what nor how many they are nor prescribe any bounds to them nor six any certain Rules to discern them by nor be obliged themselves to stand by them and under that pretence to come now fifteen hundred years after the Apostles and impose on us the single Tradition of one Church nay not only her ancient and original Traditions but Novelties foisted in to maintain her corruptions and these as we pretend repugnant to Scripture and ancient Tradition And all this to decline an indifferent Tryal by Scripture under pretence that all necessary Truths cannot be found therein without recourse to Tradition if putting on I say so fair a disguise to so fraudulent a purpose they urge this Argument that the Apostles delivered things by word of mouth which ought to be received as of any force to oblige us to receive all which they have the confidence to tell us comes from them What is it but a vain endeavour to impose on the World as if all men had lost common sense and understanding SECT XVIII Of the Authority of the Church UPon this subject M. Condom writes after so rambling and confused a manner that I must first be at the trouble to pick out what he designs to prove before the solidity of his Arguments can be examined His aim then I take to be couched in those words pag. 45. wherein he concludes from the Article of our Creed concerning the Holy Catholick Church That they oblige themselves to acknowledge an infallible and perpetual verity in the Universal Church Now herein he has neither expresly told us what this Universal Church is whether the Church of Rome alone or all other Christian Churches with it nor whether he means the Church collective the whole body of Christians or representative the Bishops in Council or the Pope where some fix this Infallibility But whereas he afterwards confounds the Catholick Church with the Trent Council which by her Decrees if we believe him has tied herself up that she cannot make herself Mistress of our Faith I conceive I may without offence determine that the verity he intends to prove is that there is an Infallibility resting somewhere in the Catholick Church of Rome To which if he would oblige us to consent it had been but reasonable to have sixt this Infallibility in something certain though at present I will not stand upon it but consider his Discourse which begins thus The Church being established by God to be the Guardian of Scripture and Tradition we receive the Canonical Scripture from her and let our Adversaries say what they will we doubt not but it is her Authority that principally determines them to Reverence as Divine Books Which first sentence is a manifest contradiction it being absolutely impossible that that which is established by God to be the Guardian of Scripture and the Traditor of it to others should be the Authority that makes it Scripture which it is before it is put into its Guardianship and certainly its being Scripture or a Writing of Divine Inspiration is that which makes them principally reverenced as Divine Books not that which tells us that they are so But then he gives us instances of Three Books especially which he conceives received upon that authority The Canticle of Canticles St. James and St. Jude Where in the first place the Gentleman does ill to joyn these together as believed or to be believed upon the same grounds the Canticle of Cantiles being long before the Christian Church the others since Therefore I must answer him distinctly Supposing then that which common sence is able to inform us that this Book called The Song of Songs is more antient than the Church of Christ and that the Church never had as she has never pretended to have any express Revelation whether this Book was written by inspiration from God as we believe the Law and the Prophets beside the credit upon which it received it from the Synagogue it 's certain that the only thing questionable is whether it was received by the Synagogue as divinely inspired if it appears to have been so received it is not any authority of the Christian Church that has made it Scripture and if the Church had pretended it Scripture without evidence of its being received from them or particular Revelation shewn in the case it would have been never the more a Divine Book nor any man obliged to receive it as such And I marvel the Gentleman should be carried so far by the spirit of Contradiction and desire to bear down his Christian brethren as to set up a Principle that betrays our common Christianity by giving notice to the World that those Scriptures of the Old Testament whereby the Church pretends to convince the Jews of the necessity of becoming Christians are not to be received for the Word of God but upon the authority of her own Decrees Then for the Epistle of James rejected by Luther and St. Jude by others nothing can be more manifest to any that will but take the pains to consider it that the Writings of the Apostles were first kept by and entrusted in the hands of those Churches to which they were sent as the Epistles to Corinth Rome Ephesus c. It is therefore reasonable to conceive those Writings so dispersed when collected into one body and submitted to by
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
to be received for the Word of God if not confirmed by the Scripture because the Motives upon which they were received cannot be as evident as those of the Scriptures Questionless no man can deny the Traditions of the Jews to be as useful for the understanding the Old Testament as any now for that of the New but then it was they perverted the Use of Traditions when they taught them for God's Commandments But that which he infers from this that has given us both so much trouble is just nothing Upon this account the Church professes she tells us nothing from herself and that she invents nothing new in her Doctrine Whoever thought that their Church ever professed the contrary or can conceive that any Church will profess otherwise the question then is not what she professes but what she has done and let me tell him that his own words are as great an argument against the Church's absolute and Infallible Authority as any can be given For if upon the account of her being established by God to be the Guardian of the Scripture and Tradition and the deliverer of them to her Children she be obliged to profess suppose what may reasonably be supposed that she be but obliged to act as she does profess that she delivers nothing new nothing from herself nothing but by the interior direction of the Holy Ghost Shall not her Authority be confined within these limits Shall she have any power to act beyond them or if she be accused as having acted against that Christianity that she ought to have maintained Shall it not be shewn de facto that she has not or if that seem too apparent Shall it be pleaded that she is infallible and cannot have acted against it though it 's visible to all but them that plead so that she has But he further tells us That there being a dispute raised in the times of the Apostles the Holy Ghost put an end to it by the Church and the method then taken by the Apostles to decide it has taught succeeding Ages by what authority all other differences are to be ended so that as often as any divisions shall happen the Church will interpose her Authority and her Pastors assembled will say after the Apostles It seemeth good unto the Holy Ghost and to us What they will say I know not I am sure this gives them no warrant to say the like It 's true this practice of the Apostles has directed the Church upon differences that have hapned to assemble its Pastors for the ending them but I see no promise here that they shall have the like assistance with the Apostles who not only had the Spirit of God at all times in a measure which no man can pretend to have now at any time but had likewise frequently immediate inspirations And if a man should think they had an immediate inspiration upon the place signifying how they should order the matter he might have grounds for his opinion very considerable inspirations being then so frequent even at the common Assemblies of Christians and St. Paul being so cautions as to difference things of his own from the Commands of the Lord although he thought himself at the same time to have the Spirit of God But whether so or not no Councils can from hence presume that the Holy Ghost will lead them into all Truth in whatsoever they take a humour to determine because Christ promised to send his Spirit to his Apostles to lead them into all Truth for the teaching and establishing our common Christianity Father Paul tells us of a Proverb which perhaps this Gentleman may have known to pass in France That the modern Council had more Authority than that of the Apostles because their own pleasure only was sufficient ground for the Decrees without admitting the Holy Ghost whether verified in this of Trent I shall not say but the ground of it is certainly possible and God that has promised to lead men by his Spirit into all Truth has not said he will lead them whether they will or no. Whereas then he says further That when the Church has spoken her Children will be taught that they ought not to examine again the Articles so resolved on but are bound humbly to receive her decisions and that they are resolved to follow the example of Paul and Silas not permitting them to be again discussed but teaching all to observe the ordinances of the Apostles He would have done well to have shewn us that the Decrees of the Trent Council are as much the acts of the Holy Ghost as that of the Apostles before he had required us to think them act as justifiably in teaching them as Paul and Silas did But by the way if he speaks this as the fix'd resolution of all their Church not to admit a new discussion of what has been decided but to require all to observe it he lets us know an excellent Resolution of his Church and how much it is for her turn that differences in Religion be everlasting But thus it is he tells us the Children of God acquiesce in the Judgment of the Church believing that from her mouth they hear the Oracle of the holy Ghost This he should have forborn to have said till he had shewn by something more than he has hitherto that God has bid his children to hear his Word from the mouth of any Church speaking without the Scripture that contains it but especially methinks he should not have presumed to say this is the ground why in our Creed having said I believe in the Holy Ghost we add immediately The holy Catholick Church if we had no other ground to believe the Holy Catholick Church than he has hitherto shewn I am sure we should have but very little for so great an Article of Faith But no wonder he builds his faith on no better grounds since he has framed a new sense of the Article of which if I convince him by the Catechism of his own Church I suppose he may be inclinable to hear it even that then teaches him That the word Cat. Trid. sub Titulo Ecclesia quibus siguris Church in this Article does chiefly denote the whole number of Believers including both good and bad not the Rulers only but those likewise who are to obey and if so I know not how a man is obliged by believing this Article to acknowledge any Infallibility in the governours of any Church or to think that if they err this Article of our Creed should become false or that he has ever the less faith in God if he apprehend or fear least the Rulers of the Church should abuse their power Whereas after this he endeavours to perswade us That the Catholick Church meaning that of Rome is so far from making herself Mistress of our Faith as she is accused that on the contrary she has done what she could to limit and deprive herself of all the means of
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
case stands though they be not yet they soon may by those who make Articles of Faith of any thing they have a humour to determine Men may love Concord amongst Brethren and yet love Truth among Christians and those that love them both must not vainly give away the later to seek the former by ways not established by God And the Advertiser certainly thinks his own experience has taught him more wisdom than all the rest of the world when he would by that convince us that the Authority of the Pope is the only means of Christian Concord when experience has taught others that it 's the ready way to destroy our common Christianity And though the Church ought not to rise in Rebellion against a power that maintains her unity under pretence that some have abused it yet undoubtedly it may reject an usurpation begun with fraud and encreased by violence which it sees to be no establishment of God's and has experienced destructive of his truth As for Episcopacy blessed be God our Church has been able to preserve it with great advantage to our Christianity Those of the Reformation in other parts who had not the like power nor the same opportunity of doing it being yet obliged to provide for their common Christianity though they could not bring to effect in all things the establishment of his Church I doubt not but God may and does bless in the exercise of his Ordinances THE CONCLUSION HEreby therefore it appears that M. Condom's explication has given us but a very unsatisfactory resolution the greatest part of the Objections being still left in full force and their Doctrines shewn some necessarily and others very probably others absolutely to subvert the foundations of Faith which abundantly justifies that Provision made by the Reformation and makes it absolutely necessary that they let not go that Provision which the maintenance of our common Christianity rendred at first and does still require necessary Neither has M. Condom mentioned all the material Points in difference Two I am sure there are omitted as considerable as many by him taken notice of One is the Decree of the Council which requires the Scriptures which we call Apocrypha to be admitted with like reverence as the unquestionable Canonical Scriptures and to be received as all of one rank which before had never been enjoyned but with that difference which had always been acknowledged in the Church Which Act giving to them the authority of Prophetical Scripture inspired by God which they had not before though it be thereby null in itself because what was not inspired by God to him that wrote it can never become inspired by him and that which was not at first received as such can never be known to be such without special Revelation yet usurpeth an Authority which was never heard of in the Christian World and claims a submission which a Christian cannot give to any but such as shall prove themselves to have had an immediate Revelation in the case The other is their Decree that the Service of God be not performed in the vulgar Tongue For if the People be obliged to assist in that Service which if they are not To what purpose do they assemble then certainly the Offices in which they assist ought to be understood by them Possibly they will say that Vnity is preserved by the universal use of one Language though the Service of God be not understood but then the end for which it should be preserved is not accomplisht when the Service of God is not nor can be performed as Christianity requireth by those who understand it not Besides it is observable that it 's M. Condom's way to take these Points single and spend all his pains in extenuating them as much as possible that they may not appear absolutely to destroy our Christianity and then to press us to compliance with it But he never looks upon them together nor considers whether with that care of our common Christianity which all ought to take they can be all complyed with and submitted to I then have shewn even in the Particulas wherein I have gone along with M. Condom That the Invocation of Saints is without warrant from our Christianity has no Promise of any Grace or Mercy yea tends so greatly to the prejudice of Christianity that it shall be very difficult for a Christian to preserve himself from Idolatry in the use of it and which Experience has shewn to have been Idolatrously practised by many That the Use of Images again is no way necessary in God's Worship but dangerous and makes it most difficult to avoid that Idolatry which many have really committed in the use of them That the Relicks of Saints have no such virtue by any divine Promise as they are frequented for that the Church therefore ought not to teach or perswade People to frequent them for such Aid or Helps since their recourse to them has been experienced to have brought forth much Superstition advancing Peoples Devotion to Saints to the prejudice of that they should preserve for God alone That their Doctrine of Justification involving a mistake in the very nature of it by making Inherent Righteousness the formal Cause of Justification gives too great appearance that they claim Remission of Sins as due to that inherent Righteousness whereas it is only the effect of Christ's Merits That likewise by their Anathema's they have condemned those who hold the Truth in this Point That in the Point of Merit if the Doctrine of the Council be not expresly yet that vulgarly taught in that Communion is contrary to the Faith and injurious to Gods Grace which Doctrine is favoured by the very words of the Council that herein also they condemn those who assert the Truth and desire to magnifie God's Grace That their Doctrines of Satisfactions Purgatory and Indulgences are built on a foundation that has not the least ground in holy Scripture their Satisfactions being enjoynd to other ends than those in which they take place in Christianity being also according to the purposes by them used injurious to the Merits of Christ and offensive to their Christian Brethren their Indulgences granted to unheard of purposes and perverted from their primitive use their Purgatory a vain invention and the occasion of much Superstition and these taken together with their Absolution in Penance tending directly to the manifest prejudice of our Christianity since the Pardon of Sins is presumed to depend not upon Reconcilement wrought with God before but on the Power of the Keys as the ground of it whereby Absolution is pronounced before the Church has done any thing to work the Cure of Sin and the Penances afterwards imposed for the satisfaction of a temporal punishment the Sin being to be supposed pardoned before and no eternal punishment to remain due and those to be expiated by some easie satisfactions in the present Life or to be abated in Purgatory by some Indulgences purchased here
Doctrine the explicit Belief whereof is absolutely necessary For first in respect of Knowledge the Schoolmen hold That much less is needful to be explicitly believed than what is contained in our Doctrines For whereas we entertain and embrace not only the Doctrine of the three Creeds but also sundry other Truths as appears by our Homilies and Articles they declare it needful to believe some but the whole Creed others the Nicene and Athanasian joyned with the Apostolical to make a man a compleat Believer and this although we go no further than the proper Sense of the words and have no great distinct knowledge of the Matters whereof however there is none will deny but the Church of England has a perfect understanding as also a right apprehension of them according to their true Christian Sense in which the whole Christian Catholick Church ever understood them Secondly For Practice they grant That we may obtain Salvation without undergoing such Duties as we refuse For if one worships God without an Image they do not deny this worship to be acceptable If a man pray immediately to God through Christ they will not say this Devotion is fruitless If one perform the best works he can Bellar. de Justif l. 5. c. 7. which we also require and stand not upon their Merit but only upon the Mercy of God as we do they judge it to be not only profitable but also commend it as most secure They deny not but sometimes true Contrition does obtain Pardon without Penance or the Priest's Absolution They cannot deny but Concil Trid. Sèss 13. cap. 8 that to receive Christ spiritually in the holy Sacrament is sufficient to all the Effects of it for the Council places the difference between those that receive it worthily and those that receive it to their own destruction in this that the former receive him both sacramentally and spiritually the other only sacramentally Nor I suppose will they deny that he that relies only on Christ's Sacrifice on the Cross has a sufficient expiation for Sins whilst he confides only in him whom God hath set forth to be our Propitiation Nor that we receive the Sacrament aright when we communicate in both kinds Likewise if a man believes no more than is contained in the Scriptures they confess him to believe as much as is necessary and profitable to all men And if a man submits to the Authority of the Church in all things which she acts for the maintenance of that Christianity she ought to preserve whilst she acts according to God's Word and her own Commission both given and limited by it they cannot say I presume that such aman disowns her Authority or voids Gods Ordinance or that the Church which professes herself to have no other Authority but acts according to this which is given her of and limited by the Scriptures does not do what she ought for the maintenance of Chrstianity and discharge of her Trust Again Thirdly The Doctrines which we disown were not received as Articles of Faith nor the contrary judged heretical by the Church of Rome for many hundred years after Christ For a Bellarm. l. 4 de Verbo Dei c. 11. that Church held at first by our Adversaries own confessions all things which the Apostles used to preach openly and which were necessary and profitable for all men to be contained in the Scriptures b Greg. Patriarch Alexan. Even the Popes themselves disowned the Title of Vniversal Bishop neither has that Church as yet decreed itself infallible though pretended by her Champions so to be c Bellarm. de Imag. l. 2. c. 9. Neither did they anciently worship Images or approve the Image of God to be made nor does any worship of Saints appear therein for 300 years after Christ and it grew therein by degrees and came in by custom says Bellarmine d Bellar. de Sanct. Beat. l. 1. c. 8. Wherein Purgatory for a time was not known nor for a long time after resolved which way it concerned Salvation e Bell. lib. 2. de Purgat c. 1. either in regard of the Persons thereby to be purged whether the damned justest or middle sort or in regard of the Ends and Effects which it hath whether to satisfie God's Justice by punishing Sin or to diminish and take away the Affections of Sin yet remaining by corrections and chastisements Wherein f Bell. l. 2. de Indu c. 17. Indulgences as now practised were not known nor any instance of them till a thousand years after Christ wherein Transubstantiation was not heard of till the Council of Lateran Wherein a thousand years after Christ and more the Sacrifice in the Eucharist was said g Aquin. par 3. quaest 83. art 1. to be only a Memorial and Representation of our Saviour's Sacrifice upon the Cross wherein the Cup was administred to the Laity and the Priests received not the Eutharist alone but together with the People Further It 's evident that we run no hazard neither do we venture upon any dangerous practice but walk in the safe way to salvation There is no danger in offering our Devotions to God through Christ and to him only as there is in the worship of Saints which is not only without warrant and most likely to be offensive to God but is even Idolatry if a right distinction be not always preserved which is very difficult to be preserved at all times nor in omitting the use of Images nor in having recourse to God's Providence only leaving the Reliques of Saints as is confessed to be if the use of Images seduce us to believe any divinity or vertue in them to place any trust in them or hope any thing from them Nor is there any danger in relying on Christs Merits and God's Mercy for the Remission of our sins not depending upon our own works but doing what we are able in obedience to God and after all saying we are unprofitable servants vilifying ourselves but magnifying the grace of God as there may be in trusting to our own Righteousness Nor in requiring Contrition as absolutely necessary to the Remission of sins as there is if we content our selves with less Nor whilst we reject the Adoration of the Sacrament so we offer up our souls to Christ in Heaven as may be in worshipping the Sacrament which themselves confess to be Idolatry if the opinion of Transubstantion be false Nor in not relying on the Sacrifice of the Eucharist but frequenting it as a Sacrament with due preparation nor in receiving it in both kinds according to Christ's institution as may be in supposing it beneficial when we use it not according to Christ's institution which obliges us to partake of it as a Sacrament and in withholding part of it when it does not appear that he has left any such power in the Church to minister but a part of what he commanded Nor in chusing the Scriptures for a Guide so we sincerely follow
them as there is if Tradition should lead us as it did the Jews to void the Commandments of God Nor does that Church run so great a hazard which owns the limits that God has set her and acts according to them as the Church that having acted against our common Christianity or at least being accused so to have done claims an absolute and infallible authority to justifie what she cannot defend by God's Word There are but two things wherein they possibly can object to us any hazard or danger that we incur One is That if the Church be not acknowledged Infallible and all obliged to an Absolute submission a way is open for men under this pretence to cast off her Authority and set up Religions according to their own fancies This I have shewn we labour to prevent so far as the Divine Providence has appointed means for its prevention and we think it not safe to set up others of our own invention which may be liable to equal or greater mischiefs another way Nor that it is as certainly probable on the other side That by advancing an absolute and unlimited Authority of the Church our common Christianity may be destroyed by Decrees that may be made which may subvert the foundations of Faith cannot be doubted but must needs be evident to all that know it possible for men to be led by their own Interests or Opinions and have also actually seen by what interests late Councils have been managed and swayed in their Determinations whereby men of good intentions have not been able to bring to pass what they intended and endeavoured for the good of Christianity being overruled by a greater number of men prejudiced and less considerate which has been confess'd even by sincere men of the Roman Communion If they tell us That according to our Principles the Churches Authority is insignificant it being in every man's power to reject it so that it is a very unsufficient means for Peace such as became not the Divine Wisdom to constitute because not certain to take effect Not to repeat what is said before Section 19. but only to shew them how unreasonable it is that they should require us to shew the Reasons of the Divine Providence in its Constitutions that are evident to us when the Reasons of them are not Let them resolve us if the Scriptures be not our Rule of Faith and Manners or if we cannot understand the sense of them without the Churches Authority why they were written or if the Churches Authority be absolute and unlimited why it had not been plainly and expresly told us by God that we must submit our selves in all things to this Authority or why we are bidden to search the Scriptures why God should have suffered the Scriptures to be written when he could not but foresee that the pretence of the Churches Authority clashing with that of the Scriptures is that which has and will disturb our Peace If they tell us of the many Heresies Schisms and Divisions that are seen to have faln out by mens expounding the Scripture for themselves They will give us leave I hope to tell them of the Idolatries Superstitions and other Irreligious Customs and Practices which we see to have fallen out through their exalting the Churches Decrees to the prejudice of Christianity And further that as to those Heresies and Divisions which we see and lament among our selves we are beholden to the Church of Rome and her Emissaries in great part for them who have endeavoured to ruin our common Christianity by another extream only because we would not yield to those things which they have first done to the prejudice of it Besides I am apt to think that even such will have a great Plea at the day of Judgment from the rigorousness of the Church of Rome extending the Churches Authority beyond all bounds that our common Christianity will allow and necessitating well-disposed Christians to refuse submission to it whereby it becoming visible that Christianity is not in all things maintained by the Church necessarily and it not being evidently visible to common sense what bounds being kept her Authority does by God's Law claim submission they have presumed upon their own understandings for the sense of the Scriptures and framed their Religion according to them This I only urge that they may look about them lest they become guilty of the many souls that may miscarry in both extreams whilst they have rendred the means of salvation difficult among themselves and have by pretending to justifie that occasioned others to oversee the due means they should betake themselves to and run as dangerous a way in the other extream So then we are altogether as safe yea much more secure than the Church of Rome for we take that way to confute Heresies and to preserve the purity of Faith which the Divine Providence has appointed appealing to the Scriptures and using the best means for the understanding them and declaring the Authority of the Church acting within the limits set her by God's Word and for the maintenance of that Christianity she is established to preserve They on the contrary pretending to maintain their Church in what she has decreed to the prejudice of Christianity seek to establish a Power that has already prejudiced even in the foundations of Faith and may in probability utterly subvert our Christianity and have thereby given occasion to others to place their Reformation of the Church in the utter renouncing her Authority Nor are they ever the nearer putting an end to Heresies hereby for all their pretences to Infallibility will never end the differences of those that disown it and yet it 's apparent that in the mean time they prejudice our common Christianity by those Laws which make the means of salvation very difficult if not altogether ineffectual by denying hitherto those helps to salvation which those Laws intercept The other danger which they pretend we run is that of Schism a great crime questionless and that which all Christians ought not only to lament but seek to remedy and if it be possible and as much as in them lies to follow after Peace which by so many obligations the Christian Church is bound to preserve But we know that both Parties are liable to be charged with the breach till it appear which is guilty and the guilt of it will certainly fall on those who have made the separation necessary so that if a Church requires such conditions of Communion which are inconsistent with Christianity and subvert the Faith it ought to preserve they certainly are to be charged with the Crime who will not suffer us to hold our Christianity together with the Churches Communion Besides there is nothing of this Charge can lye against the Church of England 'till they prove her either to have rejected any Authority to which she was legally subject or to have departed from the Faith by her Reformation But the Church of Rome if she
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