when the power of the Church is used not to Edification but to Destruction then the obligation to obedience is not to be too far extended And as in Laws that oblige Subjects to obey Inferiour Magistrates a tacite exception is to be supposed in case they should become guilty of Treason so there must be supposed likewise in this case the like exception in case a Synod deposes a Bishop or a Bishop censures his Clergy for asserting the true Faith And as a Separation from an uncorrupted Church is a very great wickedness so the separating from a corrupted Church in whose Communion we cannot continue without being polluted in it is but a part of that care which we ought to have of our own Salvation The Fifteenth Method TO all the former Methods a Fifteenth may be added by letting our P. Reformed see that many Articles are to be found in their Confession of Faith in their Catechisms in the Articles of their Discipline in the Decisions of their Synods and in the Books of their Chief Ministers who have writ upon the Controversies from which Arguments may be drawn against them to prove the truth of our belief even by their own Confession For Example Their Discipline allows the Communion in one kind only to such as cannot drink Wine From which one may infer that the Communion under both kinds is not an Article of necessity and that they are in the wrong to alledge that as they do to be a lawful ground for their Separation The Minister Dailée and many others confess that in the time of S. Gregory Nazianzene S. Chrysostome and S. Jerome the Invocation of Saints was received in the Church John Forbes adds to this That the Tradition of the Church was uniform concerning Prayer for the Dead And since he denies that the Books of the Maccabees are Canonical he says the Scripture speaks nothing of it But without engaging into the difficulty concerning the Books of the Maccabees in which they have no more reason on their side than in the rest It is easie to conclude from their own principles that it was no ways to be allowed to separate themselves for matters that according to themselves were established by so great an authority and so constant an union of all Ages Remarks 1. IT is not an equal way of proceeding to object to the Protestants what some particular Writers have said or to strain Inferences too far at a time when the Celebrated Book of the Bishop of Meaux is in such high esteem The chief design oâ— which is to set aside all the Indiscretions of particular Writers and to put the best colours on things that is possible Now Tradition being of such authority among them whatsoever passes down through many of their approved Writers has a much greater strength against them than it can be pretended to have against us And therefore though particular Writers or whole Synods should have written or decreed any thing against the common Doctrines of the Reformed they ought not to object that to us If they will allow us the same Liberties that they assume to themselves 2. It is not a consequence becoming so great an Assembly to infer that because in some few extraordinary cases the general rule of Gods desiring Mercy and not Sacrifice is carried so far as to give weak persons so much of the Sacrament as they can receive and not to deny that to them because a natural aversion mâ—kes them incapable of receiving the Wine That therefore a Church may in opposition to Christs express command Drink you all of it and the constant practice of Thirteen Centuries take this away It is not of necessity for Salvation that every one drinks the Cup but it is of necessity to the purity of a Church that she should observe our Saviour's Precepts 3. It is confessed that some Fathers used the Invocation of Saints yet that being but a matter of fact it is of no consequence for the Decision of any point of Doctrine For we found our Doctrine only on the Word of God and â—ot on the practices of Men how eminent soever they might otherwise be But in relation to these Fathers these things are to be observed 1. They lived in the end of the Fourth Century So this is no competent proof for an Oral Tradition or conveyance of this Doctrine down from the Apostles days 2. Figures and bold Discourses in Panegyricks are rather to be considered as raptures and flights of warm affections than as composed and serious devotions Therefore such Addresses as occur in their Funeral Orations are rather high strains of a daring Rhetorick than Instructions for others since in their expositions on Scripture or other Treatises of Devotion they do not handle these things by way of Direction or Advice Iohn Forbes is mis-cited for William Forbes Bishop of Edenburgh Iohn was not of such yielding Principles It is true William though he was a man Eminently Learned and of a most Exemplary Life yet he was possessed with that same weakness under which Grotius and some other great men have laboured of thinking that a Reconciliation with the Church of Rome might be obtained by an accommodation on both sides and this flowing in him from an excellent temper of Soul he is to be excused if that carried him in many things too far But he is a Writer that has been taxed by all men as one that had particular Notions And we may object Erasmus to those of the Church of Rome as well as they may argue against us from Bishop Forbes 5. If the Church of Rome used only a General Commemoration of the Dead with wishes for the compleating their happiness by a speedy resurrection and went no further we might perhaps differ in opinion with them about the fitness of this but we would not break Communion with them for it But when they have set up such a Merchandize in the House of God for Redeeming Souls out of Purgatory and saying Masses for them this is that we except to as a disgracing of the Christian Religion and as a high profanation of the Holy Sacrament And it is plain that the Fathers considered the Commemoration of the Dead rather as a respect done to their Memory and an honourable remembrance of them than as a thing that was any way useful to them in the other state which may appear by this single Instance S. Cyprian was so much offended at a Presbyter when it appeared after his death that he had left another Presbyter Guardian of his Children that he gave order that no mention should be made of him in the Commemoration of the Dead that was used in the Holy Eucharist because by the Roman Law such as were left Guardians were under some obligations to undertake the trust And that Saint thought such a trust might prove so great a distraction to a man that was dedicated to the Holy Ministry that no Honour ought to be done to the Memory
guilty of which is to worship that as a God which we do believe is only a piece of Bread 2. In this very Article it is plain that our Opinion is the surer side For as to the Spiritual efficacy of the Sacrament and due preparation for it which is all that we hold concerning it by their own Confession there can be no sin in that whereas if their opinion is false they are guilty of a most horrid Idolatry So there is no danger in any thing we do whereas there may be great danger on their side all the danger that is possible to be on our side is that we do not adore Christ if he is present which may be thought to be want of Reverence But that cannot be reasonably urged since we at the same time adore him believing him to be in Heaven and if this objection against us had any force then the Primitive Church for twelve hundred years must have been in a state of damnation for none of them adored the Consecrated Elements nor has the Greek Church ever done it 3. It is clear this general Maxime of taking the surer sidâ— is against them There is no sin in not worshipping Images whereas there may be a sin in doing it They confess it is not necessary to invocate the Saints and we believe it is sinful They do not hold that it is necessary to say Masses for redeeming Souls out of Purgatory and we believe that it is an impious profanation of the Sacrament They do not hold it is necessary to take away the Cup in the Sacrament we think it Sacrilegious They do not think those Consecrations by which Divine Vertues are derived into such a variety of things to be necessary we look on them as gross Superstitions They do not think the Worship in an unknown tongue necessary whereas we think it a disgrace to Religion So in all these and many more particulars it is clear that we are of the surer side 4. We own that Maxime That nothing is necessary to Salvation but what is plainly set down in the Scriptures but this is not to be carried so far as that it should be impossible by sophistry or the equivocal use of words to fasten some other sense to such passages in Scripture for then nothing can be said to be plain in any Book whatsoever But we understand this of the genuine meaning of the Scriptures such as a plain well-disposed man will find out if his mind is not strongly prepossessed or biassed with false and wrong measures 5. The Confidence with which any party proposes their opinions cannot be a true Standart to judge of them otherwise the Receipts of Mountebanks will be always preferred to those prescribed by good Physicians and indeed the modesty of one side and the confidence of the other ought rather to give us a biass for the one against the other especially if it is visible that Interest is very prevalent in the confident party The Third Method IS to confer amicably with them and to shew them our Articles in the Scriptures and Tradition as the Fathers of tbe first Ages understood both the one and the other without engaging in reasonings or the drawing out of Consequences by Syllogisms as Cardinal Bellarmin and Perron and Gretser and the other Writers of Controversie have done which ordinarily beget endless disputes It was in this manner that the General Councils did proceed and thus did S. Austin prove Original sin against Julian To this end says he O Julian that I may overthrow thy Engines and Artifices by the opinions of those Bishops who have interpreted the Scripture with so much glory After which he cites the passages of the Scripture as they were understood by S. Ambrose S. Cyprian S. Gregory Nazianzene and others Remarks 1. WE do not deny but amicable Conferences in which matters are proposed without the wranglings of Dispute are the likeliest ways to convince people And whenever they shew us their doctrines directly in the Scripture and Tradition we will be very unreasonable if we do not yield upon that Evidence When they give us good authorities from Scripture and Tradition for the Worship of Images and Saints for adoring the Host for dividing the Sacrament for redeeming Souls out of Purgatory for denying the people the free use of the Scriptures for obliging them to worship God in a Tongue not understood by them we will confess our selves very obstinate men if we resist such Conviction 2. The shewing barely some passages without considering the whole scope of them with the sense in which such words were used in such ages and by such Fathers will certainly misguide us therefore all these must be also taken in for making this Enquiry exactly Allowances also must be made for the heats of Eloquence in Sermons or warm Discourses since one passage strictly and philosophically expressed is stronger than a hundred in which the heat of Zeal and the Figures of Rhetorick transport the Writer And thus if the Fathers disputing against those who said that the Humane Nature of Christ was swallowed up by his Divine Nature urge this to prove that the Humane Nature did still subsist that in the Sacrament after the Consecration in which there is an Union between the Elements and the Body and Blood of Christ they do still retain their proper nature and substance such expressions used on such a design leâ—d us more infallibly to know what they thought in this matter than any thing that they said with design only to beget Reverence and Devotion can do 3. The Ancient Councils were not so sollicitous as this Paper would insinuate to prove a Tradition from the Fathers of the first Ages They took great care to prove the truth which they decreed by many arguments from Scripture but for the Tradition they thought it enough to shew that they did innovate in nothing and that some Fathers before them had taught what they decreed We have not the acts of the two first General Councils but we may very probably gather upon what grounds those at Nice proceeded by what S. Athanasius wrote as an Apology for their Symbol in particular for the word Consubstantial which he proves by many consequences drawn from Scripture but for the Tradition of it he only cites four Fathers and none of those were very ancient They are Theognistus Denis of Alexandria Denis of Rome and Origen and yet both that Father Hilary and S. Basil acknowledge that Denis of Alexandria wavered much in that matter and it is well known what advantages were taken from many of Origen's expressions So here we have only two undisputed Fathers that conveyed this Tradition We have the Acts of the third General Council yet preserved and in them we find a Tradition indeed alledged but except S. Cyprian and S. Peter of Alexandria they cite none but those that had lived after the Council of Nice and Pope Leo's Letter to Flavian
to subscribe to every expression of his and do freely acknowledge that the making a rent in a Church that is pure both in Doctrine and Worship upon any particular or personal account is a sin that cannot be sufficiently detested and condemned I shall not enter into a particular discussion of every passage of S. Austin's but if in some he seems to go too far for the authority of the Church I shall only offer two general considerations concerning these The first is That it is a Maxime with Lawyers That general words in Laws are to be restricted to the preambles and chief design of these Laws And if this is true of Laws that are commonly penned with more coldness and upon greater deliberation it is much more applicable to warm discourses where the heat of Contradiction and the Zeal of a Writer makes that things are ofâ—en aggravated and carried too far but still all those expressions are to â—e molliâ—ied and restricted to that which was the subject matter of the debate therefore those expressions of S. Austin's supposing that the Church was still sound in her Doctrine and Worship are to be governed by that Hypothesis The second is That many of those who urge these passages on us do not deny but S. Aâ—stin in the disputes about Grace and Original Sin was carried too far though those were the subjects on which he employed his latest years with the greatest application If then it is confessed that he wrote too warmly against the Pelagians and in that heat advanced some propositions that need a fair construction is it unreasonable for us to say that he might have done the same writing against the Donatists 5. As for Tertullian he that might have conversed with many that could have known S. Polâ—carp who was both instructed and ordained by the Apostles so that he might have been the third person in the conveyance of the sense of what the Apostles had left in Writing could reasonably argue as he did against the Hereticks but certainly no man that considers the distance we live at from those ages and the many accidents that have so often changed the face of the Church can think it reasonable to argue upon that ground now And yet it were easie to bring many citatious out of that very Book of Tertullians to shew that he grounded his Faith only on the Doctrine of Christ delivered in the Scriptures how much soever he might argue from other Topicks against the Hereticks of his time who indeed were bringing in a New Gospel into the World We willingly receive the Characters that Vincentius Lyrinensis gives of Tradition that what the Church has at all times and in all places received is to be believed and are ready to joyn issue upon this and when they can prove that the Church at all times and in all places has taught the Worshipping of Images the Invocation of Saints and Angels the adoring the Sacrament and the dividing of it with many more particulars we will yield the whole cause and confess that we have made a Schism in the Church The Seventh Method IS to let them see that those who at first pretended to Reform the Church in which they were amongst us neither had nor could have any Mission either Ordinary or Extraordinary to bring us any other Doctrine but that which was then taught and that by Consequence none ought to believe them since they had no authority to Preach as they did How can they Preach if they are not sent This is the ordinary Method that puts the Ministers to the necessity of proving their Mission which is a thing that they can never do This cuts off all disputes and is one of the Methods of Cardinal Richelieu Remarks 1. IF the first Reformers had delivered a new Doctrine which was never formerly taught it had been necessary for them to have had a very extraordinary Mission and to have confirmed it by very extraordinary signs but when they grounded all â—hey said upon that very Book which was and is still received as the unalterable Law of all Christians then if every man is bound to take care of his own Salvation and is in Charity obliged to let others see that same light that guides himself then I say an extraordinary Mission was not necessary when the thing in dispute was not a new Doctrine but the true meaning of those Writings which were on all hands acknowledged to be Divine 2. If notwithstanding the necessity of not raising War in Civil Government without an express Commission from the Prince or Supream Authority yet in a General Rebellion when the ways of intercourse with the Prince are cut off if it be not only a lawful but a commendable action for any subject even without a Commission to raise what force he can for the service of the Prince Then if it be true that the Western Churches had generally revolted from the rules of the Gospel that was a sufficient warrant for any person to endeavour a Reformation 3. The nature of the Christian Religion is to be well considered in which all Christians are a Royal Priesthood And though it be highly necessary for all the ends of Religion to maintain peace and Order and to convey down an authority for sacred administrations in such a way as tends most to advance those ends yet this cannot be lookt on as indispensable and absolutely necessary Among the Iews as there were many services in which none but Priests and Levites could officiate so the Succession went in the natural course of Descent But in the Christian Church there are no positive Laws so appropriated and therefore in cases of extream and unavoidable necessity every Christian may make use of that dormant priviledge of being a Royal Priest and so this difficulty must be resolved by examining the merits of the whole cause for if the necessity was not extream and unavoidable we acknowledge it had been a Sacrilegious presumption for any that was not called in the ordinary manner to meddle in Holy things 4. It is but a small part of the Reformed Churches that is concerned in this Here in England our Reformers had the ordinary Mission and in most places beyond Sea the first Preachers had been ordained Priests And it will not be easie to prove that Lay-men yea and Women may baptize in cases of necessity when that is often but an imaginary necessity and that yet Priests in a case of real necessity may not ordain other Priests For all the Rules of Order are superseded by extraordinary cases and in Moral as well as in Natural things every Individual has a Right to propagate its kind and though it may be reasonable to regulate that yet it can never be wholly cut off The Eighth Method IS to tell them You do not know that such or such a Book of the Scripture is the Word of God but by the Church in which you were before your Schism So that you cannot know
what is the true sense of those passages that are in dispute but by that same Church which conveys it to you This is S. Austin's method in many places but above all in his Book De utilitate Credendi and in his Book Contra Epistolam fundamenti In which he says I would not believe the Gospel if the authority of the Church did not oblige me to it This Method is handsomely managed in the Treatise of the true Word of God joyned to the Peaceable Method Remarks 1. GReat difference is to be made between the conveyance of Books and an Oral Tradition of Doctrine It is very easie to carry down the one in a way that is Morally Infallible An exact copying being all that is necessary for that Whereas it is morally impossible to prevent frauds and impostures in the other in a course of some Ages especially in times of Ignorance and Corruption in which the Credulity of unthinking people has made an easie game to the Craft and Industry of covetous and aspiring Priests Few were then at the pains to examine any thing but took all upon Trust and became so ready of belief that the more incredible a thing seemed to be they swallowed it down the more willingly 2. If this way of reasoning will hold good it was as strong in the mouths of the Iews in our Saviours time for the High Priest and Sanhedrim might have as reasonably pretended that since they had conveyed down the Books in which the Prophecies of the Messiah were contained they hâ—d likewise the right to expound those Prophecies 3. A Witness that hands a thing down without Additions is very different from a Judge that delivers things on his own Authority We freely own the Church to be such a Witness that there is no colour of reason to disbelieve the Tradition of the Books but we see great cause to question the credit of her decisions 4. In this Tradition of Books we have not barely the Tradition of the Church for it We find in all ages since the Books of the New Testament were written several Authors have cited many and large passages out of them We find they were very quickly translated into many other Languages and diverse of those are conveyed down to us There were also so many Copies of these Books every where that though one had resolved on so Sacrilegious an attempt as the corrupting them had been he could not have succeeded in it to any great degree Some additions might have been made in some Copies and so from those they might have been derived to others but these could not have bâ—en considerable otherwise they had been discovered and complained of and when we find the Church engaged in contests with Hereticks and Schismaticks we see both sides appealed to the Scriptures and neither of them reproached the other for violating that Sacred Trust. And the noise we find of the small change of a Letter in the Aâ—ian Controversie shews us how exact they were in preserving these Records As for the Errours of Transcribers that is incident to the Nature of Man and though some Errours have crept into some Copies yet all these put together do not alter any one point of our Religion so that they are not of great consequence Thus it appears how much reason we have to receive the Scriptures upon the credit of such a Tradition But for Oral Tradition it is visible how it might have been so managed as quickly to change the whole Nature of Religion Natural Religion was soon corrupted when it passed down in this Conveyance even during the long lives of the Ancient Patriarchs who had thereby an advantage to keep this pure that after ages in which the life of Man is so shortned cannot pretend to We also see to what a degree the Iewish Tradition became corrupted in our Saviours time particularly in one point which may be called the most essential part of their Religion to wit concerning their Messias what the nature of his Person and Kingdome were to be So that they all expected a Great Conquerour a second Moses or a David so ineffectual a mean is Oral Tradition for conveying down any Doctrine pure or uncorrupted The Ninth Method IS to tell them the Church in which they were before they made the Separation was the true Church because it was the only Church so that they could not Reform the Doctrine without making another Church For then she must have fallen into Errour and by consequence the Gates of Hell must have prevailed against her which is directly contrary to the Promise of Iesus Christ that cannot fail The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against her Remarks 1. A Church may be a True Church and yet be corrupted by many Errours for a â—rue Church is a Society of men among whom are the certain means of Salvation and such was the Iewish Church in our Saviours time For their Sacrifices had still an Expiatory Vertue and the Covenant made with that people stood still and yet they were over-run with many Errours chiefly in their notions of the Messias And thus as long as the Church of Rome acknowledges the Expiation made by the Death of Christ and applied to all that truly believe and amend their lives so long she is a True Church So that those of that Communion who adhere truly to that which is the great fundamental of the Christian Religion may be saved But when so many things were added to this that it was very hard to preserve this fundamental truth pure and entire then it was necessary for those who were better enlightned to call on others to correct the abuses that had crept in 2. It is hard to build a great super-structure on a figurative expression of which it is not easie to find out the true and full sense And in this that is cited there are but three terms and about every one of them great and just grounds of doubting do appear 1. It is not certain what is meant by the Gates of Hell which is an odd figure for an assailant If by Gates we mean Councils because the Magistrates and Courts among the Iews sate in the Gates then the meaning will be that the Craft of Hell shall not prevail against the Church that is shall not root out Christianity or if by Gates of Hell or the Grave according to a common Greek Phrase Death be to be understood it being the Gate through which we pass to the Grave then the meaning is this that the Church shall never die or be extinguished Nor is there less difficulty to be made about the signification of the word Church Whether it is to be meant in general of the body of Christians or of the Pastors of the Church and of the majority of them The Context seems to carry it for the Body of Christians and then the meaning will be only this That there shall still be a Body of Christians in the World And
Gâ—neral In which I intend to shew that they have departed from the Tradition of the Church much more evidently than they can pretend that we have done And this is concerning the Popes power oâ— Deposing Kings which they who live under so mighty a Monarch have very prudently renounced But whether they have not more plainly contradicted the Tradition of the Church than the Reformers did shall appear by the sequel of this Discourse In order to which I shall lay down two grounds that seem undeniable in their own principles The one is That the Tradition of any Age or Ages of the Church when it is universal and undisputed is of the same authority with the Tradition of any other Age whatsoever For the promises made to the Church last continually and have the same force at all times And therefore a Tradition for these last six hundred years is of as strong an authority as was that of the first six Ages The second is That a Tradition concerning the measures of mens Obedience and actions is of the same authority with a Tradition concerning the measures of their Belief The one sort are practical and the other are speculative points and as more are concerned in a practical truth than in a speculative point so it has greater effects and more influence on the World therefore it is as necessary that these be certainly handed down as the other And by consequence a Tradition concerning any Rule of Life is as much to be received as that concerning any point of Belief for the Creed and the Ten Commandments being the two Ingredients of the positive part of our Baptismal Vow it is as necessary that we be certainly directed in the one as in the other and if there were any preference to be admitted here certainly it must be for that which is more practical and of greater extent Upon these two grounds I subsume that all the Characters of Oral Tradition by which they can pretend to find it out in any one particular agree to this Doctrine of the Popes power of deposing Princes that are either Hereticks or favourers of them The way sof searching for Tradition are these four First what the Writers and Doctors of the Church have delivered down from one age to another The second is what the Popes have taught and pronounced ex Cathedrâ which to a great part of that Communion is Decisive their authority being held Infallible and to the rest it is at least a great Indication of the Tradition of such an Age. The third is what such Councils as are esteemed and received as Oecumenical Councils have decreed as General Rules The fourth is the late famous Method of Prescription when from the received Doctrine of any one Age we run a back-scent up to the Apostles upon this supposition that the Doctrine of the Church chiefly in a visible and sensible thing could not be changed These are all the ways imaginable to find out the Tradition of past Ages and they do all agree to this Doctrine All the Writers for five or six Ages both Commentators on Scripture the School-men the Casuists and Canonists agreed in it so that Cardinal Perron had reason to challenge those of the contrary persuasion to shew any one Writer before Calvin's time that had been of another mind We do not cite this as a proof because Cardinal Perron said so but because the thing in it self cannot be disproved and in the Contests that fell in between the Popes and those Princes against whom they thundred no Civilian nor Canonist ever denied the Popes power of deposing in the case of Heresie It is true when the Popes pretended to a Temporal Dominion and that all Princes were their Vassals some were found to write against that other Princes contended about the particulars laid to their charge and denied that they were either Hereticks or favourers of Hereticks But none ever disputed this position in general that in a manifest case of Heresie the Pope might not depose Princes and it is too well known what both the Sorbonne determined in the case of Henry the Third and likewise how the body of the Clergy adhered to Cardinal Perron in the opposition he made to the condemnation of that opinion The next mark of Tradition is the Popes pronouncing an opinion ex Cathedrâ that is in a solemn Judiciary way founding it on Scripture and Tradition If Popes had only brutally made War upon some Princes and violently thrust them out of their Dominions this indeed were no mark by which we could judge of a Tradition But when we find Gregory the Seventh and many Popes since his time found this authority on passages of Scripture as that of the Keys being given to S. Peter Jeremiah the Prophet's being set over Kingdomes to root out to pluck up and destroy and that all power in Heaven and Earth was given to Chrâ—st and his bidding his Disciples to buy a Sword we must look on this as the declaring the Tradition of the Church So that it must eitâ—er be confessed that they are not faithful conveyers of it or that this is truly the Tradition of the Church And this has been done so often these last six hundred years that it were a needless imposing on the Readers patience to go about the proving it The Third Indication of Tradition is the Declaration made by Synods but chiefly by General Councils I need not here mention the many Roman Synods that have concurred with the Popes in the Depositions which they thundered out against Kings or Emperours since we have greater authorities confirming it The Third Council of Lateran declared that all Princes that favoured Heresie fell from their Dominions and they granted a Plenary Indulgence to all that fought against them The Fourth Council of the Lateran vested the Pope with the power of giving away their Dominions if they continued for a year obstinate in that their merciful disposition of not extirpating Hereticks The first Council of Lions concurred with the Pope in the deposition of the Emperour Frederick the Second which is grounded in the preamble on the power of binding and loosing given to S. Peter After these came the Council of Constance and they reckoning themselves superiour to the Pope lookt on this as a power inherent in the Church and so assumed it to themselves and therefore put this Sanction in many of their Decrees particularly in that for maintaining the Rights of the Church and in the Passports they granted which had been often added in the Bulls that confirmed the foundations of Monasteries that if any whether he were Emperour King or of what Dignity soever he might be opposed their Order he should thereby forfeit his Dignity The Council of Sienna confirmed all Decrees against Hereticks and the favourers of them that had been made in any former Councils and by consequence those of the Third and Fourth Councils in the Lateran The Council of Basil put
THE LETTER Writ by the last Assembly General OF THE Clergy of France TO THE PROTESTANTS Inviting them to return to their Communion TOGETHER With the Methods proposed by them for their Conviction Translated into English and Examined By GILBERT BURNET D. D. LONDON Printed for Richard Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in S. Paul's Church-yard M DC LXXXIII THE PREFACE THE fate of most that Answer any particular Book or Treatise is such that one may be justly discouraged from undertaking it For besides the great trouble the Answerer is put to in following his Author in all his Digressions and perhaps Impertinences and the small game he is often engaged in about some ill-sounding expression or some misunderstood period the issue of the whole business in matters of Controversies comes at best to this That it may be confest his Adversary has been too unwary in some assertions or unconcluding in some of his Arguments But still men retain their old perswasions And if one whom they had set up for their Champion should happen to be baffled they will only say that they mistook their man and be being made quit the Stage another is set in his room So that at most their engagement proves to be of the nature of a single Combate in the issue of which only two Individuals and not two Parties are concerned But when a whole Body speaks in one Voice here the undertaking of a single person in opposition to them may be thought indeed too hardy and bold but yet the debate becomes of more consequence at least to the one side because the Credit of those against whom he writes is so well established that a satisfactory Answer to what they offer as the strength of their cause must needs have great effect on these who examine those matters Critically and judge of them Impartially The World hath been filled with the noise of the Conversions lately made in France but it has been generally given out that the violences of Monsieur de Marilliac and the Souldiers and the Payments dispensed by Monsieur Pellisson have been the most prevailing Arguments hitherto made use of That Great King has indeed interposed in this matter with a Zeal that if it were well directed might well become one who reckons these to be his most esteemed Titles that he is the Most Christian King and the Eldest Son of the Church But amidst all this noise of Conversions we have heard more of the Temporal than Spiritual Sword and except in the violences and out-rages of some of the Clergy we have not heard much of any share they have had in this matter It is true the Celebrated Explication of their Faith written some years ago by the then Bishop of Condom now of Meaâ—x has made a great shew and most of the Conversions are esteemed the effects of that Book And the eminent Vertues of the Author joined with that great gentleness by which he insinuates himself much into the Hearts of all those that come near him have perhaps really wrought much on some whose Consciences were by other motives disposed to be very easily perswaded Soft words and good periods have also had some weight with superficial Enquirers But that Explication of his which may be well called a good Plea managed with much Skill and great Eloquence for a bad cause has been so often and so judiciously answered that I am confident such as have considered these Answers are no more in danger of being blinded with that dust which he has so ingeniously raised For it must be confessed That his Book deserves all the commendations that can be given it for every thing except the sincerity of it which I am sorry to say it is not of a piece with the other excellent qualities of that great Prelate But now we have before us a work of much more importance in which we may reasonably conclude the strength of the Roman cause is to be found Since it is the unanimous voice of the most learned and soundest part of that Communion For while the Spaniards have chiefly amused themselves mith the Metaphysical subtilties of School-Divinity and when the Italians have added to that the study of the Canon Law as the best way for prefermâ—nt the French have now for above an Age been set on a more solid and generous pursuit of tâ—ue Learning They have laboured in the publishing of the Fathers Works with great diligence and more sincerity than could be expected in any other part of that Church where the watchful Eyes of Inquisitors might have prevented that Fidelity which they have observed in publishing those Records of Antiquity So that the state of the former Ages of the Church is better understood there than in any other Nation of that Communion Nor has the Secular Clergy or Laity only laboured with great faithfulness in those enquiries such as Albaspine De Marca Godeau Launnoy Huetius Rigaltius Valesius and Balusius to name no more but even that Order which is not so much admired over the World for great scrupulosity of Conscience has produced there several great Men that are never to be named but with Honour such as Fronto Ducaeus and Petavius but above all Sirmondus through whose Writings there runs such a tincture of Candour and Probity that in matters of fact Protestants are generally more enclined to acquiesce in his authority than those of his own perswasion are which made them afraid at Rome to give him free access to their Manuscripts Nor is the Learning of the Gallican Church that for which they are chiefly to be esteemed It must also be acknowledged that from the study of the Ancient Fathers many of them seem to have derived a great measure of their Spirit which has engaged diverse among them to set forward as great a Reformation as the Constitution of their Church can admit of They have endeavoured not only to discover the corruptions in Morality and Casuistical Divinity and many other abuses in the Government of the Church but have also infused in their Clergy a greater Reverence for the Scriptures a deeper sense of the Pastoral Care and a higher value for Holy Orders than had appeared among them for divers Ages before Some of their Bishops have set their Clergy great Examples and a disposition of Reforming mens Lives and of restoring the Government of the Church according to the Primitive Rules hath been such that even those who are better Reformed both as to their Doctrine and Worship must yet acknowledge that there are many things among them highly Imitable and by which they are a great reproach to others who have not studied to copy after these patterns they have set them The World will be for ever bound to Honour the Names of Godeau Paschall Arnauld and the Author of the Essays of Morality and those thoughts which they have set on foot are so just and true that though their excellent Bishops are now almost all gone off the Stage and
from that which animated the Church in the former and best ages The Reverend Prelates say in their Letter That they hold the same Faith with their Predecessors If this were true in all points it were indeed very hard to write an Apology for those that have separated from them I shall not engage in a long discussion of the sentiments of the Ancient Bishops of the Gallican Church yet that the Reader may not be too much wrought on by the confidence and plausibleness of this expressionâ— I shall only give a taste of the Faith of the first of all the Gallican Clergy whose works are yet preserved and that is Irenaeus I shall instance it in two particulars the one is the hinge upon which all our other Controversies turn that is whether the Scriptures or Oral Tradition is to be appealed to for determining matters of Controversie The other is the most material point in difference among us concerning the presence of Christ in the Sacrament whether in it we really receive the substance of Bread and Wine or only the Accidents As to the first he directly appeals to the Scriptures which he says were the Pillar â—nd ground of Truth and adds that the Valentinians did appeal to Oral Tradition from which he â—urns to that Tradition that was come from the Apostles on which he insists very copiously and puts all the authority of Tradition in this That it was derived from the Apostles And therefore says that if the Apostles had delivered nothing in Writing we must then have followed the Order of Tradition And after he has shewed that the Tradition to which the Valentinians pretended was really against them and that the Orthodox had it derived down from the Apostles on their side he returns to that upon which he had set up the strength of his cause to prove the truth from the Scriptures Now the Scriptures being the foundation on which the Protestants build and Oral Tradition together with the authority of the Church being that on which the Church of Rome builds it will be easie to every one that considers those Chapters referred to in Irenaeus to gather upon which of those he grounded his belief As for the other particular he plainly calls the Sacrament that Bread over which thanks have been given and says our flesh is nourished by the body and blood of Christ and concludes that our flesh by the Sacrament has an assurance of its Resurrection and Incorruptibility More particularly he says Our blood is encreased by the blood of Christ and that he encreases our body by that bread which he has confirmed to be his body and that by these the substance of our body is encreased and from thence he argues that our bodies receive an encrease not by any internal or invisible way but in the natural way of nourishment and so concludes that our bodies being nourished by the Eucharist shall therefore rise again Every one that considers the force of these words must conclude that he believed our bodies received in the Sacrament a real substance which nourished them and not bare Accidents If then upon this essay it appears that the first Writer of all Gallican Bishops does agree with the Protestants both in that which is the foundation upon which they build their whole cause and also in that particular opinion which is believed to be of the greatest importance then the Reader has no reason to believe that the present Bishops of France hold the same Faith which their Predecessors taught who first preached the Christian Religion in that Kingdom But now I come to answer the main Question which is indeed the whole substance of the Letter Why have they made the Schism If such a Letter with such a demand in it had come from the Abassin or Armenian Churches or perhaps from the Greek Churches whose distance from us is such and the oppressions they groan under are so extreme that they have little heart and few opportunities to enquire into the affairs or opinions of others it could not have been thought strange but to hear it from these among whom those live who have so often both in Writings and Discourses answered this question so copiously is really somewhat unaccountable Yet this is not all but it is added That the Protestants upon trial finding they could not shake their Doctrine have charged them only for their ill lives as if that were the ground of the Separation This it must be confessed had better become the affected Eloquence of a Maimbourg than the sincerity of so many eminent men of whom the mildest censure that can be past in this particular is That some aspiring Priest being appointed to pen this Letter that was better accustomed to the figures of a clamorous Rhetorick than the strict measures of Truth gave it this turn hoping to recommend himself by it and that the Bishops signed it in haste without considering it well Who of all the Protestants have made that Experiment and found that the Faith of the Church of Rome was not to be attackt and that she can only be accused for the ill lives of some in her Communion If this were all we had to object we do not deny but that all that the Fathers retorted on the Schismaticks particularly the Donatists did very justly fall on us and that we could neither answer it to God to the World nor our own Consciences if we had separated from their Church on no other account And this is indeed so weak a Plea that the Penner of the Letter shewed his skill at least if he was wanting in his sincerity to set up a pretence which he knew he could easily overthrow though the reasons he brings to overthrow it are not all pertinent nor convincing But this in conclusion is so managed as to draw an occasion from it to complement the present Pope some way to make an amends for their taking part with their King against him All that is to be said on this Head is That Protestants are not so unjust as to deny the Pope that now reigns his due praises of whose vertue and strictness of life they hear such accounts that they heartily wish all the Assembly of the Clergy from the President down to the Secretaries would imitate that excellent Pattern that he sets them A Zeal for converting Hereticks does not very well become those whose course of life has not been so exemplary that this can be imputed to an inward sense of Religion and to the motives of Divine Charity But in this point of the corruption of mens lives we may add two things more material The one is if a Church teaches ill Morals or at least connives at such Casuistical Doctrines as must certainly root out all the principles of moral vertue and common goodness out of the minds of men then their ill Morals may be improved to be a good argument for a Separation from them How much the Casuistical Doctrine of those
who are the Chief Confessors in that Communion has been corrupted of late we may learn from what has been published by many among themselves particularly by their late Address to the present Pope and by the Articles condemned both by Pope Alexander the Seventh and by the Pope that now reigns But yet how faint those censures are every one that has read them must needs observe This is not all The dissolving of Oaths and Vows the dispensing with many of the Laws of God the authorizing Subjects to shake off their Princes yoke if he does not extirpate Heresie and Hereticks the butcheries of those they call Hereticks and that after Faith given to the contrary having been for some Ages the publick practices of the Court of Rome in which several General Councils have also concurred with them are things both of such a nature and have been so openly avowed as well as practised in that Church that this argument from the corruption of their Morals may be well fastened on their whole Church If likewise many opinions are received among them which do naturally tend to slacken the strictness of holiness and give the World more mild Ideas of sin and make the way to the favour of God accessible even without a real Reformation then there will be more weight in this argument than may at first view appear The belief of the Sacraments conferring Grace ex opere operato the Vertue of Indulgences the Priestly Absolution the Communication of Merits the Vertue supposed to be in some Pilgrimages in Images and Priviledged Altars in Fraternities and many consecrated things together with the after-game of Purgatory and of Redemption out of it by Masses these with many more devices are such contrivances for enervating the true force of Religion and have such effects on the lives of men who generally are too easie to hearken to any thing that may make them hope well while they live ill that when we complain of a great dissolution of mens Morals that live under the influences of that Religion this charge is not personal but falls on their Church in common In the next place that vast corruption of Ecclesiastical Discipline and of all the Primitive Rules occasioned chiefly by the exorbitant power the Popes have assumed of dispensing with all Laws the gross sale of such Graces at Rome the Intrigues in the Creation of the Popes themselves the universal neglect of the Pastoral care among the superiour Orders of the Clergy do give men just and deep prejudices against a Church so corrupt in her ruling Members and do raise great dislike of that extent of Authority which the Bishops of Rome have assumed that have cut all the Banks and let in such an inundation of ill practices on the World And if once in an Age or two a Pope of another temper of better Morals and greater strictness arises we are notwithstanding that to judge of things not upon rare and single instances but upon their more ordinary and natural effects Thus laying all these things together it will appear that our exceptions to that Church upon the account of their Morals is not so slight as the Penner of that Letter has represented it and that his Instances for living among ill men have no relation to this matter But this is the weakest Plea we have for our Separation and as strong soever as it may be in it self we build upon solider foundations In order to the opening this I shall premise a little of the true end and design of Religion which is to beget in us so deep a sense of the Divine nature and perfections aâ— may most effectually engage us to become truly Holy There are two Inclinations in the nature of men that dispose him to corrupt the Ideas of God the one is an Inclination to cloath him in some outward figure and present him to our senses in such a manner that we may hope by flatteries or submissions by pompous or cruel services to appease him And the other is a desire to reconcile our notions of Religion to our vicious habits and appetites that so we may some way pacifie our Consciences in the midst of our lusts and passions And thus the true notion of Idolatry is the representing of God to us so as that we may hope to gain his favour by other methods than our being inwardly pure and holy And the immorality of this consists not only in the indecency of such representations and their unsuitableness to the Divine nature but likewise in this that our notions of God which ought to be the seeds of Vertue and true Godliness by which our natures are to be reformed are no more effectual that way but turn only to a Pageantry and spend themselves in dressing up our worship so as we think will better agree with one that is like our selves Now we find the chief design of the Gospel was to root this out of the World and to give us the highest and perfectest Ideas of the purity and goodness of the Divine nature that might raise in us that inward probity of Soul compâ—ehended in the general name of Charity or Love which is the proper Character of the Christian Spirit We have also the Divine Holiness so presented to us that we can never hope to attain the favour of God here or Eternal happiness hereafter but by becoming inwardly and universally holy Now our main charge against the Church of Rome is That this which is the great design of the Christian Religion is reversed among them and that chiefly in four things 1. In proposing visible objects to the adorations of the people against not only the current of the whole Scriptures but the true Idea and right notion of God and this not only by Precept in the Images of our Saviour and the Saints but by a general tolerance in the Images of the blessed Trinity it self Thus the senses having somewhat set before them on which they may work do naturally corrupt the mind and convert Religion which is an inward and spiritual work into an outward gross homage to these objects 2. In setting up the Intercession of Saints as if either God had not a capacity of attending to the whole Government of the World or were not so merciful or good but that as Princes are wrought on by the interposition of their Courtiers so he needed to have such importunities to induce him to be favourable to us The very Plea commonly used for this from the resemblance of Earthly Courts is the greatest debasing of the Divine Nature that is possible And when the Addresses made to these Saints in the publick Offices of the Church are the very same that we make to God or our Saviour That they would pardon our sins give uâ—â—race assist us at all times and open the Kingdome of Heaven to us and when after those things have been complained of for above an Age and that upon a general review of their Offices
Covenant is grounded we cannot receive an Idolater though we do admit such as are in errours that produce no other effect but mistaken apprehensions and judgements It is unreasonable to say that if the Presence is acknowledged Adoration ought to follow for we will excommunicate none for a consequence were it never so well deduced so long as they hold not that consequence And if Calvin argued as he did from that absurdity it was not that he thought they ought to adore because they believed Consubstantiation but rather to let them see how unreasonable it was to believe it since they did not adore it and yet it must be confessed the argument is not unanswerable For it may be said that as Princes when â—â—ey are in any place Incognito even though they are known yet their being Incognito shews that they will not have that respect paid them which is otherwise due to them So that Christ being present in an invisible manner is not to be adored I shall not determine whether the Argument or the Answer is stronger yet this must be confessed that upon so dubious a consequence it were a very unreasonable Cruelty to deny the holding Communion with those that believed such a presence though we refuse to communicate with those that joyn Adoration to it 2. There is a great difference to be made between the receiving men that hold erroneous Tenets to our â—ommunion that we believe is pure and undefiled and the joyning our selves to a Communion in which we must profess those very errours which we condemn and by solemn acts of Worship must testifie before God and the World that we believe that which inwardly and in our Consciences we think false The former is only a tolerating or conniving at the errours of others without any sort of approbation of them whereas the other is the fullest and most publick contradiction to our Consciences that is possible 3. As long as any Errours do not strike against the foundations of the Christian Religion we own that we will bear with them at least not oblige others especially the Laity in whom there is not that danger of spreading them to renounce them before we admit them to the Sacraments But the case of the Church of Rome is very different among whom this opinion is but one of very many opinions that we think reverse the whole nature and design of Christianity of which some short hints were given in the Remarks upon the Letter of the Assembly General 4. It is a very ill Inference to conclude because that we think a man can be saved that believes the Corporal Presence therefore we have done amiss to separate from their Communion We may think men may be saved though they are in some errours that in us were damnable after the illumination we have had especially if we should profess that we believe them when we do not believe them and therefore if we cannot continue in their Communion without professing that we believe those Errours they were to blame for imposing them on us and not we for separating from them when they had imposed them 5. That which the African Fathers objected to the Donatists was very pertinently urged against them who grounded their Separation only upon this That there were some corrupt members in the Communion of the Church And this was very justly cast back on them upon their receiving the Maximianists whom they had formerly condemned as Schismaticks to their Communion But it has no relation to us who have not separated from their Church upon any such personal account Therefore since the chief grounds of our Separation are the corruptions in their Worship and our being obliged to bear a share in those corruptions it is clear that our receiving to our Communion those who have not corrupted their Worship and come to joyn with us has no relation to that dispute bâ—tween the African Fathers and the Donatists 6. There is one thing in the Method which we freely confess to be true That there is none of the controverted points that are harder to be believed than this of the Real Presence It is no wonder it should be so since it has the strongest Evidences both of Sense and Reason against it But if it is so hard to be believed it is very severe to prosecute those who cannot bring themselves to believe it in so extreme a manner as that Church has done and still does Upon the whole matter this Method is so weak in all the parts of it that its being set first gives no great hopes of any thing extraordinary to follow The Second Method IS to lay this before them that according to the light of Nature and their own Confession in the matters of our Salvation which is the one thing that is needful we ought always to chuse the surer side Now it is certain that according to that Decree of the Synod of Charenton it is indifferent to them whether one believes the Real Presence or whether they believe it not and we hold it necessary to believe it therefore it is the surer side to believe it and if they could but disengage themselves a little from their prejudices they would follow this way The same may be said of all the other points in dispute Mestresat the Minister in his Treatise of the Church says that things necessary to Salvation are only those that are so expressly set down in the Scriptures that no doubt can be made of them Such as are the Articles of the Apostles Creed If there is any thing that is obscure says he then I assert it is not necessary and therefore one may be a very good Christian without it and may have both Faith Hope and Charity It is evident that the points in dispute which they maintain against us are not so clearly expressed in the Scripture that one cannot doubt concerning them Since we maintain on good grounds that they are not there So that according to their own Doctrine one can disbelieve them without endangering his Salvation But we say that it is necessary under the pain of damnation to believe the contrary opinion and therefore if they will take the surest side they ought to submit to us Remarks 1. IT is something odd to see so great a Body use this Logick That because we think an errour is not damnable and such as obliges us to excommunicate all that hold it therefore we think it indifferent to believe it or not We judge it an errour and while we think it so it were a lie for us to say that we did believe it and this especially in such publick Acts of Worship of God which are grossly Idolatrous by their own Confession while we hold this persuasion is so far from being a thing indifferent that we know nothing more damnable For this were to lie every day to God and the World and to commit Idolatry in a manner more absurd than the most barbarous Nations have been
to which the Council of Chalcedon assented is an entire contexture of authorities drawn from Scripture without so much as any one citation of any Father It is true there is added to the end of that Letter a Collection of some sayings of six Fathers Hilary Ambrose Nazianzene Chrysostome Austin and Cyril who had all except one lived within sixty years or a little more of that time So it is certain they founded their Faith only on the Scripture and not on Tradition otherwise they had taken more pains to have made it out and had not been so easily satisfied with what a few late Writers had said And thus it may be presumed that all the end for which they cited them was only to shew that they did not broach new and unheard of opinions And S. Austin could noâ— think that S. Cyprian's opinion alâ—ne was a sufficient proof of the Doctrine of the first three Centuries for Original Sin and yet he citeâ— no other that lived in those Ages Noâ— could S. Ambrose and Nazianzene that had lived in his own time be cited tâ— prove the Tradition of former Ages And whereas it is insinuated that he cited others one would expect to finâ— a Catalogue of many other Fatherâ— wrapt up in this plural whereas alâ— resolves into Hilary alone And we have a more evident Indication of S. Austin's sense as to the laâ—t resort in matters of Controversie than this they offer in that celebrated saying of his when he was writing against Maximinus the Arian Bishop But neither may I make use of the Nicene Council nor you that of Arimini as that which ought to pre-judge us in this matter for neither am I held by the authority of the one nor you by the authority of the other Let the one side and cause and their reasons be brought against the other from the authorities of the Scriptures that do not belong to either side but are Witnesses common to both The Fourth Method IS to tell them that their Ministers can never do this nor shew in the Scriptures any of their Articles that are controverted and this is very true For example they can never bring any formal Text to prove that Original Sin remains as to the guilt of it after Baptism that we receive the Body of Iesus Christ only by Faith that after the Consecration the Sacrament is still Bread that there is no Purgatory and that we do not merit any thing by our good works And to this it may be added that among all those passages that are on the Margent of their Confession there is not one that says that which they cite it for either in express or equivalent terms or in the same sense This is the Method of Mr. Veron which he took from S. Austin who says to the Manichaeans Shew me that that is in the Scripture and in another place Let him shew me that that is to be found in the Holy Scripture We must then boldly tell them That they cannot prove any of their Articles that are in dispute nor dispute against any of ours by any passages of Scripture neither in express terms nor by sufficient consequences so as to make their Doctrine be received as the Faith and ours pass for Errour Remarks THe first part of this Article proceeds upon Veron's Method of putting us to prove our Doctrines by express words of Scripture but some more cautious person has added in the conclusion a Salvo for good consequences drawn from them upon which we yield that this is a very good Method and are ready to joyn issue upon it If they intend still to build upon that notion of express words we desire it may be considered that the true meaning of all passages is not to be taken only from the bare words but from the contexture of the Discourse and the design upon which they are made use of and that Rule of Logick being infallibly true That what things soever agree in any third thing they do also agree among themselves it is certain that a true consequence is as good a proof as a formal passage Thus did our Saviour prove the Resurrection from the Scriptures by a very remote consequence since God was said to be the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob and was the God of the Living and not of the Dead So did the Apostles prove Christ's being the promised Messias and the obligation to observe the Mosaical Ceremonies to have ceased upon his coming by many consequences but not by the express words of Scripture All the arguings of the Fathers against the Heretiâ—ks run on Consequences drawn from Scripture as may appear in all their Synodical Letters more particularly in that formerly cited of Pope Leo to Flavian to which the Fourth General Council assented This Plea does very ill become men that pretend such reverence to Antiquity since it was that upon which all the Ancient Hereticks set up their strength as the most plausible pretence by which they thought they could cover themselves So the Arians at Arimini give this reason for rejecting the word Consubstantial because it was not in the Scriptures The Macedonians laid hold of the same pretence Nestorâ—us gives this as his chief reason for denying the Virgin to be the Mother of God And Eutyches covered himself also with this question In what Scripture were the two Natures of Christ to be found And his followers did afterwards insist so much on this Plea that Theodoret wrote two large Discourses on purpose to shew the weakness of this pretence So that after all the noise they make about the Primitive Church they follow the same tract in which the Hereticks that were condemned by the first four General Councils went and they put us to do the same thing that the Hereticks then put on the Orthodox But we make the same answer to it which the Fathers did That the sense of the Scriptures is to be considered more than the words So that what is according to the true sense is as much proved by Scripture as if it were contained in it in so many express words And yet this Plea had a much greater strength in it as it was managed by those Hereticks for those contests being concerning mysteries which exceed our apprehensions it was not an unreasonable thing at first view to say that in such things which we cannot perfectly comprehend it is not safe to proceed by deductions or consequences and therefore it seemed safer to hold strictly to Scripture Phrases but in other points into which our understandings can carry us further it is much more absurd to exact of us express words of Scripture 2. Most of the points about which we dispute with the Church of Româ— are additions made by them to the simplicity of the Christian Religion So much as we own of the Christian Religion they own likewise In the other particulars our Doctrine with relation to them is made up of Negatives
and theirs is the affirmative and since all Negatives especially in matters of Religion prove themselves it falls to their share to prove those Additions which they have made to our Faith and to the Doctrine contained in the Scriptures 3. Though this is a sure Maxime yet our Plea is stronger for there are many things taught by them against the express words of Scripture as their worshipping Images their noâ— drinking all of the Cup their worshipping of Angels their not worshipping God in a tongue which the unlearned understand and to which they can say Amen their setting up more Mediatoâ—â— between God and us than one Whereas S. Paul exhorting us to make Prayerâ— to God tells us there is one Mâ—diâ—tor which shews that he spake there his single Intercession with God on our behalf 4. We do not only build our Doctrine upon some few passages of the Scripture in which perhaps a Critical Writer might easily raise much dust but upon that in which we cannot be so easily mistaken which is the main scope of the whole New Testament and the design of Christianity which we believe is reversed in their Church by the Idolatry and Superstition that is in it 5. As for the particulars which they call on us to prove as they are very few so scarce any of them is of the greatest consequence The first is a speculative point about which we would never have broke Communion with them For the second that we receive Christ only by Faith if the third is true that the Sacrament is still Bread then that must be also true Now S. Paul calls it so four several times as also our Saviour calls the Cup the Fruit of the Vine As for our denying Purgatory it is a Negative and they must prove it Nor should we have broken Communion for their opinion concerning it if they had not added to that the redeeming Souls out of it with Masses by which the Worship is corrupted contrary to the institution of the Sacrament And for the last in the sense in which many of them assert it we do not raise any Controversie about it for we know that God rewards our good works or rather crowns his own Grace in us The fifth Method IS the Peaceable Method and without dispute founded on the Synod of Dort which all the pretended Reformed Churches of France have received and which has defined according to the Holy Scripture that when there is a dispute concerning any Controverted Article between two parties that are both within the true Church it is necessary to refer it to the judgement of the Synod and that he who refuses to submit himself becomes guilty of Heresiâ— and Schism Now if we will run back to the time in which the dispute began concerning any Article for instance that of the Real Presence both the parties in thâ— debate as well the Ancestors of those of the P. R. Religion as ours were in thâ— same Church which was the true Church for there was no other before the Sâ—paration which was not then made Then their Ancestors who would not submit to the Iudgement of the Church and have separated from her on no other account but because she had condemned their sentiments were Schismaticks and Hereticks And those who at this day succeed them are in the same manner guilty since they follow their opinions And to this they can make no other Answer but that which the Hereticks that have been condemned in all Ages might have made This Method is proved in all its parts in the little Treatise that has been made about it Remarks IT is not unwisely done to call this a Method that is to pass without dispute for it will not bear one And 1. There is this difference between the principles of Protestants and those of the Church of Rome that whereas the latter are bound to justifie whatever has been decreed in a General Council as a rule either of Faith or Manners the sormer are not so tied and much less are they bound by the decision of a National Council though never so solemn It is natural for all Judicatories to raise their own authority as high as they can and so if any Synod has made any such Declaration it lies on them to justifie it but the rest of those who have separated from the corruptions of the Church of Rome are not concerned in it 2. The principle of Protestants with relation to the majority even in a General Council is That when any Doctrines are established or condemned upon the Authorities of the Scriptures those who differ from them and do think â—hat the Council misunderstood the Scriptures are bound to suspect themselves a little and to review the matter with greater application and not to adhere to their former opinions out of pride or obstinacy They are also bound to consider well of their opinions though they appear still to be true yet if â—hey are of that importance that the publishing them is necessary to Salvation for unless it is so the Peace of the Church is not to be rent by them Yet if they are required to profess that they believe opinions which they think false if tâ—ey were never so inconsiderable no man ought to go against his Conscience But if a man after his strictest enquiries is still persuaded that a Council has decreed against the true meaning of the Scriptures in a point necessary to Salvation then he must prefer God to Man and follow the sounder though it should prove to be the much lesser party And if any Company or Synod of Protestants have decreed any thing contrary to this in so far they have departed from the Protestant principles 3. Difference is to be made also between Heresie and Schism in a Legal and a Vulgar sense and what is truly such in the sight of God The Sentence of a Supream Court from which there lies no Appeal makes one legally a Criminal But if he is innocent he is not the less innocent because a hard Sentence is past against him So Heresie and â—chism may take their denominations from the Sentence of a National or General Council But in that which is the sense of those words that makes them Criminal Heresie is nothing but an obstinate persisting in errours contrary to Divine Revelation after one has had a sufficient means of Inâ—truction and Schism is an ill grounded Separation from the Body of the Church So it must be the Divine Revelation and not the authority of a Synod that can prove one who holds contrary opinions to be an Heretick and the grounds of the Separation must be likewise examined before one can be concluded a Schismatick 4. Though the Conclusions and Definitions made by the Synod of Dort are perhaps generally received in France yet that does not bind them up to subscribe every thing that was asserted in that Synod Nor do they found their assent to those opinions on the authority of that Synod but upon the
Evidence of those places of Scripture from which they deduced them 5. Since those of that Communion object a National Synod to the Protestants this may be turned back on them with greater advantage in some points established by Councils which they esteem not only General but Infallible In the Third Council of the Lateran it was decreed That all Princes who favoured Hereticks did forfeit their Rights and a Plenary Indulgence was granted to all that fought against them In the Fourth Council at the same place it was decreed That the Pope might not only declare this forfeiture but absolve the Subjects from their Oaths of Obedience and transfer their Dominions upon others In the First Council at Lions they joyned with the Pope in thundring the Sentence of Deposition against the Emperour Frederick the First which in the preamble is grounded on some places of Scripture of which if they were the Infallible Expositors then this power is an Article of Faith And in the last pâ—ace the Council of Constance decreed That the Faith of a Safe-Conduct was not to be kept to an Heretick that had come to the place of Judgement relying on it even though he would not have come without it When Crueltâ— Rebellion and Treachery were thus decreed in Courts which among them are of so sacred an authority It is visible how much greâ—ter advantages we have of them in this point than any they can pretend against us 6. For the Synod of Dort I will not undertake the Apology neither for their Decrees nor for their Assertions and will not stick to say that how true soever many of their Conclusions may be yet the defining such mysterious matters as the order of the Divine Decrees and the Influences of Gods Grace on the wills of men in so positive a manner and the imposing their Assertions on all the Ministers of their Communion was that which many as sincere Protestants as any are have ever disliked and condemned as a weakening the Union of the Protestant Church and an assuming too much of that authority which we condemn in the Church of Rome For though they supposed that they made their definitions upon the grounds of Scripture so that in this sense the authority of the Synod was meerly Declarative yet the question will still recur Whether they understood the passages which they built on right or not And if they understood them wrong then according to Protestant principles their Decrees had no such binding authority that the receding from them could make one guilty either of Heresie or Schism The Sixth Method IS to shew them that the Roman Church or that Church which acknowledges the Pope or the Bishop of Rome the Successor of S. Peter to be her Head all the World over is the true Church Because there is no other besides her that has that undoubted mark which is a perpetâ—al Visibility without Interruption since Christ's time to this day This is a Method common to all the Catholicks and is very well and briefly set forth in the little Treatise of the true Church joyned to that of the Peaceable Method This is that of which S. Austin makes most frequent use against the Donatists and chiefly in his Book of the Vnity of the Church and in his Epistles of which the most remarkable passages relating to this matter are gathered together by the late Arch-bishop of Rouen in the first Book of his Apology for the Gospel in which he handles this matter excellently well One may add to this Method the Maxims of which Tertullian makes use in his Treatise of Prescriptions against the Hereticks and also Vincentius Lyrinensis in his Advices It is enough to say on this occasion that those two Treatises may satisfie any that will read them without prepossession in order to their forming a just Iudgement of the true Church of Iesus Christ and of all those Societies that would usurp that name Remarks THis Method is so common that there was no reason in any sort to give Mr. Maimbourg the honour of it unless it was that the Assembly intended to do him this publick honour to ballance his disgrace at Rome But let us examine it 1. This asserts that no other Church has a perpetual Succession without interruption but that which derives it from Rome which is so contrary to what every one knows that Mr. Maimbourg was certainly inspired with the Spirit of his Order when he writ it Do not all the Greek Churches and all the Churches that have their Ordination from them all from the Northern Empire of Muscovy to the Southern of the Abassines together with all those in the East derive from the Apostles by an uninterrupted series For till the Authority of the Church of Rome is proved which is the thing in question their being declared Schismaticks or Hereticks by it does not interrupt this Succession 2. The Church of England has the same Succession that the Church of Rome had in Gregory the Great 's time to wave the more ancient pretensions of the Brittish Churches and the Bishops of this Church being bound by one of their Sponsions made at their Consecration according to the Roman Pontifical to instruct their flock in the true Faith according to the Scriptures they were obliged to make good this promise Nor can it be pretended that they have thereupon forfeited their Orders and by consequence their Succession 3. The Succession of the Church of Rome cannot be said to be uninterrupted if either Heresie or Schism can cut it off It is well known that Felix Liberius and Honorius to name no more were Hereticks and if Ordinations by Schismaticks or unlawful Usurpers be to be annulled which was judged in the case of Photius and was often practised at Rome then the many Schisms and unjust usurpations that have been in that See will make the Succession of their Orders the most disputable thing that can be especially during that Schism that lasted almost forty years all the Churches of that Communion having derived their Orders from one or other of the Popes and if the Popes at Avignon were the Usurpers then let the Gallican Churches see how they can justifie the series of their Ordinations To all which may be added the impossibility of proving a true Succession in Orders if the Vertue of the Sacraments depends on the Intention of him who officiates since secret Intentions are only known to God 4. The ground on which the Donatists separated from the Orthodox Churches being at first founded on a matter of Fact which was of the pretended Irregularity of those who ordained Cecilian which they afterwards defended upon this that the Church could be only composed of good men and that the Sacraments were of no Vertue when dispensed by ill hands all that S. Austin says is to be governed by this Hypothesis against which he argues And it being once granted that the Church was not corrupted neither in Doctrine nor Worship we are very ready
Inâ—allibility was not so obstinately lodged with them that a company of lewd and wickeâ— Prieâ—ts could not mis-leaâ— the people aâ— they did in the Doctrine concerning the Messias From all which it may be well inferred that how large soever the meaning of those disputed passages that relate to the authority of the Church may be supposed to be yet a tacite condition must be still implyed in them That while Church-men continue pure and sincere and seek the truth in the methods prescribed by the Gospel they shall not err in any point of Salvation And it is not reasonable to expect that our Saviour should have left a more effectual provision against Errour than he has done against Sin since the latter is certainly more pernicious and destructive of those ends for which he came into the World So that as he has only left sufficient means for those who use them well to keep themselves from Sin in such a manner that they shall not perish in it so has he likewise provided a sufficient security against Errour when such means of Instruction are offered that every one who applies himseâ—f to the due use of them shall not err damnably 4. Another foundation on which they build is Oral Tradition which â—hey reckon was handed down in every Age since the Apostles days This some explain so as to make it only the conveyance of the Exposition of the Scriptures though others stretch it further as if it might carry down Truths not mentioned in Scripture And for finding this out two Methods are given The one is Presumptive when from the Doctrine of the Church in any one age it is presumed from thence that those of that age had it from the former and the former from those who went before them till we run it up to the Apostles days The other Method is of particular proof when the â—onveyance in every age appears from the chief Writers in it I shall not here run out to shew upon either of these hypotheses the unfitness of this way of conveying Doctrines nor the easie door it opens to fraud and imposture but shall only shew that they cannot prove they have a competent Evidence of Oral Tradition among them And first it is certain that we have not handed down to us a general exposition of the Scriptures and that almost all the Ancient Expositors run after Allegories according to the way of the Greek Philosophers For some whole ages we have not above two or three Writers and those lived very remote and what they say chiefly in the passages that are made use of in the later Disputes fall in oft on the by and seem rather to have dropt from them than to have been intended by them so that this cannot be thought decisive And when it is likewise confessed that in their Disputes with the Hereticks of their days they have not argued so critically from those places of Scripture which they considered more narrowly It will not be reasonable to conclude too positively upon those things that rather fell in their way occasionally than were the designed subjects of their enquiries So that it is not possible to prove an Oral Tradition by the Instances of particular Writers in all the ages and corneâ—s of the Church For almost an age and a half we have not one copious Latine Writer but Tertullian and Cyprian that both lived in Carthage And it is not very clear of what persuasion the former was when he wrote the greatest part of his Treatises That he was a Heretick when he wrote some of them is past dispute Now can one think â—hat if God had intended that the Faith should have passed down by such a conveyance there would have been such uncertain prints left us by which we might trace it out As for the other Method of Presumption or Prescription it is certainly a false one for if in any one particular it can be made appear that the Doctrine of the Latin Church has been in these latter ages contradictory to that of the primitive times then this of Prescription is never to be any more alledged and of this I shall give two Instances that seem demonstrative The first is about the worshipping departed Saints or Martyrs which has been the practice of the Lâ—tin Church for several ages And yet in the second Century we have the greatest evidence possible that it was not the Doctrine of that age and that not in any occasional word let fall by some single Writer but in a Letter writ by the Church of Smyrna concerning the Martyrdom of their late Biship S. Polycarp In which there appears that warm affection for his person and honour for his memory that we cannot think they would have been wanting in any sort of respect that waâ— due to the ashes of so great a Saint And what they say to this purpose is deliberately brought out for it being suggested by the Iew that had set on the Heathens against that Martyr that it was necessary to destroy his Body lest the Christians should worship him They reject that imputation in these words They being Ignorant say they that we can never forsake Christ who died for the salvation of the World nor worship any other for we adore him as the Son of God But for the Martyrs we do worthily love them as the Disciples and Followers of our Lord for their unconqâ—ered love to their King and Master and therefore dâ—sâ—re to be their Partneâ—s and Disciples To this I shall add another Instance that is no lesâ— evident which is concerning the presence of Christ in the Sacrament The Tradition of the Church can be best gathered from the Liturgies which are the publickest the most united and most solemn way in which she expresses her self In S. Ambrosâ—'s time or whosoever else was the Author of the Book of the Sacraments that goes under his name we find that the Prayer of Consecrations as it is cited by him differs in a very essential point from that which is now in the Canon of the Mass In the former they called the Sacrifice that they offered up in it the figure of the Body and Blood of Christ but since that time they have changed that phrase and instead of it they pray that It may be to us the Body and Blood of Christ. We cannot tell in what age this change was made but we may certainly conclude that the Latin Church in S. Ambrose's time had a very different opinion concerning the presence of Christ from that which is now received among them and that then she only believed a Figurative Presence And thus it is certain that the Presumptive Method for finding out Oral Tradition is a false one and that the particular proof of Tradition by enquiring into the Doctrine of every age is impossible to be made 5. I shall enlarge a little further upon one particular Instance which is concerning one of those propositions lately condemned by the Assembly