the Justification of a Sinner Decrees as follows THat all Men are lapsed with Adam cap. 1. That Concil Trid. Ses 6. hereupon cap. 2. God sent his Son Christ whom he doth propose a Propitiation through Faith in his Blood for the Sins of the whole World But though he died for all c. 3. yet those only receive the Benefit to whom the Merit of his Passion is communicated That we are to conceive of Justification c. 4. as of the Translation of Man from the State wherein he was born as a Child of Adam to the State of Grace and Adoption through Christ which Change is not wrought without our being washed in the Laver of Regeneration or desire so to be That the beginning of Justification c. 5. in persons adult is the preventing Grace of God i. e. his free Calling whereby Man consenting and co-operating with his exciting and assisting Grace is disposed to prepare himself for Justification which he does willingly and might refuse Which Disposition is wrought after this excitement of Grace c. 6. by believihg willingly the divine Revelations and Promises particularly that God justifieth the Sinner through Grace and then out of a Sense of Sin turning from God's Justice to his Mercy hoping in him for Pardon and thereupon beginning to love him and hate Sin purposing to be Baptized and to begin a new Life That Justification followeth this Disposition c. 7 which is not only the Remission of Sins but the Renovation of the inner Man and hath five Causes the Final the Glory of God and Eternal Life the Efficient God who washeth away Sin and sanctifieth the Meritorious Christ who by his Passion hath merited Justification for us and satisfied his Father the Instrumental the Sacrament of Baptism the only Formal Cause Justice given by God whereby we are renewed in the Spirit of our Minds and not accounted only but made truly just every man receiving it according to the good pleasure of the Holy Ghost and according to his own proper Disposition receiving together with Remission of Sins Faith Hope and Charity That when it is said We are justified by Faith and freely c. 8. it ought to be understood because Faith is the beginning of Justification and the things that precede it are not meritorious of Grace That although it be necessary to believe c. 9. that Sins are not remitted to us but by the free Mercy of God through Christ yet we are not to believe they are remitted to him that vaunteth and reposeth himself only in the confidence and certainty of their Remission neither ought it to be said that Justification is perfected only by Faith excluding all doubt That those who are thus justified c. 10. by bringing forth good Works are more justified By taking the like View of the Doctrine of the Church of England in this Point we shall easily discern the things in difference She then declares 1. THat we are accounted righteous before God only for the Merit Articles of the Church of England Arti. 11. of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith and not for our own Works and Deservings wherefore that we are justified by Faith only is a most wholesom Doctrine and full of Comfort 2. That by Justification She means the Forgiveness of our Sins 2. Hom. of Justification part 1. and Trespasses That this being received of God's Mercy and Christ's Merits embraced by Faith is taken and allowed of God for our perfect and full Justification That nothing on the behalf of Man does contribute to this Justification but only a true and lively Faith which Faith is also the gift of God But this Faith does not shut out Repentance Hope Love Dread and the Fear of God from being joyned with Faith in every man that is justified but it shutteth them out from the Office or justifying nor does it shut out the Justice of good Works necessarily to be done afterwards of Duty to God but only excludes them from deserving our Justification which comes freely from the Mercy and Grace of God whereby he has provided that Ransom to be paid by Christ which all the World in any part was not able to pay of themselves 3. That this Saying that we are justified by Faith only is not 3. Ibid p. 2. meant as if justifying Faith were alone in any without Charity c. at any time or season nor the other that we are justified freely so as to imply that we may be idle or that nothing is required to be done on our parts neither that other of our being justified without Works that we should do nothing at all but thus to take away clearly all merit of our Works to deserve Justification at God's hands and also to express the Weakness of man and the Goodness of God the imperfection of our Works and the most abundant Grace of Christ and to ascribe the merit and deserving of our Justification to Christ alone That though we have and ought to have Faith within us with Hope Charity and other Graces and do never so many good Works thereunto we must renounce the Merit of all our said Virtues that are or may be in us as things too weak and insufficient and imperfect to deserve remission of Sins i. e. our Justification and must trust only in God's Mercy and the Sacrifice of Christ for the same 4. That therefore Christ himself is the only meritorious Cause of 4. Ibid. pa. 3. it That our own Works do not justifie us to speak properly of Justification i. e. to say our Works do not merit or deserve Remission of Sins but God of his own Mercy gives it us through the Deservings of his Son Nevertheless because Faith doth send us to Christ for this Remission and by it we embrace the Promise of God's Mercy and of the Remission of our Sins which thing none other of our works properly do therefore it is said that Faith without Works doth justifie us 5. But this Faith that justifies is not a dead or carnal but a 5. Hom. of Faith part 1. living Faith and this living Faith is a full Trust in God through Christ which upon the consideration of the greatness of his Mercy which it apprehends and relies upon is at the same time moved through the assistance of the Spirit to serve and please him out of this pure and only Principle the Love of God Now he that will consider and compare these Doctrines with each other will find that they both agree in the lapsed State of Mankind and the necessity of God's sending his Son whom he hath set forth to be our Propitiation and that though he died for all yet those only are benefited to whom his merit is communicated but when they come to express the nature of Justification the Church of Rome conceives it to be not only the Remission of sins but likewise the Renovation of the Inward man the Church of England by Justification means only Forgiveness of sins
which is the main difference that runs through the whole Controversie For hereupon the Church of Rome pursuing it 's own notion makes the beginning of Justification to be the answer to God's call and the following his exciting grace to the belief of God's promises thence hoping in him for pardon and thereupon beginning to love him and hate sin purposing a new life which disposition is followed with Justification of which it sets up different causes particularly making the only formal cause of it to be Justice or Righteousness given by God whereby we are renewed in the spirit of our minds and not accounted only but rendred just every man receiving it according to his disposition The Church of England on the other side holding a quite different sense of Justification declares Christ the only meritorious cause of it by what he suffer'd for the expiation of our sins and Faith the only means of receiving and applying his merits for this purpose which Faith it declares to be a full trust in God's mercy through Christ for the remission of our sins supposing always Repentance as necessary to make this confidence lively and Christian not carnal and presumptive excluding nevertheless even Faith it self as well as all other graces and works from being any way meritorious of this remission of sins which is only wrought by Jesus Christ not that it does in the least deny that Christ merited grace as well as pardon or that God by his grace doth infuse into our hearts Faith Hope and Charity and all other graces whereby the renovation of the inner man is wrought but supposing always that this sanctification is wrought by God's spirit in all justified persons it denies any of these graces and all inherent righteousness to be deserving of this Remission of sins which God gives us freely out of meer grace upon the score of Christ's merits Now then upon a view of the whole we see the ground of the difference lies in the different apprehension of Justification and herein certainly the Church of Rome is mistaken whilst she confounds Justification with Sanctification Remission of Sins with the Renovation of our Minds and taking Justification for what it properly signifies Remission of Sins the Council of Trent has made that the formal cause of Justification which has nothing to do in the Remission of Sins which are not remitted by being extinguished by contrary dispositions but by the Merits of Christ purchasing their pardon Again By departing from the Scripture-language and the true meaning thereof in making Justification consist in the infusion of Righteousness which it does not properly signifie there is appearance of reason great enough to cause men that are jealous of the glory of God's grace and the merits of Christ to think they claim remission of sins as due to that infused righteousness by having whereof they say they are righteous before God But yet inasmuch as it makes Christ to be the meritorious cause of Justication and says in the place M. Condom quotes that it is necessary to believe that our sins are not remitted but by the free mercy of God through Christ I dare not charge it as destroying his Merits by this Doctrine but wherein I do charge them with this will appear in the next Section But however it has gone beyond its power in making that matter of Faith which before was only a position of the Schools and which in it self is not true especially since it has proceeded further to declare that Doctrine of Justification which it has thus Vid. Preface to the Canons set down to be so necessary to be received that without believing it a man cannot be justified and has thereupon proceeded to make Canons whereby they condemn him that says 1 Can. 10. We are formally justified by the merits of Christ 2 Can. 11. That we are justified only by the imputation of Christs righteousness or only by remission of sins without inherent grace and charity 3 Can. 12. That justifying Faith is nothing but confidence in the mercy of God who remitteth sins for Christ 4 Can. 24. That Justification is not increased by good works but that they are fruits only and signs of it All which Propositions though condemned by them are true taking Justification in its proper notion for the forgiveness of sins for what is a man justified by but only the justice of Christ and by remission of sins if Justification be only the Remission of sins and that effected only by Christ and supposing the same what are we formally justified by but his merits and what is justifying Faith else supposing the same but a confidence in the mercy of God who remitteth sins for Christ's sake and how is Justification increased by works if it be the free remission of sins through Christ without consideration of them To come therefore at length to M. Condom who says That seeing the Scripture explicates Remission of sins sometimes by God's covering them sometimes by his blotting them out by his grace that makes us new creatures to form a perfect Idea of Justification both these are to be joined together Could he have shewn any one place of Scripture wherein Remission of sins signifies their being blotted out by making us new creatures I might allow his Idea reasonable But the place he cites in the Margin Tit. 3. v. 5 6 7. is not of that clearness as to make much for him when the Scriptures every where distinguish the Remission of our sins from our being turned from them the pardon of them from our having sin destroyed within us and consequently our Justification from our Sanctification and though both are wrought by Christ yet it speaks of them as things distinct ascribing the benefit of the one to the sufferings and satisfaction of Christ and God's mercy the other to the effect of his grace and holy spirit The words in that passage of the Epistle to Titus are these But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared not by works of righteousness which we have done but according to his mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour that being justified by his grace we should be made heirs of eternal life Now it 's true the Apostle here setting forth our salvation effected through the mercy of God in Christ for the manner of it sets down no more than the washing of Regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost but though the laver of Regeneration effects both the remission of our sins by the death and merits of Christ and the renovation of our minds by the Holy Ghost which is shed on us we are not therefore to think of them as if both were the same thing because both are conferred by the same Sacrament when it 's apparent that they are different mercies one the effect of Christ's death and
sufferings the other the effect of the Holy Ghost which is shed on us nor is it necessary that what the Apostle adds of our being justified by his grace should be understood of the grace of the Holy Ghost shed on us for the renewing of our minds but rather of that kindness and love of our Saviour to save us and of that mercy according to which he saves us without the works of our own righteousness We believe indeed our sins not only to be covered but also entirely washed away by the blood of Jesus Christ and the grace of Regeneration but we do not think fit to confound Justification which signifies the Remission of sins and Renovation which destroys sin within us one with another nor to think the latter which is effected but in part in this life to be meritorious of the former and should think we did too much lessen the merit of his blood if by allowing the effect of it to what it ought to be allowed the working Sanctification in us we should not consider it also to that other effect of wholly meriting for us the pardon of our sins Whereas he argues at last That the Righteousness which is in us is truly such and that even before God had not I reason to say as before that their making Justification to consist in the infusion of Righteousness gave too great appearance for men to think they claimed Remission of sins as due in some measure to their own Righteousness when M. Condom can thus plead for the truth and reality of it and for its being a righteousness and that before God But to give him an answer It is not by us denied to be a Righteousness in the sight of God any further than to this effect that it is not a righteousness that renders us void of sin nor that can in the least merit for us the remission of sins nor that can abide if he should try it with rigour or be extream to mark what is amiss therein When he comes at last to acknowledge it too true That the flesh rebels against the spirit and that in many things we offend all so that though our Justice be truly such yet it is not perfect Justice because of the Combate of Concupiscence so that we are obliged to confess with St. Augustin That our Justice in this life consists rather in the Remission of sin than in the Perfection of virtues Though I could wish he had express'd himself in all the words of St. Augustin in that place That our Righteousness though truly such in the end it aims at and is referred unto true goodness yet is such in this life that it consists rather in the Remission of sin than in the Perfection of virtues for hereby every work though good as aiming at a good end is acknowledged imperfect in that it attains not to it yet I am glad to find him profess so much of truth and could wish his Church had made the like declaration but it seems rather to speak the contrary when it condemns him that shall say the Just sins though only venially in every work Can. 25. which I see not how it could condemn if it held our Righteousness not to be Perfect Righteousness by reason of the Combate of Concupiscence for how can that which is not perfect Righteousness justifie its self in respect of God's Law and if not to say it is a venial offence against it because not arriving to that absolute perfection required by it is as little as can be said SECT VII Of the Merit of Good Works AS to the Merit of Good Works it 's true as he says their Church teaches That eternal life ought to be proposed both as a grace which is mercifully promised through Christ and as a recompence which is faithfully rendred to our good works and merits in vertue of this promise But whereas he adds That least humane pride should flatter it self in an opinion of presumptuous merit it also teaches that all the price and value of a Christians works proceed from sanctifying grace though it has express'd something of this nature yet he seeks greatly to impose upon us when he tells us it teaches it for the end he speaks of the prevention of presumptuous merit for the Council really adds this as a reason why eternal life ought to be proposed as a recompence of our merits Its words are these For whereas Christ infuses constantly the power of his grace Concil Trid. Sess 6. cap. 16. into the justified which power does always precede accompany and follow the works they do and without which they would upon no account be pleasing to or meritorious with God we are to believe nothing more wanting to the justified to the end they may be looked on as having fully by their works which are wrought in God satisfied the Divine Law with respect to the present life and to have truly merited that eternal life which they shall receive in it's time if they depart the present in a state of grace It goes on So that hereby neither our own Righteousness is set up as properly our own nor is the Righteousness of God passed by or rejected but the same is said to be our Righteousness because it is in us and we are justified by it and the same is also Gods because infused by him for the merit of Christ. When therefore the Council proceeds thus to shew wherein the price and value of good works consists it does it not intending to take men from a confidence in the merit of their works but with an intent to shew the grounds whereon it supposes this considence may be built and what it adds to shew that they set not up their own righteousness refusing God's does clearly evidence they place our Justification in the Righteousness that is within us though they acknowledge its infusion to be of God from whence it follows by a plain connexion that they profess a real merit and intrinsick value in a Christian's works although they confess wrought by grace that they are meritorious on that account alone It 's true the Council adds what M. Condom after and desires to be read with care Although Holy Writ esteems good works so much that Christ himself promises a glass of cold water shall not lose its reward yet God forbid a Christian should glory in himself and not in our Lord whose bounty is so great to all men that he will have those gifts which he bestows upon them to be their merits But still it does not deny them to be merits though it owns them first as the gifts of God nor does it any where resolve us what it means by this forbidding a Christian to glory in himself and not in our Lord if understood according to the rest it can only signifie that a Christian should not glory in any thing as done by his own power but should acknowledge it wrought by the help of grace and if no more
there being so vast a difference between those Sacraments which by virtue of our blessed Saviour's peculiar Institution are Seals exhibitive of all the promises of the Gospel and which take effect to this purpose from that Institution and others that are only means of particular graces to this or that particular effect some of which also can be hoped to take effect only in consideration of the Prayers of the Church and have no other virtue than what these Prayers can be hoped to produce Baptism About Baptism in particular I know but one material difference for the Church of England sufficiently presses its efficacy and necessity and has provided what she can that none may want it only she dares not determine it of that absolute necessity as to deny salvation to those Infants that dye without it The Romanists themselves allow the desire of it to supply the want of it to Justification in the adult and when St. Peter tells us that it is not the washing away the filth of the flesh but the answer of a good conscience towards God that saves us in Baptism why therefore they should not think the design of Christian Parents dedicating them to God's service and the profession of Christianity should not as well supply the want of it in case of necessity as it does render the washing effectual in the use of it I cannot apprehend Confirmation Confirmation is not in the least rejected by us but used with solemnity becoming such an Exercise and intended to the utmost effect that the Bishops Prayer and the Suffrages of the whole Congregation joyned with it can be hoped to procure of that grace which may enable all that come thereto both to will and to do what before their coming to that action they are taught they must then resolve upon viz. the prosession of Christianity in their own names undertaking to abide by it with their lives Penance Touching Penance we believe that Christ having committed to his Church the power of binding and loosing mens sins for edification and likewise committed to her the dispensation of the Mysteries of the Gospel Baptism and the Eucharist has given her authority as of admitting to so of casting out of the Church so that when it shall appear that any have visibly transgress'd that profession upon which they were admitted members of the Christian Church by Baptism she has full authority to call such to an account and to exclude them in part or altogether from her communion till they shall have submitted to and peformed such acts of humiliation as may both warrant her to admit them to her communion again by some assurance of their true repentance and recovery of the state of grace which alone entitles to it and likewise satisfie the Church for the scandal given by their Apostasie Likewise we believe that all who being baptized have made profession of Christianity are by that profession obliged to submit themselves to this discipline which the Church exercises for the cure of sin Further we prove that when the Church proceeds aright in the exercise of this authority excluding those from her communion who are visibly faln from the state of grace and admitting them again into it after it has wrought the cure of sin by enjoyning such acts of humiliation as have wrought a true repentance she acts according to Christs commission and what she does is valid and ratified by him to so great effect that what she binds on earth is bound in heaven and what she looses on earth is loosed in heaven We further say That God having provided this means for the procuring and assuring the pardon of sin by his Church does both teach private Christians what course they ought to take for the working in themselves a true repentance by acts of mortification and self-denial and invite them to bring their secret sins unto the Church so far as they shall be convinced within themselves that the Ministry of the Church may be beneficial to them by her Prayers or Discipline to work this effect But we declare on the other side That though we believe the Church has full authority thus to act in the cure of sin yet it has no authority to pardon sin till after it has wrought the cure so that if it shall absolve any from their sins in whom it has not first wrought a true repentance that act is null for the Church which is only ministerial to procure can have no authority to abate that condition which the Gospel requires to the remission of sins true Repentance And therefore 2ly we further declare That though the Churches Discipline be of great efficacy to procure this condition necessary to the remission of sins yet inasmuch as it is possible for men to work it in themselves without it by their earnest Prayers Humiliation and other Endeavours assisted by God's grace that the sins of such are pardoned by God without this discipline of the Church And therefore 3ly we also declare That whatever benefit may be in mens laying open their secret sins to the Church in obtaining the pardon of their sins yet there is no absolute necessity on them so to do for that their sins shall assuredly be forgiven without it so they be truly penitent Also out of a due apprehension of the exceeding usefulness of this Discipline i. e. Publick Penance in the Church of Christ and the great decay of Christian Piety sensibly fell through the want of it our Church laments its loss and the abominable abuses that crept into it of which the iniquity of the age took so great advantage as has for the present rendred it almost impracticable but to the utmost effect she can she does exercise it and to the best for the edification of her children But whilst we thus lament that this Discipline left by our blessed Saviour in his Church is in so great a measure lost and become impracticable yet there will not be so much reason to repent of our Reformation upon this account It was not the Reformation that cast off this necessary and saving Discipline but the corruptions of former ages that had brought in abuses to that excess that rendred it not possible for the Reformation at the removal of them to maintain it in the authority it ought to have had To what degree those abuses were arrived we shall be able to guess when we have considered those that are still maintained in Concil Trid. Sess 14. the Church of Rome which teaches thus 1 Cap. 1. That those who fall from grace after Baptism have need of another Sacrament to restore them and therefore our Saviour instituted this of Penance 2 Cap. 3. Can. 4. That the Form of this Sacrament consists in the words I absolve thee the matter of it is Contrition Confession Satisfaction condemning those who say Penance is no other than a Conscience terrified for its sins and faith to lay hold on Christ for forgiveness
3 Cap. 4. That Contrition is a grief of mind joyned with the hatred of sin and a purpose of sinning no more which although sometimes it may reconcile to God yet that effect is not to be ascribed to it alone without a desire of the other parts of this Sacrament That Attrition nevertheless or sorrow arising from the fear of punishment and filthiness of sin which is not perfect Contrition so it exclude an intention of sinning again with hope of pardon is the gift of God and though without the Sacrament of itself it cannot justifie us yet in the Sacrament it disposes a man for receiving the grace of God 4 Cap. 5. That by the Institution of this Sacrament an entire confession of sins is by Divine Law necessary to all that fall after Baptism God having made his Ministers Judges to whom all mortal sins are to be laid open that they may pronounce the sentence of their Remission or Non-remission 5 Cap. 6. That although their Absolution be but the Dispensation of another's gift yet they are not barely Ministers to pronounce or declare to the Church forgiveness of sins but their sentence is a Judicial act and to be look'd upon ratified as the sentence of a Judge and being of this nature is not to be esteemed valid unless the Priest has a serious intention of pronouncing the sentence of Absolution 6 Cap. 8. That when God remits the sin he does not always remit the punishment altogether that so the order of his Justice requires him to proceed that therefore there is a necessity of those satisfactory Punishments or Penances which are imposed after Absolution to appease the Divine Justice Now by this view of their Doctrine we may discern how far the practice of Penance in this Church differs from the use it ought to have in the Church of Christ The satisfactions or penitential works which by the Church should be first imposed and enjoyned the sinner to work in him a true humiliation that thereby being satisfied of his true repentance it may with authority pronounce him absolved from those sins whereof the cure is presumed are in this Church imposed after it has warranted the Absolution to an unheard of end the satisfaction of Divine Justice Then again it exceeds its authority in warranting Absolution before it has procured the only condition to which the Gospel tenders it Repentance The Church of Rome does indeed acknowledge Contrition or the sorrow that worketh true Repentance to be a part of this Sacrament but yet she does not make it absolutely necessary but allows it to be supplied by something that is not perfect Contrition even the Council you see declares Attrition to be not only the gift of God but that which does dispose a man for God's pardon in this Sacrament which is in effect to say that what is wanting to true Repentance is supplied by submitting our sins to the Church in Confession and the sentence or acquittal of the Priest thereupon That this is indeed their meaning is more plain from their Catechism which first its true sets forth Cat. Trid. de Confess Sac. Poenit. the great benefit and advantage of Contrition yet afterwards as if that were not the only condition of pardon tendred in the Gospel it requires that the people be further taught That although it must be confess'd that our sins are blotted out by Contrition yet inasmuch as few arrive to so great a degree of sorrow for them as that requires they are therefore but very few that can place their hope of pardon in that way wherefore it was necessary that our most merciful Lord should provide for the common salvation of mankind by an easier way which out of his wise counsel he did when he delivered the Keys of his heavenly Kingdom to his Church For according to the Doctrin of the Catholick Faith it must be believed and constantly affirmed by all that if a man be but so affected in his mind as to be sorry for the sins he has committed intending withal not to sin for the time to come although he have not that sorrow which is sufficient to obtain forgiveness yet when he shall have duly confess'd his sins unto the Priest all his sins shall be remitted and forgiven to him by the power of the Keys so that it was deservedly said by our forefathers that by the Keys of the Church an entrance is opened into the Kingdom of Heaven of which it is not lawful for anyman to doubt since it is decreed by the Council of Florence That the effect of the Sacrament of Penance is Absolution from our sins Joyn then but this to their Doctrine of Satisfactions Indulgences and Purgatory and we shall see how full of Poysons all this Composition of their Discipline is while the people are first taught and perswaded that their sins are cured by the sentence of Absolution once pronounced that this supplies the defects of their Repentance and opens them an entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven that the Penances after imposed are not enjoyned as though their sins were not wholly pardoned but to extinguish a debt of temporal punishment that there is a stock of satisfactions remaining in the Church performed by others which they may procure by Indulgences to be applied to themselves that having this Absolution at their death they are not to doubt but that their sins are absolved and so there is no more to be feared than some pains in Purgatory and those to be ransomed too if any friends after their death will but purchase certain Services to give them ease or if themselves leave but enough to purchase these endeavours for their acquittal Who sees not that this destroys our common Christianity of which I suppose M. Condom so sensible that he durst not propose any thing of his Churches Doctrine in this point knowing that all his extenuations could not secure it from being prejudicial to the truth Extream Vnction Extream Unction being pretended to derive its Institution from St. James if we consider his words we shall better apprehend whether the Church of England be in the right in excluding it from the Sacraments Cap. 5. v. 14. Is any sick among you let him call for the Elders of the Church and let them pray over him and anoint him with oyl in the Name of the Lord and the Prayer of Faith shall save the sick and the Lord shall raise him up and if he have committed sins they shall be forgiven him Here the Apostle directs the sick to call for the Elders of the Church whom we allow to be the Ministers and this questionless for their assistance to those effects which the Apostle orders them to assist them in The means to which he directs are two to pray over them and anoint them with oyl in the Name of the Lord and this in order to two ends the recovery of the sick and the remission of sins Now to both these
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
gave a ground to the Separation Besides even in this point he that shall consider that the Doctrine of Merit ex condigno was received as the common Doctrine of the Schools and was maintained by Eckius in his Disputes against Luther and that Luther himself did not disown but that good works were acceptable to God though not meritorious nor such as could justifie a man before him and also that they were necessary and truly righteous too in some respect as appears by his Book Detriplici Justitia and disputed chiefly against that Position of the Schools which was generally maintained and shall further consider that the Council which when it came to determine these points should have examined the affinity that each side had with the Truth instead of so doing sets up a Doctrine in point of Justification in the School-terms to the prejudice of the Expressions of Scripture Language and in the point of Merit that which sufficiently countenanced the most extravagant Tenets concerning it and on the other side with one consent condemned all they could draw out of the Lutheran Doctrines upon those Subjects which seemed any way different from it without considering in what Sense their Words might be true nor how far they might agree with Truth and that immediately after the old Doctrine of the Schools was maintained as the Sense of the Council whoso considers this will see sufficient grounds to think the Reformers did not charge their Doctrine with any greater Impiety than what they had just cause to conceive therein And if we partly through Tract of Time lessening and abating that heat which in Disputes causes men to oversee the favourable construction that may be put upon Matters whilst they set themselves to oppose the opposite Extream they see maintained against them and partly through their abating those Expressions which they have discerned injurious to God's Grace and expressing themselves now more reservedly may now perceive that something of the Doctrine desined by the Council is not so destructive of the Faith if taken with a candid interpretation as it was at first supposed yet this must not oblige us to consent where such Construction will not reconcile it to Truth nor to submit to what is dangerous and by experience prejudicial to the Faith for this reason that it does not absolutely destroy it Nor if the Differences in this point appear not so material as they have been thought is there any reason to presume so much in other Points before they are as seriously considered We must and ought to overcome our prejudices but withall must use our Judgments in discerning whether Prejudice or Truth possess us nor must we hold the Spirit of Contention but yet may hold our Reason and consult with the Spirit of Truth and Wisdom SECT VIII Of Satisfactions Purgatory Indulgences IN Treating of these M. Condom explicates to us the Ground upon which their Doctrines in these points are founded to be this That Christ having made full Satisfaction for our sins may apply this Satisfaction to us so fully as by an entire submission to free us from all punishment or so as to remit only eternal punishment leaving us subject to a temporal That after the first manner he applies it to us in Baptism but in the second to those who fall into Sin afterwards That hereupon the Church taking Cognizance of the Offences of its Members when she remits the guilt imposes revertheless upon Sinners certain painful and laborious works as punishments necessary to be undergon in Satisfaction to the Divine Justice which they therefore call Satisfactions That nevertheless out of regard to the favour of the Penitents or some other good works prescribed them she many times remits part of those pains and this Remission is called Indulgence That God having reserved this Debt of temporal punishment those who die indebted to the Divine Justice some pains which it reserved are to suffer them in the other Life for whose relief the Church does further think fit to tender God such Services in their behalf as being acceptable to him may mitigate his wrath towards them Now as to this though it be indeed true that God might if he had seen fit have reserved a debt of temporal punishment after his remission of the eternal yet that he has so is a presumption that has no warrant from Scripture For though God may inflict what punishment he thinks fit on Sinners in this Life as eternal in that to come yet we are assured that the Afflictions of his Children that are restored to a state of God's Grace are the Chastisements of his Love and not the Inflictions of Wrath or Justice So that to hold it for a necessary Truth that God does not so remit the Sins of such as fall after Baptism but that he leaves them to suffer a temporal punishment from his Justice and that such as have not satisfied it here are liable to those Sufferings after Death in a state they must pass before they arrive to Heaven is a vain and groundless Presumption It avails nothing to say that our Sins after Baptism are the effects of great Ingratitude to God This might indeed make the Glory of God appear had he declared that he would deal with Vs after this manner but it can never shew us that he does when himself offers us a free Remission 1 John 1. 9 10. Our Ingratitude indeed does make our Repentance a Work of greater difficulty necessarily causeth greater Humiliation in the Soul that is sensible of its abuse of so great a goodness and greater Mortification to change its self from Sin to God but that a true Repentance shall not obtain a total Remission of these as well as other sins we are no where discouraged to hope To say it is just that God might have reserved a temporal punishment to be endured by us may be tolerable but to say it is beneficial to our Salvation that he should have done so that we may not abuse the facility of a Pardon is to prescribe God Methods as beneficial which it does not appear that he has used for that end St. Paul shunned not upon the prospect of such abuse to declare the free Grace of Christ abundant to the pardon of many Transgressions and thinks he had done as much as need be to prevent the abuse when he replies What shall we say then shall we continue in Sin that Grace may abound God forbid Rom. 6. Their Tenets then in these points being grounded on a false foundation the Penances imposed by the Church in the first Ages of Christianity and the relaxations of the same can be no way pleaded by them who have assigned them to purposes quite different from the ends they are established to serve by our common Christianity For it 's beyond dispute with all that know any thing of the exercises of the Churches Power in binding and loosing mens sins in the first Ages of it that Penances had no
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
introduce the Sense he intends The ground he proceeds on I confess is such as must not be rejected as vain in this Dispute neither must it on the other side be allowed to conclude necessarily for though the correspondence between the Old and New Testament ought to be greatly regarded yet of itself it is not sufficient ground to build matter of Faith upon Again in whatever it be allowed to conclude it must be according to the difference between the Old and New Testament which must still be maintained and which is undeniably this That as Israel under the Old Testament were the Israel according to the Flesh and those under the New are the Israel according to the Spirit so the correspondence between the Law and Gospel may conclude from things that were carnally under the Law that the same are spiritually fulfilled under the Gospel but never that they are now to be fulfilled carnally because they were then For instance when the Apostle argues from Abraham's leaving his own Country to go into a strange Land that thereby also he sought an heavenly Country it may with the like force be argued that we who travel after God's Promises shall certainly arrive to the possession of that heavenly Country but not that we shall as certainly possess an earthly Canaan by the way So when he argues from Adam's being made a living Soul that the second Adam is a quickning Spirit we cannot certainly think him to be a quickning Spirit in that sense that the first Adam was a living Soul but in a much more spiritual manner This being premised I shall consider his Arguments First then he says That as the Jews did not in Spirit only partake of the Victim that was sacrificed for them but did in reality eat of the sacrificed Flesh which was to them a Mark of their partaking of that Oblation so Christ becoming our Victim would have us really eat his Flesh to assure us in particular that it was for us he gave it Thus much I allow the correspondence between the Old and New Testament may prove that whereas Christ has given us Bread as a representation of his sacrificed Body to partake of that he thereby intended to make us partakers of his Flesh to assure us that for us it was sacrificed but not that it shall hence follow that because the Jews eat carnally of the Flesh of their Sacrifices we must also eat of his after the like manner Who sees not upon the difference between the Law and the Gospel premised that the contrary does necessarily follow that they being the Israel after the Flesh did necessarily partake of the Flesh of their Sacrifices after a carnal manner those therefore that are the Israel after the Spirit must partake of their Sacrifices not as the others but spiritually Let then God's prohibiting the Jews to eat of the Sin-Offering because of their Sins not being expiated by those Sacrifices conclude that now our blessed Saviour having made himself an Offering for Sin we ought to partake of this Sacrifice to assure us that the Remission of sins is accomplished for us yet this shall not conclude against our partaking of this Victim after a spiritual manner As for God's prohibiting the Children of Israel to eat Blood because it was given for the expiation of Souls it being a prohibition of eating Blood in general as well as the particular blood of their Sacrifices if it conclude any thing it is chiefly for the eating Blood in general the reason of its being forbidden being ceased but yet neither for this doth it conclude necessarily for then the Apostles could not by their Decree have required the Gentiles to abstain from Blood But suppose it to conclude for our drinking the Blood of our Sacrifice yet it does not in the least prove that we are to drink it in a carnal and not in a spiritual manner but it will prove if it be allowed conclusive what will not at all please the Church of Rome that she cannot now with-hold the Sacramental Blood from us since our Sins are fully expiated by the Blood of Christ for a reason contrary to that upon which it was prohibited the Jews because this Blood being shed has wrought a full Remission of Sins Therefore upon so little that has been yet said to the purpose I admire the Gentleman should tell us That our Saviour to free us from the horror of eating humane Flesh and drinking Blood in their proper species thought fit to cloath them under another species but that the consideration that obliged him to this did not oblige him in the least to deprive us of the reality of his Substance For by what Authority does he presume to tell us what considerations moved our Saviour or how far this or that consideration shall oblige him Or how has he proved that it was ever the intent of our blessed Saviour to give us the Real as that signifies the fleshly Substance of his Body to be by us carnally received To accomplish then the ancient Figures we confess our blessed Saviour does give us his Body and Blood to possess us of the Sacrifice offered for our Sins but to maintain the difference between the Law and the Gospel our eating must be spiritual not carnal It matters not whether it be the plainness of our Saviour's Words alone or as joyned with other things that are said concerning it in Scripture that forceth us to confess and acknowledge what we do we need no forcing for we most readily acknowledge all we conceive the Scripture does oblige us to in it and the Question is whether any thing said therein will oblige us to take their Sense or does not oblige to the contrary I shall not enter into Dispute of what the power of Christ can do or whether his Dominion over universal Nature can make his Body present in several places at once and under several Extents and not destroy the properties of a Body in it his Omnipotence having nothing to do herein any further than it appears his intent to bring something to pass by it We may therefore without questioning what can be wrought by his omnipotent power expect an Evidence that what they pretend him to bring to pass thereby was by him intended to be brought to pass before we are obliged to believe it Whether therefore these Words This is my Body will conclude it to be our Saviours intent to make that Bread to be no longer Bread but to become the very Substance of his Body is the thing in question which cannot be presumed before we have considered the whole Discourse of our Saviour and also what other things are said of it by his Apostles Matth. 26. 26. we find it set down thus Whilst they were eating Jesus took Bread and having blessed broke and gave it to his Disciples and said Take Eat this is my Body and taking the Cup and blessing gave to them saying Drink all of this for this is my Blood
upon an action that is Idolatry if it should be false without examining the grounds on which they hold such a vain perswasion and destructive practice Questionless we are to adore God wherever he is present yet to pay our Adorations where he has not assured his presence though we fondly imagine it shall not excuse us from Idolatry SECT XIV Of the Sacrifice of the Mass COncerning this the Church of England declares Article 31. Articles of the the Church of England Article 31. The offering of Christ once made is that perfect Redemption Propitiation and Satisfaction for all the Sins of the whole World both Original and Actual and there is none other Satisfaction for sin but that alone Wherefore the Sacrifices of Masses in the which it was commonly said that the Priests did offer Christ for the quick and dead to have remission of pain or guilt were blasphemous Fables and dangerous Deceits Nevertheless it must be observed that she does not stick to call the holy Sacrament 1 Thanksgiving after the Communion A Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving 2 Ibid. yea and to plead before God the Merits and Death of his Son that through faith in his blood we and all his whole Church may obtain Remission of sins and all other benefits of his Passion So that she does not deny it to be after some sort propitiatory Further She directs us most fully to render our souls and bodies an acceptable Sacrifice to the service of Almighty God So that whilst M. Condom has thus ambiguously explicated their Doctrine the difference does not appear so great as really it is for the Church of Rome is not content if we say that the Eucharist is a Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving or a commemorative Sacrifice representing that upon the Cross but requires Concil Trid. Sess 22. can 3. that we acknowledge it a true propitiatory Sacrifice and decrees Anathema against all that do not own it to be truly such So that when M. Condom tells us from the Council of Trent That this Sacrifice is instituted only to represent that which was once accomplished on the Cross to perpetuate the Memory of it and to apply its saving Virtue for the remission of sins which we daily commit All this must be allowed true and the proper ends of the Institution of the Holy Sacrament But the Council pleads them for the Institution of a different thing a Sacrifice as distinct from a Sacrament as is plain in that very Sess 22. cap. 1. Chapter Which is more fully exprest in the Catechism which teaches That the Eucharist was instituted by our Lord for Cat. Trid. sub Titulo Euch. Sacrif Two Causes one to be our heavenly Food and to preserve us in our spiritual Life the other That the Church might have a perpetual Sacrifice for the expiation of Sins Then it tells us that these two Ends are greatly different the Sacrament is perfected by the Consecration but the efficacy of the Sacrifice consists in its being offered Wherefore the Eucharist whilst it is in the Pyx or when it is carried to the Sick is only a Sacrament not a Sacrifice Again as a Sacrament it is only Matter of Merit to them that receive but as a Sacrifice it is effectual both to Merit and Satisfaction for as Christ by his Sufferings merited and satisfied for us so those that offer Concil Trid. Sess 22. this Sacrifice merit the Fruits of his Passion and satisfie also Hereupon the Council further decrees 1 Cap. 2. That this Sacrifice be offered as propitiatory not only for the Sins Punishments satisfactions and other Necessities of the Living but likewise for the Dead that are not throughly purged from their Guilt And then 2 Cap. 6. It approves and commends private Masses wherein the Priest alone communicates offering the Sacrifice for all the People Thence 3 Can. 3. It condemns those who say it is profitable only to them that communicate or that say it ought not to be offered for the Sins Punishments Satisfactions and other Necessities both of the Dead and Living The whole Dispute then ought not to be reduced to the Real Presence only as M. Condom would perswade us but to these further Queries First Upon what ground they make our Saviour in the Institution of his last Supper to have instituted it to a different Purpose than that of a Sacrament so as it may be a Sacrament to a man when it is not a Sacrifice and a Sacrifice propitiatory for them that partake not of it as a Sacrament Secondly Upon what ground they make this Action as a Sacrifice distinct from that of communicating propitiatory for the Quick and Dead Thirdly Upon what account they attribute a certain Satisfaction to this offering of Christ which a man obtains not by partaking of his Body and Blood in the Sacrament whereas if all the virtue be by them confess'd to be from Christ's Sacrifice upon the Cross he that is a partaker of Christ must certainly by being so be partaker of all the Merits and Satisfaction of his Death Fourthly Upon what ground they warrant their private Masses to be propitiatory for particular persons whether dead or living for whom they offer them having no warrant from their Christianity to make application of his Merits to them in this way Nor does any thing said by M. Condom give us the least satisfaction to these Demands for he shews us but a very insufficient ground upon which he does not doubt but this Action as distinct from that of communicating makes God propitious to us viz. because it represents his Son Christ unto him as crucified For to ground a Hope he should have shewn us a Promise that God would be propitious upon such a Representation We doubt not but Jesus Christ presenting himself before the face of God is powerful in his intercession for us but what assurance have we that upon every fancied Representation of ours we can cause him thus to present himself For presume him present from the Consecration we cannot till the End to which his Presence is applied by private Masses be first shewn to be the End of Christ's Institution and blessing Bread and Wine to be used to such a purpose and after such a way Nor does M. Condom pretend to shew us by what authority his Church warrants the application of this Sacrifice to the Dead that are in Purgatory-pains or to the Living that come not to partake thereof View then but this Doctrine which the Church of Rome maintains that as it is a Sacrifice it is more available than as a Sacrament that as a Sacrifice it is applied to those who do not partake of it as a Sacrament that also as such it is propitiatory for the sins punishments satisfactions and all other necessities not of the living only but likewise of the dead and judge whether this Doctrine does not in effect yea in reality void the