or Services performed by their Friends afterwards whereby simple Souls must necessarily be entangled in the Snares of their Sins there being so great likelihood that Pardon being held forth upon such undue grounds the corruption of our Nature will take hold of and presume upon it when we have not wrought in our selves a true Repentance That in those things which they call Sacraments they will not suffer us to distinguish either in that Grace which the Ceremony signifieth or in the Force whereby they concur to the obtaining of it whereas our Christianity requires us to distinguish between Graces given to this or that particular effect and those that are given for the general and perpetual subsistence of Christianity and likewise between those Offices that are effective of Grace by virtue of a peculiar and special promise to those effects and others that are only used by the Church out of a hope that our Prayers shall be heard to those effects That they conceive Christ present in the Eucharist after such a manner as it does no way appear he promised his Presence therein that hereupon it is required that Adoration due to God alone be given to the Sacrament which if the Elements remain is by themselves confessed to be Idolatry and therefore may justisiably by us who know them to remain be so accounted That without warrant they make the Eucharist a Sacrifice as distinct from a Sacrament and of a greater virtue as a Sacrifice than when it is received as a Sacrament according to our Saviour's Institution That they warrant it propitiatory for those who use it not according to his Institution whereby they frustrate the End of his blessing Bread and Wine and commanding it to be received and likewise void the necessity of a Christian Life applying the Benefits of Christ's Sacrament to such as come not worthily to partake of it and pretending it efficacious to ease them of punishments which they are to suffer for sins after Death That whilst they with-hold the Cup from the Laity they void Christ's Institution who enjoyned and appointed both they likewise rob Christians of their Birthright and cannot warrant one part of this Sacrament beneficial to all those effects for which Christ was pleased to bless both Bread and Wine That whilst they plead for Traditions they thereby endeavour to obtrude upon us their own Corruptions and by these instead of interpreting pervert the Scriptures and by Traditions of men have indeed in many things made void the Comandments of God That by claiming an Authority for the Church above the Scriptures which they do to justifie what the Church of Rome has decreed against them they do indeed advance an Authority that may destroy our common Christianity That in pleading their Pope universal Bishop not to speak of their Ambition in this Aim they require us to submit to an Authority for the sake of Unity which is not only none of God's Ordinance but such as Experience has shewn to have almost wholly destroyed that Christianity which Unity should preserve Having shewn I say the danger of these Doctrines in particular and their inconsistence with Christianity when I reflect upon them all together and find that our Union with the Church of Rome requires submission to them all must conclude that whatever allowance might be made in some one of them provided that the rest of that Christian Truth which they hold did so prevail over the Error that it did not take effect in their practices to God's Dishonour or the subversion of a Christian Life yet to submit to them all as we must do if we will have peace with the Church of Rome is to redeem the Communion of the Church by transgressing that Christianity which the Church is appointed to maintain and absolutely to prostitute our own and the Souls committed to our Charge The Case is little otherwise in those other things which M. Condom lets alone as things of themselves not sufficient matter of Separation these if taken together though singly they may not be very considerable render the Means of Salvation very difficult since the Substance of Christianity being overwhelmed and choaked with a deal of Rubbish Opinions Customs Observations Ceremonies c. it is a thing very difficult for simple Christians to discern the Substance from the Shadow and almost impossible to pass through such a multitude of Observations Customs and Ceremonies which create so much business in the Practice of Religion and upon which so great Zeal is spent without Superstion and Will-Worship and a fond Opinion of those Services placing their hope of God's Favour upon these carnal Observations and humane Inventions which indeed are nothing to the Reality of Religion So that these at least must be allowed to add to that Mass of Corruption which they seek to obtrude upon us though of themselves they are not of such a poysonous Nature But though we cannot joyn with them without manifest prejudice to our Christianity yet it is most easie for them to come to us and would be for the great advantage of our Christian Religion as even themselves must and do acknowledge For first Those Doctrines which are established by the Church of England at least such as concern the Foundation of Faith have been in all Ages professed by the Church of Rome itself This M. Condom allows as to Fundamentals That the Church of Rome holds all which the Reformers do They further agree with us That we are to pray unto God through Christ That God may be worshipped in Spirit without an Image That we may have recourse to him in all our Necessities without seeking the Relicks of Saints That Jesus Christ is the meritorious cause of our Justification That men may do good Works and shall never fail of Salvation through not confiding in them That there be two Sacraments which have the Promise of Grace That Christ is really and spiritually received by some in the Lord's Supper That Christ made an Oblation of himself upon the Cross for the Redemption Propitiation and Satisfaction of the whole World And where they with hold the Cup from the Laity and forbid the Administration of the Sacraments in the vulgar Tongue yet even in these they condescend to us for the Lawfulness of the Practice even in respect to the Law of God and oppose them only in regard of their necessity and conveniency and for that the Church of Rome hath otherwise ordained They acknowledge likewise the Authority of written word of God and the Design of Providence in their being written for our Learning They acknowledge the Church does and ought to act in deciding Controversies of Faith according to the Scripture committed to her and to tell us nothing from herself and invent nothing new in her Doctrine Again secondly The Truths we hold even by the judgment of several of the Learned Writers of the Church of Rome have been in all ages deemed sufficient to salvation so that we reject no
Advantages which we seek to deprive them of by saying they destroy those Articles by interposing others contrary to them Thus much is said and yet is more than need be said for if we say only that they have added others to them which are not necessary parts of Faith this alone is enough to bar them all Advantages which they may promise themselves from holding the Fundamentals But M. Condom foreseeing that it would be urged against him that those Doctrines which the Church of Rome hath added to the Faith do by evident consequence destroy those which it acknowledges as the necessary and fundamental Truths endeavours to prevent us this Advantage by objecting That M. Daille has owned in behalf of the Lutherans and it is a thing in it self evident that the Consequences of a Doctrine ought not to be attributed to a Church that formally rejects those Consequencs which Answer he concludes will easily defend them when they are charged with Consequences distructive of the Truth I likewise own the Maxime so far as it is grounded upon Reason but in Reason we ought to distinguish between the Persons that own such Consequences and those who do not Which Distinction will enforce at least thus much that we who being separate from the Church of Rome do evidently see such Consequences naturally following any of their Doctrines can never with safety receive them For though we should grant those Consequences which the Church of Rome rejects are not to be charged upon her yet it were to be granted only upon this very reason that she professes not to see them and she were to be allowed innocent only so far as she sees them not So that the self same Reason that would exempt her from the Charge would bring us deeply under it if acknowledging of such Consequences we should embrace the Doctrines whence they flow and the Church of Rome is therefore utterly inexcusable in enjoyning such things on those who profess they see such Consequences in them as destroy the Faith and is less excusable in its own holding them the greater Means and Opportunities she has had to discern their pernicious Effects Again Reason does oblige us to distinguish between Consequences which are only Inferences that may be drawn by remote Arguments from an Opinion and such as have a real Influence upon our Practice An Instance will explain my Meaning Suppose for the present the Doctrine of Justification by Faith alone did by consequence infer good Works unnecessary he ought not to be charged with this Consequence who disowns it and disowning it shews that he thinks them necessary and therefore does them But if any holding this Opinion should neglect them out of a dependance on his being justified without them I do not think M. Condom would account it Calumny to charge him with the Consequence And therefore the Reason M. Daille gives upon which they refused not to joyn Communion with the Lutherans because their Opinion has no Poyson in it is not so contemptible for they who joyned Communion with them joyned not in their Error nor in any evil Practice consequent upon it And be Christ's humane Nature never so essential to Religion yet the Lutheran Opinion did never cause them to deny the verity of his humane Nature nor reach to what the Church of Rome does whilst it commands the Worship of that which we cannot think a lawful Object for us to give it to So that perhaps it may be a greater difficulty to defend the Church of Rome in this respect than M. Condom is willing to believe But this Gentleman has put us to a needless trouble hitherto if he make good his further Promise and shew by his Exposition that the Church of Rome is so far from ruining the fundamental Articles of Faith either directly or indirectly that on the contrary she establishes them after so solid and evident a manner that no one can question her right understanding them without great Injustice I hope he means such a right understanding them as that she holds nothing directly or indirectly prejudicial to them and hereupon I shall go on with him to the Particulars SECT III. Concerning Religious Worship as due to God alone MR. Condom's Title of this Section is Religious Worship is terminated in God alone But if he had said it is due to God alone it had been more consistent with his first Article that he is pleased to own for Fundamental Sect. 2. But that Adoration which is due to God alone he says the Church of Rome teaches to consist in believing him to be the Creator and Lord of all things and in adhering to him with all the powers of our Soul by Faith Hope and Charity as to him alone who can render us happy by the communication of an infinite Good which is himself The Church of England teaches and challenges the same as a Truth that indispensably binds us to have recourse in all our Necessities to him alone who is the Creator and Lord of all things to adhere to him alone with all the powers of our Soul without dividing our Hearts to any other to place our Hope and Confidence in him only who is that infinite and eternal Good which alone can satisfie us to love him above all things who hath first loved us with a Love so far passing all understanding out of which Love he hath created redeemed preserves us and hath provided such Rewards for them that love him This interior Adoration he says has its exterior Marks of which the principal is Sacrifice which cannot be offered to any but God because a Sacrifice is established to make a publick Acknowledgment and a solemn Protestation of God's Sovereignty and our absolute Dependance Granting but this true that this internal Adoration has some exterior Marks as Sacrifice for instance which cannot be given but to God alone it will be very difficult in my Judgment to prove that Invocation Prostration or any other exterior Forms of Adoration which are commonly used in Religious Worship are not thus peculiar to God alone For if the Reason why Sacrifice is thus peculiar to him be this its being established to make a publick Acknowledgment and solemn Protestation of God's Sovereignty and our absolute Dependance since he cannot argue it thus peculiar barely from God's establishment of it Sacrifice being the exterior part of his Worship before the Law of Moses and doubtless as much his Peculiar then as after so that it depends upon the Reason of its establishment which indeed is solid its having been used and determined by the practice of the whole World for a publick Acknowledgment of God's Sovereignty c. This will conclude no less for any external Signs of Adoration used and determined by the like universal consent and practice to express the same Sentiment and declare the like Dependance For though external Actions signifie as the inward Sentiments determine them yet in all reason general Use and Custom ought to
pleases to reform herself need not fear this Crime she may remove those Laws that prejudice the salvation of the Members of her Communion establish those for herself that tend to the exceeding benefit of Christianity as well as the Peace of Christ's Church and thereby provide for the Purity of Faith and Unity of the Church withal And I see no reason why the Church of England being a part of the Church Catholick but no way subject to the Church of Rome may not adventure to desire them to consider the things that belong to their own Salvation as well as the Peace of Christ's Church and how much they are concerned and obliged by all the commands and bonds of Unity that are obligatory upon Christians as to lay aside their claim to an Authority over all the Churches of Christ which is not given them of God and which they chiefly challenge to maintain what they cannot otherwise defend so especially to reform all those Customs Laws and Practices that have been experienced prejudicial to the Faith and establish such as may advance and promote it since by doing this which is otherwise their duty they may procure that which themselves pretend so earnestly to seek and which we acknowledg and pray for as the greatest blessing next to Purity of Faith the Peace and Union of the Church of Christ Reflections upon his Pastoral Letter THere can be but two aims as I apprehend in dispersing this Letter among us one to persuade us that there is no such Persecution of Protestants in France as is pretended the other that the Reasons upon which such multitudes are Proselyted to the Church of Rome or those at least which M. Meaux gives in this Letter are so convincing as to oblige the rest of the World to follow their example What he affirms in relation to the first that not one among them had suffered violence either in Person or Goods is so notorious a falshood that I may leave all those to believe him that can For none certainly can admit the belief of it but such as can force themselves to believe against all the evidence of their senses and reason Waving this therefore I shall content my self to examine the main thing that concerns us Whether there be any thing of solidity in the motives he gives to confirm his Proselytes Though herein I shall not concern myself with what particularly relates to the French Protestants or with any advantages that he may seem to have over them but only with such as may be supposed of equal force against the Reformed Church of England my business being only to oppose the design that seems aimed at in their dispersing this Letter among us The first thing considerable is what he says pag. 4. That himself and his other Colleagues have this glory which they will not suffer to be taken from them that they have never condemned their Predecessors and Preached no other Doctrine than what they received from them Whereas the Bishops of England c. at their going off from the Church of Rome manifestly renounced the Doctrin of their Predecessors Now no man will envy them this glory that they have obstinately retained those Errors and Corruptions which their Predecessors had admitted The glory of the Bishops of England is this that having purged themselves from those corruptions which time and superstition and base intrests had brought into the Church of God they now retain the Doctrine of the Apostles and Primitive Christians from which the Romanists pretending to follow their Predecessors are greatly deviated For though M. Meaux has the face to say That we cannot produce any one instance of a change in Doctrine and that those changes we pretend are rightly called Insensible because we cannot make them out Yet the pitiful defence he has made for his Church in those particulars wherein we charge them with Innovations does sufficiently shew them to be such and the inconsistency of those Doctrines with Christianity does likewise evidence that though they may have been called insensible changes because insensibly introduced yet now they are visibly and palpably destructive of the Faith It 's true indeed as he says The succession of Pastors and Doctrine ought not to be separated and blessed be God our Church of England as it now holds the Christian truth in the Purity of it has also enjoyed as uninterrupted a succession of Pastors as any Church whatever But the Romanists pretences to a succession of Pastors is vain so long as the Christian Doctrine is not preserved entire which an uninterrupted succession of Pastors proves not to be so preserved whilst there is a possibility for those Pastors to admit Innovations agreeable to their own Opinions or Interests The next considerable thing that he urges is the Authority of St. Cyprian from whom he cites several passages pretended to conclude us under a necessity of holding Communion with the Church of Rome and to render all that separate from it guilty of Schism Wherein since he blames others for not taking his Doctrine entire he ought to have been sincere himself and not have caught up fragments of him here and there to adorn his deceitful discourse In the first place cited St. Cyprian does indeed say That to manifest the unity of his Church our Saviour said to Peter single Thou art Peter c. but he says likewise That he gave to all his Apostles equal power but this M. Meaux thought best to leave out His words are The Lord said unto Peter Thou art Peter and upon this rock will I build my Church c. and I give unto thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and Loquitur Dominus ad Petrum Ego tibi dico quia tu es Petrus super istam Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam portae inferorum non vincent eam Et tibi dabo claves regni coelorum c. Et iterum eidem post Resurrectionem dicit Pasce oves â—â—as Super unum aedificat Ecclesiam Et quamvis Apostolis omnibus parem potestaâ—… triona dicat sicut misit me Pater Ego mitto vos c. tamen ut unitatem manifestaret unitatis ejuâ—…m originem ab aâ—o incipientem sua auctoritate disposuit Hoc erat utique ceteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus pari consortio pra diti honoris potestatis sed Exordium ab unitate proficiscitur ut Ecclesia una monstretur Cyp. Lib. de unitate Ecclesie also after his Resurrection feed my sheep He builds his Church upon Vnity And though he gave to all his Apostles equal power saying As my Father sent me so send I you c. yet that he might manifest the Vnity he dispenses his Authority to one as the original of Vnity That therefore which Peter was the same were the rest of the Apostles joyned in the same fellowship of Honour and Authority but the beginning of it proceeds from Vnity that it might evidence the Church
but he does not in all this say that it is the true and only Sense of the Council And further That for these Reasons he does not only think it worthy his Commendation but to be read and esteemed by all He does not say nor mean esteemed for the only Sense of the Council as is plain by the Latine Copy And further We hope this Work by the Grace of God will bring forth much Fruit and will not a little help to propagate the Orthodox Faith In all which he neither declares it for the Sense of the Council nor confirms it as such nor does any thing to make it authentick if that be to authorize it as a Truth throughout the whole Church which yet is the least that could be lookt for in this Case for the Reasons given The utmost therefore that can be made of it is only that it has the commendation of his private Judgment for a prudent useful good Book likely to work no small Effects for the propagation of the Catholick Faith So that this will be no great prejudice to any Proofs that shall be made against M. Condom where I may attempt in opposition to him to shew that he has not fully given the Doctrine of his Church But the Advertizer raising himself on this Foundation that this Exposition is as true and as authentick as he pretends it and laying on this Presumption further that it has most effectually served the Ends it aims at insults over the Reformed as if the Day was clearly gained boasting the pretended Victory not over the Answerers only but all Reformers What particular Advantages he pretends over the Answerers I meddle not with wanting both opportunity to procure and capacity to understand their Books if French nor will I be obliged to concern my self with any pretended to be gotten over any Numbers of the Reformed either for their false Opinions Doctrines or Concessions in any Cases but where the like may seem pretended from like Doctrines or Concessions of the Church of England Whether he has such real Cause to Boast will not appear till the End But what of his is added to back M. Condom shall be considered under their particular Heads in the Exposition Pag. 18. He goes on to vindicate M. Condom First That he has done well to propose the true Tenets of the Council and their Church and distinguish them from those that are falsly imputed to her No body will blame his Aim in this God forbid that any should refuse to hear what may inform them and remove their Prejudices Secondly That he has done but just in taking the Doctrine of the Church from the Council of Trent Nor will any blame him for this or require him to justifie the Council from the great suspitions that are justly had of it for be the Council what it will it 's sufficient for the Exposition that the Doctrine of it is universally received throughout their Church Nor shall Father Pont's History because he here is said to be a profess'd enemy to the Council of Trent either prejudice me against its Doctrines or make me call its Decisions ambiguous without apparent grounds for it Thirdly That his choice was not amiss in pitching upon those Points from which the subject of the Reformation was taken But however if new Matters have been added by themselves since which make the distance wider those may well be added as Obstacles to a present Union and without reflecting on the Bishops sincerity or accusing him to have on purpose left out the greatest difficulties it may be allowed me to produce others so far as they are material to shew that some great Objections are yet in force and many great Disputes untouched But whether he has been so faithful to his promise as to affirm nothing to make the Council better understood which is not approved of in the Church and manifestly conformable to it will appear when the particulars are examined There is one thing more that will greatly affect me as well as the other Answers against whom it 's urged p. 23. That it 's to no purpose to object against this Exposition the Bull of Pius the Fourth for that the design of this Book says the Advertiser has nothing of those Glosses and Commentaries which with great reason that Pope condemned some of which usually fill'd the Margins with their own Imaginations and gave them for the Text it self and such for the conservation of Unity the Pope was obliged not to permit nothing of which nature is in this Exposition But he need not have taken all this pains if himself durst have relied on his former proof of its authentickness yet to make this of any strength to back what he had said before he should have told us by what authority he declares what sort of Comments and Glosses the Pope forbids in that Bull or the Reasons upon which he did it Let this be one reason yet what shall hinder but Father Paul's may be another that it was to withstand the checks which the Council might be said to give to the Papal power and disable all from using it to the prejudice of the Court of Rome To believe which we have greater grounds than Father Paul's bare assertion but much less to believe the Advertiser since the Bull in express words forbids not only such Interpretations as Comments and Glosses but all Annotations Scholia's and every kind of interpretation whatsoever decreeing likewise all such as any should attempt to make wittingly or ignorantly with or by whatsoever authority void and null Whereas in the conclusion p. 24. he says That suppose we call for the Reformation of Abuses it is one way of suppressing them to shew the Truth in purity not excluding other means I shall here take occasion to remember out of M. Verone in his Epitome of his Methods part of whose method M. Condom exactly follows how little we can propose to our selves from these fair pretences of representing the truth in purity towards this effect which will also shew in part upon what grounds this Doctrine of the Exposition may find that approbation which it has amongst them and yet be far from being so truly and universally received as is pretended This M. Vernone is most eminent for the use of this Method to separate the Decrees of the Council from the Opinions of all particular persons whatsoever and the Doctrine he would perswade as the Churches sense seems in all things as moderate as this of M. Condom He says they do no further honor Images than as they use outward respect to the Bible and other sacred Utensils and speaks of Transubstantiation Merits c. much after the same moderation and will not have the Infallibility of the Pope to be matter of the Catholick Faith And yet this Person though he Verone's Epit. 〈…〉 Convin â—…et declares the Doctrine of their Church in a way fair to appearance tells us nevertheless that what other Doctors
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
Institution of our Lord who blessed Bread and Wine for this only purpose that we might take eat and drink and thereby partake of his Body and Blood in that it not only lays aside the End of his Institution but sets up a new Action of a greater value as is pretended in that also whilst it pretends to apply the Benefits of Christ's Death by this new means it takes off the necessity of using that of our Saviour's own appointment and occasions men to be wholly careless of it when hereby they are warranted to partake of all his Benefits and incur not the danger they would if they should come to partake of the Sacrament with impenitent hearts in that likewise it pretends this Sacrifice propitiatory for men after Death thereby in a great measure voiding the necessity of a Christian Life especially considering that Doctrine which is commonly taught in that Church that this Sacrifice avails ex opere operato that all the Benefits of Christ are derived upon the People by the very external Work done the people not being concerned in or assisting to the Sacrifice either in their Prayers or participation and withal their practice of sacrificing for any whatever dying within their Communion to free them from the pains of Purgatory SECT XI Of his Reflections BY the Grounds then upon which I have proceeded I am little concerned with the Explication he gives of the Epistle to the Hebrews to shew that their Doctrine of the Sacrifice ascribing all the virtue wholly to the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross does not impeach or prejudice its efficacy which the Apostle there pleads Which if it were granted as that it cannot well be for that they have set up a Sacrifice which shall make God more propitious to us than the Sacrament which does possess us of all the Benefits of Christ's Death yet this could no way justifie them in setting up a Sacrifice representative of Christ's Death to Effects which he had not appointed pretending thereby to make application of his Sacrifice on the Cross which he has not warranted them to apply by such means and to such persons also as they cannot from Scripture warrant it beneficial to However notwithstanding M. Condom seems to remove all Equivocation in the Word Offer he either still uses it equivocally or expresses not the Sense of those of his Communion for Bellarmine places not the Sacrifice only in presenting to God Christ crucified but in destroying the Elements that were there before and making Christ present under their Species as dead on the Cross And the Catechism favours this Sense when it says The Priests that sacrifice act not in their own persons but in the person of Christ when they make to be present his Body and Blood So that if we consider this especially if joyned with the Doctrine of Eckius that those Representations which the Church makes of Christ as dead by making his Body as such to appear before God and his Blood as separate from it by these Ceremonies that are used in this Action are the things that constitute the Sacrifice Against whom Chemnitius disputes so largely from this Epistle to the Hebrews If this be considered it will be evident that in this Epistle was not made use of to such impertinent purpose against them as this Gentleman pretends In his Reflections there is little material for me to consider the Grounds of all their Doctrine being overthrown But because he presses it so earnestly I must take notice of the main thing in it Here then he would first perswade us that the main difference between us is that of the Real Presence This we indeed allow That their Error in this Point is the Foundation of the Doctrines they build upon it but this makes it not necessary that their consequent Doctrines and Practices shall not be judged more prejudicial to Christianity than their first Error There scarce ever was a Heresie but pretended to deduce all its Errors from some Doctrine that had appearance of Truth and that did not in itself expresly contradict or prejudice the Faith though by the progression they drew from it the whole Faith has been subverted But then he farther argues That the Real Presence is owned by the Lutherans though they consider not the consequences of it That the Calvinists themselves have declared the Lutheran Doctrine to have no poyson in it and that it does not subvert the Foundations of Faith That further some Calvinists have said that the Catholicks reason better and more consequently than the Lutherans whence he concludes It is an established Truth that the Roman Doctrine in this point contains nothing but the Doctrine of the Real Presence rightly understood An Inference that has not the least coherence with the Premises Can any man of Sense allow this a rational Argument The Lutherans hold a Real Presence the Calvinists say There is no Poyson in their Doctrine The Lutherans admit not such Consequences as we do the Calvinists say we reason better than the Lutherans therefore it is an established Truth that our Doctrine contains nothing but the Real Presence rightly understood But to answer it so far as it may seem any way to give him an advantage The Lutherans do indeed hold a Real Presence in a Sense different from that I have explained but then they do no obtrude their Sense upon others as a necessary condition of Communion so that we may communicate with them without professing their error nor do they hold such a Local Presence as the Church of Rome nor does their Opinion lead them to the Worship of any Creature nor do they acknowledge any Presence of Christ therein but only in the act and to the end of his Institution of this Sacrament and if this has led some to a Declaration that the Lutheran Opinion does not subvert the foundation of Faith upon this account that it proceeds not to any further Effects destructive of it shall this be taken for an acknowledgment that the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which obliges to such practices upon it as are inconsistent with the Faith is not such as ought to break communion with her And suppose it to have been said that the Catholicks reason better and more consequently than the Lutherans if it has been said by any of those that allowed Communion with the Lutherans it 's manifest that when they said so they did not think but that the Roman Doctrine was much more inconsistent with Christianity And that the World may see it is so I shall transcribe the difference which a Lutheran gives us between the Adoration they tender Christ in the Eucharist and that which is given by the Church of Rome He places the difference chiefly in two Particulars First that the Church of Rome requires that the Sacrament Gerhard Loc. Com De sacra Caena de Vener it self or all that which according our Lord's Institution we receive should be adored with the honour due
case stands though they be not yet they soon may by those who make Articles of Faith of any thing they have a humour to determine Men may love Concord amongst Brethren and yet love Truth among Christians and those that love them both must not vainly give away the later to seek the former by ways not established by God And the Advertiser certainly thinks his own experience has taught him more wisdom than all the rest of the world when he would by that convince us that the Authority of the Pope is the only means of Christian Concord when experience has taught others that it 's the ready way to destroy our common Christianity And though the Church ought not to rise in Rebellion against a power that maintains her unity under pretence that some have abused it yet undoubtedly it may reject an usurpation begun with fraud and encreased by violence which it sees to be no establishment of God's and has experienced destructive of his truth As for Episcopacy blessed be God our Church has been able to preserve it with great advantage to our Christianity Those of the Reformation in other parts who had not the like power nor the same opportunity of doing it being yet obliged to provide for their common Christianity though they could not bring to effect in all things the establishment of his Church I doubt not but God may and does bless in the exercise of his Ordinances THE CONCLUSION HEreby therefore it appears that M. Condom's explication has given us but a very unsatisfactory resolution the greatest part of the Objections being still left in full force and their Doctrines shewn some necessarily and others very probably others absolutely to subvert the foundations of Faith which abundantly justifies that Provision made by the Reformation and makes it absolutely necessary that they let not go that Provision which the maintenance of our common Christianity rendred at first and does still require necessary Neither has M. Condom mentioned all the material Points in difference Two I am sure there are omitted as considerable as many by him taken notice of One is the Decree of the Council which requires the Scriptures which we call Apocrypha to be admitted with like reverence as the unquestionable Canonical Scriptures and to be received as all of one rank which before had never been enjoyned but with that difference which had always been acknowledged in the Church Which Act giving to them the authority of Prophetical Scripture inspired by God which they had not before though it be thereby null in itself because what was not inspired by God to him that wrote it can never become inspired by him and that which was not at first received as such can never be known to be such without special Revelation yet usurpeth an Authority which was never heard of in the Christian World and claims a submission which a Christian cannot give to any but such as shall prove themselves to have had an immediate Revelation in the case The other is their Decree that the Service of God be not performed in the vulgar Tongue For if the People be obliged to assist in that Service which if they are not To what purpose do they assemble then certainly the Offices in which they assist ought to be understood by them Possibly they will say that Vnity is preserved by the universal use of one Language though the Service of God be not understood but then the end for which it should be preserved is not accomplisht when the Service of God is not nor can be performed as Christianity requireth by those who understand it not Besides it is observable that it 's M. Condom's way to take these Points single and spend all his pains in extenuating them as much as possible that they may not appear absolutely to destroy our Christianity and then to press us to compliance with it But he never looks upon them together nor considers whether with that care of our common Christianity which all ought to take they can be all complyed with and submitted to I then have shewn even in the Particulas wherein I have gone along with M. Condom That the Invocation of Saints is without warrant from our Christianity has no Promise of any Grace or Mercy yea tends so greatly to the prejudice of Christianity that it shall be very difficult for a Christian to preserve himself from Idolatry in the use of it and which Experience has shewn to have been Idolatrously practised by many That the Use of Images again is no way necessary in God's Worship but dangerous and makes it most difficult to avoid that Idolatry which many have really committed in the use of them That the Relicks of Saints have no such virtue by any divine Promise as they are frequented for that the Church therefore ought not to teach or perswade People to frequent them for such Aid or Helps since their recourse to them has been experienced to have brought forth much Superstition advancing Peoples Devotion to Saints to the prejudice of that they should preserve for God alone That their Doctrine of Justification involving a mistake in the very nature of it by making Inherent Righteousness the formal Cause of Justification gives too great appearance that they claim Remission of Sins as due to that inherent Righteousness whereas it is only the effect of Christ's Merits That likewise by their Anathema's they have condemned those who hold the Truth in this Point That in the Point of Merit if the Doctrine of the Council be not expresly yet that vulgarly taught in that Communion is contrary to the Faith and injurious to Gods Grace which Doctrine is favoured by the very words of the Council that herein also they condemn those who assert the Truth and desire to magnifie God's Grace That their Doctrines of Satisfactions Purgatory and Indulgences are built on a foundation that has not the least ground in holy Scripture their Satisfactions being enjoynd to other ends than those in which they take place in Christianity being also according to the purposes by them used injurious to the Merits of Christ and offensive to their Christian Brethren their Indulgences granted to unheard of purposes and perverted from their primitive use their Purgatory a vain invention and the occasion of much Superstition and these taken together with their Absolution in Penance tending directly to the manifest prejudice of our Christianity since the Pardon of Sins is presumed to depend not upon Reconcilement wrought with God before but on the Power of the Keys as the ground of it whereby Absolution is pronounced before the Church has done any thing to work the Cure of Sin and the Penances afterwards imposed for the satisfaction of a temporal punishment the Sin being to be supposed pardoned before and no eternal punishment to remain due and those to be expiated by some easie satisfactions in the present Life or to be abated in Purgatory by some Indulgences purchased here
Doctrine the explicit Belief whereof is absolutely necessary For first in respect of Knowledge the Schoolmen hold That much less is needful to be explicitly believed than what is contained in our Doctrines For whereas we entertain and embrace not only the Doctrine of the three Creeds but also sundry other Truths as appears by our Homilies and Articles they declare it needful to believe some but the whole Creed others the Nicene and Athanasian joyned with the Apostolical to make a man a compleat Believer and this although we go no further than the proper Sense of the words and have no great distinct knowledge of the Matters whereof however there is none will deny but the Church of England has a perfect understanding as also a right apprehension of them according to their true Christian Sense in which the whole Christian Catholick Church ever understood them Secondly For Practice they grant That we may obtain Salvation without undergoing such Duties as we refuse For if one worships God without an Image they do not deny this worship to be acceptable If a man pray immediately to God through Christ they will not say this Devotion is fruitless If one perform the best works he can Bellar. de Justif l. 5. c. 7. which we also require and stand not upon their Merit but only upon the Mercy of God as we do they judge it to be not only profitable but also commend it as most secure They deny not but sometimes true Contrition does obtain Pardon without Penance or the Priest's Absolution They cannot deny but Concil Trid. Sèss 13. cap. 8 that to receive Christ spiritually in the holy Sacrament is sufficient to all the Effects of it for the Council places the difference between those that receive it worthily and those that receive it to their own destruction in this that the former receive him both sacramentally and spiritually the other only sacramentally Nor I suppose will they deny that he that relies only on Christ's Sacrifice on the Cross has a sufficient expiation for Sins whilst he confides only in him whom God hath set forth to be our Propitiation Nor that we receive the Sacrament aright when we communicate in both kinds Likewise if a man believes no more than is contained in the Scriptures they confess him to believe as much as is necessary and profitable to all men And if a man submits to the Authority of the Church in all things which she acts for the maintenance of that Christianity she ought to preserve whilst she acts according to God's Word and her own Commission both given and limited by it they cannot say I presume that such aman disowns her Authority or voids Gods Ordinance or that the Church which professes herself to have no other Authority but acts according to this which is given her of and limited by the Scriptures does not do what she ought for the maintenance of Chrstianity and discharge of her Trust Again Thirdly The Doctrines which we disown were not received as Articles of Faith nor the contrary judged heretical by the Church of Rome for many hundred years after Christ For a Bellarm. l. 4 de Verbo Dei c. 11. that Church held at first by our Adversaries own confessions all things which the Apostles used to preach openly and which were necessary and profitable for all men to be contained in the Scriptures b Greg. Patriarch Alexan. Even the Popes themselves disowned the Title of Vniversal Bishop neither has that Church as yet decreed itself infallible though pretended by her Champions so to be c Bellarm. de Imag. l. 2. c. 9. Neither did they anciently worship Images or approve the Image of God to be made nor does any worship of Saints appear therein for 300 years after Christ and it grew therein by degrees and came in by custom says Bellarmine d Bellar. de Sanct. Beat. l. 1. c. 8. Wherein Purgatory for a time was not known nor for a long time after resolved which way it concerned Salvation e Bell. lib. 2. de Purgat c. 1. either in regard of the Persons thereby to be purged whether the damned justest or middle sort or in regard of the Ends and Effects which it hath whether to satisfie God's Justice by punishing Sin or to diminish and take away the Affections of Sin yet remaining by corrections and chastisements Wherein f Bell. l. 2. de Indu c. 17. Indulgences as now practised were not known nor any instance of them till a thousand years after Christ wherein Transubstantiation was not heard of till the Council of Lateran Wherein a thousand years after Christ and more the Sacrifice in the Eucharist was said g Aquin. par 3. quaest 83. art 1. to be only a Memorial and Representation of our Saviour's Sacrifice upon the Cross wherein the Cup was administred to the Laity and the Priests received not the Eutharist alone but together with the People Further It 's evident that we run no hazard neither do we venture upon any dangerous practice but walk in the safe way to salvation There is no danger in offering our Devotions to God through Christ and to him only as there is in the worship of Saints which is not only without warrant and most likely to be offensive to God but is even Idolatry if a right distinction be not always preserved which is very difficult to be preserved at all times nor in omitting the use of Images nor in having recourse to God's Providence only leaving the Reliques of Saints as is confessed to be if the use of Images seduce us to believe any divinity or vertue in them to place any trust in them or hope any thing from them Nor is there any danger in relying on Christs Merits and God's Mercy for the Remission of our sins not depending upon our own works but doing what we are able in obedience to God and after all saying we are unprofitable servants vilifying ourselves but magnifying the grace of God as there may be in trusting to our own Righteousness Nor in requiring Contrition as absolutely necessary to the Remission of sins as there is if we content our selves with less Nor whilst we reject the Adoration of the Sacrament so we offer up our souls to Christ in Heaven as may be in worshipping the Sacrament which themselves confess to be Idolatry if the opinion of Transubstantion be false Nor in not relying on the Sacrifice of the Eucharist but frequenting it as a Sacrament with due preparation nor in receiving it in both kinds according to Christ's institution as may be in supposing it beneficial when we use it not according to Christ's institution which obliges us to partake of it as a Sacrament and in withholding part of it when it does not appear that he has left any such power in the Church to minister but a part of what he commanded Nor in chusing the Scriptures for a Guide so we sincerely follow