guilty of which is to worship that as a God which we do believe is only a piece of Bread 2. In this very Article it is plain that our Opinion is the surer side For as to the Spiritual efficacy of the Sacrament and due preparation for it which is all that we hold concerning it by their own Confession there can be no sin in that whereas if their opinion is false they are guilty of a most horrid Idolatry So there is no danger in any thing we do whereas there may be great danger on their side all the danger that is possible to be on our side is that we do not adore Christ if he is present which may be thought to be want of Reverence But that cannot be reasonably urged since we at the same time adore him believing him to be in Heaven and if this objection against us had any force then the Primitive Church for twelve hundred years must have been in a state of damnation for none of them adored the Consecrated Elements nor has the Greek Church ever done it 3. It is clear this general Maxime of taking the surer sidâ— is against them There is no sin in not worshipping Images whereas there may be a sin in doing it They confess it is not necessary to invocate the Saints and we believe it is sinful They do not hold that it is necessary to say Masses for redeeming Souls out of Purgatory and we believe that it is an impious profanation of the Sacrament They do not hold it is necessary to take away the Cup in the Sacrament we think it Sacrilegious They do not think those Consecrations by which Divine Vertues are derived into such a variety of things to be necessary we look on them as gross Superstitions They do not think the Worship in an unknown tongue necessary whereas we think it a disgrace to Religion So in all these and many more particulars it is clear that we are of the surer side 4. We own that Maxime That nothing is necessary to Salvation but what is plainly set down in the Scriptures but this is not to be carried so far as that it should be impossible by sophistry or the equivocal use of words to fasten some other sense to such passages in Scripture for then nothing can be said to be plain in any Book whatsoever But we understand this of the genuine meaning of the Scriptures such as a plain well-disposed man will find out if his mind is not strongly prepossessed or biassed with false and wrong measures 5. The Confidence with which any party proposes their opinions cannot be a true Standart to judge of them otherwise the Receipts of Mountebanks will be always preferred to those prescribed by good Physicians and indeed the modesty of one side and the confidence of the other ought rather to give us a biass for the one against the other especially if it is visible that Interest is very prevalent in the confident party The Third Method IS to confer amicably with them and to shew them our Articles in the Scriptures and Tradition as the Fathers of tbe first Ages understood both the one and the other without engaging in reasonings or the drawing out of Consequences by Syllogisms as Cardinal Bellarmin and Perron and Gretser and the other Writers of Controversie have done which ordinarily beget endless disputes It was in this manner that the General Councils did proceed and thus did S. Austin prove Original sin against Julian To this end says he O Julian that I may overthrow thy Engines and Artifices by the opinions of those Bishops who have interpreted the Scripture with so much glory After which he cites the passages of the Scripture as they were understood by S. Ambrose S. Cyprian S. Gregory Nazianzene and others Remarks 1. WE do not deny but amicable Conferences in which matters are proposed without the wranglings of Dispute are the likeliest ways to convince people And whenever they shew us their doctrines directly in the Scripture and Tradition we will be very unreasonable if we do not yield upon that Evidence When they give us good authorities from Scripture and Tradition for the Worship of Images and Saints for adoring the Host for dividing the Sacrament for redeeming Souls out of Purgatory for denying the people the free use of the Scriptures for obliging them to worship God in a Tongue not understood by them we will confess our selves very obstinate men if we resist such Conviction 2. The shewing barely some passages without considering the whole scope of them with the sense in which such words were used in such ages and by such Fathers will certainly misguide us therefore all these must be also taken in for making this Enquiry exactly Allowances also must be made for the heats of Eloquence in Sermons or warm Discourses since one passage strictly and philosophically expressed is stronger than a hundred in which the heat of Zeal and the Figures of Rhetorick transport the Writer And thus if the Fathers disputing against those who said that the Humane Nature of Christ was swallowed up by his Divine Nature urge this to prove that the Humane Nature did still subsist that in the Sacrament after the Consecration in which there is an Union between the Elements and the Body and Blood of Christ they do still retain their proper nature and substance such expressions used on such a design leâ—d us more infallibly to know what they thought in this matter than any thing that they said with design only to beget Reverence and Devotion can do 3. The Ancient Councils were not so sollicitous as this Paper would insinuate to prove a Tradition from the Fathers of the first Ages They took great care to prove the truth which they decreed by many arguments from Scripture but for the Tradition they thought it enough to shew that they did innovate in nothing and that some Fathers before them had taught what they decreed We have not the acts of the two first General Councils but we may very probably gather upon what grounds those at Nice proceeded by what S. Athanasius wrote as an Apology for their Symbol in particular for the word Consubstantial which he proves by many consequences drawn from Scripture but for the Tradition of it he only cites four Fathers and none of those were very ancient They are Theognistus Denis of Alexandria Denis of Rome and Origen and yet both that Father Hilary and S. Basil acknowledge that Denis of Alexandria wavered much in that matter and it is well known what advantages were taken from many of Origen's expressions So here we have only two undisputed Fathers that conveyed this Tradition We have the Acts of the third General Council yet preserved and in them we find a Tradition indeed alledged but except S. Cyprian and S. Peter of Alexandria they cite none but those that had lived after the Council of Nice and Pope Leo's Letter to Flavian
what is the true sense of those passages that are in dispute but by that same Church which conveys it to you This is S. Austin's method in many places but above all in his Book De utilitate Credendi and in his Book Contra Epistolam fundamenti In which he says I would not believe the Gospel if the authority of the Church did not oblige me to it This Method is handsomely managed in the Treatise of the true Word of God joyned to the Peaceable Method Remarks 1. GReat difference is to be made between the conveyance of Books and an Oral Tradition of Doctrine It is very easie to carry down the one in a way that is Morally Infallible An exact copying being all that is necessary for that Whereas it is morally impossible to prevent frauds and impostures in the other in a course of some Ages especially in times of Ignorance and Corruption in which the Credulity of unthinking people has made an easie game to the Craft and Industry of covetous and aspiring Priests Few were then at the pains to examine any thing but took all upon Trust and became so ready of belief that the more incredible a thing seemed to be they swallowed it down the more willingly 2. If this way of reasoning will hold good it was as strong in the mouths of the Iews in our Saviours time for the High Priest and Sanhedrim might have as reasonably pretended that since they had conveyed down the Books in which the Prophecies of the Messiah were contained they hâ—d likewise the right to expound those Prophecies 3. A Witness that hands a thing down without Additions is very different from a Judge that delivers things on his own Authority We freely own the Church to be such a Witness that there is no colour of reason to disbelieve the Tradition of the Books but we see great cause to question the credit of her decisions 4. In this Tradition of Books we have not barely the Tradition of the Church for it We find in all ages since the Books of the New Testament were written several Authors have cited many and large passages out of them We find they were very quickly translated into many other Languages and diverse of those are conveyed down to us There were also so many Copies of these Books every where that though one had resolved on so Sacrilegious an attempt as the corrupting them had been he could not have succeeded in it to any great degree Some additions might have been made in some Copies and so from those they might have been derived to others but these could not have bâ—en considerable otherwise they had been discovered and complained of and when we find the Church engaged in contests with Hereticks and Schismaticks we see both sides appealed to the Scriptures and neither of them reproached the other for violating that Sacred Trust. And the noise we find of the small change of a Letter in the Aâ—ian Controversie shews us how exact they were in preserving these Records As for the Errours of Transcribers that is incident to the Nature of Man and though some Errours have crept into some Copies yet all these put together do not alter any one point of our Religion so that they are not of great consequence Thus it appears how much reason we have to receive the Scriptures upon the credit of such a Tradition But for Oral Tradition it is visible how it might have been so managed as quickly to change the whole Nature of Religion Natural Religion was soon corrupted when it passed down in this Conveyance even during the long lives of the Ancient Patriarchs who had thereby an advantage to keep this pure that after ages in which the life of Man is so shortned cannot pretend to We also see to what a degree the Iewish Tradition became corrupted in our Saviours time particularly in one point which may be called the most essential part of their Religion to wit concerning their Messias what the nature of his Person and Kingdome were to be So that they all expected a Great Conquerour a second Moses or a David so ineffectual a mean is Oral Tradition for conveying down any Doctrine pure or uncorrupted The Ninth Method IS to tell them the Church in which they were before they made the Separation was the true Church because it was the only Church so that they could not Reform the Doctrine without making another Church For then she must have fallen into Errour and by consequence the Gates of Hell must have prevailed against her which is directly contrary to the Promise of Iesus Christ that cannot fail The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against her Remarks 1. A Church may be a True Church and yet be corrupted by many Errours for a â—rue Church is a Society of men among whom are the certain means of Salvation and such was the Iewish Church in our Saviours time For their Sacrifices had still an Expiatory Vertue and the Covenant made with that people stood still and yet they were over-run with many Errours chiefly in their notions of the Messias And thus as long as the Church of Rome acknowledges the Expiation made by the Death of Christ and applied to all that truly believe and amend their lives so long she is a True Church So that those of that Communion who adhere truly to that which is the great fundamental of the Christian Religion may be saved But when so many things were added to this that it was very hard to preserve this fundamental truth pure and entire then it was necessary for those who were better enlightned to call on others to correct the abuses that had crept in 2. It is hard to build a great super-structure on a figurative expression of which it is not easie to find out the true and full sense And in this that is cited there are but three terms and about every one of them great and just grounds of doubting do appear 1. It is not certain what is meant by the Gates of Hell which is an odd figure for an assailant If by Gates we mean Councils because the Magistrates and Courts among the Iews sate in the Gates then the meaning will be that the Craft of Hell shall not prevail against the Church that is shall not root out Christianity or if by Gates of Hell or the Grave according to a common Greek Phrase Death be to be understood it being the Gate through which we pass to the Grave then the meaning is this that the Church shall never die or be extinguished Nor is there less difficulty to be made about the signification of the word Church Whether it is to be meant in general of the body of Christians or of the Pastors of the Church and of the majority of them The Context seems to carry it for the Body of Christians and then the meaning will be only this That there shall still be a Body of Christians in the World And
when the power of the Church is used not to Edification but to Destruction then the obligation to obedience is not to be too far extended And as in Laws that oblige Subjects to obey Inferiour Magistrates a tacite exception is to be supposed in case they should become guilty of Treason so there must be supposed likewise in this case the like exception in case a Synod deposes a Bishop or a Bishop censures his Clergy for asserting the true Faith And as a Separation from an uncorrupted Church is a very great wickedness so the separating from a corrupted Church in whose Communion we cannot continue without being polluted in it is but a part of that care which we ought to have of our own Salvation The Fifteenth Method TO all the former Methods a Fifteenth may be added by letting our P. Reformed see that many Articles are to be found in their Confession of Faith in their Catechisms in the Articles of their Discipline in the Decisions of their Synods and in the Books of their Chief Ministers who have writ upon the Controversies from which Arguments may be drawn against them to prove the truth of our belief even by their own Confession For Example Their Discipline allows the Communion in one kind only to such as cannot drink Wine From which one may infer that the Communion under both kinds is not an Article of necessity and that they are in the wrong to alledge that as they do to be a lawful ground for their Separation The Minister Dailée and many others confess that in the time of S. Gregory Nazianzene S. Chrysostome and S. Jerome the Invocation of Saints was received in the Church John Forbes adds to this That the Tradition of the Church was uniform concerning Prayer for the Dead And since he denies that the Books of the Maccabees are Canonical he says the Scripture speaks nothing of it But without engaging into the difficulty concerning the Books of the Maccabees in which they have no more reason on their side than in the rest It is easie to conclude from their own principles that it was no ways to be allowed to separate themselves for matters that according to themselves were established by so great an authority and so constant an union of all Ages Remarks 1. IT is not an equal way of proceeding to object to the Protestants what some particular Writers have said or to strain Inferences too far at a time when the Celebrated Book of the Bishop of Meaux is in such high esteem The chief design oâ— which is to set aside all the Indiscretions of particular Writers and to put the best colours on things that is possible Now Tradition being of such authority among them whatsoever passes down through many of their approved Writers has a much greater strength against them than it can be pretended to have against us And therefore though particular Writers or whole Synods should have written or decreed any thing against the common Doctrines of the Reformed they ought not to object that to us If they will allow us the same Liberties that they assume to themselves 2. It is not a consequence becoming so great an Assembly to infer that because in some few extraordinary cases the general rule of Gods desiring Mercy and not Sacrifice is carried so far as to give weak persons so much of the Sacrament as they can receive and not to deny that to them because a natural aversion mâ—kes them incapable of receiving the Wine That therefore a Church may in opposition to Christs express command Drink you all of it and the constant practice of Thirteen Centuries take this away It is not of necessity for Salvation that every one drinks the Cup but it is of necessity to the purity of a Church that she should observe our Saviour's Precepts 3. It is confessed that some Fathers used the Invocation of Saints yet that being but a matter of fact it is of no consequence for the Decision of any point of Doctrine For we found our Doctrine only on the Word of God and â—ot on the practices of Men how eminent soever they might otherwise be But in relation to these Fathers these things are to be observed 1. They lived in the end of the Fourth Century So this is no competent proof for an Oral Tradition or conveyance of this Doctrine down from the Apostles days 2. Figures and bold Discourses in Panegyricks are rather to be considered as raptures and flights of warm affections than as composed and serious devotions Therefore such Addresses as occur in their Funeral Orations are rather high strains of a daring Rhetorick than Instructions for others since in their expositions on Scripture or other Treatises of Devotion they do not handle these things by way of Direction or Advice Iohn Forbes is mis-cited for William Forbes Bishop of Edenburgh Iohn was not of such yielding Principles It is true William though he was a man Eminently Learned and of a most Exemplary Life yet he was possessed with that same weakness under which Grotius and some other great men have laboured of thinking that a Reconciliation with the Church of Rome might be obtained by an accommodation on both sides and this flowing in him from an excellent temper of Soul he is to be excused if that carried him in many things too far But he is a Writer that has been taxed by all men as one that had particular Notions And we may object Erasmus to those of the Church of Rome as well as they may argue against us from Bishop Forbes 5. If the Church of Rome used only a General Commemoration of the Dead with wishes for the compleating their happiness by a speedy resurrection and went no further we might perhaps differ in opinion with them about the fitness of this but we would not break Communion with them for it But when they have set up such a Merchandize in the House of God for Redeeming Souls out of Purgatory and saying Masses for them this is that we except to as a disgracing of the Christian Religion and as a high profanation of the Holy Sacrament And it is plain that the Fathers considered the Commemoration of the Dead rather as a respect done to their Memory and an honourable remembrance of them than as a thing that was any way useful to them in the other state which may appear by this single Instance S. Cyprian was so much offended at a Presbyter when it appeared after his death that he had left another Presbyter Guardian of his Children that he gave order that no mention should be made of him in the Commemoration of the Dead that was used in the Holy Eucharist because by the Roman Law such as were left Guardians were under some obligations to undertake the trust And that Saint thought such a trust might prove so great a distraction to a man that was dedicated to the Holy Ministry that no Honour ought to be done to the Memory
Inâ—allibility was not so obstinately lodged with them that a company of lewd and wickeâ— Prieâ—ts could not mis-leaâ— the people aâ— they did in the Doctrine concerning the Messias From all which it may be well inferred that how large soever the meaning of those disputed passages that relate to the authority of the Church may be supposed to be yet a tacite condition must be still implyed in them That while Church-men continue pure and sincere and seek the truth in the methods prescribed by the Gospel they shall not err in any point of Salvation And it is not reasonable to expect that our Saviour should have left a more effectual provision against Errour than he has done against Sin since the latter is certainly more pernicious and destructive of those ends for which he came into the World So that as he has only left sufficient means for those who use them well to keep themselves from Sin in such a manner that they shall not perish in it so has he likewise provided a sufficient security against Errour when such means of Instruction are offered that every one who applies himseâ—f to the due use of them shall not err damnably 4. Another foundation on which they build is Oral Tradition which â—hey reckon was handed down in every Age since the Apostles days This some explain so as to make it only the conveyance of the Exposition of the Scriptures though others stretch it further as if it might carry down Truths not mentioned in Scripture And for finding this out two Methods are given The one is Presumptive when from the Doctrine of the Church in any one age it is presumed from thence that those of that age had it from the former and the former from those who went before them till we run it up to the Apostles days The other Method is of particular proof when the â—onveyance in every age appears from the chief Writers in it I shall not here run out to shew upon either of these hypotheses the unfitness of this way of conveying Doctrines nor the easie door it opens to fraud and imposture but shall only shew that they cannot prove they have a competent Evidence of Oral Tradition among them And first it is certain that we have not handed down to us a general exposition of the Scriptures and that almost all the Ancient Expositors run after Allegories according to the way of the Greek Philosophers For some whole ages we have not above two or three Writers and those lived very remote and what they say chiefly in the passages that are made use of in the later Disputes fall in oft on the by and seem rather to have dropt from them than to have been intended by them so that this cannot be thought decisive And when it is likewise confessed that in their Disputes with the Hereticks of their days they have not argued so critically from those places of Scripture which they considered more narrowly It will not be reasonable to conclude too positively upon those things that rather fell in their way occasionally than were the designed subjects of their enquiries So that it is not possible to prove an Oral Tradition by the Instances of particular Writers in all the ages and corneâ—s of the Church For almost an age and a half we have not one copious Latine Writer but Tertullian and Cyprian that both lived in Carthage And it is not very clear of what persuasion the former was when he wrote the greatest part of his Treatises That he was a Heretick when he wrote some of them is past dispute Now can one think â—hat if God had intended that the Faith should have passed down by such a conveyance there would have been such uncertain prints left us by which we might trace it out As for the other Method of Presumption or Prescription it is certainly a false one for if in any one particular it can be made appear that the Doctrine of the Latin Church has been in these latter ages contradictory to that of the primitive times then this of Prescription is never to be any more alledged and of this I shall give two Instances that seem demonstrative The first is about the worshipping departed Saints or Martyrs which has been the practice of the Lâ—tin Church for several ages And yet in the second Century we have the greatest evidence possible that it was not the Doctrine of that age and that not in any occasional word let fall by some single Writer but in a Letter writ by the Church of Smyrna concerning the Martyrdom of their late Biship S. Polycarp In which there appears that warm affection for his person and honour for his memory that we cannot think they would have been wanting in any sort of respect that waâ— due to the ashes of so great a Saint And what they say to this purpose is deliberately brought out for it being suggested by the Iew that had set on the Heathens against that Martyr that it was necessary to destroy his Body lest the Christians should worship him They reject that imputation in these words They being Ignorant say they that we can never forsake Christ who died for the salvation of the World nor worship any other for we adore him as the Son of God But for the Martyrs we do worthily love them as the Disciples and Followers of our Lord for their unconqâ—ered love to their King and Master and therefore dâ—sâ—re to be their Partneâ—s and Disciples To this I shall add another Instance that is no lesâ— evident which is concerning the presence of Christ in the Sacrament The Tradition of the Church can be best gathered from the Liturgies which are the publickest the most united and most solemn way in which she expresses her self In S. Ambrosâ—'s time or whosoever else was the Author of the Book of the Sacraments that goes under his name we find that the Prayer of Consecrations as it is cited by him differs in a very essential point from that which is now in the Canon of the Mass In the former they called the Sacrifice that they offered up in it the figure of the Body and Blood of Christ but since that time they have changed that phrase and instead of it they pray that It may be to us the Body and Blood of Christ. We cannot tell in what age this change was made but we may certainly conclude that the Latin Church in S. Ambrose's time had a very different opinion concerning the presence of Christ from that which is now received among them and that then she only believed a Figurative Presence And thus it is certain that the Presumptive Method for finding out Oral Tradition is a false one and that the particular proof of Tradition by enquiring into the Doctrine of every age is impossible to be made 5. I shall enlarge a little further upon one particular Instance which is concerning one of those propositions lately condemned by the Assembly