THE Additional Articles IN Pope Pius ' s Creed NO ARTICLES OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH BEING AN ANSWER To a Late PAMPHLET Intituled Pope PIUS his profession of Faith Vindicated from Novelty in Additional Articles AND The PROSPECT of POPERY taken from that Authentick Record with short NOTES thereupon DEFENDED LONDON Printed by J. L. for Luke Meredith at the Angel in Amen-Corner MDCLXXXVIII IMPRIMATUR Guil. Needham R. R. in Christo P. ac D. D. Whilhelmo Archiep. Cantuar. Ã Sacr. Domest Mart. 22. 1677 / 8. THE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES IN Pope Pius ' s Creed NO ARTICLES OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH AMONG those many and great grievances which we complain of in the Church of Rome the Additional Articles of Pope Pius IV. are none of the least We look upon them as Additions to the ancient Faith imposed with great severity and as Novelties introduced into the Church without any Authority But the Vindicator tells us That though we of the Church of England be the most forward yet we of all sorts of Christians have the least reason to condemn this Prelate for this Addition who for XXIV Articles in his Profession have XXXIX in our own If this were true or the Additions were of the same kind this Remarque of his might pass among thinking Men as very considerable But had this Gentleman been so Thinking a person as he would make the World believe he is he would not have been guilty of so great a Blunder he would have seen a vast difference between Articles of Faith and Articles of Communion We do not find fault with the Church of Rome or any particular Church or any Society of Men whether Sacred or Civil for making Laws and Rules to govern themselves by or framing Articles upon compliance wherewith they will admit into or acknowledge any one to be a Member of their Society provided they be such as may be complied with without Sin and Danger But we deny that the Church of Rome or any particular Church or the Catholick Church it self hath any Authority to make new Articles of Faith or declare any thing as necessary to be Believed in order to Man's Salvation which was not so antecedent to such Declaration And this I take to be the true state of the Question between us and the Church of Rome and not as the Vindicator states it Whether there be Authority in the Catholick Church of Christ whichsoever it be to make any Addition of Articles to the Apostles Creed and require other terms of Communion besides the assenting to what is expressed in that Symbol Upon this mistaken Question the Vindicator proceeds and all along fights with his own shadow nor with us for all that we say is only this That no new Articles of Faith ought to be added to the Apostles Creed but we never denied That other terms of Communion besides the assenting to what is expressed in that Symbol may by any Church be required of Her Members Unless therefore the Vindicator do make it appear That new Articles of Faith de jure may be or de facto have been by consent of the Catholick Church added to the Apostles Creed he will not at all impugn the Church of England nor will the Church of Rome be much indebted to him for his Vindication Now whether he doth or hath made this appear will best be seen by taking his Instances into Consideration by which he pretends and endeavours to do it But before I do that it may be convenient to acquaint you what is the just and true differences between Articles of Faith and Articles of Communion Articles of Faith I take to be certain Propositions containing such divine Verities as are necessary to be believed and assented to by all Christians in order to their Salvation Articles of Communion I take to be some certain Laws or Rules agreed upon and established by some particular Society of Christians a compliance wherewith is necessary to the admittance of any one as a Member of that Society and an Observance whereof is necessary to the Peace Order and good Government of that Society The former of these are certain Fundamental Verities taught us by God revealed in the holy Scriptures and summarily comprized in the Apostles Creed For this we have the Authority of the Trent Catechism * Catech. ad Parochos par 1. Tit. de 12. Symboli Articulis n. 1. and therefore may reasonably suppose that it will not be disowned by those of the Roman Communion And if this be granted then methinks the Consequence is plain That whatsoever is not contained in the Apostles Creed is not to be admitted as an Article of Faith. For there are many Truths revealed by God in holy Scriptures all which when known to be so revealed are necessary to be believed yet are they not all of equal necessity to Salvation and consequently not to be admitted as Articles of Faith in the strict and proper acceptation of the Word The latter are things of a quite different nature respecting principally the Peace Order and good Government of some particular Society necessary to be assented to and observed by all the Members thereof but not by all Christians For there are great Numbers of Ecclesiastical Societies in the World all or most of which have different terms of Communion which the Members of every particular Society are obliged to comply with but the Members of one Society are not under the same Obligation to observe the Constitutions of another as they are to do those of their own The Catholick Church we know is divided into several particular Churches differing in the terms of their Communion and yet none will deny but that the terms of Communion in each particular Church are to be observed in order to those ends before mentioned by the respective Members of those several Churches 'T is true indeed that all those particular Churches are Members of the Catholick Church and do or ought to hold Communion with her in Faith and Worship and upon the same terms with one another But as to what relates to the admitting of Members into or casting them out of their Society they have different terms and always have had without blame and without any the least breach of that general Communion But to bring the Instance a little nearer the Church of Rome which calls her self Catholick hath many particular Societies within her self as the Benedictines the Franciscans the Dominicans the Jesuits c. all which have particular Laws and Rules and those different from one another which are the Bands and Ligaments of their several Societies And yet the Vindicator will not deny but that they are all true Members of the Church and do hold Communion with her and with one another notwithstanding those different terms of Communion among themselves By what hath been said you may easily observe a vast difference between these two sorts of Articles which difference I shall briefly recapitulate to you in these Four particulars
to admit of them and embrace them And this he pretends to do both by an Apostolical Precept and Apostolical Practice Two mighty arguments if they be apposite to the thing in hand and well managed which whether they be or no I shall now examine The Apostolical Precept which he produceth is in the Epistle to the Hebrews c. 13. v. 7 17. in these words Remember them which have the rule over you c. Obey them that have the rule over you and submit your selves for they watch for your Souls as they that must give an account c. In the former of these Verses as their own Lyra upon the place tells us we are taught how to behave our selves towards our Spiritual Rulers that are dead Lyra in Hebr. c. 13. v. 7. We ought to remember them by following their Faith and imitating their good Examples And lest we should be at a loss to know who they are whom we are to remember and whose Faith and Vertue we are to follow the same Lyra tells us They were the Apostles and other Disciples of Christ In the latter place the same Lyra tells us we are taught how to behave our selves towards our Spiritual Rulers who are alive viz. by obeying their Commands and giving due Reverence to their Persons That obedience is due from Inferiors to their Superiors we readily grant But then I. They must be such Superiors as not only pretend to have but really have a right to rule over them Now we do not think that any particular Church no not the Church of Rome it self hath any authority to give Laws to another Church for it is a certain Rule Par in parem non habet imperium Equals have no power over one another And if so then the Church of Rome hath no reason to expect our compliance with every thing which she thinks fit to require of us II. As they ought to have a right to rule over us so their commands ought to be such as we may without sin obey them otherwise the rule of the Apostles will dispense with us Act. 4.19 Whether it be better to obey God or Man judge ye Now whether they be so or no how can we tell if we are not allowed before-hand to know what they are These things being thus premised I dare now venture any unbyassed Reader to be the Judge whether by virtue of this Precept the Church of Rome may justly challenge a power to impose what Observances and Constitutions she pleaseth upon the whole Christian World For that is truly the question between us Having considered the Precept by him procured and found him mistaken in it Let us now consider his argument from Primitive Practice and see whether that will stand him in any more stead This he tells us was the practice of the Apostles even of St. Paul himself and Silas who as they went through the Cities they delivered them the Decrees for to keep that were ordained of the Apostles and Elders which were at Jerusalem And so were the Churches established in the Faith Acts xvi 4 5. The Apostolical Council held at Jerusalem having finished their Decrees commissionated Paul and Barnabas with Judas and Silas to publish the same among the Brethren that were of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia Acts c. xv v. 22 23. These Men faithfully discharged their duty in performing their Commission and their so doing had a good effect for thereby the Churches were established in the Faith and increased in number daily Now what is all this to the Vindicator's purpose Will it necessarily follow That because Paul and Silas published the Apostles Decrees in these places Therefore the Church of Rome may impose what Ordinances and Constitutions she will upon all Christians If not I do not see what good this instance of Apostolical Practice will do the Vindicator I also admit the Holy Scripture according to that Sence which our Holy Mother the Church has held and does hold to whom it belongs to judge of the true Sence and Interpretation thereof Nor will I ever admit or interpret it otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Holy Fathers WHAT Tertullian said merrily of the Heathens in his time Tertul. in Apologetico Vnless God please Man well He shall be no God and so now Man must be friendly and favourable unto God may with a little variation be here applied to the Church of Rome Vnless the Holy Scriptures please Her well they shall be no Scriptures For unless they speak according to Her Sence they are not to be admitted it belonging to Her to judge of the true Sence and Interpretation of them For I do not at all doubt but it is of that Church that this Article speaks and which it stiles Our Holy Mother the Church And for this I have the warrant of Pope Pius himself who in his XXIII Article stiles it The Holy Catholick and Apostolick Roman Church the Mother and Mistress of all Churches Nor indeed can it be otherwise understood for if the true Sence of Scripture must depend upon the Judgment of the Universal Church i. e. of all the Christians or at least of all the Bishops and Pastors in the World how is it possible to get them together to declare the Sence thereof or must we reject all Scripture till we have such a Declaration If you tell me that we must look for it in the unanimous consent of the Holy Fathers I answer I. That this is an impossible task for all sorts of Christians for Women and unlearned Men can never perform it if therefore their Salvation depend thereupon they must inevitably be damned II. Those that are learned and able to read and understand the Fathers do not find any such unanimous consent among them so that if according to this Article we must not admit the Scripture till they are all agreed about the Sence of it both learned and unlearned will for ever want a Rule to govern themselves by in the eternal concerns of their immortal Souls To avoid these difficulties The Church of Rome by Catholick understands the Roman Catholick Church and by Our Holy Mother the Church the Church of Rome which they call the Mother and Mistress of all Churches But will this make the business ever a jot the more easie Must all the Christians in the World out of Greece Egypt and many other more remote parts repair to Rome to receive the true Sence and Interpretation of the Scriptures Or if they do are they sure to meet with it when they come there Will they not find as much difference in opinions between the Doctors of that Church as of any other Will they not find that Councils have contradicted Councils and Popes condemned Popes And if so where then can they hope to meet with an infallible Interpretation of the Holy Scriptures To this may be added That if it belong to the Church to judge of the true Sence
did frequently relax some part of their penance And if this be all that is intended by Indulgences we shall not much quarrel with him about them but I am apt to think that this Gentleman will find but few of his own Communion who will be so ready to comply with him herein as we are There are two eminent persons of his own Church if he has any acquaintance with them viz. Greg. de Valentia Greg. de Valentia de Indulg c. 2. Bellarm. de Indulg l. 1. c. 7. and Cardinal Bellarmine who if he please to consult them in this matter will tell him another tale The former will assure him That this opinion differs not from that of the Hereticks and makes Indulgences to be useless and dangerous things And the latter will inform him That if this opinion be true then there will be no need of the Treasure of the Church and that Indulgences will be rather hurtful than profitable It is plain That these Doctors had a far different notion of Indulgences from that which the Vindicator here would perswade us to But it may be he will appeal from them as private Doctors which if he do whither will he send us to learn the Intention of the Church in this matter The Council is silent and gives us no Definition of the thing established by it and their chief Pastor who by the Bull of Pope Pius IV. is made the sole Interpreter of that Council hath not by any publick Act that we ever yet heard of declared the sence of the Council in this Decree So that we are still left either to spell out the intention of the Church in the Writings of their approved Doctors or else to guess at it by the practices of their supreme Pastors As to the former I have already given you a taste in two eminent Instances and might without any great trouble furnish you with many more And for the latter we need go no farther than the Tax of the Apostolick Chamber and the Bullarium in the former of which you may find Rates set which being paid an Indulgence may be had for almost any kind of Sin. And in the latter you have an account of several Bulls of Indulgence by several Popes Vide Bullar Tom. I. p. 204. Tom. III. p. 74 Tom. IV. p. 86. wherein a plenary and most plenary Remission of Sins and of all Sins is granted Which certainly must amount to more than a bare Relaxation of some part of Canonical Penance or else the poor People who purchased them were horribly cheated both of their Money and Expectations And if this be their notion of Indulgences we do not believe that any such power was ever given or left by Christ to his Church or that the use of it is at all beneficial to the Faithful I acknowledge the Holy Catholick and Apostolick Roman Church the Mother and Mistress of all other Churches and I promise and swear true Obedience to the Bishop of Rome Successor of St. Peter Prince of the Apostles and Vicar of Jesus Christ. THE Vindicator foreseeing what Objection might be made to the Catholicism of the Roman Church begins his defence of this Article with an explanation of that Title telling us That as the Catholick or universal Church signifies a Church consisting of all particular Churches united in the Communion of the same Faith and Sacraments and submission to the same Ecclesiastical Government the Church of Rome is not the universal or Catholick Church but a part of it but as it imports a Church which is universal in its influence and by a singular privilege hath Authority over all other particular Churches and is the Center of their Communion the Church of Rome in this sence is the Catholick or universal Church and is rightly stiled the Mother and Mistress of all other particular Churches This Notion of the Catholick Church is liable to as many if not more Objections than the other For 1. Where or by whom was ever the Catholick or Universal Church understood to import a particular Church endowed with universal Influence 2. By what singular privilege hath any particular Church this universal Influence or Authority over all other particular Churches seeing par in parem non habet imperium 3. Whence had the Church of Rome this singular Privilege Was it from God or of Men If from God let her produce her Charter if of Men then those who gave it were superior to her to whom it was given and certainly they did not give away their own Superiority and if not then the Church of Rome instead of being a Mother and Mistress must own her self to be a Daughter and Handmaid to another 4. When where or by whom was the Church of Rome ever made or owned to be the Center of Catholick Union or Communion These Questions I doubt will not be quickly answered and till we are satisfied in these and some others we shall hardly be perswaded to subscribe this Article But why not The Vindicator assures us This was the Doctrine of the first Ages of the Church and if so then ought we rather to suspect our own Judgments than distrust theirs To this I answer That if this was the Doctrine of the first Ages then Pope Gregory the Great who certainly was as Infallible as any other Pope was mightily mistaken For when John Bishop of Constantinople did arrogantly assume to himself the Title of Oecumenic or Vniversal Bishop Gregory sharply reproves him for it and tells him Gregor l. 4. Epist 38 39. c. It is a New Name a wicked profane insolent Name the general plague of the Church a corruption of the Faith against Canons against the Apostle Peter and against God himself And he farther adds That never any Godly Man never any of his Predecessors used those Titles and whosoever doth or shall use them is the very Fore-runner of Antichrist From whence it is plain that before his time which was about Six hundred Years after Christ there never was any pretence made to it But the Vindicator says there was and that it was the Doctrine of the first Ages Now whether Gregory or this Gentleman be in the right is the thing in question The Vindicator to make good his ground urgeth us with the Authority of Irenaeus l. 3. c. 3. adv Haer. where he saith That the Church of Rome is the greatest and most ancient of all others founded and established there by the Two most Glorious Apostles Peter and Paul. 'T is necessary that every Church should recurr to this by reason of its more powerful principality To this I answer That Irenaeus in that Book writeth against Valentinus Cerdon and Marcion who contrary to the Doctrine of the Apostles had devised certain strange Heresies for trial whereof he appeals to those Churches which the Apostles had planted saying The Church of Ephesus first instructed by St. Paul and afterward continued by St. John is a sufficient witness of the Apostles
I. Church Communion it is plain is of two sorts either with the Catholick or with a particular Church Now it must be acknowledged That Articles of Faith properly so called are really terms of Communion with the Catholick Church for by our Profession of them it is that we are look'd upon as Christians and own'd as members of the Catholick Church But they are not nor cannot be the only terms of Communion with any particular Church for it is not by owning and assenting to the terms of Communion with any particular Church that we are called Christians but only Christians of such or such a Denomination i. e. We are upon our compliance with such terms look'd upon as Members of such a particular Society of Christians II. Articles of Faith properly so called are certain Fundamental Verities revealed by God in holy Scripture and summarily comprized in the Apostles Creed But meer Articles of Communion with any particular Church are no fundamental Verities of Religion though they may be fundamental Constitutions of a Society nor is it necessary that they should all be revealed by God but may be invented by Men and certain it is that all of them never were comprized either in the Apostles or any other ancient Creed III. Articles of Faith are the same to all Christians being such fundamental Verities as all ought to believe and assent thereunto But Articles of Communion are various each Community having different terms of Communion from another so that the Members of one Society though they stand obliged to comply with observe and assent unto the terms of Communion established and required of them by their own Body yet are they not any way obliged to comply with observe or assent unto the terms of Communion required in another IV. Articles of Faith are certain fundamental Verities necessary to be believed and assented to by all Christians in order to their Salvation but Articles of Communion as such are not necessary to the Salvation of Men but only to the Peace Order and good Government of a Society For a Member of one Society may be safe and saved at last without complying with the terms of Communion established by another Having thus represented to you the difference between these two sorts of Articles I shall now proceed to consider the Vindicator's Instances by which he endeavours to prove That it is in the power of the Church to add unto the Apostles Creed not only other Articles of Communion besides the assenting to what is expressed in that Symbol but also other Articles of Faith. His first Instance is The acknowledged practice of the Primitive Church in the time of her confessed Purity This is a mighty Instance and if he can make any thing of it to evince the Addition of any new Article of Faith to the Apostles Creed in that time he will do a great Work for we own there is a great deal of difference due to the practice of the Primitive Church in that time But instead of so doing he acknowledgeth that the Apostles Creed was the only summary of the Christian Faith known in the first Three hundred Years And if so then the Church in all that time never thought it necessary to add any new Article thereunto But after this time saith he upon occasion of the Arian Heresie another Creed was composed by the Council of Nice with an express condemnation and detestation of that new broach'd Error in the Addition of these Words in relation to the Divinity of the Son I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ the only begotten Son of God * For begotten born of his Father before all Worlds God of God Light of Light very God of very God begotten not made consubstantial to the Father And without the express assenting to this Addition none could be admitted to Ordination or be acknowledged as Members of the Church Which Creed with this Addition was received by the whole Church and Subscription to it is required by the Church of England Art. VIII Here this Gentleman as he thinks hath found a considerable Addition to the Apostles Creed and that made by no less Authority than that of the Famous Council of Nice But certainly never any Thinking Man besides himself ever thought this to be an Addition to but only an Explication of the Apostles Creed or a Declaration of what was the Sence of the Church in those Three hundred Years preceding touching that Article of the Apostles Creed And whereas he saith That without the express Assenting to this Addition as he calls it none could be admitted to Ordination or be acknowledg'd as Members of the Church It is very true but little to his purpose for what doth this import but only that an Assent to this Explication was required as a term of Communion but not that it should be owned as a new Article of Faith. And whereas he further saith That this Creed with this Addition was received by the whole Church and a Subscription to it is now required by the Church of England Art. VIII It is very true and the Church of England in the same Article will tell him upon what Grounds she now doth and the Church then did receive this Creed The Three Creeds Nice Creed Athanasius's Creed and that which is commonly called the Apostles Creed ought throughly to be received and believed for they may be proved by most certain Warrants of holy Scripture So that upon the whole matter it is very evident That the Council of Nice makes no new Article but only explains an old one The same Answer may serve to his two next Instances out of the Athanasian and Constantinopolitan Creeds in which upon like Occasions we meet with Explications of some other Articles of the Apostles Creed but no Addition of any new Article thereunto But our Vindicator being a mighty Thinking Man hath found out a way not only of confounding Articles of Faith with Articles of Communion but also of jumbling Additions and Explications together as if they were one and the same thing And if you will allow this Issue of his so pregnant Thoughts you shall not want a Vindication of the most absurd Doctrines and irregular Practices in the Church of Rome but if you deny him this you take away the Foundation he is to build upon and then it would be unreasonable for you to expect any good and durable Superstructure from him This is plain from his next Instance which is taken from the XXXIX Articles of the Church of England in which he saith are many particular Points not found in the Symbol of the Apostles nor yet in any of the forementioned Creeds of the Primitive Church Whence he concludes That the Church of England hath greater variety and a greater number of Additional Atticles than the Church of Rome To make good which conclusion he must according to his new way of Thinking take all the Articles of our Church to be Articles of Faith strictly and
learning Polycarpus being converted and taught by the Apostles instructed the Church of Smyrna and all the Churches of Asia follow it Yet none of all these Churches ever allowed or received your strange Doctrine Yea the very wild Barbarous Nations that have received the Faith of Christ at the Apostles hands only by hearing without any Book or Letter if they should hear of these Heresies they would stop their Ears Here he appeals to the Church of Ephesus of Smyrna and all the Churches of Asia But then he adds It would be too tedious to reckon up the Sucession of all Churches and for that reason being himself a Western Bishop he appeals to that Church which was of Apostolical plantation in the West viz. the Church of Rome Which he calls the greatest most ancient and known to all Men. Not the most Ancient of all other Churches as the Vindicator renders it for it is well known that Jerusalem Antioch and several others were more ancient but it was then the most famous Church in the West To this Church therefore he appeals and thinks it necessary that in such cases all other Churches i. e. all other Churches in the West should do the same and that for two Reasons 1. Because of the more powerful principality 2. Because in this Church the Tradition of the Apostles hath ever been kept The latter of these which is the principal the Vindicator leaves out and he had reason for it for with that he could not serve the end he aim'd at At that time the Tradition i. e. the Doctrine of the Apostles was look'd upon to be the best Trial and Rule of Faith. Which Doctrine in those early days was exactly observed in Rome without corruption and for that reason was that Church had in Reverence and Estimation above others And if the Church of Rome at this day did as faithfully keep the Traditions and Doctrine of the Apostles as she did then we would never scruple to yield her that same Honour that Irenaeus gives to the ancient Church of Rome But he makes sure not to forget the other reason viz. The more powerful principality And yet he will be as little able to avail himself of this as of the other for the Principality which Irenaeus here means is the Civil Dominion and Temporal State of the City of Rome which was then the Imperial City For if we consider that this was in the Reign of Commodus the Emperor who was an Heathen and a Persecutor we cannot imagine that the Church was then possessed of any powerful Principality But as in every Province there was a Metropolis or chief City so it was usual with the Fathers to call the Church planted there the chief or principal Church And it is well known Concil Constant 6. that upon that very account the Patriarch of Constantinople was by a general Council declared to have equal Privileges and Authority with the Patriarch of Rome And that this was all the principality that Irenaeus dream'd of will appear plainly if we consider that when Victor Bishop of Rome was angry with the Churches of Asia for not celebrating the Feast of Easter at the same time Euseb Histor Eccles l. 5. c. 23. and in the same manner as they did at Rome and would have Excommunicated them for it Irenaeus opposed his design and sharply reproved him as a disturber of the Church's peace Which certainly he would not have done had he thought that the Church of Rome had been the Mother and Mistress of all Churches and that Obedience to her Bishop was necessary for every Christian in order to his Salvation His next witness is Optatus Milevitanus lib. 2. adv Parm. Where he speaks of St. Peter's Chair being erected at Rome to the end that Unity might be preserved and that they are Schimaticks and Sinners and Sacrilegious who set up themselves in defiance against the Chair of Peter To this I answer That Optatus there writes against Parmenianus the Donatist Now the Donatists were a certain Sect of Christians broken off from the Unity of the Catholick Church confining it to a corner of Africa where they themselves dwelt as our Neighbours of the Roman Communion do now to Rome To convince these People of their folly and madness and to reduce them if possible into the bosom of the Church Optatus doth as Irenaeus before him had done appeal to those Churches which were planted by the Apostles and particularly to the Church of Rome blaming them for departing from that Faith and Doctrine which was there kept and taught and telling them that they could not belong to the Church of Christ so long as they continued in a state of separation from that Church He doth not therefore require their Union and Communion with the Roman Church as with the Mother and Mistress of all other Churches but as with the keeper of the Apostolick Faith. Nor doth he require them to acknowledge the Bishop of Rome as the universal Head and Monarch of all Churches for there is not one word to be found in all Optatus tending that way His next Evidence is St. Cyprian Epist 40. There is one God and one Christ and one Church and one Chair founded upon Peter by the Word of God. The design of St. Cyprian in this Epistle is to give an account to those to whom he wrote of the Schismatical Sedition raised by Felicissimus and Five other Presbyters in the Church of Carthage and against him their Bishop and by warning them against it to preserve them in Peace and Unity To that end he lays down these words There is one God c. And immediately adds Another Altar cannot be set up nor a new Priesthood made besides that one Altar and one Priesthood Whosoever gathereth elsewhere scattereth It is Adulterous it is Wicked it is Sacrilegious to make way for humane Inventions by the violation of a divine Constitution Whence it is plain That by the one Church here he meant the One Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church and by the One Chair the Episcopal Chair Obedience whereunto preserves Unity and Disobedience begets Schism and Sedition in the Church But the force of his Argument lies here That this One is founded upon Peter and that not by any humane but by divine Authority Voce Domini by the Word of the Lord i. e. as the Margin of St. Cyprian directs us those Words of our Saviour Matth. xvi 18. where our Saviour saith Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it To this I answer 1. That there are some who read these words of St. Cyprian not super Petrum but super petram not upon Peter but upon the Rock not upon Peter's person but upon his profession or as others upon Christ who is the spiritual Rock upon which St. Peter himself was builded But 2. Suppose we should grant that St. Cyprian speaks of St. Peter's person
ad Damasum whose words are thus rendered by him Ego nullum primum nisi Christum sequens Beatitudini tuae i. e. Cathedrae Petri Communione consocior I following no other Leader but Christ am in Communion with your Holiness i. e. with the Chair of Peter c. And I cry aloud Whoever is in Communion with the Chair of Peter is mine Which may better be Translated thus I following no first Man but only Christ am joined as a Fellow in Communion unto thy Blessedness i. e. to Peter 's Chair Whence we may observe 1. That St. Jerome doth not acknowledge any first head or chief in the Church no not the Pope himself but only Christ 2. That he doth not submit himself as a Vassal or Subject to the Pope but doth consociate himself in Communion with him 3. That it is not only with him but with St. Peter's Chair And what he meaneth by St. Peter's Chair he afterwards explains when he comes to give a reason of this his Address Where he tells us The Foxes destroy the Vineyard of Christ so that among these broken Cisterns that have no Water it is hard to understand where that sealed Fountain and inclosed Garden is Therefore he thought it good to consult St. Peter's Chair and that Faith which was commended by the Apostles Mouth So that it was not St. Peter's Successor in place but in Doctrine that he applied himself unto Now if we consider that the Age in which St. Jerome lived did mightily abound with Hereticks we cannot think it strange that he should forsake the company of those wicked Men and join himself in communion with those who then held that Faith intire which they impugned But if you ask me why should he rather address himself to the Bishop of Rome than any other The answer is ready he had received his Christianity at Rome In vita Hieron he had been educated there from his youth he was a Priest of Rome and had sometime been Secretary to this very Damasus All which considered it is no wonder if he had a particular kindness for that See. Now what is all this to that universal power which the Pope at this day claims to have over the whole Church of God Should the Vindicator follow St. Jerome's Example and and in his Address call the Pope his Fellow I doubt it would not be very welcome And that St. Jerome meant no more than is here explained will plainly appear if we consider what account he made at other times of St. Peter's Chair when he found abuses and errors maintained in the Church of Rome Then he cries out Si Authoritas quaeritur c. Hieron in Epist ad Evagrium If we seek for Authority that of the World is greater than that of the City viz. Rome Whereever there is a Bishop whether it be at Rome or at Tanais or at Engubium he is of equal Merit and equal Priesthood The power of Riches and the humility of Poverty cannot make a Bishop either higher or lower All Bishops are the Successors of the Apostles His next Evidence is St. Aug. Epist 92. ad Innocentium Papam whose words are not well translated by him The words of the Epistle are these In the great dangers of the infirm Members of Christ we beseech you to use your Pastoral diligence For there is a new Heresie and too pernicious a Tempest raised by the Enemies of the Grace of Christ who by their wicked Disputations endeavour to take from us the Lords Prayer And then giving him an account what that Heresie and Tempest was he at last concludes But we hope the Mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ assisting who deigns to govern thee consulting him and to hear thee praying to him those who think so perversely and perniciously will yield to the Authority of your Holiness drawn from the Authority of holy Scriptures that so we may rather rejoice in their Correction than sorrow for their Destruction For the better understanding hereof we are to consider That this Epistle was sent to Pope Innocent not by St. Austin alone but by the Milevitan Council in which he presided and in which the Pelagian Heresie had been considered and censured as it had been before in the Council of Carthage And the design of their writing as appears by the whole tenour of the Epistle was not to beg his confirmation of what they had done but to acquaint him with what they had done and to desire him to take the same pastoral care and use the same diligence to discountenance that Heresie in his Province as they had done in theirs Epist 95. ad Innocent For St. Austin in another Epistle tells him We have heard that there are some even in Rome it self where Pelagius long lived who for divers causes are favourable to him some there are who report that you perswade them so to be but more who believe that he is cleared from that Heresie by the Eastern Bishops And therefore they expected that he should not only clear himself of that suspicion but also undeceive his people as to the Transactions in this matter in the East This was the design of this Epistle as indeed it was of all those Communicatory Letters which in those days were so frequent when any matter of great importance happened in the Church which were things of great use and no small advantage then for thereby Catholick Communion was preserved warning was given of any approaching danger and the Bishops and Pastors of the Church awakened to provide against it Nor were these Epistles sent to the Bishop of Rome only but to other Bishops also To this purpose we meet with another Epistle to Hilarius Bishop of Poitiers in France Epist 94. written in the same stile and to whom he makes his Address in words to the same effect as he did to the Bishop of Rome for thus he directs it To Hilarius our most blessed Lord and reverend Brother and Fellow-Bishop in the truth of Christ In this Epistle he tells him That a new Heresie an Enemy to the Grace of Christ was endeavoured to be set up and having given him an account what it was he desires him to use his pastoral care and diligence to suppress it But that St. Austin and the Fathers in the Numidian Council never dreamt of any power or authority either in him or the Bishop of Rome or any other Bishop over them and all other Churches we need no other Evidence than the Acts of this very Council In which we find this Decree made Concil Milevitan Can. 22. If they have a mind to appeal from their Bishops let them not appeal but only to the Councils of Africa or to the Primates of their own Provinces But if they shall make their Appeals beyond the Seas i. e. to Rome let no Man in Africa receive them into Communion Concil Carthag 6. Can. 92. The same was also decreed in the African Council and
the reasons of it are expressed at large in the Epistle of that Council to Pope Coelestinus Thus have I considered the Proofs brought for Vindication of this important Article and having laid them in the Balance have found them all too light But he hath yet one Authority more not from Antiquity but from a Modern Author and one of our own viz. the Reverend and learned Doctor Sherlock This I confess Disc of the Knowl of Jes Christ p. 163. I did not expect for who would ever have thought that that worthy Gentleman should ever have been brought upon the Stage as an Advocate for the Popes Supremacy But this Gentleman thinks that whatsoever is said by any Body touching Order and Discipline in the Church and the necessity of subjection and obedience to the Governors thereof must needs terminate in the Pope who they say is the Center of Unity though in so saying they do but beg the Question For we can with great cheerfulness and willingness subscribe to all that Dr. Sherlock hath there said and yet think our selves never a jot the more obliged to swear Obedience to the Bishop of Rome I undoubtedly receive and profess all other things delivered defined and declared by the Sacred Canons and General Councils and particularly by the Holy Council of Trent and I condemn reject and anathematize all things contrary thereunto and all Heresies whatsoever the Church hath condemned rejected and Anathematized THIS he tells us is the consequence of that Doctrine of our Creed wherein we profess to believe The Holy Catholick Church But how comes this to be the consequence of that Doctrine Very naturally for the Church of Rome is this Catholick Church 'T is boldly said but how doth this appear Very plainly for there are the greatest reasons in the world to believe it So that now we must either show our selves to be unreasonable Men or else of necessity we must subscribe this Article But are we obliged to take all this upon the bare word of the Vindicator May we not look into and consider these reasons whether they be so great and good as he talks of Surely we may or else he would not have exposed them to publick view Well then let us see what they are R. 1. His first Reason is Because the Church of Rome has continued in a visible Succession of Pastors from Christ's time till now Ans The point of Succession hath been already considered and I think enough said to show the unreasonableness of that Plea. But because he so much insists upon the visible Succession of Persons in the same place let me ask him two or three questions 1. Who was the Bishop of Rome next by Succession to Peter who the second who the third who the fourth For in this they are not yet well agreed Some say Linus was the second others say Clemens Some say Anacletus was the third others say Clemens Some say Anacletus was the fourth others say Anacletus 2. Whether an Heretick or a Necromancer or a Blasphemer being in the Chair be the true Successor of St. Peter and if not whether that do not break the Line of Succession 3. Whether when there was no Pope for some Years the visible succession of Pastors in that Church was not discontinued 4. When there were three or four Popes at one and the same time and not known who was the true one there was not an apparent interruption of their visible succession R. 2. Because the Church of Rome never went out of or separated from any precedent Church but all other separate Congregations have gone out from her Ans If by going out of or separating from any precedent Church he mean departing from the Doctrine and renouncing the Discipline of that Church which he must do if he mean any thing then we say That in both these the present Church of Rome hath gone out of and separated from the Primitive Church as hath been plainly made appear in this Discourse And that those who separate from her do not separate from the Church but from the corruptions of that particular Church which they are well warranted to do by St. Paul who having told the Corinthians That there can be no fellowship between Righteousness and Unrighteousness no Communion between Light and Darkness no Concord between Christ and Belial nor any Agreement between the Temple of God and Idols at last thus inferrs Wherefore come out from among them and be ye separate saith the Lord and touch not the unclean thing and I will receive you 2 Cor. vi 14 15 16 17. Because the Church of Rome hath sent Apostles abroad and converted all Heathen Nations to Christianity R. 3. Ans This is so notoriously false and so well known to be so to every one that hath but looked into Church History in which we have an account of most Nations when and by whom they were converted that I cannot but wonder at the Confidence of this Gentleman in asserting it But if we should grant him this would it thence follow That the Church of Rome is the Catholick Church Might I not as well reason thus The Scribes and Pharisees compass Sea and Land to gain Proselytes therefore those two Sects were the whole Jewish Church Because the Church of Rome in publick Synods has opposed and condemn'd in all Ages arising Heresies R. 4. This is as notoriously false as the former Ans as is plain from those two Instances of the Milevitan and African Councils which I mentioned in the precedent Article and might easily be made more plainly appear by Instances of other Councils which have not only not desired but rejected the Authority of the Church of Rome when it would have inposed But the thing is so well known that I shall not need to do it These are all the Reasons he alledgeth and these he tells us are the greatest in the World. If they be so the World is in an ill condition and men like the great Nebuchadnezzar may be sent now to graze amongst the Beasts of the Field having lost their Reason I am of Doctor Sherlock's mind That Men cannot own the Authority and Government of Christ till they submit to the publick Instructions Authority and Discipline of the Church But what is all this to the Church of Rome's being the Catholick Church 'T is plain he doth not say it and I am well assured he never meant it I subscribe to St. Austin's Judgment That particular Councils Aug. de Bapt. cont Don. l. 2. c. 9. must yield to General because the whole is deservedly preferred before a part But did ever any Council either particular or General decree a part to be the whole or a particular Church to be the Catholick Church If not I do not see how the Vindicator can avail himself of this passage nor for what end he did produce it Thus it appears that the New Articles in Pope Pius
place informs us for saith he St. Paul here stirs up Timothy to be solicitous in preaching himself and to make choice of others who were fit for that work and therefore he saith The things that thou hast heard of me among many Witnesses i. e. confirmed by the Law and the Prophets and the Hagiographa or other sacred Writings the same commit thou to faithful Men who shall be able to teach others also i. e. to Men of a sound Faith who shall be fit by the example of holy life by their Knowledge and by their Eloquence to teach others also Now what relation this hath to Traditions or why this Gentleman brought it in as a proof of them I cannot devise These are all the Scripture proofs which he offers for Traditions but he hath a Reserve of two passages out of two of the Fathers to make good the Reer The first of which he tells us is to be found in Epiphanius Haer. 61. in these words 'T is necessary to admit of Traditions for all things cannot be found in Scripture and therefore the holy Apostles delivered some things in writing and some by Tradition How far this will serve the end he aims at is now to be considered That in some cases it is necessary to admit of Traditions was never denied by us nor did we ever affirm That all things are to be found in Scripture nor do we deny but that the Holy Apostles did deliver some things in Writing and some by Tradition i. e. by word of Mouth But we deny that it is necessary to admit of Traditions i. e. unwritten Traditions in all cases or indeed in any unless it can be made appear that they have been universally received by the whole Church in all Ages And we do affirm that though the Scriptures do not contain all things yet they do contain all things necessary to be believed by us in order to our Salvation And though we do not deny but that some things were delivered by the Apostles in Writing and some by word of mouth yet we do deny that what was delivered by word of mouth was either besides or against what was written by them What was delivered in writing hath been carefully preserved we have it before our eyes and are sure of it but of those things which were delivered by word of mouth some we are sure have been lost as for instance Those many other things which Jesus did mentioned by St. John c. 21. v. 25. and the cause of the hinderance of the coming of Anti-Christ mentioned by St. Paul 2 Th. 2. That Records are a much more faithful keeper than Tradition appears by these instances those few that were written being still preserved and believed and those infinity that were not written being all lost and vanished out of the memory of Men. And seeing God in his providence hath not thought fit to preserve the memory of them he hath freed us from the obligation of believing them for every obligation ceaseth when it becomes impossible You will not you dare not say that God would suffer any thing to be lost that was necessary to Salvation nor can you deny but that he hath suffered these Traditions to be lost and therefore the Knowledge or Belief of them though it were a profitable thing yet is it not necessary And if so then with what face can you require us to assent unto this Article upon pain of damnation when we have no footsteps or print remaining which with divine Faith we may rely upon All which considered may we not truly say That Epiphanius here if rightly understood is neither for them nor against us For we say with him that it is necessary to admit of Tradition in some but not in all cases We acknowledge also that the Holy Apostles delivered some things in Writing and some by Tradition and when any thing is made appear to us to be of Apostolical Tradition and delivered by them as necessary to Salvation we will enquire no farther but will readily admit and embrace it His next Authority is taken out of St. Gregory Nyssen l. 3. contra Eunom p. 126. where he tells us these words are to be found 'T is a sufficient proof of our Doctrine that we have received it by Tradition from our Ancestors it having been left us as an Inheritance by the Apostles and convey'd down to us by a continued Succession of the Faithful in all Ages I see nothing to all this but what without any scruple we may readily assent to Gregory Nyssen says It is a sufficient proof of our Doctrine that we have received it by Tradition from our Ancestors And who these Ancestors were he tells us in the next words It having been left us as an Inheritance by the Apostles So then the Ancestors here spoken of were the Apostles and the Tradition here mentioned was what was left us as an Inheritance by them Now what was it that was left us as an Inheritance by the Apostles but only the Doctrine of Christianity contained in their Writings which Doctrine hath been convey'd down to us by a succession of the Faithful in all Ages i. e by Universal Tradition That this is the sence of this Father in this place is plain from his own words and is agreeable to the way and manner of speaking among the Fathers by whom the Gospel it self and the whole Religion of Christ is frequently called A Tradition De praescription advers Haereticos Concil Constantinop 6. Act. 4. Eadem Actione Basil de Spiritu Sancto 2 Th. 2.15 So the Articles of our Faith are by Tertullian called An old Tradition So the Faith of the Holy Trinity in the Council of Constantinople is called A Tradition And the Faith of two sundry Natures in Christ in the same Council is called The lively Tradition of the Apostles So St. Basil calls it A Tradition To believe in the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost And in this sence St. Paul calls the Apostolical Doctrine A Tradition This is all that he produceth in the behalf of Traditions Now whether he hath hereby proved that the Romish Doctrine of Traditions is according to Scripture and the Sence of the Primitive Fathers I leave the Reader to judge His next Effort is to make good the latter part of this Article touching all the other Observances and Constitutions of the Church And here we might reasonably have expected that he should have told us what those Observances and Constitutions are which we are required to admit and embrace But that is not the way of the Church of Rome she expects that her votaries should rely upon her guidance and conduct with an implicit Faith and observe her Dictates with a blind Obedience And therefore the Vindicator here like a dutiful Son of such a Mother never stops to us what is required of us but without more ado goes about to prove That whatsoever those Observances and Constitutions are it is our duty
and Interpretation of Scripture and we are not to admit of it but according to Her Sence then it will be necessary to know which is the Church and whether that which pretends to be so be indeed the true Church for without that we cannot with any certainty depend upon Her Judgment But how shall we know that but by the Scriptures Nullo modo cognoscitur quae sit vera Ecclesia Christi nisi tantummodo per Scripturas Chrysostom in opere imperfect Hom. 49. Ecclesiam Christi sicut ipsum Caput Christum in Scripturis Sanctis Canonicis debemus agnoscere Aug. de Vnitat Eccl. c. 66. St. Chrysostome saith It is impossible to know it otherwise And St. Augustine for the discovery of the true Church directs us to the sacred Scriptures And indeed how is it possible to know this or that to be a True Church i. e. of a sound Judgment and pure in the Faith unless we first know the Rule of Faith which is the Word of God But how shall we know either the one or the other but by making use of our own Reason and judging for our selves of those Evidences which are produced So that in fine If we should grant all that the Church of Rome requires of us yet must we make use of our own Reason to understand that Sence and Interpretation which she gives us of the Holy Scriptures Which is no more nor less than resolving all at last into a private Judgment And that all Christians not only may but ought in this manner and in these cases thus to judge for themselves we have good warrant and Authority from the Word of God in which we are advised Not to believe every Spirit but to try the Spirits whether they be of God because many false Prophets are gone out into the World 1 John iv 1. And to prove all things but to hold fast that which is good 1 Th. v. 21. And to be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh us a reason of the hope that is in us 1. Pet. iij. 15. And our Saviour tells us If the blind lead the blind both shall fall into the ditch Matth. xv 14. And he severely reproves those who did not receive his Doctrine saying And why even of your selves judge ye not what is right Luke xij 57. But notwithstanding all this and much more which hath been told them oftentimes oyer and over yet the Vindicator like a stout Champion of his Church undertakes to prove That this Article and every Branch of it is according to Scripture and the Sence of the Primitive Fathers Let us see now how he acquits himself in this undertaking This he tells us is founded upon the Doctrine delivered by St. Peter 2 Ep. i. 20. No Prophecy of the Scripture is of any private Interpretation From whence he thus argues And if it be not of private Interpretation private persons must apply themselves for the true Sence of it to some others and to whom but unto those whom God hath put over them whom he hath commanded them to hear to submit to and obey c. When Men by their own diligence and industry cannot attain to the true sence and meaning of Holy Scripture or after all their care and pains in the use of all proper means are not satisfied therein that in such a case they should apply themselves to those whom God hath set over them as their Spiritual Guides we think to be a method not only safe and reasonable but very necessary But whether this be deducible from or can be built upon this Text of Scripture I take to be very questionable or rather that it is out of question that it cannot And therefore before we proceed any farther let us make a stand a while and take a view of the Apostle's design in this place and of the full and genuine importance of these words St. Peter having faithfully discharged his duty in preaching the Gospel and now finding the time of his departure hence near at hand he commits to writing the substance of what he had preached that so those to whom he had preached might always have it in remembrance so little did he rely upon Tradition That this was his design appears plainly from the 12 13 14 and 15 Verses of this Chapter And that he might not burthen their memories too much he gives them a short Summary of what he had preached unto them viz. The power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ v. 16. And to assure them of the truth and certainty thereof he lays before them two undeniable Arguments I. A voice from Heaven saying This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased This was at his Transfiguration in the Mount at which time Peter James and John were with him and were Eye-Witnesses of his Majesty and Ear-Witnesses of that Heavenly Voice vers 16 17 18. II. But lest they should distrust them or look upon this as an illusion or a dream and fancy of their own he furnisheth them with another Argument which he was well assured would not be rejected by them and that is taken from the Prophetical Writings for which those of the Dispersion viz. the coverted Jews had a mighty regard saying We have also a more sure word of Prophecy whereunto ye do well that ye take heed c. v. 19. meaning that Prophecy of holy David Ps ij 7. Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee And then he adds Knowing this first that no Prophecy of the Scriptures i. e. no Prophecy contained in the Scriptures of the Old Testament to distinguish it from the dreams of those Men who pretended to prophesie but had neither Mission nor Commission from God so to do is of any private Interpretation i. e. proceeds from any private or uninspired person or is an invention of Man. And that this is the full importance of this Expression the Apostle himself seems plainly to intimate in the very next words where he saith For the Prophecy came not in old time by the Will of Man i. e. The Prophets of old did not prophesie either what they pleased or when they pleased but holy Men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost i. e. they published nothing but what was dictated to them by the Holy Ghost nor at any time but when they were moved by him v. 21. And if we consult the Original words they cannot well be construed otherwise for what in the 20 verse is rendred Of any private Interpretation in the Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and may be rendred thus All Prophecy of the Scripture is not made of their own Explication which is the same which the Apostle afterwards saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Prophecy came not in old time by the Will of Man. And for this sence of the Words if that will weigh any thing with them we have the Authority of their own Lyra upon
the Article which he is here defending is founded and consider one passage therein which perhaps he might before overlook And then I shall proceed to conder the latter part of this Article The Passage is this the Council doth there declare That Concupiscence doth still remain even in those that are baptized and doth further declare that St. Paul did sometimes call this Concupiscence Sin. But though the Apostle did so yet the Council tells us That the Catholick Church no doubt the Roman Catholick did never think it to be so And if any one think otherwise let him be Anathema In the beginning of this Decree the Council pretends to have the assistance of the Holy Ghost whether they had or no is not easie to be granted but it is confessed on all hands that St. Paul was inspired from above and if so then how comes the Council and he to be at odds in this matter Either the Apostle or the Council were in the wrong for both parts of a Contradiction cannot be true Now whether the Authority of St. Paul or that of the Council of Trent be the better one would think were no very hard Question St. Austin I am sure did not think it was for if he had he would not have been so positive as he was Aug ad Hieron Epist 19. when he said The Authority of St. Paul is to me instead of all the Fathers and above all the Fathers to him I flee and to him I appeal from all other Doctors whatsoever II. Concerning Justification he gives us an account of what the Council of Trent hath defin'd in Four particulars 1. That Men are justified by an intrinsecal Justice And this he founds upon Two places of Scripture viz. Tit. iij. 7. where it is said That being justified by his Grace we should be made Heirs according to the hope of Eternal Life Which Grace saith he is in Men. And for this he quotes 2 Tim. i. 6. where it is said I put thee in mind to stir up that Grace which is in thee So he renders it but it is more properly translated I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the Gift of God which is in thee by the putting on my Hands Which last words he leaves out To this I answer What St. Paul here means by being justified by his Grace he himself very well explains in another place where he saith Rom. iij. 24. Being justified freely by his Grace through the Redemption that is in Jesus Christ Where to be justified Freely and to be justified by Grace are Synonymous Expressions and imply no more but that God did freely and without any merit of ours send his Son to die for sinners and by his Death to make satisfaction to divine Justice for our sins and by that means to obtain such Grace and Favour with God that our Sins might be Pardoned and we Justified before him whence it is very plain That by the Grace of God we are not to understand any intrinsecal Righteousness of our own but the free Grace and Favour of God in accepting the Righteousness of Christ instead of ours and imputing the same to us through Faith for our Justification And therefore St. Paul after he had a little more Explain'd himself Vers 28. concludes saying Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by Faith without the Deeds of the Law. As for his other Scripture which he brings in as an Auxiliary Proof it is quite foreign to the matter in hand for the Apostle there doth not speak of Justifying Grace nor indeed of any Grace if we take the word strictly for the word there is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in the other but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies not Grace but a Gift And the Gift which he there puts him in mind to stir up was the Gift of preaching As if he should have said Be sure couragiously to preach the Gospel and exercise that Ministerial Function which thou hast received by the Imposition of my Hands But I find this Gentleman is under a great mistake he takes Justification and Sanctification to be one and the same thing but I cannot much blame him for it because I know he is led into it by an Authority which he thinks to be Infallible and consequently Indisputable viz. the Council of Trent which teacheth him Sess 6. c. 7. That Justification consists not only in Remission of Sins but in Sanctification also and the renewing of the inward Man by a voluntary susception of Grace and Gifts by which of Vnrighteous a Man is made Righteous and of an Enemy a Friend that he may be an Heir according to the Hope of Eternal Life This is a far different Notion from that which the Church of England and the Holy Scriptures give us of Justification They teach us That by Justification we are to understand only Absolution or Remission of Sins but the Church of Rome confounds Justification with Sanctification and the Remission of Sins with the Renovation of our Minds And indeed in this Channel runs the main difference between us and them through the whole Controversie The Church of England delivers her Sentiments touching Justification thus Art. 11. We are accounted Righteous before God only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith and not for our own works or deservings Wherefore that we are justifyed by Faith only is a most wholesome Doctrine and very full of comfort And for a farther Explication thereof she refers to the Homily of Justification where she declares That by Justification 2 Hom. of Justificat part 1. she means the Forgivness of our Sins 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 doth contribute to this Justification but only a true and lively Faith which Faith is also the Gift of God Yet doth not this Faith exclude Good-works nor the necessity of them in Justified Persons but only shuts them out from the Office of Justifying This is the Doctrine of the Church of England and for this she hath good Authority both in Scripture and Fathers but I must not now enter upon this Controversie lest I lose the Vindicator therein I shall therefore proceed to his next particular 2. He tells us That the Council of Trent hath defin'd That all Works of the Just are not Sins This saith he is evident in Scripture as Luke i. 6. where 't is said of Zacharias and Elizabeth They were both Righteous before God walking in all the Commandments and Ordinances of the Lord blameless And 1 John v. 18. Whosoever is born of God sineth not Which likewise proves That the Commandments are not impossible to be kept as the same Council declares To this I answer If the Premisses be good the Inference therefrom I confess is natural For if Justified