We see no ground why any one should believe any Doctrine with a stedfast and Divine Faith which is not bottom'd on the Written Word for then his Faith must be built on the Testimony of the Church as Divine and Infallibe or else his Faith cannot be Divine But it is impossible to prove it to be Divine and Infallible but by the Written Word and therefore as it is not reasonable that he should believe the Written Word by such a Divine Testimony of the Church so if any particular Doctrine may be received on the Authority of the Church without the Written Word then all Articles of Faith may and so there would be no need of the Written Word 4. The Faith of Christians doth no otherwise stand upon the Foundation of the Churches Tradition than as it delivers down to us the Books of Scripture but we acknowledg the general Sense of the Chrstian Church to be a very great help for understanding the true sense of Scripture and we do not reject any thing so delivered but what is all this to the Church of Rome But this is still the way of true Representing XVI Of Councils 1. WE are glad to find so good a Resolution as seems to be expressed in these words viz. That he is obliged to believe nothing besides that which Christ taught and his Apostles and if any thing contrary to this should be defined and commanded to be believed even by Ten Thousand Councils he believes it damnable in any one to receive it and by such Decrees to make Additions to his Creed This seems to be a very good Saying and it is pity any thing else should overthrow it But here lies the Misrepresenting he will believe what Christ and his Apostles taught from the Definitions of Councils and so all this goodly Fabrick falls to nothing for it is but as if one should say If Aristotle should falsly deliver Plato's sense I will never believe him but I am resolved to take Plato's sense only from Aristotle's Words So here he first declares he will take the Faith of Christ from the Church and then he saith if the Church Representative should contradict the Faith of Christ he would never believe it 2. We dispute not with them the Right and Necessity of General Councils upon great occasions if they be truly so rightfully called lawfully assembled and fairly managed which have been and may be of great use to the Christian World for setling the Faith healing the Breaches of Christendom and reforming abuses And we farther say that the Decrees of such Councils ought to be submitted to where they proceed upon certain Grounds of Faith and not upon unwritten Traditions Which was the fatal stumbling at the Threshold in the Council of Trent and was not to be recovered afterwards for their setting up Traditions equally with the Written Word made it easie for them to define and as easie for all others to reject their Definitions in case there had not been so many other Objections against the Proceedings of that Council And so all our Dispute concerning this matter is taken off from the general Notion and runs into the particular Debate concerning the Qualifications and Proceedings of some which were called Free General Councils but were neither General nor Free and therefore could not deliver the sense of the Catholick Church which our Author requires them to do XVII Of Infallibility in the Church 1. HE doth not pretend this belongs to the Pastors and Prelates of his Church who may fall he saith into Heresie and Schism but that the whole Church is secured by Divine Promises from all Error and Danger of Prevarication which he proves from the Promises of the New Testament Mat. 16. 18 28. 20. John 14. 16 26. But however the former seems to take away Infallibility from the Guides of the Church yet that this is to be understood of them separately appears by what follows 2. The like Assistance of the Holy Ghost he believes to be in all General Councils which is the Church Representative by which they are specially protected from all error in all definitions and declarations in matters of Faith Now here are two sorts of Infallibility tacked to one another by vertue of these general Promises which ought more distinctly to be considered 1. To preserve Christs Church so as it shall never cease to be a Church is one thing to preserve it from all Error is another The former answers the End of Christs Promises as to the Duration of the Church and the latter is not implied in them 2. The promise of teaching them all Truth Joh. 16. 13. is not made to the whole Church but to the Apostles And their case was so peculiar and extraordinary that there can be no just inference from the assistance promised to them of what the Church should enjoy in all Ages 3. If the diffusive Church have no infallible Assistance promised then no infallible Assistance can from thence be proved for the Church Representative so that some particular Promises to the Guides of the Church as assembled together are necessary to prove the Infallibility of Councils 4. It by no means proves following Councils to be Infallible because the Apostles said Acts 15. 28. It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us Our Author doth not doubt but the same may be prefixed to all determinations in point of Faith resolved on by any General Council lawfully assembled since that time or to be held to the Worlds end But what Reason he had for not doubting in this matter I cannot see the Assistance he saith being to extend as far as the Promise But shall Assistance imply Infallibility Then there must be good store as long as the Promises of Divine Grace hold good But this Assistance of Councils is very different from the Assistance of Grace for the Church may subsist without Councils but cannot without Grace What General Council was there from the meeting Acts 15. to the Council of Nice Were not Christs Promises fulfilled to his Church all that time when it encreased in all parts against the most violent Opposition 5. No Parity of Reason from the Jewish Church can be sufficient Proof for Infallibility in the Christian. But our Author argues thus If Gods special Assistance was never wanting to the Church of the Jews so as to let it fail in the Truth of its Doctrine or its Authority Why should not he believe the same of the Church of Christ which is built on better Promises What special Assistance was it which Israel had when it is said that for a long time Israel had been without the true God and without a teaching Priest and without Law And as to Judah was there no failing in point of Doctrine in our Saviours time It is true they had the Law intire and that was all that was good among them for their Teachers had corrupted themselves and the People and
it as in the Gallican Church and elsewhere Very well But how then can these Parties be said to agree in matters of Faith and an equal Submission to the Determinations of the Church 2. Some again say That it is not the consent of the present Church can make any Article of Faith but there must be an universal Tradition from the Apostles times And so they tell us the Deposing Power can never be an Article of Faith because it wants the Consent of all the Ages before Gregory VII So that upon this Ground there can be no Article of Faith which cannot be proved to be thus delivered down to us Others again say this is in effect to give up their Cause knowing the impossibility of proving particular Points in this manner and therefore they say the present Church is wholly to be trusted for the sense of the foregoing Now these differences are still on Foot in their Church and from these do arise daily disputes about Matters of Faith and the Seat of Infallibility whether in the Guides or the Body of the Church if the former whether in the Church Representative or Virtual whether the Personal Infallibilty of the Pope be a matter of Faith or not Our Author saith Not others say Yes and yet he saith they are agreed in matters of Faith So that by his own Confession they differ about other things than mere School-Points But suppose they were agreed in Articles of Faith can there be no Schisms or Divisions in their Church What thinks he of all the Schisms between Popes and Popes Of all the Schisms between the Popes and the Emperors Parties Which were as notorious and scandalous and mischievous as ever were in the World What thinks he of the Schisms between the Bishops and the Regular Orders which were as cross and peevish towards the Bishops and SecularClergy as our Dissenters themselves And among the Regular Orders what Heats and Contentions have been Not about the practice of a devout Life I assure him but about matters of Doctrine and which both Parties severally plead to be matters of Faith As in the noted Controversies of this last Age about the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin the power of Grace and the Popes Personal Infallibility and they cannot say they are as yet agreed about these things XXX Of Friars and Nuns OUR Dispute is not About the lawfulness of retiring from the World by such Persons who are rendred unfit for doing Service in it and the more they spend their time in Devotion and Contemplation so much the better But it lies in these Things 1. Whether the Perfection of a Christian State of Life lies in being cloystered up from the World or labouring to do good in it For this was the great snare made use of to draw men into it because they represented this as the most perfect state whereas according to the Doctrine and Example of Christ and his Apostles the active Life of doing good is far beyond it 2. Whether altho such a retirement be allowed it be a thing pleasing to God to tye such Persons up by indispensable Vows whatever their Circumstances may be not to alter that State of Life who either in Youth or through Force Passion or Discontent have entred into it And this may be so much rather questioned because those who assert the Pope may dispense go upon this Ground because Circumstances may alter the obligation of a Vow and when a greater good is to be attained it ceaseth to oblige which to my apprehension doth not prove the Popes Power to dispense but the dispensable Nature of the Vows themselves Whether all things of this nature being liable in continuance of time to great Degeneracy and Corruptions and the numbers of such Places being unserviceable either to Church or State it be not in the Power of the King and States of the Kingdom to dissolve and reduce them to ways more suitable to the Conveniencies of both As to what he discourses about Councils of Perfection the Distractions of the World the Corruptions of the best Things c. They reach not the main Points but are only general Topicks which we are not concerned to debate XXXI Of Wicked Principles and Practices THE Misrepresenter charges the Church of Rome with many horrid Practices as the French and Irish Massacres the Murders of Two Kings of France the Holy League the Gun-powder Treason c. And charges these as being done according to the Principles of that Church But in Answer to this he saith 1. In General That the Doctrine of it is holy teaching the Love of God and our neighbour and that none can be saved by Faith alone In which Doctrine we heartily concur with them 2. That altho many uncertain things pass for certain and false for true yet he cannot deny that all ranks and degrees of men have been corrupted among them being scandalous in their Lives wicked in their designs without the Fear of God in their hearts or care of their own Salvation This is a general Acknowledgment but no particular Answer to the things objected 3. That tbe whole Cburch is not to be charged for the sake of such villanies Very true unless some Doctrine owned in that Church gave encouragement to them As suppose any should ever have fallen into Rebellion upon the belief of the Deposing Power is not that Doctrine chargeable with the Consequences of it They are extremely to blame who charge a Church with what her Members do in direct Opposition to her Doctrine but it is quite another Case when the main Ground they alledg for their Actions is some allowed Principle in it 4. They are not accountable for the Actions of every Bishop Cardinal or Pope for they extend not their Faith beyond the Declaration of General Councils But suppose General Councils have declared such Doctrines and Popes act but according to them is not their Church then accountable for their Actions 5. There is more Praying and Fasting and receiving the Sacraments more visiting the Prisoners and the Sick more Alms-giving in any of our neighbouring Popish Towns as Paris Antwerp Gant c. than in any Ten Towns of the Reformation And is there more Charity too It doth not appear if they be as ready to censure others and admire themselves as our Author who so freely gives his Judgment about a matter it is impossible for him to know We see no reason to admire or imitate the manner of their Praying and Fasting and receiving the Sacraments for to pray without understanding to fast without Abstinence to receive a maimed Sacrament are things we do not envy them for But altho our Devotion be not so pompous and full of shew yet We may pray and fast in secret according to our Saviours Directions far more than they do however our People are mightily to blame if they do not understand what they pray for if they do not receive more of
comes it to be any part of his Faith that they know them However he doth not doubt but God can never want means of letting the Saints know them p. 6. And is this a sufficient ground for solemn Invocation of Saints God doth not want Means to let the Emperor of Japan know a Request any one here hath to make to him but is this a reasonable Ground for him at this distance to make it to him God doth not want Means to let the Pope know what a mighty Service it would be to the Christian World to make a wise and truly Christian-Reformation in the Church but would this be a Ground sufficient for me at this Distance to make a Speech to him about it I knew a Man who understood not a word of Latin but yet would needs go hear a Latin Sermon some asked him afterwards what he meant by it and the chief Reason he gave was much like this God did not want Means to let him know what the Preacher meant But after all Suppose God should make known to the Saints what is desired of them I ask Whether this be sufficient Ground for solemn Invocation When Socinus was not able to defend the Invocation of Christ himself supposing that he could know our Hearts only by Revelation And he had nothing material to say but only that there was a Command for it which can never be so much as pretended in this Case As to what he alleadges of the Elders falling down before the Lamb having Vials full of Odours which are the Prayers of the Saints Apoc. 5. 8. It must be strained hard to be broughâ— to this purpose when both Ancient and Modern Interpreters take it for a Representation of what was done upon Earth and not in Heaven And if it were in Heaven Prophetical Visions were never intended for a Measure of our Duties If the Angels do pray for mankind Zech. 1. 12. Doth it therefore follow we must pray to them But we say as the Angel did to S. John Revel 19. 10. in a like Case See thou do it not worship God III. Of Addressing more Supplications to the Virgin Mary than to Christ. HEre is no need of farther stating the Question this only relating to the extraordinary Service of the Blessed Virgin And therefore we are presently to attend his Motions He believes it damnable to think the Virgin Mary more powerful in Heaven than Christ or that she can in any thing command him p. 6. But in good earnest Is it not damnable unless a Man thinks the Blessed Virgin more powerful than Christ Suppose one should think her to have an equal share of Power with Christ Is this damnable or not Is it not setting up a Creature equal with God But what thinks he then of those who have attributed an universal Dominion to her over Angels Men and Devils What thinks he not only of Psalters but of a Creed Litany and all the Hymns of Scripture being applied to her All which was done by a Canonized Saint in their Church and the Books printed out of the Vatican Manuscripts and dedicated to the Pope And there we find something more than an Ora pro nobis in the Litany for there is Parce nobis Domina Spare us Good Lady and ab omni malo libera nos Domina From all Evil Good Lady deliver us What thinks he of another Canonized Saint who said these two Propositions are both true All things are subject to God's Command even the Virgin and All things are subject to the Command of the Virgin even God Was this damnable in a Canonized Saint What thinks he of the noted Hymn O felix Puerpera nostra pians scelera Jure Matris impera Redemptori Was not this damnable And I have not only seen it in the old Paris Missal but Balinghem a Jesuit saith it was in the Missals of Tournay Liege Amiens Artois and the Old Roman I could produce many other Passages cited by him out of the old Offices to the same purpose but I forbear But I cannot omit the Approbation given to the blaspemous saying of S. Bernardin by Mendoza who endeavours to prove the blessed Virgin 's Kingdom not to be a Metaphorical but a true and real Kingdom And by Salazar another noted Jesuit who saith Her Kingdom is as large as her Sons And we have lately seen how far this Divinity is spread for not many Years since this Proposition was sent from Mexico Filius non tantum tenetur audire Matrem sed obedire The Son is bound not only to hear but to obey his Mother And is it still damnable for to say she commands him But our Author saith What ever esteem they have for her They own her still as a Creature Is he sure of that What thinks he of another Saying which Mendoza approves of viz. of Christ's saying to his Mother As thou hast communicated Humanity to me I will communicate my Deity to thee But it may be said We are by no means to judg the sense of a Church by some Mens extravagant sayings I grant it but I have something considerable to reply viz. That we may easily judg which way the Guides of that Church incline by this following passage About ten years since a Gentleman of that Communion published a Book called Wholsome Advice to the Worshippers of the blessed Virgin and the whole design of it being printed in Latin and French was to bring the People of that Church to a bare Ora pro nobis to the Blessed Virgin But this was so far from being approved that the Book was condemned at Rome and vehemently opposed by the Jesuits in France and a whole Volumn published against it Here I have reason to enquire Whether the Virgin Mary then according to the sense of the Church of Rome be only a Mediatrix of Intercession or not since so large Power and Dominion is attributed to her And why should not her Suppliants go beyond an Ora pro nobis if this Doctrine be received as it must be if the contrary cannot be endured For that Author allowed her Intercession and Prayer to her on that account but he found fault with those who said she had a Kingdom divided with her Son that she was the Mother of Mercy or was a Co-Saviour or Co-Redemptrix or that she was to be worshipped with Latria or that Men were to be Slaves to her Now if these things must not be touched without Censure and no Censure pass on the other Books is it not eaâ—y to judg which is more agreeable to the Spirit of the Guides of that Church But we have a fresh Instance of this kind at home in a Book very lately published Permissu Superiorum There we are told in the Epistle That not only the Blessed Virgin is the Empress of Seraphims the most exact Original of Practical Perfection which the Omnipotency of God ever drew but that by
Divine Worship to it And St. Jerom as hot as he was against Vigâ—antius yet he utterly denied giving any Adoration to the Reliques of Martyrs It seems then it is very possible to exceed that way 2. The Question then is Whether those Acts of Worship which are allowed in the Church of Rome do not go beyond due Veneration For it is unreasonable to suppose those who give it to believe those Reliques to be Gods and therefore it must be such a Worship as is given to them supposing them to be only Reliques of such Persons The Council of Trent decrees Honour and Veneration to be given to them but never determines what is due and what not it forbids all Excesses in drinking and eating in the visiting of Reliques but not a word of Excesses in worshipping of them unless it be comprehended under the name of Superstition But Superstition lies in something forbidden according to their notion of it therefore if there be no Prohibition by the Church there can be no Superstition in the Worship of them And if they had thought there had been any in the known Practices of the Church they would certainly have mentioned them and because they did not we ought in Reason to look on them as allowed And yet not only Cassander complains of the great Superstition about them but even the Walenbergii lately confess that the Abuses therein have not only been offensive to us but to themselves too But what saith our Representer to them He believes it damnable to think there 's any Divinity in the Reliques of Saints or to adore them with Divine Honour P. 7. But what is this adoring them with Divine Honour A true Representer ought to have told us what he meant by it when the whole Controversy depends upon it Is it only saying Mass to Reliques or believing them to be Gods Is there no giving Divine Honour by Prostration burning of Incense c. Nothing in expecting help from them Yes if it be from any hidden Power of their own But here is a very hard Question If a Man doth not believe it to be an intrinsick Power in the Reliques may a Man safely go to them Opis impetrandae causà as the Council of Trent saith in hopes of Relief from them Is it not possible for the Devil to appear with Samuel's true Body and make use of the Relique of a Saint to a very bad end Then say I no Reliques can secure Men against the Imposture of Evil Spirits who by God's Permission may do strange things with the very Reliques of Saints But God hath visibly worked by them saith our Author by making them Instruments of many Miracles and it is as easie for him to do it now P. 8 9. This is the force of all he saith To which I answer 1. It is a very bold thing to call in God's Omnipotency where God himself hath never declared he will use his Power for it is under his own Command and not ours But there is no Reason to deduce the Consequence of using it now because he hath done it formerly And that they may not think this is cavilling in us I desire them to read Pere Annat's Answer to the Jansenists pretended Miracle at Port Royal viz. of the Cure wrought by one of our Saviour's Thorns There he gives another account of such Miracles than would be taken from us But where he saith It is as much for the Honour of God's Name to work such Miracles now their own Authors will tell him the contrary and that there is no such Reason now as in former times when Religion was to be confirmed by them and when Martyrs suffered upon the sole account of the Truth of it and therefore their Reputation had a great Influence upon converting the unbelieving World 2. Suppose it be granted yet it proves not any Religious Worship to be given to them For I shall seriously ask an important Question Whether they do really believe any greater Miracles have ever been done by Reliques than were done by the Brazen Serpent And yet altho that was set up by God's own Appointment when it began to be worshipped after an undue manner it was thought fit by Hezekiah to be broken in pieces What now was the undue Worship they gave to it Did they believe the Serpent which could neither move nor understand was it self a God But they did burn Incense to it And did that make a God of it Suppose Men burn Incense to Reliques What then are they made Gods presently Suppose they do not but place them upon Altars carry them in Procession fall down before them with intention to shew the Honour they do them are not these as much as burning a little Incense which could not signifie so much Honour as the other do and it is hard then to make the one unlawful and not the other V. Of the Eucharist THere are two material Points under this Head which are to be examined because he endeavours to set them off with all the advantage he can viz. Adoration of the Host and Transubstantiation I. Of the Adoration of the Host. 1. The Question is far enough from being Whether it be lawful to commit Idolatry as our Representer puts it For the Misrepresenter saith That a Papist believes it lawful to commit Idolatry and to clear this our Author gravely saith He believes it unlawful to commit Idolatry Pag. 9. As tho any Men ever owned it to be lawful Which is as if the Question were Whether such a Man committed Adultery and he should think to clear himself by saying he believed it unlawful to commit Adultery 2. The Question is not Whether Christ may be lawfully adored by us in the Celebration of the Eucharist which we are so far from denying that our Church requires our receiving it in the posture of Adoration 3. The true Question is Whether the Body of Christ being supposed to be present in the Host by Transubstantiation be a sufficient ground to give the same Adoration to the Host which they would do to the Person of Christ And that this is the true state of the Question will appear by these things 1. The Council of Trent first defined Transubstantiation and from thence inferred Adoration of the Host as is most evident to any one that will read the fourth and fifth Decrees of the 13th Session Nullus itaque dubitandi locus c. i. e. If Transubstantiation be true then Adoration follows It 's true the sixth Canon only speaks of Christ being there worshipped but that ought to be compared with the first second and fourth Canons where the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is fully set down as the Foundation of that Adoration 2. The Adoration is not fixed on the Person of Christ as separate from the Host but as making one Object of Worship together with it And so the Council of Trent declares in the sixth Decree when it saith The Sacrament is never the less to be
in that Sacrament Sess. 14. c. 4. So that altho a Man hath led a very bad Life if he hath but this Attrition for his sins when he doth confess them he is put into a state of Grace by this Sacrament And what can any Man expect more and what can he do less I do not mean a bare natural Attrition the sufficiency whereof is condemned by Innocent XI in the same Proposition Fifty seventh but that which the Council of Trent calls Imperfect Contritiâ—n i. e. a good Motion in a Mans mind to â—orsake his Sins for fear of Punishment if really no more be required for a state of Grace but this it is no wonder if Men put off the doing of that which may be done at any time so easily by the help of a Priest 2. The Treasure of the Church is another thing which is very apt to hinder Mens speedy Repentance for by that they believe there is a stock ready of so many Merits and Satisfactions of others if duely applied to them by Indulgences that they need not be at such pains to Work out their own Salvation with fear and trembling When a Man by the Sacrament of Penance is put into a state of Grace the Eternal Punishment is discharged and nothing remains but some Temporal Pains and to ease him of these he hath many helps but especially the Treasure of the Church which the Pope hath the dispensing of as he is bound to believe and by Indulgences he may easily get off some Thousands of years of Purgatory-Pains and if these should fail him there is another help yet left which is leaving a stock for Prayers for his Soul when he dies which even our Author assures him are very available towards bis speedier release out of Purgatory p. 58. XXVIII Of FASTING THE Question here is Whether a Man doth not observe their Churches Command about Fasting who forbears all forbidden things but takes liberty in those which are not forbidden It is not Whether they may not break the Commands of God against Gluttony and Drunkenness But whether they break the Law of the Church about Fasting And notwithstanding what our Author hath said I see no Reason for the Affirmative I do not deny 1. That it is a very indifferent sort of Fasting to abstain from Flesh unless all other sorts of Excesses at the same time be carefully avoided 2. That Excesses on such days are more scandalous because there is a pretence of Fasting 3. That God's Command doth at all times sorbid Intemperance Which are the chief things he insists upon But yet this doth not reach the point which is about their Churches Command For their Casuists distinguish Fasting into 1. Natural which is total Abstinence and this is required only in order to receiving the Eucharist 2. Moral which is the same with Temperance or Fasting for Health 3. Ecclesiastical which is defined by them to be An Abstinence from Food forbidden by the Church And if this Definition be true it cannot be broken but by eating what the Church hath prohibited And therefore their Casuists as far as I can find are agreed in these things 1. That a Man may eat a full Meal of what is not forbidden and not break the Churches Precept of Fasting provided Vespers be first said And the later Casuists blame Covarrâ—vias for making any scruple about it If a Mans Excess comes to be a Mortal sin yet for all that saith Reginaldus He shall not be judged as a breaker of his Fast. Nay Lessius goes further and saith He doth not lose the Merit of Fasting Quamvis aliquis multum excedet non solvit Jejunium saith Card. Tolet. And Paulus Zacchias saith This is the common Opinion and he thinks the Intention of the Church is sufficiently answered And so doth Pasqualigus in his Praxis of Fasting 2. A Man may drink Wine or other drink as often as he pleaseth without breaking his Fast. He may toties quoties bibere saith Diana Zach. Pasqualigus who hath Written most fully on this Subject shews That it is the general Opinion that no quantity of Wine or other drink though taken without any Necessity is a violation of the Precept of Fasting no not although the Wine be taken for nourishment because the Church doth not forbid it but this last he saith is not the general but the more probable Opinion 3. A Man may eat something when he drinks to prevent its doing him hurt besides his good Meal he may take what quantity he pleases of Sweet-meats or Fruit he may have a good Refection at Night and yet not break this strict Precept of Fasting For the eating as often as one drinks it is the common Opinion saith the same Casuist who was no Jesuit That it is not forbidden because it is taken by way of a Medicine and he quotes a great number of their Casuists for it A Collation at evening is allâ—wed saith he And Lessius saith There is no certain Rule for the Quantity of it And Card. Tolet saith very large ones are allâ—wed at Rome by the Popes Connivence even in the Court of Rome saith Reginaldus And now I leave the Reader to judge of the severity of Fasting requirâ—d in the Church of Rome XXIX Of Divisions and Schisms in the Church TWO things he saith upon this Head 1. That they are all agreed in matters of Faith 2. That they only differ in some School Points from whence he infers That they have no Schisms or Separations among them But that this is no just consequence will appear by the Schisms and Separations among us made by such who profess to agree in all matters of Faith Yet let us see how he proves that they agree in all matters of Faith because they agree to submit equally to the Determinations of the Church Now this very way evidently proves that they do not all agree because they do not equally submit to the Churches determinations For 1. Some say they are bound to submit to the Churches Determinations as it represents the Universal Church Others say no but as the Churches Power is virtually lodged in the Guides of it Now this is a very material Difference For if it be on the former Account then not the Popes and Councils Declarations are to be regarded but as they express the sense of the Universal Church and so the Majority of Votes and Numbers in the Representative and Diffusive Church is chiefly to be regarded And on this Ground some reject the Deposing-Power though plainly decreed by Popes and Councils but they unhinge their Churches Authority by it Now how is it possible for them to agree about matters of Faith who differ fundamentally about the way how any things come to be matters of Faith If they be decreed by Popes and Councils say some and so the Deposing Power is become an Article of Faith No such matter say others for a greater Number in the diffusive Church oppose
me that when their Divines say that Infidels shall not bâ— damned for their Infidelity where the Gospel hath not been sufficiently proposed to them and no Christian for not believing any Article of Faith till it be so proposed that we must be damned for not believing the Articles of the Roman Faith which never have been and never can be sufficiently proposed to us Methinks such men should Study a little better their own Doctrine about the sufficient Proposal of matters of Faith before they pass such uncharitable and unlearned Censures XXXVI Of Ceremonies and Ordinances HIS Discourse on this Head is against those who refuse to obey their Superiours in things not expressed in Scripture which is no part of our Controversy with them But yet there are several things about their Ceremonies we are not satisfied in As 1. The mighty Number of them which have so much mussled up the Sacraments that their true face cannot be discerned 2. The Efficacy attributed to them without any promise from God whereas we own no more but decency and significancy 3. The Doctrine that goes along with them not only of Obedience but of Merit and some have asserted the Opus Operatum of Ceremonies as well as Sacraments when the Power of the Keys goes along with them i. e. when there hath been some Act of the Church exercised about the Matter of them as in the Consecration of Oyl Salt Bread Ashes Water c. XXXVII Of Innovation in matters of Faith THE Substance of his Discourse on this Head may be reduced to these things 1. That the Church in every Age hath Power to declare what is necessary to be believed with Anathema to those who Preach the Contrary and so the Council of Trent in declaring Transubstantiation Purgatory c. to be necessary Articles did no more than the Church had done before on like Occasions 2. That if the Doctrines then defined had been Innovations they must have met with great Opposition when they were introduced 3. That those who charged those points to be Innovations might as well have laid the scandal on any other Article of Faith which they retained These are things necessary to be examined in order to the making good the charge of Innovation in matters of Faith which we believe doth stand on very good Grounds 1. We are to consider Whether the Council of Trent had equal Reason to define the necessity of these Points as the Council of Nice and Constantinople had to determin the point of the Trinity or those of Ephesus and Chalcedon the Truth of Christ's Incarnation He doth not assert it to be in the Churches Power to make new Articles of Faith as they do imply new Doctrines revealed but he contends earnestly That the Church hath a Power to declare the necessity of believing some points which were not so declared before And if the Necessity of believing doth depend upon the Churches Declaration then he must assert that it is in the Churches Power to make points necessary to be believed which were not so and consequently to make common Opinions to become Articles of Faith But I hope we may have leave to enquire in this Case since the Church pretends to no new Revelation of matters of Doctrine therefore it can declare no more than it receives and no otherwise than it receives And so nothing can be made necessary to Salvation but what God himself hath made so by his Revelation So that they must go in their Declaration either upon Scripture or Universal Tradition but if they define any Doctrine to be necessary without these Grounds they exceed their Commission and there is no Reason to submit to their Decrees or to believe their Declarations To make this more plain by a known Instance It is most certain that several Popes and Councils have declared the Deposing Doctrine and yet our Author saith It is no Article of Faith with him Why not since the Popes and Councils have as evidently delivered it as the Council of Trent hath done Purgatory or Transubstantiation But he may say There is no Anathema joined to it Suppose there be not But why may it not be as well as in the other Cases And if it were I would know whether in his Conscience he would then believe it to be a necessary Article of Faith though he believed that it wanted Scripture and Tradition If not then he sees what this matter is brought to viz. That altho the Council of Trent declare these new Doctrines to be necessary to be believed yet if their Declaration be not built no Scripture and Universal Tradition we are not bound to receive it 2. As to the impossibility of Innovations coming in without notorious opposition I see no ground at all for it where the alteration is not made at once but proceeds gradually He may as well prove it impossible for a Man to fall into a Dropsy or a Hectick-Fever unless he can tell the punctual time when it began And he may as well argue thus Such a Man fell into a Fever upon a great Debauch and the Physicians were presently sent for to advise about him therefore the other Man hath no Chronical Distemper because he had no Physicians when he was first sick as because Councils were called against some Heresies and great Opposition made to them therefore where there is not the like there can be no Innovation But I see no Reason why we should decline giving an Account by what Degrees and Steps and upon what Occasions and with what Opposition several of the Doctrines defined at Trent were brought in For the matter is not so obscure as you would make it as to most of the Points in difference between us But that is too large a Task to be here undertaken 3. There is no Colour for calling in Question the Articles of Faith received by us on the same Grounds that we reject those defined by the Council of Trent for we have the Universal Consent of the Christian World for the Apostles Creed and of the Four General Councils for the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation who never pretended to determin any Point to be necessary which was not revealed in Scripture whose sense was delivered down by the Testimony of the Christian Church from the Apostles times But the Council of Trent proceeded by a very different Rule for it first set up an Unwritten Word to be a Rule of Faith as well as the Written which although it were necessary in order to their Decrees was one of the greatest Innovations in the World and the Foundation of all the rest as they were there established An Answer to the CONCLUSION HAving thus gone through the several Heads which our Author complains have been so much Misrepresented it is now fit to consider what he saith in his Conclusion which he makes to answer his Introduction by renewing therein his doleful Complaints of their being Misrepresented just as