have said of the Popes Infallibility and his being the only Judge of Controversies is true p. 410. and that himself does hold them as truths de Fide p. 425. He tells us likewise in the Chapter entituled Calumniae â—lutae That some not of the unlearned only but learned too had clancularly aspersed him as if he had said it was not matter of Faith That the Church could not err That she was not the supream and only Judge That the Pope was not Head of the Church That he sought the union of Religion by remitting part of the Faith The cry of this was so great that he tells us he set forth a publick Programma in his own vindication wherein he declares his assent to those things which he was supposed to have denied and says they are Veritates Fidei Truths belonging to the Faith though not defined by the Council Ipsissimis terminis and that he did not intend by any of his Explications any such diminution of their Faith as his accusers mistook him to intend but only used this as a necessary method to reduce such as were gon astray He often taxes them to shew wherein he had expresly impugned those Truths which they thought him to have betray'd and tells them their oversight lay in this that when he said such and such Truths were not de fide Catholica they mistook him as though he had denied them to be necessary Truths which he denies himself to have the least implied and declares his own belief of the Popes Infallibility adding withal that the Explication which he had given of himself in this instance he would have understood with respect to all the Matters he had handled as Transubstantiation Merits Images Adoration of the Eucharist c. This he look'd upon he tells us p. 315. as the most expedient Method to propose only those Doctrines which the Council expresly commanded to be held and pass the rest in silence when they expect to win Runnagates to the Faith whom if they can bring first to the admission of this there will be opportunity gained to prevail with them in the rest I will not take the advantage given me by this mans fraud to accuse M. Condom of the like but only infer in part from hence that the Doctrine of this Exposition which differs not from Verone's has been look'd on with a jealous eye among themselves whatever approbation it may have now and again that the Gentlemen have no reason to be angry since themselves have made the detection if we fear to swallow abait that may conceal a hook What was done to remedy those Abuses which were in vain complained of will be better justifiable after examination of the particulars when we shall be capable to consider on whom the Schism and the miseries consequent upon it may be most justly charged I thank the Advertiser that he forbears reproaches though he says he could find ground enough for them in abuses that are among us for which although I hope he could find but few yet I shall hold my self indebted to him the forbearance of all Invectives and the silence of those Abuses which shall any way appear to be disallowed by their Church I likewise beg of God that they may read without bitterness and may that God from whom alone is all success who knows the progress of Error and its increase through mens making his Religion subservient to their own ambition intrests and hypocrisies so effectually touch the hearts of all that all parties may act and with their utmost strength endeavour all which true sincere Piety and a zeal for God and his glory free from all other ends and intrests does oblige them to for healing the Wounds of his afflicted Church CONSIDERATIONS ON THE Late Bishop of Condom's BOOK ENTITULED An Exposition of the Catholick Faith in Matters of Controversie SECT I The Design of his Treatise considered AS to this first Section wherein he mentions his Design having considered it in part already I have little more to add I confess it very expedient to consider the Grounds of the first Separation and the necessity of a Right Explication of their Churches Tenents and that these ought to be taken from the publick Acts of the Church and not from particular Doctors for the reason quoted out of M. Daille That the sentiments of particular persons ought not to be imputed to the whole body only here is one thing wanting which we desire might be declared that all Tenents of particular Doctors contrary to any of this which shall be delivered as the sense of the Church are false and disowned by it for to say it is implied is not sufficient when a Church pretends to declare her self to her Adversaries who charge her with other Doctrines maintained by her But for what he adds from Mr. Daille That no separation ought to be but upon the account of Articles authentickly estabished to the belief and observance of which all persons are obliged I must here observe That this Concession does not affect the Church of England till it be proved that by Reforming her self she has departed either from the true Faith or from some authority to which she was lawfully subject not that I hold National Churches less obliged to preserve the unity of the whole than every particular member that of the Church wherein he lives but that I maintain a Church that is not dependent upon others can never be said to have done any thing to prejudice the unity of the Catholick Church by reforming abuses within her self and taking the best expedients to preserve the foundations of Faith and promote good life so that all 39 Artic. of the Church of England things be done to edifying as it is express'd by the Church of England Artic. 34. Whereas he says that what he writes shall be approved of in the Church and be conformable to the Doctrine of the Council I could wish he had promised that it should be the true and only Sense of the Council and that it should likewise be the whole Doctrine of the Church in the Particulars he treats of Another thing is necessary for me to premise here that what Advantages he may take from the Principles of some Reformists in these Disputes I think my self not much concerned in having declared that I will oblige my self only to the Consequences that may be drawn from the Principles of the Church of England SECT II. Concerning the Church of Rome's embracing all the Fundamentals of Religion THis Section premiseth That the Church of Rome believes and professes all the Fundamental Articles of Faith particularly those in the Apostles Creed which we are so far from denying that we plead and challenge it being sure it will give us this Advantage that they can never charge us with Innovation nor with departure from the Faith if these are all the Fundamental and Principal Articles But M. Condom pretends that they also can draw from hence great
reason any further than to prevent the swallow of their Errors with this bait What I intend is to evidence that there are Matters of that weight in controversie notwithstanding the pretence of this Book to have discussed and answered the most material as will abundantly justifie the Reformed in their distance from the Church of Rome and which is more conclude them under a necessity of maintaining that distance as things now stand THE ADVERTISEMENT TO THE Bishop of Condom's Book Considered THE Advertisement begins with a Supposition which it thinks we must necessarily allow That M. Condom has faithfully expounded the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in this Treatise from his beng a Bishop in the Church whose Understanding therefore and Sincerity ought not to be suspected and afterwards from his being called to be Praeceptor to the Dauphin Son to so great a King and Defender of the Catholick Religion But yet he tells us Though the sincerer part of the Reformed acknowledged it would take away great Difficulties if approved and owned for their Doctrine yet they would never believe it such or that it would be approved at Rome being prepossessed with Prejudice and false Opinion But without reflecting either upon the Bishop's Understanding or Sincerity we have a great deal of reason to expect he shew us an Authority that warrants him to give us this Exposition and declare it to us as the faithful and true Sense and only Doctrine of the Church since the Pope hath peremptorily forbidden Bulla Pii quarti super Confirm Concil Trid. all Prelates of whatever Order Condition or Degree to set forth any Exposition of the Doctrine of the Trent-Council reserving it to the Apostolical See Setting then his Authority as questionable for the present aside I am no more convinced by the Nature of the Exposition that it is the genuine Sense of the Church of Rome in all points than those who first saw the Book Whether it be Prejudice or Prepossession that blinds my Understanding will not appear till after the Discussion of Particulars Pag. 2. He tells us of two Answers to this Treatise and that both of them agreed in questioning M. Condom's Authority to expound the Council and that his Exposition agrees not with the Decisions of the Council nor with their Profession of Faith Concerning these things I shall determine nothing till I come to the Particulars But whereas he saies Pag. 3. That one of them has drawn a wrong Conclusion from those Softnings of M. Condom to confirm themselves in a better Opinion of the Reformation I do not think the Inference altogether so absure as the Advertizer pretends it for do not they in a great measure justifie the Reformed who call for the Reformation of those Abuses which the Church of Rome herself pretends to condemn but will not or has not rectified The next Thing it endeavors is to prove p 4. That this Exposition of M. Condom's is the true Sense of the Church which is grounded first upon the general Approbation his Book received throughout the whole Church testified by Lerters from all sorts of People not in France only but at Rome especially in Eight Letters concerning it from Cardinals and others of great Merit But taking it for granted without any further Examination That all these Men by their Approbations of this Book do consent that this Exposition is the true Sense of the Church which is more than need be granted since some only say it is a Method very ingenious and good to force the Calvinists to confess the atholick Faith yet this will not suffice where there are so many Writers of as great Authority and Eminence in the Church as any of these that have though not perhaps undertook to expound the Council as this Author yet to declare and defend a Doctrine much different from this from the same Council and in behalf of the same Church And suppose the Number that approved it great yet Cardinal Bona's Letter informs us that some found fault with it and those he must mean of their own Church when he gives this Reason that he does not wonder at it Because all Works great and above the common Level find Persons still to contradict them And be the Number what it will I suppose he will not as it is not reasonable seek for the Churches Doctrine by counting Noses Then for the Letter of Cardinal Sigismond which says the Advertizer shews how ill grounded that Scruple is against this Exposition from the Pope's Prohibition to explicate the Council To me it rather shews how well it is grounded for his Words are Certainly it was never his intention to give the interpretation of the Tenets of the Council but only to deliver them in his Book rightly explicated in such sort that Hereticks may be convinced and especially in those things which the holy Church obliges them to believe Which if it signifie any thing must be That his Exposition is not an interpretation of the Council obliging any to believe it as Matter of Faith but a Design of explicating it in such sort as he judged useful for convincing Hereticks But if this will not content we have an Approbation from the Pope himself after which 't was needless to mention others says the Advertizer and let me add without which his others signifie little to his Point The Gentleman calls it a Breve wherein the Pope gives his Approbation and that so express as to leave no further doubt and in the most authentick manner that could be expected I have considered it and yet my Doubt is not vanished and when the least that could have been expected in reason on Account of the difficulty of believing it express'd by the Reformed five or six years before the Date of this Breve from the Pope as also from the Nature of the thing which being an exposition of Faith ought to be so received by all that not one man hold Tenets different from it as also from the former Pope's Prohibition of all Explication of this Council is that the Pope should have declared that this Exposition did perfectly contain the true and whole Faith of the Church in the Points expounded and that it should be lookt upon as authentick as if made by the Apostolick See it self We may have that Charity for the Advertizer as to think its his good desire to have it made authentick that makes him look upon it as such and suppresses all his Doubts But we who desire no less than he that it were so have yet some peculiar Reasons to see to our selves that we are not imposed on and therefore to examine what Authority this Approbation gives it All which the Pope here saies to approve it is no more than this That it contains such Doctrine and is composed in such a Method and with so much Prudence that it is thereby rendred proper to instruct and to extort even from the unwilling a Confession of the Catholick Faith
Angel such as Worship as he refused to receive and there can be no Reason to think but that if the Extasie of a Vision carried this Apostle so much beyond himself wise as well as ignorant through a blind Zeal acted by a carnal Spirit may be carried to the like excess in respect of the Saints or any other Object of Religious Worship Now how far the Church of Rome may be vindicated in the first of these Respects which render her liable to the Idolatries of her Members must be left to the Jugdment of those who without all prejudice will consider what is said by the Roman Church for the profitableness of this Practice to Salvation from Grounds only proper to Christianity Matters of Christian Religion being determinable only from them And what is said on the other side of the unprofitableness and danger of it and of its inconsistency with Christianity How far she is excusable in the second by considering whether the Means if she has provided any be sufficient to preserve in all a just and constant apprehension of the infinite distance between God and his Creatures whilst they have recourse to those in their Necessities as well as unto him In the third by conparing the Limits if she has set any to this Worship of Saints with what has been done on the other side by Bulls and Indulgences from the Head of the Church that I may not mention any things of particular persons tending to this purpose who have published many things of the same Nature with that fulsom Book of Contemplations on Holy Mary lately sent out among us to raise the Devotions of Christians to so far above all grounds from our common Faith My further Business is only to consider what of these things in difference are taken off either in part or in the whole by this Explication which M. Condom has given us of his Churches Sense in this Point Concerning the first of them he only intimates a possibility of God's giving them such a Knowledg though he supposes it certain that they have it yet whilst he tells us the several Methods by which God can make such Desires known to them but dares not six upon any by which he does it it shews they have no Assurance from their Christianity that God has given them any such Knowledge nor indeed has M. Condom offered any Grounds for it from thence To the Second he says That we ought to understand them to reduce all such Forms to the Sense by them declared But let that go as far as it will to excuse them from Idolatry it will never justifie them in the Use of such Forms to the Scandal of their Christian Brethren and to the Reproach even of Christianity it self whilst they give Religious Worship to the Saints as well as God fly to them in their Necessities with the same Expressions of their Desires as to God himself The Third he is altogether silent in neither telling us what that Invocation is nor how far the Desires of our Hearts are to be enlarged in those Prayers to them As to the Fourth he has shewed us that their Church teaches that the Saints do pray for us and that we are to invocate them and to fly to their Prayers Aid and Protection and condemns those who teach a contrary Doctrine but says nothing here to justifie it but something in the End of the next Section Of which in its Order The Fifth he mentions not neither will any of his Reasons given to free those from Idolatry who maintain such a distinct Intention as he argues upon ever justifie or clear those who have not always maintained it In the sixth he only vindicates his Church in part in that she has let her people know by her Catechism a difference between their prayers to God and to the Saints but he does not shew us wherein the Church has declared what manner of desires which are required to be humble our prayers to them for these purposes are to be made with nor any bounds that she has set to them nor wherefore such methods have been taken by the Head of the Church as well as particular members to advance the Reverence of Christians to Saints above the grounds taught by our Christianity nor does he shew us the least warrant from Scripture upon which their Church teaches this and commands it as a practice beneficial to salvation which in it self is so dangerous and destructive SECT V. Of Images and Reliques AS for Images he says the Council of Trent forbids the believing any virtue or divinity in them and the demanding any favour from them or putting any trust in them and ordains the honour given to them to be referred to what they represent Yet it commands an honour to be given to them tho' with a further reference and thereby either decrees an honour to be given to the Images themselves if not for their own sakes yet for the sake of them they represent or at least first to be given to them though not terminated or stayed there but directed further to what they represent All these words of the Council are as so many Characters he says to distinguish them from Idolaters in that they ascribe no other virtue to their Images than that of exciting the remembrance of those they represent If these are the only Characters that distinguish them we may from themselves conclude that those who give them any other virtue are Idolaters But then to confirm this the only ground on which they honour Images he endeavours to shew us by examples First he says the figure of Christ crucified excites in us a more lively remembrance of him who died for us upon which remembrance they are moved to testifie by some exteriour signs how far their gratitude bears them and by humbling themselves before the Image they shew their submission to their Saviour so that in the Ecclesiastical style their intention is not so much to honour the Image as the person whom it represents in presence of it for which he cites the Council of Trent which says the honour we render to Images has such a reference to those they represent that by the means of those Images which we kiss and before which we kneel we adore Jesus Christ and honour the Saints whose Types they are But under favour if he only humbles himself before the Image to shew what respect he has for his Saviour and does not withal give some respect to the Image it self he does not answer the Sess 25. Decret de 〈◊〉 Council of Trent which first decrees that honour be given to the Images themselves and then adds this which he has cited as the reason of that Decree not as an explication of it And thus the Catechism commands the teaching that it is not only Româ—… Câ—… lawful to have Images in Churches but also to give honour and worship to them when the honour which is established or given to them is
referred to what they represent So that in this M. Condom seems to use a little extenuation or at least ambiguity for his instance tells us only that he humbles himself before the Image and from thence he pretends to infer a direct conclusion which dares not conclude positively his intention to be only to honour the Apostle or Martyr before an Image but not so much to honour the Image as the Apostle whose it is and then cites the Trent Council as making for both this instance and the conclusion from it when he does not positively infer that which his instance intended to infer and which the following instances seem to infer The Pontisical might something favour his purpose if it did Pont. de 〈…〉 Imaginam not at the same time pray that God would bless and sanctifie that Image for the purpose of obtaining the prayers and help of the Apostle or Martyr which implies a supposition that they shall be rather heard for this honour given to their Images But the intention of the Church when she honours Images he says may be seen by that honour which she renders to the Cross and to the Bible In the first he appeals to all the world whether they do not see that before the Cross she adores him who bore our Iniquities upon the wood What the world sees of their adoring Christ who suffered on the Cross is not material so long as it sees they give a distinct worship to the Cross it self as well as unto Christ Witness their Missa de 〈◊〉 Rom. exâ—… Concil Triâ—… Mâ—… Sancta Cruce Sancta Cruce where in the Gradual we read thus We adore thee O Christ for that by thy Cross thou hact redeemed the world and then We adore thy Cross O Lord. So that M. Condom has chosen an ill instance to make us believe they give no worship to the Image but only to those represented by them nay if they put the same trust and reliance on other Images as on their honour of the Cross we may conclude they do not think them so void of virtue as is pretended for in respect of their honour given to the Cross they pray thus God who by the blood of thy Son Ibid. didst intend to sanctifie the sign of the quickning Cross grant that they who rejoice in honouring the same holy Cross may ever joy in the protection The instance of the Bible is wide from the purpose for their Church has no where decreed any Religious Worship to be given to that and though some of them may use it with a foolish or perhaps superstitious respect does that give excuse to their extravagant use of other things But M. Condom presuming upon the strength of what he has said concludes It would be very great injustice to accuse these practices as idolatrous there being an excessive difference between such as put their trust in Images and those who declare they use Images only to excite and raise their memories and minds towards heaven All which does enable me to conclude that where this difference is not maintained this use of Images in Religious Worship shall be absolute Idolatry There is another sort of Images not mentioned by M. Condom though I suppose not designedly omitted because he is treating about Images commanded to be worshipped which those are not but I am obliged to take notice of them because mentioned by the Advertisement p. 14. and also because the Church of England charges the making them as a Crime upon the Roman Church Images of God made for an Historical use to express the Histories of the Old Testament in Forms which God sometimes appeared under to his Prophets such Images says the Church of England ought not to made because God cannot be represented and Moses forbid the Jews to make any Representation of him because when he gave them the Law they saw no shape The Advertizer endeavours to defend the Church of Rome by saying That it does no more pretend to derogate from God's invisible and spiritual nature than God himself when he exhibited himself under that form And possibly it may not pretend to it but yet it may derogate from the glory of his nature nevertheless But he tells us The Council does not pretend thereby to represent or express the Divinity or give it any colours But 't is not what they pretend to do but what they do that can vindicate them in this matter now their Catechism says The Pastor shall teach the people that Cat. Rom. de Cultu Venerat certain properties and actions which are attributed to God are signified thereby as for instance when the antient of days in Daniel is painted sitting on a Throne with the Books opened before him they are to understand that thereby is signified the eternity and infinite wisdom of God whereby he sees both the thoughts and actions of men that he may pass judgment on them And is not this evidently to do the things they pretend not to do No Man can say certainly the Egyptian Hieroglyphicks of which kind were the Statues of their Gods and to which the prohibition of Moses may reasonably be thought to relate were used by them to give a full and perfect expression of the things they designed them to represent but rather for some seeming Analogy which those Natures had with what they intended But to return to the Controversie before us and to collect the points in difference that we may see how much of it M. Condom's explication has put an end to The First dispute is Whether Images ought to be set up in Churches and used in Religious Worship The Second What sort of Image-Worship is commanded by the Church of Rome The Third Whether that practised in the Roman Church be not Idolatrous or does not necessarily tend to Idolatry The Fourth Whether the Idolatrous practises of particular Persons are not in a great measure chargable justly on the Church itself whilst it commands the use of Images without warrant from the Word of God Touching the first of these the Church of England declares that in part she would not stick to grant them that Images may be Hom. against Idol 3d. p. made but with this limitation that it be such as are not used in Religion such as are not in danger to be Worshipped nor of any Worship'd but that Images cannot be set up in Temples without danger of Idolatry arguing that so the Jews understood their Law which made them so zealously oppose the Roman Emperors who endeavoured to introduce Images into their Temple that the Cherubs over the Altar cannot justifie the use of them for that we must obey God's general Law and not run to particular dispensations That such Images as have been so set up have been and were at that time Worshipped and that they cannot be set up long without Idolatry since there can be no sufficient means to prevent it so long as they are suffered there
to be received for the Word of God if not confirmed by the Scripture because the Motives upon which they were received cannot be as evident as those of the Scriptures Questionless no man can deny the Traditions of the Jews to be as useful for the understanding the Old Testament as any now for that of the New but then it was they perverted the Use of Traditions when they taught them for God's Commandments But that which he infers from this that has given us both so much trouble is just nothing Upon this account the Church professes she tells us nothing from herself and that she invents nothing new in her Doctrine Whoever thought that their Church ever professed the contrary or can conceive that any Church will profess otherwise the question then is not what she professes but what she has done and let me tell him that his own words are as great an argument against the Church's absolute and Infallible Authority as any can be given For if upon the account of her being established by God to be the Guardian of the Scripture and Tradition and the deliverer of them to her Children she be obliged to profess suppose what may reasonably be supposed that she be but obliged to act as she does profess that she delivers nothing new nothing from herself nothing but by the interior direction of the Holy Ghost Shall not her Authority be confined within these limits Shall she have any power to act beyond them or if she be accused as having acted against that Christianity that she ought to have maintained Shall it not be shewn de facto that she has not or if that seem too apparent Shall it be pleaded that she is infallible and cannot have acted against it though it 's visible to all but them that plead so that she has But he further tells us That there being a dispute raised in the times of the Apostles the Holy Ghost put an end to it by the Church and the method then taken by the Apostles to decide it has taught succeeding Ages by what authority all other differences are to be ended so that as often as any divisions shall happen the Church will interpose her Authority and her Pastors assembled will say after the Apostles It seemeth good unto the Holy Ghost and to us What they will say I know not I am sure this gives them no warrant to say the like It 's true this practice of the Apostles has directed the Church upon differences that have hapned to assemble its Pastors for the ending them but I see no promise here that they shall have the like assistance with the Apostles who not only had the Spirit of God at all times in a measure which no man can pretend to have now at any time but had likewise frequently immediate inspirations And if a man should think they had an immediate inspiration upon the place signifying how they should order the matter he might have grounds for his opinion very considerable inspirations being then so frequent even at the common Assemblies of Christians and St. Paul being so cautions as to difference things of his own from the Commands of the Lord although he thought himself at the same time to have the Spirit of God But whether so or not no Councils can from hence presume that the Holy Ghost will lead them into all Truth in whatsoever they take a humour to determine because Christ promised to send his Spirit to his Apostles to lead them into all Truth for the teaching and establishing our common Christianity Father Paul tells us of a Proverb which perhaps this Gentleman may have known to pass in France That the modern Council had more Authority than that of the Apostles because their own pleasure only was sufficient ground for the Decrees without admitting the Holy Ghost whether verified in this of Trent I shall not say but the ground of it is certainly possible and God that has promised to lead men by his Spirit into all Truth has not said he will lead them whether they will or no. Whereas then he says further That when the Church has spoken her Children will be taught that they ought not to examine again the Articles so resolved on but are bound humbly to receive her decisions and that they are resolved to follow the example of Paul and Silas not permitting them to be again discussed but teaching all to observe the ordinances of the Apostles He would have done well to have shewn us that the Decrees of the Trent Council are as much the acts of the Holy Ghost as that of the Apostles before he had required us to think them act as justifiably in teaching them as Paul and Silas did But by the way if he speaks this as the fix'd resolution of all their Church not to admit a new discussion of what has been decided but to require all to observe it he lets us know an excellent Resolution of his Church and how much it is for her turn that differences in Religion be everlasting But thus it is he tells us the Children of God acquiesce in the Judgment of the Church believing that from her mouth they hear the Oracle of the holy Ghost This he should have forborn to have said till he had shewn by something more than he has hitherto that God has bid his children to hear his Word from the mouth of any Church speaking without the Scripture that contains it but especially methinks he should not have presumed to say this is the ground why in our Creed having said I believe in the Holy Ghost we add immediately The holy Catholick Church if we had no other ground to believe the Holy Catholick Church than he has hitherto shewn I am sure we should have but very little for so great an Article of Faith But no wonder he builds his faith on no better grounds since he has framed a new sense of the Article of which if I convince him by the Catechism of his own Church I suppose he may be inclinable to hear it even that then teaches him That the word Cat. Trid. sub Titulo Ecclesia quibus siguris Church in this Article does chiefly denote the whole number of Believers including both good and bad not the Rulers only but those likewise who are to obey and if so I know not how a man is obliged by believing this Article to acknowledge any Infallibility in the governours of any Church or to think that if they err this Article of our Creed should become false or that he has ever the less faith in God if he apprehend or fear least the Rulers of the Church should abuse their power Whereas after this he endeavours to perswade us That the Catholick Church meaning that of Rome is so far from making herself Mistress of our Faith as she is accused that on the contrary she has done what she could to limit and deprive herself of all the means of
them as there is if Tradition should lead us as it did the Jews to void the Commandments of God Nor does that Church run so great a hazard which owns the limits that God has set her and acts according to them as the Church that having acted against our common Christianity or at least being accused so to have done claims an absolute and infallible authority to justifie what she cannot defend by God's Word There are but two things wherein they possibly can object to us any hazard or danger that we incur One is That if the Church be not acknowledged Infallible and all obliged to an Absolute submission a way is open for men under this pretence to cast off her Authority and set up Religions according to their own fancies This I have shewn we labour to prevent so far as the Divine Providence has appointed means for its prevention and we think it not safe to set up others of our own invention which may be liable to equal or greater mischiefs another way Nor that it is as certainly probable on the other side That by advancing an absolute and unlimited Authority of the Church our common Christianity may be destroyed by Decrees that may be made which may subvert the foundations of Faith cannot be doubted but must needs be evident to all that know it possible for men to be led by their own Interests or Opinions and have also actually seen by what interests late Councils have been managed and swayed in their Determinations whereby men of good intentions have not been able to bring to pass what they intended and endeavoured for the good of Christianity being overruled by a greater number of men prejudiced and less considerate which has been confess'd even by sincere men of the Roman Communion If they tell us That according to our Principles the Churches Authority is insignificant it being in every man's power to reject it so that it is a very unsufficient means for Peace such as became not the Divine Wisdom to constitute because not certain to take effect Not to repeat what is said before Section 19. but only to shew them how unreasonable it is that they should require us to shew the Reasons of the Divine Providence in its Constitutions that are evident to us when the Reasons of them are not Let them resolve us if the Scriptures be not our Rule of Faith and Manners or if we cannot understand the sense of them without the Churches Authority why they were written or if the Churches Authority be absolute and unlimited why it had not been plainly and expresly told us by God that we must submit our selves in all things to this Authority or why we are bidden to search the Scriptures why God should have suffered the Scriptures to be written when he could not but foresee that the pretence of the Churches Authority clashing with that of the Scriptures is that which has and will disturb our Peace If they tell us of the many Heresies Schisms and Divisions that are seen to have faln out by mens expounding the Scripture for themselves They will give us leave I hope to tell them of the Idolatries Superstitions and other Irreligious Customs and Practices which we see to have fallen out through their exalting the Churches Decrees to the prejudice of Christianity And further that as to those Heresies and Divisions which we see and lament among our selves we are beholden to the Church of Rome and her Emissaries in great part for them who have endeavoured to ruin our common Christianity by another extream only because we would not yield to those things which they have first done to the prejudice of it Besides I am apt to think that even such will have a great Plea at the day of Judgment from the rigorousness of the Church of Rome extending the Churches Authority beyond all bounds that our common Christianity will allow and necessitating well-disposed Christians to refuse submission to it whereby it becoming visible that Christianity is not in all things maintained by the Church necessarily and it not being evidently visible to common sense what bounds being kept her Authority does by God's Law claim submission they have presumed upon their own understandings for the sense of the Scriptures and framed their Religion according to them This I only urge that they may look about them lest they become guilty of the many souls that may miscarry in both extreams whilst they have rendred the means of salvation difficult among themselves and have by pretending to justifie that occasioned others to oversee the due means they should betake themselves to and run as dangerous a way in the other extream So then we are altogether as safe yea much more secure than the Church of Rome for we take that way to confute Heresies and to preserve the purity of Faith which the Divine Providence has appointed appealing to the Scriptures and using the best means for the understanding them and declaring the Authority of the Church acting within the limits set her by God's Word and for the maintenance of that Christianity she is established to preserve They on the contrary pretending to maintain their Church in what she has decreed to the prejudice of Christianity seek to establish a Power that has already prejudiced even in the foundations of Faith and may in probability utterly subvert our Christianity and have thereby given occasion to others to place their Reformation of the Church in the utter renouncing her Authority Nor are they ever the nearer putting an end to Heresies hereby for all their pretences to Infallibility will never end the differences of those that disown it and yet it 's apparent that in the mean time they prejudice our common Christianity by those Laws which make the means of salvation very difficult if not altogether ineffectual by denying hitherto those helps to salvation which those Laws intercept The other danger which they pretend we run is that of Schism a great crime questionless and that which all Christians ought not only to lament but seek to remedy and if it be possible and as much as in them lies to follow after Peace which by so many obligations the Christian Church is bound to preserve But we know that both Parties are liable to be charged with the breach till it appear which is guilty and the guilt of it will certainly fall on those who have made the separation necessary so that if a Church requires such conditions of Communion which are inconsistent with Christianity and subvert the Faith it ought to preserve they certainly are to be charged with the Crime who will not suffer us to hold our Christianity together with the Churches Communion Besides there is nothing of this Charge can lye against the Church of England 'till they prove her either to have rejected any Authority to which she was legally subject or to have departed from the Faith by her Reformation But the Church of Rome if she
things represent which we look not upon as any derogation from God and therefore should not account their use of Images such To which I answer First That the Cases are very different the one though a solemn Action yet not being any part of God's ordinary worship as the other is That secondly Though an Oath be indeed a calling God to witness the Truth yet we never find that he prescribed any Rules concerning or forbid the use of any Ceremonies in it but has left it to the liberty of men to use it with what Ceremonies they please That therefore this cannot be drawn into consequence where the case is not parallel That again it does not appear that this custom of swearing upon the Gospel did ever occasion that dishonour of God that palpable Idolatry in some and danger of it in others which the use of Images in Religious worship has that if it did appear I should think it unlawful to be used any longer But to the pitiful evasion That an Image is but another manner of writing that therefore this Scripture of Images should be as venerable as that which is made upon Paper Paper and Letters being the work of mens hands as well as Sculpture and Painting I shall only say this That if such honour and worship were given to the Paper and Prints of the Bible as they give to Images I see no reason why it should not be thought highly offensive to God Besides he that shall look upon this as conclusive that we may as well use these in Gods Service as the writings of Scripture might conclude by the same reason that it was as lawful for the Jews to make Images and set them up in their Temples for God's worship as to use the Books of the Law and Prophets therein But why says he should you be more scrupulous of making your Prayers to Christ before an Image than before a Pillar or a Wall He might have forborn this Question unless he had professed the case to be the same that the Church of Rome matters not if we give no more respect to these than to the Wall or Pillar we kneel by but this I believe he dares not affirm in Behalf of his Church He further tell us It is Superstition to fear that our Devotions should terminate in the Image when we direct them to Christ. Now I would willingly know what it would terminate in if Christ should refuse to accept it and whether he can secure us that an intention to do this or that in honour to Christ shall be accepted by him though it be not what he directs us to for his honour but an invention of our own But what I most of all admire is that he should have the Face to call it Superstition for us to fear lest in honouring Images we should have our hearts drawn from honouring Christ and fix them upon these he might as well have called it Folly in God Almighty to suffer Image-worship to be the provocation of his Jealousie for if there be no reason for us to fear its drawing off our hearts from God there can be none for God to be jealous of us upon that score There will be some reason for his limiting the Commandment that forbids to make or bow down to Images only to the doing this in the Spirit of Pagans believing them filled with a divine virtue or that the Divinity is incorporated with them when he shall shew what he says he easily can That the Philosophers that bore above the common Error of Mankind and declared that they did not worship the Image but used them only to put them in mind of God did indeed notwithstanding their Declaration to the contrary put their trust in the Images themselves But till then for the same Reasons that the Scriptures call the Pagans worshippers of Stocks and Stones though they declared otherwise of themselves we can account those of the Church of Rome but little better whilst some of less understanding have been known to place a Trust and Confidence in the Images they use and the more intelligent tho' professing otherwise have relapsed into it in some kind and confirmed the Impiety of the publick Worship in adhering to and commanding of it For it is but a pitiful shift to say that the abuse of this Practice among particular persons if it be tolerated yet it is not approved by the Church since the Church continues to command that which has been the occasion of it Wherefore though I dare not with M. Meaux pass so severe a censure or pronounce any man accursed of God yet I am sure he is more likely to be accursed of him who defends a Practice that has been experienced to be the occasion of Idolatry and labours notwithstanding to seduce men to it than those who refuse submission to a Practice so manifestly destructive of God's true Worship and make it their business to prevent others from the danger of such Snares As to their Ceremonies which he seeks to defend by the use of some such in the Church of England I have before observed that it is the multitude of them that makes them so dangerous because they are hereby apt to take up the greatest part of Religion and draw men off from the spiritual Worship of God and those that spend too great a Zeal upon them will be apt to look upon them as all the Services they need pay to God and thereupon neglect the principal Duties of Religion Whereas he will have it a Calumny on their Church that they conceal the Mysteries of Religion from the People whilst they perform the Service of God in the Latine Tongue that very Decree which he thinks to get off his Church by does indeed make it the more culpable For if it be necessary lest the little ones want Bread that the Pastors explain to them some part of the Mysteries This very Reason proves that the whole Service of God ought to be performed in the vulgar Tongue that they may at all times and in all particulars understand and joyn in the Services of God to his Honour and their own growth and encrease in Grace and Virtue But at length he comes to the Doctrine of the Sacrament and herein compares us to Socinus and the Disciples of Paulus Samosatenus because we follow our humane Sense and Reason and are resolved to believe that Bread and Wine remain because they appear to our Senses But before he had fixt this Charge upon us he should have shewn us as clear a Revelation for the proof of their feigned Transubstantiation as there is for Christ's being God as well as Man and as clear a Command for us to worship the Sacrament as there is for us to worship Christ God and Man The difference betwixt the Lutheran Worship of Christ in the Sarament and that of the Adoration of the Sacrament itself which is the Roman Doctrine has been already stated p. 87. For that the