being so great a proneness in Man's nature to Idolatry and so great strength in an Image to draw carnal minds to it Concerning the second it takes notice only of what Naclantus has said upon it whose Doctrine it sticks not to call Idolatry That we are not only to Worship before the Image as some too cautiously speak but to Worship the Image and that with the same Worship that is to be given to the Prototype But what the Church decrees in this point we have seen that though it be not what Naclantus professes yet it 's more than M. Condom is willing to confess and is altogether without any warrant from our Christianity As to the third our Church says not any where that I have observed that to Worship before an Image is Idolatry nor does it say that sort which the Council has decreed is Idolatry but it says in general that the use of Images in Religious Worship necessarily leads to Idolatry and let me add that which the Council decrees does lead somewhat more to it than the other in that it 's more difficult to give a Worship to the Image and at the same instant direct it to the object it represents naâ— this creates so great a difficulty that it shall be very hard for a Man to preserve himself from it in his Devotions to the Saints by their Images as it 's no easie matter for a Man to preserve so many distinct intentions as are necessary to the directing a Reverence to and yet not fixing it on the Image but directing it with his Devotions to the object it represents which must not stay there neither if that object be any other than God or Christ so as to fix any trust upon it but must go further to God in whom alone their trust is to be reposed But then as to the practises of particular Persons she sticks not to call them Idolatrous and fears not to determine it from what she relates of their Pilgrimages to Images their repairing to them to be healed of Diseases their hanging up Crutches before them to shew the vertue they had found by and from them Wherein if she relates true matter of Fact as that we have great reason to believe we need not fear that she can be justly taxed by any as fixing Calumnies upon the Roman Church when she speaks of so many Idolatries practised in it To the last our Church has said that for Bishops whose is the care of Souls to maintain or set up Images in Churches is to shew themselves to be careless Pastors that have no respect to the Souls for which they are to be accountable And undoubtedly the Idolatries or other Crimes of particular Persons in this practice are highly chargeable on the Church of Rome which commands that as a practice beneficial to salvation and condemns those who reject it which creates such difficulties in the Worship of God as make Idolatry almost unavoidable especially in the simple sort for whom Who will or can undertake that they shall preserve the Devotions of their hearts so entire as they ought for God alone among such diversity of Objects and Relations It will be to little purpose to say the Council has taken care to prevent abuses when it has enjoyned a practice so liable to them unless the necessity of using them were as evident as the danger Besides those remedies as they have taken but little effect so neither are they likely whilst the Church is so far from Cat. Rom. de Cultu Venerat seeing or owning any such abuses that she commands her Pastors to teach the People not only that it is lawful to have Images in Churches and to give Honour and Worship to them when the Honour is referred to the Prototype but that it has been done with exceeding good and benefit to the People unto this very day Now what satisfactory defence has M. Condom made for his Church in all or in part of these points when first he presumes it lawful to use Images and that in Churches and Religious Worship and acknowledges the Church of Rome to command Honour to be given to them for the sake of their Prototypes this at least it does command though he is not willing to own so much but yet shews us not the least warrant from Holy Scripture upon which this command is founded When also those very reasons which he has used to vindicate his Church from commanding direct Idolatry do necessarily involve all those in it who ever have conceived any vertue in Images or terminated any Worship on them and likewise shew it extreamly difficult to avoid Idolatry and almost impossible but that the vulgar should be ensnared thereby But M. Condom goes on and says That after the same manner we ought to understand that Honour which they pay to Relicks but this he says without citing the Council which Concil Trid. Sess 25. had he look'd into it would have taught him that it ought to be after a quite different manner It s decree indeed is only general that they are to be venerated by the faithful but when it comes to its Anathema it not only condemns them that say veneration ought not to be given to the Relicks of Saints or that these and other their Monuments are unprofitably Honoured but those likewise that shall say their Memories or Relicks are in vain frequented for imploring of their help So that if this be allowed to interpret the veneration it enjoyns to be given to Relicks it is far different from the Honour given to Images not only in M. Condom's sense but even in the sense of the Council for it declared no vertue to be in no trust to be reposed nothing to be hoped for from Images But in these it supposes some vertue something that may contribute help and encourages Recourse yea Pilgrimages to them for that purpose And this the Catechisms confirms so perfectly that the only argument it brings upon this Subject is to confirm the People in a confidence of help by them for it says If the Vestments Towels yea the Shadow of Cat. Rom. de Cultu Venerat the Saints when living did drive away Diseases and restore Health Who dares deny that God by the sacred Ashes Bones and other Relicks of his Saints does miraculously work the same effects with more to the same purpose And having shewn this I need not say any thing to what reasons are brought by M. Condom to justifie that which is not the declared sense of the Council yet so far as they may seem to relate to it I shall consider them in short after a necessary reflection on what is said by the Catechism to build up the People in a vain and pernitious confidence of help from them To this I say therefore it is not for them to ask us Who can deny but God may do this or that but to shew us that he does No Man will pretend to limit
a thing very greatly to be feared whilst the substance under it is the blood of Christ. Thirdly Many men cannot abide the taste nor smell of wine wherefore that that which was ordained for spiritual health might not prejudice the health of the Body it was very wisely enacted by the Church that all her faithhful Children should receive one kind alone To this may be added other reasons That in some Countries wine is scarce and cannot be gotten without long and tedious Journeys But that which is most of all to the purpose the Heresie of such was to be rooted out as declared whole Christ to be under both Species and said the Body only was contained in the bread and the blood in the wine But he further tells us That the Church has reserved to her self the re-establishment of both kinds according as it should become more advantagious to Peace and Unity 'T is well she has kept to herself a Power of re-establishing that which she never had Power to dis-establish but how forward she has been to do any thing towards Peace and Unity all the World sees by her sirst occasioning so great a breach by this very thing And to me her last reason that she gives makes it evident that she still maintains and justifies her Sacriledg which robs Christians of their Birthright to the apparent prejudice of Peace yea to the rendring Unity impossible unless men will part with their Christianity But it 's most ridiculous when he comes to conclude from the concession of some Protestants That bread alone might be administred in case a man made protestation of a natural aversion to wine that therefore according to the Principles of the Reformed the matter in question regards not Faith and so is altogether in the Power of the Church For without determining whether their decision be right or wrong can it be argued from them that allow the Church may administer it only in one Species in case of such necessity that therefore the Church has authority to refuse administring it in both wheresoever she pleases to refuse it Can it be said that those who allow her a Power to dispense with some in case of absolute necessity do thereby allow her any Power to prohibit all People who are not comprehended in the case and being not comprehended look upon themselves greatly injured by being thus deprived of it And whereas he infers from hence that it regards not Faith his argument is as strong as if because the Jews were not circumcised in the Wilderness it should be said the Synagogue might have dispensed afterwards with that Law and said that Circumcision was not essentially necessary to a Jew because in a case of necessity where it could not be used Jews had lived without it SECT XVII Of the written and unwritten Word WHereas he says That the unwritten Word was the first Rule of Christianity and when the Writings of the New Testament were added this did not lose its Authority so that whatever was taught by the Apostles by Writing or Word of Mouth is to be received with equal veneration and that it is a sign that a Doctrine comes from the Apostles when it is universally received by all Christian Churches without any possibility of shewing its beginning I must not admit it but with these limitations First That nothing shall be imposed on us as a Doctrine coming from the Apostles but what shall evidently appear to have been universally received by all Christian Churches without beginning and that as fully to in all the parts of it that shall now be pleaded for For it is in vain to tell us that some things were delivered by the Apostles by Word of Mouth and those that have been from the beginning so received in the Christian Church universally throughout all Ages and Places ought to be looked upon as such unless what ever they would have us submit to as such be made appear so to be Secondly That these Traditions be not acknowledged of themselves sufficient to build any matter of Faith upon and this for two Reasons one because we cannot have that certainty of these as ought to be had to ground any thing as necessary to salvation of this all the Scriptures are an evident proof for undoubtedly the Apostles wrote not any thing to their Churches which they had not by preceding instructions gave them ability to understand notwithstanding which we see those instructions are now in great part lost though the Scriptures are preserved and they were so soon gone out of the Church that in a few Ages after the Apostles we find men giving them divers interpretations The other because we are told The Scriptures are able to make us wise unto salvation 2 Tim. 3. 15. which though spoken of the Writings of the Old Testament yet since none can deny the Divine Providence to have had the same end in ordering and inspiring the Writers of both namely that the Scriptures should be written for our Learning is as undeniable a Truth with reference to the New as Old Testament so that whatsoever is necessary to salvation must be either contained in or deducible from them Whereupon the Church of England professes That Holy Scripture containeth Art 6. all things necessary to salvation so that whatsoever is not read therein nor may be proved thereby is not to be requiredof any man that it should be believed as an Article of Faith or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation These exceptions which were necessary in respect of the premises laid down are altogether needless if we look to the Conclusion inferred viz. That we ought not to wonder if they being careful to gather all their Fathers left them should conserve the Deposition of Tradition as well as that of the Scriptures Certainly no man ever blamed the Church of Rome for keeping the Tradition she received from the Apostles but for setting up Traditions that were never deposited with her much less with the whole Church The Council of Trent indeed in its first Decree is very reserved concerning Traditions and speaks cautiously thus The Holy Synod finding Christ's Truth and Holy Discipline partly in Scriptures and partly in unwritten Traditions which either were taken from Christ's Mouth by the Apostles or were Sess 4. delivered by the Apostles themselves inspired by the Holy Ghost and have passed as it were from hand to hand to us and following the example of the Orthodox Fathers doth with the like Religious affection receive all the Books of the New and Old Testament as also the Traditions themseves pertaining to Faith and Manners But under this fair pretence of receiving Traditions either taken from Christ's Mouth or delivered by the Apostles themselves and passed from hand to hand unto them they make their Decrees by Traditions of a quite different nature Traditions of yesterday such as appear neither always nor universally received abusing likewise their more ancient to justifie all the abuses time
the whole Church were submitted to upon the certain testimony of those parts of it wherein they had been kept those which had not so evident a testimony being laid aside and received only according to the evidence that appeared of their being Divine Inspirations Nevertheless when they come to be received from the hands of such particular Churches who knew themselves to have had them from Authors known to be divinely inspired there might be some expressions in them which might appear not altogether so agreeable with our common Christianity when they came first to know them which from the beginning they had not And this was certainly the case of Luther in refusing St. James's Epistle notwithstanding the scorns cast upon him for it as of Erasmus in questioning the Epistle to the Hebrews But yet there is always means of redressing such a mistake either in any part of the Church or in any particular member of it so long as there remains means to certifie them from what hand they have been received and how derived from persons in whom the Church was assured the holy Ghost spoke but to set up the Churches bare Authority for this is indeed what our Adversaries desire but what destroys all the nature of the holy Scriptures and makes them to be believed for another reason than this that they are the Dictates of the holy Ghost But in fine he tells us It can only be from this authority that we receive the whole body of the Scripture which all Christians accept as divine before their reading of it has made them sensible of the Spirit of God in it But that there is some little difference between those that are educated in the Christian Church and others that turn Christians at years of understanding he might even as well have said whether the Spirit of God be in it or not in it For if the authority of the Church be that which principally determines them to reverence as Divine Books and upon that authority a man be obliged to receive the whole body of Scripture before he know the Spirit of God to be in it he shall upon the same grounds be obliged still to hold the same whether he find it there or not I am sorry that he thinks all Christians so blind as himself that they build their belief of the Scriptures on no firmer a foundation than he seems to do and am therefore obliged to shew him the ground whereon I build my own belief concerning them When therefore I first seek whereon to ground this belief I enquire after the Testimony not the Authority of the Church i. e. of all those that make profession of Christianity whose consent I look after concerning the Scriptures and when I have found what Writings they agree upon and admit for such the next enquiry is upon what grounds they submit unto them as such and this I find to be their having received them from former Ages successively together with their Christianity then must I trace this successive reception of them from one time to another till I come to those who first received them and there I find the reason upon which they submitted to them to be the evident proofs which the Writers of them had given to shew themselves inspired by God and commissioned to teach his will to the obedience of which they ought to give up themselves whereupon they who had seen God bearing them witness with divers Miracles and Gifts of the Holy Ghost became obliged as to obey their Doctrine so to acknowledge their Writings for the Word of God they being Records of those miraculous Actions which they saw wrought and of those Truths which were taught and proved to be the Will of God And here the very same Motives cause my belief of the Scriptures which caused those first Christians to receive them and submit unto them so that the same reason that moves me to be a Christian resolves me to believe the Scripture But if a man shall ask me since I believe the Scriptures only upon the works done by those Holy Writers which testifie them to have had his Spirit how I am assured that those works were really done I am not afraid to confess my Belief of this to rely on the Credit of God's People all Ages of Christ's Church which have born testimony of it successively so that I submit not my Faith to any Authority that can command it but I see it reasonable to allow my Belief to the Credit of the Church as so many men of common Sense attesting the Truth of those Reasons which the Gospel tenders why they ought to believe Neither is my Faith in either of these Respects a humane Faith but the work of Gods Spirit for as it is that Spirit only which after I have seen the Motives to Christianity inclines me to believe and become a Christian so it is the same Spirit which having shewn me the Evidence that the Scriptures were written by the Messengers of God that works in me an acknowledgment of and submission to them as the Word of God He goes on Being inseparably bound as we are to the holy Authority of the Church by means of the Scriptures which we receive from her hands we learn Tradition also from her and by means of Tradition we learn the true Sense of the Scripture upon which account the Church professes she tells us nothing from herself and that she invents nothing new in her Doctrines she does nothing but declare the divine Revelation according to the interior direction of the Holy Ghost which is given to her as a Teacher I profess all the Skill I have cannot make this hang together If by his first words he means we are so inseparably bound to the Authority of the Church by receiving the Scriptures from her that we ought thereupon to receive all that shall be commanded by that Authority I that have shewn we do not believe the Scriptures upon her Authority as a Church but upon her Testimony witnessing the Motives of Faith as a number of men that would not conspire to testifie an Untruth can never own it to have an Authority of itself to command our Faith Indeed as we receive the Scriptures upon her Testimony we learn from the Scriptures that she has an Authority but such an Authority as perhaps will not content M. Condom which being derived from the Scriptures can never have power to act against them and being established only for the Maintenance of Christianity which was before it can never have power to make that a part of Christianity which was not so before the Church was in being Then again though we learn Tradition from her and that Tradition be useful to interpret the Sense of the Scriptures yet we receive not any Tradition upon her Authority as making them Traditions of the Apostles but upon her Testimony shewing that she has received them from them and again those Traditions she does deliver ought not certainly
has read the many convincing evidences throughout that whole Book on which M. Daille grounds himself should urge against him only a bare improbability of his understanding the sentiments of foregoing Ages without the least confutation of the things on which he grounds himself So neither is it directly to the question for this does not necessarily suppose that M. Daille should know the sentiments of foregoing Ages better than they for they might know their sense well enough and yet embrace opinions which themselves thought probable and not presently apprehend wherein they contradicted the sentiments of their Predecessors As for that he says to make it still less credible that M. Daille has quoted in his Book several express Texts by which it 's shewn that they pretended in Praying to Saints to follow the example of their Predecessors It 's idle either to expect a satisfactory answer to such an uncertain Discourse or to hope to gain belief when he has not given us the particulars by which only it can be judged how far it does conclude But now the advantage he takes at present from this consent of this being in use in the fourth Age is only this That he hopes those of M. Daille's Communion will have more respect to these Men than with him in derision to give them the name of Reliquarists and that as they dare not accuse those of Idolatry by Praying to Saints or of destroying that trust which Christians ought to put in Jesus Christ so he hopes henceforwards that they will not cast the like reproaches on the Church of Rome when they consider they cannot do it without accusing at the same time those excellent Men. This he may promise himself that we shall not shew any thing like derision of those excellent Men nor give them reproachful names But what he further aims at depends upon the truth of his supposition that by accucusing the Church of Rome as Idolatrous in this respect we cast the same reproach on those famous Men A thing that he who knows the mighty difference we plead between the practice first growing into a custom and those gross extravigancies to which it is since encreased should not have supposed without shewing the practises to be the same Which how they first began and by what degrees encreased to their present height as First From Mens desires to one another to be mindful of them after-their departure Secondly From an opinion that some help was communicated to the Church from the fellowship between the Militant and the Church-Triumphant grounded upon a supposition that if Souls departed were mindful of any thing they bore the same affection to their Members as when on Earth and so would intercede with God for them which Thirdly Begun to be more confirmed by some miraculous effects which God was pleased to work in places where the memory of the Martyrs was had in Reverence Which Fourthly Gave occasion to those Prayers which were made upon a faint supposition of their knowing things below which Prayers were rather Wishes than Prayers as Cassander Vtinam Sancti orent And so grew by degrees as Men willing to justifie themselves in what they had gave entrance to persuaded themselves more of the probability by framing suppositions to themselves of God's wanting not means to make known their desires to them 'till it came at last to be received that God really did make them known by ways best known to himself which is now made matter of Faith and the practise thus encreased absolutely commanded Those who are willing to see particular information I refer to that excellent Book of Bishop Vsher's Answer to the Jesuits Challenge and for the degrees by which the publick Forms now in use got possession in the Liturgies to Dr. Chaloner's Progress of Heresie This Digression in me I hope is pardonable since M. Condom himself led me out of the way with whom I now return to follow the design SECT IV. Concerning Invocation of Saints HEre in the first place he acknowledges That the Church of Rome does teach them that it is profitable to pray to Saints Now this the Church of England declares to be 39 Articles of the Church of England Article 22. unprofitable and a vain invention not grounded upon any Warrant in Scripture but rather repugnant to the Word of God But he goes on and says The Church of Rome teaches them to pray to Saints in the same spirit of charity and according to the same order of fraternal society which moves us to demand assistance from our brethren here on earth whence their Catechism concludes that if Christ's mediatorship receive no prejudice from the intercession made to the faithful who live with us neither does it from the intercession made to the Saints But here we must take leave to observe that if the ground upon which they found this Doctrine be as he intimates that Relation and Fellowship which Saints departed have with the Church here as we the living members have one with another as I confess may be implied in the instances given in that Catechism of Job's praying for his friends c. mention'd before it insers the conclusion here spoken of yet it cannot be said that this Church teaches men to pray after no other manner to the Saints than to their brethren that are living nor with no Concil Trid. Sess 25. Dec. de Invocat greater confidence of success since the Council expresly decrees for the Invocation of them and also for Mental Supplication and M. Condom acknowledges a peculiar acceptableness of these with God upon account of their virtues p. 9. and their Catechism Cat. Rom. de Culen Inv. expresly teaches that God confers many benefits upon us for their sake and merit He passes on to shew us from their Catechism the difference between their imploring the aid of Saints and the assistance of God that they pray to Saints to undertake their cause with God but to God to give them the things they ask and therefore their Forms are different that where they are not the intention of the Church reduces them all to this difference Not denying for the present but the intention of the Church may be to reduce them to this distinction yet it shall remain questionable whether it may lawfully use such Forms as according to their nature are proper only to God and by which themselves express desires that ought to be peculiar to him to the Saints with a different intention For a further confirmation of the sense delivered he produces the injunction of the Council to the Bishops what they ought to teach the people concerning Invocation of Saints That the Saints who reign with Jesus Christ offer up to God their prayers for men that it is good and profitable to invocate them after an humble manner and to have recourse to their prayers aid and assistance to obtain of God his benefits through our Lord Jesus Christ his Son who is our sole Saviour
great advantages by his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Calvinists in this point I thought my self unconcerned with his Objections the Church of England not having tyed her Faith to Calvin or any other but grounded it on the Scriptures Only that no man may suspect them to be of any force against the Doctrine held by the Church of England I saw it necessary to set down and explain her Doctrine and see whether any thing here urged can conclude it to be in the least absurd or inconsistent with the Holy Scriptures or with itself The Church of England then teaches 1 Catech. That the Body and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Prayer 2 Exhortation at the Communion That we therein spiritually eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood we dwell in Christ and Christ in us we are one with Christ and he with us 3 Art 28. The Bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ and likewise the Cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ 4 Homily of the Sacrament That we must be sure to hold that there is no vain Ceremony no bare sign no untrue figure of a thing absent But as the Scripture saith the table of the Lord the bread and cup of the Lord the memory of Christ the annunciation of his death yea the Communion of the body and blood of the Lord in a marvellous Incorporation which by the operation of the Holy Ghost the very bond of our conjunction with Christ is through Faith wrought in the souls of the faithful whereby not only their souls live to eternal life but they trust also to win their bodies a resurrection to immortality Therefore 5 Prayer of Consecration she prays that in partaking of these his Creatures of bread and wine we may be partakers of his most blessed body and blood 6 Catech. That the benefits that we receive by thus partaking of the body and blood of Christ are the strengthning and refreshing of our souls by these as our bodies are by the bread and wine 7 Homily of the Sacrament Ibid. That thus much the faithful see hear and know herein the favourable mercies of God sealed the satisfaction of Christ confirmed and the remission of sins established 8 Art 28. That nevertheless there is no Transubstantiation or Change of the substance of bread and wine in the Lord's Supper 9 Hom. Ib. Wherefore we are not to regard specially the earthly Creatures which remain but always to hold fast and cleave by Faith to Christ the Rock 10 Art 28. Whose body is given taken and eaten in the Supper only after an heavenly and spiritual manner 11 Hom. Ib. Wherefore it is well known the meat we seek is spiritual heavenly and not earthly invisible and not bodily a ghostly substance and not carnal 12 Art Ib. The means therefore whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith 13 Hom. Ib. So that to think that without Faith we may enjoy the eating his body or drinking his blood is but to dream a gross and carnal feeding basely binding our selves to the Elements and Creatures As for those then that hold it no more than a bare sign and the Celebration and Communion thereof barely the renewing our Profession or a remembrance only of Christ Crucified whom it representeth they are wide from the Church of England on the one side as the Church of Rome on the other Nor do those who only hold it a sign effective to apply the benefits of the death of Christ not supposing it to tender Christ as present to us and to be received by us before we partake in the benefits of his death express exactly in my judgment the sense of our Church Although there is so near a conjunction of Christ with his benefits that one cannot well be apprehended without the other I conceive therefore that in the sense of our Church not only the benefits of Christ but Christ himself is tendred to us in this Holy Sacrament and is to be eaten by us before we partake of his benefits not that we are bodily to partake of him for this end but in that it seems to be the intention of our blessed Savour under these Elements to give us himself and to put us in the actual possession of himself so that in the use of this ordinance as verily as a man does bodily receive the earthly Creatures so verily does he spiritually receive the body and blood of Christ For our better apprehension of which Mystery it will be necessary more particularly to consider what it is which we do hereby receive and in what manner we are made partakers of it Concerning the first the truth which we hold you see is this that we do not here receive only the benefits that flow from Christ but the very body and blood of Christ i. e. Christ himself Crucified for as the bread and wine avails not to our bodily sustenance unless the substance of those Creatures be first received so neither do we partake of the benefits of Christ to our spiritual relief except we have first a Communion with Christ himself This the words of our blessed Saviour Joh 6. 57 Encline me to believe where he says that he that eateth him shall live by him intimating that we must be partakers of him before we can have life from him So the words of St. Paul 1 Cor. 10. 16 The bread which we break Is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ evidently imply that we are therein to partake of Christ himself This I take to be that great mystery of our union with Christ whereby we are made members of his body of his flesh and of his bones And this I look upon to be that 〈◊〉 the flesh and drinking the blood of the Son of God in the 6th of St. John But now if it be demanded how we can eat the flesh of Christ and partake of his body and blood to conceive this eating in a carnal sense is as gross an imagination as that of those Joh. 6 who asked within themselves How can this man give us his flesh to eat we must not think then that we cannot truly feed on Christ unless we receive his substance into our bellies but must consider that the eating and drinking our Saviour speaks of must be spiritual according to the nature of his Gospel and therefore we must enquire therein what it is to eat and drink spiritually Now then if we consider what appetites are in our souls and what those appetites crave or ought at least to long after we shall easily discern what it is to eat and drink spiritually Now we know that in the 5th of St. Matthew our Saviour intimates to us that we ought to have a spiritual hunger and thirst after righteousness which
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
case stands though they be not yet they soon may by those who make Articles of Faith of any thing they have a humour to determine Men may love Concord amongst Brethren and yet love Truth among Christians and those that love them both must not vainly give away the later to seek the former by ways not established by God And the Advertiser certainly thinks his own experience has taught him more wisdom than all the rest of the world when he would by that convince us that the Authority of the Pope is the only means of Christian Concord when experience has taught others that it 's the ready way to destroy our common Christianity And though the Church ought not to rise in Rebellion against a power that maintains her unity under pretence that some have abused it yet undoubtedly it may reject an usurpation begun with fraud and encreased by violence which it sees to be no establishment of God's and has experienced destructive of his truth As for Episcopacy blessed be God our Church has been able to preserve it with great advantage to our Christianity Those of the Reformation in other parts who had not the like power nor the same opportunity of doing it being yet obliged to provide for their common Christianity though they could not bring to effect in all things the establishment of his Church I doubt not but God may and does bless in the exercise of his Ordinances THE CONCLUSION HEreby therefore it appears that M. Condom's explication has given us but a very unsatisfactory resolution the greatest part of the Objections being still left in full force and their Doctrines shewn some necessarily and others very probably others absolutely to subvert the foundations of Faith which abundantly justifies that Provision made by the Reformation and makes it absolutely necessary that they let not go that Provision which the maintenance of our common Christianity rendred at first and does still require necessary Neither has M. Condom mentioned all the material Points in difference Two I am sure there are omitted as considerable as many by him taken notice of One is the Decree of the Council which requires the Scriptures which we call Apocrypha to be admitted with like reverence as the unquestionable Canonical Scriptures and to be received as all of one rank which before had never been enjoyned but with that difference which had always been acknowledged in the Church Which Act giving to them the authority of Prophetical Scripture inspired by God which they had not before though it be thereby null in itself because what was not inspired by God to him that wrote it can never become inspired by him and that which was not at first received as such can never be known to be such without special Revelation yet usurpeth an Authority which was never heard of in the Christian World and claims a submission which a Christian cannot give to any but such as shall prove themselves to have had an immediate Revelation in the case The other is their Decree that the Service of God be not performed in the vulgar Tongue For if the People be obliged to assist in that Service which if they are not To what purpose do they assemble then certainly the Offices in which they assist ought to be understood by them Possibly they will say that Vnity is preserved by the universal use of one Language though the Service of God be not understood but then the end for which it should be preserved is not accomplisht when the Service of God is not nor can be performed as Christianity requireth by those who understand it not Besides it is observable that it 's M. Condom's way to take these Points single and spend all his pains in extenuating them as much as possible that they may not appear absolutely to destroy our Christianity and then to press us to compliance with it But he never looks upon them together nor considers whether with that care of our common Christianity which all ought to take they can be all complyed with and submitted to I then have shewn even in the Particulas wherein I have gone along with M. Condom That the Invocation of Saints is without warrant from our Christianity has no Promise of any Grace or Mercy yea tends so greatly to the prejudice of Christianity that it shall be very difficult for a Christian to preserve himself from Idolatry in the use of it and which Experience has shewn to have been Idolatrously practised by many That the Use of Images again is no way necessary in God's Worship but dangerous and makes it most difficult to avoid that Idolatry which many have really committed in the use of them That the Relicks of Saints have no such virtue by any divine Promise as they are frequented for that the Church therefore ought not to teach or perswade People to frequent them for such Aid or Helps since their recourse to them has been experienced to have brought forth much Superstition advancing Peoples Devotion to Saints to the prejudice of that they should preserve for God alone That their Doctrine of Justification involving a mistake in the very nature of it by making Inherent Righteousness the formal Cause of Justification gives too great appearance that they claim Remission of Sins as due to that inherent Righteousness whereas it is only the effect of Christ's Merits That likewise by their Anathema's they have condemned those who hold the Truth in this Point That in the Point of Merit if the Doctrine of the Council be not expresly yet that vulgarly taught in that Communion is contrary to the Faith and injurious to Gods Grace which Doctrine is favoured by the very words of the Council that herein also they condemn those who assert the Truth and desire to magnifie God's Grace That their Doctrines of Satisfactions Purgatory and Indulgences are built on a foundation that has not the least ground in holy Scripture their Satisfactions being enjoynd to other ends than those in which they take place in Christianity being also according to the purposes by them used injurious to the Merits of Christ and offensive to their Christian Brethren their Indulgences granted to unheard of purposes and perverted from their primitive use their Purgatory a vain invention and the occasion of much Superstition and these taken together with their Absolution in Penance tending directly to the manifest prejudice of our Christianity since the Pardon of Sins is presumed to depend not upon Reconcilement wrought with God before but on the Power of the Keys as the ground of it whereby Absolution is pronounced before the Church has done any thing to work the Cure of Sin and the Penances afterwards imposed for the satisfaction of a temporal punishment the Sin being to be supposed pardoned before and no eternal punishment to remain due and those to be expiated by some easie satisfactions in the present Life or to be abated in Purgatory by some Indulgences purchased here
or Services performed by their Friends afterwards whereby simple Souls must necessarily be entangled in the Snares of their Sins there being so great likelihood that Pardon being held forth upon such undue grounds the corruption of our Nature will take hold of and presume upon it when we have not wrought in our selves a true Repentance That in those things which they call Sacraments they will not suffer us to distinguish either in that Grace which the Ceremony signifieth or in the Force whereby they concur to the obtaining of it whereas our Christianity requires us to distinguish between Graces given to this or that particular effect and those that are given for the general and perpetual subsistence of Christianity and likewise between those Offices that are effective of Grace by virtue of a peculiar and special promise to those effects and others that are only used by the Church out of a hope that our Prayers shall be heard to those effects That they conceive Christ present in the Eucharist after such a manner as it does no way appear he promised his Presence therein that hereupon it is required that Adoration due to God alone be given to the Sacrament which if the Elements remain is by themselves confessed to be Idolatry and therefore may justisiably by us who know them to remain be so accounted That without warrant they make the Eucharist a Sacrifice as distinct from a Sacrament and of a greater virtue as a Sacrifice than when it is received as a Sacrament according to our Saviour's Institution That they warrant it propitiatory for those who use it not according to his Institution whereby they frustrate the End of his blessing Bread and Wine and commanding it to be received and likewise void the necessity of a Christian Life applying the Benefits of Christ's Sacrament to such as come not worthily to partake of it and pretending it efficacious to ease them of punishments which they are to suffer for sins after Death That whilst they with-hold the Cup from the Laity they void Christ's Institution who enjoyned and appointed both they likewise rob Christians of their Birthright and cannot warrant one part of this Sacrament beneficial to all those effects for which Christ was pleased to bless both Bread and Wine That whilst they plead for Traditions they thereby endeavour to obtrude upon us their own Corruptions and by these instead of interpreting pervert the Scriptures and by Traditions of men have indeed in many things made void the Comandments of God That by claiming an Authority for the Church above the Scriptures which they do to justifie what the Church of Rome has decreed against them they do indeed advance an Authority that may destroy our common Christianity That in pleading their Pope universal Bishop not to speak of their Ambition in this Aim they require us to submit to an Authority for the sake of Unity which is not only none of God's Ordinance but such as Experience has shewn to have almost wholly destroyed that Christianity which Unity should preserve Having shewn I say the danger of these Doctrines in particular and their inconsistence with Christianity when I reflect upon them all together and find that our Union with the Church of Rome requires submission to them all must conclude that whatever allowance might be made in some one of them provided that the rest of that Christian Truth which they hold did so prevail over the Error that it did not take effect in their practices to God's Dishonour or the subversion of a Christian Life yet to submit to them all as we must do if we will have peace with the Church of Rome is to redeem the Communion of the Church by transgressing that Christianity which the Church is appointed to maintain and absolutely to prostitute our own and the Souls committed to our Charge The Case is little otherwise in those other things which M. Condom lets alone as things of themselves not sufficient matter of Separation these if taken together though singly they may not be very considerable render the Means of Salvation very difficult since the Substance of Christianity being overwhelmed and choaked with a deal of Rubbish Opinions Customs Observations Ceremonies c. it is a thing very difficult for simple Christians to discern the Substance from the Shadow and almost impossible to pass through such a multitude of Observations Customs and Ceremonies which create so much business in the Practice of Religion and upon which so great Zeal is spent without Superstion and Will-Worship and a fond Opinion of those Services placing their hope of God's Favour upon these carnal Observations and humane Inventions which indeed are nothing to the Reality of Religion So that these at least must be allowed to add to that Mass of Corruption which they seek to obtrude upon us though of themselves they are not of such a poysonous Nature But though we cannot joyn with them without manifest prejudice to our Christianity yet it is most easie for them to come to us and would be for the great advantage of our Christian Religion as even themselves must and do acknowledge For first Those Doctrines which are established by the Church of England at least such as concern the Foundation of Faith have been in all Ages professed by the Church of Rome itself This M. Condom allows as to Fundamentals That the Church of Rome holds all which the Reformers do They further agree with us That we are to pray unto God through Christ That God may be worshipped in Spirit without an Image That we may have recourse to him in all our Necessities without seeking the Relicks of Saints That Jesus Christ is the meritorious cause of our Justification That men may do good Works and shall never fail of Salvation through not confiding in them That there be two Sacraments which have the Promise of Grace That Christ is really and spiritually received by some in the Lord's Supper That Christ made an Oblation of himself upon the Cross for the Redemption Propitiation and Satisfaction of the whole World And where they with hold the Cup from the Laity and forbid the Administration of the Sacraments in the vulgar Tongue yet even in these they condescend to us for the Lawfulness of the Practice even in respect to the Law of God and oppose them only in regard of their necessity and conveniency and for that the Church of Rome hath otherwise ordained They acknowledge likewise the Authority of written word of God and the Design of Providence in their being written for our Learning They acknowledge the Church does and ought to act in deciding Controversies of Faith according to the Scripture committed to her and to tell us nothing from herself and invent nothing new in her Doctrine Again secondly The Truths we hold even by the judgment of several of the Learned Writers of the Church of Rome have been in all ages deemed sufficient to salvation so that we reject no
than so he still may glory in his works though not as wrought by himself What he adds out of another Session will come to be considered in its proper place but so far as it relates to the point in hand that they confess man has nothing to glory nor for which he may confide in himself is true but it is upon this ground they confess it that we can do nothing of our selves but all through Christ who strengthens us not upon any supposition that what a man has wrought through Christ that strengthened him may not be confided in as meritorious upon that score for though the Council says we merit and satisfie in Christ it can mean no more than through his assistance that enables us to do such works for it sticks not to say the fruits worthy of Repentance have a virtue in them though drawn from him as wrought by his grace Besides there is ground enough to conceive that they make some distinction between the satisfactory works of Penance which are spoken of in that Session and those good works which it speaks of here in the business of Justification so that what is spoken of the merit of them cannot be drawn into consequence to prove that they understand no greater merit in these which are works of a different nature and whose virtue is endeavoured to be set forth to a different purpose viz. of meriting eternal life whereas the other pretends only to the satisfaction of adebt of temporal punishment Now then to subjoin the Doctrine of the Church of England in this point which teaches 1 Hom. of good Works Part 2. That such Works only are good which are done in obedience to God's Commandments 2 Ib. Par. 1. That no Works done without Faith are pleasing to God in that the measures of them are not taken from the facts themselves but from the ends out of which they are done 3 Hom. of Justifie Par. 2. That though a man do never so many good Works yet we must renounce the merit of all our virtues and good deeds which we either have done shall door can do as things far too weak and insufficient to deserve at God's hands 4 Ib. Par. 3. our imperfection being so great through original sin that all is imperfect that is within us and therefore cannot merit 5 Art 12. That albeit good Works which are the fruits of Faith and follow after Justification cannot put away our sins and endure the severity of God's Judgment yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God 6 Hom. of Faith Par. 2. That true Faith is always productive of them and they are inseperable from it By this we may frame the comparison and find that both agree in this That good works are necessary to a Christian that they are pleasing and acceptable to God being done both in obedience to his will and out of the power of his grace that all Christian works proceed from grace that a man cannot glory in himself on this score but in Christ the Author and Finisher of them But then the difference lies First in that the Church of England says our good works though pleasing to God cannot bear the Tryal if examined by the rigour of his Justice They on the other side That a Christian by his works wrought in God does satisfie the Divine Law with respect to the present state We again disclaim all assiance in our works as things insufficient to deserve Remission of sins or merit for us eternal life They on the other side profess our works to have that intrinsick value in them upon the account of their being the effects of grace as that a Christian may be truly said to have merited by them that eternal life which he shall obtain in time if he depart this life in a state of grace These being the Two Points whereon depends the Dispute I am not moved by any thing said here by M. Condom in vindication of his Churches Sentiments to recede in the least what the Church of England has declared and professed concerning them For though the Precepts Exhortations Promises and Threatnings of the Gospel shew that we must work out our own Salvation by the grace of God assisting us yet they shew not that what is done by us does merit our Salvation or can in justice claim it of God Neither is it altogether so just that his Church should use the Word Merit to express the acceptableness of good Works with God since She limits it to a Sense different from what was anciently understood thereby Nor will I fear to maintain That those who will have the Works of Christians to merit Heaven of their own intrinsick value though supposing that value still arising from its being wrought by Grace do hold a Tenet prejudicial to the Faith whilst they hold not the Grace of God through Christ again necessary to accept of that to such a reward which the intrinsick worth of it does not deserve nor his free Mercy in bestowing Eternal Life according to his promise For though the first Principle producing such works the help granted through Christ be heavenly yet seeing that Grace does not immediately produce the work but by co-oporating with the Soul of man infected with Concupiscence it cannot be said either that such works are truly perfect or that they can demand a reward as if they had been the Effects of Grace alone without the Allay that Concupiscence and humane Weakness gives to abate their value Nor will I decline to say that he that shall maintain the Merit of our good works such as truly merit eternal Life is thereby injurious to the Merits of Christ for since the Scripture not only accounts Grace whereby good works are wrought to be given us of his Merits but likewise that Eternal Life is the Gift of God through Christ He that shall ascribe his Merits to the first Effect Rom. 6. alone and not acknowledge them to the second does not make that acknowledgment of the Merits of Christ which the Scriptures do oblige These Gentlemen may hence see by this upon what account we think them injurious to the Merits of Christ and his Grace notwithstanding their Confessions that they are not acceptable to God but by and in him because they think themselves acceptable for the value of their works which they may still say are acceptable in and by him because Effects of his Grace but we think require a further Grace still the Mercy of God through Christ accepting them to such effect as they are not worthy of Neither do the Three Points which M. Condom thinks so decisive as to this Matter shewn out of the Council give us any full satisfaction viz. That our Sins are pardoned us out of pure Mercy for the sake of Jesus Christ That we are indebted for that Justice which is in us by the Holy Ghost to a Liberality bestowed on us gratis That all the good works we
do are but so many gifts of his Grace That the first of these may give some abatement to their Doctrine of Justification so as to make it not absolutely destructive of the Faith I have already owned but that it should give the like to their Opinion of the Merit of good Works there is not the same necessity upon me to acknowledge And then it is not material to the Point to say all the good works they do are but the Gifts of his Grace unless it be added that they merit through Grace withal i. e. not of the intrinsick Grace that wrought them but of the free Grace of God that accepts them to that reward which they are not deserving of The Pharisce in the Parable that trusted in his own Righteousness did yet acknowledge it not of his own working alone for he thanks God that he was not an Extortioner c nor as other Men and yet he was not justified because he had not recourse to God's Mercy But not to conceal any thing that may encline us to a favourable Construction I must also take notice that the Council of Trent at first proposes Eternal Life as a Recompence which is faithfully rendred to the good works and merits of God's Children in virtue of his Promise And had it staid there I am obliged to confess it had not decreed any thing prejudicial to the Faith for having respect unto the Promise it does thereby respect the Grace as promising though not as bestowing the Gift But when it comes afterwards to declare an intrinsick value in our works and that eternal Life is truly merited by them its Eye is taken wholly off both from the Promise and the Grace for if it had intended to have shewn that they merit by virtue of the Promise it must have acknowledged that though they had an intrinsick and real worth yet it was not such as could render them acceptable for so great a reward not supposing God's Promise Those therefore who speak of good works as meritorious by virtue of God's Promise only though they use an unfit Expression cannot be said to destroy the Grace of God But which of these two Opinions shall be said to speak the Sense of the Council Both are indeed allowed but those who hold the Extream are the prevailing part if Bellarmine may be believed Bell. de Justif lib. 5. cap. 16. in relating Matter of Fact The Works of just men are meritorious of eternal Life ex condigno this is the common Opinion of Divines and it is most true But then will not the Church of Rome have a great advantage of us by this Concession Perhaps not near so great as they imagine when it is considered First That this Church allows though not absolutely enjoyns a Doctrine to be maintained that is contrary to the Faith and injurious to God's Grace which it cannot justifie as a Church Secondly That it likewise has given occasion by its own Definitions to this Doctrine which in words clearly express it which renders it more inexcusable Lastly In that it has further taken upon it to decree an Anathema against him that shall say That the good works Conc Trid. Sess 6. Can. 32. of a man justified do not truly merit encrease of Grace and eternal Life as also encrease of Glory Which no man can avoid acknowledging that will profess with the Scriptures that the gift of God is eternal Life and that he saves us not by the works of Righteousness which we have done but of his own Mercy What M. Condom inserts by the way That our Hope and Confidence in Christ does not wholly extinguish Fear on account of our selves I am not obliged to gainsay that I know of by any Doctrine of the Church of England provided I disallow that which is decreed Can. 16. If any say or believe that he shall certainly have by certainty of infallible Faith the gift of Perseverance to the end unless he know and have learned it by special Revelation let him be Anathema For though a careful and awful Fear does intermix with a Christians Confidence yet it may be such as may exclude all doubt without Revelation having no other foundation than that upon which St. Paul declares That nothing shall be able to separate Christians from the Love of God neither Tribulation nor Persecution c. because out of a certain knowledge of the sincerity of their own hearts and the certainty of God's never-failing Promise that he will never forsake those who forsake not him they may be certain that nothing shall be able to separate them from their Duty As to that great Advantage therefore which he may be thought to have gotten of us in that the real Difference between us in these two Points of Justification and the Merit of Works may not appear so great as it was thought and pleaded by the first Reformers who declared it one of the principal causes of their Separation I answer That I have evidenced a Doctrine generally held in the Church of Rome and exprest in the Words of the Council in the Point of Merit of good Works whilst they are taught to be deserving of eternal Life of their own intrinsick worth to be destructive of the Faith and injurious to the Grace of God however in that the Council in one place does mention God's Promise to accept of them I am unwilling to charge it expresly on the Council though it seems afterwards to leave the Promise and plead a real worth in our works which are wrought by Grace however those who say they merit ex condigno do certainly destroy the Faith which are the greater number of their Divines So in the Point of Justification I have shewn too great appearance that their Doctrine taken in the most favourable Sense does prejudice the Faith Again having produced the Doctrine of the Church of England on both Points she holds no other than she always did and still maintains the same neither does it that I know of cast any greater reproach on the Roman Church on this account than what the very Doctrine of the Council will maintain it in and therefore I see no reason to be ashamed of our Doctrine or think the worse of our Reformation for this being a part of it Again there 's none in the least versed in the History of the Reformation abroad but knows it to have been occasioned by Luther's writing against Indulgences which brought in the Disputes of Merits and Justification Purg tory Penance the Authority of the Pope and General Councils with amany others and although Luther published his Opinions in these points yet did he not separate from the Church immediately Bull. Leonâ— 10. An. 1520. but desired a Reformation instead of which Pope Leo excommunicates him and condemns 42 Articles extracted out of his Books on these and other points so that whoever may have pleaded this as the principal could never conceive it the only Point that
introduce the Sense he intends The ground he proceeds on I confess is such as must not be rejected as vain in this Dispute neither must it on the other side be allowed to conclude necessarily for though the correspondence between the Old and New Testament ought to be greatly regarded yet of itself it is not sufficient ground to build matter of Faith upon Again in whatever it be allowed to conclude it must be according to the difference between the Old and New Testament which must still be maintained and which is undeniably this That as Israel under the Old Testament were the Israel according to the Flesh and those under the New are the Israel according to the Spirit so the correspondence between the Law and Gospel may conclude from things that were carnally under the Law that the same are spiritually fulfilled under the Gospel but never that they are now to be fulfilled carnally because they were then For instance when the Apostle argues from Abraham's leaving his own Country to go into a strange Land that thereby also he sought an heavenly Country it may with the like force be argued that we who travel after God's Promises shall certainly arrive to the possession of that heavenly Country but not that we shall as certainly possess an earthly Canaan by the way So when he argues from Adam's being made a living Soul that the second Adam is a quickning Spirit we cannot certainly think him to be a quickning Spirit in that sense that the first Adam was a living Soul but in a much more spiritual manner This being premised I shall consider his Arguments First then he says That as the Jews did not in Spirit only partake of the Victim that was sacrificed for them but did in reality eat of the sacrificed Flesh which was to them a Mark of their partaking of that Oblation so Christ becoming our Victim would have us really eat his Flesh to assure us in particular that it was for us he gave it Thus much I allow the correspondence between the Old and New Testament may prove that whereas Christ has given us Bread as a representation of his sacrificed Body to partake of that he thereby intended to make us partakers of his Flesh to assure us that for us it was sacrificed but not that it shall hence follow that because the Jews eat carnally of the Flesh of their Sacrifices we must also eat of his after the like manner Who sees not upon the difference between the Law and the Gospel premised that the contrary does necessarily follow that they being the Israel after the Flesh did necessarily partake of the Flesh of their Sacrifices after a carnal manner those therefore that are the Israel after the Spirit must partake of their Sacrifices not as the others but spiritually Let then God's prohibiting the Jews to eat of the Sin-Offering because of their Sins not being expiated by those Sacrifices conclude that now our blessed Saviour having made himself an Offering for Sin we ought to partake of this Sacrifice to assure us that the Remission of sins is accomplished for us yet this shall not conclude against our partaking of this Victim after a spiritual manner As for God's prohibiting the Children of Israel to eat Blood because it was given for the expiation of Souls it being a prohibition of eating Blood in general as well as the particular blood of their Sacrifices if it conclude any thing it is chiefly for the eating Blood in general the reason of its being forbidden being ceased but yet neither for this doth it conclude necessarily for then the Apostles could not by their Decree have required the Gentiles to abstain from Blood But suppose it to conclude for our drinking the Blood of our Sacrifice yet it does not in the least prove that we are to drink it in a carnal and not in a spiritual manner but it will prove if it be allowed conclusive what will not at all please the Church of Rome that she cannot now with-hold the Sacramental Blood from us since our Sins are fully expiated by the Blood of Christ for a reason contrary to that upon which it was prohibited the Jews because this Blood being shed has wrought a full Remission of Sins Therefore upon so little that has been yet said to the purpose I admire the Gentleman should tell us That our Saviour to free us from the horror of eating humane Flesh and drinking Blood in their proper species thought fit to cloath them under another species but that the consideration that obliged him to this did not oblige him in the least to deprive us of the reality of his Substance For by what Authority does he presume to tell us what considerations moved our Saviour or how far this or that consideration shall oblige him Or how has he proved that it was ever the intent of our blessed Saviour to give us the Real as that signifies the fleshly Substance of his Body to be by us carnally received To accomplish then the ancient Figures we confess our blessed Saviour does give us his Body and Blood to possess us of the Sacrifice offered for our Sins but to maintain the difference between the Law and the Gospel our eating must be spiritual not carnal It matters not whether it be the plainness of our Saviour's Words alone or as joyned with other things that are said concerning it in Scripture that forceth us to confess and acknowledge what we do we need no forcing for we most readily acknowledge all we conceive the Scripture does oblige us to in it and the Question is whether any thing said therein will oblige us to take their Sense or does not oblige to the contrary I shall not enter into Dispute of what the power of Christ can do or whether his Dominion over universal Nature can make his Body present in several places at once and under several Extents and not destroy the properties of a Body in it his Omnipotence having nothing to do herein any further than it appears his intent to bring something to pass by it We may therefore without questioning what can be wrought by his omnipotent power expect an Evidence that what they pretend him to bring to pass thereby was by him intended to be brought to pass before we are obliged to believe it Whether therefore these Words This is my Body will conclude it to be our Saviours intent to make that Bread to be no longer Bread but to become the very Substance of his Body is the thing in question which cannot be presumed before we have considered the whole Discourse of our Saviour and also what other things are said of it by his Apostles Matth. 26. 26. we find it set down thus Whilst they were eating Jesus took Bread and having blessed broke and gave it to his Disciples and said Take Eat this is my Body and taking the Cup and blessing gave to them saying Drink all of this for this is my Blood
innovation seeing she not only submits herself to the Holy Scriptures but has obliged herself to interpret them in what relates to Faith and Manners according to the sense of the holy Fathers from which she promiseth never to depart declaring in all her Councils and in all the Professions of Faith she has published that she does not receive any Doctrine which is not conformable to the Tradition of all preceding ages If it be really so that she does in all things thus submit herself what need he have given us all this trouble to prove that she ought against his vain endeavours to exempt her from it Then all that we have depending is only Tryal of Matters of Fact whether she has really contained herself within the bounds she professes ought to limit her decisions and this claim of infallibility ought to be by them wholly laid aside otherwise the World will never believe she has confined herself to bounds that she endeavours to claim a power of exceeding as I cannot think this Gentleman in conscience knows her to have acted only within them when he takes so much pains to create her an authority above them But to what purpose does M. Condom tell us No one prudent man amongst us but if he found himself the only man of a perswasion though it appeared to him never so evident but would be ashamed of that singularity for is this the case of the Reformed part of the Christian World are they but as one man But since he wishes us to consult with prudence we may desire him to do the like and consider what prudence it is for a man blindly to give up his judgments to others and be of a Religion because he has many companions refusing out of idleness either to examine or come to a tryal of that Religion or fearing the event of such a tryal resolving before he enter upon it on a ground from which he will never be dispossessed such as I have too great cause to fear himself has resolved on that what he cannot by his skill make good from Scripture and Truth he will still believe upon the Authority of the Church And I think this reason if any thing may be grounded upon humane prudence concerning God's commands does more evidently shew that God has never required us to give up a blind obedience to any authority of man than that given by him that God has set up an authority to which every private man must subject his understanding in all truths though appearing never so evidently unto him SECT XIX Of the Sentiments of the Reformed about the Authority of the Church ALthough I need not concern my self with several Objections which M. Condom makes from several determinations of Synods in France about the Authority of the Church yet having shewn the Church to have no such absolute and infallible Authority as he claims for it I ought to set down the Church of England's Sentiments and consider whether any thing in them is liable to those Objections She then supposes that a Church may err even in matters of Faith and 1 Artic. 19. declares several to have thus erred nevertheless she claims 2 Art 20. for the Church Power to decree Rites or Ceremonies and even Authority in Matters of Faith though however it be not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word nor so to expound one place of Scripture that it be repugnant to another nor inasmuch as she is a keeper of Holy Writ ought she to decree any thing against the same or besides the same to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation 3 Art 21. And even General Councils may err and have erred even in things pertaining to God wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority unless it may be declared that they be taken out of Holy Scripture Now herein you see our Church claims a power to decree Rites and Ceremonies and even an authority in Matters of Faith but then she confines it so within the limits of God's Word that she can decree nothing against the same nor impose any thing besides the same to be believed of necessity to salvation And herein till it be proved that she has exceeded those limits which truth obliges her to own prescribed unto her by God's Word I see but two Objections that will lie against her The first How not claiming Infallibility she claims Authority in Matters of Faith To which I answer That God having left means in his Church when Matters of our common Faith shall become disputable to end and decide them she that has proceeded according to those means may well require submission to her Authority whilst she shews herself to all to have proceeded aright in the use of those means which God has left in his Church and there is no more necessity that she should be infallible upon this account to make her Authority received than that she should be able actually and immediately to forgive sins when she requires a subjection to her Ministry in working their cure The second That if she be not infallible in her decisions then they may be subject to the examination of every private man and being so any one may find fault with them and so away is open for the introducing as many Religions as men To which I answer first That it is one thing to clear the Truth another to answer an Objection and if I should not be able to give satisfaction to this Objection yet the Truth that I have cleared will stand firm till the contrary be proved by evident Principles of our Christianity To this I say then secondly That it 's an Objection of that absurdity that it can never rationally be used by any considering man View it but in other instances a Father may command a Son to do wickedness the Son certainly is not bound to obey him though he be to obey his Father any Son may under this pretence refuse obedience to commands just and good but to avoid this inconvenience shall it be made a necessary Truth that a Father cannot command an unlawful act Or go to a greater case All the World knows we have had a Leviathan that has pleaded that the Supream Magistrate ought to be obeyed in all his commands that the Scriptures are not Laws to a People till the Laws of the Land have made them so that the sense of them is to be interpreted by the Civil Magistrate that man may even deny Christ with his mouth so he believe in his heart at the command or compulsion of his Superior and all upon this ground because otherwise if men may pretend any Laws of God to exempt them from obedience to their King any man may use this pretence and so under a pretence of conscience all government may be destroyed unless the commands of the Supream Magistrate be allowed such as are absolutely to