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
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
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
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
Can. 14 Or that these satisfactory works are not the Worship of God but men's Traditions 4 Can. 15. Or that the Keys of the Church were not given to bind to this effect and therefore that the Priests who enjoyn these punishments use not the Keys to a right end and according to Christs institution or that it is a fiction that after the Remission of the Eternal punishment there most commonly does remain a Temporal the payment of which the Church in its exercise of the Keys ought to see to 5 Sess 6. Can. 30. Or that every fault and punishment is so wholly remitted to every Justified and Penitent man at the time of death that there remains no pain to be endured in Purgatory before an entrance is opened to him into Heaven All which Anathema's are denounced without the least warrant of Scripture rather in opposition to it And now in all this you see I have waved the charge of those abuses which are too apparent in each of these practices SECT IX Of the Sacraments COncerning Sacraments in general the Church of England Art 25. holds That they are more than badges of our Profession or than representative signs of Grace being sure witnesses and effectual signs of it by which God does invisibly work in us and seems to allow them Instruments of the Holy Ghost for it says of Baptism that thereby as by Art 27. an Instrument we are grafted into the Church of Christ Only as to that which renders them effectual to us we differ in two things for they seem to leave out that which we make absolutely necessary and on the other side make something of absolute necessity which we deny to be such The Church of England necessarily requires Faith in the receivers and the rest of those preparations which the Scriptures require in those that come unto them The Roman Church teaches that they confer Grace by vertue of the words which are pronounced and the exteriour action which is performed upon condition that we put not any impediment by not being rightly disposed But in that many of that Church have since explained themselves that when they say the Sacraments do confer Grace ex opere operato they do not mean to exclude the necessity of repentance faith and all other necessary qualifications in the receiver but only that the Sacraments have a virtue in them from Christ's institution which virtue is not barely the effect of faith in him that receives but also of the promise of Christ annext to that work this Controversie seems to be chiefly about words and their ill and offensive manner of expressing themselves for we as we require faith and other qualifications in the receiver do also in owning these Sacraments to be Christ's Institution acknowledge their virtue from that Institution though those qualifications are requisite in us to partake of their efficacy according to the Divine Promise What they on the other side require as absolutely necessary is the intention of the Priest to do what the Church intends without which the Sacrament is not effectual This is by us rejected in that since no man has assurance of securing the Priest's intention if this were absolutely necessary to produce the effect there could be no assurance of its ever coming to effect upon us We therefore say that the Sacraments being of Christ's Institution and taking effect by his promise all that preparedly come to wait on him in the Ordinances of his Church have warrant of their effect from that promise be the Minister's intention what it will As to the necessity of these Sacraments we that allow their virtue and efficacy from Christ's promise to work in us the graces of the Holy Ghost and communicate the benefits of our blessed Saviour's death cannot be thought to think them necessary or that the neglect of them in any is not the neglect of their salvation But then as to the number of them we find another difference The Church of Rome counts seven Baptism Eucharist Penance Confirmation Orders Matrimony and Extream Unction The Church of England acknowledges but two Baptism and the Eucharist Artic. 25. i. e. as ordained of Christ in the Gospel and as generally necessary to salvation the other five she counts not Sacraments of the Gospel being such as have grown partly from the corrupt following of the Apostles partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures but yet have not like nature with the other two for that they have not any visible sign ordained by God There might indeed have been an easie end put to this dispute if both sides had but considered one anothers meaning and the Church of Rome had not put so great a bar to this consideration by denouncing Anathema against all that should say the Sacraments are more or less than Seven without sufficiently explaining the difference that is really between them For the word Sacrament in the general may says our Homily be attributed to Hom. of Common Prayer and Sacraments any thing whereby an holy thing is signified but in a strict acceptation or according to the exact signification of a Sacrament it means a visible sign expresly commanded in the New Testament whereto is annext the promise of free forgiveness of sins and of our union with Christ and in this sense our Church acknowledges but two and there acquaints us with the reasons why she does not receive the other Sacraments necessary to salvation and in what manner she does receive them Absolution she owns to have the promise of forgiveness of sins yet since this promise is not by any express words in the New Testament annext to the visible sign Imposition of hands used with it she counts it not a Sacrament as the other That though there be a grace by promise annext to the exercise of it yet there is no particular visible sign of necessity to be used in it to which that promise is confined as to Water in Baptism That though Order has both a visible sign and a promise of grace yet it has not the promise of forgiveness of sins i. e. it has a promise of grace only to a particular effect not to the general effect of the Gospel That Confirmation used in examining persons in the Christian faith and joyning thereto the Prayers of the Church for them also Matrimony Visitation of the Sick are still retained by the Order of the Church and ought to be though not as properly Sacraments yet either as states of life worthy to be set forth by publick action and by the Ministry or as such Ordinances as make for the instruction comfort and edification of Christ's Church Supposing hereby undoubtedly that they want not grace to their proper effects in what the general promise of God to hear the Prayers of his Church may give them leave to hope from those Prayers that are used with them And it is not without reason that our Church maintains this distinction
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
and superstition brought in Thus they pretend their Decree for the Worship of Saints and Relicks and the use of Images according to the Tradition or received Practice of the Catholick Church in the first times and consent of Fathers and Decrees of Councils when yet M. Condom contents himself with Tradition but from the fourth Century if we would allow it him And so the Gentlemen do well to plead that we should receive a Doctrine as coming from the Apostles when it is universally received without possibility of shewing its beginning by all Christian Churches thereby to obtrude that which had no beginning in it for three hundred years Thus they Decree Indulgences to have been in use in the Church in the most ancient times when yet they could not but be sensible that the use of them was perverted to a quite different purpose from its antient end and notwithstanding their desire that they might be restored to ancient Custom yet we know the Novel is still the modern practice Thus for Purgatory the Council commands that sound Doctrine be taught concerning it from the ancient Fathers when no such thing appears either anciently or universally in the Church And yet at another time that which Christ himself hath taught and was delivered both to and from the Apostles shall not serve to make it necessary Thereupon it Decrees Sess 21. cap. 1. That though Christ instituted the Sacrament under both kinds and delivered it in both to his Apostles yet this does not bind all men to receive it in both Now then for these men to press Traditions on us when they will neither let us know what nor how many they are nor prescribe any bounds to them nor six any certain Rules to discern them by nor be obliged themselves to stand by them and under that pretence to come now fifteen hundred years after the Apostles and impose on us the single Tradition of one Church nay not only her ancient and original Traditions but Novelties foisted in to maintain her corruptions and these as we pretend repugnant to Scripture and ancient Tradition And all this to decline an indifferent Tryal by Scripture under pretence that all necessary Truths cannot be found therein without recourse to Tradition if putting on I say so fair a disguise to so fraudulent a purpose they urge this Argument that the Apostles delivered things by word of mouth which ought to be received as of any force to oblige us to receive all which they have the confidence to tell us comes from them What is it but a vain endeavour to impose on the World as if all men had lost common sense and understanding SECT XVIII Of the Authority of the Church UPon this subject M. Condom writes after so rambling and confused a manner that I must first be at the trouble to pick out what he designs to prove before the solidity of his Arguments can be examined His aim then I take to be couched in those words pag. 45. wherein he concludes from the Article of our Creed concerning the Holy Catholick Church That they oblige themselves to acknowledge an infallible and perpetual verity in the Universal Church Now herein he has neither expresly told us what this Universal Church is whether the Church of Rome alone or all other Christian Churches with it nor whether he means the Church collective the whole body of Christians or representative the Bishops in Council or the Pope where some fix this Infallibility But whereas he afterwards confounds the Catholick Church with the Trent Council which by her Decrees if we believe him has tied herself up that she cannot make herself Mistress of our Faith I conceive I may without offence determine that the verity he intends to prove is that there is an Infallibility resting somewhere in the Catholick Church of Rome To which if he would oblige us to consent it had been but reasonable to have sixt this Infallibility in something certain though at present I will not stand upon it but consider his Discourse which begins thus The Church being established by God to be the Guardian of Scripture and Tradition we receive the Canonical Scripture from her and let our Adversaries say what they will we doubt not but it is her Authority that principally determines them to Reverence as Divine Books Which first sentence is a manifest contradiction it being absolutely impossible that that which is established by God to be the Guardian of Scripture and the Traditor of it to others should be the Authority that makes it Scripture which it is before it is put into its Guardianship and certainly its being Scripture or a Writing of Divine Inspiration is that which makes them principally reverenced as Divine Books not that which tells us that they are so But then he gives us instances of Three Books especially which he conceives received upon that authority The Canticle of Canticles St. James and St. Jude Where in the first place the Gentleman does ill to joyn these together as believed or to be believed upon the same grounds the Canticle of Cantiles being long before the Christian Church the others since Therefore I must answer him distinctly Supposing then that which common sence is able to inform us that this Book called The Song of Songs is more antient than the Church of Christ and that the Church never had as she has never pretended to have any express Revelation whether this Book was written by inspiration from God as we believe the Law and the Prophets beside the credit upon which it received it from the Synagogue it 's certain that the only thing questionable is whether it was received by the Synagogue as divinely inspired if it appears to have been so received it is not any authority of the Christian Church that has made it Scripture and if the Church had pretended it Scripture without evidence of its being received from them or particular Revelation shewn in the case it would have been never the more a Divine Book nor any man obliged to receive it as such And I marvel the Gentleman should be carried so far by the spirit of Contradiction and desire to bear down his Christian brethren as to set up a Principle that betrays our common Christianity by giving notice to the World that those Scriptures of the Old Testament whereby the Church pretends to convince the Jews of the necessity of becoming Christians are not to be received for the Word of God but upon the authority of her own Decrees Then for the Epistle of James rejected by Luther and St. Jude by others nothing can be more manifest to any that will but take the pains to consider it that the Writings of the Apostles were first kept by and entrusted in the hands of those Churches to which they were sent as the Epistles to Corinth Rome Ephesus c. It is therefore reasonable to conceive those Writings so dispersed when collected into one body and submitted to by
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
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
Doctrine the explicit Belief whereof is absolutely necessary For first in respect of Knowledge the Schoolmen hold That much less is needful to be explicitly believed than what is contained in our Doctrines For whereas we entertain and embrace not only the Doctrine of the three Creeds but also sundry other Truths as appears by our Homilies and Articles they declare it needful to believe some but the whole Creed others the Nicene and Athanasian joyned with the Apostolical to make a man a compleat Believer and this although we go no further than the proper Sense of the words and have no great distinct knowledge of the Matters whereof however there is none will deny but the Church of England has a perfect understanding as also a right apprehension of them according to their true Christian Sense in which the whole Christian Catholick Church ever understood them Secondly For Practice they grant That we may obtain Salvation without undergoing such Duties as we refuse For if one worships God without an Image they do not deny this worship to be acceptable If a man pray immediately to God through Christ they will not say this Devotion is fruitless If one perform the best works he can Bellar. de Justif l. 5. c. 7. which we also require and stand not upon their Merit but only upon the Mercy of God as we do they judge it to be not only profitable but also commend it as most secure They deny not but sometimes true Contrition does obtain Pardon without Penance or the Priest's Absolution They cannot deny but Concil Trid. Sèss 13. cap. 8 that to receive Christ spiritually in the holy Sacrament is sufficient to all the Effects of it for the Council places the difference between those that receive it worthily and those that receive it to their own destruction in this that the former receive him both sacramentally and spiritually the other only sacramentally Nor I suppose will they deny that he that relies only on Christ's Sacrifice on the Cross has a sufficient expiation for Sins whilst he confides only in him whom God hath set forth to be our Propitiation Nor that we receive the Sacrament aright when we communicate in both kinds Likewise if a man believes no more than is contained in the Scriptures they confess him to believe as much as is necessary and profitable to all men And if a man submits to the Authority of the Church in all things which she acts for the maintenance of that Christianity she ought to preserve whilst she acts according to God's Word and her own Commission both given and limited by it they cannot say I presume that such aman disowns her Authority or voids Gods Ordinance or that the Church which professes herself to have no other Authority but acts according to this which is given her of and limited by the Scriptures does not do what she ought for the maintenance of Chrstianity and discharge of her Trust Again Thirdly The Doctrines which we disown were not received as Articles of Faith nor the contrary judged heretical by the Church of Rome for many hundred years after Christ For a Bellarm. l. 4 de Verbo Dei c. 11. that Church held at first by our Adversaries own confessions all things which the Apostles used to preach openly and which were necessary and profitable for all men to be contained in the Scriptures b Greg. Patriarch Alexan. Even the Popes themselves disowned the Title of Vniversal Bishop neither has that Church as yet decreed itself infallible though pretended by her Champions so to be c Bellarm. de Imag. l. 2. c. 9. Neither did they anciently worship Images or approve the Image of God to be made nor does any worship of Saints appear therein for 300 years after Christ and it grew therein by degrees and came in by custom says Bellarmine d Bellar. de Sanct. Beat. l. 1. c. 8. Wherein Purgatory for a time was not known nor for a long time after resolved which way it concerned Salvation e Bell. lib. 2. de Purgat c. 1. either in regard of the Persons thereby to be purged whether the damned justest or middle sort or in regard of the Ends and Effects which it hath whether to satisfie God's Justice by punishing Sin or to diminish and take away the Affections of Sin yet remaining by corrections and chastisements Wherein f Bell. l. 2. de Indu c. 17. Indulgences as now practised were not known nor any instance of them till a thousand years after Christ wherein Transubstantiation was not heard of till the Council of Lateran Wherein a thousand years after Christ and more the Sacrifice in the Eucharist was said g Aquin. par 3. quaest 83. art 1. to be only a Memorial and Representation of our Saviour's Sacrifice upon the Cross wherein the Cup was administred to the Laity and the Priests received not the Eutharist alone but together with the People Further It 's evident that we run no hazard neither do we venture upon any dangerous practice but walk in the safe way to salvation There is no danger in offering our Devotions to God through Christ and to him only as there is in the worship of Saints which is not only without warrant and most likely to be offensive to God but is even Idolatry if a right distinction be not always preserved which is very difficult to be preserved at all times nor in omitting the use of Images nor in having recourse to God's Providence only leaving the Reliques of Saints as is confessed to be if the use of Images seduce us to believe any divinity or vertue in them to place any trust in them or hope any thing from them Nor is there any danger in relying on Christs Merits and God's Mercy for the Remission of our sins not depending upon our own works but doing what we are able in obedience to God and after all saying we are unprofitable servants vilifying ourselves but magnifying the grace of God as there may be in trusting to our own Righteousness Nor in requiring Contrition as absolutely necessary to the Remission of sins as there is if we content our selves with less Nor whilst we reject the Adoration of the Sacrament so we offer up our souls to Christ in Heaven as may be in worshipping the Sacrament which themselves confess to be Idolatry if the opinion of Transubstantion be false Nor in not relying on the Sacrifice of the Eucharist but frequenting it as a Sacrament with due preparation nor in receiving it in both kinds according to Christ's institution as may be in supposing it beneficial when we use it not according to Christ's institution which obliges us to partake of it as a Sacrament and in withholding part of it when it does not appear that he has left any such power in the Church to minister but a part of what he commanded Nor in chusing the Scriptures for a Guide so we sincerely follow
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
Roman Doctrine obliges to worship the Sacrament not only Christ in the Sacrament as M. Meaux would here insinuate has been evidenced already from the Words of the Trent-Council and that so the generality of their Authors understand it we are sure from hence That they confess this their Adoration would be Idolatry if Transubstantiation were not true There is one peculiar Notion which M. Meaux has concerning the manner of the Efficacy of this Sacrament to wit That Jesus Christ by uniting himself to our bodies makes his Grace and his Vertue pass into our souls supposing that his flesh taken in the Sacrament becomes incorporated with ours which does both certainly vacate the necessity of our receiving this Sacrament more than once unless it can be shewn how that flesh of his which is once united to us should become disunited and also makes it impossible to give a reason why the body of Christ which according to their Doctrine is received by all alike should not be alike effectual to all His Harangue about their being content to Communicate in one kind may be easily turned upon him by demanding Ought you not to let us communicate according to our Saviour's Institution as our Saviour communicated his Disciples as the Apostles communicated the first Christians as pious Antiquity communicated for several hundred years But in that we own the Church of Rome to have been a true Church and Salvation to be had in it he presumes we are thereby obliged to own that this Sacrament is administred to its full effect in that Church tho' given only in one kind however tho' we should allow it to be the mark of a true Church that it rightly Administers the Sacraments yet there is no necessity that a defect herein must presently cause it to cease to be a Church tho' it will be indeed a corrupt one when the Ministry shall deprive the People of part of that Food that is necessary to Spiritual Life perhaps therefore it may be allowed that this Sacrament may be effectual in one kind to those that cannot obtain any more from the Church and yet the Church herself by thus depriving her Children of a part of this Sacrament may lye under the guilt of withholding the necessary means of Salvation and of voiding Christ's Institution and it will be no thanks to the Church if God may out of the greatness of his mercy supply the want by some extraordinary way of those means which the Curch unjustly withholds from her Children But says he You content your selves upon the Faith of the Church as to your Baptism in that you are not then plunged and dipt under Water which the Word Baptized doth properly signifie Whereas the Case is very different for in that of Baptism there is nothing thereby of the Essence of the Sacrament diminished which depends only upon the washing with Water not upon the quantity wherewith we are washed however the Rubrick of the Church of England requires that where the Child is able to bear it it be dipt under the Water whereas in the other a part that essentially constitutes the Sacrament is wholly taken away for as to the quantity of Wine there would certainly be no Contention These as near as I could collect them are all the material things in his Letter the rest of it either concerns not us or is only a Noise of Words made to amuse the Understandings and work on the Fancies of weaker men It is the usual way 't is true for the Romanists having neither Scripture nor Reason to alledge to cant and make a great Stir with high Words such as Catholick Church Successor of Peter Apostolick See Principal Church c. urging these as undeniable Proofs of their Churches Authority and Infallibility whereas indeed they signifie nothing though they have been prevalent with some beyond their true force But since after so perfect a view of the utmost of all they can with any colourable pretence say for themselves their Errors and Corruptions appear so great none I hope will suffer themselves to be frighted into a Subjection to them by those high Words which without the least reason they have the confidence to use and appropriate to themselves FINIS ERRATA PAg. 10. Lin. 30. dele of p. 14 l. 13. r. work p. 21. l. 12. r. England p. 24. l. 9. dele to p. 75. l. 29. r. joyned to p. 76. l. 3. r. Bond. l. 20. r. discerns p. 78. l. 32. r. determine p. 81. l. 2. r. reason of p. 86. l. 1. dele in l. 35. r. do not p. 87. l. 16. r. according to p. 98. l. 25. r. Who ever BOOKS lately Printed for Robert Kettlewell and Robert Wells at the Hand and Scepter in Fleet-street 1. THe Measures of Christian Obedience Or A Discourse shewing what Obedience is indispensably necessary to a Regenerate State and what Defects are consistent with it for the Promotion of Piety and the Peace of Troubled Consciences By John Kettlewell Vicar of Coles-Hill in Warwickshire the second Edition In Quarto Price bound 8 s. 2. An Help and Exhortation to worthy Communicating Or A Treatise describing the Meaning Worthy Reception Duty and Benefits of the Holy Sacrament and answering the Doubts of Conscience and other Reasons which most generally detain Men from it together with Suitable Devotions added By John Kettlewell Vicar of Coles-Hill in Warwickshire In Twelves price bound 3 s. 3. A Discourse Explaining the Nature of Edification Both of particular Persons in private Graces and of the Church in Unity and Peace And shewing that we must not break Unity and Publick Peace for supposed Means of better Edifying in private Virtues In a Visitation Sermon at Coventry May 7. 1684. By John Kettlewell Vicar of Coles-Hill in Warwickshire In Quarto price price 6 d. 4. A Funeral Sermon for the Right Honourable the Lady Frances Digby who deceased at Coles-Hill in Warwickshire on the 29 of Septemb. 1684. By John Kettlewell Vicar of Coles-Hill in Warwickshire In Quarto price 6 d. 5. The Religious Loyalist Or A good Christian taught how to be a Faithful Servant both to God and the King In a Visitation Sermon Preached at Coles-Hill in Warwickshire Aug. 28. 1685. At At the Triennial Visitation of my Lord's Grace of Camerbury during the Suspension of the Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry By John Kettlewell Vicar of Coles-Hill 6. A Sermon Preached at Coles-Hill in Warwickshire Jan. 24. 1685. On occasion of the Death of the Right Honourable Simon Lord Digby Baron Digby of Geashil in Ireland who deceased at Coles-Hill Jan. 19. 1685. On Heb. 6. 12. By John Kettlewell Minister of Coles-Hill in Warwickshire 7. A Journey into Greece by Sir George Wheeler in company of Dr. Spon of Lyons in six Books Containing 1. A Voyage from Venice to Constantinople 2. An Account of Constantinople and the adjacent Places 3. A Voyage through the Lesser Asia 4. A Voyage from Zant through several parts of Greece to Athens 5. An Account of Athens 6. Several Journeys from Athens into Attica Corinth Boeetia c. With Variety of Sculptures In Folio Price bound 15 s. 8. A Vindication of the Primitive Christians in Point of Obedience to their Prince against the Calumnies of a Book entituled The Life of Julian written by Ecebolius the Sophist As also The Doctrine of Passive Obedience cleared in Defence of Dr. Hicks Together with an Appendix being a more full and distinct Answer to Mr. Thomas Hunt's Preface and Postscript Unto all which is added The Life of Julian enlarged In Oct. price bound 3 s. 9. Two hundred Queries Moderately propounded concerning the Doctrine of the Revolution of Humane Souls and its Conformity to the Truths of Christianity In Octavo price bound 1 s. 6 d. 10. A Dissertation concerning the Pre-existency of Souls Wherein the state of the Question is briefly unfolded and divers Arguments and Objections on both sides alledged and answered and a free Judgment concerning the Sum of the Controversie allowed to every one Being Originally written in the Latine Tongue several years since by the Learned C. P. and now made English by D. F. D. P. upon the recommendation of F. M. H. their Friend In Twelves price 1 s. 11. The Paradoxical Discourses of F. M. Van Helmont concerning the Macrocosm and Microcosm of the Greater and Lesser World and their Union Set down in Writing by J. B. and now published In Octavo price bound 3 s. 6 d. 12. A Spelling Book for Children In Twenty fours price bound 6 d. 13. Animadversions on Dr. Burnet's History of the Rights of Princes in the Disposing of Ecclesiastical Benefices and Church Lands In a Letter to Friend In Quarto Price 3 d. 14. A Sermon Preached at the Worcester-Feast by George Walls Master of Arts and Student of Christ-Church Oxon. Quarto price priceâ—…itcht 6 d. 15. The Treasures of the Sea A Sermon preached to the Mariners by William Thompson In Quarto price stitcht 6 d. 16. A Sermon preached at the Church of St. Bridget on Easter-day being the first of April 1684. Before the Right Honourable Sir Henry Tulse May or of London By Geo. Hicks D. D. Dean of Worcester and Chaplain in ordinary of his Majesty In Quarto price stricht 6 d. 17. A good Subject Or The right Test of Religion and Loyalty In a Sermon preached July the 17th at the last Summer Assizes held at Buckingham for the County of Buckingham Before the Lord Chief Baron Mountague and Sir Richard Holloway Knight John Culling Esq High Sheriff By Lewis Afterbury D. D. 18. A Discourse on Persecution or Suffering for Christs sake Clearing the Notion of it And making a Discrimination of Just from Vnjust Pretensions to it And passionately recommending True Christian Suffering to all those who shall be call'd thereto Occasionally Representing the Folly and Sinfulness of Illegal Arbitrary Courses for the Prevention of it and the Security of our Church By John Howel A. M. Rector of Radnor Nova in the County of Radnor
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
gave a ground to the Separation Besides even in this point he that shall consider that the Doctrine of Merit ex condigno was received as the common Doctrine of the Schools and was maintained by Eckius in his Disputes against Luther and that Luther himself did not disown but that good works were acceptable to God though not meritorious nor such as could justifie a man before him and also that they were necessary and truly righteous too in some respect as appears by his Book Detriplici Justitia and disputed chiefly against that Position of the Schools which was generally maintained and shall further consider that the Council which when it came to determine these points should have examined the affinity that each side had with the Truth instead of so doing sets up a Doctrine in point of Justification in the School-terms to the prejudice of the Expressions of Scripture Language and in the point of Merit that which sufficiently countenanced the most extravagant Tenets concerning it and on the other side with one consent condemned all they could draw out of the Lutheran Doctrines upon those Subjects which seemed any way different from it without considering in what Sense their Words might be true nor how far they might agree with Truth and that immediately after the old Doctrine of the Schools was maintained as the Sense of the Council whoso considers this will see sufficient grounds to think the Reformers did not charge their Doctrine with any greater Impiety than what they had just cause to conceive therein And if we partly through Tract of Time lessening and abating that heat which in Disputes causes men to oversee the favourable construction that may be put upon Matters whilst they set themselves to oppose the opposite Extream they see maintained against them and partly through their abating those Expressions which they have discerned injurious to God's Grace and expressing themselves now more reservedly may now perceive that something of the Doctrine desined by the Council is not so destructive of the Faith if taken with a candid interpretation as it was at first supposed yet this must not oblige us to consent where such Construction will not reconcile it to Truth nor to submit to what is dangerous and by experience prejudicial to the Faith for this reason that it does not absolutely destroy it Nor if the Differences in this point appear not so material as they have been thought is there any reason to presume so much in other Points before they are as seriously considered We must and ought to overcome our prejudices but withall must use our Judgments in discerning whether Prejudice or Truth possess us nor must we hold the Spirit of Contention but yet may hold our Reason and consult with the Spirit of Truth and Wisdom SECT VIII Of Satisfactions Purgatory Indulgences IN Treating of these M. Condom explicates to us the Ground upon which their Doctrines in these points are founded to be this That Christ having made full Satisfaction for our sins may apply this Satisfaction to us so fully as by an entire submission to free us from all punishment or so as to remit only eternal punishment leaving us subject to a temporal That after the first manner he applies it to us in Baptism but in the second to those who fall into Sin afterwards That hereupon the Church taking Cognizance of the Offences of its Members when she remits the guilt imposes revertheless upon Sinners certain painful and laborious works as punishments necessary to be undergon in Satisfaction to the Divine Justice which they therefore call Satisfactions That nevertheless out of regard to the favour of the Penitents or some other good works prescribed them she many times remits part of those pains and this Remission is called Indulgence That God having reserved this Debt of temporal punishment those who die indebted to the Divine Justice some pains which it reserved are to suffer them in the other Life for whose relief the Church does further think fit to tender God such Services in their behalf as being acceptable to him may mitigate his wrath towards them Now as to this though it be indeed true that God might if he had seen fit have reserved a debt of temporal punishment after his remission of the eternal yet that he has so is a presumption that has no warrant from Scripture For though God may inflict what punishment he thinks fit on Sinners in this Life as eternal in that to come yet we are assured that the Afflictions of his Children that are restored to a state of God's Grace are the Chastisements of his Love and not the Inflictions of Wrath or Justice So that to hold it for a necessary Truth that God does not so remit the Sins of such as fall after Baptism but that he leaves them to suffer a temporal punishment from his Justice and that such as have not satisfied it here are liable to those Sufferings after Death in a state they must pass before they arrive to Heaven is a vain and groundless Presumption It avails nothing to say that our Sins after Baptism are the effects of great Ingratitude to God This might indeed make the Glory of God appear had he declared that he would deal with Vs after this manner but it can never shew us that he does when himself offers us a free Remission 1 John 1. 9 10. Our Ingratitude indeed does make our Repentance a Work of greater difficulty necessarily causeth greater Humiliation in the Soul that is sensible of its abuse of so great a goodness and greater Mortification to change its self from Sin to God but that a true Repentance shall not obtain a total Remission of these as well as other sins we are no where discouraged to hope To say it is just that God might have reserved a temporal punishment to be endured by us may be tolerable but to say it is beneficial to our Salvation that he should have done so that we may not abuse the facility of a Pardon is to prescribe God Methods as beneficial which it does not appear that he has used for that end St. Paul shunned not upon the prospect of such abuse to declare the free Grace of Christ abundant to the pardon of many Transgressions and thinks he had done as much as need be to prevent the abuse when he replies What shall we say then shall we continue in Sin that Grace may abound God forbid Rom. 6. Their Tenets then in these points being grounded on a false foundation the Penances imposed by the Church in the first Ages of Christianity and the relaxations of the same can be no way pleaded by them who have assigned them to purposes quite different from the ends they are established to serve by our common Christianity For it 's beyond dispute with all that know any thing of the exercises of the Churches Power in binding and loosing mens sins in the first Ages of it that Penances had no
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
Institution of our Lord who blessed Bread and Wine for this only purpose that we might take eat and drink and thereby partake of his Body and Blood in that it not only lays aside the End of his Institution but sets up a new Action of a greater value as is pretended in that also whilst it pretends to apply the Benefits of Christ's Death by this new means it takes off the necessity of using that of our Saviour's own appointment and occasions men to be wholly careless of it when hereby they are warranted to partake of all his Benefits and incur not the danger they would if they should come to partake of the Sacrament with impenitent hearts in that likewise it pretends this Sacrifice propitiatory for men after Death thereby in a great measure voiding the necessity of a Christian Life especially considering that Doctrine which is commonly taught in that Church that this Sacrifice avails ex opere operato that all the Benefits of Christ are derived upon the People by the very external Work done the people not being concerned in or assisting to the Sacrifice either in their Prayers or participation and withal their practice of sacrificing for any whatever dying within their Communion to free them from the pains of Purgatory SECT XI Of his Reflections BY the Grounds then upon which I have proceeded I am little concerned with the Explication he gives of the Epistle to the Hebrews to shew that their Doctrine of the Sacrifice ascribing all the virtue wholly to the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross does not impeach or prejudice its efficacy which the Apostle there pleads Which if it were granted as that it cannot well be for that they have set up a Sacrifice which shall make God more propitious to us than the Sacrament which does possess us of all the Benefits of Christ's Death yet this could no way justifie them in setting up a Sacrifice representative of Christ's Death to Effects which he had not appointed pretending thereby to make application of his Sacrifice on the Cross which he has not warranted them to apply by such means and to such persons also as they cannot from Scripture warrant it beneficial to However notwithstanding M. Condom seems to remove all Equivocation in the Word Offer he either still uses it equivocally or expresses not the Sense of those of his Communion for Bellarmine places not the Sacrifice only in presenting to God Christ crucified but in destroying the Elements that were there before and making Christ present under their Species as dead on the Cross And the Catechism favours this Sense when it says The Priests that sacrifice act not in their own persons but in the person of Christ when they make to be present his Body and Blood So that if we consider this especially if joyned with the Doctrine of Eckius that those Representations which the Church makes of Christ as dead by making his Body as such to appear before God and his Blood as separate from it by these Ceremonies that are used in this Action are the things that constitute the Sacrifice Against whom Chemnitius disputes so largely from this Epistle to the Hebrews If this be considered it will be evident that in this Epistle was not made use of to such impertinent purpose against them as this Gentleman pretends In his Reflections there is little material for me to consider the Grounds of all their Doctrine being overthrown But because he presses it so earnestly I must take notice of the main thing in it Here then he would first perswade us that the main difference between us is that of the Real Presence This we indeed allow That their Error in this Point is the Foundation of the Doctrines they build upon it but this makes it not necessary that their consequent Doctrines and Practices shall not be judged more prejudicial to Christianity than their first Error There scarce ever was a Heresie but pretended to deduce all its Errors from some Doctrine that had appearance of Truth and that did not in itself expresly contradict or prejudice the Faith though by the progression they drew from it the whole Faith has been subverted But then he farther argues That the Real Presence is owned by the Lutherans though they consider not the consequences of it That the Calvinists themselves have declared the Lutheran Doctrine to have no poyson in it and that it does not subvert the Foundations of Faith That further some Calvinists have said that the Catholicks reason better and more consequently than the Lutherans whence he concludes It is an established Truth that the Roman Doctrine in this point contains nothing but the Doctrine of the Real Presence rightly understood An Inference that has not the least coherence with the Premises Can any man of Sense allow this a rational Argument The Lutherans hold a Real Presence the Calvinists say There is no Poyson in their Doctrine The Lutherans admit not such Consequences as we do the Calvinists say we reason better than the Lutherans therefore it is an established Truth that our Doctrine contains nothing but the Real Presence rightly understood But to answer it so far as it may seem any way to give him an advantage The Lutherans do indeed hold a Real Presence in a Sense different from that I have explained but then they do no obtrude their Sense upon others as a necessary condition of Communion so that we may communicate with them without professing their error nor do they hold such a Local Presence as the Church of Rome nor does their Opinion lead them to the Worship of any Creature nor do they acknowledge any Presence of Christ therein but only in the act and to the end of his Institution of this Sacrament and if this has led some to a Declaration that the Lutheran Opinion does not subvert the foundation of Faith upon this account that it proceeds not to any further Effects destructive of it shall this be taken for an acknowledgment that the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which obliges to such practices upon it as are inconsistent with the Faith is not such as ought to break communion with her And suppose it to have been said that the Catholicks reason better and more consequently than the Lutherans if it has been said by any of those that allowed Communion with the Lutherans it 's manifest that when they said so they did not think but that the Roman Doctrine was much more inconsistent with Christianity And that the World may see it is so I shall transcribe the difference which a Lutheran gives us between the Adoration they tender Christ in the Eucharist and that which is given by the Church of Rome He places the difference chiefly in two Particulars First that the Church of Rome requires that the Sacrament Gerhard Loc. Com De sacra Caena de Vener it self or all that which according our Lord's Institution we receive should be adored with the honour due
to be one It 's evident therefore that St Cyprian did not hereby intend to acknowledg St. Peter to be the Head of the rest of the Apostles or that they derived their Authority from him since he says That they had an equal Power and Authority given them by Christ His meaning then can be only this that to evidence the necessity of Unity in the Church our Saviour gave that Authority first to Peter single which he afterwards gave to all together to shew them that they ought in their several functions to aim all at the same thing the Vnity of his Church He says indeed that Episcopacy is one but he adds what M. Meaux thought best for his Cujus à singulis in solidum Pars tenetur Ibid. purpose to leave out Whereof every one holds a part with full and ample Power He says likewise Adulterari non potest sponsa Christi incorrupta est Pudica but he does not say it for any such reason as this Gentleman pretends lest we should imagine some cases might happen in which it might be lawful to separate from the Church or reform her Doctrine as thought it were impossible for a Church to fall into error or to have need of being reformed The coherence of the Discourse makes them bear a different meaning viz. That the true Spouse of Christ cannot admit this Vnity to be interrupted will not be corrupted to division This Father further says That he that separates himself from the Church has no part in Christs promises c. We readily affirm the same of such as do it without a cause But no advantage can be hence taken against us 'till M. Meaux has first proved that the Church of Rome is this only true Church of Christ He would have gained a great point indeed if we were obliged to take it for granted that the Roman is this only true Church of Christ and if the true Church was not to be sought and known by an examination of her Doctrines and their consistency with the Faith But he grosly abuses this good Father when he would persuade us that St. Cyprian would not suffer men to enquire after the true Church by examining her Doctrine but to know her first and then believe we cannot have salvation out of her For so far as I can observe he does not give the least intimation of any such thing in his Book De unitate Ecclesiae And if he should I see no reason that any have to subscribe to him when indeed the Church being a Society professing the Faith of Christ and subsisting for the maintenance of it there can be no means of knowing which is that Church but by knowing first the Faith of Christ and also that this Church professes and holds the same But I need not dispute about that for which he falsly pretends this Authority It 's true in this Book De Vnitate St. Cyprian only urges the Unity of the Church and the Crime of those that break it but there would be no reason to look upon his Arguments so strong if the Church he defends had done any thing to the prejudice of the Faith and therefore in other places he defends the cause of the Church in this case by the righteousness of it by proofs from Scripture of the innocency and lawfulness of that which was imputed to her as a Crime And therefore I most of all admire that he could have the face to abuse those other words of St. Cyprian in his Epistle to Antonian to so false an intent as if he had used them to forbid an enquiry after mens Doctrine and to oblige us to submit to that which the Church holds without enquiry Whereas not only the case St. Cyprian writes upon is utterly different but even the method he takes in this very Epistle to satisfie Antonian and the connection of his Discourse shew his sense to be as different from what M. Meaux would impose on us as possibly can be For in the beginning of the Epistle he tells him That his careful and Epist 51. ad Anton. solicitous enquiry after the truth was not to be blamed tho' he was in part blamable in that he wavered in the Resolution he had first taken and certified him and Cornelius of that he would not communicate with Novatian After which he proceeds to give him an account of the cause of the Church upon what account they admitted lapsed persons to the Communion which was charged as a crime on the Church by Novatian relating the matter of fact the reasons of it and its consistency with Christian Discipline proving it out of the holy Scriptures Then he further gives account of the Election of Cornelius to the Bishoprick of Rome of his Manners and Life and purges him from the scandal his Adversaries had thrown upon him And then indeed he says As for that which concerns the person of Novatian since you desire to be informed what Heresie he has introduced you must know before all things that we need not curiously enquire what he has taught since he hath taught out of the Church who or what soever he be he can be no Christian being out of the Church of Christ. But in the following words he gives the reason of it because he had broke the Vnity of the Church by ambitiously aspiring to the Bishoprick and getting himself made Bishop by some deserters and to make a greater party setting up several other salse Bishops in those Provinces and Cities wherein were already seated Bishops of an approved Faith and tried Constancy Whereupon he indeed says It was no matter whether Novatian introduced any Heresie or not solong as he was the Author of so great a Schism Whereby it appears that he is far from supposing what M. Meaux pretends he only telling Antonian That it was no matter what Doctrine Novatian taught because he had shewn himself unchristian by breaking the Vnity of the Church and making a Schism without cause So that the case supposed is that of man breaking the Unity of the Church be his Doctrine what it will tho' the same which the Church teaches not a case wherein the Church needs a Reformation and the adverse party has Truth and Scripture of his side as it must have been to be applicable to the Church of Rome and the Reformed It 's true St. Cyprian likewise says The promise of our blessed Saviour to be in the midst where two or three are gathered together supposes them assembled in Christ which he thinks they cannot be whilst they are seperate from the Church of Christ But this is begging the Question to use this against us till it appears that the Church of Rome is the only True Church of Christ But M. Meanx says The Church of which this holy Martyr speaks is that which acknowledges at Rome the head of her Communion and in the Place of Peter the eminent degree of the Sacerdotal Chair which there acknowledges the Chair
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