Evidence of those places of Scripture from which they deduced them 5. Since those of that Communion object a National Synod to the Protestants this may be turned back on them with greater advantage in some points established by Councils which they esteem not only General but Infallible In the Third Council of the Lateran it was decreed That all Princes who favoured Hereticks did forfeit their Rights and a Plenary Indulgence was granted to all that fought against them In the Fourth Council at the same place it was decreed That the Pope might not only declare this forfeiture but absolve the Subjects from their Oaths of Obedience and transfer their Dominions upon others In the First Council at Lions they joyned with the Pope in thundring the Sentence of Deposition against the Emperour Frederick the First which in the preamble is grounded on some places of Scripture of which if they were the Infallible Expositors then this power is an Article of Faith And in the last pâ—ace the Council of Constance decreed That the Faith of a Safe-Conduct was not to be kept to an Heretick that had come to the place of Judgement relying on it even though he would not have come without it When Crueltâ— Rebellion and Treachery were thus decreed in Courts which among them are of so sacred an authority It is visible how much greâ—ter advantages we have of them in this point than any they can pretend against us 6. For the Synod of Dort I will not undertake the Apology neither for their Decrees nor for their Assertions and will not stick to say that how true soever many of their Conclusions may be yet the defining such mysterious matters as the order of the Divine Decrees and the Influences of Gods Grace on the wills of men in so positive a manner and the imposing their Assertions on all the Ministers of their Communion was that which many as sincere Protestants as any are have ever disliked and condemned as a weakening the Union of the Protestant Church and an assuming too much of that authority which we condemn in the Church of Rome For though they supposed that they made their definitions upon the grounds of Scripture so that in this sense the authority of the Synod was meerly Declarative yet the question will still recur Whether they understood the passages which they built on right or not And if they understood them wrong then according to Protestant principles their Decrees had no such binding authority that the receding from them could make one guilty either of Heresie or Schism The Sixth Method IS to shew them that the Roman Church or that Church which acknowledges the Pope or the Bishop of Rome the Successor of S. Peter to be her Head all the World over is the true Church Because there is no other besides her that has that undoubted mark which is a perpetâ—al Visibility without Interruption since Christ's time to this day This is a Method common to all the Catholicks and is very well and briefly set forth in the little Treatise of the true Church joyned to that of the Peaceable Method This is that of which S. Austin makes most frequent use against the Donatists and chiefly in his Book of the Vnity of the Church and in his Epistles of which the most remarkable passages relating to this matter are gathered together by the late Arch-bishop of Rouen in the first Book of his Apology for the Gospel in which he handles this matter excellently well One may add to this Method the Maxims of which Tertullian makes use in his Treatise of Prescriptions against the Hereticks and also Vincentius Lyrinensis in his Advices It is enough to say on this occasion that those two Treatises may satisfie any that will read them without prepossession in order to their forming a just Iudgement of the true Church of Iesus Christ and of all those Societies that would usurp that name Remarks THis Method is so common that there was no reason in any sort to give Mr. Maimbourg the honour of it unless it was that the Assembly intended to do him this publick honour to ballance his disgrace at Rome But let us examine it 1. This asserts that no other Church has a perpetual Succession without interruption but that which derives it from Rome which is so contrary to what every one knows that Mr. Maimbourg was certainly inspired with the Spirit of his Order when he writ it Do not all the Greek Churches and all the Churches that have their Ordination from them all from the Northern Empire of Muscovy to the Southern of the Abassines together with all those in the East derive from the Apostles by an uninterrupted series For till the Authority of the Church of Rome is proved which is the thing in question their being declared Schismaticks or Hereticks by it does not interrupt this Succession 2. The Church of England has the same Succession that the Church of Rome had in Gregory the Great 's time to wave the more ancient pretensions of the Brittish Churches and the Bishops of this Church being bound by one of their Sponsions made at their Consecration according to the Roman Pontifical to instruct their flock in the true Faith according to the Scriptures they were obliged to make good this promise Nor can it be pretended that they have thereupon forfeited their Orders and by consequence their Succession 3. The Succession of the Church of Rome cannot be said to be uninterrupted if either Heresie or Schism can cut it off It is well known that Felix Liberius and Honorius to name no more were Hereticks and if Ordinations by Schismaticks or unlawful Usurpers be to be annulled which was judged in the case of Photius and was often practised at Rome then the many Schisms and unjust usurpations that have been in that See will make the Succession of their Orders the most disputable thing that can be especially during that Schism that lasted almost forty years all the Churches of that Communion having derived their Orders from one or other of the Popes and if the Popes at Avignon were the Usurpers then let the Gallican Churches see how they can justifie the series of their Ordinations To all which may be added the impossibility of proving a true Succession in Orders if the Vertue of the Sacraments depends on the Intention of him who officiates since secret Intentions are only known to God 4. The ground on which the Donatists separated from the Orthodox Churches being at first founded on a matter of Fact which was of the pretended Irregularity of those who ordained Cecilian which they afterwards defended upon this that the Church could be only composed of good men and that the Sacraments were of no Vertue when dispensed by ill hands all that S. Austin says is to be governed by this Hypothesis against which he argues And it being once granted that the Church was not corrupted neither in Doctrine nor Worship we are very ready
guilty of which is to worship that as a God which we do believe is only a piece of Bread 2. In this very Article it is plain that our Opinion is the surer side For as to the Spiritual efficacy of the Sacrament and due preparation for it which is all that we hold concerning it by their own Confession there can be no sin in that whereas if their opinion is false they are guilty of a most horrid Idolatry So there is no danger in any thing we do whereas there may be great danger on their side all the danger that is possible to be on our side is that we do not adore Christ if he is present which may be thought to be want of Reverence But that cannot be reasonably urged since we at the same time adore him believing him to be in Heaven and if this objection against us had any force then the Primitive Church for twelve hundred years must have been in a state of damnation for none of them adored the Consecrated Elements nor has the Greek Church ever done it 3. It is clear this general Maxime of taking the surer sidâ— is against them There is no sin in not worshipping Images whereas there may be a sin in doing it They confess it is not necessary to invocate the Saints and we believe it is sinful They do not hold that it is necessary to say Masses for redeeming Souls out of Purgatory and we believe that it is an impious profanation of the Sacrament They do not hold it is necessary to take away the Cup in the Sacrament we think it Sacrilegious They do not think those Consecrations by which Divine Vertues are derived into such a variety of things to be necessary we look on them as gross Superstitions They do not think the Worship in an unknown tongue necessary whereas we think it a disgrace to Religion So in all these and many more particulars it is clear that we are of the surer side 4. We own that Maxime That nothing is necessary to Salvation but what is plainly set down in the Scriptures but this is not to be carried so far as that it should be impossible by sophistry or the equivocal use of words to fasten some other sense to such passages in Scripture for then nothing can be said to be plain in any Book whatsoever But we understand this of the genuine meaning of the Scriptures such as a plain well-disposed man will find out if his mind is not strongly prepossessed or biassed with false and wrong measures 5. The Confidence with which any party proposes their opinions cannot be a true Standart to judge of them otherwise the Receipts of Mountebanks will be always preferred to those prescribed by good Physicians and indeed the modesty of one side and the confidence of the other ought rather to give us a biass for the one against the other especially if it is visible that Interest is very prevalent in the confident party The Third Method IS to confer amicably with them and to shew them our Articles in the Scriptures and Tradition as the Fathers of tbe first Ages understood both the one and the other without engaging in reasonings or the drawing out of Consequences by Syllogisms as Cardinal Bellarmin and Perron and Gretser and the other Writers of Controversie have done which ordinarily beget endless disputes It was in this manner that the General Councils did proceed and thus did S. Austin prove Original sin against Julian To this end says he O Julian that I may overthrow thy Engines and Artifices by the opinions of those Bishops who have interpreted the Scripture with so much glory After which he cites the passages of the Scripture as they were understood by S. Ambrose S. Cyprian S. Gregory Nazianzene and others Remarks 1. WE do not deny but amicable Conferences in which matters are proposed without the wranglings of Dispute are the likeliest ways to convince people And whenever they shew us their doctrines directly in the Scripture and Tradition we will be very unreasonable if we do not yield upon that Evidence When they give us good authorities from Scripture and Tradition for the Worship of Images and Saints for adoring the Host for dividing the Sacrament for redeeming Souls out of Purgatory for denying the people the free use of the Scriptures for obliging them to worship God in a Tongue not understood by them we will confess our selves very obstinate men if we resist such Conviction 2. The shewing barely some passages without considering the whole scope of them with the sense in which such words were used in such ages and by such Fathers will certainly misguide us therefore all these must be also taken in for making this Enquiry exactly Allowances also must be made for the heats of Eloquence in Sermons or warm Discourses since one passage strictly and philosophically expressed is stronger than a hundred in which the heat of Zeal and the Figures of Rhetorick transport the Writer And thus if the Fathers disputing against those who said that the Humane Nature of Christ was swallowed up by his Divine Nature urge this to prove that the Humane Nature did still subsist that in the Sacrament after the Consecration in which there is an Union between the Elements and the Body and Blood of Christ they do still retain their proper nature and substance such expressions used on such a design leâ—d us more infallibly to know what they thought in this matter than any thing that they said with design only to beget Reverence and Devotion can do 3. The Ancient Councils were not so sollicitous as this Paper would insinuate to prove a Tradition from the Fathers of the first Ages They took great care to prove the truth which they decreed by many arguments from Scripture but for the Tradition they thought it enough to shew that they did innovate in nothing and that some Fathers before them had taught what they decreed We have not the acts of the two first General Councils but we may very probably gather upon what grounds those at Nice proceeded by what S. Athanasius wrote as an Apology for their Symbol in particular for the word Consubstantial which he proves by many consequences drawn from Scripture but for the Tradition of it he only cites four Fathers and none of those were very ancient They are Theognistus Denis of Alexandria Denis of Rome and Origen and yet both that Father Hilary and S. Basil acknowledge that Denis of Alexandria wavered much in that matter and it is well known what advantages were taken from many of Origen's expressions So here we have only two undisputed Fathers that conveyed this Tradition We have the Acts of the third General Council yet preserved and in them we find a Tradition indeed alledged but except S. Cyprian and S. Peter of Alexandria they cite none but those that had lived after the Council of Nice and Pope Leo's Letter to Flavian
to which the Council of Chalcedon assented is an entire contexture of authorities drawn from Scripture without so much as any one citation of any Father It is true there is added to the end of that Letter a Collection of some sayings of six Fathers Hilary Ambrose Nazianzene Chrysostome Austin and Cyril who had all except one lived within sixty years or a little more of that time So it is certain they founded their Faith only on the Scripture and not on Tradition otherwise they had taken more pains to have made it out and had not been so easily satisfied with what a few late Writers had said And thus it may be presumed that all the end for which they cited them was only to shew that they did not broach new and unheard of opinions And S. Austin could noâ— think that S. Cyprian's opinion alâ—ne was a sufficient proof of the Doctrine of the first three Centuries for Original Sin and yet he citeâ— no other that lived in those Ages Noâ— could S. Ambrose and Nazianzene that had lived in his own time be cited tâ— prove the Tradition of former Ages And whereas it is insinuated that he cited others one would expect to finâ— a Catalogue of many other Fatherâ— wrapt up in this plural whereas alâ— resolves into Hilary alone And we have a more evident Indication of S. Austin's sense as to the laâ—t resort in matters of Controversie than this they offer in that celebrated saying of his when he was writing against Maximinus the Arian Bishop But neither may I make use of the Nicene Council nor you that of Arimini as that which ought to pre-judge us in this matter for neither am I held by the authority of the one nor you by the authority of the other Let the one side and cause and their reasons be brought against the other from the authorities of the Scriptures that do not belong to either side but are Witnesses common to both The Fourth Method IS to tell them that their Ministers can never do this nor shew in the Scriptures any of their Articles that are controverted and this is very true For example they can never bring any formal Text to prove that Original Sin remains as to the guilt of it after Baptism that we receive the Body of Iesus Christ only by Faith that after the Consecration the Sacrament is still Bread that there is no Purgatory and that we do not merit any thing by our good works And to this it may be added that among all those passages that are on the Margent of their Confession there is not one that says that which they cite it for either in express or equivalent terms or in the same sense This is the Method of Mr. Veron which he took from S. Austin who says to the Manichaeans Shew me that that is in the Scripture and in another place Let him shew me that that is to be found in the Holy Scripture We must then boldly tell them That they cannot prove any of their Articles that are in dispute nor dispute against any of ours by any passages of Scripture neither in express terms nor by sufficient consequences so as to make their Doctrine be received as the Faith and ours pass for Errour Remarks THe first part of this Article proceeds upon Veron's Method of putting us to prove our Doctrines by express words of Scripture but some more cautious person has added in the conclusion a Salvo for good consequences drawn from them upon which we yield that this is a very good Method and are ready to joyn issue upon it If they intend still to build upon that notion of express words we desire it may be considered that the true meaning of all passages is not to be taken only from the bare words but from the contexture of the Discourse and the design upon which they are made use of and that Rule of Logick being infallibly true That what things soever agree in any third thing they do also agree among themselves it is certain that a true consequence is as good a proof as a formal passage Thus did our Saviour prove the Resurrection from the Scriptures by a very remote consequence since God was said to be the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob and was the God of the Living and not of the Dead So did the Apostles prove Christ's being the promised Messias and the obligation to observe the Mosaical Ceremonies to have ceased upon his coming by many consequences but not by the express words of Scripture All the arguings of the Fathers against the Heretiâ—ks run on Consequences drawn from Scripture as may appear in all their Synodical Letters more particularly in that formerly cited of Pope Leo to Flavian to which the Fourth General Council assented This Plea does very ill become men that pretend such reverence to Antiquity since it was that upon which all the Ancient Hereticks set up their strength as the most plausible pretence by which they thought they could cover themselves So the Arians at Arimini give this reason for rejecting the word Consubstantial because it was not in the Scriptures The Macedonians laid hold of the same pretence Nestorâ—us gives this as his chief reason for denying the Virgin to be the Mother of God And Eutyches covered himself also with this question In what Scripture were the two Natures of Christ to be found And his followers did afterwards insist so much on this Plea that Theodoret wrote two large Discourses on purpose to shew the weakness of this pretence So that after all the noise they make about the Primitive Church they follow the same tract in which the Hereticks that were condemned by the first four General Councils went and they put us to do the same thing that the Hereticks then put on the Orthodox But we make the same answer to it which the Fathers did That the sense of the Scriptures is to be considered more than the words So that what is according to the true sense is as much proved by Scripture as if it were contained in it in so many express words And yet this Plea had a much greater strength in it as it was managed by those Hereticks for those contests being concerning mysteries which exceed our apprehensions it was not an unreasonable thing at first view to say that in such things which we cannot perfectly comprehend it is not safe to proceed by deductions or consequences and therefore it seemed safer to hold strictly to Scripture Phrases but in other points into which our understandings can carry us further it is much more absurd to exact of us express words of Scripture 2. Most of the points about which we dispute with the Church of Româ— are additions made by them to the simplicity of the Christian Religion So much as we own of the Christian Religion they own likewise In the other particulars our Doctrine with relation to them is made up of Negatives
and theirs is the affirmative and since all Negatives especially in matters of Religion prove themselves it falls to their share to prove those Additions which they have made to our Faith and to the Doctrine contained in the Scriptures 3. Though this is a sure Maxime yet our Plea is stronger for there are many things taught by them against the express words of Scripture as their worshipping Images their noâ— drinking all of the Cup their worshipping of Angels their not worshipping God in a tongue which the unlearned understand and to which they can say Amen their setting up more Mediatoâ—â— between God and us than one Whereas S. Paul exhorting us to make Prayerâ— to God tells us there is one Mâ—diâ—tor which shews that he spake there his single Intercession with God on our behalf 4. We do not only build our Doctrine upon some few passages of the Scripture in which perhaps a Critical Writer might easily raise much dust but upon that in which we cannot be so easily mistaken which is the main scope of the whole New Testament and the design of Christianity which we believe is reversed in their Church by the Idolatry and Superstition that is in it 5. As for the particulars which they call on us to prove as they are very few so scarce any of them is of the greatest consequence The first is a speculative point about which we would never have broke Communion with them For the second that we receive Christ only by Faith if the third is true that the Sacrament is still Bread then that must be also true Now S. Paul calls it so four several times as also our Saviour calls the Cup the Fruit of the Vine As for our denying Purgatory it is a Negative and they must prove it Nor should we have broken Communion for their opinion concerning it if they had not added to that the redeeming Souls out of it with Masses by which the Worship is corrupted contrary to the institution of the Sacrament And for the last in the sense in which many of them assert it we do not raise any Controversie about it for we know that God rewards our good works or rather crowns his own Grace in us The fifth Method IS the Peaceable Method and without dispute founded on the Synod of Dort which all the pretended Reformed Churches of France have received and which has defined according to the Holy Scripture that when there is a dispute concerning any Controverted Article between two parties that are both within the true Church it is necessary to refer it to the judgement of the Synod and that he who refuses to submit himself becomes guilty of Heresiâ— and Schism Now if we will run back to the time in which the dispute began concerning any Article for instance that of the Real Presence both the parties in thâ— debate as well the Ancestors of those of the P. R. Religion as ours were in thâ— same Church which was the true Church for there was no other before the Sâ—paration which was not then made Then their Ancestors who would not submit to the Iudgement of the Church and have separated from her on no other account but because she had condemned their sentiments were Schismaticks and Hereticks And those who at this day succeed them are in the same manner guilty since they follow their opinions And to this they can make no other Answer but that which the Hereticks that have been condemned in all Ages might have made This Method is proved in all its parts in the little Treatise that has been made about it Remarks IT is not unwisely done to call this a Method that is to pass without dispute for it will not bear one And 1. There is this difference between the principles of Protestants and those of the Church of Rome that whereas the latter are bound to justifie whatever has been decreed in a General Council as a rule either of Faith or Manners the sormer are not so tied and much less are they bound by the decision of a National Council though never so solemn It is natural for all Judicatories to raise their own authority as high as they can and so if any Synod has made any such Declaration it lies on them to justifie it but the rest of those who have separated from the corruptions of the Church of Rome are not concerned in it 2. The principle of Protestants with relation to the majority even in a General Council is That when any Doctrines are established or condemned upon the Authorities of the Scriptures those who differ from them and do think â—hat the Council misunderstood the Scriptures are bound to suspect themselves a little and to review the matter with greater application and not to adhere to their former opinions out of pride or obstinacy They are also bound to consider well of their opinions though they appear still to be true yet if â—hey are of that importance that the publishing them is necessary to Salvation for unless it is so the Peace of the Church is not to be rent by them Yet if they are required to profess that they believe opinions which they think false if tâ—ey were never so inconsiderable no man ought to go against his Conscience But if a man after his strictest enquiries is still persuaded that a Council has decreed against the true meaning of the Scriptures in a point necessary to Salvation then he must prefer God to Man and follow the sounder though it should prove to be the much lesser party And if any Company or Synod of Protestants have decreed any thing contrary to this in so far they have departed from the Protestant principles 3. Difference is to be made also between Heresie and Schism in a Legal and a Vulgar sense and what is truly such in the sight of God The Sentence of a Supream Court from which there lies no Appeal makes one legally a Criminal But if he is innocent he is not the less innocent because a hard Sentence is past against him So Heresie and â—chism may take their denominations from the Sentence of a National or General Council But in that which is the sense of those words that makes them Criminal Heresie is nothing but an obstinate persisting in errours contrary to Divine Revelation after one has had a sufficient means of Inâ—truction and Schism is an ill grounded Separation from the Body of the Church So it must be the Divine Revelation and not the authority of a Synod that can prove one who holds contrary opinions to be an Heretick and the grounds of the Separation must be likewise examined before one can be concluded a Schismatick 4. Though the Conclusions and Definitions made by the Synod of Dort are perhaps generally received in France yet that does not bind them up to subscribe every thing that was asserted in that Synod Nor do they found their assent to those opinions on the authority of that Synod but upon the
who are the Chief Confessors in that Communion has been corrupted of late we may learn from what has been published by many among themselves particularly by their late Address to the present Pope and by the Articles condemned both by Pope Alexander the Seventh and by the Pope that now reigns But yet how faint those censures are every one that has read them must needs observe This is not all The dissolving of Oaths and Vows the dispensing with many of the Laws of God the authorizing Subjects to shake off their Princes yoke if he does not extirpate Heresie and Hereticks the butcheries of those they call Hereticks and that after Faith given to the contrary having been for some Ages the publick practices of the Court of Rome in which several General Councils have also concurred with them are things both of such a nature and have been so openly avowed as well as practised in that Church that this argument from the corruption of their Morals may be well fastened on their whole Church If likewise many opinions are received among them which do naturally tend to slacken the strictness of holiness and give the World more mild Ideas of sin and make the way to the favour of God accessible even without a real Reformation then there will be more weight in this argument than may at first view appear The belief of the Sacraments conferring Grace ex opere operato the Vertue of Indulgences the Priestly Absolution the Communication of Merits the Vertue supposed to be in some Pilgrimages in Images and Priviledged Altars in Fraternities and many consecrated things together with the after-game of Purgatory and of Redemption out of it by Masses these with many more devices are such contrivances for enervating the true force of Religion and have such effects on the lives of men who generally are too easie to hearken to any thing that may make them hope well while they live ill that when we complain of a great dissolution of mens Morals that live under the influences of that Religion this charge is not personal but falls on their Church in common In the next place that vast corruption of Ecclesiastical Discipline and of all the Primitive Rules occasioned chiefly by the exorbitant power the Popes have assumed of dispensing with all Laws the gross sale of such Graces at Rome the Intrigues in the Creation of the Popes themselves the universal neglect of the Pastoral care among the superiour Orders of the Clergy do give men just and deep prejudices against a Church so corrupt in her ruling Members and do raise great dislike of that extent of Authority which the Bishops of Rome have assumed that have cut all the Banks and let in such an inundation of ill practices on the World And if once in an Age or two a Pope of another temper of better Morals and greater strictness arises we are notwithstanding that to judge of things not upon rare and single instances but upon their more ordinary and natural effects Thus laying all these things together it will appear that our exceptions to that Church upon the account of their Morals is not so slight as the Penner of that Letter has represented it and that his Instances for living among ill men have no relation to this matter But this is the weakest Plea we have for our Separation and as strong soever as it may be in it self we build upon solider foundations In order to the opening this I shall premise a little of the true end and design of Religion which is to beget in us so deep a sense of the Divine nature and perfections aâ— may most effectually engage us to become truly Holy There are two Inclinations in the nature of men that dispose him to corrupt the Ideas of God the one is an Inclination to cloath him in some outward figure and present him to our senses in such a manner that we may hope by flatteries or submissions by pompous or cruel services to appease him And the other is a desire to reconcile our notions of Religion to our vicious habits and appetites that so we may some way pacifie our Consciences in the midst of our lusts and passions And thus the true notion of Idolatry is the representing of God to us so as that we may hope to gain his favour by other methods than our being inwardly pure and holy And the immorality of this consists not only in the indecency of such representations and their unsuitableness to the Divine nature but likewise in this that our notions of God which ought to be the seeds of Vertue and true Godliness by which our natures are to be reformed are no more effectual that way but turn only to a Pageantry and spend themselves in dressing up our worship so as we think will better agree with one that is like our selves Now we find the chief design of the Gospel was to root this out of the World and to give us the highest and perfectest Ideas of the purity and goodness of the Divine nature that might raise in us that inward probity of Soul compâ—ehended in the general name of Charity or Love which is the proper Character of the Christian Spirit We have also the Divine Holiness so presented to us that we can never hope to attain the favour of God here or Eternal happiness hereafter but by becoming inwardly and universally holy Now our main charge against the Church of Rome is That this which is the great design of the Christian Religion is reversed among them and that chiefly in four things 1. In proposing visible objects to the adorations of the people against not only the current of the whole Scriptures but the true Idea and right notion of God and this not only by Precept in the Images of our Saviour and the Saints but by a general tolerance in the Images of the blessed Trinity it self Thus the senses having somewhat set before them on which they may work do naturally corrupt the mind and convert Religion which is an inward and spiritual work into an outward gross homage to these objects 2. In setting up the Intercession of Saints as if either God had not a capacity of attending to the whole Government of the World or were not so merciful or good but that as Princes are wrought on by the interposition of their Courtiers so he needed to have such importunities to induce him to be favourable to us The very Plea commonly used for this from the resemblance of Earthly Courts is the greatest debasing of the Divine Nature that is possible And when the Addresses made to these Saints in the publick Offices of the Church are the very same that we make to God or our Saviour That they would pardon our sins give uâ—â—race assist us at all times and open the Kingdome of Heaven to us and when after those things have been complained of for above an Age and that upon a general review of their Offices
to subscribe to every expression of his and do freely acknowledge that the making a rent in a Church that is pure both in Doctrine and Worship upon any particular or personal account is a sin that cannot be sufficiently detested and condemned I shall not enter into a particular discussion of every passage of S. Austin's but if in some he seems to go too far for the authority of the Church I shall only offer two general considerations concerning these The first is That it is a Maxime with Lawyers That general words in Laws are to be restricted to the preambles and chief design of these Laws And if this is true of Laws that are commonly penned with more coldness and upon greater deliberation it is much more applicable to warm discourses where the heat of Contradiction and the Zeal of a Writer makes that things are ofâ—en aggravated and carried too far but still all those expressions are to â—e molliâ—ied and restricted to that which was the subject matter of the debate therefore those expressions of S. Austin's supposing that the Church was still sound in her Doctrine and Worship are to be governed by that Hypothesis The second is That many of those who urge these passages on us do not deny but S. Aâ—stin in the disputes about Grace and Original Sin was carried too far though those were the subjects on which he employed his latest years with the greatest application If then it is confessed that he wrote too warmly against the Pelagians and in that heat advanced some propositions that need a fair construction is it unreasonable for us to say that he might have done the same writing against the Donatists 5. As for Tertullian he that might have conversed with many that could have known S. Polâ—carp who was both instructed and ordained by the Apostles so that he might have been the third person in the conveyance of the sense of what the Apostles had left in Writing could reasonably argue as he did against the Hereticks but certainly no man that considers the distance we live at from those ages and the many accidents that have so often changed the face of the Church can think it reasonable to argue upon that ground now And yet it were easie to bring many citatious out of that very Book of Tertullians to shew that he grounded his Faith only on the Doctrine of Christ delivered in the Scriptures how much soever he might argue from other Topicks against the Hereticks of his time who indeed were bringing in a New Gospel into the World We willingly receive the Characters that Vincentius Lyrinensis gives of Tradition that what the Church has at all times and in all places received is to be believed and are ready to joyn issue upon this and when they can prove that the Church at all times and in all places has taught the Worshipping of Images the Invocation of Saints and Angels the adoring the Sacrament and the dividing of it with many more particulars we will yield the whole cause and confess that we have made a Schism in the Church The Seventh Method IS to let them see that those who at first pretended to Reform the Church in which they were amongst us neither had nor could have any Mission either Ordinary or Extraordinary to bring us any other Doctrine but that which was then taught and that by Consequence none ought to believe them since they had no authority to Preach as they did How can they Preach if they are not sent This is the ordinary Method that puts the Ministers to the necessity of proving their Mission which is a thing that they can never do This cuts off all disputes and is one of the Methods of Cardinal Richelieu Remarks 1. IF the first Reformers had delivered a new Doctrine which was never formerly taught it had been necessary for them to have had a very extraordinary Mission and to have confirmed it by very extraordinary signs but when they grounded all â—hey said upon that very Book which was and is still received as the unalterable Law of all Christians then if every man is bound to take care of his own Salvation and is in Charity obliged to let others see that same light that guides himself then I say an extraordinary Mission was not necessary when the thing in dispute was not a new Doctrine but the true meaning of those Writings which were on all hands acknowledged to be Divine 2. If notwithstanding the necessity of not raising War in Civil Government without an express Commission from the Prince or Supream Authority yet in a General Rebellion when the ways of intercourse with the Prince are cut off if it be not only a lawful but a commendable action for any subject even without a Commission to raise what force he can for the service of the Prince Then if it be true that the Western Churches had generally revolted from the rules of the Gospel that was a sufficient warrant for any person to endeavour a Reformation 3. The nature of the Christian Religion is to be well considered in which all Christians are a Royal Priesthood And though it be highly necessary for all the ends of Religion to maintain peace and Order and to convey down an authority for sacred administrations in such a way as tends most to advance those ends yet this cannot be lookt on as indispensable and absolutely necessary Among the Iews as there were many services in which none but Priests and Levites could officiate so the Succession went in the natural course of Descent But in the Christian Church there are no positive Laws so appropriated and therefore in cases of extream and unavoidable necessity every Christian may make use of that dormant priviledge of being a Royal Priest and so this difficulty must be resolved by examining the merits of the whole cause for if the necessity was not extream and unavoidable we acknowledge it had been a Sacrilegious presumption for any that was not called in the ordinary manner to meddle in Holy things 4. It is but a small part of the Reformed Churches that is concerned in this Here in England our Reformers had the ordinary Mission and in most places beyond Sea the first Preachers had been ordained Priests And it will not be easie to prove that Lay-men yea and Women may baptize in cases of necessity when that is often but an imaginary necessity and that yet Priests in a case of real necessity may not ordain other Priests For all the Rules of Order are superseded by extraordinary cases and in Moral as well as in Natural things every Individual has a Right to propagate its kind and though it may be reasonable to regulate that yet it can never be wholly cut off The Eighth Method IS to tell them You do not know that such or such a Book of the Scripture is the Word of God but by the Church in which you were before your Schism So that you cannot know
what is the true sense of those passages that are in dispute but by that same Church which conveys it to you This is S. Austin's method in many places but above all in his Book De utilitate Credendi and in his Book Contra Epistolam fundamenti In which he says I would not believe the Gospel if the authority of the Church did not oblige me to it This Method is handsomely managed in the Treatise of the true Word of God joyned to the Peaceable Method Remarks 1. GReat difference is to be made between the conveyance of Books and an Oral Tradition of Doctrine It is very easie to carry down the one in a way that is Morally Infallible An exact copying being all that is necessary for that Whereas it is morally impossible to prevent frauds and impostures in the other in a course of some Ages especially in times of Ignorance and Corruption in which the Credulity of unthinking people has made an easie game to the Craft and Industry of covetous and aspiring Priests Few were then at the pains to examine any thing but took all upon Trust and became so ready of belief that the more incredible a thing seemed to be they swallowed it down the more willingly 2. If this way of reasoning will hold good it was as strong in the mouths of the Iews in our Saviours time for the High Priest and Sanhedrim might have as reasonably pretended that since they had conveyed down the Books in which the Prophecies of the Messiah were contained they hâ—d likewise the right to expound those Prophecies 3. A Witness that hands a thing down without Additions is very different from a Judge that delivers things on his own Authority We freely own the Church to be such a Witness that there is no colour of reason to disbelieve the Tradition of the Books but we see great cause to question the credit of her decisions 4. In this Tradition of Books we have not barely the Tradition of the Church for it We find in all ages since the Books of the New Testament were written several Authors have cited many and large passages out of them We find they were very quickly translated into many other Languages and diverse of those are conveyed down to us There were also so many Copies of these Books every where that though one had resolved on so Sacrilegious an attempt as the corrupting them had been he could not have succeeded in it to any great degree Some additions might have been made in some Copies and so from those they might have been derived to others but these could not have bâ—en considerable otherwise they had been discovered and complained of and when we find the Church engaged in contests with Hereticks and Schismaticks we see both sides appealed to the Scriptures and neither of them reproached the other for violating that Sacred Trust. And the noise we find of the small change of a Letter in the Aâ—ian Controversie shews us how exact they were in preserving these Records As for the Errours of Transcribers that is incident to the Nature of Man and though some Errours have crept into some Copies yet all these put together do not alter any one point of our Religion so that they are not of great consequence Thus it appears how much reason we have to receive the Scriptures upon the credit of such a Tradition But for Oral Tradition it is visible how it might have been so managed as quickly to change the whole Nature of Religion Natural Religion was soon corrupted when it passed down in this Conveyance even during the long lives of the Ancient Patriarchs who had thereby an advantage to keep this pure that after ages in which the life of Man is so shortned cannot pretend to We also see to what a degree the Iewish Tradition became corrupted in our Saviours time particularly in one point which may be called the most essential part of their Religion to wit concerning their Messias what the nature of his Person and Kingdome were to be So that they all expected a Great Conquerour a second Moses or a David so ineffectual a mean is Oral Tradition for conveying down any Doctrine pure or uncorrupted The Ninth Method IS to tell them the Church in which they were before they made the Separation was the true Church because it was the only Church so that they could not Reform the Doctrine without making another Church For then she must have fallen into Errour and by consequence the Gates of Hell must have prevailed against her which is directly contrary to the Promise of Iesus Christ that cannot fail The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against her Remarks 1. A Church may be a True Church and yet be corrupted by many Errours for a â—rue Church is a Society of men among whom are the certain means of Salvation and such was the Iewish Church in our Saviours time For their Sacrifices had still an Expiatory Vertue and the Covenant made with that people stood still and yet they were over-run with many Errours chiefly in their notions of the Messias And thus as long as the Church of Rome acknowledges the Expiation made by the Death of Christ and applied to all that truly believe and amend their lives so long she is a True Church So that those of that Communion who adhere truly to that which is the great fundamental of the Christian Religion may be saved But when so many things were added to this that it was very hard to preserve this fundamental truth pure and entire then it was necessary for those who were better enlightned to call on others to correct the abuses that had crept in 2. It is hard to build a great super-structure on a figurative expression of which it is not easie to find out the true and full sense And in this that is cited there are but three terms and about every one of them great and just grounds of doubting do appear 1. It is not certain what is meant by the Gates of Hell which is an odd figure for an assailant If by Gates we mean Councils because the Magistrates and Courts among the Iews sate in the Gates then the meaning will be that the Craft of Hell shall not prevail against the Church that is shall not root out Christianity or if by Gates of Hell or the Grave according to a common Greek Phrase Death be to be understood it being the Gate through which we pass to the Grave then the meaning is this that the Church shall never die or be extinguished Nor is there less difficulty to be made about the signification of the word Church Whether it is to be meant in general of the body of Christians or of the Pastors of the Church and of the majority of them The Context seems to carry it for the Body of Christians and then the meaning will be only this That there shall still be a Body of Christians in the World And
when the power of the Church is used not to Edification but to Destruction then the obligation to obedience is not to be too far extended And as in Laws that oblige Subjects to obey Inferiour Magistrates a tacite exception is to be supposed in case they should become guilty of Treason so there must be supposed likewise in this case the like exception in case a Synod deposes a Bishop or a Bishop censures his Clergy for asserting the true Faith And as a Separation from an uncorrupted Church is a very great wickedness so the separating from a corrupted Church in whose Communion we cannot continue without being polluted in it is but a part of that care which we ought to have of our own Salvation The Fifteenth Method TO all the former Methods a Fifteenth may be added by letting our P. Reformed see that many Articles are to be found in their Confession of Faith in their Catechisms in the Articles of their Discipline in the Decisions of their Synods and in the Books of their Chief Ministers who have writ upon the Controversies from which Arguments may be drawn against them to prove the truth of our belief even by their own Confession For Example Their Discipline allows the Communion in one kind only to such as cannot drink Wine From which one may infer that the Communion under both kinds is not an Article of necessity and that they are in the wrong to alledge that as they do to be a lawful ground for their Separation The Minister Dailée and many others confess that in the time of S. Gregory Nazianzene S. Chrysostome and S. Jerome the Invocation of Saints was received in the Church John Forbes adds to this That the Tradition of the Church was uniform concerning Prayer for the Dead And since he denies that the Books of the Maccabees are Canonical he says the Scripture speaks nothing of it But without engaging into the difficulty concerning the Books of the Maccabees in which they have no more reason on their side than in the rest It is easie to conclude from their own principles that it was no ways to be allowed to separate themselves for matters that according to themselves were established by so great an authority and so constant an union of all Ages Remarks 1. IT is not an equal way of proceeding to object to the Protestants what some particular Writers have said or to strain Inferences too far at a time when the Celebrated Book of the Bishop of Meaux is in such high esteem The chief design oâ— which is to set aside all the Indiscretions of particular Writers and to put the best colours on things that is possible Now Tradition being of such authority among them whatsoever passes down through many of their approved Writers has a much greater strength against them than it can be pretended to have against us And therefore though particular Writers or whole Synods should have written or decreed any thing against the common Doctrines of the Reformed they ought not to object that to us If they will allow us the same Liberties that they assume to themselves 2. It is not a consequence becoming so great an Assembly to infer that because in some few extraordinary cases the general rule of Gods desiring Mercy and not Sacrifice is carried so far as to give weak persons so much of the Sacrament as they can receive and not to deny that to them because a natural aversion mâ—kes them incapable of receiving the Wine That therefore a Church may in opposition to Christs express command Drink you all of it and the constant practice of Thirteen Centuries take this away It is not of necessity for Salvation that every one drinks the Cup but it is of necessity to the purity of a Church that she should observe our Saviour's Precepts 3. It is confessed that some Fathers used the Invocation of Saints yet that being but a matter of fact it is of no consequence for the Decision of any point of Doctrine For we found our Doctrine only on the Word of God and â—ot on the practices of Men how eminent soever they might otherwise be But in relation to these Fathers these things are to be observed 1. They lived in the end of the Fourth Century So this is no competent proof for an Oral Tradition or conveyance of this Doctrine down from the Apostles days 2. Figures and bold Discourses in Panegyricks are rather to be considered as raptures and flights of warm affections than as composed and serious devotions Therefore such Addresses as occur in their Funeral Orations are rather high strains of a daring Rhetorick than Instructions for others since in their expositions on Scripture or other Treatises of Devotion they do not handle these things by way of Direction or Advice Iohn Forbes is mis-cited for William Forbes Bishop of Edenburgh Iohn was not of such yielding Principles It is true William though he was a man Eminently Learned and of a most Exemplary Life yet he was possessed with that same weakness under which Grotius and some other great men have laboured of thinking that a Reconciliation with the Church of Rome might be obtained by an accommodation on both sides and this flowing in him from an excellent temper of Soul he is to be excused if that carried him in many things too far But he is a Writer that has been taxed by all men as one that had particular Notions And we may object Erasmus to those of the Church of Rome as well as they may argue against us from Bishop Forbes 5. If the Church of Rome used only a General Commemoration of the Dead with wishes for the compleating their happiness by a speedy resurrection and went no further we might perhaps differ in opinion with them about the fitness of this but we would not break Communion with them for it But when they have set up such a Merchandize in the House of God for Redeeming Souls out of Purgatory and saying Masses for them this is that we except to as a disgracing of the Christian Religion and as a high profanation of the Holy Sacrament And it is plain that the Fathers considered the Commemoration of the Dead rather as a respect done to their Memory and an honourable remembrance of them than as a thing that was any way useful to them in the other state which may appear by this single Instance S. Cyprian was so much offended at a Presbyter when it appeared after his death that he had left another Presbyter Guardian of his Children that he gave order that no mention should be made of him in the Commemoration of the Dead that was used in the Holy Eucharist because by the Roman Law such as were left Guardians were under some obligations to undertake the trust And that Saint thought such a trust might prove so great a distraction to a man that was dedicated to the Holy Ministry that no Honour ought to be done to the Memory