and Interpretation of Scripture and we are not to admit of it but according to Her Sence then it will be necessary to know which is the Church and whether that which pretends to be so be indeed the true Church for without that we cannot with any certainty depend upon Her Judgment But how shall we know that but by the Scriptures Nullo modo cognoscitur quae sit vera Ecclesia Christi nisi tantummodo per Scripturas Chrysostom in opere imperfect Hom. 49. Ecclesiam Christi sicut ipsum Caput Christum in Scripturis Sanctis Canonicis debemus agnoscere Aug. de Vnitat Eccl. c. 66. St. Chrysostome saith It is impossible to know it otherwise And St. Augustine for the discovery of the true Church directs us to the sacred Scriptures And indeed how is it possible to know this or that to be a True Church i. e. of a sound Judgment and pure in the Faith unless we first know the Rule of Faith which is the Word of God But how shall we know either the one or the other but by making use of our own Reason and judging for our selves of those Evidences which are produced So that in fine If we should grant all that the Church of Rome requires of us yet must we make use of our own Reason to understand that Sence and Interpretation which she gives us of the Holy Scriptures Which is no more nor less than resolving all at last into a private Judgment And that all Christians not only may but ought in this manner and in these cases thus to judge for themselves we have good warrant and Authority from the Word of God in which we are advised Not to believe every Spirit but to try the Spirits whether they be of God because many false Prophets are gone out into the World 1 John iv 1. And to prove all things but to hold fast that which is good 1 Th. v. 21. And to be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh us a reason of the hope that is in us 1. Pet. iij. 15. And our Saviour tells us If the blind lead the blind both shall fall into the ditch Matth. xv 14. And he severely reproves those who did not receive his Doctrine saying And why even of your selves judge ye not what is right Luke xij 57. But notwithstanding all this and much more which hath been told them oftentimes oyer and over yet the Vindicator like a stout Champion of his Church undertakes to prove That this Article and every Branch of it is according to Scripture and the Sence of the Primitive Fathers Let us see now how he acquits himself in this undertaking This he tells us is founded upon the Doctrine delivered by St. Peter 2 Ep. i. 20. No Prophecy of the Scripture is of any private Interpretation From whence he thus argues And if it be not of private Interpretation private persons must apply themselves for the true Sence of it to some others and to whom but unto those whom God hath put over them whom he hath commanded them to hear to submit to and obey c. When Men by their own diligence and industry cannot attain to the true sence and meaning of Holy Scripture or after all their care and pains in the use of all proper means are not satisfied therein that in such a case they should apply themselves to those whom God hath set over them as their Spiritual Guides we think to be a method not only safe and reasonable but very necessary But whether this be deducible from or can be built upon this Text of Scripture I take to be very questionable or rather that it is out of question that it cannot And therefore before we proceed any farther let us make a stand a while and take a view of the Apostle's design in this place and of the full and genuine importance of these words St. Peter having faithfully discharged his duty in preaching the Gospel and now finding the time of his departure hence near at hand he commits to writing the substance of what he had preached that so those to whom he had preached might always have it in remembrance so little did he rely upon Tradition That this was his design appears plainly from the 12 13 14 and 15 Verses of this Chapter And that he might not burthen their memories too much he gives them a short Summary of what he had preached unto them viz. The power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ v. 16. And to assure them of the truth and certainty thereof he lays before them two undeniable Arguments I. A voice from Heaven saying This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased This was at his Transfiguration in the Mount at which time Peter James and John were with him and were Eye-Witnesses of his Majesty and Ear-Witnesses of that Heavenly Voice vers 16 17 18. II. But lest they should distrust them or look upon this as an illusion or a dream and fancy of their own he furnisheth them with another Argument which he was well assured would not be rejected by them and that is taken from the Prophetical Writings for which those of the Dispersion viz. the coverted Jews had a mighty regard saying We have also a more sure word of Prophecy whereunto ye do well that ye take heed c. v. 19. meaning that Prophecy of holy David Ps ij 7. Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee And then he adds Knowing this first that no Prophecy of the Scriptures i. e. no Prophecy contained in the Scriptures of the Old Testament to distinguish it from the dreams of those Men who pretended to prophesie but had neither Mission nor Commission from God so to do is of any private Interpretation i. e. proceeds from any private or uninspired person or is an invention of Man. And that this is the full importance of this Expression the Apostle himself seems plainly to intimate in the very next words where he saith For the Prophecy came not in old time by the Will of Man i. e. The Prophets of old did not prophesie either what they pleased or when they pleased but holy Men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost i. e. they published nothing but what was dictated to them by the Holy Ghost nor at any time but when they were moved by him v. 21. And if we consult the Original words they cannot well be construed otherwise for what in the 20 verse is rendred Of any private Interpretation in the Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and may be rendred thus All Prophecy of the Scripture is not made of their own Explication which is the same which the Apostle afterwards saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Prophecy came not in old time by the Will of Man. And for this sence of the Words if that will weigh any thing with them we have the Authority of their own Lyra upon
place informs us for saith he St. Paul here stirs up Timothy to be solicitous in preaching himself and to make choice of others who were fit for that work and therefore he saith The things that thou hast heard of me among many Witnesses i. e. confirmed by the Law and the Prophets and the Hagiographa or other sacred Writings the same commit thou to faithful Men who shall be able to teach others also i. e. to Men of a sound Faith who shall be fit by the example of holy life by their Knowledge and by their Eloquence to teach others also Now what relation this hath to Traditions or why this Gentleman brought it in as a proof of them I cannot devise These are all the Scripture proofs which he offers for Traditions but he hath a Reserve of two passages out of two of the Fathers to make good the Reer The first of which he tells us is to be found in Epiphanius Haer. 61. in these words 'T is necessary to admit of Traditions for all things cannot be found in Scripture and therefore the holy Apostles delivered some things in writing and some by Tradition How far this will serve the end he aims at is now to be considered That in some cases it is necessary to admit of Traditions was never denied by us nor did we ever affirm That all things are to be found in Scripture nor do we deny but that the Holy Apostles did deliver some things in Writing and some by Tradition i. e. by word of Mouth But we deny that it is necessary to admit of Traditions i. e. unwritten Traditions in all cases or indeed in any unless it can be made appear that they have been universally received by the whole Church in all Ages And we do affirm that though the Scriptures do not contain all things yet they do contain all things necessary to be believed by us in order to our Salvation And though we do not deny but that some things were delivered by the Apostles in Writing and some by word of mouth yet we do deny that what was delivered by word of mouth was either besides or against what was written by them What was delivered in writing hath been carefully preserved we have it before our eyes and are sure of it but of those things which were delivered by word of mouth some we are sure have been lost as for instance Those many other things which Jesus did mentioned by St. John c. 21. v. 25. and the cause of the hinderance of the coming of Anti-Christ mentioned by St. Paul 2 Th. 2. That Records are a much more faithful keeper than Tradition appears by these instances those few that were written being still preserved and believed and those infinity that were not written being all lost and vanished out of the memory of Men. And seeing God in his providence hath not thought fit to preserve the memory of them he hath freed us from the obligation of believing them for every obligation ceaseth when it becomes impossible You will not you dare not say that God would suffer any thing to be lost that was necessary to Salvation nor can you deny but that he hath suffered these Traditions to be lost and therefore the Knowledge or Belief of them though it were a profitable thing yet is it not necessary And if so then with what face can you require us to assent unto this Article upon pain of damnation when we have no footsteps or print remaining which with divine Faith we may rely upon All which considered may we not truly say That Epiphanius here if rightly understood is neither for them nor against us For we say with him that it is necessary to admit of Tradition in some but not in all cases We acknowledge also that the Holy Apostles delivered some things in Writing and some by Tradition and when any thing is made appear to us to be of Apostolical Tradition and delivered by them as necessary to Salvation we will enquire no farther but will readily admit and embrace it His next Authority is taken out of St. Gregory Nyssen l. 3. contra Eunom p. 126. where he tells us these words are to be found 'T is a sufficient proof of our Doctrine that we have received it by Tradition from our Ancestors it having been left us as an Inheritance by the Apostles and convey'd down to us by a continued Succession of the Faithful in all Ages I see nothing to all this but what without any scruple we may readily assent to Gregory Nyssen says It is a sufficient proof of our Doctrine that we have received it by Tradition from our Ancestors And who these Ancestors were he tells us in the next words It having been left us as an Inheritance by the Apostles So then the Ancestors here spoken of were the Apostles and the Tradition here mentioned was what was left us as an Inheritance by them Now what was it that was left us as an Inheritance by the Apostles but only the Doctrine of Christianity contained in their Writings which Doctrine hath been convey'd down to us by a succession of the Faithful in all Ages i. e by Universal Tradition That this is the sence of this Father in this place is plain from his own words and is agreeable to the way and manner of speaking among the Fathers by whom the Gospel it self and the whole Religion of Christ is frequently called A Tradition De praescription advers Haereticos Concil Constantinop 6. Act. 4. Eadem Actione Basil de Spiritu Sancto 2 Th. 2.15 So the Articles of our Faith are by Tertullian called An old Tradition So the Faith of the Holy Trinity in the Council of Constantinople is called A Tradition And the Faith of two sundry Natures in Christ in the same Council is called The lively Tradition of the Apostles So St. Basil calls it A Tradition To believe in the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost And in this sence St. Paul calls the Apostolical Doctrine A Tradition This is all that he produceth in the behalf of Traditions Now whether he hath hereby proved that the Romish Doctrine of Traditions is according to Scripture and the Sence of the Primitive Fathers I leave the Reader to judge His next Effort is to make good the latter part of this Article touching all the other Observances and Constitutions of the Church And here we might reasonably have expected that he should have told us what those Observances and Constitutions are which we are required to admit and embrace But that is not the way of the Church of Rome she expects that her votaries should rely upon her guidance and conduct with an implicit Faith and observe her Dictates with a blind Obedience And therefore the Vindicator here like a dutiful Son of such a Mother never stops to us what is required of us but without more ado goes about to prove That whatsoever those Observances and Constitutions are it is our duty
Elementum fit Sacramentum And now let us see Catech. ad Parochos pars 2. Tit. de Sacram. n. 5. p. 113. Aug. l. 10. de civ Dei. c. 5. And Epist 2. how far they agree with us in this notion of a Sacrament The Trent Catechism which always speaks the sence of that Council gives us this definition of a Sacrament It is a visible Sign of invisible Grace instituted for our Justification which it grounds upon the Authority of St. Austin and the compliance of all the School Doctors with him therein The Doway Catechism saith * P. 49. A Sacrament is a visible sign of invisible Grace instituted by Christ our Lord for our Sanctification And their †P. 4 5. Summ of Christian Doctrine c. printed at London 1686. saith A Sacrament is a visible Sign instituted by Jesus Christ to convey his Grace into our Souls and to apply unto us the merits of his death So then it is agreed between us that these three things viz. The word of Institution a visible Sign and a promise of invisible Grace are absolutely necessary to make and constitute a Sacrament And it is acknowledged on all hands that these three are to be found in the Sacrament of Baptism and the Lords Supper The dispute therefore between us is concerning the Five additional Sacraments of the Church of Rome Of which we say That they want either the Word or the Element or both Matrimony Order and Penance have the word of God but they have no outward Element Extream Vnction and Confirmation have neither Word nor Element But this Gentleman contends That these Five as well as the other Two are founded upon the Doctrine of the Fathers and the Sence of the Scripture And here I confess the Vindicator hath taken a great deal of pains but to little purpose he hath sweat and toil'd and at last found out a great many Fathers who have called them Sacraments which is a thing that no body would have deny'd him upon his own bare word For That many things which indeed and by special property are no Sacraments may nevertheless pass under the general name of a Sacrament he must be a very great stranger to the Writings of the Fathers who will not acknowledge it We very well know that it was usual with the Fathers to call any sacred Sign or Mystery in Religion or any holy significant Rite by the name of a Sacrament And in this Sence he might reckon not only seven but seventy or more if he pleased for he may furnish himself with great variety Tertullian calls the Stick which Elisha cut down cast into the water Tertul. advers Judaeos and made the Iron swim Sacramentum Ligni the Sacrament of Wood. And the same Father calls the whole State of the Christian Faith Contr. Marcion l. 4. Aug. in Sermone de Sanctis 19. Leo de Resurrect Domini Serm. 2. Hieron ad Oceanum Inter Decreta Leonis c. 14. Aug. de peccat merit remiss l. 2. Religionis Christianae Sacramentum The Sacrament of the Christian Religion And St. Austin speaks of the Sacrament of the Cross And Leo calls the Cross of Christ both a Sacrament and an Example And St. Jerome calls the Water and Blood which issued out of the side of the blessed Jesus the Sacraments of Baptism and Martyrdom And Leo calls the vow of Virginity a Sacrament And St. Austin calls the Bread that was given unto the Novices or Beginners in the Faith called Catechumens before they were baptized a Sacrament And if he will but consult St. Hilary he may find in him these expressions Hilar. in Matth. Canon 11 12 23. The Sacrament of Prayer the Sacrament of Hunger the Sacrament of the Scriptures The Sacrament of Weeping and the Sacrament of Thirst Bern. in Sermone de Coena Domini And St. Bernard calls our Saviour's washing of the Disciples Feet the Sacrament of daily sins I suppose he will not call all these Sacraments of the new Law instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ and if not then must he aknowledge that there are Sacraments to be found in the Fathers besides those that are properly so called The truth is the Fathers sometimes spake Metaphorically and sometimes properly sometimes they spake more loosely and sometimes more closely sometimes they spake of things as they were in themselves and by specially property such and sometime by way of allusion and as in a general sence they might be called such And if we be not careful to difference these several ways and manners of speech in the reading of them we may unawares fall into great errors and mistakes This is plain in the matter now before us All are not Sacraments properly so called which they call so we are therefore to distinguish between their expressions when they speak of a thing obitèr and by the bye and when they treat of it designedly and on set purpose And if we consider their Writings when in the latter way they treat of this subject we shall find that they mention no more Sacraments but only two St. Cyprian saith Then may they be throughly sanctified Cypr. l. 2. Ep. 1. ad Steph. Aug. de Doctrina Christiana l. 3. c. 9. and become the Children of God if they be new-born by both the Sacraments And St. Austin saith Our Lord and his Apostles have delivered unto us a few Sacraments instead of many and the same in doing most easie in signification most excellent in observation most reverend as is the Sacrament of Baptism and the Celebration of the Body and Blood of our Lord. And again the same holy Father speaking of Baptism and the Supper of the Lord saith Aug. de Symbolo ad Catechumenos Paschasius de Coena Domini Bessarion de Sacrament Eucharistiae These be the two Sacraments of the Church And Paschasius saith These be the Sacraments of Christ in the Catholick Church Baptism and the Body and Blood of our Lord. And Cardinal Bessarion saith We read that these only two Sacraments were delivered us plainly in the Gospel Here you have Both the Sacraments and the Two Sacraments and the Only Two Sacraments of the Church Whence it is plain that though the Fathers sometimes either in heat of this discourse or for a Rhetorical flourish might call those Sacraments which properly speaking were not so yet when they did designedly and on set purpose speak of them they mentioned only Two which I think may be a sufficient answer to his Authorities But he has yet another Reserve to bring up and that is That all these are founded upon the sence of the Scripture Let us see how whether this will any more avail him than the Authority of the Fathers hath done Of the pretended Sacrament of Confirmation TO establish this he produceth Acts viij 17 18. where it is said Then laid they their hands on them and they received the Holy Ghost And when Simon saw that
the Article which he is here defending is founded and consider one passage therein which perhaps he might before overlook And then I shall proceed to conder the latter part of this Article The Passage is this the Council doth there declare That Concupiscence doth still remain even in those that are baptized and doth further declare that St. Paul did sometimes call this Concupiscence Sin. But though the Apostle did so yet the Council tells us That the Catholick Church no doubt the Roman Catholick did never think it to be so And if any one think otherwise let him be Anathema In the beginning of this Decree the Council pretends to have the assistance of the Holy Ghost whether they had or no is not easie to be granted but it is confessed on all hands that St. Paul was inspired from above and if so then how comes the Council and he to be at odds in this matter Either the Apostle or the Council were in the wrong for both parts of a Contradiction cannot be true Now whether the Authority of St. Paul or that of the Council of Trent be the better one would think were no very hard Question St. Austin I am sure did not think it was for if he had he would not have been so positive as he was Aug ad Hieron Epist 19. when he said The Authority of St. Paul is to me instead of all the Fathers and above all the Fathers to him I flee and to him I appeal from all other Doctors whatsoever II. Concerning Justification he gives us an account of what the Council of Trent hath defin'd in Four particulars 1. That Men are justified by an intrinsecal Justice And this he founds upon Two places of Scripture viz. Tit. iij. 7. where it is said That being justified by his Grace we should be made Heirs according to the hope of Eternal Life Which Grace saith he is in Men. And for this he quotes 2 Tim. i. 6. where it is said I put thee in mind to stir up that Grace which is in thee So he renders it but it is more properly translated I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the Gift of God which is in thee by the putting on my Hands Which last words he leaves out To this I answer What St. Paul here means by being justified by his Grace he himself very well explains in another place where he saith Rom. iij. 24. Being justified freely by his Grace through the Redemption that is in Jesus Christ Where to be justified Freely and to be justified by Grace are Synonymous Expressions and imply no more but that God did freely and without any merit of ours send his Son to die for sinners and by his Death to make satisfaction to divine Justice for our sins and by that means to obtain such Grace and Favour with God that our Sins might be Pardoned and we Justified before him whence it is very plain That by the Grace of God we are not to understand any intrinsecal Righteousness of our own but the free Grace and Favour of God in accepting the Righteousness of Christ instead of ours and imputing the same to us through Faith for our Justification And therefore St. Paul after he had a little more Explain'd himself Vers 28. concludes saying Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by Faith without the Deeds of the Law. As for his other Scripture which he brings in as an Auxiliary Proof it is quite foreign to the matter in hand for the Apostle there doth not speak of Justifying Grace nor indeed of any Grace if we take the word strictly for the word there is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in the other but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies not Grace but a Gift And the Gift which he there puts him in mind to stir up was the Gift of preaching As if he should have said Be sure couragiously to preach the Gospel and exercise that Ministerial Function which thou hast received by the Imposition of my Hands But I find this Gentleman is under a great mistake he takes Justification and Sanctification to be one and the same thing but I cannot much blame him for it because I know he is led into it by an Authority which he thinks to be Infallible and consequently Indisputable viz. the Council of Trent which teacheth him Sess 6. c. 7. That Justification consists not only in Remission of Sins but in Sanctification also and the renewing of the inward Man by a voluntary susception of Grace and Gifts by which of Vnrighteous a Man is made Righteous and of an Enemy a Friend that he may be an Heir according to the Hope of Eternal Life This is a far different Notion from that which the Church of England and the Holy Scriptures give us of Justification They teach us That by Justification we are to understand only Absolution or Remission of Sins but the Church of Rome confounds Justification with Sanctification and the Remission of Sins with the Renovation of our Minds And indeed in this Channel runs the main difference between us and them through the whole Controversie The Church of England delivers her Sentiments touching Justification thus Art. 11. We are accounted Righteous before God only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith and not for our own works or deservings Wherefore that we are justifyed by Faith only is a most wholesome Doctrine and very full of comfort And for a farther Explication thereof she refers to the Homily of Justification where she declares That by Justification 2 Hom. of Justificat part 1. she means the Forgivness of our Sins and Trespasses That this being received of God's Mercy and Christ's Merits embraced by Faith is taken and allowed of God for our perfect and full Justification That nothing on the behalf of Man doth contribute to this Justification but only a true and lively Faith which Faith is also the Gift of God Yet doth not this Faith exclude Good-works nor the necessity of them in Justified Persons but only shuts them out from the Office of Justifying This is the Doctrine of the Church of England and for this she hath good Authority both in Scripture and Fathers but I must not now enter upon this Controversie lest I lose the Vindicator therein I shall therefore proceed to his next particular 2. He tells us That the Council of Trent hath defin'd That all Works of the Just are not Sins This saith he is evident in Scripture as Luke i. 6. where 't is said of Zacharias and Elizabeth They were both Righteous before God walking in all the Commandments and Ordinances of the Lord blameless And 1 John v. 18. Whosoever is born of God sineth not Which likewise proves That the Commandments are not impossible to be kept as the same Council declares To this I answer If the Premisses be good the Inference therefrom I confess is natural For if Justified
persons be so Righteous as to be void of all Sin they may no doubt keep all the Commandments But if the Foundation which he builds upon happen to fail him all his Superstructure will fall to the Ground Let us therefore Examine that whether it be firm and good In order whereunto let me premise That there is a Legal and Evangelical Righteousness The former of which consists in a perfect and unsinning Obedience to the whole Law And the latter in a sincere desire and endeavour to keep all God's Commandments The former of these it is not in the power of fallen Man to attain unto And to justifie this Assertion we have good warrant from the Holy Scriptures The wise Soloman in his Prayer at the Dedication of the Temple humbly confesseth There is no Man that sinneth not 1 Kings viij 46. And St. Paul tells us The Scripture hath concluded all under Sin Gal. iij. 22. And St. James saith In many things we offend al Jam. iij. 2. And if we say that we have no sin we deceive our selves and the Truth is not in us saith the Apostle John 1 Ep. c. i. v. 8. I might add many more places of Scripture to this purpose but these may suffice to show us how far it is out of the power of fallen Man to perform a perfect and unsinning Obedience to the Law of God. But the latter viz. an Evangelical Righteousness we acknowledge to be attainable in this Life It is possible for a good Man sincerely to desire and honestly to endeavour to keep all the Commandments of his God and though he fail in the attempt by reason of the corruption and depravation of his Nature yet God for Christ's sake will pardon those Failings and accept of those his honest Endeavours For if there be first a willing mind it is accepted according to that a Man hath and not according to that he hath not saith St. Paul 2 Cor. viij 12 And according to this Notion of Righteousness it is Hierom. ad Ctefiphon Aug. ad Bonifacium l. 3. c. 7. that holy and good Men are said to be Just and Righteous So St. Hierom saith Men are called just not because they are void of all Sin but because in the main they are Vertuous And S. Aug. saith The Vertue that is now in a just Man so far forth is called perfect that it pertaineth to the perfection thereof both in Truth to know and in Humility to confess that it is imperfect And the same St. Aug. in another place saith Aug. de Civit. Dei l. 19 c. 26. Ipsa nostra justitia quamvis vera sit propter veri boni finem ad quem refertur tamen tanta est in hac vita ut potius peccatorum remissione constet quam perfectione virtutum Our very Righteousness it self is such in this life that it stands rather in the Remission of Sins than in the perfection of Righteousness Thus Job by the Mouth of God himself is stiled A perfect and upright Man one that feared God and eschewed evil Job i. 8. and yet he cursed the day of his Birth c. iij. And thus Zacharias and Elizabeth are said to be both Righteous before God and to walk in all the Commandments and Ordinances blameless i. e. Their Lives and Conversations were so good and vertuous that no Man had any just cause to blame them But that they were without sin doth not appear but the contrary is very manifest for not long after we find Zacharias punished for his Vnbelief Luk. i. 20. His other Scripture Proof which is 1 John v. 18. Whosoever is born of God sinneth not will do him no better service than his Former For the same Apostle in the same Epistle c. i. v. 8. saith If we say that we have no sin we deceive our selves and the truth is not in us If therefore the Text by him alledged be so to be understood as if the Regenerate were free from all manner of sin then must he say that St. John and those he speaks of in the other Text were not born of God or else that he contradicts himself in these two places neither of which I presume they will dare to say We must therefore find out another sence of these words which methinks is very obvious Whosoever is born of God sinneth not i. e. He doth not make a trade of sin or he doth not deliberately and on set purpose sin against God. This their own Lyra if he had consulted him would have told him for he saith Lyra in loc That the intention of the Apostle in this place is not to secure the Regenerate from all sin but from that sin unto death of which he speaks v. 16. Thus have I examined his proofs and find them to fall far short of proving what he pretends to prove by them But if I should grant his Proposition which he calls a Definition of the Council to be true yet I do not see how the possibility of keeping the Commandments can thence be inferred All works of the just he saith are not sins What then doth it necessarily follow That it is possible for the Regenerate to keep all the Commandments No surely for though all be not yet if any of them be it will be a sufficient bar to this Inference So St. James thought or else he would not have said Whosoever shall keep the whole Law and yet faileth in one point he is guilty of all Jam. ij 10. Unless therefore they will understand a possibility of keeping the Commandments Aug. Retract l. 1. c. 19. in the same sence that St. Austin doth who tells us All the Commandments of God are accounted to be done when that thing that is not done is forgiven I do not see how it can be asserted much less defended And if thus they understand it we shall not quarrel with them about it III. He tells us That the Council hath defin'd That a man justified truly deserves life everlasting by his good works And this he undertakes to prove both by Scripture and the Testimony of St. Austin Before I come particularly to examine his Proofs the force of all which stands in a misunderstanding of the Words Merit and Reward It will be convenient for a more clear decision of the difference between us to state the true notion of those words for Ambiguity of Words often hath been and still is not only the occasion of hot and fierce Disputes among men but of their continuance also That the word Merit is frequently used by the Fathers we own but that they used it in that sence in which the present Church of Rome doth we deny and thence ariseth the difference between us The Holy Fathers understood no more by it than Obtaining or Impetration but the Romanists would now have it to be understood of Earning or Deserving in the way of Condign Wages Bellarm de Justificat l. 5. c. 17. as if there were an
they are made Righteous when they are justified but as the Apostle saith They are justified freely by his Grace Rom. iij. And to explain himself a little after he adds That Grace would not be Grace if it were not given freely but rendred as a due Debt In the same Epistle I find also these words It is not therefore in vain that we sing unto God His mercy shall prevent me and His mercy shall follow me Whence life eternal it self which in the end shall be enjoyed without end and therefore is rendred to precedent merits yet because those merits to which it is given are not prepared by any ability of ours but are wrought in us by Grace even Life eternal it self is called Grace for no other reason but because it is given freely not therefore because it is not given to Merits but because those very Merits to which it is given are themselves a gift These words are an Inference from what went before where St. Austin argues against Merit either before to obtain Grace or after to deserve a Reward These are his words What is the Merit of Man before Grace by which he may deservedly obtain Grace when as all our Merit is from Grace and when he crowns our Merits he crowns nothing else but his own Gifts And from hence he inferrs in the words before cited Whence I observe 1. That all that is good in us here is owing to Divine Mercy preventing us 2. That all the good we can expect hereafter must be from the same Divine Mercy following us 3. That Life eternal which is the great Reward of Vertue and Goodness is called Grace 4. That though it be said to be given to Merits it is not said to be given for the sake of those Merits 5. That those Merits to which it is given are themselves the gift of God and therefore not Merits in the strict sence of the word It is not Righteousness but Pride in the name of Righteousness that expects eternal Life as a Reward due to its deserving These are St. Austin's own words in the next page which directly contradict this Definition of the Council of Trent viz. That a man justified truly deserves Life everlasting by his good works And now if the Vindicator can make any advantage of these words of St. Austin either to himself or to his cause I shall not envy him IV. He tells us that the Council hath defin'd That by works a Man is justified and not by Faith only And to prove this he alledgeth Jam. ij 24. where it is said ye see then how that a man is justified by works and not by faith only This place of Scripture hath been so often urged and all the Arguments raised therefrom so often and so miserably baffled that I wonder with what confidence this Gentleman could bring it upon the stage again They have been often told that St. James here doth not speak of Justification before God but before Men. That as Faith only though that Faith be not alone justifies us before God so good Works do justifie the truth of that Faith and evidence the reality of our Justification thereby unto Men. Which Interpretation is well warranted by St. Paul when he saith If Abraham was justified by Works then hath he whereof to glory but not before God Rom. iv 2. I likewise profess That in the Mass is offered a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice for the Living and the Dead TO persuade us to a compliance herewith the Vindicator advanceth both Scripture and Antiquity Two great Arguments if well managed Which whether they be or no I shall now Examine 1. He begins with Scripture and by way of Preface thereunto tells us That our blessed Saviour being a Priest according to the Order of Melchisedeck did at his last Supper offer his Body and Blood after an unbloody manner for the Remission of Sins This is unhappily to stumble at the Threshold For 1. How his Consequent comes to be tack'd to his Antecedent is past my capacity to understand Our blessed Saviour was made a Priest for ever after the Order of Melchisedeck Therefore at his last Supper he did offer his Body and Blood after an unbloody manner for the Remission of Sins What Logick there is in this I am yet to learn. 2. If he did offer himself at his last Supper to whom did he do it For we do not find that he did address himself or offer any thing to any but only to his Disciples and surely he will not say that he offered himself as a Sacrifice unto them 3. If he did offer his Body and Blood then was it not an unbloody Sacrifice as they say it was 4. If it was an unbloody Sacrifice then could it not be propitiatory For without shedding of Blood there is no Remission of Sins Heb. ix 22. But the Vindicator hath good Scripture for all this viz. Luke xxij 19. 1 Cor. xi 24. Matth. xxvi 28. In all which places the Words of Institution are recited with some variation St. Matthew saith This is my Body vers 26. St. Luke adds Which is given for you And St. Paul saith Which is broken for you His whole Argument there depends upon the Words of Institution Before therefore I meddle with his reasoning therefrom it will be convenient to consider and explain them And 1. Our Saviour saith This is not This is Transubstantiate or wonderfully converted into another substance viz the substance of my Body 2. If when he said This is he meant Transubstantiation then his Body must be Transubstantiate before he spake and if so then the Conversion doth not depend upon the Words as they affirm For This is implies a thing already done 3. When he said This is my Body it is evident that his true natural humane Body was there with them took the Bread brake it gave it eat it now if that which he took brake gave and eat was then the Body of Christ either he must have two Bodies there at that time or else the same Body was by the same Body taken broken given and eaten and yet all the while neither taken broken given nor eaten 4. When he saith This is my Body which is given for you as St. Luke or Which is broken for you as St. Paul if it be understood literally then must it be either his natural or his glorified Body if they say the former then we urge them again with the preceding Observation the latter they will not dare to say because his Body was not then Glorified 5. If these words be to be literally and strictly to be understood then the substance of Bread must be Christ's Body at that time for what can any Man living understand by This but only this Bread For what he took he blessed what he blessed he brake what he brake he gave to his Disciples what he gave to them he bad them take and eat and what he bad them take and eat of that he
his Creed are neither agreeable to Scripture nor the Sence of the Primitive Fathers And for that reason we cannot subscribe to this last Article THE CLOSE TO close up his Vindication he undertakes to answer some Objections of ours against these New Articles which how well he hath done I shall now examine The Apostles knew best what was to be believed Object since therefore none of these Articles are in their Creed they ought not to be imposed on us as Matters of Faith. To this he answers Answ That the Apostles Creed is a Summary of the principal Mysteries of the Christian Religion but doth not contain all that is of Faith. To this I reply That a thing may be said to be of Faith two ways Reply either absolutely or occasionally 1. Absolutely i. e. in and for its self when by its own nature and God's primary intention it is an essential part of the Gospel such an one as Teachers in the Church cannot without mortal Sin omit to teach the Learners such an one as is intrinsecal to the Covenant between God and Man and not only plainly revealed by God and so a certain Truth but also commanded to be preached to all Men and to be distinctly believed by all and so a necessary Truth Of this kind there are two sorts viz. Such as are necessary to be believed or such as are necessary to be done and of the former of these it is that we speak when we say That the Apostles Creed contains all necessary Matters of Faith. 2. A thing may be said to be of Faith only occasionally i. e. when it is not so in and for its self but because it is joined with others which are necessary to be believed and for the sake of that Authority by which it is delivered Of this sort there are multitudes of Verities contained in the Holy Scriptures as for Instance That Zacharias was a Priest of the Course of Abia that Elizabeth was of the Daughters of Aaron that Cyrenius was Governor of Syria that Pontius Pilate was the Roman Deputy that Paul left his Cloak at Troas These are all Truths and Objects of Faith because they are found in the divine Revelation but they are not such Truths as the Pastors of the Church are bound to teach their Flock or their Flock bound to know and remember For it would be no crime to be ignorant of these or to believe the contrary if I did not know that they were delivered in Holy Scripture When therefore we speak of Matters of Faith contained in the Creed we mean all necessary points of meer Belief and of such we say it is a perfect Summary No saith the Vindicator for it doth not contain all that is in the Scripture and yet all that is there is of Divine Inspiration and of Faith. We grant it but all things that are there are not equally of Faith many of them are not absolute and necessary but only occasional and accidental Objects of Faith as I have already shown As for Baptism and the Lord's Supper we acknowledge them to be great Mysteries of our Religion but they are not points of meer Faith and therefore not within the question That the Scripture is the word of God and that such and such Books are Canonical depends upon another Evidence by which we must be convinc'd that they are so before we can give a rational assent to the Articles of the Creed because they are all taken out of these Books and our belief of them built upon that Authority The Belief therefore of this being necessarily antecedent to the belief of the other it would have been a very absurd and preposterous thing to have made that an Article of our Creed As for the 39 Articles of the Church of England they are propounded only as Articles of Communion not as Articles of Faith and therefore the Objection doth not reach them And as for the Nicene and Athanasian Creed they are only explications of the Apostles Creed and contain the same and no other Faith but what is contained in that This I think may suffice to show That he hath not yet answered that Objection But if the Vindicator desire yet further satisfaction in this point I would recommend to him if he be allowed to read such Books the fourth Chapter of Mr. Chillingworth's Book intituled The Religion of Protestants a safe way to Salvation and another little Treatise printed at London the last year intituled The Pillar and Ground of Truth All the particulars in this profession were not undoubtedly believed by all Object before the Decrees were made at Trent To this he answers Suppose they were not Answ Neither was the Canon of Scripture which the Church of England receives undoubtedly believed by all in the primitive times This may be allow'd to be a good answer to that Objection Reply but that Objection is his own it is none of ours Our Objection is this That not one of all these twelve new Articles in Pope Pius 's Creed was ever received as an Article of Faith by the Primitive Church And to this he answers nothing There 's no Authority upon Earth can make a new Article of Faith. Object Answ To this he answers That there is an Authority which can declare a thing to be of Faith which was not before expresly so believed by all This we willingly grant but this doth not answer the Objection Reply for we do not question the Church's power to declare a thing to be of Faith which before was dubious or not expresly believed by all But we say That there is no such Authority in the Church as to make that to be of Faith which really was not so before i. e. to make a new Article of Faith. And to this he returns not one word of Answer This Authority can declare only such points Object as may be warranted by Holy Scripture and such as these are the subject of the XXXIX Articles but as for Pope Pius's Creed it is but the Invention of Men. For Answer hereunto he referrs us to what he hath said in his Book Answ wherein he saith he hath shewed That all the Articles of this Creed are founded upon Scripture and the Authority of the most eminent Men in the Primitive Church And farther faith That the XXXIX Articles are not so express in Scripture as these of Pope Pius Whether there be any Truth in the first part of his Answer Reply as he referrs us to his Book so I shall referr you to the Answer given to it in these Papers And to the latter part of his Answer it may be a sufficient Reply to remind him of what he hath been often told That the XXXIX Articles of the Church of England are not propounded as Articles of Faith but as Articles of Communion nor is the Belief of them required of all upon pain of Damnation as these of Pope Pius are and therefore there is not so much danger in our complyance or non-complyance with the one as with the other Whether these Articles of Pope Pius be founded upon Scripture hath been one part of the question between us and therefore for satisfaction in this point I shall refers you to what hath been said upon that Subject on both sides Thus have I considered the Vindicator's Answers to some Objections which he thought fit to encounter with and how well he hath acquitted himself therein I shall now leave it to the ingenuous Reader to judge between us The End.
THE Additional Articles IN Pope Pius ' s Creed NO ARTICLES OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH BEING AN ANSWER To a Late PAMPHLET Intituled Pope PIUS his profession of Faith Vindicated from Novelty in Additional Articles AND The PROSPECT of POPERY taken from that Authentick Record with short NOTES thereupon DEFENDED LONDON Printed by J. L. for Luke Meredith at the Angel in Amen-Corner MDCLXXXVIII IMPRIMATUR Guil. Needham R. R. in Christo P. ac D. D. Whilhelmo Archiep. Cantuar. Ã Sacr. Domest Mart. 22. 1677 / 8. THE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES IN Pope Pius ' s Creed NO ARTICLES OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH AMONG those many and great grievances which we complain of in the Church of Rome the Additional Articles of Pope Pius IV. are none of the least We look upon them as Additions to the ancient Faith imposed with great severity and as Novelties introduced into the Church without any Authority But the Vindicator tells us That though we of the Church of England be the most forward yet we of all sorts of Christians have the least reason to condemn this Prelate for this Addition who for XXIV Articles in his Profession have XXXIX in our own If this were true or the Additions were of the same kind this Remarque of his might pass among thinking Men as very considerable But had this Gentleman been so Thinking a person as he would make the World believe he is he would not have been guilty of so great a Blunder he would have seen a vast difference between Articles of Faith and Articles of Communion We do not find fault with the Church of Rome or any particular Church or any Society of Men whether Sacred or Civil for making Laws and Rules to govern themselves by or framing Articles upon compliance wherewith they will admit into or acknowledge any one to be a Member of their Society provided they be such as may be complied with without Sin and Danger But we deny that the Church of Rome or any particular Church or the Catholick Church it self hath any Authority to make new Articles of Faith or declare any thing as necessary to be Believed in order to Man's Salvation which was not so antecedent to such Declaration And this I take to be the true state of the Question between us and the Church of Rome and not as the Vindicator states it Whether there be Authority in the Catholick Church of Christ whichsoever it be to make any Addition of Articles to the Apostles Creed and require other terms of Communion besides the assenting to what is expressed in that Symbol Upon this mistaken Question the Vindicator proceeds and all along fights with his own shadow nor with us for all that we say is only this That no new Articles of Faith ought to be added to the Apostles Creed but we never denied That other terms of Communion besides the assenting to what is expressed in that Symbol may by any Church be required of Her Members Unless therefore the Vindicator do make it appear That new Articles of Faith de jure may be or de facto have been by consent of the Catholick Church added to the Apostles Creed he will not at all impugn the Church of England nor will the Church of Rome be much indebted to him for his Vindication Now whether he doth or hath made this appear will best be seen by taking his Instances into Consideration by which he pretends and endeavours to do it But before I do that it may be convenient to acquaint you what is the just and true differences between Articles of Faith and Articles of Communion Articles of Faith I take to be certain Propositions containing such divine Verities as are necessary to be believed and assented to by all Christians in order to their Salvation Articles of Communion I take to be some certain Laws or Rules agreed upon and established by some particular Society of Christians a compliance wherewith is necessary to the admittance of any one as a Member of that Society and an Observance whereof is necessary to the Peace Order and good Government of that Society The former of these are certain Fundamental Verities taught us by God revealed in the holy Scriptures and summarily comprized in the Apostles Creed For this we have the Authority of the Trent Catechism * Catech. ad Parochos par 1. Tit. de 12. Symboli Articulis n. 1. and therefore may reasonably suppose that it will not be disowned by those of the Roman Communion And if this be granted then methinks the Consequence is plain That whatsoever is not contained in the Apostles Creed is not to be admitted as an Article of Faith. For there are many Truths revealed by God in holy Scriptures all which when known to be so revealed are necessary to be believed yet are they not all of equal necessity to Salvation and consequently not to be admitted as Articles of Faith in the strict and proper acceptation of the Word The latter are things of a quite different nature respecting principally the Peace Order and good Government of some particular Society necessary to be assented to and observed by all the Members thereof but not by all Christians For there are great Numbers of Ecclesiastical Societies in the World all or most of which have different terms of Communion which the Members of every particular Society are obliged to comply with but the Members of one Society are not under the same Obligation to observe the Constitutions of another as they are to do those of their own The Catholick Church we know is divided into several particular Churches differing in the terms of their Communion and yet none will deny but that the terms of Communion in each particular Church are to be observed in order to those ends before mentioned by the respective Members of those several Churches 'T is true indeed that all those particular Churches are Members of the Catholick Church and do or ought to hold Communion with her in Faith and Worship and upon the same terms with one another But as to what relates to the admitting of Members into or casting them out of their Society they have different terms and always have had without blame and without any the least breach of that general Communion But to bring the Instance a little nearer the Church of Rome which calls her self Catholick hath many particular Societies within her self as the Benedictines the Franciscans the Dominicans the Jesuits c. all which have particular Laws and Rules and those different from one another which are the Bands and Ligaments of their several Societies And yet the Vindicator will not deny but that they are all true Members of the Church and do hold Communion with her and with one another notwithstanding those different terms of Communion among themselves By what hath been said you may easily observe a vast difference between these two sorts of Articles which difference I shall briefly recapitulate to you in these Four particulars
I. Church Communion it is plain is of two sorts either with the Catholick or with a particular Church Now it must be acknowledged That Articles of Faith properly so called are really terms of Communion with the Catholick Church for by our Profession of them it is that we are look'd upon as Christians and own'd as members of the Catholick Church But they are not nor cannot be the only terms of Communion with any particular Church for it is not by owning and assenting to the terms of Communion with any particular Church that we are called Christians but only Christians of such or such a Denomination i. e. We are upon our compliance with such terms look'd upon as Members of such a particular Society of Christians II. Articles of Faith properly so called are certain Fundamental Verities revealed by God in holy Scripture and summarily comprized in the Apostles Creed But meer Articles of Communion with any particular Church are no fundamental Verities of Religion though they may be fundamental Constitutions of a Society nor is it necessary that they should all be revealed by God but may be invented by Men and certain it is that all of them never were comprized either in the Apostles or any other ancient Creed III. Articles of Faith are the same to all Christians being such fundamental Verities as all ought to believe and assent thereunto But Articles of Communion are various each Community having different terms of Communion from another so that the Members of one Society though they stand obliged to comply with observe and assent unto the terms of Communion established and required of them by their own Body yet are they not any way obliged to comply with observe or assent unto the terms of Communion required in another IV. Articles of Faith are certain fundamental Verities necessary to be believed and assented to by all Christians in order to their Salvation but Articles of Communion as such are not necessary to the Salvation of Men but only to the Peace Order and good Government of a Society For a Member of one Society may be safe and saved at last without complying with the terms of Communion established by another Having thus represented to you the difference between these two sorts of Articles I shall now proceed to consider the Vindicator's Instances by which he endeavours to prove That it is in the power of the Church to add unto the Apostles Creed not only other Articles of Communion besides the assenting to what is expressed in that Symbol but also other Articles of Faith. His first Instance is The acknowledged practice of the Primitive Church in the time of her confessed Purity This is a mighty Instance and if he can make any thing of it to evince the Addition of any new Article of Faith to the Apostles Creed in that time he will do a great Work for we own there is a great deal of difference due to the practice of the Primitive Church in that time But instead of so doing he acknowledgeth that the Apostles Creed was the only summary of the Christian Faith known in the first Three hundred Years And if so then the Church in all that time never thought it necessary to add any new Article thereunto But after this time saith he upon occasion of the Arian Heresie another Creed was composed by the Council of Nice with an express condemnation and detestation of that new broach'd Error in the Addition of these Words in relation to the Divinity of the Son I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ the only begotten Son of God * For begotten born of his Father before all Worlds God of God Light of Light very God of very God begotten not made consubstantial to the Father And without the express assenting to this Addition none could be admitted to Ordination or be acknowledged as Members of the Church Which Creed with this Addition was received by the whole Church and Subscription to it is required by the Church of England Art. VIII Here this Gentleman as he thinks hath found a considerable Addition to the Apostles Creed and that made by no less Authority than that of the Famous Council of Nice But certainly never any Thinking Man besides himself ever thought this to be an Addition to but only an Explication of the Apostles Creed or a Declaration of what was the Sence of the Church in those Three hundred Years preceding touching that Article of the Apostles Creed And whereas he saith That without the express Assenting to this Addition as he calls it none could be admitted to Ordination or be acknowledg'd as Members of the Church It is very true but little to his purpose for what doth this import but only that an Assent to this Explication was required as a term of Communion but not that it should be owned as a new Article of Faith. And whereas he further saith That this Creed with this Addition was received by the whole Church and a Subscription to it is now required by the Church of England Art. VIII It is very true and the Church of England in the same Article will tell him upon what Grounds she now doth and the Church then did receive this Creed The Three Creeds Nice Creed Athanasius's Creed and that which is commonly called the Apostles Creed ought throughly to be received and believed for they may be proved by most certain Warrants of holy Scripture So that upon the whole matter it is very evident That the Council of Nice makes no new Article but only explains an old one The same Answer may serve to his two next Instances out of the Athanasian and Constantinopolitan Creeds in which upon like Occasions we meet with Explications of some other Articles of the Apostles Creed but no Addition of any new Article thereunto But our Vindicator being a mighty Thinking Man hath found out a way not only of confounding Articles of Faith with Articles of Communion but also of jumbling Additions and Explications together as if they were one and the same thing And if you will allow this Issue of his so pregnant Thoughts you shall not want a Vindication of the most absurd Doctrines and irregular Practices in the Church of Rome but if you deny him this you take away the Foundation he is to build upon and then it would be unreasonable for you to expect any good and durable Superstructure from him This is plain from his next Instance which is taken from the XXXIX Articles of the Church of England in which he saith are many particular Points not found in the Symbol of the Apostles nor yet in any of the forementioned Creeds of the Primitive Church Whence he concludes That the Church of England hath greater variety and a greater number of Additional Atticles than the Church of Rome To make good which conclusion he must according to his new way of Thinking take all the Articles of our Church to be Articles of Faith strictly and
properly so called as necessary to be received and believed by all Men in order to their Salvation as the Articles of Pope Pius IV. Bulla Pii 4ti apud Concil Trid. are declared to be or else the force of his Argument is quite lost For if they be only Articles of Communion such as are necessary only for our admittance into and our peaceable and orderly living in that Society of which we are Members then are they no Additions to the Apostles Creed which only contains Articles of Faith. And that they are so will evidently appear if the Church of England may be but allowed to speak for her self Art. VI. She will tell us That the Holy Scripture contains all things necessary to Salvation so that whatsoever is not read therein nor may be proved thereby is not to be required of any Man that it should be believed as an Article of the Faith or be thought requisite or necessary to Salvation Art. VIII And she will further tells us That the Three Creeds the Nicene the Athanasian and that commonly called the Apostles Creed ought throughly to be received and believed for they may be proved by most certain Warrants of holy Scripture But when she speaks of her own Articles she tells us they were agreed upon and designed for this end and purpose viz. For the avoiding of diversities of Opinions and for the establishing of Consent touching true Religion It is a scandal therefore upon the Church of England to say that she ever thought it lawful to add to the Apostles Creed or that it was in hers or in the power of the Church of Rome or of all the Churches in the World to make or coin any one new Article of Faith. Which if it be true then will it be a very hard task indeed to justifie Pope Pius IV. who hath added XII new Articles as necessary to be received and believed by all Men in order to their Salvation To bring off this Prelate as well as he can our Vindicator tells us That these Articles were collected by him at that time in opposition to the then broach'd Errors of Luther and Calvin that in so doing he is warranted by Primitive practices and that the Articles do not contain any new Doctrine but only a Declaration of that to be the true and Orthodox Doctrine of the Church which was really so antecedent to that Declaration And therefore saith he We have now only to enquire Whether the Doctrine propos'd in the profession of Pius IV. be according to Scripture and the sence of the Primitive Fathers if it be not they do well that reject it but if it be the noise of Additional Articles will be but a weak justification of those that have made a breach in the Church on this score That these Articles were collected in opposition to some pretended Errors of Luther and Calvin and that it was the practice of the Primitive Church when any Error or Heresie was raised against any point of received Doctrine to condemn the Error or Heresie and the Abettors of them and to declare the opposed Doctrine to be Orthodox is readily granted But Whether the Doctrine delivered in these Articles be new or old is the thing now in question The Vindicator undertakes to prove that it is according to Scripture and the Sence of the Primitive Fathers which if he do then we must own our selves to blame but if he fail in it then notwithstanding this his Vindication he must if he be ingenuous acknowledge that we have just cause to withdraw from their Communion upon that score The Profession of Pope Pius IV. I steadfastly admit and embrace Apostolical and Ecclesiastical Traditions and other Observances and Constitutions of the Church IN this Article there are III. things which we are required to admit and embrace I. Apostolical Traditions II. Ecclesiastical Traditions III. Other Observances and Constitutions of the Church As for the first of these viz. Traditions truly Apostolical and universally own'd for obligatory through all ages we are ready with all due Veneration and profound Reverence to admit and embrace them We are well assured that the Apostles were Men divinely inspired and whatsoever Doctrine was delivered by them or whatsoever Rules of practice they did prescribe to be perpetually observed in the Church were no less than the Dictates of unerring Wisdom and therefore to contravene or not comply with them if they be sufficiently propounded to us would be great impiety But if we do not receive every thing as a Tradition truly Apostolical which is pretended to be so we ought to be excused by the Imposers If we are told as we have been by some of the Romish Writers That the whole Canon word by word as it is now used in the Mass came directly from the Apostles Or That the Apostles appointed their Orders of Monks Or That Christ was the Captain and Standard-bearer of Monastick life Or That private Mass Half-Communion Purgatory Pardons Indulgences and I know not what else are all from the Apostles This will want a confirmation and till we have it we must beg leave to suspend our belief and crave their pardon if we do not admit or embrace it as a Tradition truly Apostolical The next thing we are required to admit and embrace are Ecclesiastical Traditions Now those are either such as have been universally received by the Church in all Ages or are recommended to us by the present Church only The former of these we have a very great regard and reverence for are willing to admit and embrace them Sess 4. de Canon Script Contra Crescon Gram. l. 2. c. 31. Aug. ad Hieron Epist 19. and to give them the next place in our esteem to Scripture Tradition But we cannot be so complaisant nor so far comply with the Council of Trent to receive them with equal affection and reverence We think with St. Aug. That it is no injury to St. Cyprian to distinguish his Writings from the Canonical Authority of the holy Scriptures And with the same holy Father We think That the Jugdment of St. Paul alone is to be preferred before that of all the Fathers taken together The latter of these viz. The Traditions of the present Church though we have a very great esteem and value for them yet without a strict examination how far they agree with Scripture and Universal Tradition we cannot so readily admit and embrace them For as St. Hierom in his time said so we say now Those things which Men invent of themselves Hieron in 1. c. Agg. Proph. as it were by Apostolical Tradition without the Authority and witness of the holy Scriptures are confounded by God. The third thing we are here required to admit and embrace are All other Observances and Constitutions of the same Church If by Church here be mean the Catholique Church of all Ages whatsoever is made appear to have been an Observance or Constitution thereof we shall
have a mighty regard for it but how shall we know what the Observances and Constitutions of the Church have been if they be not conveyed unto us by an uninterrupted and unquestionable Tradition and if we do not know them how can we admit or embrace them But it is remarkable That the Observances and Constitutions mentioned in this Article are things different from what hath been delivered to us either by Apostolical or Ecclesiastical Tradition else why are they called other And it is as observable That by Church here he doth not mean the Church of all Ages but the present Church only not the Catholick but the Roman Catholick Church whose Observances and Constitutions we are required to admit and embrace Otherwise why doth he restrain it to the same Church which word same the Vindicator hath thought fit to leave out Now there are many Observances and Constitutions in the Church of Rome which we think she hath no authority to impose upon other Churches nor have they any reason to admit and embrace But notwithstanding all this our Vindicator hath undertaken to prove That not only this but all the Articles in the Profession of Pope Pius IV. are according to Scripture and the sence of the Primitive Fathers How well he hath acquitted himself in this undertaking I shall now examine and observing his own method shall consider his proofs of every Article severally He begins his proof of this Article by Scripture and then fortifies it by the Testimony of the Fathers His first Scripture proof is taken out of 2 Thes 2.15 Where St. Paul saith Brethren stand fast and hold the traditions which ye have been taught whether by word or our epistle Here he observes That there are two ways of delivering the sacred Truth one by writing the other by Word of Mouth and that the Doctrine is to be held fast whether it be delivered the one way or the other All which we readily grant him provided it be made appear That the Tradition as it stands distinguished from the written Word be Apostolical or that what is so delivered be Truth or a Doctrine agreeable to the written Word For certainly St. Paul did not preach one thing and write another and if he did not then all that can be made of this Text will amount only to this Hold fast the self same substance of Religion and Doctrine that I have taught you either by Word or Writing i. e. either by preaching unto you in person when present or instructing you by my Epistle Niceph. l. 2. c. 45. when at a distance Thus Nicephorus understands it telling us That those things which St. Paul had plainly taught by preaching when present the same things being absent he was desirous to recal to their memories by a compendious recapitulation of them in Writing Hieron in 2 Th. 2. And the Annotator under St. Hierom's name saith Quando sua vult teneri non vult extranea superaddi And if thus we are to understand this place it will do but little service for the support of Romish Traditions Many I wish I might not say most of which are besides if not against the written word But doth not St. Chrysostome understand this place of Scripture otherwise Chrysost in 2 Th. 2.15 Hom. 4 the Vindicator thinks he doth and therefore hath produced him as an evidence against us Well let us hear what he saith They the Apostles have not delivered all in their Epistles who denies it but many things also without writing who doubts of it which are likewise to be believed yes if we knew what they were But all things worthy of belief and which ought to be believed when known are not necessary nor indeed possible to be believed before they are known John 21.25 Those many other things which Jesus did and were never written of which St. John speaks would all be worthy of belief and ought to be believed if they were known but not being known they are not necessary to be believed nor are we obliged to believe any one who tells us This or That was one of them the Scripture being silent therein But St. Chrysostome adds Let us therefore esteem the Tradition of the Church worthy of Credit 'T is a Tradition enquire no farther We grant the Tradition of the Church is worthy of Belief and when any is made appear to be so we will seek no farther But then it must be the Tradition not of the present Church only but of the Church in all Ages and such a Tradition as from hand to hand and Age to Age brings us up to the times and persons of the Apostles and our Saviour himself and so is confirmed by all those Miracles and other arguments whereby they convinced their Doctrine to be true But I know none can better acquaint us with the mind and meaning of St. Chrysostome than St. Chrysostome himself who in the same Homily out of which these words are taken Chrysost ibid. hath these other All those things that are in the holy Scriptures are right and clear all that which is necessary is therein clear and manifest And if so then those Traditions that are not in the Scripture are unnecessary things In Ps 95. And the same Father in another place tells us When we say any thing without the Scripture the thoughts of the Hearers are uncertain The Traditions therefore which St. Chrysostome here speaks of are such as are either contained in or may be warranted by the written word and if so then he will stand the Vindicator in little stead His next Scripture Proof is taken out of 2 Tim. c. 2. v. 2. where St. Paul thus directeth Timothy The things that thou hast heard of me among many Witnesses the same commit thou to faithful men who shall be able to teach others also Whence he observes That St. Paul takes care that what he had taught the faithful though only heard from him might be observed and conveyed down to Posterity by their teaching of others How well this Gloss doth agree with the Text needs no other evidence than comparing the one with the other But if we would know St. Paul's design in these words let us consider for what end he besought Timothy to abide still at Ephesus when he himself went into Macedonia which he tells us was That he might charge some to teach no other Doctrine 1 Tim. 1.3 i. e. None other but what he himself had delivered to the Ephesians for there were certain false Apostles which did endeavour to draw the Ephesians to the observation of Legal Rites and Jewish Traditions as necessary to salvation saith their own Lyra upon the place The business therefore which Timothy had to do as Governour of that Church was That none but only faithful and able men should be admitted by him to preach unto them And this is that which St. Paul again charges him to do in this place so their own Lyra upon the
the Scriptures when we do that which has seem'd good to the whole Church And who denies it We have too great a Veneration for the Doctrine and Practice of the Vniversal Church to suspect that there can be any ill in them let but any thing be made appear to have been universally received or universally practised by the Church in all Ages and we will readily admit and embrace it we will acquiesce in it and seek no farther Thus far do we perfectly agree with this holy Father nor do we dissent from him in the rest Which Church says he is commended to us by the Authority of the Scriptures Well then by his Rule we must understand the Scriptures before we can know the Church Now the Scriptures they themselves confess do not consist in the Letters and Words but in the Sence and meaning And if so then we must understand the sence and meaning of Scriptures antecedent to the Churches Interpretation of them But he goes on To the end says he that because Holy Writ cannot deceive whosoever is afraid of being deceived by the difficulty of this question may consult the Church concerning it which without leaving room to doubt the holy Scripture demonstrates And here I cannot but remarque I. That according to St. Austin Holy Writ is the only infallible rule to judge by for it cannot deceive II. That by this rule we are to find out the true Church for without any ambiguity or leaving room to doubt it plainly demonstrates it to us III. That having by this means found out the true Church we ought in all questions which are too hard and difficult for us to consult her about them All which we readily agree to Now let the Vindicator once more put on his spectacles and seriously review this place of St. Austin and I dare appeal to himself or any man of sence whether it do not directly conclude against this Article which he undertakes to prove by it But perhaps he may have better luck with his next Authority let us therefore consider that too which he cites out of the same Father de Vnitat Eccles c. 19. whence he quotes these words If we had any wise man whose Authority was recommended to us by Christ himself we could no ways doubt of following his judgment having consulted him upon this point lest in refusing we should not so much seem obstinately to withstand him as Jesus Christ our Lord by whose testimony he was recommended to us Who doubts of all this If it had pleased our Blessed Saviour to have given such testimony to the Church of Rome or any other Church we should never have doubted to follow the judgment of that Church and when they can make it appear that he hath done so we shall without any the least scruple submit to it But St. Austin goes on Christ hath given testimony of his Church True but where is it not in the holy Scriptures and if so then we must understand them before we can be satisfied concerning this Testimony and as this Church directs you ought with all readiness obey Right but first we must know which is this Church and that according to St. Austin we cannot do but by the Scriptures And if you will not 't is not to me you are disobedient or any man but most perversly to the prejudice of your own Soul you withstand Christ himself because you refuse to follow the Church which is recommended by his Authority whom you judge it a wickedness to resist All this we can readily subscribe to for when by the Holy Scripture we have once found out which is the true Church we ought with all readiness to yield obedience thereunto because it is recommended to us by the Authority of Jesus Christ whom to resist in any thing we account a great wickedness But where shall we meet with this Authoritative Recommendation except in the holy Scriptures So that still we must understand the Scriptures before we can know which is that Church that is recommended to us by Christ And now pray'e what is all this to the proof of this Article That it belongs to the Church to judge of the true sence and interpretation of Scripture and that we are not to admit Scripture to be Scripture but according to that sence which she gives of it And yet all this while we cannot according to St. Austin know the Church but by the Scripture I do also profess that there are truly and properly seven Sacraments of the new Law instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ and necessary for the salvation of Mankind though all be not necessary for every one to wit Baptism Confirmation Eucharist Penance Extream Vnction Order and Matrimony that they conferr Grace and that three of them Baptism Confirmation and Order cannot be reiterated without Sacrilege HERE the Vindicator tells us That the holy Scripture no where assigns the number of the Sacraments either of their being two or seven Neither doth it give us the definition of a Sacrament and the word is not so much as named in the English Translation and only once in the Vulgar viz. Ephes v. 32. speaking of Matrimony All that we believe therefore in this point we receive from the Church as it hath been delivered founded upon the Doctrine of the Fathers and the Sence of the Scripture To this I answer That it is not more plain that in Scripture there is no mention of Sacraments than that in the Fathers there is no mention of seven The determination of the number is of so late a date Cassand Consult Art. 13. de numero Sacram. An. 1439. that their ingenuous Cassander freely confesses That it is not easie to find any man before Peter Lombard who lived in the twelfth Century which hath set down any certain and definite number of Sacraments The Council of Florence indeed insinuates this number of seven Sacraments as Suarez contends But it was never determined till the late Council of Trent in the last Age and therefore must needs be a great Novelty An. 1546. But to vindicate the Doctrine of seven Sacraments as it is now taught in the Church of Rome and summ'd up in this Article from the imputation of Novelty This Gentleman undertakes to prove that it is founded upon the Doctrine of the Fathers and the sence of the Scripture wherein how well he acquits himself we shall now consider But because he tells us that the Holy Scripture gives us no definition of a Sacrament It will be necessary to state the notion of the thing and to agree what it is before we dispute how many of them there be To the constitution of a Sacrament properly so called we say that these three things must of necessity concurr viz. the word of Institution a visible Sign or outward Element Aug. in Joan. Tract 80. and a promise of invisible Grace annexed thereunto Which is the same that St. Austin saith Accedat verbum ad
him anointing him with Oil in the Name of the Lord And the prayer of Faith shall save the sick and the Lord shall raise him up and if he have committed sins they shall be forgiven him This place of Scripture hath been often enough brought upon the stage by one or other of the Roman party and as often considered and the Arguments drawn from it baffled by some of our Men. And therefore when I met with it here I did expect that this Gentleman who is so brisk at a Vindication had found some new Matter in it and thereby cut us out some new Work but instead of that he only quotes the place transcribes the words and leaves them to shift for themselves What therefore is here to be done by us save only to consider the design of the Apostle in these Words Which is plainly this St. James directs the sick person to call for the Elders of the Church to assist him in that condition The means by which they were to assist him are Two 1. They were to pray over him And 2. To anoint him with Oil in the Name of the Lord. And that in order to Two ends 1. The Recovery of the Sick. 2. The Remission of Sins Of these Means and Ends the one is Perpetual viz. Prayer and Remission of Sins the other Temporary viz. The Anointing with Oil and the Recovery of bodily Health That the Apostles had the Gift of Healing we grant and that in order to the working of their miraculous Cures they did use the Ceremony of Anointing with Oil we deny not but the Gift of Healing being now ceased in the Church that Ceremony is become useless and unprofitable and for that reason laid aside for God loves no unprofitable Signs Whilst it was in use it was used only in Order to bodily health but now in the Church of Rome it is not to be used whilst there are any hopes of Recovery but only in Articulo mortis when Men are at the point of Death as a viaticum into the other World. That this was design'd and used only in order to bodily health is plain from the Ancient Rituals of the Roman Church for above Eight hundred Years after Christ And Cardinal Cajetan freely confesseth Annot. in loc that this was the only use of it for saith he These words of St. James speak not of the Sacramental Vnction of Extream Vnction whether we consider the words or the Effects of them but rather of the Vnction which the Lord Jesus ordained in the Gospel to be used by his Disciples to the Sick. For the Text saith not Is any sick to Death but absolutely Is any sick Nor doth it assign any other use of anointing of the sick person but only the recovery of bodily health And the Ingenuous Cassander Cassand in Consult Art. 22. without any hesitation freely delivers his Opinion saying It is no Sacrament properly so called because it hath neither Word of Institution nor outward Element The eldest Evidence that we meet with for this pretended Popish Sacrament of Extream Vnction is the Council of Chalons Anno. 813. which was held above Eight hundred Years after Christ and was but at best a National Synod neither So that though we do not deny but that Anointing the Sick with Oil was a very Ancient Rite yet we cannot but look upon it as a very New Sacrament and one that was never advanc'd to that honour by any Appointmant of our blessed Saviour Of the pretended Sacrament of Orders TO evince this he produceth 2 Tim. i. 6. where St. Paul saith I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the Gift of God which is in thee by the putting on of my Hands St. Paul here admonisheth his Son Timothy to a vigorous exercise of that Power and Authority which by the Imposition of his Hands he had received to Preach the Gospel Lyra in loc And this is all that their own Lyra can find in this place But the Question between us is not Whether the Office of a Priest ought to be conferred upon him by the Imposition of Hands but whether such Ordination be a Sacrament of the new Law instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ To this I answer That if by the word Sacrament they only mean any sacred Sign or Mystery in Religion in which sence it is frequently used especially by the Latine Fathers we can very willingly and readily admit this Imposition of hands to be called a Sacrament But if they would advance it higher and have it called a Sacrament in the same sence as Baptism and the Supper of the Lord are or as this Article requires That we should receive it as a Sacrament of the New Law instituted by Jesus Christ and necessary for the Salvation of Mankind we cannot in this consent with them and that for these Reasons I. Because Imposition of hands though it be a Sign yet is it not a sacred Sign of the Covenant of God in Jesus Christ II. Because it is not common to all the Faithful but confin'd to a certain order of Men only III. Because there is no express Institution of it to be found in the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament and consequently no promise of Grace annexed to it IV. Because it is well known that many of the Roman Communion do not think Imposition of hands to be Essential to Holy Orders and if not then can it be no outward Sign of a Sacrament in them Nor can Ordination it self be a Sacrament seeing there is no outward visible Sign of it ordained by God. For these Reasons Though we acknowledge the Conferring of Orders by Imposition of hands to have been a very ancient usage in the Church and of Apostolical practice yet we think it to be a very new i. e. no Sacrament Of the pretended Sacrament of Matrimony AS an evidence of this he produceth Eph. v. 31 32. where St. Paul saith For this cause shall a man leave his Father and Mother and shall be joined to his Wife and they two shall be one flesh This is a great mystery but I speak concerning Christ and his Church The Church of Rome calls the marriage of Priests Sacrilege and yet will have the Marriage of Lay-men to be a Sacrament which conferrs justifying Grace And to prove this the Vindicator alledgeth this Text of Scripture as many others before him have done and have received their answer but as if there had been no such thing this Gentleman with sufficient confidence barely cites it and so leaves it To which however I shall return this answer The Apostle in this place as is plain to every considerate Reader speaketh of the sacred Union between Jesus Christ and his Church which Union he illustrates by that of Marriage between the Husband and the Wife His intent was not to exalt the Mystery of Marriage but the Union of the Church with Jesus Christ This Mystery then whereof he speaketh is the
Mystical Union between Jesus Christ and his Church and not the Union between the Husband and the Wife For having said This is a great Mystery that we might not think that he spake of the Mystery of Marriage he addeth But I speak concerning Jesus Christ and his Church But the Vulgar Translation of this Text calls it a Sacrament we grant it but doth this prove Marriage to be a Sacrament Will the Vindicator own all those things which in the Vulgar Translation are called Sacraments to be Sacraments of the Church of Rome Then the great Whore mentioned in the Revelations must be one of their Sacraments for so the Vulgar Translation calls her Rev. xvij 7. And the seven Stars mentioned Rev. i. 20. must be another for so they are there called And Dreams and Visions must be a third for so they are three times called Dan. ij 18 30 47. And Piety is called a great Sacrament 1 Tim. iij. 16. I suppose he will not own these to be Sacraments of the Church of Rome and yet in their Authentick Translation they are called Sacraments as well as Marriage But that Marriage is no Sacrament of the New Law instituted by Jesus Christ among many others we have these reasons to satisfy our selves I. Because it was not instituted by Jesus Christ for it was in the World before his time If after his coming the blessed Jesus did change the nature of it and make it a Sacrament then let them shew us when and where he did it II. Because as it hath no word of Institution so neither hath it any visible Sign or outward Element for neither the words nor the actions are Elements and unless there be an Element to which the word of Institution is joined it can be no Sacrament III. Because there is no promise of Grace annexed to any outward Element for though the state of Matrimony be a sign of that Mystical Union between Christ and his Church having some Analogy with it ye we do not know that the entrance into this state hath the promise of any Grace to join or preserve us in that Union with Christ and his Church And for these reasons we exclude it from the Sacraments of the New Law instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ with all the requisites of a Sacrament properly so called And for our so doing we do not want Authorities among the eminent Doctors of the Roman Church I shall only give you two instances Their own Durandus delivers his opinion in plain terms telling us Durand in sentent l. 4. Dist 26. q. 3. Cajetan Annot. in loc That strictly and properly speaking Marriage is not a Sacrament And Cardinal Cajetan upon this place of Scripture cited by the Vindicator hath these words Prudent Reader thou learnest not here of St. Paul that Marriage is a Sacrament for he saith not This Sacrament but this Mystery is great and in truth the Mystery of those words is great Thus it appears that neither from Antiquity nor the written Word of God any of these five Additional Sacraments of the Church of Rome viz. Confirmation Penance Extream Vnction Order and Matrimony can with any justice plead the same title to be Sacraments of the New Law instituted by Christ and necessary for the Salvation of Mankind as it is confessed on all hands Baptism and the Lord's Supper may I do also receive and admit of all the received and approved Ceremonies of the Catholick Church used in the Administration of the above-mentioned Sacraments 1 Cor. xiv 40. THAT all things are to be done decently and in order we own to be an Apostolical precept and that in point of duty we stand obliged to yield Obedience thereunto We also acknowledge that the Superiors in every Society are the proper Judges of that Decency and Order And that it always hath been and still is the practice of all well-ordered Societies to submit to the Determination of their Superiors therein And that to invert this Order or for private persons to take upon them to dictate to their Governours in this case is the only way to introduce Anarchy and Confusion Which is all or at least the substance of all that the Vindicator here offers in behalf of this Article But after this Concession there are some things still stick with us which will not suffer us to subscribe thereunto viz. I. Because we are required to receive it not only as an Article of Communion but as an Article of Faith under the penalty of an Anathema though it only concern Ceremonies which are things mutable at the pleasure of the Church II. Because the Ceremonies here spoken of or some of them neither are nor ever were received nor approved by the Catholick Church III. Because the Roman Catholick Church as they call it is but a particular Church and hath no more power to impose Ceremonies or Usages upon any other Church than that other hath to impose upon Her. For Par in parem non habet imperium IV. If any Ceremonies imposed by the Church of Rome or any other Church be such as that the Members of that Church cannot comply with them without sin and danger the general rule of the Apostle doth not in that case bind to blind Obedience For then there is an Apostolical pattern which must take place Whether it be better to obey God or man judge ye Acts iv 19. I embrace and receive all and every thing which in the Holy Council of Trent hath been defin'd concerning Original Sin and Justification IN defence of this Article and to perswade us to a compliance therewith the Vindicator proceeds in this method I. He undertakes to give us an account of what the Council hath defin'd in these two points And II. To vindicate those their Definitions Now whether he hath been faithful in his account or whether the Definitions of the Council or his Vindication of them be such as may oblige us to comply with him and the Council therein are the things we are now to enquire into I. As touching Original Sin it must be acknowledged that the Vindicator hath faithfully set down the Doctrine thereof as it is defin'd by the Council of Trent But notwithstanding the Authority of this Council or the strength of the Proofs which indeed are weak enough whereby he endeavours to defend its Definition of this point yet there are some things we cannot comply with and till we are convinc'd by better Arguments than are here offered we cannot embrace all and every thing which in the Council of Trent hath been defin'd in this point But because the difference here is not very great and no new matter offered but only such as hath been over and over again considered and refuted and because there are matters of greater moment still behind Concil Trident. Sess 5. Decret de peccat Origin Can. 5. I shall only desire the Vindicator once more to read over that very Decree upon which this part of
more grievously offended By fruits worthy of Repentance we are therefore to understand such fruits as are meet to testifie the truth of our Repentance and fit us to receive Grace and Favour offered And if we consider the following words they will farther confirm us herein for it is added v. 5. He that overcometh shall be cloathed in white aray c. Whence it is evident that to walk in white or to be worthy to do so was not a privilege peculiar to those few names in Sardis which had not defiled their garments but to all others who by Faith are armed with the power of Christ and by that means obtain a Victory over the World and the Devil for they also shall be cloathed with white aray This well represents that Righteousness wherewith all the blessed ones shall stand cloathed and covered before God which is not their own but a Righteousness given unto them by another and put upon them And is the same spoken of by holy David and quoted by St. Paul when he had occasion to treat of this argument 〈◊〉 xxxij 2. â—om iv 7 8. Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not sin To be worthy therefore imports not that Men do merit eternal life by their works but it imports a fitness and capacity in them to receive it being justified by Faith in Christ Jesus as their holy and godly life did declare His next Scripture proof is Matth. v. 12. Rejoice and be exceeding glad for great is your reward in Heaven Whence he inferrs that Heaven is given as a reward for their suffering and good Works That Heaven is a Reward we grant but it is a Reward of Grace not of Debt That it is given to those that suffer for Righteousness sake and do well we deny not but it is not given them for their suffering or well-doing And we acknowledge that it is a great Reward so great that it far exceeds the merit of all that we can do or suffer For our light afflictions which are but for a moment work for us a far more exceeding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and eternal weight of glory saith St. Paul 2 Cor. iv 17. His last Scripture is Matth. xxv 34. where our Saviour is giving an account in what manner he will proceed in the last Judgment What inference the Vindicator would draw from hence he leave us to divine for he only quotes it and so leaves it and so shall I too till he thinks fit to form his argument and bless the World with the sight of it But he closeth up his Scripture Arguments with this Salvo All this as supposing and built upon the promise of Christ and his assisting grace Which if I mistake not is a full confutation of all that he hath been endeavouring to prove For if our good works be done by his assisting grace as undoubtedly they are then are they not so our own as to merit by them and if our deserving life everlasting must suppose and be built upon the promise of Christ then is it not a Reward of Debt but of Grace or by Pact and Promise which is the thing we contend for And now I come to examine his Authorities which he brings out of two Epistles of St. Austin viz. the 105. and the 118. ad Sixt. I have carefully read over these two Epistles which I question whether the Vindicator has done for if he had he would not have been guilty of so great a mistake for the 118 Epistle is not directed to Sixtus as he saith it is but to Januarius nor is there one word in it of all that he here quotes out of it nor any one Syllable relating to that matter it being wholly spent in directing him how to conform himself to the Customs of any particular Church where he came provided they were not contrary to Faith and good manners especially in the business of Fasting and the Eucharist The 105. Epistle is indeed directed to Sixtus though he doth not tell us it is and in that I meet with what he here sets down which makes me conjecture that he hath taken it from some other upon trust for if he did consult the Author himself he betrays a great want either of honesty or ingenuity or both For it is not honest in any man to curtail his Author's Sence nor is it very ingenuous by that means to endeavour to impose upon unwary Readers All therefore that I have here to do is to bring St. Austin to speak for himself and so leave the unbyassed Reader to judge between us The design of St. Austin in this Epistle is to instruct Sixtus how to answer the Arguments of the Pelagians who were then the great Advocates for Free Will and Merits by advancing the Free Grace and Mercy of God against them St. Austin in this Epistle hath these words which the Vindicator sets down viz. As death is rendred to the Merit of sin as the pay so everlasting life is rendred as the pay to the merit of Justice But he doth not tell you what goes before nor what follows after those words in that place If he had you would more clearly have understood St. Austin's meaning than perhaps he desired you should To undeceive you therefore I stall give you the passage intire as it is in the Author When St. Paul saith he in Rom. vi 23. had said The wages of sin is death who would not have expected that he should have added and the wages of righteousness is eternal life And truly it is so for as death is rendred to the merit of sin as the wages so eternal life as the wages is rendred to the merit of Righteousness But the blessed Apostle to repress the pride of Men saith The Wages of Sin is Death Truly Wages because due because worthily deserved because rendred to Merit But then to prevent the exalting of our selves upon the account of our own Merit or Righteousness he doth not say The Wages of Righteousness is eternal Life but the gift of God is eternal Life And that we may not seek it in any other way he adds In Christ Jesus our Lord. As if he should have said O Humane not Righteousness but Pride in the name of Righteousness why dost thou begin to exalt thy self and to require eternal Life as Wages due to thee It is true Righteousness to which eternal life is due But if it be true Righteousness it is not of thy self but is from above coming down from the Father of lights Wherefore O Man if thou art about to receive eternal Life it is indeed the Wages of Righteousness but to thee it is a Grace to whom Righteousness it self is a Grace In the same Epistle I also meet with these words Are there no Merits of the Righteous surely there are because they are Righteous But they had no Merits by which they became Righteous For
honour that we can do them But that they are to be invocated call'd upon or pray'd unto we cannot consent because we have no warrant for it either in the Word of God or any good Antiquity Whether they do offer Prayers to God for us as it is not very certain so is it not any part of the question between us nor if it be granted will it warrant our praying to them As for their Relicks those that are truly such viz. their Sepulchres their Memories their Writings and their good Examples we have a great Veneration for them and do think that they ought not only not to be exposed to any contempt or disgrace but that a very great respect and regard ought to be paid them But that all those things which the Church of Rome tells us are the Relicks of Saints are really such we cannot agree nor can we go along with them in paying them that Veneration which they do we cannot repose any confidence in them nor expect any help or assistance from them nor hope to have our Prayers heard in this place rather than in another upon the account of some Relicks being there As for their Images and the honour and veneration due to them it had been well if either Pope Pius or his Vindicator had thought fit to explain themselves and told us what kind of honour and veneration they mean. The Vindicator indeed saith That they being things relating to God it must be another kind of Regard Honour and Veneration than is usually given to prophane things But whether this is or ought to be called a Religious Honour is matter of dispute but no matter of his Faith. And that as for the manner or external profession of it it ought to be measured from the intention of the Church so that we are still as far to seek for the meaning of it as before Now where can we hope to find what the intention of the Church is unless it be in the Council of Trent and its Catechism out of which Pope Pius extracted these New Articles It may not be amiss therefore before we proceed any further to see what that Council hath determined in these two points viz. The Invocation of Saints and the worship of Images which are the two things promoted in these two Articles and which this Gentleman hath here undertaken to vindicate from Novelty I. Touching the Invocation of Saints The Council hath defin'd That the Saints reigning with Christ do offer their Prayers unto God for us But is this all No it farther declares Concil Trident. Sess 25. Decret de Invocatione c. That it is a good and profitable thing for us in an humble manner to pray unto them But is this all yet No We must have recourse to their Prayers Aid and Assistance Nor is this all for the Bodies of Holy Martyrs and others now living with Christ which have been the living Members of Christ and Temples of the Holy Ghost veneranda sunt are to be worshipped or had in veneration And it expresly damns all those who teach That Veneration and Honour are not due to the Relicks of the Saints or that it is not profitable to honour these Relicks and other sacred Monuments of the Saints or that it is in vain to frequent the Memories of the Saints and that eorum opis impetrandae causâ to obtain their help and assistance Thus far the Council which is seconded by the Catechism which saith We pray to God either to give us good things Catech. ad Parochos Part 4. Tit. Quis sit Orandus or to deliver us from evil but because the Saints are more acceptable to him than we are we beg of them to undertake our cause and to obtain for us those things we stand in need of From whence it comes to pass that we use two very different Forms of Prayer for to God the proper manner of speaking is Have pity on us Hear our Prayer whereas we only desire the Saints to pray for us But then it follows Though it be lawful on another account to pray to the Saints that they would have pity on us for they are mighty merciful And in another place it saith Invocandi sunt c. They are to be prayed unto because they are continually in God's presence and most willingly take upon them patrocinium salutis nostrae the patronage of our Health and Safety which is committed to their care II. Concerning the Worship of Images that Council hath also defin'd That the Images of Christ of the Virgin-Mother of God and of other Saints Sess 25. Decret de Invocatione c. are to be had and retained in Churches But is this all No All due honour and veneration is to be given to them And how is this to be given By kissing those Images uncovering the Head and prostrating our selves before them And is all this for no other end but only to excite in us the remembrance of those they represent Certainly the Council intended something more for it builds this Definition upon the second Council of Nice Concil Nicaen 2. Action 3 4 6. Catech. ad Parochos part 3. de cultu Invocat Sanct. in which it was ordained That the Images of Christ of the blessed Virgin Mary and of the Saints should not only be received into places of Adoration but also should be adored and worshipped And so the Catechism explains it for we are there told That to make and honour the Images of Christ the Lord of his most holy and immaculate Mother and of other Saints is an holy and most certain argument of a grateful mind But is this all No. It is not only lawful to have Images in Churches and to give Honour and Worship to them provided that Honour which is given to them be referred to their Prototypes but also it is for the greatest good and benefit of the Faithful so to do But is this all yet No. The Images of Saints are placed in Temples ut colantur that they may be worshipped This is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in these two Articles as it is delivered by the Council of Trent and the Catechism ad Parochos out of which these and the other new Articles were collected by Pope Pius IV. Which Doctrine we can by no means comply with nor subscribe to For I. As for the Invocation of Saints 1. We look upon it as a fond thing vainly invented grounded upon no warranty of Scripture but rather repugnant to the word of God. 2. We think it to be highly derogatory to the Mediatorial Office of Jesus Christ 3. We look upon Prayer as an eminent Act of Religious Worship which we think to be due to God alone and ought not to be given to any Creature And II. As for the Worship of Images We think that it is an absolute breach of the second Commandment which forbids the worship of Images and that in words so large