Spain and ignorant of the thing done and of the truth concealed to the intent that he might request Exaembiret to be injustly reposed in his Bishoprick from which he was justly deposed Stephen hereupon with his Bishops communicateth with him and so as much as in them lyeth restoreth him to his former Bishoprick Cyprian condemneth the false and ill dealing of Basilides and reproveth also the negligence of Stephen that suffered himself so easily to be misled taxing him and such as consented with him for communicating with such wicked ones shewing that they are partakers of their sins and that they violate the Canon of the Church which the Bishops of Africa and all the Bishops of the world yea even Cornelius the predecessour of this Stephen had consented on to wit That men so defiled with Idolatry as Martialis and Basilides were should be received to penitency but be kept from all Ecclesiastical honour these are the circumstances of Cyprians Epistle wherein he relateth the proceedings against Basilides and Martialis justly put from their office and dignity and the inconsiderate course of the Bishop of Rome hastily communicating with them whereby we may see how wisely and advisedly our adversaries urge Cyprian to prove that in antient times the Bishops of Rome had power to restore such Bishops to their places again as were deposed by others for thus they must reason from this place of Cyprian if they will make any use of it Basilides and Martialis justly put from their office fly to Stephen Bishop of Rome hoping by his means to procure the reversing of that which was done against them he with such as adheared to him though they could not restore them to their places yet communicated with them Cyprian offended herewith chargeth Basilides with execrable wickedness for abusing Stephen and misinforming him and Stephen with intolerable negligence and unexcusable violation of the Canons for partaking with such wicked persons and wisheth all his Brethren and Colleagues constantly to hold on their course against them notwithstanding the failing of Stephen and his adherents therefore the Antient Bishops of Rome restored to their places such as were judicially deposed by others and were acknowledged by the Fathers to have power and authority so to do which kind of reasoning is like all the rest in this Chapter that is evidently weak but happily you will say Why doth not Cyprian tell them that the Pope hath not power to restore them Answ Doth he yet not sufficiently in advising them to hold on their course against them which sure he would not have done had he acknowledged any such power in the Bishop of Rome for this would have been to contradict lawful authority 2. St. Cyprian is discontented with the proceedings of these Bishops in going to Stephen so far distant which sure he would not have been if he had thought him to have had such an universal Jurisdiction as our Author pleads for no certainly these words savour strongly of what St. Cyprian tells us of Fortunatus and Felicissimus their appeal to Rome when condemned in Africk Ep. 55. ad Cornelium that it is just and equal that every ones cause should be there heard where the crime is committed and that it behoved not their Bishops over whom they were set to run about as these did to Rome but to plead their cause there where their accusers and their witnesses might be had unless a few desperate wretches will think that the authority of the Bishops of Africa is less viz. then that to which they run What evasions are made against this saying of Cyprian by Bellarmine and Pamelius are taken off by Chamier in the fourteenth Book De Oec Pent. the second Chapter from the sixth section to the two and twentieth Another negative Argument we have from Pope Victors excommunicating the Asian Bishops Sect. 11 as differing from him in the Celebration of the Eastern Festival now here saith he It was not imputed to Victor by Irenaeus or Polycrates that he exercised an usurped Authority over Bishops not subject to him ergo he had Authority over these Asian Bishops Answ This saith Mr. Chillingworth is to suppose that excommunication is an act or Argument or sign of Power and Authority in the party excommunicating over the party excommunicated whereas it is undeniably evident out of the Church story that it was often used by Inferiors upon Superiors and by Equals upon Equals if the Equals or Inferiors thought their Equals or Superiors did any thing which deserved it 2. Saith he When they admonish him that for so small a cause he should not cut off so many Provinces from the body of the Church what is this but to esteem that as a small and unsufficient cause of excommunication which Victor and his adherents thought great and sufficient and consequently that Victor and his party declared that to be a matter of faith and necessity which they thought not so and where was then their conformity To what he adds further out of Cyprian Sect. 12 de unitate Ecclesiae that our Lord built his Church upon one Person c. the same most learned Author returns this Answer That whosoever will but read over that Book shall find most certainly and undoubtedly that he speaketh not in that Book of St. Peters Headship of the universal Church as our Author phansieth but of the Head Original and first beginning of Pastoral commission which he makes appear by laying down the principal and most material circumstances of this Book written upon occasion of the Schism of the Novatians The first thing that occurs in the whole discourse of the Book is the observation of the malice of Satan in finding out Schisms and Heresies to subvert the faith 2. He sheweth that this so falls out because men return not back to the first Origen of Truth because they seek not the Head nor keep the doctrine of the Heavenly Master which if a man would consider there would be no need of many Arguments but the truth without any great search would offer it self unto him for therefore did Christ when he was to lay the foundations of the Christian Church say especially to Peter Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church and again after the Resurrection Feed my sheep because though rising again from the dead he gave like power to all the Apostles when he said As my Father sent me so send I you Whose sins ye remit c. Joh. 20.21 23. Yet he would by speaking especially to one and by appointing one Chair shew what unity should be in the Church the rest of the Apostles saith St. Cyprian were undoubtedly the same that St. Peter was equal in honour and power but therefore did Christ in the first place give or at least promise to give especially or particularly to one that Apostolick Commission which he meant also to give to the rest that he might thereby shew that the Church must be one and that there
an Argument from the Anathemaes annexed to the decrees of Councils which have been sufficiently refuted already and therefore I pass to the second part of my Proposition to shew that these Doctrines c. were not received by us in the time of Pope Gregory or esteemed matters of Faith For 1. Sect. 11 Wee have already evinced the contrary of the Popes supremacy and proved that in two Brittish Councils it was Synodically rejected and it is confirmed by Bishop Bramhal in his tract of Schism and his Reply to the Bishop of Calcedon and by Ephraim Pagit in his Christianography beyond all possibility of contradiction 2. The denial of the infallibility of the Church of Rome appears sufficiently from that stiff opposition which was made by the Brittish Picts and Irish against the Church of Rome touching the Celibration of Easter of which the Reverend Primate enlargeth in his religion of the ancient Irish Bishop Usher from p. 92. to p. 116. and their aversness from communion with those of the Roman party which he relateth p. 108 109 110. where among other things you have these verses made by one of the chief of their wise men Woe bee to him that doth not keep From Romish Wolves his sheep with staff and weapon strong 3. As for Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead let it bee observed that the Prayers and oblations mentioned are expresly noted to have been made for such whose souls were supposed at the same instant to rest in bliss See Bishop Usher p. 27 28. And again in his answer to the Jesuit p. 189. Bed l. 3. Hist Eccl. c. 2. hee gives these instances The Brothren of the Church of Hexham in the anniversary commemoration of the Oâ—its of Oswald King of Northumberland used to keep their vigils for the health of his soul and having spent the night in praising God with Psalms to offer for him in the morning Id. l. 4. cap. 23. the sacrifice of the sacred oblation as Beda writeth who tells us yet withall that he râ—igned with God in Heaven and by his prayers hee procured many miracles to bee wrought on Earth So likewise doth the same Bede report Bed l. 4. Hist cap. 23. that when it was discovered by two several visions that Hilda the Abbess of Streansheal or Whitby in York-shire was carried up by the Angels into Heaven they which heard thereof presently caused prayers to be said for her soul And Osbenn relateth the like of Dunstan that being at Bath and beholding in such another vision the soul of one that had been his Scholler at Glassenbury to be carried up into the Palace of Heaven hee straightway commended the same into the hands of the Divine piety Divinae pietatis and intreated the Lords of the place where he was to do so likewise 4. As touching the Sacrament of the Lords Supper the same was taught then which we teach now as you may see in the Homily of Elfrick approved by divers Bishops in their Synods and appointed to be read in the Church upon Easter-day before the receiving of the Communion This Book is subscribed by the two Arch-Bishops of Canterbury and York Hom. in Dâ—e Sancti paschat p. 17. and thirteen other Bishops and the words of it are There is great difference betwixt the body wherein Christ suffered and the body which is hallowed Howsel The body truely that Christ suffered in was born of the fleâ—sh of Mary with blood with bones with skin and with sinews in humane limbs with a reasonable soul-living And his Ghostly body which we call the Howsel is gathered of many corns without blood and bone without limb without soul And therefore there is nothing to be understood bodily but all is Ghostly to bee understood 5. From hence it follows undeniably that they rejected your proper sacrifice of the Mass 6. And for communion in one kinde it was decreed in a Synod under Cuthbert in the year 747. Can. 23. That Layicks should be admonished to communicate more often lest they should want the food and drink of salvation Pagit Christianography part 3. Our Lord saying except you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the son of Man you shall have no life in you From whence it is evident that they thought it necessary for Layicks to participate of both the Elements 7. That the Layicks were permitted yea commanded to read the Scriptures appears from what Bede reports of Bishop Aidan That all such as went in his company Lib. 3. c. 5. whither Clerks or Layicks were tyed to exercise themselves either in reading of the Scriptures or learning of Psalms That they had their service in their own tongue I have but little evidence neither have you more to the contrary Bishop Jewels reply pag. 190. But the best I yet find given of it is this that Theodore the seventh Arch-Bishop after Austin brought the Latin service into England That they rejected Image Worship is evident from this that our learned men opposed the second Nicene Council's determination concerning Images and when the acts of that Council were sent into Brittain by Charls King of France Alcuine wrote an Epistle against it substantially grounded upon the authority of the holy Scripture which Epistle with the said Book with our Kings and Princes hands was brought to the King of France See Pagit part 3. p. 41. ex Hoveden aliis That they rejected invocation of Saints Holinshed's Hist ad An. 1100. p. 27. is proved from the History of King William the second who protested openly that he believed that no Saint could profit any man in the Lords sight and therefore neither would hee nor any man See other evidences in Pagit pt 3. p. 83. that was wise as he affirmeth make intercession either to Peter or any other Saint for help Till the year 1100. it was not prohibited to the Clergy to marry saith Henry of Huntington At which time Anselm endeavoured to put the Popes Letters in execution but at last after the pressures tyranny and arts of an hundred and thirty years continuance for it began in 970 and was not finished till 1100. as Polydore Virgil computes it the Clergy were driven from their chast Wives and betook themselves to Concubines whom they changed or multiplyed without disturbance And this tyranny was exercised by Pope Calixtus the second Whereupon our Simon of Durham made these Verses not very good though very true O bone Calixte nuno omnis Clerus odit te Nam olim presbyteri solent Uxoribus uti Id praevertisti quondam cum papafuisti Which Prideaux in his History hath bettered by his translation The Clergy now the good Calixtus hate For heretofore each one might have his mate But since thou gotten hast the papal Throne They must keep Punks or learn to lig alone By which you may see that it was not Calixtus the First who lived Anno Dom. 221 that enjoyned Celibacy as our Authour
said enough let him hear him on the twelfth Canon of the Synod of Antioch where hee saith the Patriarch himself shall bee judged of the Emperour who hath cognisance over the power of the Church peradventure as Sacrilegious an Heretick or guilty of any other crime for we have divers times seen such Judicial proceedings To the last example of reformation Sect. 6 produced by the Dr. the Kings of Judah Ibid. he answers 't is granted here was a reformation of Religion but adds 1. That they are no where said to have reformed all the Priests or the high Priests or not to have found him as Orthodox as themselves Answ Bishop Andrews tells you that seeing it cannot be denied that Kings were to bee Nursing Fathers of the Church to see to the preservation of the purity of Religion seeing the Scripture of the Old Testament every where complains of their neglect in not removing the High places in which the people offered sacrifice and when the people became Idolatrous 't was imputed unto the defect of a King in Israel you ought to shew us where these limitations are to be found you shall reform but not all the Priests not the High Priests though they go before the people in Idolatry not against the Priests if they are minded to continue their Idolatry not without the Priests albeit they refuse to consent to the restoring of Gods worship No in such cases you must suffer my people to perish in their Idolatry if they all cry out to Aaron for a Calf and hee satisfie their desires in making one these Calves must be continued by our Moses or chief Governours unless God extraordinarily command the breaking of them This I am confident would have been new Divinity to King David Could ever the Kings of Israel after Jeroboam have reformed without reforming all the Priests who were manifest Idolaters or at least transgressors of Gods law and therefore can it bee avoided by Mr. C. but that they ought to have suffered the people in the waies of Jeroboam who made Israel to sin might not the High Priest be guilty of Idolatry as well as Aaron yea was he not think you in the daies of Elijah and might not Jezabels whoredomes have been corrected notwithstanding were the declarations of the Church necessary to legitimate such a reformation why is the church never blamed for not declaring for such a reformation why not the Priests and especially the High Priests but constantly it is charged as the Princes fault that the High places were not removed 'T is true the Priests lips should preserve knowledge as Mr. C. hath it and when they do so even the King should seek it at their mouths asking their advice in matters of such great concernment but if they turn Idol shepherds causing the people to erre if both Priest and Prophet bee prophane then must he be so far from making their verdict his Standard in his reformation as to reform them before and above others and indeed had it been otherwise Idolatry must have commenced Orthodox and passed uncontroled in the Church of Judah when ever it had pleased the greatest part of the Priests to have it so But 2. Neither is this our case our reformation in the daies of King Henry Edward or Queen Elizabeth was not a reformation without or against the whole body of our Priests but only against the Idolatrous Priests of the Romish party the Doctrines reformed by K. Edward were reformed by the consent of a lawful Synod of Bishops and other learned men and as King Joas had the consent and concurrence of the true Priests and Prophets of the Lord when he deposed the Idolatrous Priests whom the Kings of Judah had ordained to burn incense even so Queen Elizabeth by the advise and concurrence of her true reformed pastors legally deposed the Idolatrous Priests which Queen Mary or his Holiness had placed in the Land Nor doth he invalidate this example by saying that these Reformers were Prophets as well as Kings for neither were Hezekias Josias or Jehn Prophets nor did they act here as Prophets but as Kings or otherwise why were they blamed for this neglect who were no Prophets were none but Prophets to be Nursing Fathers of the Church or would this have argued them to be so to let their Children suck in the poyson of Idolatry But he hath some objections which come next to be considered And 1. Sect. 7 Princes are not exempt from that of our Lord hee that heareth you Mr. C. p. 286. heareth me Ergo the supream power may not purge the Church from it's corruptions though by the advice and consent of the Nobles and the sounder Orthodox part of the Clergy Again Christ never said nor can we finde in reason or Antiquity any ground to apply to Princes that commâ—ission as my Father sent me c. Receive the Holy Ghost a new commission teach all Nations ergo Princes may not with the advice of Nobles and Clergy and with the concurrence of Parliament reform corruptions in the Church I suppose no body will offer after such clear and evident demonstrations ever to defend the Kings supremacy 3. There is a promise made peculiarly to the Apostles or rather a prediction that when the spirit should be sent to them hee would guide them into all truth which saith hee was never made to Princes any other way then whilst they follow the direction of their Pastors no nor then neither Ergo they may not with the advice c. purge themselves from the corruptions of their Church and the Church from them 2. I can tell him of a promise that the secret of the Lord shall be with them that fear him and he will teach them his Covenant if they search for wisdome c. then they shall finde it if they do the will of Christ they shall know the Doctrines whether they be of God or no. Now let him either say that Ecclesiastical Pastors can never teach their superiours any errours or advise them to what is Superstition or that when so they cannot have the benefit of those promises or else acknowledge that they may sufficiently bee guided into all saving truth without them 4. Saith he Princes are sheep not pastours yea are sons of the Church Answ True but notwithstanding all this they are Nursing Fathers of the Church 2. All the families of any Parish are sheep not Pastors Ergo they may not reform themselves without their Pastour His second unavoidable demonstration is Sect. 8 that if Kings bee independent on any Authority on Earth Mr. C. p. 287. then must there be a spiritual power over of them all which is in the Church Answ Bishop Brambal tells you Reply p. 287. that the Kings of England are under the forreign jurisdiction of a General Council and is not this an unavoidable demonstration that forceth us to acknowledge what we do acknowledge did ever Dr. Pierce deny this but if we should
say That from after the time of their convention all novelties must be dated then could not Socinianisme Anabaptisme Presbyterianisme be esteemed novelties by the Doctor for he acknowledgeth them to have been within the time of these four Councils nor was our Authour ignorant of this for speaking of the appeal of Dr. Hammond to the three first Centuries or the four General Councils he thus paraphraseth it Pag. 311. Where by submission to the four first General Councils he means only to the bare decisions of these Councils in matters of faith not obliging himself also to the authority of those Fathers who flourished in the time of these four Councils and sate in them He goes on and tells us Sect. 8 That the Doctor did this which he never did not out of a voluntary liberality Ibid. but because an Act of Parliament obligeth him wherein it is said that such persons to whom Queen Elizabeth should give authority to execute any jurisdiction spiritual should not judge any matter or cause to be Heresie but only such as heretofore hath been determined to be Heresie by the Authority of Canonical Scriptures or by the first four General Councils which Argument runs thus If no person authorized by Queen Elizabeth to execute any spiritual jurisdiction must adjudge any matters to be Heresie which were not determined to be so by the first four General Councils then is Dr. Pierce obliged to fix the times of the Apostles and so downward till the fourth General Council inclusively as that distinct measure of time after which Only whatever Dctrines are broached ought in his opinion to be esteemed novelties But verum prius ergo Truly Sir you your self when you wrote it might think the inference valid but no man else now can He comes next to propound some questions the shrewdest way of arguing when dexterously managed And the first brings the Doctor to this great absurdity to acknowledge Sect. 9 Pag. 21. with the rest of his fellow-Protestants that Scripture alone is the rule of Faith The second to acknowledge what we generally do that no Authority on earth obligeth to internal assent shrewd conclusions ushered in with a train of blunt Dilemmas Your third Question shall be considered in Answering the twelfth Section of your last Chapter Fourthly He askes What answer the Doctor will make to God for abusing Scripture Pag. 25. Ans He will plead not guilty But how can that be object when he pretends to prove the lawfulness of the English Reformation because the Doctrines imposed upon them are novelties and from the beginning it was not so whereas he should have evinced that it was contrary that being the import of our Saviours words reply Rep. The Doctor will have little cause to fear his doom if no better plea can be brought against him for I pray you tell me doth he not either confront the evidence of Scripture against you as in the doctrine of the Popes Supremacy and Transubstantiation and Communion in one kind forbidding Marriage or the intent of the Apostles or rather of God himself as in the restraint of Scripture from the Vulgar or Thirdly tell you expresly that you oppose the verdict of Gods Word as in the matter of Divorces and Prayers in an unknown tongue Secondly When you confess that the things defined by your Councils are only such as were alwayes matters of faith Pag. 241. and conveyed to us by the general practice of the Church is it not enough to shew our innocency in not accepting them for such because ab initio non fuit sic especially when thirdly you know we hold that in all matters of faith 't is all one with us to be praeter Scripturam and to be contra Pag. 25. but you ridiculously add That he should have cited such Scriptures as these S. Peter his Successors never had nor ought to have any Supremacy of jurisdiction c. Which here I bind my self to do when you can make it appear that the Doctor was obliged to do so or that the Scripture anywhere saith That the Trent Councils definitions are to be received as a rule of Faith The body of Christ is transubstantiated T is unlawful to give the Scriptures to Lay-men to peruse The English Church is guilty of formal Schisme and such like stuff which you pretend to deduce from Scripture Lastly Sect. 10 You tell us that the Fathers cry out against innovations Pag. 27. and therefore cannot be thought to have introduced any Answ Presbyterians cry out of Innovations by Bishops the Greek Church and the reformed condemn the Romanist as an Innovator the Arrians the Nicene Fathers therefore it cannot reasonably be thought that any of these are Innovators by Mr. C. CHAP. IV. Mr. Cs. mistake Sect. 1. His first Argument from the necessity of an universal Bishop to hinder Schism considered Sect. 2. His second Argument from the Presbyterians Sect. 3. The Doctors first Argument from Mark 10.42 defended Sect. 4. His second from Rev. 21.14 Sect. 5. His third from Gal. 2. Sect. 6. His Argument from the notion of an Head strengthned Sect. 7 8 9. A further evidence of the no necessity of such an Head Sect. 10. THE first Novelty Sect. 1 of which his Church stood charged by the Doctor is the usurpation of their Pope from which usurpation he tells him our Church hath separated Cap. 4. s 1. but whereas he would make him moreover to assert That this Authority was never acknowledged in the Church till the time of Boniface And further that we have not separated from any Authority if any were exercised by the former Popes during the times of the four first General Councils he deals disingenuously with the Doctor in whom no footsteps of this assertion can be found albeit it be a great and evident truth But whereas he would make him further to affirm of the whole heap of Roman Novelties That there was no mention of them in the time of the four first General Councils he doth more grosly and palpably abuse him only that he might make room for those Citations which otherwise would have been evidently impertinent and might seem to fight against the Doctors Sermon when he is only beating that man of clouts which himself hath made Nay Dr. Pierce evidently acknowledgeth that some of their Heresies may be derived from Origen Tertullian c. So that our Author which is a bad omen stumbles at the threshold builds his whole Fabrick on a mistake and confutes only what himself hath fancied not what the Doctor hath asserted Well then that which he hath to do if he would contradict his assertion is to shew not whither the Popes praeceding challenged a supremacy of jurisdiction but whither the Roman Bishop was acknowledged of the Church of God as an universal head as one who had received from the beginning a power of jurisdiction over the Universal Church Now in returning an answer to what is
therefore to the prevention of Schism t is meet they should have an Authority to bound them But now for a Metropolitan he hath no jurisdiction over Bishops he can do nothing out of his own Diocess in which he is a Bishop without the concurrence of the Major part of the Bishops of the province though he be in order and honour the first so in like sort the Patriarch may do nothing without the advice and consent of the Metropolitans and Bishops subject to him seeing therefore these have no power of Jurisdiction but only a Primacy of Order and Honour there needs none over them especially with a power of Jurisdiction to prevent their Schisms so then saith Cham. De Oecum Pontis l 9. c. 14. s 12. here is a ridiculous comparison of things dislike as if one should say T is convenient that there should be one Primate over Bishops but so as to be able to do nothing without their sentence therefore there ought to to be one over these Primates endued with full power of jurisdiction 3. The Fathers which are for one Bishop over Presbyters upon the account that Schism might be prevented yet never resorted to this one Universal Bishop for the same end but redressed all Schism by calling Synods neither is there any Unity implyed in the whole Church or Churches of divers Provinces which may not be preserved by the multitude of divers Pastors conspiring and consenting together as well as by the Unity of one chief Pastour And in this sort we shall find the Church of God to have stood in perfect Unity in the first and best ages thereof without finding any want of the help of one chief Pastour Oh but Oecumenical Synods cannot be had alwayes Answ Nor is it needful for the most part Provincal ones will serve the turn But if the Schism be very dangerous and betwixt Province and Province Apud Cham. ibid. c. 13. s 10. then will Pope Innocent tell us not that we must run to him but that we wust necessarily have recourse to a Synod quam quidem donec consequamur expedit medelam Calamitatis hujus committere voluntati Magni Dei ac Christi ejus Domini nostri who will be sure to provide sufficiently for his Church And indeed to what purpose should they go to one man till it can be proved and not Begged that God hath set him over the persons that are to be reconciled will his Verdict put an end to their Schism that think him as fallible as themselves And can we think that God appointed such a Mediator whom all the world in case of Trial would undoubtedly refuse till they had evidence of his infallibility or the Delegacy of his power from Christ and yet not give us one Iota to perswade us of his will in this matter What he hath in the third section of the sixth Chapter are but the presumptuous Dictates of a bold Romanist in despite of truth as our Answers to the Fathers alledged by him will evidence Thus having answered his reasons for the supream jurisdiction of the Pope we come now to consider what he hath to return upon the Doctor And first Sect. 4 the Doctor saith he accuseth it of opposition to the precept of Christ Mark 10.42 43 44. S. 5. p. 33. They that rule over the Gentiles exercise Lordship over them but so shall it not be among you Now 1. he will tell us Pag. 34. that not the affecting but lawful exercising of supremacy of power and jurisdiction is so far from being an impudent opposition to the precept that it is established by the Text for as much as it makes mention of some that are Chief To this stale argument it hath been Answered that to argue from this Mark 10.44 Whosoever will be chief that there was one appointed to be chief among the Apostles is as ridiculous as from Luk. 9.48 He that is least among you the same shall be greatest to argue that there was some one Apostle of less power and dignity then any of the rest or from Luk. 22.26 He that is Chief as he that doth serve that some of the Apostles waited upon the rest 2. He tells us that this is so evident in the next verse Ibid. that had the Doctor but rehearsed it he would have published to his meanest reader his abuse of Scripture It seems the Doctor is very much to blame but let us hear the Objection which Bellarmine will lend him which is this that our Saviour gives them his example to confirm his Exhortation who surely had Authority yea Supremacy of Jurisdiction over the Church How then are they to imitate Christ in renouncing their Superiority did he himself do so No. Well then they are to do it in keeping their humility with that supremacy of Jurisdiction Answ This Argument hath been answered several times by telling Bellarmine that t is true in Christ there was supream Authority as well as humility but the latter only was the thing propounded to their imitation thence therefore to infer that this supremacy of power is not inconsistent with that Command of his is as vain a Fancy as because he that Commanded them his humility thought it no roberry to be equal with God thence to infer that therefore this humility was not inconsistent with the pride of Lucifer 2 Christ though he had this power yet never exercised it upon Earth but was in the form of a servant and this he propounds to their imitation 3. Ibid. Whereas he tels us The Apostles were Church rulers what inference can he make For can he think that the Doctor esteemed himself and all our Hierarchy impudent opposers of the letter and sense of this precept If so he is more impudent then this opposition if not then is that spoken besides the purpose and without any Contradiction to the Doctor Well then What is it that is forbidden viz. Pag. 35. quoth he The exercising it with such an arrogant pride as Heathen Princes usually do Ambitious seeking of Authority and after a secular manner Lording it over Gods Heritage Now here he jumps with the Doctor whose words are For any Bishop to affect over his Brethren a supremacy of Power is a most impudent opposition both to the sence and letter of our Saviours precepts Now that the Pope affects this may be aâ—gued in that without any tolerable pretence from Scripture with manifest opposition to the primitive Fathers and invading the rights of others he bandies for it and albeit he knows t is one great occasion of Schism and of the breach of the Churches peace yet would he force all upon pain of Damnation to acknowledge it and excommunicates all who do not then which greater Tyranny and Ambition cannot well be found But yet there may be an Argument framed out of the text from this Abalens in Math. quaest 83. that the Apostles even to the last contended who should be greatest which
sure they would not have done if they had thought that Peter by the giving of the Keyes or any other act of Christ was preferred before them Yea t is wonderful that when as our Adversaries say this contention came before Christ four several times he would never intimate to them that which was so necessary to prevent Schism that he intended St. Peter for the chief when those that contended for it so strongly and especially their Followers were not likely to afford it him without some express from Christ In answer to the Doctors second Argument from Rev. Sect. 5 21.14 he tells us P. 71. s 6. That he will acknowledge all the twelve Apostles to be equally foundations of the Churches building and that the same Authority that was first given to St. Peter was afterward given to the rest of the Apostles that as St. Cyprian saith the same that Peter was the rest of the Apostles likewise were endowed with an equal participation of Honour and Power Thus he but I doubt he will hereafter be more cautious of such liberal concessions for out of these I argue ad hominem 1. The same that St. Peter was the rest of the Apostles likewise were But St. Peter by the verdict of the Council of Florence was Prince of the Apostles ergo The rest of the Apostles were Princes over St. Peter 2. St. Peter had a supremacy of power over the whole Church but the rest of the Apostles had equal power with him ergo The rest of the Apostles had a supremacy over the whole Church and consequently every member beside themselves Now then either Christ who gave them this power gave them a liberty to exercise it or forbad them the external administration of it If the first then was there no subordination in the exercise of this power to Peter unless the same person can be sub and equal too If the second then did he give them it perfectly in vain for Authority can be to no end but to exercise it on those over whom t is given Nay t is a contradiction to say a man hath power over another when he cannot exercise it de jure when as power over him supposes a right to exercise Authority and when will they be able to evince such a prohibition Yea 3 how have they equal power not to speak of honour whereof one may exercise authority over the world the other may not by the same reason it may be said that a Presbyter hath equal power with a Bishop Well but saith our Author we must give leave to Scripture and Fathers to interpret themselves then it follows Ibid. We grant therefore as if we Benedictines were Scripture and Fathers that all the Apostles and all Bishops their successours enjoy the whole latitude of Episcopal jurisdiction for as much as concerns the internal essential qualifications of either but for the external administration there may be and alwayes was acknowledged a subordination and different latitude in the exercise of the same Authority both among Apostles Ibid. and Bishops Answ He did wisely to add let him not find fault with this distinction for t is as lyable to exception as any can be For 1. What is it that qualifies Peter for the external administration over the rest of the Apostles See Mr C. Pag. 73. Pag. 71. Is it that Christ gave him the name of a Rock surely no seeing we have it acknowledged that all the rest of the Apostles were equally foundations of the Church and consequently equally Rocks for Peter is therefore so because our Saviour tells him he would build his Church upon him or because he was one upon which the Church was to be founded Yea further among foundation stones there is but one that hath any eminence above other and that is Christ the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is appropriated to him Eph. 2.20 And so still nothing pertains to St. Peter in the matter of being a Stone or foundation which doth not appear equally to belong to the others also Yea lastly Peter is not called a Rock as the Romanists would have him for seeing upon this Rock the Church was built and Peter was a member of that Church it would follow hence that Peter and all the Popes his Successours must be built upon themselves Evident is that of St. Serm. 13. de verbis Domini Austin Vpon that Rock which thou confessedst will I build my Church that is upon my self upon me will I build thee not me upon thee And again in his Retractations L. 1. C. 21. 't is not said Thou art Petra but thou art Petrus Petra autem erat Christus Mr C. p. 73. And what if in the Syriack there be no such difference seeing in the Greek which is Authentick it is observed quem confessus est Simon 2. Is it because he is alwaies in the Gospel placed first and called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first Alas 't is otherwise for we find Joh. 1.44 The City of Andrew and Peter Mark 16.7 The Disciples and Peter and what is it to the purpose that he is reckoned first in the Evangelists when almost alwaies he is put last in the Epistles 1 Cor. 3.22 Chap. 9.5 Or in the midst as Gal. 2.9 2. That this ordering of the names of the Apostles is no argument of their different Authority is evident from this that albeit there were some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet are they not placed next to Peter And then for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it cannot give him this supremacy for it is afterwards promised to him you say Matth. 16. I will give thee the Keys c. It being then afterward promised cannot be supposed to be already possessed by him when it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. We know that all the time of Christs life John had the dignity of place next Christ for he was the Disciple whom he loved and who lay in his bosom and therefore Peter had not the superiority For though the dignity of the place may be without superiority yet superiority of Jurisdiction is never to be found in any without the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or priority of place yea it is sufficiently evident that the Church of God thought as highly of St. John as of St. Peter in that they stood upon his example for the celebration of Easter against Peters 3. We say that notwithstanding his contradiction Peter is called first Pag. 73. either because of his zeal and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in confessing Christ or because he was the Apostle first called or else only as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a numeral Or if it intimate any priority 't is of order not of superiority as we have proved Nor 3 Was this power of Administration given him See Mr. C. pag. 73. because Christ bids him feed his Sheep indefinitely For sure the other Apostles were commissionated to feed them too and that they
teach all Nations and out of those whom they taught to ordain some Pastors whereever they came which shews they had an universal jurisdiction from Christ and a power to exercise it and so much for the second proposition 3. Hence it follows that they could not be limited in this power by St. Peter for Par in parem non habet potestatem Now to restrain anothers power as to its exercise is evidently to exercise power over him And hence it follows that they had equal power of Administration with St. Peter And indeed that St. Peter should have authority over all the Apostles and yet not exercise one act of it upon them and that they should shew to him no sign of subjection methinks is as strange as that a King of England for 24 years should exercise no act of regality nor receive any one acknowledgement of it as strange methinks it is that you so many ages after should know this so certainly as you pretend to and yet the Apostles after these words were spoken in their hearing by vertue whereof St. Peter is pretended to have been made their head should still be so ignorant of it as to question which of them should be the greatest yet more strange that our Saviour should not bring them out of their error by telling them St. Peter was the man No less a wonder was it that St. Paul so far should forget St. Peter and himself as that 1. Mentioning him often he should do it without any title of honour yea further that speaking of himself in particular and perhaps comparing himself with St. Peter rather than any other he should say in plain terms I am in nothing behind the very chiefest of the Apostles How is it that the other Apostles fall foul upon St. Peter for going in unto the Gentiles Act. 11.23 so that he is compelld to defend himself by that special revelation made unto him How is it that he passed not the Decretorial sentence in the Synod Acts 15. did he transfer his power to St. James 4. See Mr. C. p. 71. The distinction of Archbishop Whitgift serves him not at all for he saith only this that Quoad ministerium viz. as to Preaching Administring the Sacraments Absolving and Remitting and such things which are done by Pastors and carrying not Jurisdiction in them but Ministry or Service they are equal but Quoad Politiam as to Government they are unequal and what is this to the purpose Mr. C. p. 72. Nor doth his example of my Lord of Canterbury help out the matter For 1. His grace hath no power of Jurisdiction over a Bishop as Dr. Feild and Dr. Hammond will tell him 2. If he be said to have it 't were ridiculous to say that the Bishops of single Diocesses are of equal Authority Jurisdiction or Power with him seeing he hath Power over them which Par in parem non habet To the two Testimonies of St. Cyprian and St. Jerome we have no other Answer then what in general is given to these Scriptures Whereas 1. The words of St. Cyprian afford not the least ground of this evasion nay the words seem unconsistent with it for having told us that Christ had given the Keys to St. Peter bid him seed his sheep told him that what he bound should be so and that upon him he would build his Church he presently adds That he did this Pari consertio praediti houoris potestatis sed exordium ab uaitate proficiscitur albeit he had given to the rest of the Apostles parem potestatem and so intended not any superiority in him above the rest but only to shew the necessity of unity And then for St. Jerome he doth not only say that the Bishop at Rome and Eugubium are of the same merit but infers it hence that all are Successors of the Apostles and that one City though Rome it self is not be objected against the custom of other parts of the world but for the defence of this citation I refer you to the Learned Dr. Feild p. 548. In the second Chapter of St. Sect. 6 Pauls Epistle to the Galathians we have many things which are inconsistent with the Supremacy of St. Peter contended for And 1. Whereas he mentions James Cephas and John and calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may it not plausibly be argued from the order of the names that St. Paul esteemed not St. Peter Superiour to the rest because he mentions him in the middle for if this be a sufficient evidence of his Supremacy that the Evangelists put him in the front of the Apostles why should it not be as good a plea against it that the Apostle St. Paul when speaking of the chiefest Apostles should not do so 2. Why doth he mention them all as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and put no difference betwixt them if indeed St. Peter were Superiour to them especially if it be considered that he elsewhere calls them if we may believe St. Chrysostome Theophylact Oecum Aquinas Hugo Salmero Justinian Cornelius a Lapide and others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 putting no difference at all betwixt them And that 3. This being evidently his scope to shew that there was no reason to reject his doctrine touching the no necessity of circumcision because these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were plâ—ased to admit of it and indeed that he was not inferior to these Apostles whose Authority they urged against him had St. Peter been constituted in such a degree of Supremacy over the Apostles how had it concerned his design to have told us not thus in general these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but in particular that even St. Peter the chief of the Apostles had given him the right hand of fellowship and therefore his neglecting of this is a shrewd argument against this Supremacy and perswades me to believe with the Doctor that St. James and St. John were St. Peters Peers Again ver 7. the Apostle tells us that even these Pillars saw it evident that the Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed to him as the Gospel of the circumcision was to St. Peter and that hereupon it was agreed that St. Paul with his companions should go unto the Gentiles and they unto the Jews or circumcision Now 1. By whom was the Gospel of uncircumcision committed to St. Paul was it not by Christ by him that wrought effectually in them both ver 8. Now then if Christ committed to St. Paul the uncircumcision to St. Peter the circumcision is it not evident that he esteemed not St. Paul inferior to him did ever any body hear that his Majesty divided the Government equally betwixt his Vice-Roy in Ireland or Scotland the inferior Governors under him yea committed the greater part of the Government to the inferior especially if it be considered that St. Paul tells us 2. The uncircumcision was committed to him sicut Petro circumcisio In locum Ibid. whence the Fathers usually infer his equality with
latitude as it was delegated to him if our Author can produce no better testimonies out of St. Gregory Protestants will have no further cause to complain against him as he saith they do But alas this is the least of our Authors excellencies to be impertinent Sect. 2 he hath the faculty of quoting spurious Authors too as will be seen throughout In Decrex Ep. p. 645. And such is that second Epistle of Pelagius as you may see evinced by the Learned Blondel St. Sect. 3 Gregory is brought upon the stage toâ—plead for that Title which he so passionately condemnes in his fellow Patriarch And he tells us Mr. C. p. 48. indic Ep. 3. The See Apostolick is preferred before all Churches Answ True we acknowledge with the Council of Chalcedon that being the Emperours Seat it had a Primacy of order confered upon it but how will he be able to conclude a Primacy of jurisdiction from this testimony His second citation as it is frivolous and already answered Ibid. so is it false and not to be found but in some Vtopian Edition A third is very unsutable to his protestation P. 10. Sect. 6. Ibid. L. 5. Indic 14. Ep. 24. Dr. Ham. 3. defence c. 5. s 9. Nu. 42. For whereas the words of the Epistle tell us that Eusebius Bishop of Constantinople acknowledged the Supremacy of the See of Rome he knowing that there was no such Eusebius contemporary to St. Gregory and consequently the Epistle must needs be spurious as Protestants do generally thence conclude claps in John Bishop of Constantinople L. 2. indic 10. Ep 37 Ibid. a very palpable deceit His next quotations will afford us as he reads it this that if any of the four Patriarchs had committed such an act as the person he complains of did such disobedience would not have passed without great scandal whereas the Latine runs tanta contumacia and who knows not that stubbornness is a disease incident to equals L. 7. ind 2. Ep. 64. though disobedience be proper to inferiours Another of his testimonies speaks thus When any fault is found in any Bishop I know no Bishop that is not subject to the See of Rome but in the Latine tis subjectus sit may not be subject to the See of Rome viz. may not be subject if the Emperour refer the cause to his decision C. 5. S. 9. which here was evidently the case and if the Pope himself had been found faulty he might have thus been subjected to the Patriarch of Constantinople L. 5. indic 14. Ep. 24. as the Reverend Dr. Hammond proves in his third defence where you have this citation shamefully exposed that which brings up the rear is this that in a cause of John the Priest against John of Constantinople he according to the Canons had recourse to the See Apostelick Ibid. and that the cause was determined by his sentence Now to this the same Doctor Answers That here was no appeal from an inferiour to a superiour but only a desire of help from the Bishop of Rome who accordingly writes to John of Constantinople tells him what was to be done in this matter according to the rules of justice accordingly the Patriarch though he dislikes the interposing of the Pope yet it seems he doth justice to the injured person Pope Leo pretended the Nicene Canons in the Council of Chalcedon and P. Julias in the matter of Athanasius and this is the defining of the cause here spoken of And where he talks of the Canons of the Church the Doctor calls it a pretence of Canons a device which sometimes Popes made use of Thus Zezimus pretended the Canons of the Nicene Council for the subjecting the Africans unto him but was found a falsifier as you may see in the learned Chamier and what wonder if his successors were in this his followers 2. What if there were such Canons as allowed appeals to this end that the Bishop of Rome might admonish the Patriarch De Occ. Pon. l. 13. C. 7. S. 6. See our proofs from popes what his duty was and intercede in the Priests behalf might not this be done without an universal Pastorship but I refer you to the Learned Doctor in the Section cited Indeed the words of Pope Gelasius sound higher for they pretend that The See of the blessed Apostle St. Peter has a power to loose whatsoever things shall be bound by the sentences of any Bishops whatsoever Sect. 4 Mr. C. p. 50. as being the Church which has a right to judge every other Church neither is it permitted to any one to censure its judgement seeing the Canons have ordained that appeals should be made to it from every part of the world but then the Epistle comes from the Vatican ex vetusto codice Vaticano saith Binius and what false ware he hath brought us thence who can be ignorant this Epistle I am sure smels rank of forgery Sutlivius calls it an impudent fiction and makes it evident 1. Because it saith that Dioscorus Alexandrinus was condemned by the authority of the See Apostolick Act. 1. et 2. whereas the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon shew that he was condemned and deposed by the Fathers of that Council L. 2. c. 18. which Evagrius also witnesseth to which he might have added that the same Epistle tells us the Council of Chalcedon was called by the Authority of the Roman See Act. 1. when as the very Synod tells us that they were called by the Decree of the Emperours Valentinian and Martian 2. Saith he the Epistle tells another lye L. 4. C. in saying that Peter of Alexandria was condemned by the Apostolick See whereas this Peter was Athanasius his Successor and as Socrates saith Vir valde pius eximius and consequently such a one as no honest man would offer to condemn And thus we have considered the pretences of their Popes for this Supremacy See 5. let us see what we can deduce from them against it and 1. Pope Julius Dr. Ham. 3. def c. 2. s 4. who was willing enough not only to defend but take advantage to exalt his power doth yet in his Epistle written upon the occasion of his interposing to absolve Athanasius Ep. Jul. p. 741 753. defend the right of his act by an antient custome especially and by the Canon of Nice which yet t is plain would not justifie it and not by pretence of any Divine Authority or in any such Dialect that could intimate his pretension that from St. Peter this belonged unto him which sure he would have done and thereby have silenced all Catholick opposers if thus it had then been believed by them or even by himself to have belonged to him 2. So in that African Council where St. Austin was present and the Popes pretensions were disputed and his power in their Churches denyed he made no such challenge from Christs donation to St. Peter
relation was made by him whose interest it was to say so and who was manifestly ambitious to Lord it over Gods Heritage that this Edict was made St. Hilary not being heard to plead for himself that it was extorted from a young Prince and ignorant of these things And lastly That this Edict had very little or no authority in following times for divers Councils a thing which contains the height of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and which Leo for bad to Hilary were called without the authority of the Pope in divers parts and Cities of France to define weighty matters of Faith and Discipline thus we find it in Synodis Agathensi prima Epaunensi Aureliensibus aliquot Turonensi Matisconensi Avernensi and many more all affirming that they came together Solo deo authore ac moderatore and by the permission or command of the Emperour whither he were Gothus Burgundus vel Francus and thus I hope Mr. C. hath little cause to brag of the weight this testimony carries with it especially seeing were it all as true as Gospel yet doth it not reach to a jus divinum and so is mutable As for the decrees of Pope Zosimus Innocent and Siricius Mr. C. p. 56. so trivial and impertinent that he dares not transcribe them I refer him to the answers of Dr. Field Sutlivius Pag. 527. cont Bellar. l. 2. de Summo Pontif. Turon 11. Can. 20. and Chamier made to them long ago Nor will I trouble my self with what the Council of Toledo held An. Dom. 633. or that of Tours 570. seeing these Councils concern only France or Spain and moreover this last saith only this That it would be a piece of arrogance or presumption for a Priest who by Mr. Cr. was made a Bishop to contradict the determination of the Apostles See Can. 4. and the first speaking of the use of trine immersion tells us how that Leander Bishop of Spain desired the advice of Pope Gregory who answers that in such matters as these it was indifferent what custom they observed yet to avoid any symbolizing with Hereticks one simple immersion might be more convenient this now is called his Precept and this for the reason assigned by the Pope they agree to follow but yet that the Popes decrees were received as Laws in France or Spain neither do these citations prove nor hath the assertion in it any thing of truth The great St. Sect. 2 Basil with whom he next assaults us will do him little service Ep. 52. Mr. C. p. 57. for his words are only these It seems convenient to us to write to the Bishop of Rome to consider our affairs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and give his advice or acquaint us with his mind and sentence not interpose the judgement of his decree as Mr. C. hath rendred it and because t is difficult to send any thence by a common Synodical decree that he using his own Authority which in the other case he could not have should chuse men fit to under go the trouble of the journey The Greek runs thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pag. 534. and also able by their meekness and dexterity not by power delegated from the Pope to correct the perverse and thwarting spirits amongst us fitly tempering and dispensing their words and having all things with them that were done at Ariminum to the rescinding of what was there done or rather that so what was there done by force and violence may be rescinded And had not Dr. Field cause to say That the alledging of this testimony sheweth they have very little conscience that alledge it for these are the circumstances of Basils Epistle whereof let the Reader judge Basil writing to Athanasius adviseth him that the only way to settle things put out of order in the Eastern Churches by the Arrians was the procuring of the consent of the Western Bishops if it were possible to entreat them to interpose themselves for that undoubtedly the Rulers would greatly regard and much reverence the credit of their multitude and people everywhere would follow them without gainsaying but seeing this which was rather to be desired would not in likelyhood easily be obtained he wisheth that the Bishop of Rome might be induced to send some of good discretion and moderation who by gentle admonitions might pacifie the minds of men and might have all things in readiness that concerned the Arimine Council so that this Epistle makes very much against their opinion that alledge it for he preferreth and rather wisheth a particular Council than this interposition of the Pope alone if there had been any hope of a Council besides those whom the Pope was to send were not to proceed judicially and authoritatively but by intreaty and gentle admonitions to pacifie the minds oâ— men and therefore here is nothing of visiting the Easteâ—n Churches and voiding the acts of the Council of Ariminum by way of setence The Argument taken from the Ecclesiastical Canon Sect. 3 Mr C. p. 57 58. viz that no decrees should be established in the Church withouâ— not the assent as he would have it but the opinion and the advice of the Bishop of Rome upon which ground the new confession of the Council of Nice was argued of nutlâ—y which he confirms from Socrates Hist Eccles l. 2. caâ— 5. Athanas Apol. sec Sozom. Hist Eccles l. 3. c. 9. Valentinian c is fully answered by the Author of the review of the Trent Council Pag 155. who tells him that all that can be proved hence is That a General Council cannot be holden unless they viz. the Popes be called to it and this saith he appears from the application which Pope Julius makes of it when he complains that he was not called to the Council of Antioch where Athanasius was condemned charging them for that with the breach of that Canon Lib. 2 â— 13. Julius saith Socrates in his letters to the Bishops of the Council of Antioch tells them they had offended against the Canons of the Church in that they called him not to the Council for as much as the Ecclesiastical Canon forbids the making of any decrces in the Church without the opinion and advice of the Bishop of Rome And Sozomen saith Lib. 3. c. 9. that Julius writ to the Bishops which were assembled at Antioch accusing them for seeking after novelties contrary to the faith and belief of the Nicene Council and contrary to the Laws of the Church for not calling him to the Council forasmuch as by vertue of a Law made in behalf of the dignity of Priests all decrees viz. made in a General Council are invalid which are enacted without the opinion and advice of the Pope of Rome and of this Pope Julius had reason to complain considering that a Council cannot be termed General nor any decrees and Canons made to bind the whole Church Catholick unless all those which ought to be present especially the Patriarchs be lawfully called
referred the judgement of that cause to the Pope And for this he cites Conc. Eph. p. 2. Art 5. in relat ad Caelestin But he might as well have cited Aristotle for there it not one Iota of any Bishop of Jerusalem in that place nor one syllable of any such affirmation of his nor any such reason alleadged to Caelestinus but there say they we deliberated of passing the same sentence upon him which he did upon them who were condemned of no crime but that we might overcome his temerity with long suffering albeit we might justly have done it or he would justly have suffered it yet have we referred it to the judgement of your Holiness Indeed Act. 4. The Bishop of Jerusalem saith that John ought presently to have had recourse to the Apostolick seat sitting with him viz. by his Legates in the Synod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But t is the Apostlique seat of Jerusalem not of Rome which he tells us he ought to have been directed and guided by Well then this John of Antioch being a Patriarch and Cyrill being his enemy they did well to stay their sentence against him till they knew the mind and had the suffrage of the Patriarch of Rome who was Prime of the Patriarchs But sure our Author did not so well in foysting in Rome for Jerusalem albeit Binnius was his warrant for it Add to this that even this fiction makes against them for had the Pope received an universal jurisdiction and that from Christ why doth the Bishop of Jerusalem omit the delegation of the power from Christ and sink down as low as custome why doth he particularize Antioch when not only that but all other Patriarchical Sees if we may believe our Adversaries were to be guided and directed by the See of Rome or by his Holiness We are told further Ibid Sect. 10. That when Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria in the Schismatical Council of Ephesus had deposed Flavian Bishop of Constantinople Flavian appealed to the Pope and this he did saith the Emperour Valentinian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according the custom of Synods To this it is Answered by the same Author Review l. 4. c. 4. s 11. Act 1. Con. Chal. Evag. l. 2. c. 2. Act. 3 Con. Chal. It is easie to make it appear that it was not so For first It is plain from the Acts that the appeal was put in simply by the word Appello without mentioning to whom 2. The Appealants presented a petition to the Emâ—epours tending to this offect that they would be pleased to refer the cause unto a Council 3. The Council passeth the judgement upon the case of the Appeal And 4. The Pope himself was condemned by that Synod He was one of the Plaintiffs against Dioscorus the head of it Whereupon it was said to his Legates by the Presidents of the Council of Chalcedon Act. 1. Con. Chal. Nichol. in Epist ad Michael Imperat. that they being accusers could not be judges Yea Pope Nicholas himself testifies that Dioscurus was not so much condemned for his Heresie as for daring to pass sentence against the Pope to what end then had it been to appeal to him seeing he himself was condemned and was a Plaintiff Indeed the Epistle of Valentinian tells us that he appealed to the Pope Ad Theodos in Praeamb Con. Chal. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but it appears to have been no otherwise then to procure his intermediation to the Emperour for the Calling of a Synod and this he did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it was the custome when contentions arose about the faith to Call Synods 2. What is said to be given to the Pope was only given to the Legates that so he might be acquainted with the business and know that he had appeall'd as appears from the 23. Ep. of Leo to Theodosius Because our Legates have stoutly stood it out against the Synod and this Bishop Flavian given them a bill of Appeal we beseech your Gentleness to command a General Synod to be Celebrated in Italy And thus we let him pass to the Council of Sardica Sect. 6 which hath a Canon to this effect Mr. C. p. 59. s 11. That in any Controversie between Bishops which could not be determined in their own respective Provinces the person aggrieved must appeal to the Bishop of Rome who might renew the process and appoint judges and when such a case happened till the Pope had determined the cause it was not permitted that another Bishop should be chosen in his place De Oec Pout l. 13. c. 7. But 1. Saith Chamier this Council was not Oecumenical but only made up of the Western Bishops For Sozomen L. 3. C. 10. tell us that the Bishops of the East and West could not agree but severally set forth their Decrees and therefore it useth not to be reckoned among the General Councils T is true as Sulpitius saith Sac. Hist l. 2. it was called from each part of the world but of the Eastern Bishops came but seventy six to Sardis and these saith Socrates would not once come into the sight of the Western Bishops but their conditions being denyed Confestim discedunt they presently depart 2. This Canon is manifestly contrary to the fifth of the General Council of Nice which refers the final determination of all causes of Bishops to the Primate or Patriarch which the Emperour also confirmeth and will have no man to have power to contradict the sentence which the Primate or Patriarch shall give 3. The Affricans took no notice of this Decree Dr. Field p. 566. and yet there were Bishops of Africa at the Council so that in likelihood this decree was not confirmed by subsequent practice acceptation and execution Yea they will'd the Pope to send no more any of his Clarks to dispatch causes at any mans suit for that this was the way to bring in the Smoaky puffe of worldly pride into the Church and in very earnest besought him not to be Eafie in admitting any Appeals brought from them 4. This Canon makes rather against them for by it all matters must be ended at home or in the next Province to that wherein they arise And the Pope may not call matters to Rome there to be heard but is only permitted in some cases to send a Presbyter having his authority and to put him in Commission with the Bishops of the Province that so he and they may jointly re-examine things formerly judged To which you may add 1. That it was not in the power of the Pope to command Appeals to himself but only to receive them when brought 2. That this power of Appealing was Ad Julium Romanum not ad Papam Romanum and therefore a personal priviledge which was to cease on the death of Julius 3. That the very same thing viz. the like power of Appealing to the Bishop of Constantinople was defined in the General Council of Chalcedon Caâ— 9.17 as you
is a prejudice to that because a Primate or Patriarch by the notation of each word being one that hath none over him in respect of Authority or Power and so is absolutely first in his own Diocess this supposing a supream power in one must needs prejudge that as much as a Monarchick power in one is incompatible with an Aristocracy and this was the very reason why Pelagius and Gregory refused it because they should have wronged the rest of the Patriarchs in assuming it Third Def. p. 406. Now whether his asserting this Primacy Sect. 3 or our accusing and condemning it as a Novelty whether his proofs or ours be more concluding let the Reader judge I am content to refer it to his conscience as our Author doth We come now to discuss the safety of admitting this Supremacy And 1. Mr. C. p. 81. Mr. C. assures us That whilst such a Primacy purely Spiritual was acknowledged which for the first six hundred years was never so much as heard of the Church here was never torn in pieces with Schisms nor poisoned with Heresies Just Vindic p. 58 59. Answ Bishop Brumhal can tell you No Saxon English or Brittish King ever made any obliging solemn formal acknowledgement of their submission to the Bishop of Rome that the Popes power in England was of courtesie not duty that former Kings were as tart and vehement against him as King Henry the eighth with this only difference that they endeavoured to draw the people out of the Popes claws at home and he thought it more expedient to cast the Pope over the Brittish Seas once for all And if so your very supposition will give you the lie unless you will sink down to Queen Maries dayes Secondly If they were not torn in pieces with Schisms yet through your blood-thirsty tyranny they were torne in pieces for Schisms burned for Heresies that is for the plain evident Truths of the Gospel by your ignorance branded with the odious names of Schismatical and Heretical Tenents Thirdly I pray you tell me were there no Protestants in Queen Maries dayes did none suffer before her dayes when you suppose the Supremacy of Antichrist agnized how many righteous souls were butchered by you in prosecution of your Sanguinary Articles against poor Protestants how many piles were builded in Queen Maries dayes to sacrifice their lives upon to your rage and malice and durst you be so bloody against those who were neither Schismaticks nor Hereticks and what wonder is it that you had no Schismaticks c. when to be such was the sure way to have no being and they could find no other Answer to their Arguments but fire and faggot yea when the light was withheld from them that so they might not see the truth You go on and tell us Ibid. The Throne was never in the least danger upon that account never was a sword drawn for or against it Answ Very good if Princes will crouch to his Holiness Nonne Rex Anglorum nâ—â—er vassâ—llus est â—t ut 〈…〉 di◠〈…〉 be his Vassals suffer him to drein their Kingdoms rob and begger their Subjects exhaust their Dominions he will not arm their Subjects against them dethrone them or seek their ruine but if they once offer to withstand his tyranny question his intolerable encroachments cannot be content thaâ— their Subjects wealth should be converted into St. Pâ—â—â—â— Patrimony then must they be Sacrifices to Papal 〈◊〉 Witness that terrible and unparalleld excommunication and interdiction of England the deprivation of Henry the eighth published at Dunkirk witness the bull of Anathematization and deprivation by Pius the fifth against Queen Elizabeth and all her adherents absolving all her Subjects from their Oath of Allegiance without so much as an admonition preceding witness the Popes Negotiations with the English Spanish French c. to have Queen Elizabeth taken away by murther published at Rome by Hieronymo Culena Secretary to the Cardinal Alexandrino in the time and with the priviledge of Sixtus the fifth witness the Legantine Authority given to Sanders and the hollowed Banner sent with him and Allen two Romish Priests to countenance the Earl of Desmond in his rebellion the Phaenix Plume sent to Terowen to encourage him likewise in his rebellion and a plenary indulgence for him and all his assistants from Clement the eighth Lastly witness the two Briefs sent by the same Pope to exclude King James from the inheritance of the Crown of England unless he would take an Oath to promote the Roman Catholick interest Witness the rebellious Tenents of your English Seminaries the many treasons and rebellions in the time of Qu. Elizabeth and King James all which you may see in the Reverend Bishop Bramhal pag. 136 137 138. of his Repli so that you do in effect say t is safe for his Majesty to admit the Popes Supremacy for otherwise he may expect the absolution of his Subjects from their obedience a Spanish Invasion a Gunpowder Treason or some other mischievous enterprises of the Romish Emissaries to take away his life You tell us further Sect. 4 That the Kings of France account it one of the most sparkling Jewels in their Crown Ibid. that they call themselves the eldest and most devoted sons of the Catholick Church the acknowledging the spiritual Primacy of the chief Pastor they find a greater honour and defence in them then many Armies would because it preserves peace and unity in the Kingdom by subduing their minds and captivating their consciences to faith and obedience Answ The acknowledgement of the same Supremacy in the Turk that civil Pope who gapes for the Universal Monarchy would be as great an expedient for peace and unity let our Authour make the inference Secondly Why may we not deny that this peace and unity is not to be derived from the acknowledgement of the Popes Supremacy seeing as our Authour hath it in another case in so many places both they are not where it is and are where it is not as under the Turks Dominions c. Thirdly We tell you that his Majesty of France doth not acknowledge the Popes Supremacy From. pag. 190 to 200. as it is undeniably evinced by Bishop Bramhal in his just Vindication Lastly You fall to Divining That without such an Authority all our preaching and laws will prove but shaking Bulwarks for supporting Monarchy Answ Very likely for to be sure if your Priests and Jesuites men born for the subversion of Governments be permitted Hoc genns hominum natum est ad interitum Christianae reipub was the prediction of the University of Paris and it was confessed this was their business to set all on fire by John Brown a Roman Priest Prin introd p. 202. N. 82. s 20. you will never leave your rebellious Attempts and treacherous conspiracies till you have brought us into new confusions and built your nests upon our ruines Again we are told how earnestly Roman Catholicks here have
protested their renouncing any acknowledgment of the least degree of temporal power or jurisdiction as of right belonging to the Pope over any subject of his Majesties Sect. 5 See B. Bram p. 137 138. Answ We cannot be ignorant that Campian being asked if the Pope should send forces against the Queen whether he would take part with the Queen or the Pope openly professed and testified under his hand that he would stand for the Pope yea that his fellows being examined in like manner either refused to Answer or gave such ambiguous and prevaricatory Answers that some ingenuous Catholicks began to suspect that they fostered some tteachery that the Colledges or Seminaries of English Priests at Rome at Rhemes at Doway held that the Bishop of Rome hath supreme authority and most full power over the whole world yea even in temporal matters now whether you have changed these opinions or no we know not 2. How long you will hold to this whether after the declaration of the Pope to the contrary whether you will esteem his Majesty to have any subjects when absolved by the Pope from his obedience whether your acknowledgements be not with mental reservations and whether your intent be not as in Queen Elizabeths time it was acknowledged by some of your own party by reconciling in confession to absolve every one in particular from all oaths of allegiance and obedience to the Supream power See B. Bram. ib. and whether you do not yet think that faith with Hereticks may be broken when the good of the Catholick cause requireth it may be doubted and therefore you are too hasty in concluding that you acknowledge meerly a pure spiritual authority in the Pope have you the confidence to affirm it of your Italian Papists or Jesuits but to yield what you so confidently assert and so weakly prove you Catechise us thus Is this now dishonourable is it unsafe Answ Both. To whom Answ All Kings and people the whole Church of God You reply Catholick Princes protest against this opinion either of dishonour or danger Answ No such thing it being manifest that all Kingdoms and Republicks of the Roman communion do exempt themselves from this obedience to and jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome or at least plead for it when they have occasion Just Vind. c. 7. as is irrefragably evinced by Bishop Bramhal yea particularly when Pope Adrian would have had Hinemare a man condemned by three French Synods for a turbulent person and deposed sent to him to recieve justice the King of France asked him What hell vomited out this law what bottomless pit had belched it forth Yea further when the Bishops of France were summoned by the Pope to the Trent Council he finding that all things were done at Rome rather then at Trent doth not only contemn all these Papal Decrees but commands his Bishops to depart and leave the Council whether they were summoned by the Pope 2. Are they not ever and anon crying out of grievances complaining of the Popes usurpations and tyranny exhausting the wealth of their Kingdoms prodigality of indulgences c. and is it safe to admit that power which hath such pernitious attendants that power which albeit it should be purely spiritual is used almost everywhere in ordine ad temporalia to enlarge the Popes Coffers and the like 2. See B. â—am Just Vind. p. 161 162. They have more reason to acknowledge him then we they profess him to have been their Patriarch but t is beyond all question he hath no title to be ours 3. They may Protest against a truth esteem that not to be dishonourable which indeed is so as being a disclaiming of that power and care over Gods Church which he hath committed to them suffering a proud ambitious Prelate to rob them of the service they owe to Christ and tyrannize it over the Bishops they should protect and the faith they are stiled defenders of but he proceeds If only saith he to the dissenters from Catholick religion this be dishonourable Nero and Diocletian had reason on their sides when they persecuted a religion dishonourable and dangerous to the Roman Emâ—ire Answ But how will it appear to have been so was it begun and upheld by Treason Rebellions continual Blood-shed all manner of vice and wickedness as the Romans evidently was and is why forsooth neither St. Peter nor any other Apostle or Bishops but were as to their spiritual Authority independant on the Emperours Answ But what of all this did such intolerable extortions excessive rapines accompany the spiritual power of the Apostles or succeeding Bishops as do accompany this power of the Pope was there the same reason to resist a power proved to be derived from God by signs and wonders yea and manifestly tending to the confirming obedience to higher powers and to resist an evident usurpation and a tyrannical yoke unjustly put upon the neck of those that are by the law of God and nature and the constitutions of the Kingdom free from it which is found to tend to the subversion of the true faith and the enslaving of the Kingdom and was not the spiritual power of Bishops regulated by Christian Emperours albeit it was wholly independant upon Pagans And what if we acknowledge a pure spiritual authority in our Bishops over their Presbyters and Diocess to ordain Sect. 6 excommunicate make orders for decency c. we acknowledge such a power in the Pope over the Suburbicarian Provinces may not the Bishop of Canterbury as well require upon this account to exercise a jurisdiction over the Bishops in Spain France c. and say it would not be dishonourable to them to suffer such an usurpation as the Pope exerciseth over us because t is purely spiritual else would it be so to suffer their own Bishops to exercise the like authority Is there any statute that hinders the exercise of this authority by our Bishops is it contrary to the Oath of Supremacy rightly understood doth not Bishop Bramhal tell you 1. That this Oath was composed only by Papists Rep. p. 289 290 291 292 293. no Protestants having any hand in it 2. That they were zealous in defending the Doctrine contained in it 3. That there is no supremacy ascribed to his Majesty in that Oath but meerly Political and such as is essentially annexed to the Imperial Crown of every Soveraign Prince 4. The addition of spiritual causes is thus to be understood 1. Either by himself or by fit substitutes who are Ecclesiastical persons 2. Of these causes which are handled in the exterior Court not in the inner Court of Conscience 3. That as for other Ecclesiastical causes his power consists in seeing that Ecclesiastical Persons do their duties 4. That this is plainly evinced to be the sense of the Oath from the 37. art of the Church of England 5. That the same power is exercised by the King of Spain in Sicily a lay Chancellour in the Court
Christian and an Abbess over her Nuns But you argue thus Our Clergy promise Canonical obedience to their Bishops Pag. 83. they do not so to the King ergo they admit a jurisdiction in Bishops of which the King is not the root Answ We grant the whole who ever thought that his Majesty was the root of Episcopal jurisdiction or that it was only jure Regio 2. The Bishop that ordains us is authorised by his Majesty to require this obedience and therefore he is in a sense the root of it Sect. 7 But you proceed to some questions worthy to be stated in a Court Sermon only the difficulty would be how to keep the Courtiers serious whilest they were examined Mr. C. p. 85. thus then you argue Is it dishonourable either to the King or Kingdom that a purely spiritual authority should be acknowledged in him to whom 1. This whole Kingdom from its first conversion to Christianity 2. The whole Christian world submitted it self as to its supream Pastor Answ Yes Because the person you speak of is some Utopian Pastor and both these surmises are evident untruths And is it honourable that the same authority should be granted to more then twenty of his subjects Answ Yes because they have a right to it As if the Bishops were indep on his Majesty he no title but usurpation which it would be dishonourable to permit Again say you Is it unsafe that Canonical obedience for Christian unity sake should be professed to one Prelate to whom we owe no obedience a thousand miles off Answ Yes because he is a thousand miles off And is there no danger in making the same profession to so many at home who are by his Majesty over us to whom Canonical obedience to all their lawful commands is due who are present with us Answ No. What follows is a surmise that it is to be feared the Bishops may depress when their interest leads them to it the royal prerogatives and I leave it to their Answer CHAP. IX Of the Infallibility of the Church Mr. C's State of the question Sect. 1. We acknowledge no 〈◊〉 written traditions as the rule of faith Sect. 2. Why we pâ—efer the four first General Councils before others Sect. 3. Reason alone our guide Sect. 4. Scripture and the guidance of the Spirit are not excluded by this guide ib. The fallibility of it no prejudice against its guidance Sect. 5. We own no judge of our faith but Scripture Sect. 6. Mr. C's Calumny Sect. 7. The Romanist not guided by Reason Scripture or Antiquity Sect. 8. No necessity of an infallible judge besides Scripture Sect. 9. Mr. C's Arguments for the Churches Infallibility first From Deut. 17.8 9 10. Sect. 10. His second from Christs promise of his presence with his Disciples considered Sect. 11. From Christs promise of his presence with two or three Sect. 12. Of leading his Church into all truth Sect. 13. That the gates of hell shall not prevail against her Sect. 14. From his command of obeying the Church Sect. 15 From the unity of the Church Sect. 16. Mr. C's abuse of Mr. Chillingworth Sect. 17. These promises not to be applyed to particular Churches Sect. 18. His Argument from St. Gregory Constant and the Anathemas of Councils Sect. 9. Bishop Bramhal and Dr. Hammond plead not for such infallibility Sect. 20. The Doctors Argument from the prevailing of Arrianism defended Sect. 21. From the opinion of the Millenaries Sect. 22. From giving the Eucharist to infants Sect. 23. IN his ninth Chapter concerning the Churches Infallibility Sect. 1 he distinguisheth between the rule of faith and the guide of it and then tells us that to the Presbyterians Independents Anabaptists Quakers Socinians c. the only rule is the holy Scripture But both Catholicks and English Protestants though they acknowledge Divine Revelations to be their only rule yet they admit certain universally received traditions besides express Scripture But as for the guide from which we are to learn the true sense of this rule he tells us That Dr. Pierce Pag. 91. and the generality of English Protestants own the primitive Church or four first General Councils but since their writings are as obnoxious to disputes as the Scriptures themselves a speaking judge of the sense of all these is our Ecclesiastical Synods or Bishops when Synods are dissolved but principally those that are to make or determine the sense of Acts of Parliament and upon those accounts against Sectaries they use the help of Catholick weapons the authority of the Church c. but against Catholicks they turn Fanaticks and fly to a kind of private spirit or reason so that let them Preach as much as they will the result of all the dispute between them and us must come to this whether their last speaking judge in England or ours in the whole Catholick Church deserves better to be believed and relyed on But it s the Roman Catholick Church alone that is guided both by reason God spirit the primitive Church and the visible Governours of the present Church this is the sum of his seven first Paragraphs Through which runs such a palpable vein of dissimulation and falsehood that the most courteous charity cannot excuse it from being as wilful as gross For Sect. 2 1. You tell us P. 90. s 2. That though we acknowledge Divine Revelations to be our only rule yet we admit beside express Scripture certain universal Traditions for the rule of faith But what are these universally received traditions that we admit to be rules of faith why did you forbear to name some of them and yet confidently assert that we hold what we know we do not hold do not all English Protestants prove against you that Scripture is the sole and adequate rule of faith how then can they admit of any traditions as part of this rule And though we make use of universal tradition yet not as a rule but as a motive or argument for our faith as one argument that evidenceth the Scripture to be Gods word is the attestation of the Church in all ages which upon rational grounds we embrace as creditable to confirm and conveigh this to us and this use we may make of the very testimonies of the bitterest enemies to Christianity such as Celsus Julian Porphyrie c. But we say you Receive the determinations of the Primitive Church or four first general Councils Sect. 3 whom if we can believe you we constitue judges of the traditions received by us Answ We do I confess appeal to the four first general Councils not because we believe them infallible but because we conceive them to agree with Scripture which is infallible so that we make them secondary not primary guides we resolve not our belief of their decrees into their authority but into their agreement with Scripture we do not say we must believe this or that because any one of the four first general Councils hath defined it but
or else upon that account reject not this Divine Revelations are abused by some to undermine our Faith shall they therefore not be allowed to be foundations of it The question is What is the surest guide of our Faith we say pure and unprejudiced reason and that if we will follow its dictates we are in the safest way to happiness and though then we may erre about some lesser truths because not perspicuous yet not about any thing that 's a necessary Article of Faith But if men will not follow their own guides but force them into by-paths and follow the blind guides of interest prejudice or passion then they may perish not because they follow their free reasons but because they either stifle or violently divert them 4. I would beseech Mr. C. and his brethren to beware of strengthning the hands of Atheists and Scepticks whilst they endeavour to weaken ours for beside the damages they bring to all Religion it s no small one they bring to their own for hereby they shew that upon the same grounds that a man is a Papist he may be an Atheist too and that they cannot build their own Religion but upon the ruins of all Religion For let me ask will not his exception become an Atheists mouth and be more serviceable to his cause then to Mr. Cressey's What if he should ask Why do you embrace any Religion give what account you can he will enquire what Warrant you have that you are not deceived what assurance can we give him if we dare not credit our own saculties and how Mr. C. who will not allow us to trust our own reason will answer him I understand not But I am certain let him reply what he will the doubt will still return upon him for if he take refuge at the Church the quere will be how he is certain that the Church doth not deceive him And imagine he could return an Answer yet unless he at last appeal to his reason it will serve only to give occasion to a new question But though Mr. C. by his principles cannot answer a Sceptick yet by ours we may satisfactorily answer him for I know that if my faculties are right and the common notions of humane reason are true that I err not and I will never desire greater assurance that I am in the right then that my faculties are so and if the Sceptick will rather reject all certainty then acknowledge his faculties to be true his fancy is so odd that upon the same score he may cast himself from a precipice because its possible he might only dream that he was there But let us talk what we will of reason Sect. 6 yet we have as Mr. C. Mr. C. s 4. would perswade us our last speaking Judge as well as they viz. Our Ecclesiastical Synods or Bishops or Parliaments so that the result of all dispute must come to this whether the last speaking Judge in England or that in the whole Catholick Church deserves better to be believ'd and relyed on To this 1. Have not you your self expresly set down the difference of Protestant obedience from that of Papists unto the judgement of the Church whose words are these which we find in the thirteenth phragraph of this Chapter The Vniversal Church representative has an influence over the souls of men requiring much more then an external submission which yet is all that Protestants will allow to the most authentick General Councils Now what a vast difference is there between giving external submission as we do and internal assent to the truth of their decrees as you do 2. What Protestant ever asserted what your Church challengeth that our Convocations Bishops or Parliaments are Judges of our Faith or when did they themselves require that upon pain of damnation we should take up our faith upon their Authority nay when did they challenge any power over our minds and consciences do not our Divines affirm that our internal actions fall not under the verge or cognisance of any external power whatsoever whether Ecclesiastical or Temporal do we not teach that the end of the Government in the Church is to preserve its peace and unity and that whatsoever disturbs not them falls not under the Churches cogâ—isance and that therefore our Church doth not condemn or punish so all difference from her in opinion but for divulging these differing opinions which creates Schisms and Factions in the Church whom did our Convocations ever damn for not internally receiving their Decrees do they not leave every man to the liberty of his judgement and only challenge the Authority of it which all men resign up to the Governours of those Socieries of which they are members they do not require that we should in all things believe as they believe but that we should submit to their determinations and not contradict them their decisions are not obtruded as infallible Oracles but only submitted to in order to peace and unity which we esteem to be of an infinitely greater value then the propagation of any little truth So that their work is rather to silence then determine disputes or if they do positively determine they either do not then require that all should positively believe their determinations but expect that all should so far acquiese therein as not to proceed in opposing them and so make Schisms and divisions incurable or if they do require a positive assent it s not upon pretence of any infallibility as your Church doth but because the thing determined is so evident in Scripture as that all denying of it must be willful v. g. They do not require us to believe there is but one God upon their Authority but because it s expresly asserted in Scripture but in matters which Scripture hath left doubtful our Church permits her members every one to abound in his own sence because she knows no way to determine them but by Scripture and therefore Scripture not having clearly revealed them she dares not be so arrogant as positively to determine them What impudence then is it to charge us as if we had changed the Pope for my Lord of Canterbury and a General Council for a National Convocation and the Conclave of Rome for a Parliament at London giving that very Authority to the Church of England that we take from the Church of Rome when the difference is so infinitely great between the Authority which you give to your Church and we give to ours Whereas Mr. C. Sect. 7 tells us that we fight against Sectaries with the weapons of the Romanists and against Romanists turn Sectaries c. it s a most pitiful and false exception for we accuse not Sectaries for not believing our Church as the Romanists accuse us for not believing theirs but for not obeying her in things lawful and separating from her unnecessarily Who ever urged them to believe as the Church believes or who â—amns them for not doing it there are many Topicks used to
there is no probability of being cloathed upon and therefore they cannot be supposed to go to purgatory naked since they that go thither are sure afterward to go to heaven Again vers 6 7. the Apostle tells us that whilest we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord and that Here the faithful desire to be absent from the body because it hinders them from the presence of the Lord and walking by sight now had they been acquainted with purgatory surely they would have express'd their desires of being absent from that also seeing that was like not only to be more irksome to them but also more durable and therefore a greater impediment since therefore they groan'd so much to be deliver'd from a short life here which hinders their enjoyment of Gods presence and not at all for deliverance from a hundred or two hundred years continuance in purgatory for so long saith Bellarmine the Church hath prayed for Souls in purgatory we infer they were not acquainted with it Again they that are to be receiv'd into Eternal habitations when their life fails them are to be received at death for then they fail But so are charitable men and by parity of Reason other pious souls The minor is proved from Luke 16. v. 8. Make unto your selves friends of the Mammon of unrighteousness that is use it so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that when you fail i. e. dy they may receive you that is may procure you a reception or rather as Doctor Hammond you may be received into everlasting habitations But our Author hath his arguments also Sect. 18 which come now to be considered And first he tells us of an express testimony for Purgatory in the Book of Macchabees Now not to call upon him for an Answer to Dr. Cosens of the Canon of Scripture as knowing how impossible it is to be done albeit it be necessary to make this Testimony a Cogent proof seeing he onely tells us that there is such a place in the Book of Macchabees I will add where the words may be found even in Dally page 439. where they are fully considered and it made evidently to appear that they come not up to a proof of Purgatory neither are they consistent with the received Maxims of the abettors thereof and whereas our adversary calls in the Universal Tradition and practice of the Synagogue of the Jews to justifie this place the same worthy person hath made it evident that neither this nor any other Testimony produced by them is any tolerable proof of such practice p. 449. 450. Nay he evinceth most clearly from this passage that this practice was not received in our Saviour's or the Apostles time Ne apud infimos corruptos Judaeos yea he spends the 14. Chapter of his second Book to evidence that the Jewes were ignorant of Prayers for the dead and should we after all this give any credit to your confident assertions of such evident untruths It concerns you if you respect your credit to answer what is extant in the forecited places of the Learned Dally and to evince this universal Tradition and practice you here speak of without the least offer of any proof unless what follows must be so esteem'd viz. that from the Jewes no doubt Plato borrowed this Doctrine and from Plato Cicero But I pray you Sir permit us who have the Arguments fore-mentioned to evidence that in our Saviours time the Jewes had no such Custome to doubt of what you boldly here assert l. 4. c. 5. p. 360. especially when the same Dally runs antipodes unto you and tells us though with greater modesty ab iis Platonicis ut videtur illam Purgatorii rationem baustam atque acceptam tum Judaei tum adversarii retinent Sect. 19 that both you and they as it seems received your Purgatory from the Platonists Mr. Cr. P. 120. You have one assault more from natural Reason which you say will tell us that heaven into which no unclean thing can enter is not so quickly and easily open to imperfect souls as unto perfect nor have we any sign that meerly by dying sinful livers become immediately perfect 1 Thess 4.17 Now to this I Answer that what ever natural Reason may seem to dictate I am sure the Oracles of God will tell us that they who are alive at the Resurrection if pious souls though surely some of them shall be imperfect shall not go to Purgatory for 100. years but be caught up into the Clouds to meet the Lord in the Air and so shall be for ever with the Lord. Secondly albeit there be nothing of Reason or Scripture to intimate that onely by dying we become perfect yet doth both Reason and Scripture more then intimate that presently after death we are amongst the Spirits of just men made perfect that when this Tabernacle is dissolved we go to an house Eternal in the Heavens when we are absent from the body we are present with the Lord and consequently are purified by the holy Spirit from the imperfections that adhered to us CHAP. XI Master Cressie's misadventures Sect. 1. His first Argument from 1 Cor. 11. Answered Sect. 2. His second from Reason Sect. 3. His Authorities spurious Sect. 4. As 1. Saint Basils Liturgy Sect. 5. Cyrils Mystag Catechism Sect. 6. The Acts of the Nicene Council Sect. 7. Greg. Nyssens Catechism Sect. 8. Saint Cyrils testimony considered Sect. 9. His Authorities say no more then our Churches Liturgy Sect. 10. Saint Chrysostome not for them but against them Sect. 11. His Citation abused by Master Cressie Ib. as likewise Saint Ambrose Sect. 12. The Doctours argument from the fruit of the Vine vindicated Sect. 13 14. Mr. Cressie's evasion confuted Sect. 15. The weakness of his argument against the Doctours Exposition evidenced and confessed by Jansenius Sect. 16 17. an argument against Transubstantiation Sect. 18. Why the Fathers not insisted on Sect. 19. The Fathers are not for the adoration of the Sacrament Sect. 20. Saint Chrysostome Saint Ambrose and Saint Austins testimonies considered Sect. 21 22 23. The contrary evidenced from Doctor Taylor Sect. 24. IN this Chapter we meet with many misadventures Sect. 1 Mr. Cressie p. 124. and mistakes as 1. that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as old as the first general Council whereas it was never used by any Father or at least never applied unto this matter for the space of a thousand years and upwards nor can I find any of their own writers besides himself that ever pleaded the use of such a word 2. Another mistake is that the Church onely saith the change made in the holy Sacrament is usually called Transubstantiation when the Trent Council expresly tells us Mr. Cressie p. 124. that it is called so propriè convenienter aptissime most fitly properly and conveniently 3. Whereas you tell us Sect. 5 that it is a difficult matter to define what is our Churches Tenent
let him receive it nor would the Apostle have been so nice in his perswading it And again Christ saith this that every one may consider his strength whether hee be able to satisfie this command of Virginity and Chastity for our abilities ought to bee considered that so hee that can receive it may St. Austin Lib. 1. de nupt concup ad voler C. 16. id ad Pollent In cap. 20 Leviticus Pt 3. cur past C. 30. this vertue of such excellent Continence he that can receive let him receive it And again the Apostle counsels Celibacy to him that can receive it Hesyc we do not require any thing beyond mens power but onely what is possible viz. virginity of him to whom it is possble And Gregory Hee that is truth it self saith all cannot receive this Word And again the Pastors that are single are to bee admonished that if they cannot withstand the storms of temptation without difficulty of Shipwrack they betake themselves to the Haven of Wedlock To these you may add Ignat. Ep. 8. ad Smyrnenses Cyril L. 1. Ep. 11. Si perseverare nolunt aut non possunt nubant Lactan. L. 6. Inst C. 23. Chrysost L. de Virg. Homil. 19. in 1 Cor. Bernard in Serm. de convers ad Cler. C. 29. Amrbose cited in Jure Canon C. Integritas 32. qu. 2. yea Bell armine himself C. 34. resp ad 19. CHAP. XVIII Schisme is an unnecessary separation sect 1. Our separation necessary by reason 1 Of many things unjustly required to be believed 2 To be practised by us sect 2 3. That supposing these doctrines to be innovations wee are bound to separate sect 4. The result of Mr. C ' s. positions ibid. His pretensions to make his assertion reasonable considered sect 5 6 7. The Church of Rome Schismatical sect 8. The Arguments to the contrary answered sect 9 10 11. WE are at length arrived at our last Sect. 1 and largest taske to wipe off that odious name of Schisme which hee most irrationally casts upon us Now in this business Mr. C. as he is more voluminous so is he more weak and more confused And therefore I will not follow him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but draw up some thesis or propositions and confront them to his assertions and then return an answer to his arguments 1. 1. Proposition Therefore Schism is an unnecessary separation that it is a separation Sect. 2 the very import of the word assures us that it is an unnecessary one appears because nothing can bee sinful which is necessary with a necessity not introduced upon my self through my own default and consequently where cause of Schism is necessary there not hee that separates but hee that is the cause of separation is the Schismatick for schism there cannot bee in leaving the communion of any Church Chilling p. 17. unlesse wee were obliged to continue in it man cannot be obliged by man but to what either formally or virtually hee is obliged by God for all just power is from God God the eternal truth neither can nor will oblige us to believe any the least or the most â—nâ—ocent falshood to bee a Divine Truth that is to erre nor to professe a known errour which is to lye So that seeing you require the belief of errours among the conditions of your Communion our Obligation to communicate with you ceaseth yea we are obliged not to communicate with you upon these terms which are evidently sinful and so the imputation of schism to us vanisheth to nothing but it falls heavy upon your own heads for making our separation from you just and necessary by requiring unnecessary and unlawful conditions of your communion Thus being not content with Christ the Mediatour of mankind you require us to hold the Saints departed to bee our Mediatours besides the head Christ Jesus you require us to believe the Pope to bee the head and Husband of the universal Church by Divine right besides the Sacrifice of the Cross you force upon us that of the Altar as a true and proper Sacrifice besides the blood of Christ you command us to expect our cleansing from the sufferings of Martyrs besides the torments of Hell which are threatned to the wicked you require us to assert Purgatorian torments to bee inflicted on the faithful Besides the Worship of the great God you require us to adore and that with the worship due and proper unto him the holy Sacraments besides the holy Scriptures you require us to receive with equal authority certain Books Apocriphal and Traditions like unto them with the same faith wee give to these Holy Scriptures the veneration of Images the transubstantiation of the elements into the body and blood of Christ you require us to believe The Churches power in mutilating the Sacrament of the Lords Supper in enjoyning the celebration of publick service in a tongue unknown in imposing perpetual Celibacy upon such as take upon them holy orders you require us to acknowledge These things you have established in your councels and thundred your Anathemaes against all those that will not yeild their assent unto them so that without the belief of these things it is impossible for us to keep in the communion of your Church nay the denial of any of these Articles excludes us at least in your esteem not only from the Roman but the Church of God and makes it unlawful for you to communicate with us the confessions of these things you exact from us with the greatest rigour and that as the true Catholick faith Bulla pii quarti extra quam neâ—o salvus esse potest without beleiving of which there is no salvation to any man continually proclaiming that you esteem them Hereticks enemies of Christ and worse than Infidels that reject these opinions or any of them nay which is worst of all in making of these and such like decrees you give out that you are infallible So that to question any one of them is ipso facto to thrust our selves out of your Communion sith therefore you require the belief of these untruths as necessary conditions of communion you evidently free us from the guilt of Schisme in refusing to communicate with you upon such terms Again wee confidently assert Sect. 3 there can be no necessity of communicating with others in wicked actions nay there is a necessity of separation when the performance of them is required a necessity of getting out of Babylon when wee cannot stay there Rev. 18.4 but we must be partakers of her sins And evidently to practise what I esteem and look upon as forbidden by God is to be guilty of damned hypocrisie and wilful disobedience against him seeing therefore the Church of Rome requireth of us the practise of such unlawful actions as the Adoration of the Sacrament which is Idolatry the Invocation of Saints Veneration of Images petitions for deliverance of Souls from Purgatory which are superstitions yea and injoyns her
so If you say he is infallible not in decrecing but in this that hee shall not confirm an errour I Answ This assertion implies either that the Pope è Cathedrâ cannot erre and then the veriest Idiot may bee stiled infallible as well as a General Council because the Pope è Cathedrâ cannot confirm what he erroniously dictates Or 2. That in confirming the decrees of General Councils only hee is unerrable and then pray you where is that promise of such peculiar assistance at that time where is that Scripture or single passage of any Father that albeit the Pope may erre in decreeing any matter of faith yet in confirming the decrees of a General Council hee cannot Ede tabulas but if not one Iota in scripture reason or antiquity for this how can I be assured that it is so and consequently have an infallible guide to lean and rest upon As for scripture what place can they bring but that of Luk. 22. I have asked for thee that thy faith fail not but is there any thing of teaching the whole Church doth hee say that the Pope may fail in manners but shall not in doctrines of Faith or in decreeing Doctrines of faith but not in confirming them or doth he at all speak of the Pope of Rome Yea 2. Did that prayer hinder the denial of Christ by Peter was Peter then summus pontifex or not If not then doth not this concern him in that relation and consequently neither those that succeed him if he was then what hinders but that the summus pontifex may fail Neither is there any thing to the purpose in that of Mat. On this rock will I build my Church and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it For 1. Is here one sillable of the Pope or infallibility or if there were is there any thing of it for the Pope more then for the Church why then did our Author produce it for the Church and if touching the Pope is it rather in confirming the decrees of Councils then in decreeing doctrines of faith And as for antiquity had this been taught in the Primitive times could they have avoided this argument The Pope hath confirmed this Ergo 'tis true this Council was approved by the Pope Ergo 'tis infallible but there is not one sillable to be heard in all Antiquity of this nature Again if the Pope must be included may not the Pope and Council run counter and what shall wee do then what shall we do in a time of Schism when there are several pretenders to the Popedome as frequently there have been to whom then must we hearken how shall we know which of these is the true Pope if a Council must decide it as indeed none else can either the Council is fallible and may determine wrong or infallible and then it is so without the Pope And so the assertion I dispute against is deserted and another taken up of which anon Again suppose any Popes misdemeanours be to be judged of as for example whether Sixtus Quintus got into St. Peters chair by Simony in this case the Pope cannot bee Judge and therefore if the Council without the Pope be not infallible how can wee know whether their determination bee aright seeing it may as well bee wrong Further tell me how may I be assured that the Pope is a true Pope If he came in by Simony he is none and how is it possible for me to know that seeing some have been Simonaical how can I be certain that many others have not been so too and if so then not only all fallibility is ceased but your succession too For all the Cardinals created by a Simonaical Pope can be no Cardinals and if so then Sixtus Quintus being evidently convicted of Simony before the Council of Sicil could be no Pope his Cardinals no Cardinals neither could the Popes created since by those Cardinals bee truly such so that from his time your Church hath been without a lawful universal head Again how shall I bee certain that the Popes election is legal for unless it be so your selves deny him to be Pope when sometimes the People sometimes the Clergy chose him sometimes both in one age the Emperour in another the Cardinals in a third a General Council Further I might ask you how you are assured the Pope is rightly ordained and Baptiz'd for if he was not by your own principles hee can be no Pope and that he was I cannot be certain unless I could know the intention of the Priest that Baptized him and the Bishop that ordained him and though I did know what cannot be known their intentions yet how shall I know the intentions of the persons that Baptized and Ordained them and so on to that endless chain of uncertainties propounded by Mr. Chillingworth in his second chap. which 't is impossible you should ever bee able to solve But I am opprest with copiousnesse of Argument and therefore must break off from this member to the next 2. Again therefore if you say Sect. 2 that the council is infallible without the Pope Then 1. p. 51. sect 8. You contradict your self in requiring the consent of the Pope to the Obligation of the Councils Canons for if they be infallible are we not bound to assent to them notwithstanding Or can we do well in opposing what is infallible 2. How shall wee know whether the Pope or Council be supreme when the council of Basil and Constance determined it one way the council of Lateran the other way So the second Council of Nice asserted the corporeity of Angels the first of Lateran denies it Can infallible persons contradict each other Who must bee the Members of this Council whether onely Bishops or Presbyters and Deacons too upon what certain account do you shut out Presbyters if you admit onely Bishops or if you require that Presbyters be called to the Council what certain grounds can you produce for it Why should you exclude Laymen from a place in these your Councils especially when the Scripture tells us that in the Council which was called about circumcision mention is made not onely of Apostles but of the Elders of the Church and of the Brethren Acts 15.23 Bellarm. Saith indeed that this multitude was called not to consent and judge but onely to consent But upon what authority doth hee build this interpretation Or what certainty can we have in the determinations of Holy Scriptures If we may thus apply unto them our idle fancies add and distinguish where no other Scripture no circumstance or context leads us to it but rather the contrary strongly is insinuated for as much as the definitive sentence runs thus It hath pleased the Apostles and Elders with the whole Church c. Further why must Bishops bee called to it out of one Countrey and not our of another why will so many out of this Kingdome suffice What if the members of the Council be chosen illegally
he further tells us that no inferiour power can abrogate and reverse the laws of a superiour Answ True and thence we inferre that seeing the laws of Christ are evidently the laws of the most soveraign power the decrees of patriarchical and General Councils must yeild to them and consequently when ever they require any thing contradictory to this law wee must refuse our obedience to which 2. Wee add that Patriarchical Councils have no authority at all in any Nation but by permission and consent of Princes and other Governours thereof and therefore antecedently to their permission cannot bee called a power superiour to our provincial Synods VVhat hee adds from the restimony of St. Austin is nothing to his purpose but much to ours It being the very design of St. Austin there to evidence that Fathers and Councils and all humane VVriters must yeild to Scripture and that his evidence thence must prevail against all the authorities of Fathers and Councils produced by his adversaries for speaking of the Donatists who pleaded the authority of St. Cyprian and some councils for them he thus goes on Cur authoritatem Cypriani pro vestro Schismate assumitis De Bapt. cont donat l. 2. c. 3. ejus exemplum pro Ecclesiae pace respuitis quis autem nesciat sanctam Scripturam Canonicam tam vet quam Novi Testamenti certis suis terminis contineri eamque omnibus posterioribus Episcoporum literis ita praeponi ut de illa omnino dubitari disceptari non posset utrum verum vel utrum rectum sit quicquid in ea scriptum esse constiterit Episcoporum autem literas quae post confirmatum Canonem vel scriptae sunt vel scribuntur per sermonem forte sapientiorem cujuslibet in eare peritioris per aliorum Episcoporum graviorem authoritatem doctiorumque prudentiam per concilta licere reprehendi Si quid in eis forte a veritate deviatum est ipsa concilia quae per singulas regiones vel provincias fiunt plenariorum consiliorum authoritati quae fiunt ex universo orbe christiano sine ullis ambagibus cedere ipsaque plenaria saepe priora posterioribus emendari cum aliquo experimento rerum aperitur quod clausum erat cognoscitur quod latebat And yet were this assertion granted Sect. 5 it would do but little service to Mr. C. seeing the Councils that have determined against us were either unlawful See the Author of the review of the Trent Council l. 4. c. 7 8. Dr. Taylors duc dub p. 285. as that of Lateran and Florence or else contradicted by other Councils as great as they as the second of Nice by that of Constantinople and all of them by the decree of the General Council of Ephesus against the enlarging of the Apostles Creed In which case by our Authors Fundamental Rule that the decrees of a Patriarchical Council must not contradict a General p. 250 they must necessarily be null My seventh Proposition shall be this Sect. 6 That private men ought to judge with a judgement of discretion 7. Proposition at least whether the determinations of Councils whether particular or general are to bee received as doctrines of faith and are not without all enquiry to submit to them For 1. If God had intended to appoint them such an infallible Judge above and beyond his Word in whose determinations they must acquiesce then would hee have infallibly told them which and where to find him if a General Council hee would have named him told us the conditions requisite to the celibration of it what persons ought to bee members of it how far they were infallible 3 Proposition and in what not with many other things above mentioned The reason is because the certain knowledge of these things can bee your onely security that the determination of this Judge will bee infallible For my obligation to receive this Judge as such can bee no other then Gods revelation of it to mee or my certain knowledge that his VVill is such Now God hath no where revealed unto us the necessity of yeilding internal assent to a Generall Council or afforded us any standard whereby to determine those infinite disputes that are on foot touching this matter and the decision of which are necessary to the certain knowledge of this infallibility of our Judge there being a total silence in Scripture touching these things and a perpetual conflict betwixt reason and reason authority and authority 2. That cannot bee the rule of Faith to private persons Sect. 7 which cannot be known to bee so by them for it is a contradiction to assert that any man is bound to follow that as the Rule of Faith which hee cannot bee assured to bee so But such is the authority of the Church for if there can bee any surety of this to a private person then either from the VVord of God the Judgment of the Church Reason or Revelation hee cannot pretend to it from Scripture For of the sense of this say you he must not judge nor can he know that the Scripture is the VVord of God but by the Church and consequently hee cannot know from Scripture that there is any Church at all much lesse that it is infallible till hee hath admitted that it is infallible 3. If the Church must judge it can bee no other then the true Church and where and how shall this be found by a private man 2. Is not this evidently to make the Church Judge in her own cause and will it convince any one that doubts of her infallibility 3. Where shall such finde the Church thus speaking in her private Doctors many are unable to consult them and if they should 1. May they judge of the sense of Fathers 2. Will they find them all agreed in the points disputed 3. How will they bee assured by them that the whole Church in their daies taught agreeably to their doctrine Yea 4. How will they bee assured what works of the Fathers are true what spurious what interpolated what not what is by the fraudulency of men substracted seeing both parts acknowledge and complain that these piae frandes have been exercised upon them 5. How will he know that the Fathers are to be Judges yea or no and which whether all or some And if all what must hee think of those which tell him they must not be Judges any further then they bring their evidence Is not this enough to crack their credits with him If some what some and why they more then others and who must determine concerning them Must hee hear the Church speaking in a general Council But 1. This hath never been determined in a General Council 2. Either he believes already that a General Council cannot erre and then hee hath no need of this determination or believes it may and then he is but where hee was after this determination must he come to reason 1. The definitive sentence of
innovations in doctrine and irregularity in manners which is the confessed purpose of these laws Secondly For the Emperour Charls the great which was the Doctors second instance wee are told by the Emperour himself that hee convocated Bishops to counsel him how Gods Law and Christian Religion should bee recovered Apud Surium die 5. Jun. Therefore saith hee by the council of my Religious Prelates and my Nobles wee have appointed Bishops in every City and Boniface their Arch-Bishop and appoint that a Synod shall bee held every year that in our presence the Canonical decrees and the Rites of the Church may bee restored and Christian Religion may bee reformed Yea he tells us that hee resided in his councils not onely as an hearer but Judge also and by the gift of God determined and decreed what was to bee held in these inquiries Part. 1. pag. 3. As you may find in the collection of Goldastus yea hee made a decree against the worshipping of Images and gave sentence against the second Nicene Council in this particular And to add no more in the preface of his capitulary hee speaks on this wise to the Clergy of his Empire We have sent our Deputies unto you to the intent that they by our Authority may together with you correct what shall stand in need of correction we have also added certain chapters of canonical Ordinances such as wee thought to beemost necessary for you Let no man I entreat you think or censure this pâ—ous admonition for presumptuous whereby wee force our selves to correct what is amisse to cut off what is superfluous and briefly to compact what is good But rather let every man receive it with a willing mind of charity For wee have read in the Book of Kings how Joas endeavoured to restore the Kingdom which God had given him to the service of the true God by going about it by correcting and admonishing it So that here wee have him not onely acting as high as the oath of Supremacy will allow our Prince but particularly by the council of his Prelates and his Nobles acting for the recovery and reformation of Religion yea without Synodal authority cutting off what was superfluous correcting what was amisse and justifying himself by the example of King Joas who undoubtedly reformed Religion it self c. 24. sect 7. as our Authour confesseth of the Kings of Judah Now to these things what answer is returned by Mr. Sect. 4 C. but that these Laws were all regulated by the Laws of the present Church in their times that they were onely the reduction of the faith and discipline of the Church into imperial Laws that they were never intended as acts of an absolute Ecclesiastical Supremacy but as consequences of the Churches Authority and that this will be found a truth by any one who casts an eye upon those Laws De imperio sum potest Now this is evidently otherwise for as Grotius tells us Justinian made new Patriarchates ordained they should enjoy the full rights of a Patriarchate contrary to the twelfth canon of the council of Chalcedon altered the Canons touching the election of Bishops which was very usual for Emperours to do as Tollet there confesseth to omit many other instances of like kind And as for Charls the great hee tells us from Bochellus that it was very well known that antiently as oft as Synods were assembled their decrees were not ratified till approved by the King in his privy Counsel and if any things there displeased they were exploded which saith hee from the Council of Tours Cabilonensi and Chaloun under Charls the great wee have already demonstrated thus Bochellus Yea farther the same Emperour added to the Senate held in Theodonis-Villa and gives us notice that hee did so by annexing or prefixing of this clause hoc de nostro adjicimus but I will not trouble my self any further to insist on this seeing the same Grotius hath abundantly evinced in his seventh chapter their power to rescind and amend these Ecclesiastical Canons and that this power was adjudged to them as their right by the Synods thus convened by them But 2. Bee it so that these Imperial Laws were the Churches faith and Canons for discipline and consequences of the Churches authority then must it bee acknowledged that the decrees of Charls the great against worshipping of Images and the sentence of the Nicene Council was a part of the Churches faith a consequence of her authority Justin nov 123. S. ad haec jubemus Carol. mag capit l. 1. c. 70. and regulated by the Laws of the present Church And the decree both of Justinian and Carolus Magnus that Divine Service should bee celebrated in the vulgar tongue as being required to bee celibrated so by the Apostle and by God himself who would require an account of them who should do otherwise at the day of Judgement the prerogatives given by Justinian to the Bishop of Carthage notwithstanding the pretensions of the Bishop of Rome to the contrary must bee all actions regulated by the Churches of their time and according to the faith and discipline of the same And what hath hee to perswade us that what he saith was the very truth as to the practise of Charlemain just nothing and for the Emperour Justinian as bad as nothing for what saith hee but that the Rules of the Holy Councils viz. the four first General Councils shall obtain the force of Laws for their Doctrines wee receive saith hee as the Holy Scriptures themselves and their Rules wee observe as laws ergo all the decrees of the Code and novels of Justinian though made touching sundry things of which the Church had prescribed nothing were regulated by the Law of the present Church again our Laws disdain not to follow the holy and divine Rules that is such of them as required only things determined by former Councils ergo they were not intended any of them as Acts of an absolute Ecclesiastical Supremacy but all of them as consequences of the Churches Supremacy Balsamon must bee called a malitious Schismatick Sect. 5 though Mr. Mr. C. p. 283. C. would be angry if we call him so and then we must be told that he saith only that the Emperour hath an inspection over the Churches Bals in C. 38.6 Syn. in Trullo so that he can limit or extend the jurisdiction of Metropolitans erect new ones c. Answ But this c. cuts off the most material part of the sentence which tells us that the Emperour may not only set a form for the election of Bishops but for other administration of them so as he shall think good which perfectly reacheth the King Supremacy nor is this all that is there said but we are told moreover that it is fitting the Ecclesiastical Orders should follow the Civil commands and therefore how Mr. C. will acquit himself from an untruth I am not able to divine If Balsamon here have not
deny it with Grotius De sum Pot. c. 7. how miserable is our Authors proof who tells us that if there bee not spiritual laws and a spiritual director to them all what will become of unity Answ Why may they not have such laws and yet be independent is it necessary they should disagree 2. They may have diverse laws in circumstantials and yet preserve their unity seeing the unity of the Church is that of Communion not of apprehension and may stand with any difference of opinions in all matters that destroy not the foundation and Ruine not the being of a Church 3. They have spiritual laws and a spiritual director common to them all the Word of God Oh but they must have a General Council Rep. Why so good Sir Ans Because otherwise they will not obey the Rules of Scripture Rep. Nor will they obey the Rules of your Oecumenical Council Ans They should obey them Rep. So should they obey the prescripts of Gods Word So that unless persons voluntarily consent to the decrees of a General Council what preservatives of unity will there bee and if all Princes or Churches would consent to the laws and doctrines of one the remedy against Schism would bee as soveraign and indeed do you not here beg the the thing in question with your adversaries God hath provided say they no other remedy against the Schisms of particular Churches but his Word yes say you a general Council or patriarchical no necessity of them say they to unity let men believe the foundations of Christianity and be charitable to their brethren bearing with the weak as the Scripture requireth in other matters it is enough Now to this you learnedly aske how then shall the whole Church be kept in unity even say they by holding the foundations of Christianity so plain that they need no determination and permitting a liberty of opinion touching other things without breach of charity And here comes in another of his Arguments to prove us Schismaticks and our reformation â—o bee illegal which runs thus That Reformation which was begun without sufficient authority by Queen Elizabeth must bee illegal and Schismatical but such was the Reformation of the Church of England Now to make this good hee gives us an History of it and tells us that the convocation called by the Queen Mr. Cr. p. 274. unanimously persisted in a resolution not to forsake the old Religion or more truely the superstitions restored by Queen Mary and then hee gives us what was done in this convocation viz. that they composed certain Articles of Religion which they tendered to the Bishops who in the name of the whole Clergy presented them to the Lord Keeper Ans The businesse is onely this the reformed Ministers being either cruelly Butchered or else Banished and persecuted out of the land when Queen Elizabeth came first to the Crown shee found the Roman Clergy stated in their Benefices and albeit many of these reformed Ministers and particularly three Bishops that escaped the fire now appeared and the rest came flocking from beyond the Seas yet did she not presently dispossesse the one and restore the other being not willing to make a reformation on a sudden but by degrees now of these Priests consisted the convocation held under the blood-thirsty Bonner who had warmed himself at so many Bone-fires of our Bishops and learned Clergy without any other remorse then this that hee did not cut off root and branch Dr. Heylin Hist of Queen Eliz. p. 113. But such was their fear modesty or despair of doing any good to themselves and their cause that there was nothing done by the Bishops at all and not much more by the lower Clergy then a declaration of their judgement in some certain points mentioned here by Mr. C. which at that time were thought fit to bee commended to the sight of the Parliament then assembled but that this was tendered in the name of the whole representative Clergy is his own addition it being onely a declaration of the judgement of the lower Clergy and whether it were so or no is not much material hereupon a disputation betwixt these two parties was concluded on and learned men of each party were elected to bee disputants of each side wherein the Bishops of the Romish party so demeaned themselves and so obstinately refused to stand to their own conditions that it was generally thought they were not able to defend their Doctrine Dr. Heylin ib. p. 104. in the points to be disputed But to proceed in the History of the Reformation after the Religion established by Queen Mary had continued un-interrupted for a month and somewhat more afterward it was tollerated withal required to have the Epistles Gospels the ten Commandments the Symbole the Lettany and the Lords-Prayer in the vulgar tongue Cambden p. 10 11. and this upon the occasion of some certain Ministers who impatient of delay by the length of time which ranne and pass'd away in other matters desiring rather to run before good laws then to expect them in their fervent zeal began to preach the Gospel of Christs true Doctrine Id. p. 33 34. first privately in houses and then openly in Churches On the 22th of March the Parliament being assembled the Order of Edward the sixth was re-established and by Act of the same the whole use of the Lords Supper granted under both kinds The 24th of June by the authority of that which concerned the Uniformity of publick prayers and administration of the Sacraments the Sacrifice of the Masse was abolished and the Liturgie in the English tongue more and more established In July the Oath of Allegiance was proposed to the Bishops of which anon and in August Images were thrown out of the Temples and Churches Def. Ec. Ang. p. 637. Now if it bee considered with Dr. Crakanthorp that what was here done by this most Religious Queen was not introductory of what was new that so it should bee necessary to discusse it in a Synod but onely restoratory of the Laws made in the 5th and sixth years of King Edward the sixth with the consent and concurrence of a lawful Synod of learned Bishops and Presbyters that Queen Elizabeth did onely justly restore what her Sister Mary had unjustly abrogated 2. â—ul Ch. Hist l. 9. p. 52. That this alteration of Religion was also enacted by the Parliament which repealed the laws of Queen Mary made against the Protestants and revived those of King Henry the 8 and King Edward the 6. in favour of them And 3. How many learned Protestant Divines she had desiring and advising her to these things yea and old Bishops also for whereas our Author tells us in effect that she had none to advise with p. 274. but such as were now ordained the rest being generally averse from her proceedings 'T is void of truth For what doth he think of William Barlow John Scory Miles Coverdale and John