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
five others all those that were not with the right Popes were Scismaticks and consequently cut off from the Church of Christ so that for forty years together haply half the Roman Church was unchurched for seventeen year haply four parts were cut off from the body of Christ In the time of Benedict the ninth five parts at least must be absciended If the Pope be an essential head of the Church as they must necessarily hold it necessarily follows that all the poor Christians even in America must be unchurched if they side with no Pope and damned if with the Schismatick albeit it sometimes hapneth that the most conscientious men cannot tell whom they should acknowledge as Legitimate how can any man that believes God to be infinite in goodness be tempted to imagine that he will damn all those that after their diligence in this search mistake the true Pope and so become Schismaticks or can any sober man think that this is sufficient to unchurch them who walk in love to God and endeavour to their utmost to glorifie his name and to make them presently be rejected by him and if they dye thus perish everlastingly 2. I aske seeing you acknowledge it contrary to his providence not to have provided against Shism what expedient God hath provided in this case Mr. C. tells us a General Council cureth all P. 80. Rep. But who shall call it when t is asserted that the power is peculiarly the Popes and consequently when we know not who is Pope we know not who is to convocate the Synod 2. How difficult is it to assemble them 3. Who shall have place there seeing one part of the Church must necessarily be Schismatical and consequently have no right to Vote in General Councils Mr. C. p. 80. s 17. 3. The Doctor saith if the Pope should prove an Heretick the Church would deserve to be bereaved of her head Sect. 9 to which he Answes that in this case the Pope ceaseth to be not only on head but member of the Church and the See presently becomes vacant to which we have sufficiently replyed above Now for a conclusion of this business Sect. 10 let any man consider what probability there is that such an headship should be so necessary to the very being of the Church and the continuation of its Unity and yet our blessed Saviour so desirous of his Church her welfare so well acquainted with the difficulty that we find of yielding subjection unto others and foreseeing all the schisms that were like to happen about this matter should be wholly silent in so great a point not giving us either the name or titles of this head nor the seat of his Empire to prevent the claim of others nor appointing him his work nor directing him how to do it albeit inferiour Bishops have their instructions very clearly given them when he hath the greatest work in the world to do and such as surpasseth the strength of many thousands never giving him any advice and direction for the determining of his very many occurring difficulties albeit St. Paul sends instructions unto Timothy to direct him 1 Tim. 3.14 15. how he should behave himself in a particular Church until his coming nor giving us any notice of his power nor telling us of his prerogative nor what officers he shall appoint under him and how nor acquainting us with our duty to obey him never telling us of the succession of this Soveraign in whom it shall reside of any successour of St. Peter rather then St. Paul I say that not a word of this should be mentioned by Christ or his Apostles even when there was so great occasion and so many opportunities when Peter was among them when there was striving for supremacy when the Churches were lamentably contending about the preheminence of their teachers and some were for one some for another some for Cephas himself when so many Heresies arose and hazarded the Churches as among the Corinthians Galathians and others there did yea when an Epistle was written to the Romans themselves that in that Epistle there should be no instructions touching this head when Ignatius was so vehement for the rendring of obedience to the Bishops constituted over us by God that he should not have one intimation of the obedience due unto the Pope yea that Clemens Romanus though Bishop of Rome should write so earnestly to the Corinthians for the avoiding of Schism to obey their own Bishops and not adde one syllable in behalf of his own authority these are things so hard to be believed by one that believeth the wisdome and love of Christ his Apostles and the zeale of these Primitive Fathers against Schisme that I should sooner perswade my self of the truth of Mahomets fables then of this pretension CHAP. V. The impertinence of Mr. C's citation of Popes in their own cause Sect. 1. The testimonies of Pope Leo Pelagius Gregory and Gelasius Sect. 2 3 4. Evidence against this Supremacy from Pope Julius Leo Gregory Agatho and others Sect. 5. THus having encountred our Authors reasons in which he doth not usually abound we come now to a consideration of those authorities in which he is more copious Sect. 1 And here I might without the least disparagement unto our cause pass over all the Authorities his sixth Chapter doth produce it being little better then one great Petitio principii made by many Popes and reiterated by Mr. Cressy who loves to beg the thing in question rather then evince it His work was to evidence from the undoubted records of Antiquity that the Popes Supremacy over the world was a thing acknowledged ab initio by the Universal Church instead of doing this our Author puts us off with the pretences of some Popes derided and contemned by their fellow Patriarchs and branded with the names of Pride and Tyranny Pope Leo is mentioned to advance the number but seeing he is not pleased to produce his words Spalat l. 4. c. 4. Dr. Field on the Church l. 5. Satlivius c. Mr. C. p. 31. Hesye apud Photâ—â—â—proâ— p. 125. Euseb Hist Eccl. l. 2. c. 1. we refer him to those in the Margent that have both produced and answered them to our hand only noting that to receive his authority from St. Peter the Prince of the Apostles which is the utmost that he pretends to from these three citations will be no tolerable proof of universal jurisdiction in the Pope till it can be made evident 1. That to be called Princeps Apostolorum gives authority to St. Peter over his fellow Apostles and the whole world and to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Bishop of the Apostles can give no such authority to St. James and his Successors 2. That to be Princeps Apostolorum doth infer not only a Primacy of order which we grant but also of dignity which we deny And 3. That St. Peters authority was necessarily conferred upon his successors at Rome in the same
Hadrian the Pope as well as other Bishops of the East that he might seem to be under none sed solus praeesse videretur to this we are 1. Told by him p. 38. That this very title was given to Pope Leo by the Council of Chalcedon attributing that to a General Council which was done by an inconsiderable part of the Popes flatterers but were this true as our Adversary pretends this title was attributed to others also and therefore is no fit medium to conclude the Universal Supremacy of any Patriarch rather then of all to whom it was given especially seeing it is supposed to have been given to the Pope by that very Council which determined that the Bishop of Constantinople should have equal prerogatives with him to whom this title was allowed 2 He tells us That John of Constantinople * Ibid. whilst he took this title still acknowledged the Popes Superiority not only of place but Authority over him Ans This affirmation is an immodest fiction to say no worse built upon a forgery which he hath used in foisting John into the place of Eusebius as before is shewed At last he comes to the business and tells us Sect. P. 39. s 4. That Gregory did not so much combat Johns present intention as the probable consequences of such a title which might argue that besides himself there were no Bishops in the Church for if he were the Vniversal Bishop and the whole world his Diocess since by the Canons there can be but one Bishop in a place it would fellow that all others were only Bishops in Name and by their Character had no other office but as his substitutes depending on his will whereas the Apostles received their Office and Authority immediately from our Lord himself Ans This is a profound Argument which Gregory I am confident would have been ashamed of for if the Pope be Universal Bishop whether we stile him so or not is not the whole World his Diocess hath he not Authority to exercise the functions of a General Bishop in the whole World and then doth it not follow with the same evidence of reason that all the Bishops of the World are only titular 2. He manifestly opposeth receiving a right of Jurisdiction from any but Christ and a receiving it from an Universal Bishop when he saith The Bishops the Successors of the Apostle would never acknowledge the receiving of their Episcopal right of Jurisdiction from any but Christ himself not from an Universal Bishop as the words preceding manifestly shew and yet he presently gives a reason which shews these two to be most consistent for saith he Though a particular Bishop be ordained by a Metropolitan c. or Pope himself might he not have said or Universal Bishop and his Jurisdiction be given him by them they indeed are the Ministers of Christ to conveigh his Authority but the inherent Authority it self Christ only gives him by whose means I pray you supposing him ordained by the Pope is it not by the means of the Universal Bishop 3. 'T is plain and evident that Gregory speaks against this title as that which argued the subjection of all other Bishops and Patriarchs to him as appears from these passages L 4 Ep. 30. Quae superviendo se caeteris praepomit Ep. 34. He that claimeth this title i◠a forerunner of Antichrist because in making himself proud he setteth himself before others from the comparison of him with the Devil who in the singularity of his pride despised the equality of joy among the Angels saying I will advance my Throne above the Stars of Heaven And again What Answer wilt thou make to Christ the Head of the whole Church Ep. 38. Cuncta ejus membra tibi supponere Ep. 34. Ut omnibus dignior esse videatur Ep. 36. Christi membra sibi subjugare Ep. 18 Ut nulli subesse solus omnibus par esse videretur lb. Semet ipsum praeponere cosque sub se premere Ep. 32. Sine aliorum imminutione ep 38. Restat ut ob vos Episcopi non sitis who goest about under the name of Vniversal Bishop to subdue all his members unto thee The like complaint he hath to the Empress Constantia That John desired he might seem worthier than all others To Eulogius Bishop of Alexandria that he studied by the haughtiness of a pompous title to subject under him Christs members and to John himself That he did affect that title that he might be subject to none and seem only to be over all that he desired thereby to set himself before all other Bishops and to press them under him and wisheth that this title might be attributed to one without the lessening of all others implying that in his judgment it could not be so But you will say Sect. 2 he evidently infers that if this title be allowed it remaineth that then others are no Bishops and tell sus that he only endeavoureth to be called Bishop Solus conetur Episcopus appellari Ibid. Answ Cupis Episcoporum nomen tui comparatione calcare Ibid. Sacerdotum omnis honor adimitur dum al 's uno universalis super omnes authoritas arrogatur ep 32. And again Prisantur honore debito universi dum quod aliis commune est ut privatum uni tribuitur and a third time Coercendus ille qui corde tumet honori imperii caeterorum se per privatum vocabulum superponit Ibid. Ep 32. ad Mauritium He sufficiently explains himself that he means this comparatively not absolutely as if he should have said You are indeed Bishops but in comparison of him you are none for when the title of Universal is admitted whereby one may be above another and depress the rest they fall from the antient right of Bishops by which right they are of one merit and Priesthood neither doth the potency of Rome make an higher Bishop nor the poverty of Eugubium a lower all are deprived of this due honour if any thing private be given to one and they in comparison of him are not to be dignified with the name of Bishops 2. He saith it because as he argued if there should be any such Universal Head upon the failing of him the whole Church and consequently all the Bishops of it must necessarily fail and the same Argument we have in that Epistle of Pelagius cited by our Author where having told us That if the Supream Patriarch should be called Vniversal the title would be taken from the rest they being no longer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but under the dominion of another He adds If John therefore be permitted to take this title the honour of all Patriarchs is denyed and probably he who is called Vniversal will perish in his error and there will not be found one Bishop in the State of Truth so little was Papal Infallibility dreamd of in in those dayes Thus Dr. Hammond As for Patriarchs 't is manifest that the Vniversal Pastorship of one
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
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
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
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
council may erre and whether the Pope bee the supreme Pastor of the Church of Christ are questions which extreamly trouble the Church of God You affirm all this the Protestants and Eastern Churches contradict you Arguments are produced on both sides from Scripture Reason and Antiquity Now that it should here bee necessary for all the Eastern Churches all the Churches of the Protestants upon pain of Damnation to desert their own opinions and embrace what you obtrude upon them when you shall bee able to demonstrate and I see it done I shall not despair of a demonstration to evince that snow is black or to be convinced of any the most amazing Paradox And whereas you say that the Schism of ignorant souls seems to be more contradictory to humane reason Sect. 6 because the more ignorant they ought to know they are and being professedly no Pastors the more ought they to submit their judgements to authority Mr. C. p. 229. and consequently the preferring of their own conduct or the conduct of particular Churches before the Vniversal authority of the Church For what you add of their Excommunicating the whole Church both Pastors and flocks as Heathens and Publicans it is so impertinent as nothing can bee more is a presumption so contrary to humane nature and reason p. 230. as that their want of learning is that which will most condemn them And this you speak not of persons absolutely Idiots but such as discourse of matters of Religion and passe their judgements on them Now here do you not suppose that to reject your Doctrines is to reject the Universal Authority of the Church which wee are not very likely to acknowledge 2. Are such persons bound to conform their judgements to the most or not If not why do you trouble us with this Argument If so then in the times of Arrianisme they were bound to deny the divinity of our Saviour and under the Old Testament when Idolatry prevailed they were obliged unless they would do things contrary to humane nature and common reason to become Idolaters and seeing the Rulers of Israel believed not on Christ but rejected him as a Blasphemer the people were bound to do so too these and a thousand such like absurdities are the very natural consequences of your positions But you have Fathers to produce Sect. 7 And 1. Ad Eph. Hom. 11. That of St. Chrysostome we consent unto in this sense viz. that wilfully to divide the unity of Christs Church doth inevitably infer damnation as surely as the piercing of Christs body but doth this prove that a dissent from a particular Church in matters of inferiour moment out of humane frailty doth inevitably do so 2. Ad Sympr cp 2. As for that of St. Pacian who tells us that Novatian was nor Crowned because hee died out of the Communion of the Church Wee Answ That in St. Pacians phrase to dye out of the Communion of the Church was to dye without charity to the members of it as it immediately there follows hear the Apostle if I have all faith and have not charity I am nothing 3. De Symb. ad Catech. l. 4. c. 10. In his citation from St. Austin he abuseth us for whereas St. Austin saith it will nothing avail him that is found without the Church quod credidit that he believed in Christ or professed Christianity or did so much good without respect to the chiefest good Mr. C. will have him to asser t that it doth nothing profit such a one Mr. C.p. 226. that hee is Orthodox in belief whereas St. Austin speaks of Hereticks and presently cries out hear this O yee Hereticks and again quaecunque congregatio cujustibet Haeresis in angulis sedet concubina est non matrona and a third time O Haeresis Arriana quid insultas Now separation from the Church by Heresie we acknowledge to incurre damnation The passage of St. Euseb Hist Eccles l. 6. Denis is very true viz. That all things should be endured rather then we should consent to the division of Gods Church but this he speaks not of the evil of sin but of pain and misery and what of this Lastly Irenaeus doth no where say there cannot possibly be made any reformation c. but only they viz. Propter modicat quaslibet causas l. 4. c. 62. who for crisling causes divide the body of Christ who strain at Gnats and swallow Camels such as these can make no reformation of any such importance as to countervail the danger of a division which is altogether impertinent to the design for which it is produced but of these two last places see the incomparable Chilling p. 256 257. From what hath been said we may see the weakness of this Argument which we finde p. 296. viz. Salvation may bee had in the Church of Rome and therefore it cannot be schismatical Albeit you cannot be ignorant that we distinguish the quality of persons considering your Church either in regard of those in whom either negligence or pride or worldly fear or hopes or some other voluntary sin is the cause of their Schisme and continuance in your church and of such we pass the heaviest sentence or in regard of those who owe their Schisme to want of capacity or default of instruction or such like involuntary defects and these wee say may have salvation albeit they continue members of your Church CHAP. XX. General Councils are not infallible whether considered with the Pope sect 1. Or without the Pope sect 2. Their infallibility not concluded 1 From Scripture sect 3. That place of Deut. 17. considered ibid. As also the Argument from Gen. 49. sect 4. From 1 Tim. 3.16 sect 5. From Mat. 23. v. 3. sect 6. Nor 2 from reason sect 7. Mr. C's Arguments answered sect 7 8. The worthies of our Church do not confess it sect 9 10.11 Nor lastly is it evinced from the consent of universal Antiquity sect 12. The testimonies of St. Athanasius Optatus Vincentius Lirinensis and St. Austin produced against it sect 12 13 14 15. 4 Proposition GEneral Councils are not infallible Now touching the infallibility of General Councils Sect. 1 1. Do you mean such a one as is confirmed by the Pope or one without or before his confirmation if the confirmation of the Pope bee requisite then without it is the judgement of all the Bishops fallible and if so then either the judgment of the Pope is so too or not if the first then the whole General Council is fallible in it's determinations for it can have no other members but the Pope and others and if both these be fallible 't is evident that the Council is so if infallible then are the Bishops bound to follow the sentence of the Pope and cannot sit as Judges of the cause it being very right and equitable that fallible persons who of themselves may dangerously erre should submit to the judgement of him who cannot do
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
if he should have said not these which I have mentioned before but the holy Scriptures are the foundations of our Faith but our Authour hath somewhat to produce out of St. Austin though little to the purpose And 1. St. Austin saith the last Judgement of the Church is a general Council Ans So say we and yet question their infallibility Questionis hujus obscuritas propioribus ecclesiae temporibus ante Schisma Donati magnos viros magna charitate praeditos patres Episcopos ita inter se compulit salva pace disceptare atque fluctuare ut diu conciliorum in suis quibusque regionibus diversa statuta nutaverint donec plenario totius orbis concilio quod saluberrime sentiebatur etiam remotis dubitationibus confirmaretur De Baptismo contra Donat. c. 4. this Argument therefore we remit to its proper topick of petitio Principii His second instance from St. Austin runs thus The obscurity of this question in the former times of the Church before the Schisme of Donatus made many great men endowed with great charity Fathers and Bishops so to differ and fluctuate amongst themselves as that divers decrees of councils in their several regions did for a long time waver till by a General council of the whole world what was wholsomely thought was confirmed and the doubts removed or if Mr. C. will needs have it so was without further doubts confirmed good Reader see a little what a brave version Mr. C. hath given us now what of all this is here any thing of the infallibility of a General council no sure But in his second book he tells us that St. Cyprian had this Authority been declared in his time would without doubt have beleived it Answ Sure the Fathers have done M. C. some strange discourtesie else he would never abuse them so grosly as he doth for St. Austin saith not crederet he would beleive but cederet he would submit and that not simply but if the truth of the Question being declared and made evident Eliquata had been confirmed by the Council but the words immediately foregoing that even former full Councils are often corrected by the later sufficiently shew what was the judgement of St. Austin and here not only the fabrick of the words but the occasion of the question being a matter not of fact but of faith doth put by all the Answers given to the place and they are largely considered by the excellent Baron in the place fore-cited to whom therefore I refer you CHAP. XXI The limitations of Bishop Lawd and Dr. Field touching General Councils propounded sect 1. Mr. C 's cavils against them considered sect 2. And 1. The liberty which they allow not destructive to our Church sect 2 3 4. The supposition that a Council esteemed by them general should erre not impossible nor improbable sect 5. Particular persons may judge of universal tradition sect 7. Our Writers do not acknowledge General Councils infallible in fundamentals sect 8. Wee may judge of the legality of their proceedings sect 9. No General Council hath determined against Protestants sect 10. The Trent Council not general sect 11. Mr. C ' s. defence of that Council considered sect 12. BUt albeit we do not assert an infallibility in General Councils Sect. 1 yet do wee esteem highly of them and the Worthies of our Church affirme Bishop Lawd Dr. Field that their decrees are to bee observed by every Christian provided 1. That they keep themselves to Gods Rule and do not attempt to make a new one of their own 2. That the clear evidence of reason come not against them 3. That there bee no gain-saying of men of worth place and esteem 4. That there appear nothing that may argue an unlawful proceeding of the Church in such cases wee must not saith the learned Dr. p. 666. Field so much as publickly professe the contrary yet may wee in the secret of our hearts remain in some doubt carefully seeking to the Scriptures and monuments of antiquity to find out the truth neither is it necessary for us expressely to assent Now these limitations of the reverend Arch Bishop Lawd and Dr. Field are esteemed by him very licentious and rediculous and considered with a great deal of pomp and triumph and yet to mee it seems easie to blow off what ever odium hee can cast upon them And 1 Whereas he calls this a liberty to annul what ever hath been Mr. C. p. 254. or shall be determined by the supreme Tribunal of Gods Church He may do well to acquaint us whether to dissent from a decree be to annul it whether the Papists or Presbyterians have annul'd our Acts of Parliament by dissenting from them and refusing obedience to them 2. Whereas hee tells us Sect. 3 this liberty is manifestly destructive to our own Articles Canons and Acts of Parliament Mr. C. ibid. there being many men of esteem yea the greatest part of the world who pretend most certainly to know the contrary to them Which objection is also largely managed p. 267 268 269. Ans But should a confuter of Mr. Chilling thus trifle P. 282. sect 71. and P. 286. sect 80. hath he not told you long ago true others may make the same defence as we do a murtherer may cry not guilty as well as an innocent person but not so justly nor so truely the question is not what can be pretended but what can be proved The Presbyterians may pretend their demonstrations against our Churches constitutions as we do against yours but that they can prove their accusation so strongly that appears not To the Jews and Priests imposing that sacred silence mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles St. Peter answered wee must obey God rather then men the three Children to the King of Babylon gave in effect the same answer Give mee now any factious Hypocrite who makes Religion the pretence and cloak of his rebellions and who sees not that such a one may answer for himself in these very formal words which the holy Apostles and Martyrs made use of And yet I presume no Christian will deny this answer to have been good in the mouths of the Apostles and holy Martyrs though it were obnoxious to bee abused by traitours and rebels certainly therefore this is no good consequence Presbyterians and others may pretend to a demonstration against the constitutions of our Church though unjustly and untruely therefore we may not pretend to it though justly and truely we can do it against the constitutions of your Church And what if men of worth and esteem think otherwise then our Church doth Do wee say that it will excuse our people to erre with men of worth and esteem Or doth hee that saith the observance of the decrees of a General Council may not bee refused unless there bee a gainsaying of men of worth place and esteem assert moreover that when ever it is so this will legitimate to any the refusal of
this observance without respect to the truth of them Should I tell a Layick that hee must not trust to his private interpretation of any Paragraph of Scripture without the concurrence of some learned Commentator could I bee reasonably thought to tell him that he might embrace any thing as the sense of any paragraph of Scripture which any learned Commentator lays down as such Well then all that wee assert is that this conflict in the judgements of learned men is ground for him to advise and consult and look into the truth but will not free a man from guilt who upon that sole account refuseth to observe the decrees fore-mentioned 3. Sect. 4 Whereas he adds that upon our grounds a Presbyterian if hee think himself certain that our Doctrines are errours Mr. C. p. 268. may question contradict and make parties to reverse all the Laws Decisions c. both of the English and Gods Church too This is another misadventure for neither do we allow any private mans Authority openly to question or contradict much lesse make parties to reverse the decrees of the particular Church of which he is a Member but constantly assert that such a one when ever hee happeneth to think contrary to the determinations of that Church must keep his judgement to himself and not trouble the Church with it only refusing obedience with all humility till he be better informed that he may perform it without disobedience against God And the same is said by many of a particular Church in reference to the decrees of the universal represented in a General Council 2. Sect. 5 Hee proceeds thus Let any Christian mans conscience judge Mr. C. p. 267. whether this be to be admitted as a fitting respectful or even possible supposition that the whole Church or as wee have it p. 257. that the supreme guides of all Christians who were by our Lord placed in the Church and graced with such promises who are the onely guardians of the Scripture it self and the onely unappealable Judges of the sence of it should conspire to make decisions in matters of Christian Doctrine against which expresse Scripture or evident demonstration can be produced Answ 1. To let pass these precarious suppositions that a General Council is of Divine right that the promises considered above belong to such conventions and that they are the only guardians of Ssripture which can never be proved by him who sees not that this Argument proceeds upon two gross mistakes 1. That a General Council is the whole Church when as they cannot be the hundreth part even of the Ministers of Gods Church 2. That if such persons thus convened define any matter of Doctrine contrary to scripture they must conspire to do so as if they could not define it out of weakness rashness prejudice c. 2. I Answ With Dr. Taylor In his liberty of Prophesying that either these Councils are tyed to the rule of Gods Word or not if the first then are they to be examined by it and to be followed no farther then they adhere to this unerring Rule and consequently we must be allowed a liberty of judgement to discern whether they keep close to this word or not If they are not tyed to the guidance of this Rule then may they transgress it cancel the laws of Christ and enact things contrary thereunto which even the Romanists disclaim 3. Unless we are bound to shut our eyes unless the Authority of a Council be so great a prejudice as to make us do violence to our understanding so as not to dis-beleive it's decrees though they seem clearly to be contrary to Scripture but to beleeve they agree with the Rule of Scripture though wee know not how unless I say we be bound in duty to bee so obediently blinde and sottish wee are sure some Councils which by our Adversaries are reputed General have notoriously receded from the words and sense of Scripture For what wit of man can reconcile the decree of the thirteenth Session of the Council of Constance with Christs institution delivered to us by way of precept seeing in the preface of that decree Christs institution and the practise of the Primitive Church is expressed and then with a non obstante communion in one kind is established Again is it possible for any man to contrive a way to make the decree of the Council of Trent friends with the fourteenth chapter of the Corinthians how do the Hyperaspistes of that Council sweat to reconcile it to St. Paul and the wisest of them do it so poorly as to proclaim to all the world it is not feasible What vice in Scripture is prohibited with greater evidence then this practise and therefore on the same score that we are reconciled to such decrees we may be reconciled to the most gross enormities What ever is brought to prove the infallibility of Councils cannot make it so certain that they are infallible as these two instances do prove infallibly that they were deceived and if these were others might have been 4. What shall we say to all the Arrian Councils celebrated with so great and numerous Assemblies called by the authority of the Emperour which at that time did convocate all Synods and to which as many or more did come then to the Nicene Council Is it necessary to suppose that these have erred in matter of doctrine and must it be unpossible to think the same of the less numerous assemblies at the first and second Nicene Council or of the fifty Bishops met at Trent 5. I hope men may be permitted to know a contradiction now it is evident that your General Councils have contradicted each the other Sess 25. the Council of Trent allows picturing of God the Father the second Council of Nice denies it Act. 5. 7. Lastly The Sanhedrim was as much representative of the Jewish Church as a General Council is of the Christian and yet I hope the people might judge of their decrees and were not bound to think that they did well in establishing those traditions which made void the commands of God in condemning the Prophets and that Messias whom they foretold And whereas he adds Sect. 6 that as for universal Tradition there can be no judge of it Mr. C. p. 257. but the whole Church i.e. a general Council need we any other instances to confute that assertion the veneration of Images is delivered by the second Nicene and Trent Council as an universal tradition Now let a man consult the Fathers of the first 600 years who every where denied them this Veneration and must he not be convinced the vanity of this pretence let any man read what one single Dally hath produced against the decrees of the second Nicene and Trent Councils and hee cannot chuse but acknowledge that the judgement of the Church of God in this matter was contrary unto them What he discourses p. 255. sect 8. and again p. 266.
that was the fault of the reformers saith the Dr. not at all of the reformation Add to this the King protested he reformed out of conscience his marriage was pronounced unlawful by seven Universities beside our own by the Bishops of Canterbury London Winchester Bath Lincoln Bishop Bramhals Reply p. 245. all the Cardinals of Rome opposed the dispensation and yet the putting away of this wife must bee called a carnal interest yea our freedome from their superstitious austerity and prayers the doctrine of Devils the allowing one Wife with the Apostle Paul unto the Clergy to prevent burning fornication or many Concubines this must be called a carnal interest and as if this had not been sufficient we must be asked whether any such interests as these were operative in the Council of Trent hee will ask us next I suppose whether wee dare affirm that there is a God in Heaven or a Sun in the firmament for let any man read the History of that Council and the Review of it writ by a learned Roman Catholick and he will finde the many carnal interests of that Council to be as apparent CHAP. XXV Protestants not obliged to be opponents sect 1. Mr. C's rediculous Arguments sect 2. His conditions imposed upon the replyer sect 3. An answer to the first ibid. To the second sect 4. To the third sect 5 6. To the fourth sect 7. What conditions we require from him sect 8. IN the sixth sect Sect. 1 of his twenty sixth chap. Wee are told that Catholicks cannot bee obliged to produce their evidences for the truth of their Doctrines but Protestants must produce them against the doctrines of the Church of Rome Answ This is very unreasonable for seeing it is acknowledged that the Church can propose no other doctrines to be beleived Mr. C. p. 235. then such as either are expresly or at least in their immediate necessary principles contained in divine Revelation it follows that what doctrines they propose to us to be beleived they must bee proposed as such and our assent must bee required to them as such and such an assent the Church of Rome requires of us to all the particulars disputed in this Book Now seeing to assent to them as such without evidence that they are so is evidently to lye and say the Lord saith when hee hath not said it is it not sufficient for us to answer the Arguments that are brought to conclude them Divine Revelations seeing by so doing we evince that to bee rquired to assent to them is to bee required to lye and therefore seeing the Church of Rome requires this assent to them as a condition of her communion shee must demonstrate that shee hath reason so to do or else acknowledge her condition is unjust as being the profession of a lye We are told indeed that you were in possession of those doctrines or most of them for above a thousand years but to this Mr. Dally returns this satisfactory answer In civilibus causis ubi jus possessionis valet qui possidet pulsatur loco quem tenet cedere compellitur in nostro hoc negotio planè contra res habet Qui se possessores esse affirmant ii nos petunt id agunt id urgent ac contendunt ut nos suam illam quam jactunt possessionem secum adeamus postulant enim a nobis ut secum eadem de religione sentiamus hancque suam a majoribus acceptam de religione sententiam possessionem suam appellant Ergo si causae totius ingenium si ipsa rei natura ac ratio penitius consideretur liquet istos proprie esse actores unde sequitur cum actoris sit id quod intendit probare omnino hoc istis incumbere ut veris legitimisque rationibus demonstrent nos jure teneri ad eam ad quam ab ipsis vocamur possessionem incundam Dal. l. 1. de demonst fidei ex Scripturis c. 4. You go on and say that the Pope hath enjoyed an Authority and supremacy of Jurisdiction a longer time than any succession of Princes can pretend to a jurisdiction acknowledged as of divine right and as such submitted to by all our Ancestors not only as Englishmen but as neighbours of the whole Western Patriarchate yea of the universal Church and this as far as any records can be produced Now 1. Seeing Dr. Hammond hath so largely considered this pretence and so abundantly proved that in the Notion wherein Mr. C. maintains this supremacy viz. from divine right it hath not so much as the feeblest plea of possession in this Nation nor ever appears to have had is it not a wonder that notwithstanding all that hee hath said to the contrary sect 2 3 4 5. of his fourth chap. this possession should be asserted without the least ground of proof 2. This might have been urged at the beginning of the reformation but now his Majesty and his Bishops are in possession and therefore by your own grounds are not bound to produce their evidences but you who seek to dispossess them if you say with S. W. that in things of divine institution p. 50. against which no prescription pleads hee onely can pretend possession of any thing who can stand upon it that hee hath had it nearer Christs time Wee Answ Be it so yet must their title stand good till you can evidence that you have had it nearer Christs time then they which you will never be able to do 3. Seeing this title is held by divine right and no other pleadable is it not evidence sufficient against this plea to shew that there is no such right for it to build on which is done by answering the Arguments that plead for it 4. If it had been our parts to oppose wee doubt not to prove it a possession malae fidei Sch. dis p. 29. by the equality of power given by Christ to the Apostles by the unreasonableness that those other Apostles which survived St. Peter should be subjected to his successors Bishops of Rome which yet they must have been if the universal pastorship were derived to them by tenure of that succession and by the many ages before the power or title of universal Pastor was assumed and wherein it was disclaimed as Anti-christian Lastly When the dispute is whether our separation from your Church be the sin of Schism herein 't is impossible that we should be any other than defendants or you any other than opponents for when you accuse us of Schism surely you are bound to prove or make this accusation good and 't is sufficient for us to answer all that you bring against us Your seventh sect is the strangest inconsequence imaginable put it into Syllogism and it runs thus if Protestants acknowledge that the Church of God is in all fundamentals infallible that is that some members of those that profess the Christian faith shall bee kept in all truth necessary to salvation then must the proofs that
then your selves And the same might easily be shewed of your other notes were it worth the while 2. You call upon us to procure you an authorized conference wherein wee may understand one anothers Churches and know one anothers essential Doctrines which haply you may procure when you can give in good security that what S. C. or any other persons appointed as Members of this conference shall affirm to bee the essential Doctrines of the Church of Rome shall be accepted as the essential Doctrines of that whole Communion and by them declared to be such and no others for unlesse this be so we may by this means understand the opinions of S. C. but not what and which onely are the essential doctrines of the Church of Rome FINIS APPENDIX TO page 65. line 37. add And whereas he tells us page 76 77. that St. Austin and other Bishops of the Milevitan Council Austin Ep. 92. writing to Pope Innocent acknowledge that the Popes Authority was de sanctarum Scripturarum authoritate deprompta Wee Answ The words in St. Austin run thus Authoritati sanctitatis tuae de sanctarum Scripturarum authoritate depromptae That is saith Chamier to thy drawing forth and confirming the truth from scripture they the Hereticks will more easily submit and therefore here is no acknowledgement that the Popes Authority was derived from Scripture Add to this 2. That it is no way evident that the authority he speaks of was any authority over the whole Church of God To page 173. l 30. add Nor is this sufficiently confuted by telling us that one or two of the Fathers call it an Apostolical custome seeing it is most notorious that they very frequently afford this title to such customes and traditions as unquestionably were not derived from the Apostles Yea as St. Jerome most clearly hath it praecepta majorum Apostolicas traditiones quisquis existimat every one esteemed and consequently called the precepts of their Ancestors Apostolical traditions Haer. 75. Decreverunt Apost feria quarta prosabbatho Jejunium Ep. 86. Thus Epiphanius tells us that the Apostles decreed a fast upon Wednesdaies and Fridaies continually Where as St. Austin professeth quibus diebus non oporteat jejunare quibus oporteat precepto Domini vel Apostolorum non invenio definitum Christ or his Apostles have not defined what daies we should fast upon And by Tertullian it appeareth that the Primitive Church alledged against the Montanists De Jejunio that the Apostles imposed no yoak of standing and common fasts In the first age after the Apostles Dr. Taylors liberty of Proph. sect 5. Papias pretended hee received a tradition from the Apostles touching Christs millenary Reign on Earth which pretence was received by all or most of the Christian world in the first three hundred years and yet there was no such tradition but a mistake in Papias now if a tradition whose beginning of being called so begun with a Schollar of the Apostles for so was Papias and then continued for some ages upon the meer authority of so famous a man did yet deceive the Church much more fallible is the pretence when two or three hundred years after it but commences and then by some learned man is first called a tradition Apostolical Again St. Austin called the communicating of Infants a tradition Apostolical and yet we do not practise it because we dis-beleive the allegation But I refer you to that excellent discourse now cited for abundant evidence And whereas they call this praying for the Dead an Ecclesiastical custome this name is frequently given by them to such things as were not universally practised by the Church of Christ and therefore is no sufficient evidence that this was so Thus St. Apol. 2. cont Ruff. To. 2. p. 314 apud Da. de usu Patrum p. 207. Jerome asserts the Church of Christ to have held the immediate creation of Souls whereas Prudentius Tricassinus Episcopus tells us expresly that it was absque certa definitione relicta This and many other instances of the like nature you may finde in Dally de usu Patrum p. 206 207. To page 176. l. 4. add Yea many of the Fathers especially the most Antient dreamed of a purging fire at the day of Judgement which was to try every Soul and purge it from it's dross if it had contracted any whilest it lived on Earth this was the opinion of Lactantius Hilarie Ambrose Austin Jerome Casarius Arelatensis Eusebius Emissenus Eligius Noviomensis as you may see in Dally de paenis Satis Hum. p. 387. Yea Maldonate confesseth in Luc. 11. 35. that this was the opinion not only of Origen sed fere Antiquissimi cujusque Scriptoris Dally p. 498. and therefore if the Fathers speak of any purging fire after death it will make nothing for Purgatory unless it can bee proved that they assert moreover that the Souls of the faithful presently after their departure are carried to it To p. 183 l. 4. â—dde And should you not blush to tell us p. 116. that without all controversie all Churches who professed Christianity before the reformation do agree unanimously in the practise of praying for the dead so as to beg forgivenesse of their sins a bettering of their state which Protestants allow an asswagement of their sufferings Dr. Field's Apen Where as the p. 68. Jacobites p. 69 Armenians and p. 70. Cophti pray not for the dead at all nor can it bee evinced that the Eastern Churches pray for the asswagement of their sufferings yea Nilus in his discourse de Purgatoria tells us that the Grecians reject and anathematize this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that if any remission of sins be given to the dead that it is given by the Divine bounty 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rather then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by inflicting punishments see Dally p. 540. As vain is your â—â—mmiseration of the condition of the members of our Church P. 117. because shee doth not offer up those prayers for the dead which from the most Antient times were offered For as Mr. Dally hath it if the omission of those prayers bee criminal this crime is common to us with you who have together with us rejected those prayers which they were wont to make in their behalf for whereas the Antients prayed for all the faithful departed you esteem this a great absurdity and will have us pray but for some onely Again you have rejected the three great grounds of praying for the dead On which the Father 's bottomed their petitions for that which was the common opinion of all the Antients Atqui veterum pro mortuis preces omnes fere ad illa tria vel placita pertinebant Dally p. 534. horum aliquid in animo babebant cum pro mortuis precabantur qui ergo ista tria unde omnis veterum profluebat pro mortuis â—ratio c. viz. that the souls of the faithful departed were kept in some secret receptacles extra Coelum your Florentine
General Council as being infallible in fundamentals 2. You evidently suppose that such a visible Society infallible in fundamentals cannot mis-lead us to our danger and that by assenting to all its decisions wee are necessarily free from the sin of Schism Now seeing according to our former deductions such a visible Society may require the profession of what I know or judge to be an errour and so a lye the practise of what I know to be forbidden and so a sin you must suppose also that to lye against my conscience though it be a sin of great affinity with that which shall never be forgiven or practise continually a sin though it render the condition which interests us in the covenant of Grace viz. sincere and impartial obedience impossible not to be dangerous and that to renounce communion with others that cannot swallow such conditions cannot be the sin of Schism To p. 471. l. 19. add And hence it appears how ridiculously you insult over the Dr. for saying Mr. C. p. 302. hee will comply with none of your defilements when to comply with them is not to communiate with you in other things or to acknowledge you as Brethren albeit you differ from us in something which we esteem a defilement in you but to practise a sin or to assert a lye to live in continual hypocrisie and disobedience to Gods law 't is a shame that you should triumph in this trifling Sophism viz. wee comply with Lutherans and Huguenots who surely are not without some little stains and never take notice of that answer which you meet with very frequently in Mr. Chillingworth that for our continuing in communion with them the justification of it is that they require not the beleif and profession of those errours among the conditions of their communion which puts a main difference betwixt them and you because wee may continue in their communion without the profession of their errours but in yours we cannot To page 478. l. 15. add And whereas you tell us chap. 20. sect 10. that the doctrines the Preacher treats off and which the Trent Council defined were conveyed to us by the General practise of the Church and were alwaies matters of faith It is the most notorious untruth imaginable is it possible that the Trent Councils definitions touching the Canon of Scripture should bee a continued uninterupted Tradition through all ages when the contrary is made so evident by Dr. Cosins through every age of the Church deducing the doctrine of the Church of England in this point is it possible that Image worship should be the universal tradition of all ages of the Church when besides the numerous citations produced by me to the contrary Clemens Alexandrinus Tertullian Origen and Chrysostome held even the making of Images unprofitable and unlawful and asserted that Christians were forbidden that deceitful art Dally de Imag. l. 1. c. 6. could they have talked thus and at the same time worship Images could the Church of God throughout all ages esteem your service in an unknown tongue agreeable to Scripture when not one Commentator upon the 14. of Corinthians but speaks apparently against it when Justinian and Charls the Great whose laws say you were but the Churches faith and Canons reduced into Imperial laws so peremptorily forbid it as contrary to the Word of God Lastly to add no more could that Purgatory which you derive from the Apostles bee the beleif and doctrine of the Church of God throughout all ages When as First The Fathers of the Church constantly interpret all the Scriptures you apply to Purgatory another way as is evidenced by Mr. Dally de satis Hum. l. 6. c. 4. When Secondly they assert that there is no place for remission of sins after death id c. 6. And Thirdly That wee shall remain for ever where death findes us c. 7. Fourthly That no punishments abide the faithful after death c. 8. Fifthly That the Souls of the faithful rest and enjoy felicity presently after death c. 10. Yea Lastly When the whole Church of God did confidently affirm that all the faithful were at rest after death c. 11. These things being considered the defence of the Nicene Council that they made no new decrees is as unseemly in your mouths as the defence of the Apostles we must obey God rather than man can bee in the mouths of the greatest Rebels To page 198. l. 15. add And this interpretation is backt with the Authoritie of the Fathers St. Austin ex professo handling this question whether these words I will no more drink of the fruit of the Vine refer'd to the Sacrament determines for us as will be evident to any that will consult him treating de consen Evan. l. 3. c. 1. and again l. 1. c. 42. which made Bellarm. considering this place cry out Augustinus non perpendit hunc locum diligenter St. Austin did not diligently weigh this place In Mat. c. 26. v. 29. Yea Maldonate assures us that Jerome in his Comment Bede Euthymius and Theophylact did all refer this passage to the blood of Christ to whom you may add Clem. Alex. Paedag. l. 2. c. 2. p. 116. Orig. in Mat. trac 25. Epiphan cont Haer. l. 2. Haer. 47. St. Cyprian Ep. 63. Chrysost Hom. in Mat. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eucher in Mat. c. 26. v. 29. with divers others diligently collected by Dr. Featly in his Book against Transubst p. 204. c.