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
or else upon that account reject not this Divine Revelations are abused by some to undermine our Faith shall they therefore not be allowed to be foundations of it The question is What is the surest guide of our Faith we say pure and unprejudiced reason and that if we will follow its dictates we are in the safest way to happiness and though then we may erre about some lesser truths because not perspicuous yet not about any thing that 's a necessary Article of Faith But if men will not follow their own guides but force them into by-paths and follow the blind guides of interest prejudice or passion then they may perish not because they follow their free reasons but because they either stifle or violently divert them 4. I would beseech Mr. C. and his brethren to beware of strengthning the hands of Atheists and Scepticks whilst they endeavour to weaken ours for beside the damages they bring to all Religion it s no small one they bring to their own for hereby they shew that upon the same grounds that a man is a Papist he may be an Atheist too and that they cannot build their own Religion but upon the ruins of all Religion For let me ask will not his exception become an Atheists mouth and be more serviceable to his cause then to Mr. Cressey's What if he should ask Why do you embrace any Religion give what account you can he will enquire what Warrant you have that you are not deceived what assurance can we give him if we dare not credit our own saculties and how Mr. C. who will not allow us to trust our own reason will answer him I understand not But I am certain let him reply what he will the doubt will still return upon him for if he take refuge at the Church the quere will be how he is certain that the Church doth not deceive him And imagine he could return an Answer yet unless he at last appeal to his reason it will serve only to give occasion to a new question But though Mr. C. by his principles cannot answer a Sceptick yet by ours we may satisfactorily answer him for I know that if my faculties are right and the common notions of humane reason are true that I err not and I will never desire greater assurance that I am in the right then that my faculties are so and if the Sceptick will rather reject all certainty then acknowledge his faculties to be true his fancy is so odd that upon the same score he may cast himself from a precipice because its possible he might only dream that he was there But let us talk what we will of reason Sect. 6 yet we have as Mr. C. Mr. C. s 4. would perswade us our last speaking Judge as well as they viz. Our Ecclesiastical Synods or Bishops or Parliaments so that the result of all dispute must come to this whether the last speaking Judge in England or that in the whole Catholick Church deserves better to be believ'd and relyed on To this 1. Have not you your self expresly set down the difference of Protestant obedience from that of Papists unto the judgement of the Church whose words are these which we find in the thirteenth phragraph of this Chapter The Vniversal Church representative has an influence over the souls of men requiring much more then an external submission which yet is all that Protestants will allow to the most authentick General Councils Now what a vast difference is there between giving external submission as we do and internal assent to the truth of their decrees as you do 2. What Protestant ever asserted what your Church challengeth that our Convocations Bishops or Parliaments are Judges of our Faith or when did they themselves require that upon pain of damnation we should take up our faith upon their Authority nay when did they challenge any power over our minds and consciences do not our Divines affirm that our internal actions fall not under the verge or cognisance of any external power whatsoever whether Ecclesiastical or Temporal do we not teach that the end of the Government in the Church is to preserve its peace and unity and that whatsoever disturbs not them falls not under the Churches cogâ—isance and that therefore our Church doth not condemn or punish so all difference from her in opinion but for divulging these differing opinions which creates Schisms and Factions in the Church whom did our Convocations ever damn for not internally receiving their Decrees do they not leave every man to the liberty of his judgement and only challenge the Authority of it which all men resign up to the Governours of those Socieries of which they are members they do not require that we should in all things believe as they believe but that we should submit to their determinations and not contradict them their decisions are not obtruded as infallible Oracles but only submitted to in order to peace and unity which we esteem to be of an infinitely greater value then the propagation of any little truth So that their work is rather to silence then determine disputes or if they do positively determine they either do not then require that all should positively believe their determinations but expect that all should so far acquiese therein as not to proceed in opposing them and so make Schisms and divisions incurable or if they do require a positive assent it s not upon pretence of any infallibility as your Church doth but because the thing determined is so evident in Scripture as that all denying of it must be willful v. g. They do not require us to believe there is but one God upon their Authority but because it s expresly asserted in Scripture but in matters which Scripture hath left doubtful our Church permits her members every one to abound in his own sence because she knows no way to determine them but by Scripture and therefore Scripture not having clearly revealed them she dares not be so arrogant as positively to determine them What impudence then is it to charge us as if we had changed the Pope for my Lord of Canterbury and a General Council for a National Convocation and the Conclave of Rome for a Parliament at London giving that very Authority to the Church of England that we take from the Church of Rome when the difference is so infinitely great between the Authority which you give to your Church and we give to ours Whereas Mr. C. Sect. 7 tells us that we fight against Sectaries with the weapons of the Romanists and against Romanists turn Sectaries c. it s a most pitiful and false exception for we accuse not Sectaries for not believing our Church as the Romanists accuse us for not believing theirs but for not obeying her in things lawful and separating from her unnecessarily Who ever urged them to believe as the Church believes or who â—amns them for not doing it there are many Topicks used to
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
referred the judgement of that cause to the Pope And for this he cites Conc. Eph. p. 2. Art 5. in relat ad Caelestin But he might as well have cited Aristotle for there it not one Iota of any Bishop of Jerusalem in that place nor one syllable of any such affirmation of his nor any such reason alleadged to Caelestinus but there say they we deliberated of passing the same sentence upon him which he did upon them who were condemned of no crime but that we might overcome his temerity with long suffering albeit we might justly have done it or he would justly have suffered it yet have we referred it to the judgement of your Holiness Indeed Act. 4. The Bishop of Jerusalem saith that John ought presently to have had recourse to the Apostolick seat sitting with him viz. by his Legates in the Synod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But t is the Apostlique seat of Jerusalem not of Rome which he tells us he ought to have been directed and guided by Well then this John of Antioch being a Patriarch and Cyrill being his enemy they did well to stay their sentence against him till they knew the mind and had the suffrage of the Patriarch of Rome who was Prime of the Patriarchs But sure our Author did not so well in foysting in Rome for Jerusalem albeit Binnius was his warrant for it Add to this that even this fiction makes against them for had the Pope received an universal jurisdiction and that from Christ why doth the Bishop of Jerusalem omit the delegation of the power from Christ and sink down as low as custome why doth he particularize Antioch when not only that but all other Patriarchical Sees if we may believe our Adversaries were to be guided and directed by the See of Rome or by his Holiness We are told further Ibid Sect. 10. That when Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria in the Schismatical Council of Ephesus had deposed Flavian Bishop of Constantinople Flavian appealed to the Pope and this he did saith the Emperour Valentinian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according the custom of Synods To this it is Answered by the same Author Review l. 4. c. 4. s 11. Act 1. Con. Chal. Evag. l. 2. c. 2. Act. 3 Con. Chal. It is easie to make it appear that it was not so For first It is plain from the Acts that the appeal was put in simply by the word Appello without mentioning to whom 2. The Appealants presented a petition to the Emâ—epours tending to this offect that they would be pleased to refer the cause unto a Council 3. The Council passeth the judgement upon the case of the Appeal And 4. The Pope himself was condemned by that Synod He was one of the Plaintiffs against Dioscorus the head of it Whereupon it was said to his Legates by the Presidents of the Council of Chalcedon Act. 1. Con. Chal. Nichol. in Epist ad Michael Imperat. that they being accusers could not be judges Yea Pope Nicholas himself testifies that Dioscurus was not so much condemned for his Heresie as for daring to pass sentence against the Pope to what end then had it been to appeal to him seeing he himself was condemned and was a Plaintiff Indeed the Epistle of Valentinian tells us that he appealed to the Pope Ad Theodos in Praeamb Con. Chal. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but it appears to have been no otherwise then to procure his intermediation to the Emperour for the Calling of a Synod and this he did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it was the custome when contentions arose about the faith to Call Synods 2. What is said to be given to the Pope was only given to the Legates that so he might be acquainted with the business and know that he had appeall'd as appears from the 23. Ep. of Leo to Theodosius Because our Legates have stoutly stood it out against the Synod and this Bishop Flavian given them a bill of Appeal we beseech your Gentleness to command a General Synod to be Celebrated in Italy And thus we let him pass to the Council of Sardica Sect. 6 which hath a Canon to this effect Mr. C. p. 59. s 11. That in any Controversie between Bishops which could not be determined in their own respective Provinces the person aggrieved must appeal to the Bishop of Rome who might renew the process and appoint judges and when such a case happened till the Pope had determined the cause it was not permitted that another Bishop should be chosen in his place De Oec Pout l. 13. c. 7. But 1. Saith Chamier this Council was not Oecumenical but only made up of the Western Bishops For Sozomen L. 3. C. 10. tell us that the Bishops of the East and West could not agree but severally set forth their Decrees and therefore it useth not to be reckoned among the General Councils T is true as Sulpitius saith Sac. Hist l. 2. it was called from each part of the world but of the Eastern Bishops came but seventy six to Sardis and these saith Socrates would not once come into the sight of the Western Bishops but their conditions being denyed Confestim discedunt they presently depart 2. This Canon is manifestly contrary to the fifth of the General Council of Nice which refers the final determination of all causes of Bishops to the Primate or Patriarch which the Emperour also confirmeth and will have no man to have power to contradict the sentence which the Primate or Patriarch shall give 3. The Affricans took no notice of this Decree Dr. Field p. 566. and yet there were Bishops of Africa at the Council so that in likelihood this decree was not confirmed by subsequent practice acceptation and execution Yea they will'd the Pope to send no more any of his Clarks to dispatch causes at any mans suit for that this was the way to bring in the Smoaky puffe of worldly pride into the Church and in very earnest besought him not to be Eafie in admitting any Appeals brought from them 4. This Canon makes rather against them for by it all matters must be ended at home or in the next Province to that wherein they arise And the Pope may not call matters to Rome there to be heard but is only permitted in some cases to send a Presbyter having his authority and to put him in Commission with the Bishops of the Province that so he and they may jointly re-examine things formerly judged To which you may add 1. That it was not in the power of the Pope to command Appeals to himself but only to receive them when brought 2. That this power of Appealing was Ad Julium Romanum not ad Papam Romanum and therefore a personal priviledge which was to cease on the death of Julius 3. That the very same thing viz. the like power of Appealing to the Bishop of Constantinople was defined in the General Council of Chalcedon Caâ— 9.17 as you
Spain and ignorant of the thing done and of the truth concealed to the intent that he might request Exaembiret to be injustly reposed in his Bishoprick from which he was justly deposed Stephen hereupon with his Bishops communicateth with him and so as much as in them lyeth restoreth him to his former Bishoprick Cyprian condemneth the false and ill dealing of Basilides and reproveth also the negligence of Stephen that suffered himself so easily to be misled taxing him and such as consented with him for communicating with such wicked ones shewing that they are partakers of their sins and that they violate the Canon of the Church which the Bishops of Africa and all the Bishops of the world yea even Cornelius the predecessour of this Stephen had consented on to wit That men so defiled with Idolatry as Martialis and Basilides were should be received to penitency but be kept from all Ecclesiastical honour these are the circumstances of Cyprians Epistle wherein he relateth the proceedings against Basilides and Martialis justly put from their office and dignity and the inconsiderate course of the Bishop of Rome hastily communicating with them whereby we may see how wisely and advisedly our adversaries urge Cyprian to prove that in antient times the Bishops of Rome had power to restore such Bishops to their places again as were deposed by others for thus they must reason from this place of Cyprian if they will make any use of it Basilides and Martialis justly put from their office fly to Stephen Bishop of Rome hoping by his means to procure the reversing of that which was done against them he with such as adheared to him though they could not restore them to their places yet communicated with them Cyprian offended herewith chargeth Basilides with execrable wickedness for abusing Stephen and misinforming him and Stephen with intolerable negligence and unexcusable violation of the Canons for partaking with such wicked persons and wisheth all his Brethren and Colleagues constantly to hold on their course against them notwithstanding the failing of Stephen and his adherents therefore the Antient Bishops of Rome restored to their places such as were judicially deposed by others and were acknowledged by the Fathers to have power and authority so to do which kind of reasoning is like all the rest in this Chapter that is evidently weak but happily you will say Why doth not Cyprian tell them that the Pope hath not power to restore them Answ Doth he yet not sufficiently in advising them to hold on their course against them which sure he would not have done had he acknowledged any such power in the Bishop of Rome for this would have been to contradict lawful authority 2. St. Cyprian is discontented with the proceedings of these Bishops in going to Stephen so far distant which sure he would not have been if he had thought him to have had such an universal Jurisdiction as our Author pleads for no certainly these words savour strongly of what St. Cyprian tells us of Fortunatus and Felicissimus their appeal to Rome when condemned in Africk Ep. 55. ad Cornelium that it is just and equal that every ones cause should be there heard where the crime is committed and that it behoved not their Bishops over whom they were set to run about as these did to Rome but to plead their cause there where their accusers and their witnesses might be had unless a few desperate wretches will think that the authority of the Bishops of Africa is less viz. then that to which they run What evasions are made against this saying of Cyprian by Bellarmine and Pamelius are taken off by Chamier in the fourteenth Book De Oec Pent. the second Chapter from the sixth section to the two and twentieth Another negative Argument we have from Pope Victors excommunicating the Asian Bishops Sect. 11 as differing from him in the Celebration of the Eastern Festival now here saith he It was not imputed to Victor by Irenaeus or Polycrates that he exercised an usurped Authority over Bishops not subject to him ergo he had Authority over these Asian Bishops Answ This saith Mr. Chillingworth is to suppose that excommunication is an act or Argument or sign of Power and Authority in the party excommunicating over the party excommunicated whereas it is undeniably evident out of the Church story that it was often used by Inferiors upon Superiors and by Equals upon Equals if the Equals or Inferiors thought their Equals or Superiors did any thing which deserved it 2. Saith he When they admonish him that for so small a cause he should not cut off so many Provinces from the body of the Church what is this but to esteem that as a small and unsufficient cause of excommunication which Victor and his adherents thought great and sufficient and consequently that Victor and his party declared that to be a matter of faith and necessity which they thought not so and where was then their conformity To what he adds further out of Cyprian Sect. 12 de unitate Ecclesiae that our Lord built his Church upon one Person c. the same most learned Author returns this Answer That whosoever will but read over that Book shall find most certainly and undoubtedly that he speaketh not in that Book of St. Peters Headship of the universal Church as our Author phansieth but of the Head Original and first beginning of Pastoral commission which he makes appear by laying down the principal and most material circumstances of this Book written upon occasion of the Schism of the Novatians The first thing that occurs in the whole discourse of the Book is the observation of the malice of Satan in finding out Schisms and Heresies to subvert the faith 2. He sheweth that this so falls out because men return not back to the first Origen of Truth because they seek not the Head nor keep the doctrine of the Heavenly Master which if a man would consider there would be no need of many Arguments but the truth without any great search would offer it self unto him for therefore did Christ when he was to lay the foundations of the Christian Church say especially to Peter Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church and again after the Resurrection Feed my sheep because though rising again from the dead he gave like power to all the Apostles when he said As my Father sent me so send I you Whose sins ye remit c. Joh. 20.21 23. Yet he would by speaking especially to one and by appointing one Chair shew what unity should be in the Church the rest of the Apostles saith St. Cyprian were undoubtedly the same that St. Peter was equal in honour and power but therefore did Christ in the first place give or at least promise to give especially or particularly to one that Apostolick Commission which he meant also to give to the rest that he might thereby shew that the Church must be one and that there
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
he further tells us that no inferiour power can abrogate and reverse the laws of a superiour Answ True and thence we inferre that seeing the laws of Christ are evidently the laws of the most soveraign power the decrees of patriarchical and General Councils must yeild to them and consequently when ever they require any thing contradictory to this law wee must refuse our obedience to which 2. Wee add that Patriarchical Councils have no authority at all in any Nation but by permission and consent of Princes and other Governours thereof and therefore antecedently to their permission cannot bee called a power superiour to our provincial Synods VVhat hee adds from the restimony of St. Austin is nothing to his purpose but much to ours It being the very design of St. Austin there to evidence that Fathers and Councils and all humane VVriters must yeild to Scripture and that his evidence thence must prevail against all the authorities of Fathers and Councils produced by his adversaries for speaking of the Donatists who pleaded the authority of St. Cyprian and some councils for them he thus goes on Cur authoritatem Cypriani pro vestro Schismate assumitis De Bapt. cont donat l. 2. c. 3. ejus exemplum pro Ecclesiae pace respuitis quis autem nesciat sanctam Scripturam Canonicam tam vet quam Novi Testamenti certis suis terminis contineri eamque omnibus posterioribus Episcoporum literis ita praeponi ut de illa omnino dubitari disceptari non posset utrum verum vel utrum rectum sit quicquid in ea scriptum esse constiterit Episcoporum autem literas quae post confirmatum Canonem vel scriptae sunt vel scribuntur per sermonem forte sapientiorem cujuslibet in eare peritioris per aliorum Episcoporum graviorem authoritatem doctiorumque prudentiam per concilta licere reprehendi Si quid in eis forte a veritate deviatum est ipsa concilia quae per singulas regiones vel provincias fiunt plenariorum consiliorum authoritati quae fiunt ex universo orbe christiano sine ullis ambagibus cedere ipsaque plenaria saepe priora posterioribus emendari cum aliquo experimento rerum aperitur quod clausum erat cognoscitur quod latebat And yet were this assertion granted Sect. 5 it would do but little service to Mr. C. seeing the Councils that have determined against us were either unlawful See the Author of the review of the Trent Council l. 4. c. 7 8. Dr. Taylors duc dub p. 285. as that of Lateran and Florence or else contradicted by other Councils as great as they as the second of Nice by that of Constantinople and all of them by the decree of the General Council of Ephesus against the enlarging of the Apostles Creed In which case by our Authors Fundamental Rule that the decrees of a Patriarchical Council must not contradict a General p. 250 they must necessarily be null My seventh Proposition shall be this Sect. 6 That private men ought to judge with a judgement of discretion 7. Proposition at least whether the determinations of Councils whether particular or general are to bee received as doctrines of faith and are not without all enquiry to submit to them For 1. If God had intended to appoint them such an infallible Judge above and beyond his Word in whose determinations they must acquiesce then would hee have infallibly told them which and where to find him if a General Council hee would have named him told us the conditions requisite to the celibration of it what persons ought to bee members of it how far they were infallible 3 Proposition and in what not with many other things above mentioned The reason is because the certain knowledge of these things can bee your onely security that the determination of this Judge will bee infallible For my obligation to receive this Judge as such can bee no other then Gods revelation of it to mee or my certain knowledge that his VVill is such Now God hath no where revealed unto us the necessity of yeilding internal assent to a Generall Council or afforded us any standard whereby to determine those infinite disputes that are on foot touching this matter and the decision of which are necessary to the certain knowledge of this infallibility of our Judge there being a total silence in Scripture touching these things and a perpetual conflict betwixt reason and reason authority and authority 2. That cannot bee the rule of Faith to private persons Sect. 7 which cannot be known to bee so by them for it is a contradiction to assert that any man is bound to follow that as the Rule of Faith which hee cannot bee assured to bee so But such is the authority of the Church for if there can bee any surety of this to a private person then either from the VVord of God the Judgment of the Church Reason or Revelation hee cannot pretend to it from Scripture For of the sense of this say you he must not judge nor can he know that the Scripture is the VVord of God but by the Church and consequently hee cannot know from Scripture that there is any Church at all much lesse that it is infallible till hee hath admitted that it is infallible 3. If the Church must judge it can bee no other then the true Church and where and how shall this be found by a private man 2. Is not this evidently to make the Church Judge in her own cause and will it convince any one that doubts of her infallibility 3. Where shall such finde the Church thus speaking in her private Doctors many are unable to consult them and if they should 1. May they judge of the sense of Fathers 2. Will they find them all agreed in the points disputed 3. How will they bee assured by them that the whole Church in their daies taught agreeably to their doctrine Yea 4. How will they bee assured what works of the Fathers are true what spurious what interpolated what not what is by the fraudulency of men substracted seeing both parts acknowledge and complain that these piae frandes have been exercised upon them 5. How will he know that the Fathers are to be Judges yea or no and which whether all or some And if all what must hee think of those which tell him they must not be Judges any further then they bring their evidence Is not this enough to crack their credits with him If some what some and why they more then others and who must determine concerning them Must hee hear the Church speaking in a general Council But 1. This hath never been determined in a General Council 2. Either he believes already that a General Council cannot erre and then hee hath no need of this determination or believes it may and then he is but where hee was after this determination must he come to reason 1. The definitive sentence of
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
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
delivered for the proof of this we shall consider first his reasons secondly his testimonies thirdly his returns to what the Dr. brought to confute this Supremacy Well then to make it appear reasonable Sect. 2 he tells us That since General Councils the only absolute supream Authority Ecclesiastical either for want of agreement among Princes Pag. 45. or by the inconvenience of the long absence of Prelates or their great expences c. can very seldom be summond it would be impossible without an ordinary constant standing supream Authority to prevent Schism that is it is impossible the Church should subsist This Argument reduced into Syllogismes sounds thus That without which the Church cannot subsist ought in all reason to be granted But Without the supream jurisdiction of the Pope the Church cannot subsist Ergo. The major we pass as evident by its own light The minor is thus proved That without which it is impossible to prevent Schisms is that without which t is impossible the Church should subsist but this supream jurisdiction of the Pope is that without which t is impossible to prevent Schisms To give a satisfactory Answer to this it will be necessary to premise that Schism is a rupture of one part from another and that of the visible Church as appears because t is a crime punishable by the Ecclesiastical Magistrate which it could not be if it were a secession from the invisible Church only 2. This Schism may be either of one particular Church from another or of one member of that particular Church from the same Church and I hope our Author will not say that to the redressing of this Schism The Supream Authority of the Pope is necessary seeing he must necessarily permit this to these Rulers which he imagins inferiour to him and therefore must acknowledge them sufficient to redress the said miscarriages 3. The Schism of one particular Church from another may be either in things necessary to salvation or in things not necessary but of lighter moment Now then to answer to his Major if he intended it of Schisms of the former nature t is true for errors in things necessary to salvation destroy the very being of a Church In this sence therefore we grant the Major but deny the Minor If he understand it in the latter sence we deny the Major as holding that not every breach upon such slight accounts or circumstantial businesses doth dissolve the visible Church but it may subsist with such a breach if so be the essentials and vitals of Religion be still preserved and the Sacraments truly administred For if the Church of God remained at Corinth when there were divisions Sects emulations contentions quarrels and the practice of such things which were execrable to the very Heathens and of such whereof the Apostle expresly saith We have no such custom who dares deny them to be the Churches of God who differ from others only in circumstantials What would such men have said to the Galatians who so far adulterated the Gospel of Christ purely kept and preserved in other Churches that the Apostle pronounceth concerning them that they were bewitched and if they still persisted to joyn Circumcision and the Law together with Christ they were faln from Grace Christ would profit them nothing whom yet the Apostle acknowledgeth to be the Church of God writing to the Church which is in Galatia Secondly Suppose a Supream jurisdiction were necessary to the preventing Schisms must it needs be the Supremacy of the Pope why may it not as well be the Archbishop of Canterbury the Patriarch of Constantinople or one elected by the suffrages of particular Churches 3. We deny that the Authority of the Pope is necessary to this end even to the suppression of lesser Schisms yea or expedient for were it so then either of Schisms arising from breach of charity or difference of judgement Not the first for t is not possible for the Pope to insuse charity into any party or to use other means to effect it then rational motives from Scripture which any other man may do If it be expedient for difference of judgement seeing the Schisms that arise from that difference concern himself it would then 1. Be expedient that he should be judge in his own cause as for instance T is doubted whither the Pope of Rome hath any Authority delegated to him from Christ over the Universal Church whither t is expedient such an Authority should be admitted whither the Authority of a Pope should transcend that of a General Council whither the Religion the present Pope subscribes to and publickly maintains be true whither the contrary which he persecutes be false whither he be infallible in his sentence and Cathedra and whither the interpretation of Tues Petrus and Pasce Oves be to be sought from his mouth or no. Is it expedient will the Church of France say that he should judge in all these Causes the Church of England that in any and doth not reason say so to and what madness were it for each to hold so stifly the contrary if we could perswade our selves that it were thus or if this were so necessary that without the acknowledgement of such a power and submission to it it were impossible to prevent Schisms and the destruction of the Church thereby is it not wonderful that in the whole Scripture there should not be any thing directing us to go to the Church of Rome to have these Schisms which are so destructive to the Church prevented That the Apostle among all his charges to the Church of Corinth to break off their Schisms all the means to prevent it should neglect that without which it was not feasible that speaking of the damnable Doctrines that should spring up in the latter time we should have no Items where the truth was to be kept inviolable and whither to have recourse to avoid them If a Jesuit had been at St. Pauls elbow when after the rehearsal of those Doctrines he saith to Timothy If thou put the Brethren in mind of these things c. he would have added and sendest them to the Pope for Preservatives against them thou shalt then be a good Minister of Jesus Christ otherwise no Minister at all but an Heretick And when he tells them that perverse Teachers should arise and commends them thereupon to the Word of God a Jesuit would have told him that this was the way to make them Hereticks nothing more pernitious and that he should commend them to the Pope Yea 3. That the Scripture should exhort us on the contrary to run to the Law and to the Testimonies and tell us that if they speak not agreeable thereto there is no truth in them when we ought not to meddle with them especially so as to judge with the judgement of discretion what 's Truth and Errour that the Apostle should bid us try the spirits Yea try all things and hold fast the Truth and that directing us to
sure they would not have done if they had thought that Peter by the giving of the Keyes or any other act of Christ was preferred before them Yea t is wonderful that when as our Adversaries say this contention came before Christ four several times he would never intimate to them that which was so necessary to prevent Schism that he intended St. Peter for the chief when those that contended for it so strongly and especially their Followers were not likely to afford it him without some express from Christ In answer to the Doctors second Argument from Rev. Sect. 5 21.14 he tells us P. 71. s 6. That he will acknowledge all the twelve Apostles to be equally foundations of the Churches building and that the same Authority that was first given to St. Peter was afterward given to the rest of the Apostles that as St. Cyprian saith the same that Peter was the rest of the Apostles likewise were endowed with an equal participation of Honour and Power Thus he but I doubt he will hereafter be more cautious of such liberal concessions for out of these I argue ad hominem 1. The same that St. Peter was the rest of the Apostles likewise were But St. Peter by the verdict of the Council of Florence was Prince of the Apostles ergo The rest of the Apostles were Princes over St. Peter 2. St. Peter had a supremacy of power over the whole Church but the rest of the Apostles had equal power with him ergo The rest of the Apostles had a supremacy over the whole Church and consequently every member beside themselves Now then either Christ who gave them this power gave them a liberty to exercise it or forbad them the external administration of it If the first then was there no subordination in the exercise of this power to Peter unless the same person can be sub and equal too If the second then did he give them it perfectly in vain for Authority can be to no end but to exercise it on those over whom t is given Nay t is a contradiction to say a man hath power over another when he cannot exercise it de jure when as power over him supposes a right to exercise Authority and when will they be able to evince such a prohibition Yea 3 how have they equal power not to speak of honour whereof one may exercise authority over the world the other may not by the same reason it may be said that a Presbyter hath equal power with a Bishop Well but saith our Author we must give leave to Scripture and Fathers to interpret themselves then it follows Ibid. We grant therefore as if we Benedictines were Scripture and Fathers that all the Apostles and all Bishops their successours enjoy the whole latitude of Episcopal jurisdiction for as much as concerns the internal essential qualifications of either but for the external administration there may be and alwayes was acknowledged a subordination and different latitude in the exercise of the same Authority both among Apostles Ibid. and Bishops Answ He did wisely to add let him not find fault with this distinction for t is as lyable to exception as any can be For 1. What is it that qualifies Peter for the external administration over the rest of the Apostles See Mr C. Pag. 73. Pag. 71. Is it that Christ gave him the name of a Rock surely no seeing we have it acknowledged that all the rest of the Apostles were equally foundations of the Church and consequently equally Rocks for Peter is therefore so because our Saviour tells him he would build his Church upon him or because he was one upon which the Church was to be founded Yea further among foundation stones there is but one that hath any eminence above other and that is Christ the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is appropriated to him Eph. 2.20 And so still nothing pertains to St. Peter in the matter of being a Stone or foundation which doth not appear equally to belong to the others also Yea lastly Peter is not called a Rock as the Romanists would have him for seeing upon this Rock the Church was built and Peter was a member of that Church it would follow hence that Peter and all the Popes his Successours must be built upon themselves Evident is that of St. Serm. 13. de verbis Domini Austin Vpon that Rock which thou confessedst will I build my Church that is upon my self upon me will I build thee not me upon thee And again in his Retractations L. 1. C. 21. 't is not said Thou art Petra but thou art Petrus Petra autem erat Christus Mr C. p. 73. And what if in the Syriack there be no such difference seeing in the Greek which is Authentick it is observed quem confessus est Simon 2. Is it because he is alwaies in the Gospel placed first and called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first Alas 't is otherwise for we find Joh. 1.44 The City of Andrew and Peter Mark 16.7 The Disciples and Peter and what is it to the purpose that he is reckoned first in the Evangelists when almost alwaies he is put last in the Epistles 1 Cor. 3.22 Chap. 9.5 Or in the midst as Gal. 2.9 2. That this ordering of the names of the Apostles is no argument of their different Authority is evident from this that albeit there were some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet are they not placed next to Peter And then for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it cannot give him this supremacy for it is afterwards promised to him you say Matth. 16. I will give thee the Keys c. It being then afterward promised cannot be supposed to be already possessed by him when it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. We know that all the time of Christs life John had the dignity of place next Christ for he was the Disciple whom he loved and who lay in his bosom and therefore Peter had not the superiority For though the dignity of the place may be without superiority yet superiority of Jurisdiction is never to be found in any without the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or priority of place yea it is sufficiently evident that the Church of God thought as highly of St. John as of St. Peter in that they stood upon his example for the celebration of Easter against Peters 3. We say that notwithstanding his contradiction Peter is called first Pag. 73. either because of his zeal and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in confessing Christ or because he was the Apostle first called or else only as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a numeral Or if it intimate any priority 't is of order not of superiority as we have proved Nor 3 Was this power of Administration given him See Mr. C. pag. 73. because Christ bids him feed his Sheep indefinitely For sure the other Apostles were commissionated to feed them too and that they
teach all Nations and out of those whom they taught to ordain some Pastors whereever they came which shews they had an universal jurisdiction from Christ and a power to exercise it and so much for the second proposition 3. Hence it follows that they could not be limited in this power by St. Peter for Par in parem non habet potestatem Now to restrain anothers power as to its exercise is evidently to exercise power over him And hence it follows that they had equal power of Administration with St. Peter And indeed that St. Peter should have authority over all the Apostles and yet not exercise one act of it upon them and that they should shew to him no sign of subjection methinks is as strange as that a King of England for 24 years should exercise no act of regality nor receive any one acknowledgement of it as strange methinks it is that you so many ages after should know this so certainly as you pretend to and yet the Apostles after these words were spoken in their hearing by vertue whereof St. Peter is pretended to have been made their head should still be so ignorant of it as to question which of them should be the greatest yet more strange that our Saviour should not bring them out of their error by telling them St. Peter was the man No less a wonder was it that St. Paul so far should forget St. Peter and himself as that 1. Mentioning him often he should do it without any title of honour yea further that speaking of himself in particular and perhaps comparing himself with St. Peter rather than any other he should say in plain terms I am in nothing behind the very chiefest of the Apostles How is it that the other Apostles fall foul upon St. Peter for going in unto the Gentiles Act. 11.23 so that he is compelld to defend himself by that special revelation made unto him How is it that he passed not the Decretorial sentence in the Synod Acts 15. did he transfer his power to St. James 4. See Mr. C. p. 71. The distinction of Archbishop Whitgift serves him not at all for he saith only this that Quoad ministerium viz. as to Preaching Administring the Sacraments Absolving and Remitting and such things which are done by Pastors and carrying not Jurisdiction in them but Ministry or Service they are equal but Quoad Politiam as to Government they are unequal and what is this to the purpose Mr. C. p. 72. Nor doth his example of my Lord of Canterbury help out the matter For 1. His grace hath no power of Jurisdiction over a Bishop as Dr. Feild and Dr. Hammond will tell him 2. If he be said to have it 't were ridiculous to say that the Bishops of single Diocesses are of equal Authority Jurisdiction or Power with him seeing he hath Power over them which Par in parem non habet To the two Testimonies of St. Cyprian and St. Jerome we have no other Answer then what in general is given to these Scriptures Whereas 1. The words of St. Cyprian afford not the least ground of this evasion nay the words seem unconsistent with it for having told us that Christ had given the Keys to St. Peter bid him seed his sheep told him that what he bound should be so and that upon him he would build his Church he presently adds That he did this Pari consertio praediti houoris potestatis sed exordium ab uaitate proficiscitur albeit he had given to the rest of the Apostles parem potestatem and so intended not any superiority in him above the rest but only to shew the necessity of unity And then for St. Jerome he doth not only say that the Bishop at Rome and Eugubium are of the same merit but infers it hence that all are Successors of the Apostles and that one City though Rome it self is not be objected against the custom of other parts of the world but for the defence of this citation I refer you to the Learned Dr. Feild p. 548. In the second Chapter of St. Sect. 6 Pauls Epistle to the Galathians we have many things which are inconsistent with the Supremacy of St. Peter contended for And 1. Whereas he mentions James Cephas and John and calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may it not plausibly be argued from the order of the names that St. Paul esteemed not St. Peter Superiour to the rest because he mentions him in the middle for if this be a sufficient evidence of his Supremacy that the Evangelists put him in the front of the Apostles why should it not be as good a plea against it that the Apostle St. Paul when speaking of the chiefest Apostles should not do so 2. Why doth he mention them all as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and put no difference betwixt them if indeed St. Peter were Superiour to them especially if it be considered that he elsewhere calls them if we may believe St. Chrysostome Theophylact Oecum Aquinas Hugo Salmero Justinian Cornelius a Lapide and others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 putting no difference at all betwixt them And that 3. This being evidently his scope to shew that there was no reason to reject his doctrine touching the no necessity of circumcision because these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were plâ—ased to admit of it and indeed that he was not inferior to these Apostles whose Authority they urged against him had St. Peter been constituted in such a degree of Supremacy over the Apostles how had it concerned his design to have told us not thus in general these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but in particular that even St. Peter the chief of the Apostles had given him the right hand of fellowship and therefore his neglecting of this is a shrewd argument against this Supremacy and perswades me to believe with the Doctor that St. James and St. John were St. Peters Peers Again ver 7. the Apostle tells us that even these Pillars saw it evident that the Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed to him as the Gospel of the circumcision was to St. Peter and that hereupon it was agreed that St. Paul with his companions should go unto the Gentiles and they unto the Jews or circumcision Now 1. By whom was the Gospel of uncircumcision committed to St. Paul was it not by Christ by him that wrought effectually in them both ver 8. Now then if Christ committed to St. Paul the uncircumcision to St. Peter the circumcision is it not evident that he esteemed not St. Paul inferior to him did ever any body hear that his Majesty divided the Government equally betwixt his Vice-Roy in Ireland or Scotland the inferior Governors under him yea committed the greater part of the Government to the inferior especially if it be considered that St. Paul tells us 2. The uncircumcision was committed to him sicut Petro circumcisio In locum Ibid. whence the Fathers usually infer his equality with
latitude as it was delegated to him if our Author can produce no better testimonies out of St. Gregory Protestants will have no further cause to complain against him as he saith they do But alas this is the least of our Authors excellencies to be impertinent Sect. 2 he hath the faculty of quoting spurious Authors too as will be seen throughout In Decrex Ep. p. 645. And such is that second Epistle of Pelagius as you may see evinced by the Learned Blondel St. Sect. 3 Gregory is brought upon the stage toâ—plead for that Title which he so passionately condemnes in his fellow Patriarch And he tells us Mr. C. p. 48. indic Ep. 3. The See Apostolick is preferred before all Churches Answ True we acknowledge with the Council of Chalcedon that being the Emperours Seat it had a Primacy of order confered upon it but how will he be able to conclude a Primacy of jurisdiction from this testimony His second citation as it is frivolous and already answered Ibid. so is it false and not to be found but in some Vtopian Edition A third is very unsutable to his protestation P. 10. Sect. 6. Ibid. L. 5. Indic 14. Ep. 24. Dr. Ham. 3. defence c. 5. s 9. Nu. 42. For whereas the words of the Epistle tell us that Eusebius Bishop of Constantinople acknowledged the Supremacy of the See of Rome he knowing that there was no such Eusebius contemporary to St. Gregory and consequently the Epistle must needs be spurious as Protestants do generally thence conclude claps in John Bishop of Constantinople L. 2. indic 10. Ep 37 Ibid. a very palpable deceit His next quotations will afford us as he reads it this that if any of the four Patriarchs had committed such an act as the person he complains of did such disobedience would not have passed without great scandal whereas the Latine runs tanta contumacia and who knows not that stubbornness is a disease incident to equals L. 7. ind 2. Ep. 64. though disobedience be proper to inferiours Another of his testimonies speaks thus When any fault is found in any Bishop I know no Bishop that is not subject to the See of Rome but in the Latine tis subjectus sit may not be subject to the See of Rome viz. may not be subject if the Emperour refer the cause to his decision C. 5. S. 9. which here was evidently the case and if the Pope himself had been found faulty he might have thus been subjected to the Patriarch of Constantinople L. 5. indic 14. Ep. 24. as the Reverend Dr. Hammond proves in his third defence where you have this citation shamefully exposed that which brings up the rear is this that in a cause of John the Priest against John of Constantinople he according to the Canons had recourse to the See Apostelick Ibid. and that the cause was determined by his sentence Now to this the same Doctor Answers That here was no appeal from an inferiour to a superiour but only a desire of help from the Bishop of Rome who accordingly writes to John of Constantinople tells him what was to be done in this matter according to the rules of justice accordingly the Patriarch though he dislikes the interposing of the Pope yet it seems he doth justice to the injured person Pope Leo pretended the Nicene Canons in the Council of Chalcedon and P. Julias in the matter of Athanasius and this is the defining of the cause here spoken of And where he talks of the Canons of the Church the Doctor calls it a pretence of Canons a device which sometimes Popes made use of Thus Zezimus pretended the Canons of the Nicene Council for the subjecting the Africans unto him but was found a falsifier as you may see in the learned Chamier and what wonder if his successors were in this his followers 2. What if there were such Canons as allowed appeals to this end that the Bishop of Rome might admonish the Patriarch De Occ. Pon. l. 13. C. 7. S. 6. See our proofs from popes what his duty was and intercede in the Priests behalf might not this be done without an universal Pastorship but I refer you to the Learned Doctor in the Section cited Indeed the words of Pope Gelasius sound higher for they pretend that The See of the blessed Apostle St. Peter has a power to loose whatsoever things shall be bound by the sentences of any Bishops whatsoever Sect. 4 Mr. C. p. 50. as being the Church which has a right to judge every other Church neither is it permitted to any one to censure its judgement seeing the Canons have ordained that appeals should be made to it from every part of the world but then the Epistle comes from the Vatican ex vetusto codice Vaticano saith Binius and what false ware he hath brought us thence who can be ignorant this Epistle I am sure smels rank of forgery Sutlivius calls it an impudent fiction and makes it evident 1. Because it saith that Dioscorus Alexandrinus was condemned by the authority of the See Apostolick Act. 1. et 2. whereas the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon shew that he was condemned and deposed by the Fathers of that Council L. 2. c. 18. which Evagrius also witnesseth to which he might have added that the same Epistle tells us the Council of Chalcedon was called by the Authority of the Roman See Act. 1. when as the very Synod tells us that they were called by the Decree of the Emperours Valentinian and Martian 2. Saith he the Epistle tells another lye L. 4. C. in saying that Peter of Alexandria was condemned by the Apostolick See whereas this Peter was Athanasius his Successor and as Socrates saith Vir valde pius eximius and consequently such a one as no honest man would offer to condemn And thus we have considered the pretences of their Popes for this Supremacy See 5. let us see what we can deduce from them against it and 1. Pope Julius Dr. Ham. 3. def c. 2. s 4. who was willing enough not only to defend but take advantage to exalt his power doth yet in his Epistle written upon the occasion of his interposing to absolve Athanasius Ep. Jul. p. 741 753. defend the right of his act by an antient custome especially and by the Canon of Nice which yet t is plain would not justifie it and not by pretence of any Divine Authority or in any such Dialect that could intimate his pretension that from St. Peter this belonged unto him which sure he would have done and thereby have silenced all Catholick opposers if thus it had then been believed by them or even by himself to have belonged to him 2. So in that African Council where St. Austin was present and the Popes pretensions were disputed and his power in their Churches denyed he made no such challenge from Christs donation to St. Peter
is a prejudice to that because a Primate or Patriarch by the notation of each word being one that hath none over him in respect of Authority or Power and so is absolutely first in his own Diocess this supposing a supream power in one must needs prejudge that as much as a Monarchick power in one is incompatible with an Aristocracy and this was the very reason why Pelagius and Gregory refused it because they should have wronged the rest of the Patriarchs in assuming it Third Def. p. 406. Now whether his asserting this Primacy Sect. 3 or our accusing and condemning it as a Novelty whether his proofs or ours be more concluding let the Reader judge I am content to refer it to his conscience as our Author doth We come now to discuss the safety of admitting this Supremacy And 1. Mr. C. p. 81. Mr. C. assures us That whilst such a Primacy purely Spiritual was acknowledged which for the first six hundred years was never so much as heard of the Church here was never torn in pieces with Schisms nor poisoned with Heresies Just Vindic p. 58 59. Answ Bishop Brumhal can tell you No Saxon English or Brittish King ever made any obliging solemn formal acknowledgement of their submission to the Bishop of Rome that the Popes power in England was of courtesie not duty that former Kings were as tart and vehement against him as King Henry the eighth with this only difference that they endeavoured to draw the people out of the Popes claws at home and he thought it more expedient to cast the Pope over the Brittish Seas once for all And if so your very supposition will give you the lie unless you will sink down to Queen Maries dayes Secondly If they were not torn in pieces with Schisms yet through your blood-thirsty tyranny they were torne in pieces for Schisms burned for Heresies that is for the plain evident Truths of the Gospel by your ignorance branded with the odious names of Schismatical and Heretical Tenents Thirdly I pray you tell me were there no Protestants in Queen Maries dayes did none suffer before her dayes when you suppose the Supremacy of Antichrist agnized how many righteous souls were butchered by you in prosecution of your Sanguinary Articles against poor Protestants how many piles were builded in Queen Maries dayes to sacrifice their lives upon to your rage and malice and durst you be so bloody against those who were neither Schismaticks nor Hereticks and what wonder is it that you had no Schismaticks c. when to be such was the sure way to have no being and they could find no other Answer to their Arguments but fire and faggot yea when the light was withheld from them that so they might not see the truth You go on and tell us Ibid. The Throne was never in the least danger upon that account never was a sword drawn for or against it Answ Very good if Princes will crouch to his Holiness Nonne Rex Anglorum nâ—â—er vassâ—llus est â—t ut 〈…〉 di◠〈…〉 be his Vassals suffer him to drein their Kingdoms rob and begger their Subjects exhaust their Dominions he will not arm their Subjects against them dethrone them or seek their ruine but if they once offer to withstand his tyranny question his intolerable encroachments cannot be content thaâ— their Subjects wealth should be converted into St. Pâ—â—â—â— Patrimony then must they be Sacrifices to Papal 〈◊〉 Witness that terrible and unparalleld excommunication and interdiction of England the deprivation of Henry the eighth published at Dunkirk witness the bull of Anathematization and deprivation by Pius the fifth against Queen Elizabeth and all her adherents absolving all her Subjects from their Oath of Allegiance without so much as an admonition preceding witness the Popes Negotiations with the English Spanish French c. to have Queen Elizabeth taken away by murther published at Rome by Hieronymo Culena Secretary to the Cardinal Alexandrino in the time and with the priviledge of Sixtus the fifth witness the Legantine Authority given to Sanders and the hollowed Banner sent with him and Allen two Romish Priests to countenance the Earl of Desmond in his rebellion the Phaenix Plume sent to Terowen to encourage him likewise in his rebellion and a plenary indulgence for him and all his assistants from Clement the eighth Lastly witness the two Briefs sent by the same Pope to exclude King James from the inheritance of the Crown of England unless he would take an Oath to promote the Roman Catholick interest Witness the rebellious Tenents of your English Seminaries the many treasons and rebellions in the time of Qu. Elizabeth and King James all which you may see in the Reverend Bishop Bramhal pag. 136 137 138. of his Repli so that you do in effect say t is safe for his Majesty to admit the Popes Supremacy for otherwise he may expect the absolution of his Subjects from their obedience a Spanish Invasion a Gunpowder Treason or some other mischievous enterprises of the Romish Emissaries to take away his life You tell us further Sect. 4 That the Kings of France account it one of the most sparkling Jewels in their Crown Ibid. that they call themselves the eldest and most devoted sons of the Catholick Church the acknowledging the spiritual Primacy of the chief Pastor they find a greater honour and defence in them then many Armies would because it preserves peace and unity in the Kingdom by subduing their minds and captivating their consciences to faith and obedience Answ The acknowledgement of the same Supremacy in the Turk that civil Pope who gapes for the Universal Monarchy would be as great an expedient for peace and unity let our Authour make the inference Secondly Why may we not deny that this peace and unity is not to be derived from the acknowledgement of the Popes Supremacy seeing as our Authour hath it in another case in so many places both they are not where it is and are where it is not as under the Turks Dominions c. Thirdly We tell you that his Majesty of France doth not acknowledge the Popes Supremacy From. pag. 190 to 200. as it is undeniably evinced by Bishop Bramhal in his just Vindication Lastly You fall to Divining That without such an Authority all our preaching and laws will prove but shaking Bulwarks for supporting Monarchy Answ Very likely for to be sure if your Priests and Jesuites men born for the subversion of Governments be permitted Hoc genns hominum natum est ad interitum Christianae reipub was the prediction of the University of Paris and it was confessed this was their business to set all on fire by John Brown a Roman Priest Prin introd p. 202. N. 82. s 20. you will never leave your rebellious Attempts and treacherous conspiracies till you have brought us into new confusions and built your nests upon our ruines Again we are told how earnestly Roman Catholicks here have
Christian and an Abbess over her Nuns But you argue thus Our Clergy promise Canonical obedience to their Bishops Pag. 83. they do not so to the King ergo they admit a jurisdiction in Bishops of which the King is not the root Answ We grant the whole who ever thought that his Majesty was the root of Episcopal jurisdiction or that it was only jure Regio 2. The Bishop that ordains us is authorised by his Majesty to require this obedience and therefore he is in a sense the root of it Sect. 7 But you proceed to some questions worthy to be stated in a Court Sermon only the difficulty would be how to keep the Courtiers serious whilest they were examined Mr. C. p. 85. thus then you argue Is it dishonourable either to the King or Kingdom that a purely spiritual authority should be acknowledged in him to whom 1. This whole Kingdom from its first conversion to Christianity 2. The whole Christian world submitted it self as to its supream Pastor Answ Yes Because the person you speak of is some Utopian Pastor and both these surmises are evident untruths And is it honourable that the same authority should be granted to more then twenty of his subjects Answ Yes because they have a right to it As if the Bishops were indep on his Majesty he no title but usurpation which it would be dishonourable to permit Again say you Is it unsafe that Canonical obedience for Christian unity sake should be professed to one Prelate to whom we owe no obedience a thousand miles off Answ Yes because he is a thousand miles off And is there no danger in making the same profession to so many at home who are by his Majesty over us to whom Canonical obedience to all their lawful commands is due who are present with us Answ No. What follows is a surmise that it is to be feared the Bishops may depress when their interest leads them to it the royal prerogatives and I leave it to their Answer CHAP. IX Of the Infallibility of the Church Mr. C's State of the question Sect. 1. We acknowledge no 〈◊〉 written traditions as the rule of faith Sect. 2. Why we pâ—efer the four first General Councils before others Sect. 3. Reason alone our guide Sect. 4. Scripture and the guidance of the Spirit are not excluded by this guide ib. The fallibility of it no prejudice against its guidance Sect. 5. We own no judge of our faith but Scripture Sect. 6. Mr. C's Calumny Sect. 7. The Romanist not guided by Reason Scripture or Antiquity Sect. 8. No necessity of an infallible judge besides Scripture Sect. 9. Mr. C's Arguments for the Churches Infallibility first From Deut. 17.8 9 10. Sect. 10. His second from Christs promise of his presence with his Disciples considered Sect. 11. From Christs promise of his presence with two or three Sect. 12. Of leading his Church into all truth Sect. 13. That the gates of hell shall not prevail against her Sect. 14. From his command of obeying the Church Sect. 15 From the unity of the Church Sect. 16. Mr. C's abuse of Mr. Chillingworth Sect. 17. These promises not to be applyed to particular Churches Sect. 18. His Argument from St. Gregory Constant and the Anathemas of Councils Sect. 9. Bishop Bramhal and Dr. Hammond plead not for such infallibility Sect. 20. The Doctors Argument from the prevailing of Arrianism defended Sect. 21. From the opinion of the Millenaries Sect. 22. From giving the Eucharist to infants Sect. 23. IN his ninth Chapter concerning the Churches Infallibility Sect. 1 he distinguisheth between the rule of faith and the guide of it and then tells us that to the Presbyterians Independents Anabaptists Quakers Socinians c. the only rule is the holy Scripture But both Catholicks and English Protestants though they acknowledge Divine Revelations to be their only rule yet they admit certain universally received traditions besides express Scripture But as for the guide from which we are to learn the true sense of this rule he tells us That Dr. Pierce Pag. 91. and the generality of English Protestants own the primitive Church or four first General Councils but since their writings are as obnoxious to disputes as the Scriptures themselves a speaking judge of the sense of all these is our Ecclesiastical Synods or Bishops when Synods are dissolved but principally those that are to make or determine the sense of Acts of Parliament and upon those accounts against Sectaries they use the help of Catholick weapons the authority of the Church c. but against Catholicks they turn Fanaticks and fly to a kind of private spirit or reason so that let them Preach as much as they will the result of all the dispute between them and us must come to this whether their last speaking judge in England or ours in the whole Catholick Church deserves better to be believed and relyed on But it s the Roman Catholick Church alone that is guided both by reason God spirit the primitive Church and the visible Governours of the present Church this is the sum of his seven first Paragraphs Through which runs such a palpable vein of dissimulation and falsehood that the most courteous charity cannot excuse it from being as wilful as gross For Sect. 2 1. You tell us P. 90. s 2. That though we acknowledge Divine Revelations to be our only rule yet we admit beside express Scripture certain universal Traditions for the rule of faith But what are these universally received traditions that we admit to be rules of faith why did you forbear to name some of them and yet confidently assert that we hold what we know we do not hold do not all English Protestants prove against you that Scripture is the sole and adequate rule of faith how then can they admit of any traditions as part of this rule And though we make use of universal tradition yet not as a rule but as a motive or argument for our faith as one argument that evidenceth the Scripture to be Gods word is the attestation of the Church in all ages which upon rational grounds we embrace as creditable to confirm and conveigh this to us and this use we may make of the very testimonies of the bitterest enemies to Christianity such as Celsus Julian Porphyrie c. But we say you Receive the determinations of the Primitive Church or four first general Councils Sect. 3 whom if we can believe you we constitue judges of the traditions received by us Answ We do I confess appeal to the four first general Councils not because we believe them infallible but because we conceive them to agree with Scripture which is infallible so that we make them secondary not primary guides we resolve not our belief of their decrees into their authority but into their agreement with Scripture we do not say we must believe this or that because any one of the four first general Councils hath defined it but
because what the Council hath defined is evident in Scripture therefore do we believe it And if we should find that in any Article they dissented from Scripture we should in that as much oppose them as we do you our Appeal then to them is not as Rules but as conformable to the Rule and so we should to the Council of Trent it self had it been as Orthodox as they but I hope we should not thence make them guides or their Decrees rules of our faith Though that I may not be mistaken I allow the four first a preheminence above the ensuing Oecumenical Councils were there any such because from their nearness to the Apostolical times they had greater advantage of being acquainted with the Apostles minds and practices but then the preheminence we grant them above others is derived from the probability of their consonancy with that which we avow to be infallible We appeal therefore to the four first general Councils not because we think it absolutely necessary to conform our belief to theirs but ex abundanti to shew you that should we appeal to the Church as you would have us that in the most pure and uncorrupted Ages its belief carried an exact harmony with Ours so that were the Church judge as it is not the primitive Church would stand for us And this is all we mean in our appeal to the four first general Councils How impertinent then is Mr. Cressys Dilemma P. 1. s 8. that if Dr. Pierce submit to the four first general Councils not because of their inherent authority but because he judged their decisions conformable to Gods express word then he deludes us and with Presbyterians Independents c. makes Scripture alone the rule of Reformation How doth he delude you did he ever deny this what delusion is it to tell you that I hold what I hold But then you say Dr. Pierce must make Scripture his only rule What then nothing but this that Dr. Pierce affirms what he affirms and what absurdity is that a shrewd Dilemma that forceth Dr. Pierce to believe what he doth believe In the next place when you tell us that beside reason our Ecclesiastical Synods Bishops or Parliamnts are admitted as guides of our faith you do but evidence by your imputing to us what we hold not you cannot confute what we hold For Sect. 4 We assert therefore that Reason alone is and can be our guide which we demonstrate because Reason alone is our judge in all cases for I either have reason for my belief whatever it be or I have not if the latter then my belief is 1. Irrational for my belief must be Irrational when I have no reason to believe and as Irrational so 2. Altogether uncertain and its object may as well be a falsehood as a truth because if I have no reason why I believe it true then have I no certainty but it may be false for the only certainty I can have that my belief is not false is because I have rational grounds to evidence it true which when removed what certainty can I have that I do not err But if the former that is If whatsoever I believe or assent to I do it because my reason judgeth it a truth then reason is my judge and guide in whatsoever I believe which is the proposition to be proved And this is easily confirmed and illustrated by a few particular considerations as when the question is Whether I am bound to embrace any religion at all I bring my reason to judge which after it hath examined the weight and evidence of the arguments suggested to it and found them valid determines and judges that I ought to own some religion after this my next enquiry is Amongst the various kinds of Religion professed in the world which is the true one here again having examined all their pretences my reason judgeth which is most consonant to truth and hereupon I close with the Christian profession because I find their arguments most valid and highly satisfactory to an ingenuous and unprejudiced understanding and such as carry with them so full an evidence as that it will make all unbelief infinitely irrational And hitherto as reason is my only guide so my only rule too for I can have no other Canon whereby to guide it but it s own acknowledged Laws and Maximes by which I examine the verity of all other rules and therefore can have no other rules whereby to judge seeing they themselves are the matters judged of and therefore when we dispute with the Romanists whether Scripture be our sole rule whereby to determine controversies t is not to be taken absolutely as if there were no other rule for I can never confute a Jew from a text of the new Testament nor an Atheist or an Infidel out of either Testaments but limitedly that its the sole rule whereby to determine controversies of faith among those that profess the Christian Religion in which sense alone it concerns their dispute which is not with Infidels but Christians who have already acknowledged Scripture to be a rule of faith But to proceed having by embracing the Christian Religion received a new rule the old guide may still suffice that which could guide me into the right way will much more guide me in it especially when its plain and easie But now Christianity is professed and a new rule owned my nex quere is what party among the several pretenders adhere to this rule and so with what Church I must join here again reason must sit on the bench and pass judgement of all the Churches in the world which of them keep to the rule of faith and which swerve from it Let us then first call the Socinian Churches to the bar here the enquiry would be whether I may embrace any thing for Truth though sufficiently manifested to be of Divine Revelation if it seem to contradict or thwart my reason hereto reason it self must be judge and so the enquiry is whether it be more rational to believe a Truth Divinely revealed that I cannot comprehend or upon that account to reject it My reason judgeth it most rational to captivate and submit it self to infinite Wisdome and believe what it cannot comprehend because I and all the World beside do acknowledge such things as transcend our comprehensions v. g. an infinite extension of space an eternal duration c. and therefore I think not their principle sufficient to explode a truth for a falshood beside I know the Divine knowledge and wisdome is infinite and so incomprehensible to any sinite and shallow intellect and therefore that he may know and consequently reveal such matters which are too deep and too wide to be contained within the bounds of our narrow understandings and therefore what more absurd then to measure the immensity of the Divine wisdome by the standard of our imperfect and short apprehensions Wherefore we do not proscribe the Doctrine imputed to the
Scripture whereas there are a thousand places of Scripture which you do not pretend certainly to understand and about the interpretation whereof your own Doctors differ among themâ—â—ves If your Church be infallibly directed concerning the 〈◊〉 meaning of Scripture why do not your Doctors follow her infallible direction and if they do how comes such difference among them in their interpretations Again why does your Church thus put her candle unde a Bushel and keep her talent of interpreting Scripture infallibly thus long wrapt up in Napkins why sets she not forth infallible Commentaries upon all the Bible is it because this would not be profitable to Christians that Scripture should be interpreted t is blasphemy to say so the Scripture it self tells us all Scripture is profitable and the Scripture is not so much the words as the sense thereof and if it be not profitable why doth she imploy her Doctors to interpret Scripture fallibly unless we must think that fallible interpretations of Scripture are profitable but infallible interpretations would not be so How durst you upbraid this worthy and victorious Champion as if he had no other shield wherewith to defend himself when this Argument is so full and cogent Well then the sense of these promises The gates of hell shall not prevail against you I will be with you to the Worlds end is only this That God will so order it in his Providence as that his Church shall still continue upon the face of the earth maugre all the malicious designs of men and devils to overthrow and quite extinguish her And so your other quarrell with our Protestant Writers is a meer impertinence albeit we meet with it once and again in your Treatise of Schism where we will throw away some time in confuting of it seeing you are not pleased to afford us any better employment In your next Paragraph Sect. 18 you thus dispute Seeing these promises P. 102. viz. which concern the Church essential or diffused are Yea and Amen the Doctor must apply them to his English Protestant Church since he will not allow them to the Catholick i. e. Roman for to some Church they must be applyed Answ 1. As if there were no Church besides the Roman and the English Church in Christendome had the Church of Sardis thus argued for these Promises against the Church of Thyatira or others now overrun with Mahumetisme would not the event have shewed the fallacy 2. The Doctor allows them to the Catholick in the sense we speak of viz. That however she may be distressed and brought low and seem to be disserted yet shall she continue and persevere to the worlds end but doth it follow that because he allows it to the Catholick he must do it to the Roman or any other particular Church which is but at best an infected member of the whole 3. We will be so liberal as to grant you a right in them but your absurd interpretations of them and absurder deductions from them we deny you must first prove that any of them promise infallibility before you conclude a necessity from them that some Church must be infallible And to what purpose do you annex a sentence of St. Sect. 19 Gregories and another of Constantines in defence of the four first General Councils If say you the Doctor applyes these promises to his own and not to the Catholick Church then doth he condemn St. Gregory that professed he venerated the four first General Councils ergo the Roman Church against which the Doctor disputes as the four Gospels but the Doctor doth allow them to the Catholick and so no fear of quarrelling with St. Gregory in their own account yea he will not fear to grant with the Reverend Archbishop that they are de post facto that is being received by the Universal Church diffused infallible as to the matters of faith determined by them and yet this sequel seems somewhat harsh I venerate the four first General Councils as the four Gospels ergo the promises cited by Mr. C. belong to the Roman Catholick Church in all ages an inference so entirely absurd and weak that t is a shame to insult over it nor will the profession of Constantine any thing avail to prove the infallibility of the Roman Church but at the most of a General Council only albeit I cannot see but that it may fairly admit of another sense for speaking of the Paschal Feast which the Council had decreed should be kept unanimously he calls it a Divine command and gives this reason because whatever is decreed in the Councils of Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath respect to the Divine Will they medling not with humane affairs but Divine only and yet we add that if it were true which Constantine is deemed by him to say it would little avail him since none of our controversies have been determined by a General Council against us albeit for a close we dare not Idolize the holy Emperour so much as to think his verdict infallible But when you talk of condemning all the Councils Oecumenical of Gods Church and our Acts of Parliament viz. by denying your Church to be infallible for that is the dispute you talk at random and your reason because the Fathers in these Councils pronounced Anathema's against those who would not believe their decisions is as weak as it is old for we have often returned unto you that these Anathema's are no good Arguments that the propounders of them conceive themselves infallible but only that they conceive the Doctrines they condemn evidently damnable or at least contrary to Scripture and right reason and so proscribe them with a rational and humane certainty the same we have in our Courts of Judicature on which mens lives and estates wholly depend and yet are neither the Juries verdict nor the Judges sentence infallible as is evident from this that particular Councils nay particular Fathers have been very prodigal of their Anathema's which yet were never conceived infallible Not words but things are the objects of our faith therefore the introducing new words is no making of new Articles but if you will assert that under those new expressions were couched new Articles too upon this supposition it would be no ill manners to reprove their presumption either by others or themselves and thence it is apparent that we are not presently to yeild up our assent to proposals because attended with these Anathema's seeing by so doing we may assent to an untruth and be obliged to believe the contrary to what Scripture hath revealed nor can I imagine to what end you should inform us of new expressions in these General Councils as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherein you are mistaken and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will this prove the Roman Church yea will it prove a Council to be infallible this sure is an easie way to become infallible would you thence conclude their Authority to broach new Doctrines then must not
there is no probability of being cloathed upon and therefore they cannot be supposed to go to purgatory naked since they that go thither are sure afterward to go to heaven Again vers 6 7. the Apostle tells us that whilest we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord and that Here the faithful desire to be absent from the body because it hinders them from the presence of the Lord and walking by sight now had they been acquainted with purgatory surely they would have express'd their desires of being absent from that also seeing that was like not only to be more irksome to them but also more durable and therefore a greater impediment since therefore they groan'd so much to be deliver'd from a short life here which hinders their enjoyment of Gods presence and not at all for deliverance from a hundred or two hundred years continuance in purgatory for so long saith Bellarmine the Church hath prayed for Souls in purgatory we infer they were not acquainted with it Again they that are to be receiv'd into Eternal habitations when their life fails them are to be received at death for then they fail But so are charitable men and by parity of Reason other pious souls The minor is proved from Luke 16. v. 8. Make unto your selves friends of the Mammon of unrighteousness that is use it so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that when you fail i. e. dy they may receive you that is may procure you a reception or rather as Doctor Hammond you may be received into everlasting habitations But our Author hath his arguments also Sect. 18 which come now to be considered And first he tells us of an express testimony for Purgatory in the Book of Macchabees Now not to call upon him for an Answer to Dr. Cosens of the Canon of Scripture as knowing how impossible it is to be done albeit it be necessary to make this Testimony a Cogent proof seeing he onely tells us that there is such a place in the Book of Macchabees I will add where the words may be found even in Dally page 439. where they are fully considered and it made evidently to appear that they come not up to a proof of Purgatory neither are they consistent with the received Maxims of the abettors thereof and whereas our adversary calls in the Universal Tradition and practice of the Synagogue of the Jews to justifie this place the same worthy person hath made it evident that neither this nor any other Testimony produced by them is any tolerable proof of such practice p. 449. 450. Nay he evinceth most clearly from this passage that this practice was not received in our Saviour's or the Apostles time Ne apud infimos corruptos Judaeos yea he spends the 14. Chapter of his second Book to evidence that the Jewes were ignorant of Prayers for the dead and should we after all this give any credit to your confident assertions of such evident untruths It concerns you if you respect your credit to answer what is extant in the forecited places of the Learned Dally and to evince this universal Tradition and practice you here speak of without the least offer of any proof unless what follows must be so esteem'd viz. that from the Jewes no doubt Plato borrowed this Doctrine and from Plato Cicero But I pray you Sir permit us who have the Arguments fore-mentioned to evidence that in our Saviours time the Jewes had no such Custome to doubt of what you boldly here assert l. 4. c. 5. p. 360. especially when the same Dally runs antipodes unto you and tells us though with greater modesty ab iis Platonicis ut videtur illam Purgatorii rationem baustam atque acceptam tum Judaei tum adversarii retinent Sect. 19 that both you and they as it seems received your Purgatory from the Platonists Mr. Cr. P. 120. You have one assault more from natural Reason which you say will tell us that heaven into which no unclean thing can enter is not so quickly and easily open to imperfect souls as unto perfect nor have we any sign that meerly by dying sinful livers become immediately perfect 1 Thess 4.17 Now to this I Answer that what ever natural Reason may seem to dictate I am sure the Oracles of God will tell us that they who are alive at the Resurrection if pious souls though surely some of them shall be imperfect shall not go to Purgatory for 100. years but be caught up into the Clouds to meet the Lord in the Air and so shall be for ever with the Lord. Secondly albeit there be nothing of Reason or Scripture to intimate that onely by dying we become perfect yet doth both Reason and Scripture more then intimate that presently after death we are amongst the Spirits of just men made perfect that when this Tabernacle is dissolved we go to an house Eternal in the Heavens when we are absent from the body we are present with the Lord and consequently are purified by the holy Spirit from the imperfections that adhered to us CHAP. XI Master Cressie's misadventures Sect. 1. His first Argument from 1 Cor. 11. Answered Sect. 2. His second from Reason Sect. 3. His Authorities spurious Sect. 4. As 1. Saint Basils Liturgy Sect. 5. Cyrils Mystag Catechism Sect. 6. The Acts of the Nicene Council Sect. 7. Greg. Nyssens Catechism Sect. 8. Saint Cyrils testimony considered Sect. 9. His Authorities say no more then our Churches Liturgy Sect. 10. Saint Chrysostome not for them but against them Sect. 11. His Citation abused by Master Cressie Ib. as likewise Saint Ambrose Sect. 12. The Doctours argument from the fruit of the Vine vindicated Sect. 13 14. Mr. Cressie's evasion confuted Sect. 15. The weakness of his argument against the Doctours Exposition evidenced and confessed by Jansenius Sect. 16 17. an argument against Transubstantiation Sect. 18. Why the Fathers not insisted on Sect. 19. The Fathers are not for the adoration of the Sacrament Sect. 20. Saint Chrysostome Saint Ambrose and Saint Austins testimonies considered Sect. 21 22 23. The contrary evidenced from Doctor Taylor Sect. 24. IN this Chapter we meet with many misadventures Sect. 1 Mr. Cressie p. 124. and mistakes as 1. that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as old as the first general Council whereas it was never used by any Father or at least never applied unto this matter for the space of a thousand years and upwards nor can I find any of their own writers besides himself that ever pleaded the use of such a word 2. Another mistake is that the Church onely saith the change made in the holy Sacrament is usually called Transubstantiation when the Trent Council expresly tells us Mr. Cressie p. 124. that it is called so propriè convenienter aptissime most fitly properly and conveniently 3. Whereas you tell us Sect. 5 that it is a difficult matter to define what is our Churches Tenent
the Sacrament which first is contrary to what * P. 131. he himself produceth from Cyrils Epistle ad Calosyrium And secondly were it so either it loseth this Sacramental being when it is eaten or before or after viz. when the species of bread cease to remain If this last then is it sacrificed in the belly not on the Altar if when it is eaten 't is sacrificed in the mouth if before then do not the Communicants eat the body and blood of Christ Secondly if this be sufficient to make it a proper mutation because the body of Christ loseth his esse Sacramentale and ceaseth to be present under these species then by parity of reason God himself and his Angels may be said to suffer a real Physical mutation when he ceaseth to be where he was by the destruction of that wherein he was or the annihilation of the same Secondly If Christ did not offer a true and proper sacrifice then neither do his Ministers but the first is so the sequel is evident because that which is delivered to us to be done was receiv'd from Christ for seeing it is deliver'd by the Evangelists and Saint Paul and we are peremptorily told by him delivering what the Evangelists had rehearsed that he received it of Christ and delivered no other thing If Christ did not offer a true and proper sacrifice neither did he deliver it to us from Christ but Christ did not offer such a sacrifice Hist Conc. Trent for then the oblation of the Cross would have been superfluous because Mankind would have been redeemed by that of the Supper which went before Besides the Sacrament of the Altar was instituted by Christ for a memorial of that which he offered on the Cross now there cannot be a memorial but of a thing past and therefore the Eucharist could not be a sacrifice before the oblation of Christ on the Cross but shewed what we were afterwards to do And thus I have considered what is material in this Chapter and onely desire Mr. C. in case he reply to state evidently this Doctrine of their Church and wherein they differ from us and what are the requisites of a sacrifice that so we may know what we are to dispute against CHAP. XIIII Why Master C. omits the dispute touching the Books stiled Apocryphal Sect. 1. His way of reasoning weak Sect. 2. 3 4 5 6. The Primitive Fathers against the veneration of Images Sect. 7. All their pretences evacuated by the Fathers Sect. 8. The Honour given to Images is called worship by the Romanists themselves Sect. 9. To worship false Gods not necessary to Idolatry Sect. 10. Vulgar Papists give divine honour to Images Sect. 11. Papists pray to them Sect. 12. Master Cs. Argument for veneration of Images Answ Sect. 13. An Argument against it Sect. 14. His Story further requited Sect. 15. WE come now to consider his Pleas for the Roman Churches practice in veneration of Images Sect. 1 of which the Doctor saith onely this That the Council of Trent was not afraid to make new Articles the Invocation of Saints the worship of Images yea saith he many humane writings the Apocryphal Books and many unwritten Traditions also were by her decreed to be of equal Authority with the Scripture and an Anathema added to all that should not so receive them Now because he formerly had managed a dispute with Mr. Bagshaw about Images he takes advantage of these few words to transcribe the whole dispute over-looking that which more copiously is insisted on to wit the ascribing Divine Authority to the Books which we commonly stile Apocryphal Doctor John Reynolds and Bishop Cousens which sure was onely upon this account because it hath been made appear by two Champions of our Church that this decree of the Trent Council is contrary to Reason and the suffrage of the Fathers and learned men even from Christ time to the Sessiâ—n of this worthy Conventicle we call upon him for answer to them in his next Well but we will be content to undergo this trouble also and that the rather because this peice is esteemed by some to have a vein of Reason in it although it be fraught if I mistake not with inconsiderable Sophismes Sect. 2 First if then he catechizes us thus Should you see the Picture of our Lord hanging on the Cross Mr. C. p. could you possibly avoid the calling to mind who our Lord was and what he had done and suffered for you Answer Your own Gerson will tell us another story compertum est c. It is very well known that some devout persons by aspect of Images had their thoughts turn'd from holy cogitations and pure affections to carnal filthy wicked and impure yea execrably blasphemous but to let this passe Secondly I see a Crucifix almost every day in our Colledge windows and yet seldom have found such an effect upon me and I appeal to the carvers of these Pictures whether they do not often behold their workmanship without this effect to the members of our Colledges whether they do not often look upon their windowes without such remembrance of the Saints or Apostles there lively pictured as may make them spiritual or compell them into a fit of devotion yea the reason why our Church thinks meet yet to preserve them in her Assemblies notwithstanding the loud cries of the Phanaticks that they are scandalous and dangerous is evidently this because she knows they have an historical use and that the people upon the sight of them are not found inclined to yield any worship or corporeal reverence unto them Thirdly The picture of Cromwell or Bradshaw the parts of the Rebels that hang up at the Gates of London Spanish Inquisition Irish Rebellions Popish Cruelties to the Waldenses and Albingenses yea the picture of Hell and the Devil are apt to bring their cruelties and torments into our remembrances and doing so may not I adresse my self with Praises and Thanksgivings to this God who hath delivered us from such Tyrants and pray heartily to be freed from the torments of Hell and tyranny of Satan Is not there as much reason for my devotion here as at the sight of an Image yea the very names of Peter and Paul Heaven and Hell are as subservient to the productions of such thoughts and therefore when I read in a play Heavens bless c. must I turn to my devotions I might be endlesse in such instances Again he tells us Sect. 3 Should we have the picture of his Majesty and Bradshaw should we have the Bible and Pantagruel they would force upon us quite contrary thoughts almost impossible to be avoided Answer First Would not the mention of their names have the same effect upon us Secondly When he walks along London streets and there sees the sign of his Majesty at so many Taverns doth he find it impossible for him to avoid thoughts of due subjection and reverence And should he have Faux in his
passages to perswade us 't is an Apostolical decree the Story will inform us 't was an innovation will he say that all may contain Paphnutius tells him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all cannot Fourthly The reasons which Paphnutius useth are these 1. That this would be a burthen too heavy for the Priests to bear sect 9 2. That scarce any Wives thus separated would be kept Chaste 3. That all Priests are not sufficient for such Continence 4. That it would tend to the detriment of the Church 5. That Marriage was honourable even in Priests 6. That this separation would bee a divorcing of them whom God had joyned So that the Romanists by the practise and allowance of such divorces must bee guilty of all this Fifthly The Synod assented to all this saith Socrates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole Synod was perswaded by his words yea they applauded his advice Synodus laudavit sententiam ejus saith Gratian and Sozom. and that upon these accounts thus mentioned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Gelasius all which being put together will yeeld us sufficient advantage against the Romanists innovation in this matter Well Sect. 16 but he returns upon us that Socrates and Sozomen relate Mr. C. p. 214. that it was consonant to the antient Tradition of the Church that those who had entred into Holy Orders before they had Married Wives should afterwards forbear from Marrying Answ The Romanist will get but little advantage hence if it bee considered 1. That Gratian and Gelasius who tells us that he compiled his relation from the very acts of the Nicene Synod then extant as in his Proem you may see have no such thing and that Sozom. and Socrates from whom this is cited See Cham. de coel l. 16. c. 10. Bell. l. 1. de Cler. c. 20. Baron an 325. are generally excepted against by our Adversaries in this very matter 2. That albeit it were an Antient custome yet can it not be proved to have been derived from the Apostles as is fully evinced by Calixtus de conjugio clericorum 3. That they admitted antiently no Presbyter under 30 Can. 11. Novel 123. c. 13. P. 206. as the Synod at Neocaesarea decreed or 35 as Justinian nor a Deacon under 25. now even according to Mr. C. if a man can contain so long he may very well be supposed able to contain the residue of his life 4. The Antients thought it somewhat unfit for a Minister to be imployed in wooing and courting Mistresses this they esteemed a thing below the gravity of a Priest Synod Agath c. 39. as likewise to interfair with the Marriage Festival whence they were forbidden to be present there Novel 3. this is intimated by Leo the Emperour in his Novels when he saith Whereas the Ecclesiastical Orders had constituted Per omnē vitam caelibatum voveant that they who were ordained Priests should promise perpetual Celibacy if they trusted they should not falsifie their promise or if they thought themselves unable to contain should first Contract lawful Matrimony and then take upon them the Ministry The custome which at present obtaineth is that they may first bee made Priests and after two years Marry which because it seems undecent indecorum we require that the antient prescript bee observed for 't is an unworthy thing that they who have ascended unto spiritual things should again slide down to carnal but contrariwise they should go from carnal to spiritual 5. To add no more they had their choise when they came to be Ordained whether they would Marry or not they had their liberty to Marry before they came to Ordination Now here is nothing which can well be quarreld with seeing men may well be supposed sufficiently acquainted with their abilities at thirty and consequently as they finde themselves may either then Marry or promise to abstain To this purpose is that of the excellent Bishop Taylor Duc. dub l. 3. c. The Primitive Church commonly chose her Priests and Bishops of great age of known virtue and holiness they were designed to a publick and dangerous employment for some whole ages they were under persecution and the way of the cross was a great delatory to flesh and blood and therefore they might the rather require it of them whom in those dispositions they found fit to bee taken into an employment which would require a whole man all his time and all his affections now if wee consider that the married Priests were commanded to retain their wives and the unmarried had been tried to be of a known and experienced Continence they might with much reason and great advantage require that they should remain so that is they might ask their consent and trust their promise for here was liberty and but little danger the Priests were few and the unmarried much fewer and their age commonly such as was past danger and the publick affairs of the Church required it and the men were willing and then all was right and then as for the practise of the Church hee shews that it was the custome of the whole Greek Clergy to marry after holy Orders yea gives examples of it in the Latine Church But now the Canons of the Church of Rome afford no such liberty but make all vow perpetual Abstinence or else refuse to admit them to the sacred Ministry and so reject many thousand persons for that which is honourable in all and which is permitted by the Apostle Can. 10. even to a Bishop and as for Deacons the Counsel of Ancyra permits them Marriage after Ordination if at the time of their Ordination they declare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they must Marry being not able to contain because the Bishop say they hath granted them a Licence or dispensation what other exceptions are made against this Counsel you may see largely refuted in Chamier and especially Calixtus if you do but consult their Indexes Our next Synod shall be that of Gangra Sect. 17 a City of Paphlagonia Ann. 339. which though it was but a particular Councel yet hath it the authority of a general for as much as the Canons of it were unanimously approved by the whole Eastern and Western Churches yea alwaies received amongst her rules insomuch that Baronius pronounceth from the words of Pope An. 361 Nu. 44. Symmachus Canones Gangrenses Apostolica authoritate conditos esse This Synod was convened against Eustathius and his disciples who as Sozomen informs us Lib. 3. c. 13. were reputed as men accusing Marriage refusing to pray in the houses of married persons and despising 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lib. 2. c. 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 married Presbyters And Socrates saith that they did decline tanquam scelus the benediction and Communion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a Presbyter having a wife which whilst a Laick he had Married as the custome was or according to the law viz. that those among the Clergy who
let him receive it nor would the Apostle have been so nice in his perswading it And again Christ saith this that every one may consider his strength whether hee be able to satisfie this command of Virginity and Chastity for our abilities ought to bee considered that so hee that can receive it may St. Austin Lib. 1. de nupt concup ad voler C. 16. id ad Pollent In cap. 20 Leviticus Pt 3. cur past C. 30. this vertue of such excellent Continence he that can receive let him receive it And again the Apostle counsels Celibacy to him that can receive it Hesyc we do not require any thing beyond mens power but onely what is possible viz. virginity of him to whom it is possble And Gregory Hee that is truth it self saith all cannot receive this Word And again the Pastors that are single are to bee admonished that if they cannot withstand the storms of temptation without difficulty of Shipwrack they betake themselves to the Haven of Wedlock To these you may add Ignat. Ep. 8. ad Smyrnenses Cyril L. 1. Ep. 11. Si perseverare nolunt aut non possunt nubant Lactan. L. 6. Inst C. 23. Chrysost L. de Virg. Homil. 19. in 1 Cor. Bernard in Serm. de convers ad Cler. C. 29. Amrbose cited in Jure Canon C. Integritas 32. qu. 2. yea Bell armine himself C. 34. resp ad 19. CHAP. XVIII Schisme is an unnecessary separation sect 1. Our separation necessary by reason 1 Of many things unjustly required to be believed 2 To be practised by us sect 2 3. That supposing these doctrines to be innovations wee are bound to separate sect 4. The result of Mr. C ' s. positions ibid. His pretensions to make his assertion reasonable considered sect 5 6 7. The Church of Rome Schismatical sect 8. The Arguments to the contrary answered sect 9 10 11. WE are at length arrived at our last Sect. 1 and largest taske to wipe off that odious name of Schisme which hee most irrationally casts upon us Now in this business Mr. C. as he is more voluminous so is he more weak and more confused And therefore I will not follow him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but draw up some thesis or propositions and confront them to his assertions and then return an answer to his arguments 1. 1. Proposition Therefore Schism is an unnecessary separation that it is a separation Sect. 2 the very import of the word assures us that it is an unnecessary one appears because nothing can bee sinful which is necessary with a necessity not introduced upon my self through my own default and consequently where cause of Schism is necessary there not hee that separates but hee that is the cause of separation is the Schismatick for schism there cannot bee in leaving the communion of any Church Chilling p. 17. unlesse wee were obliged to continue in it man cannot be obliged by man but to what either formally or virtually hee is obliged by God for all just power is from God God the eternal truth neither can nor will oblige us to believe any the least or the most â—nâ—ocent falshood to bee a Divine Truth that is to erre nor to professe a known errour which is to lye So that seeing you require the belief of errours among the conditions of your Communion our Obligation to communicate with you ceaseth yea we are obliged not to communicate with you upon these terms which are evidently sinful and so the imputation of schism to us vanisheth to nothing but it falls heavy upon your own heads for making our separation from you just and necessary by requiring unnecessary and unlawful conditions of your communion Thus being not content with Christ the Mediatour of mankind you require us to hold the Saints departed to bee our Mediatours besides the head Christ Jesus you require us to believe the Pope to bee the head and Husband of the universal Church by Divine right besides the Sacrifice of the Cross you force upon us that of the Altar as a true and proper Sacrifice besides the blood of Christ you command us to expect our cleansing from the sufferings of Martyrs besides the torments of Hell which are threatned to the wicked you require us to assert Purgatorian torments to bee inflicted on the faithful Besides the Worship of the great God you require us to adore and that with the worship due and proper unto him the holy Sacraments besides the holy Scriptures you require us to receive with equal authority certain Books Apocriphal and Traditions like unto them with the same faith wee give to these Holy Scriptures the veneration of Images the transubstantiation of the elements into the body and blood of Christ you require us to believe The Churches power in mutilating the Sacrament of the Lords Supper in enjoyning the celebration of publick service in a tongue unknown in imposing perpetual Celibacy upon such as take upon them holy orders you require us to acknowledge These things you have established in your councels and thundred your Anathemaes against all those that will not yeild their assent unto them so that without the belief of these things it is impossible for us to keep in the communion of your Church nay the denial of any of these Articles excludes us at least in your esteem not only from the Roman but the Church of God and makes it unlawful for you to communicate with us the confessions of these things you exact from us with the greatest rigour and that as the true Catholick faith Bulla pii quarti extra quam neâ—o salvus esse potest without beleiving of which there is no salvation to any man continually proclaiming that you esteem them Hereticks enemies of Christ and worse than Infidels that reject these opinions or any of them nay which is worst of all in making of these and such like decrees you give out that you are infallible So that to question any one of them is ipso facto to thrust our selves out of your Communion sith therefore you require the belief of these untruths as necessary conditions of communion you evidently free us from the guilt of Schisme in refusing to communicate with you upon such terms Again wee confidently assert Sect. 3 there can be no necessity of communicating with others in wicked actions nay there is a necessity of separation when the performance of them is required a necessity of getting out of Babylon when wee cannot stay there Rev. 18.4 but we must be partakers of her sins And evidently to practise what I esteem and look upon as forbidden by God is to be guilty of damned hypocrisie and wilful disobedience against him seeing therefore the Church of Rome requireth of us the practise of such unlawful actions as the Adoration of the Sacrament which is Idolatry the Invocation of Saints Veneration of Images petitions for deliverance of Souls from Purgatory which are superstitions yea and injoyns her
so If you say he is infallible not in decrecing but in this that hee shall not confirm an errour I Answ This assertion implies either that the Pope è Cathedrâ cannot erre and then the veriest Idiot may bee stiled infallible as well as a General Council because the Pope è Cathedrâ cannot confirm what he erroniously dictates Or 2. That in confirming the decrees of General Councils only hee is unerrable and then pray you where is that promise of such peculiar assistance at that time where is that Scripture or single passage of any Father that albeit the Pope may erre in decreeing any matter of faith yet in confirming the decrees of a General Council hee cannot Ede tabulas but if not one Iota in scripture reason or antiquity for this how can I be assured that it is so and consequently have an infallible guide to lean and rest upon As for scripture what place can they bring but that of Luk. 22. I have asked for thee that thy faith fail not but is there any thing of teaching the whole Church doth hee say that the Pope may fail in manners but shall not in doctrines of Faith or in decreeing Doctrines of faith but not in confirming them or doth he at all speak of the Pope of Rome Yea 2. Did that prayer hinder the denial of Christ by Peter was Peter then summus pontifex or not If not then doth not this concern him in that relation and consequently neither those that succeed him if he was then what hinders but that the summus pontifex may fail Neither is there any thing to the purpose in that of Mat. On this rock will I build my Church and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it For 1. Is here one sillable of the Pope or infallibility or if there were is there any thing of it for the Pope more then for the Church why then did our Author produce it for the Church and if touching the Pope is it rather in confirming the decrees of Councils then in decreeing doctrines of faith And as for antiquity had this been taught in the Primitive times could they have avoided this argument The Pope hath confirmed this Ergo 'tis true this Council was approved by the Pope Ergo 'tis infallible but there is not one sillable to be heard in all Antiquity of this nature Again if the Pope must be included may not the Pope and Council run counter and what shall wee do then what shall we do in a time of Schism when there are several pretenders to the Popedome as frequently there have been to whom then must we hearken how shall we know which of these is the true Pope if a Council must decide it as indeed none else can either the Council is fallible and may determine wrong or infallible and then it is so without the Pope And so the assertion I dispute against is deserted and another taken up of which anon Again suppose any Popes misdemeanours be to be judged of as for example whether Sixtus Quintus got into St. Peters chair by Simony in this case the Pope cannot bee Judge and therefore if the Council without the Pope be not infallible how can wee know whether their determination bee aright seeing it may as well bee wrong Further tell me how may I be assured that the Pope is a true Pope If he came in by Simony he is none and how is it possible for me to know that seeing some have been Simonaical how can I be certain that many others have not been so too and if so then not only all fallibility is ceased but your succession too For all the Cardinals created by a Simonaical Pope can be no Cardinals and if so then Sixtus Quintus being evidently convicted of Simony before the Council of Sicil could be no Pope his Cardinals no Cardinals neither could the Popes created since by those Cardinals bee truly such so that from his time your Church hath been without a lawful universal head Again how shall I bee certain that the Popes election is legal for unless it be so your selves deny him to be Pope when sometimes the People sometimes the Clergy chose him sometimes both in one age the Emperour in another the Cardinals in a third a General Council Further I might ask you how you are assured the Pope is rightly ordained and Baptiz'd for if he was not by your own principles hee can be no Pope and that he was I cannot be certain unless I could know the intention of the Priest that Baptized him and the Bishop that ordained him and though I did know what cannot be known their intentions yet how shall I know the intentions of the persons that Baptized and Ordained them and so on to that endless chain of uncertainties propounded by Mr. Chillingworth in his second chap. which 't is impossible you should ever bee able to solve But I am opprest with copiousnesse of Argument and therefore must break off from this member to the next 2. Again therefore if you say Sect. 2 that the council is infallible without the Pope Then 1. p. 51. sect 8. You contradict your self in requiring the consent of the Pope to the Obligation of the Councils Canons for if they be infallible are we not bound to assent to them notwithstanding Or can we do well in opposing what is infallible 2. How shall wee know whether the Pope or Council be supreme when the council of Basil and Constance determined it one way the council of Lateran the other way So the second Council of Nice asserted the corporeity of Angels the first of Lateran denies it Can infallible persons contradict each other Who must bee the Members of this Council whether onely Bishops or Presbyters and Deacons too upon what certain account do you shut out Presbyters if you admit onely Bishops or if you require that Presbyters be called to the Council what certain grounds can you produce for it Why should you exclude Laymen from a place in these your Councils especially when the Scripture tells us that in the Council which was called about circumcision mention is made not onely of Apostles but of the Elders of the Church and of the Brethren Acts 15.23 Bellarm. Saith indeed that this multitude was called not to consent and judge but onely to consent But upon what authority doth hee build this interpretation Or what certainty can we have in the determinations of Holy Scriptures If we may thus apply unto them our idle fancies add and distinguish where no other Scripture no circumstance or context leads us to it but rather the contrary strongly is insinuated for as much as the definitive sentence runs thus It hath pleased the Apostles and Elders with the whole Church c. Further why must Bishops bee called to it out of one Countrey and not our of another why will so many out of this Kingdome suffice What if the members of the Council be chosen illegally
would endanger our falling into the ditch Mat. 15.24 Seducers V. 15. of this chapter which is evidence sufficient that he never intended they should be followed absolutely but only when they followed the Law of Moses 2. This infallibility cannot bee proved from reason which to evince I will carefully ponder what Mr. C. hath produced from this topick 1. Then to help him out a little I will premise that nature teacheth us that what is necessary to the Christian Faith for its preservation and to hinder the undermining of it ought to bee practised Mr. C. p. 239. but it is absolutely necessary saith hee for the Church oft times to make her decisions of points in controversie for otherwise the Devil would have power to undermine a great part of our Faith if permission were given freely to maintain I suppose hee means to deny any thing that doth not appear to any one expresly either in Scripture or Tradition Answ We also grant a necessity or at least a convenience of a Tribunal to decide controversies but how not by causing any person to believe what hee did not antecedently to these decrees upon the sole authority of the Council but by silencing our disputes and making us acquiesce in what is propounded without any publick opposition to it keeping our opinions to our selves and not troubling the Church of God with them and therefore wee are farre enough from granting a permission to maintain openly such things as appear to any private judgement to bee a truth as knowing this may breed disturbances but yet a liberty of using private discretion in approving or rejecting any thing as delivered or not in Scripture wee think ought to bee allowed for faith cannot bee compelled and by taking away this liberty from men wee should force them to become Hypocrites and to profess outwardly what inwardly they dis-believe But you further adde p. 242. that upon such a decision it cannot be avoided but that an obligation of believing it will arise to Christians or else to what end doth the Council state it Answ We acknowledge that this is the end of her decrees and that when ever her decisions are Divine Truths wee are under an Obligation to believe them but to suppose they are alwaies such is evidently to beg the question and to assert this Obligation when they are not such is to lay upon us a necessity to believe as many errours as it is possible for a Council to decide which the experience of the Lateran 2. Nicene and Trent Council tells us may bee very many and very dangerous 2. This undoubtedly was the end of the decisions of the Arrian Councils yea of every Council in the Church of God and yet will Mr. C. assert that they unavoidably laid an obligation upon every Member of their respective Churches to obey them Well therefore Baron will tell you Objecto fidei c. 17. quae quamvis non sit exse infallibilis c. ad vitandam confusionem Ecclesiarum dilacerationem c. qui palam contradicunt that wee confesse the highest Ecclesiastical power to bee a general Council which albeit it bee not of it self infallible and therefore cannot from its own authority oblige to give credit to its determinations yet doth it avail to that end to which it was instituted i. e. for the avoiding the confusion and renting of the Church Seeing such a Council can Excommunicate and subject to Ecclesiastical censures those who openly contradict her 2. The Authority of general Councils hath a great weight and moment in the begetting a perswasion of the truth of the Doctrine defined by it For such decrees cannot rashly bee rejected as being made by those Timere non adhibitâ accuratâ gravi observatione who 1. Have greater assistance of the Spirit of God 2. Greater means of finding out the truth viz. by Prayer Fastings and Disputations 3. Authoritatem divinitus datam definiendi controversias fidei Better reason of discovering what is the opinion of the whole Church yea 4. Saith hee an authority delegated from Christ to decide controversies of Faith Your second Argument is Sect. 8 that God will not bee wanting to his Church to keep it in truth and unity P. 245. Ergo not onely a general Council but as general a one as can bee had ought to have the force and obligation of a general or Oecumeâ—nical that is it ought to be infallible Ans But pray you sir do you not here apparently beg the question For if any of us thought that God would be wanting to preserve his Church in truth and unity if General Councils were not infallible how soon would wee embrace their infallibility but this is it that we constantly deny maintaining that albeit there be no such infallible Judge yet hath God sufficiently consulted the wel-fare of his Church in that hee hath given us his Word as a Rule to walk by and his Spirit who will infallibly guide his children into all saving truth and indeed the Church whose unity we professe is not an Organical body made of several particular Congregations or provincial Churches but onely consists of the true and living members of Christs body scattered through the world which are united to him by faith and the mystical union of the Spirit and to one another by the bond of charity and are infallibly guided by the Spirit into a belief of all saving truth 2. It is evident hence that want of charity prophaneness and Hypocrisie are as great breaches of the Churches unity as want of truth and yet I hope you will not accuse God of being defective to his Church because he hath provided no other means then his Word Spirit and Ministers against these things and why then should we esteem him so in not making further provision for the unity of his Church 3. As God hath sufficiently provided for Kingdomes and common-wealths by his ordinance of Magistracy albeit they bee not infallible in their Laws but may sometimes enact such things as tend to the prejudice of their Subjects even so hee hath sufficiently provided for the external unity of the Church by the Ecclesiastical Governours hee hath placed in them albeit they bee not so But 4. This is an undeniable evidence that God doth not think these means so necessary to unity as you pretend viz. that hee hath not at all acquainted us with this means of unity For it cannot be that the Infinitely wise God should make that to bee the onely sufficient means of unity about the nature and requisites of which there bee so many hundred doubts that the wisest man is not able to resolve them or returne any thing satisfactory to them Peruse but the questions I have made touching this matter unlesse you are able to resolve them all with the greatest perspicuity and evidence this means will evidently be uneffectual to the end that God intended it for still it will remain in
in vain that the Arrians pretend Synods for their faith when they have the divine Scripture more powerful then them all from whence the Argument is apparent that which is more powerful then all Synods for the stablishing of faith is a sufficient means of unity because the power of General Synods is supposed to be so but such is the holy Scripture according to Athanasius Ergo. Nor is there any contradiction to this in what is cited from Athanasius by Mr. C. viz. that he wonders how any one dares move a question touching matters defined by the Nicene Council since the decrees of such Councils cannot be changed without errour For what consequence is this the decrees of such Councils as the Nicene whose decrees were Orthodox and regulated by the Scripture cannot be changed without errour Ergo general Councils are infallible especially when Athanasius immediately gives this reason viz. because the faith there delivered according to the Scriptures seemed sufficient to him to overturn all impiety so then this is the reason of their immutability because their decrees were delivered according to the Scriptures 2. Sect. 13 Optatus Milev speaks thus we must seek Judges viz. in the controversies betwixt you Donatists Cont. Parmen l. 5. and us Catholicks on earth there can no judgement of this matter bee found viz. none which is infallible as appears from the words precedent no body may beleive you nor any body us for we are all contentious men and again by fiding the truth is hindred we must seek a Judge from heaven but wherefore should we knock at Heaven when we have it here in the Gospel in which place he evidently concludes that no convention of men are to bee beleived for their own Authority nemo vobis Donatistis nemo nobis Catholicis credat 2. That there could be no infallible Judge of that controversie upon earth both which are sufficiently repugnant to this pretended infallibility 3. Sect. 14 Vincentius Lirinensis in his discourse upon this Question Adv. Her c. 1. how a Christian may bee able surely to discern the Catholick truth from Heretical falsity adviseth us to this end to fortifie our Faith 1. By the authority of Gods Law 2. By the Tradition of the Catholick Church Hujusmodi semper responsum ab omnibus fere retuli this way saith he I was directed to by almost all the Learned men I enquired of So that this opinion here delivered was not his private one but it was the common way by which the Fathers of his age discerned truth from errour and here let it be considered 1. That by the Tradition of the Catholick Church hee doth not understand the definition of any General Council but partly the universal consent of the members of the then present Church partly the constant and perpetual profession and doctrine of the Antient Church Cap. 3. as his own words do evince unto us for he tells us that is properly Catholick Quod ubique quod semper quod ab omnibus creditum est which is believed every where at all times and by all men this saith he we must be careful to hold as we shall he if we follow universality antiquity and consent What ever exceptions are made by the Papists to this evidence De formali objecto fidei p. 210 c. are taken off by the Learned Baron 2. Let it here bee noted that Vincentius doth not so much as once in all his Book direct us to the determinations much less to the infallible determination of the Pope Roman Church or a General Council as the way to discern truth from Heresie and yet his silence in these particulars could not easily be imagined in a treatise written purposely on that subject and wherein he undertaketh to give us full and certain directions to avoid Heresie if the Church had then been of the Romanists opinion St. Austin's testimony is as clear for thus he speaks Ep. 19. ad Hieron I have learned to give only to those writings which are now called Canonical this reverence and honour as that I dare say that none of them erred in writing but others I so read that how holy and learned so ever they be I do not therefore think it true because they so judge it but because they perswade me either by those Canonical books or by probable reason that they say true If therefore this honour of being free from errour in their writing is only to bee ascribed to the Canonical Books of Scripture then must the decretal Epistles of Popes the decrees of General Councils be excluded from it according to St. Austin as being writers which are not Canonical For the particle solas excepts all that are not so yea hee doth not only compare all other writers with Scripture in this contest but their writings also as in this same Epistle Only to the holy Scriptures Ep. 112. do I owe this ingenuous servitude so to follow them alone as not to doubt that the writers of them erred in any thing And again If any thing be affirmed by the clear Authority of the holy Scriptures it is undoubtedly to bee beleived but as for other witnesses or testimonies whereby we are perswaded to beleive any thing Tibi credere vel non credere liceat wee are free to beleive them or not But undeniable is that of his third Book against Maximinus neither ought I as fore-judging to bring forth the Nicene Council nor thou the Council of Ariminum I am not bound by the Authority of this nor thou of that let matter contend with matter cause with cause reason with reason by the authorities of the Scriptures which are witnesses not proper to either of us but common to both Here wee are told that St. Austin speaks not his own minde but the minde of the Hereticks he hath to deal with an answer haply borrowed from Zabarel or some other Commentator upon Aristotle who when they are not able to avoid his sentences any other way tell us that he speaks ex mente aliorum Philosophorum but the truth is otherwise as appeareth from the 18. and 19. chap. of his Book de unitate Ecclesiae where the like passage may be found and the Question being there stated which is the true Church hee desires the Donatists to demonstrate their Church not in the speeches and rumours of the Africans not in the Councils of their Bishops c. but in the canonical-Canonical-Authorities of the sacred Books and c. 19. gives this reason of his demand because saith he neither do we say that they ought to beleive us to bee in the Church of Christ because that Church which we hold is commended by Optatus Ambrose or innumerable other Bishops of our Communion or because it is predicated by the Councils of our Colledges c. and then speaking of the holy Scriptures he saith These are the documents of our cause these are it's foundations these are it's upholders as
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.
Sect. 8 sect 2. touching infallibility in fundamentals is a strange miscarriage for albeit hee gives us this assertion in Italian Characters that General Councils are infallible in fundamentals yet doth hee assuredly impose upon the Reader for neither the Arch-Bishop nor Dr. Field have any such assertions in the places cited and therefore I am not obliged to consider what hee returns to a limitation which is framed by himself Lastly to the fourth condition that there appears nothing Sect. 9 that may argue an unlawful proceeding He asks still who shall judge Wee Answ Who was it that judged the proceedings in the Council of Calcedon to be unlawful was it not Mr. C yea p. 51. 2. Is it not evident in the story of the Acts of the Council of Ariminum that matters were unlawfully handled there need wee any General Councils to tell us of the illegality of the Trent Council is it not so legible that he that runs may read it and that from the testimonies of Roman Catholicks eye witnesses thereof Sect. 10 But were General Councils absolutely infallible and were their decrees without any limitations or demurs to bee assented to yet what will this advantage the Church of Rome which cannot shew that any of the doctrines which we refuse to assent unto were ever determined by a General Council nay this pretence doth undeniably free us from the guilt of Schism in rejecting the new Articles she requires of us as conditions of her Communion Can. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seeing she requires them contrary to the express words of the Ephesine Council which saith that it should not be lawful for any man to produce write or compose any beleif beside that which was established by the Fathers of Nice and that they which should dare to compose or tender or offer any such other Faith to any that were willing to convert from Judaism Gentilism or any other Heresie whatsoever if they were Bishops should be degraded if Layicks anathematized or excommunicated And this brings mee to my next Proposition which is this The Trent Conventicle was no General Council Proposition 5. This we have excellently evinced by Bishop Bramhall Sect. 11 whose words I shall transcribe and give you authority for them where it is needful His words are these How was that General where there was not any one Bishop out of all the other Patriarchates or any Proctours or Commissioners from them either present or summoned to bee present except peradventure some tituler Europian mock-Prelates without cures such as Olaus Magnus entituled Arch-Bishop of Vpsall Or Sir Robert the Scotchman entituled Arch-Bishop of Armagh How was that General or so much as patriarchal where so great a part of the West was wanting wherein there was twice so many Episcopelles out of Italy the Popes professed Vassails and many of them the Popes parasitical hungry Pentioners as there were out of all other Christian Kingdomes and Nations put together See the Review of the Trent Council written by a Roman Catholick lib. 1. c. 9. sect 8. chap. 10. sect 2. How was that general wherein there were not so many Bishops present at the determination of the weightiest controversies concerning the rule of Faith and the exposition thereof as the King of England could have called together in his own dominions at any one time upon a months warning Idem lib. 1. c. 10. sect 1. How was that general which was not generally received by all Churches even some of the Roman Communion not admitting it For it was stoutly rejected by the Kings of France id chap. 1. lib. 2. And until this day though they do not oppose it but acquiesce to avoid such disadvantages as might ensure thereupon yet did they never admit it And as it was not general so neither was it free nor lawful Not free where the place could afford no security to the one party it being in the Popes dominions and his Armies continually abroad Sleid. l. 17. Idem lib. 1. c. 7. sect 16. Where any one that spake a free word had his mouth stopt or was turned out of the Council where the few Protestants that adventured to come thither were not admitted to dispute where the Fathers were noted to bee guided by the Spirit sent from Rome in a Male where divers not onely new Bishops but new Bishopricks were created during the sitting of the Convent to make the Papalins able to over-vote the Tramontains Id. l. 1. c. 9. Nor yet lawful in regard of the place which ought to have been in Germany Actor debit rei forum sequi A guilty person is to be judged in his Province and the cause to be pleaded where the crime was committed and likewise in regard of the Judge In that 1. The Pope was a party whose reformation was urged And therefore by his own Canon Law could not be Judge or President in the Council 2. Appeals were put from him to a lawful Council and it was never known that hee from whom the appeal was made should bee Judge in the very case of appeal Idem lib. 1. cap. 3. Again in every Judgement there ought to bee four distinct persons The Accuser the Witnesse the guilty person and the Judge But in the Council of Trent the Pope by himself or his Ministers acted all these parts himself Hee was the right guilty person and yet withal the accuser of the Protestants the witnesse against them and their Judge Lastly No man can lawfully be condemned before he be heard But in this Council the Protestants were not permitted to propose their cause much lesse to defend it by lawful disputation but were condemned before they were called id sect 1. c. 5. Now in defence of this Council we are told 1. Sect. 12 That the liberty of the Bishops was onely straitned by their own respective temporal Princes and not by the Roman Court. Mr. C. p. 270. Answ It was so far restrained that nothing was done there but what pleased the Pope and for this reason the decision of things proposed was frequently prorogued because the resolution of the Pope and Court of Rome Mr. C. Ib. was not known unto them id sect 1. chap. 9. 2. Saith he the Pope gained no access to his Authority thereby which it concerns not me to refute and therefore I refer you to the same Author l. 1. c. 1. sect 4. sect 6. c. 14. sect 1 9. l. 4. c. 1. l. 5. c. 7. l. 6. c. 1 2 3. in all which places the Author shews that the Council ascribed too much to the Pope 3. We are told that these Bishops were unanimous in condemning the Protestants Doctrines Mr. C. p. 271. Answ True the History of that Council tells us they resolved upon the condemnation of the Lutherans before they proceeded to debate the matter and the Bull of Paul the third bearing date August 23.15 35. informs us that the very end of calling this Council was the extirpation of
private reason you reject 2. Why may not he be allowed to judge for himself in things perspicuously laid down in Scripture who must bee permitted to do it touching the infallibility of a General Council which is no where evidently revealed 2. Must he not judge also in what cases she is thus infallible and so to be esteemed whether when contradicting or seeming to contradict the voice of Scripture or evident demonstration whether when determining matters of discipline and circumstantials or of faith only whether she be contradicted by men of worth place and esteem or no whether when there appeareth any thing that may argue an unlawful proceeding or not if you here acknowledge that in these and such like causes private reason must sit as Umpire then what becomes of all your objections to the contrary ushered in with such solemnity and triumph if not then is he evidently left at uncertainties when the determinations of his guide are infallible when not it being clear that the knowledge of many of those cases by me propounded must be precognita to this 3. Whence shall hee fetch his reason to conclude this infallibility from Scripture this is already exploded from others neither can this bee rationally said seeing other assemblies consist of men that are fallible in themselves nor can they challenge to themselves infallible assistance from God without his promise which is not to bee found but in holy Scripture 3. If the Apostles commended them who examined their Sermons by their conformity to the law and the Prophets and the men of Berea were esteemed noble for searching the Scriptures to acquaint themselves Acts 17.11 whether those things which they taught were so or no I suppose it cannot reasonably bee denied but that the decrees of a General Council may also be tryed by private men whether they bee conform to Scripture yea or no for I hope they will not say that the decrees of such Councils are of greater Authority then the Apostles Sermons which yet were submitted to the trial of private men by the rule of Scripture Add to this that the Apostles Doctrine was attended with a train of miracles motives very prevalent to induce beleif and therefore if they were commended who even in this case and after the Sanhedrims determination against their Doctrine and the rejection of it by the Scribes and Pharisees did thus make search into the word of God and determine according to their private interpretations of it how can it be a thing blame-worthy in us to plead for such a liberty in reference to the decrees of General Councils 4. The Scripture commands us to try all things and hold what is good to try the spirits whether they be of God or no 1 Thes 5. 1 John 4.1 to take heed least we be seduced by what touchstone I pray you must wee try by Scripture then have wee what wee so much contend for by a General Council then were not these commands in force 'till the daies of Constantine they concerned none of those to whom they were indited nor had they sufficient means to try the truth The Church diffused alas poor creatures must they travel throughout all the world to know the decisions of every Church and when this is done how shall they know that what they hold to day shall be held to morrow when they are divided how shall they know who are in the right judge by Scripture and reason they must not say you and what other judge could bee obtained for three hundred years after Christ and upward I am not able to divine Sect. 8 Again why are we bid to read the Scripture meditate in it day and night to pray for the illumination of our mindes the spirit of wisdome and revelation and the assistance of Gods holy spirit that we may know it is it not sufficient to read and understand what our infallible judge saith what need of the assistance of the spirit and the illumination of my minde to know the sense of Scripture if this judge must give it me and I cannot have it elsewhere yea why doth God promise that his secret shall be with them that fear him hee will teach them his covenant that if wee search for understanding as for Silver Prov. 2 2-6 and for hid treasures wee shall finde it what need of all this search by any excepting only Bishops who are to bee members of a General Council if it be so dangerous to judge without them and when they have once judged we have infallibly the truth Lastly That rule of faith is deservedly suspected which will not endure the tryal but such is this which will not suffer men to use their judgements to examine it is not that bruta fides which requires a mans beleif albeit he knows no reason for it but evident reason to the contrary You will say that hee judgeth this at least that 't is very unlikely the Church should erre and this is sufficient to make his judgement rational Answ Then the faith of Jews who rejected our Saviour with their Sanhedrim of the Pagans who with their wisest men rejected Christianity must be good and rational And if private men must be allowed this judgement much more must it be granted to whole Nations wherein haply there bee ten times as many learned men as ever met in any Synod CHAP. XXIII Our eighth Proposition sect 1. Separation from the external or internal communion of a Church sect 2. The Churcâ— Catholick not organical sect 3. It 's essential unity not external sect 4. What separation is the sin of Schism sect 5. To leave the Church and to leave her external communion not the same ibid. The Church of Rome not the guide of Faith ibid. We separated not externally from the Church Catholick sect 6. Why from the Roman sect 7. Mr. C ' s. assertion that the Articles we reject are as old as St. Gregory sect 9. Our evidence to the contrary largely produced sect 10 11. My eighth Proposition is THat it cannot be proved that Protestants have separated from the communion of the Catholick Church Sect. 1 8. Proposition or if it should bee granted that they externally separated from all visible Churches beside themselves yet could they not justly bee charged with Schisme especially from the Roman Church Where 1. I premise that separation is twofold 1. From the internal communion of the Church Sect. 2 or conjunction with it by faith and charity or obedience or external by refusing to communicate in the same Liturgies and publick worship 2. I assert Sect. 3 that the Church Catholick which we profess to beleive in the Apostles creed is not an Organical Body made up of many particular churches for were it so none could be members of the church Catholick who were not members of some particular church and consequently should a Christian living alone among Pagans in some country remote from Christendome convert some of them to Christianity they
an Argument from the Anathemaes annexed to the decrees of Councils which have been sufficiently refuted already and therefore I pass to the second part of my Proposition to shew that these Doctrines c. were not received by us in the time of Pope Gregory or esteemed matters of Faith For 1. Sect. 11 Wee have already evinced the contrary of the Popes supremacy and proved that in two Brittish Councils it was Synodically rejected and it is confirmed by Bishop Bramhal in his tract of Schism and his Reply to the Bishop of Calcedon and by Ephraim Pagit in his Christianography beyond all possibility of contradiction 2. The denial of the infallibility of the Church of Rome appears sufficiently from that stiff opposition which was made by the Brittish Picts and Irish against the Church of Rome touching the Celibration of Easter of which the Reverend Primate enlargeth in his religion of the ancient Irish Bishop Usher from p. 92. to p. 116. and their aversness from communion with those of the Roman party which he relateth p. 108 109 110. where among other things you have these verses made by one of the chief of their wise men Woe bee to him that doth not keep From Romish Wolves his sheep with staff and weapon strong 3. As for Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead let it bee observed that the Prayers and oblations mentioned are expresly noted to have been made for such whose souls were supposed at the same instant to rest in bliss See Bishop Usher p. 27 28. And again in his answer to the Jesuit p. 189. Bed l. 3. Hist Eccl. c. 2. hee gives these instances The Brothren of the Church of Hexham in the anniversary commemoration of the Oâ—its of Oswald King of Northumberland used to keep their vigils for the health of his soul and having spent the night in praising God with Psalms to offer for him in the morning Id. l. 4. cap. 23. the sacrifice of the sacred oblation as Beda writeth who tells us yet withall that he râ—igned with God in Heaven and by his prayers hee procured many miracles to bee wrought on Earth So likewise doth the same Bede report Bed l. 4. Hist cap. 23. that when it was discovered by two several visions that Hilda the Abbess of Streansheal or Whitby in York-shire was carried up by the Angels into Heaven they which heard thereof presently caused prayers to be said for her soul And Osbenn relateth the like of Dunstan that being at Bath and beholding in such another vision the soul of one that had been his Scholler at Glassenbury to be carried up into the Palace of Heaven hee straightway commended the same into the hands of the Divine piety Divinae pietatis and intreated the Lords of the place where he was to do so likewise 4. As touching the Sacrament of the Lords Supper the same was taught then which we teach now as you may see in the Homily of Elfrick approved by divers Bishops in their Synods and appointed to be read in the Church upon Easter-day before the receiving of the Communion This Book is subscribed by the two Arch-Bishops of Canterbury and York Hom. in Dâ—e Sancti paschat p. 17. and thirteen other Bishops and the words of it are There is great difference betwixt the body wherein Christ suffered and the body which is hallowed Howsel The body truely that Christ suffered in was born of the fleâ—sh of Mary with blood with bones with skin and with sinews in humane limbs with a reasonable soul-living And his Ghostly body which we call the Howsel is gathered of many corns without blood and bone without limb without soul And therefore there is nothing to be understood bodily but all is Ghostly to bee understood 5. From hence it follows undeniably that they rejected your proper sacrifice of the Mass 6. And for communion in one kinde it was decreed in a Synod under Cuthbert in the year 747. Can. 23. That Layicks should be admonished to communicate more often lest they should want the food and drink of salvation Pagit Christianography part 3. Our Lord saying except you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the son of Man you shall have no life in you From whence it is evident that they thought it necessary for Layicks to participate of both the Elements 7. That the Layicks were permitted yea commanded to read the Scriptures appears from what Bede reports of Bishop Aidan That all such as went in his company Lib. 3. c. 5. whither Clerks or Layicks were tyed to exercise themselves either in reading of the Scriptures or learning of Psalms That they had their service in their own tongue I have but little evidence neither have you more to the contrary Bishop Jewels reply pag. 190. But the best I yet find given of it is this that Theodore the seventh Arch-Bishop after Austin brought the Latin service into England That they rejected Image Worship is evident from this that our learned men opposed the second Nicene Council's determination concerning Images and when the acts of that Council were sent into Brittain by Charls King of France Alcuine wrote an Epistle against it substantially grounded upon the authority of the holy Scripture which Epistle with the said Book with our Kings and Princes hands was brought to the King of France See Pagit part 3. p. 41. ex Hoveden aliis That they rejected invocation of Saints Holinshed's Hist ad An. 1100. p. 27. is proved from the History of King William the second who protested openly that he believed that no Saint could profit any man in the Lords sight and therefore neither would hee nor any man See other evidences in Pagit pt 3. p. 83. that was wise as he affirmeth make intercession either to Peter or any other Saint for help Till the year 1100. it was not prohibited to the Clergy to marry saith Henry of Huntington At which time Anselm endeavoured to put the Popes Letters in execution but at last after the pressures tyranny and arts of an hundred and thirty years continuance for it began in 970 and was not finished till 1100. as Polydore Virgil computes it the Clergy were driven from their chast Wives and betook themselves to Concubines whom they changed or multiplyed without disturbance And this tyranny was exercised by Pope Calixtus the second Whereupon our Simon of Durham made these Verses not very good though very true O bone Calixte nuno omnis Clerus odit te Nam olim presbyteri solent Uxoribus uti Id praevertisti quondam cum papafuisti Which Prideaux in his History hath bettered by his translation The Clergy now the good Calixtus hate For heretofore each one might have his mate But since thou gotten hast the papal Throne They must keep Punks or learn to lig alone By which you may see that it was not Calixtus the First who lived Anno Dom. 221 that enjoyned Celibacy as our Authour
innovations in doctrine and irregularity in manners which is the confessed purpose of these laws Secondly For the Emperour Charls the great which was the Doctors second instance wee are told by the Emperour himself that hee convocated Bishops to counsel him how Gods Law and Christian Religion should bee recovered Apud Surium die 5. Jun. Therefore saith hee by the council of my Religious Prelates and my Nobles wee have appointed Bishops in every City and Boniface their Arch-Bishop and appoint that a Synod shall bee held every year that in our presence the Canonical decrees and the Rites of the Church may bee restored and Christian Religion may bee reformed Yea he tells us that hee resided in his councils not onely as an hearer but Judge also and by the gift of God determined and decreed what was to bee held in these inquiries Part. 1. pag. 3. As you may find in the collection of Goldastus yea hee made a decree against the worshipping of Images and gave sentence against the second Nicene Council in this particular And to add no more in the preface of his capitulary hee speaks on this wise to the Clergy of his Empire We have sent our Deputies unto you to the intent that they by our Authority may together with you correct what shall stand in need of correction we have also added certain chapters of canonical Ordinances such as wee thought to beemost necessary for you Let no man I entreat you think or censure this pâ—ous admonition for presumptuous whereby wee force our selves to correct what is amisse to cut off what is superfluous and briefly to compact what is good But rather let every man receive it with a willing mind of charity For wee have read in the Book of Kings how Joas endeavoured to restore the Kingdom which God had given him to the service of the true God by going about it by correcting and admonishing it So that here wee have him not onely acting as high as the oath of Supremacy will allow our Prince but particularly by the council of his Prelates and his Nobles acting for the recovery and reformation of Religion yea without Synodal authority cutting off what was superfluous correcting what was amisse and justifying himself by the example of King Joas who undoubtedly reformed Religion it self c. 24. sect 7. as our Authour confesseth of the Kings of Judah Now to these things what answer is returned by Mr. Sect. 4 C. but that these Laws were all regulated by the Laws of the present Church in their times that they were onely the reduction of the faith and discipline of the Church into imperial Laws that they were never intended as acts of an absolute Ecclesiastical Supremacy but as consequences of the Churches Authority and that this will be found a truth by any one who casts an eye upon those Laws De imperio sum potest Now this is evidently otherwise for as Grotius tells us Justinian made new Patriarchates ordained they should enjoy the full rights of a Patriarchate contrary to the twelfth canon of the council of Chalcedon altered the Canons touching the election of Bishops which was very usual for Emperours to do as Tollet there confesseth to omit many other instances of like kind And as for Charls the great hee tells us from Bochellus that it was very well known that antiently as oft as Synods were assembled their decrees were not ratified till approved by the King in his privy Counsel and if any things there displeased they were exploded which saith hee from the Council of Tours Cabilonensi and Chaloun under Charls the great wee have already demonstrated thus Bochellus Yea farther the same Emperour added to the Senate held in Theodonis-Villa and gives us notice that hee did so by annexing or prefixing of this clause hoc de nostro adjicimus but I will not trouble my self any further to insist on this seeing the same Grotius hath abundantly evinced in his seventh chapter their power to rescind and amend these Ecclesiastical Canons and that this power was adjudged to them as their right by the Synods thus convened by them But 2. Bee it so that these Imperial Laws were the Churches faith and Canons for discipline and consequences of the Churches authority then must it bee acknowledged that the decrees of Charls the great against worshipping of Images and the sentence of the Nicene Council was a part of the Churches faith a consequence of her authority Justin nov 123. S. ad haec jubemus Carol. mag capit l. 1. c. 70. and regulated by the Laws of the present Church And the decree both of Justinian and Carolus Magnus that Divine Service should bee celebrated in the vulgar tongue as being required to bee celibrated so by the Apostle and by God himself who would require an account of them who should do otherwise at the day of Judgement the prerogatives given by Justinian to the Bishop of Carthage notwithstanding the pretensions of the Bishop of Rome to the contrary must bee all actions regulated by the Churches of their time and according to the faith and discipline of the same And what hath hee to perswade us that what he saith was the very truth as to the practise of Charlemain just nothing and for the Emperour Justinian as bad as nothing for what saith hee but that the Rules of the Holy Councils viz. the four first General Councils shall obtain the force of Laws for their Doctrines wee receive saith hee as the Holy Scriptures themselves and their Rules wee observe as laws ergo all the decrees of the Code and novels of Justinian though made touching sundry things of which the Church had prescribed nothing were regulated by the Law of the present Church again our Laws disdain not to follow the holy and divine Rules that is such of them as required only things determined by former Councils ergo they were not intended any of them as Acts of an absolute Ecclesiastical Supremacy but all of them as consequences of the Churches Supremacy Balsamon must bee called a malitious Schismatick Sect. 5 though Mr. Mr. C. p. 283. C. would be angry if we call him so and then we must be told that he saith only that the Emperour hath an inspection over the Churches Bals in C. 38.6 Syn. in Trullo so that he can limit or extend the jurisdiction of Metropolitans erect new ones c. Answ But this c. cuts off the most material part of the sentence which tells us that the Emperour may not only set a form for the election of Bishops but for other administration of them so as he shall think good which perfectly reacheth the King Supremacy nor is this all that is there said but we are told moreover that it is fitting the Ecclesiastical Orders should follow the Civil commands and therefore how Mr. C. will acquit himself from an untruth I am not able to divine If Balsamon here have not
said enough let him hear him on the twelfth Canon of the Synod of Antioch where hee saith the Patriarch himself shall bee judged of the Emperour who hath cognisance over the power of the Church peradventure as Sacrilegious an Heretick or guilty of any other crime for we have divers times seen such Judicial proceedings To the last example of reformation Sect. 6 produced by the Dr. the Kings of Judah Ibid. he answers 't is granted here was a reformation of Religion but adds 1. That they are no where said to have reformed all the Priests or the high Priests or not to have found him as Orthodox as themselves Answ Bishop Andrews tells you that seeing it cannot be denied that Kings were to bee Nursing Fathers of the Church to see to the preservation of the purity of Religion seeing the Scripture of the Old Testament every where complains of their neglect in not removing the High places in which the people offered sacrifice and when the people became Idolatrous 't was imputed unto the defect of a King in Israel you ought to shew us where these limitations are to be found you shall reform but not all the Priests not the High Priests though they go before the people in Idolatry not against the Priests if they are minded to continue their Idolatry not without the Priests albeit they refuse to consent to the restoring of Gods worship No in such cases you must suffer my people to perish in their Idolatry if they all cry out to Aaron for a Calf and hee satisfie their desires in making one these Calves must be continued by our Moses or chief Governours unless God extraordinarily command the breaking of them This I am confident would have been new Divinity to King David Could ever the Kings of Israel after Jeroboam have reformed without reforming all the Priests who were manifest Idolaters or at least transgressors of Gods law and therefore can it bee avoided by Mr. C. but that they ought to have suffered the people in the waies of Jeroboam who made Israel to sin might not the High Priest be guilty of Idolatry as well as Aaron yea was he not think you in the daies of Elijah and might not Jezabels whoredomes have been corrected notwithstanding were the declarations of the Church necessary to legitimate such a reformation why is the church never blamed for not declaring for such a reformation why not the Priests and especially the High Priests but constantly it is charged as the Princes fault that the High places were not removed 'T is true the Priests lips should preserve knowledge as Mr. C. hath it and when they do so even the King should seek it at their mouths asking their advice in matters of such great concernment but if they turn Idol shepherds causing the people to erre if both Priest and Prophet bee prophane then must he be so far from making their verdict his Standard in his reformation as to reform them before and above others and indeed had it been otherwise Idolatry must have commenced Orthodox and passed uncontroled in the Church of Judah when ever it had pleased the greatest part of the Priests to have it so But 2. Neither is this our case our reformation in the daies of King Henry Edward or Queen Elizabeth was not a reformation without or against the whole body of our Priests but only against the Idolatrous Priests of the Romish party the Doctrines reformed by K. Edward were reformed by the consent of a lawful Synod of Bishops and other learned men and as King Joas had the consent and concurrence of the true Priests and Prophets of the Lord when he deposed the Idolatrous Priests whom the Kings of Judah had ordained to burn incense even so Queen Elizabeth by the advise and concurrence of her true reformed pastors legally deposed the Idolatrous Priests which Queen Mary or his Holiness had placed in the Land Nor doth he invalidate this example by saying that these Reformers were Prophets as well as Kings for neither were Hezekias Josias or Jehn Prophets nor did they act here as Prophets but as Kings or otherwise why were they blamed for this neglect who were no Prophets were none but Prophets to be Nursing Fathers of the Church or would this have argued them to be so to let their Children suck in the poyson of Idolatry But he hath some objections which come next to be considered And 1. Sect. 7 Princes are not exempt from that of our Lord hee that heareth you Mr. C. p. 286. heareth me Ergo the supream power may not purge the Church from it's corruptions though by the advice and consent of the Nobles and the sounder Orthodox part of the Clergy Again Christ never said nor can we finde in reason or Antiquity any ground to apply to Princes that commâ—ission as my Father sent me c. Receive the Holy Ghost a new commission teach all Nations ergo Princes may not with the advice of Nobles and Clergy and with the concurrence of Parliament reform corruptions in the Church I suppose no body will offer after such clear and evident demonstrations ever to defend the Kings supremacy 3. There is a promise made peculiarly to the Apostles or rather a prediction that when the spirit should be sent to them hee would guide them into all truth which saith hee was never made to Princes any other way then whilst they follow the direction of their Pastors no nor then neither Ergo they may not with the advice c. purge themselves from the corruptions of their Church and the Church from them 2. I can tell him of a promise that the secret of the Lord shall be with them that fear him and he will teach them his Covenant if they search for wisdome c. then they shall finde it if they do the will of Christ they shall know the Doctrines whether they be of God or no. Now let him either say that Ecclesiastical Pastors can never teach their superiours any errours or advise them to what is Superstition or that when so they cannot have the benefit of those promises or else acknowledge that they may sufficiently bee guided into all saving truth without them 4. Saith he Princes are sheep not pastours yea are sons of the Church Answ True but notwithstanding all this they are Nursing Fathers of the Church 2. All the families of any Parish are sheep not Pastors Ergo they may not reform themselves without their Pastour His second unavoidable demonstration is Sect. 8 that if Kings bee independent on any Authority on Earth Mr. C. p. 287. then must there be a spiritual power over of them all which is in the Church Answ Bishop Brambal tells you Reply p. 287. that the Kings of England are under the forreign jurisdiction of a General Council and is not this an unavoidable demonstration that forceth us to acknowledge what we do acknowledge did ever Dr. Pierce deny this but if we should
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.